, as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts.

Report proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Select Committee of the House of Assembly on the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946 proposed certain radical amendments and additions to the aforesaid Act in its report published on 3 June 1976 and also made other recommendations aimed at facilitating the holding of general elections and making this process more effective. Those recommendations which require statutory amendment have, with a few exceptions—those not accepted by the Government—been incorporated in this amendment Bill. The opportunity was used to include a few other amendments to the Electoral Act, proposed by the Department of the Interior, in the amendment Bill.

Political party affiliation of candidates

Full effect is being given in this amendment Bill to the principle that voters should be informed of the political party affiliation of candidates. This principle is already being implemented to some extent in the Electoral Act in that voters voting as special voters may at their request be informed orally of the party political affiliations of the respective candidates. From now on the political party affiliations of candidates will appear on all ballot-papers used on election day as well as on those used for absent and special voters. In the case of independent candidates the words ONAFHANKLIK/INDEPENDENT will appear on ballot-papers. Because candidates are now identified by way of their party political affiliation the requirement that the address and occupation of candidates should appear on the ballot-paper is being deleted. In spite of comprehensive election campaigns and the promotion of candidates, many voters do not know which parties are being represented by the respective candidates although they have decided in their own minds before or on election day which political, party or policy they support. The larger number of candidates nominated in the case of simultaneous parliamentary and provincial council elections contributes to this confusion among the electorate.

Registration of political parties

The registration of political parties is a prerequisite for the principle now being introduced into the Electoral Act, viz. to inform voters officially of the political party affiliations of candidates. Therefore in the proposed new sections to be inserted in the Electoral Act, it is provided that no one may be nominated as a candidate representing a political party unless the political party which he represents is registered as such and that if he is not nominated as a candidate representing a political party he may be nominated as an independent candidate. Applications for registration as a political party shall be submitted in the prescribed form to the chief electoral officer and shall contain particulars regarding the name or abbreviated name of the political party which is required to appear on the ballot-paper as well as other aspects. In cases where a political party is not represented in either the House of Assembly or the provincial council the deed of foundation of the political party must accompany the application for registration. An amount of R500 is payable at registration.

The registration of a political party may be cancelled if the chief electoral officer is notified by the party leadership that the party in question has been dissolved or if a party fails to pay its annual registration renewal fee of R50 after reminders by the chief electoral officer. The provision that the registration of a political party may be refused, is necessary because the purport of name or abbreviated name of a political party could, for example, be harmful to the relations between the population groups in the Republic or could be prejudicial to peace and good order. As a result of the drastic discretionary powers which are being granted to the chief electoral officer by this provision, his decision is specifically being made subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. The recommendation by the Select Committee that political parties should submit their constitutions at registration was not complied with, because the chief electoral officer, for registration purposes, is only interested in the name, or abbreviated name, the chief leader and provincial leaders, the chief secretary and provincial secretary and the addresses of the head office and provincial offices of political parties, and not in their constitutions.

Additional requirements at nomination

Another new principle which is being introduced into the Electoral Act is that, under certain circumstances, candidates will have to prove before nomination day that their candidature enjoys at least nominal support in that particular constituencies. In the case of a candidate of a political party without any representatives in the House of Assembly or in the relevant provincial council on nomination day, who as a member of that political party or as a member of a political party which ceased to be represented in either the House of Assembly or the relevant provincial council, is elected to the House of Assembly or the relevant provincial council, as well as an independent candidate, has to submit, together with the prescribed deposit and the normal nomination documents, a statement signed by at least 300 voters on the voters’ list of that particular constituency who support his candidature five days before nomination day. Furthermore there is the provision that a voter cannot sign his name in support of more than one candidate. In the case of a candidate representing a political party or a former political party which does have an elected representative in the House of Assembly or the particular provincial council, the aforementioned statement is not a requirement at nomination. The required number of signatures should be obtained in the period between proclamation day and nomination day—and not from the date of the dissolution of the House of Assembly or the provincial council as the Select Committee recommended. The statement will be available for public inspection in the office of the returning officer and a notice that such a statement is so kept for inspection shall be affixed to the outside door of the office of the electoral officer. As recommended by the Selected Committee the amount to be deposited or guaranteed by a candidate at nomination is being reduced from R600 to R400. The other requirements which certain candidates will now have to comply with will help to prevent candidates with a minimal support from being nominated.

The proposed amendments are aimed at preventing elections, which are held at a great cost to the State, from being necessitated by the nomination of candidates who do not even enjoy nominal support in a constituency, but are merely using the election procedure to get themselves into the limelight or to cause inconvenience and expense to other candidates or parties and to the State.

Situation of polling stations

Mr. Speaker, because the presentation of proof of identity applies at elections, it is necessary that the number of voters per polling district should not be too great. Therefore provision is made for a constituency to be divided into polling districts in such a way that the number of voters in each polling district will not exceed 3 000 voters.

The State President may however, having regard to the availability of suitable places for use as polling stations, access routes and traffic density, proclaim polling districts with larger numbers. Polling districts are normally proclaimed after investigation by electoral officers and consultation with political parties.

To ensure that voters will be better informed about an election, it is provided that each voter will be notified personally of where the polling station where he must cast his vote will be situated, as well as the date of polling day, the polling hours and of what the requirements with regard to identification are.

To ensure that elections are not declared null and void on the ground of failure to comply with this provision or faulty compliance therewith it is further provided that if the proposed notification has not been sent to or received by the voter, it shall not affect the result of that particular election.

†Restriction of expenditure on election publications

Mr. Speaker, it is proposed by the Amendment Bill that the amounts that may be spent on election publications shall be limited in the case of a general election to R5 000 per electoral division and in the case of a by-election to R10 000 per electoral division.

It is important that in an election all candidates should have an equal chance of being elected and that no candidate should have an advantage over other candidates because of having more funds at his disposal. It was felt that provision should be made whereby it could be established what amounts were spent on election publications.

Up to 1962 the Electoral Act contained several provisions whereby the amounts that may have been spent on the various kinds of election expenditure were restricted and whereby candidates were obliged to submit details of their election expenditure with supporting evidential documents to their returning officers.

It has since become necessary, however, again to impose restrictions on the unreasonably big amounts that are spent on election propaganda material and to ensure that these amounts shall be kept within reasonable limits.

Prohibition of opinion polls

Mr. Speaker, it is felt that the publication of so-called opinion polls that have occurred during elections in recent years could interfere with voters in the free exercise of their franchise and could possible be regarded as being tantamount to undue influence, which is specifically prohibited by the Electoral Act.

A new provision is therefore being introduced into the Electoral Act whereby the conduct and publication of the result of opinion polls concerning the support that the various parties and their policies and candidates enjoy, are prohibited.

Because an election is in fact an opinion poll, and because the house to house visits by political party workers are basically a conduct of such an opinion poll, previous election results and canvassing by political party workers are excluded from the prohibition.

Extension of prohibition of treating

Mr. Speaker, the prohibition of treating during elections is extended by providing that no person may during an election give or provide liquor to any person while that person is attending a gathering of more than ten persons which has been convened for the purpose of promoting the interests of any political party or the candidature of any person who has been or may be nominated as a candidate at that election. Bona fide political party workers are excluded from this new provision.

Repeal of certain prohibitions

Because the prohibition of treating is extended, it is possible to repeal the outdated provision that political meetings may not be held on premises where liquor is sold. Candidates often find it necessary to hold political meetings in the committee rooms of most modern hotels in places where other suitable premises are not available. The prohibition is no longer necessary, causes inconvenience to candidates and is an unnecessary restriction on political activities. The prohibition is therefore repealed.

The second prohibition that is being repealed is the provision that vehicles usually kept for hire may not be hired, loaned or used by candidates or their agents and assistants to transport voters to and from polling stations.

This prohibition, which originated from a similar prohibition included in the English Electoral Law in 1883 after an extensive inquiry into illegal practices during the election of 1880, is outdated and an unnecessary impediment on candidates and their political activities. The general availability of private vehicles today as compared with the position in 1880, such availability being then the privilege of the rich only, makes the prohibition even more outdated and archaic than the prohibition on the holding of political meetings on premises where liquor is sold.

Facilitating elections

There are a number of amendments introduced by the Bill which are designed to facilitate the conduct of elections, speed up the counting of votes and to remove confusion in the minds of voters when the House of Assembly and provincial council elections take place on the same day.

The grounds on which a voter may apply to vote as an absent or special voter are increased. A voter may vote as an absent or special voter—

1. (a) if throughout the hours of polling on polling day he shall not be within fifty kilometres, by the shortest practicable road, from the polling station in the polling district in respect of which he is registered as a voter; or
2. (b) if he shall be unable to visit his polling station on polling day because of his duty to look after an ill or physically infirm or mentally disabled person.

Provision is also made that the bona fides of the declarations and reasons advanced by voters who apply to vote as absent and special voters, may not be questioned, but candidates and their agents will still be allowed to object in cases of obvious false declarations by absent and special voters.

The number of documents that may be produced by voters as proof of their identity when applying for ballot papers is increased. This provision will, for example, enable servicemen to submit their military identity cards as proof of their identity when voting.

Provision is made that the marked ballot papers for the House of Assembly and provincial council elections shall be put into separate ballot envelopes in the case of absent and special voters and in separate ballot boxes on polling day. This will speed up the counting of votes and the announcement of the result of the poll.

In an effort to reduce the number of ballot papers that are rejected at the counting of votes, it is provided that the secret mark shall be stamped on the back of ballot papers before they are issued to the polling officers for issue to voters. The words “Vote for one candidate only”, now appearing on ballot papers, are to be deleted. It has been found that these words on ballot papers confused voters, who wrongly concluded from the said words that they should mark only one of the two ballot papers issued to them for the House of Assembly and provincial council elections.

*Registration of voters and compilation of voters’ lists

The recommendation of the Select Committee that the present system of voter registration, compilation of voters’ lists and the supplementation and amendment thereof should be replaced by a system in terms of which voters’ lists will be compiled exclusively from the population register, is being kept in abeyance for the time being, mainly because not all South African citizens of the age of 18 and older have applied for identification documents at this stage.

When the stage has been reached when all voters that have applied for identification documents have been included in the population register, the Department of the Interior, after consultation with political parties and other bodies, will be better able to make recommendations with regard to—

1. (a) the question of whether, in the compilation of the voters’ lists, one should rely on the particulars obtained for the population register or whether that information and changes of address in particular should be supplemented by other methods, for example periodical general surveys of voters by mail or by visiting them at their residential addresses; and
2. (b) a system of decentralization, possibly up to local authority level, for recording the changes of address which will also make voters’ lists on a street basis possible, as is done in England.

Time is required for the proposed inquiry and therefore the Electoral Act is being amended to provide for the general registration of voters at intervals of 10 years instead of six years. As the Electoral Act reads at present, a general registration of voters has to take place this year. The last general registration of voters took place in July 1972 and the intervals at which it had to take place, was changed from five to six years by means of amending legislation last year.

In view of these circumstances it is also necessary to amend section 8 of the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1977, to provide that sections 1, 6 and 7 of this amendment act come into operation on 1 July 1983 instead of on 1 July 1978. Sections 1, 6 and 7 amend the Electoral Act so as to provide—

1. (a) that no person shall be entitled to be registered or to remain registered as a voter or to vote unless an identity document has been issued to him; and
2. (b) that the identification number of a voter should be stated on his application to vote by means of a postal vote or as a special voter.

It was on the basis of the recommendation by the Select Committee that the voters’ lists should be compiled exclusively from the population register that the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1977, was introduced and passed during the 1977 session of Parliament because it was assumed at that stage that the next general election would not take place before April 1979.

Recommendations not requiring statutory amendments

Mr. Speaker, there are a few recommendations by the Select Committee which do not require statutory amendments and which I want to deal with briefly.

Although the proposed amendment of the Electoral Act with regard to the compilation of the voters’ lists from the population register is being kept in abeyance so that further investigation can take place and recommendations can be made, it was nonetheless intended to consolidate the Electoral Act during the present session of Parliament. I must add, however, that circumstances will apparently not permit us to do so. In that case my department will simply consolidate the legislation administratively during the rest of the year.

As soon as the Electoral Act has been consolidated, the regulations for returning officers and presiding officers recommended by the Select Committee will be revised and simplified and a guide for returning officers, presiding officers and polling clerks will be compiled.

The other recommendations by the Select Committee which do not require amending legislation, will be considered by the Department of the Interior in consultation with other interested Government departments and parties.

Acknowledgement to Select Committee

Before I conclude, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the chairman and members of the Select Committee on both sides of the House for their thorough investigation and enlightening report and for the time and energy which they devoted to it Although the Select Committee was not unanimous on all the aspects investigated, the large measure of unanimity which was in fact achieved proves that the committee placed national interest above individual and party-political interests. I thank them for their good work.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the introduction of this Bill by the hon. the Minister. I should like to say that it is our approach that legislation that alters in any way the electoral process should be scrutinized in a light somewhat different from that brought to bear on other types of legislation. Where proposals to amend electoral procedures are not of a purely technical nature, they invariably affect the very system upon which a democratic society is based, that society which should foster and should facilitate the mechanism that allows the basic freedom of political expression being exercised in a proper and orderly way.

If it is at all possible, I think we would be ad idem that matters relating to the electoral procedures should be agreed measures, agreed measures flowing from the unanimity of an all-party Select Committee. This Bill which is before the House has, at least in part, had a history of discussion and debate at such a committee. Where the Government has not been able to obtain agreement—and is, in fact, not able to obtain agreement—I believe that certain self-disciplines should be imposed to limit the overriding majority vote which could be brought to bear at any time. The hon. the Minister, particularly in a debate such as this, shoulders a special burden. He shoulders a responsibility which goes far wider than merely to ensure that the legislation is passed. It is the hon. the Minister’s task and duty to ensure that equitable democratic procedures are not tampered with. It is his task as a Minister of State to avoid the easily taken carrot of political advantage while at the same time, hard as it may seem, to lean to the view that the basic principle is that the rights of minorities should be protected. It is in this spirit that we hoped the hon. the Minister would approach this debate today. We would ask him to listen carefully to the arguments that are put to him from this side of the House, to react reasonably to the points that are made and, above all, to avoid obstinacy in the face of logic. [Interjections.]

I hope that is reciprocal.

The hon. the Minister says he hopes that is reciprocated. I want to give him the assurance right away that it will be. In this way I believe that the cause of the broader democracy will be served. There is much that is good in this Bill. I believe that the procedures which are being introduced in the middle sections of the Bill in relation to absent voters and special voters, have been extensively improved. There are advancements in procedures in so far as they affect double elections. They are there for the reading. The election period is extended by a week. The deposit required for nominated candidates is reduced. Various old and somewhat anachronistic measures, hangovers from the past—as have been mentioned by the hon. the Minister—are being dealt with and eliminated. In all these matters the hon. the Minister can be sure that he will receive the support of this side of the House.

However, there are several aspects of the Bill with which we find ourselves at odds. Nearly all of these problem areas stem from initially matters of principle and then broaden out into matters of detail. On these points we will argue.

Evidence was led some while ago to the Select Committee by the then Secretary for the Interior that once all the voters had been included in the population register, it would be possible to compile voters’ lists from the register. This was very good news that was accepted by all hon. members in that Select Committee because a system of electioneering based on the Book of Life would be vastly more efficient, far less expensive and far less open to abuse. There are, in fact, many advantages to be obtained. The senior officials, and the Secretary in particular, were supremely confident of the success of this operation. In fact, he is quoted in paragraph 96 of the evidence as having said (p. 28, S.C. 7—’76)—

That was his view at that time. That was on 6 March 1975, over three years ago. Acting on this information, given to the Committee at that time, the Committee made a recommendation which fitted in well with the proposed new system. It recommended as follows, and I quote from page ix of S.C. 7—’76—

1. (a) That when the said inclusion has been completed—

1. (i) the general registration of voters be abolished; and
2. (ii) the compilation of voters’ lists be adjusted accordingly; and

1. (b) the next general registration of voters be postponed for not more than 12 months if what is recommended in paragraph (a) can be achieved within that period.

This recommendation effectively postponed a general registration of voters from 1977 to 1978. Last year legislation was introduced to the House, which I think was supported, giving effect to that recommendation. So far, so good. A little while ago the bomb dropped, however, in the form of the announcement by the hon. the Minister that, due to all sorts of problems with which I shall not deal during this debate …

I was frank about that.

Due to all sorts of problems that had been encountered, the Minister stated that the question of basing the voters’ roll on the population identity document would have to be postponed until 1982. This was a great pity, because South Africans had been led to believe that the department was in full control of the situation, and because a great deal of pressure had been brought to bear on the public to apply for these documents. Threats relating to the question of drivers’ licences and threats concerning the loss of voters’ rights for defaulters abounded in the Press and in official statements and announcements that were made over the past several months. The response to this campaign was most positive, to say the least, and that is where the whole operation went wrong. The administration, due to the many problems of which the hon. the Minister has already told the House, was in fact not able to cope with the increased workload. This was the situation despite the evidence given in paragraph 103 of the Report of the Select Committee when the Secretary said—

He is referring to his department—

My main complaint in this particular debate is not that the task of compiling the voters’ lists from the population registration has been fouled up, although that in itself is sufficient cause for reprimand. That is not my complaint. My main complaint is that, finding it impossible to introduce the new system within a reasonable time, the hon. the Minister, in terms of clause 2 of the Bill before us, proposes to mess up the system which is already in existence. The recommendation of the Select Committee in this respect is quite clear. It says—

We now know that what is recommended in paragraph (a) cannot be achieved within that period. It will not, in fact, be achieved until 1982, if the hon. the Minister is to be believed; and I believe him. The clear will of the Select Committee, the people who looked at the matter, considered and discussed it, in this set of circumstances is that a general registration be conducted. The Select Committee even made helpful recommendations, which are contained in the sub-clause to the recommendation, geared to streamlining the very method of general registration. They did this and they believed in this for several good reasons. Already almost six years have elapsed since the last general registration took place. Voters’ rolls, as all of us here know, are obsolete and out of date. Hundreds of thousands of people have changed their addresses during the last six years. Transkei has become independent, throwing portion of the Eastern Cape into delimitation chaos and, in aggravation of the situation, East Griqualand has been transferred to Natal, which has led to the reshuffling of another several thousand voters. The same has happened in another part of the country as a result of the independence of Bophuthatswana. Within a year the voters of Walvis Bay will complicate the issue further. The depopulation of the country areas, the platteland, has not stopped; it has continued. Many country constituencies are grossly under-registered and, if one looks at the other side of the scale, many urban and peri-urban constituencies such as, for example, Witwatersberg, have well over the 18 000 voters. Sandton itself, to quote my own constituency, has approximately 17 500 registered voters. The current position is not only bad, but it is also inequitable.

Within 12 to 18 months that position, if allowed to lie, will become untenable. And yet what the hon. the Minister proposes is not to remedy the fault as contemplated in the Select Committee’s report. He is not going to do that. Instead, he is prepared to allow the deterioration to gather pace and to postpone both the introduction of the new system and the general registration until the very eve of when the next general election is due. Either way, I believe this to be nothing short of crass stupidity. Who will doubt me if I put the following proposition? Taking into account the heavy pressures which are being brought to bear on South Africa at the present time and the introduction of the new, proposed political dispensation, who will doubt that it is not impossible that a general election could well come before 1983? If such an election does take place, then the passing of this legislation today relating to the general registration of voters will handicap and hinder the obtaining of a fair result at that time. This, as usual, will be to the grave disadvantage of those who are challenging the existing régime, i.e. to the disadvantage of minorities; but above all, it will be to the disadvantage of obtaining a truly democratic outcome. However, even if there is not an early general election and even if the system which is being introduced comes into operation in 1982, there will be barely a year available in which to enable political parties, the public and the department concerned to adjust their operations and their vision to that new system. Chaos will reign, and I predict that it will reign on a larger scale than ever, particularly in those constituencies which are the homes of universities and colleges. I am thinking of constituencies such as Rissik, Pretoria East, Johannesburg West, Von Brandis, Bloemfontein, Sunnyside, Albany, Groote Schuur, Stellenbosch, Potchefstroom and Pietermaritzburg South, to mention but a few, who will suffer heavy depopulation as a result of the introduction of this new system. No, Mr. Speaker, there is only one proper way in which to handle this matter, i.e. to work towards a new change-over deadline, but at the same time to maintain the existing rolls in a state of readiness for a general election or by-elections as they may come. The only way to do that in a proper way is to schedule the now overdue general registration of voters as a preliminary to a new delimitation. I believe the hon. the Minister is doing nobody a favour, least of all his department, by postponing the problem indefinitely.

There is another aspect with which we find ourselves at odds. The second major aspect of the Bill with which we are in disagreement relates to the new concept of registering political parties. There are certain key provisions in clauses 8 and 9. These provisions relate to the setting up of machinery for registration. They provide that the deeds of foundation have to be lodged, that an initial registration fee be paid and that this registration be renewed annually. Furthermore, the right is granted to the chief electoral officer, who is usually the Secretary of the department or his deputy, to decide whether the name of a political party may or may not be registered. On this very point alone my party cannot agree. We believe that the right to decide the name of a political party is the right of the party concerned and that if that name is offensive to anybody or causes any damage or hurt to anyone, that political party will be dealt with at the polls, because that is what democracy is all about. We cannot for a moment believe that it should be the right or the prerogative of an impartial official of a department to decide whether the name of a political party is correct or proper, or not.

These provisions, furthermore, deal with the cancellation of registration by the act of a political party itself or by virtue of the fact that it fails to pay annual fees.

There are provisions relating to the nomination of candidates. In this regard there are three possibilities. If a person wishes to stand as a candidate in an election and he is a member of a political party which is registered and which has representatives in Parliament and in the various provincial councils, there is a set procedure to be followed and he has to obtain the permission or the authentication of various officials in his party before he stands. If he is a member of a political party which is not registered, he has to find the signatures of 300 voters and produce them within five days before nomination day. Finally, if a person is a member of a political party which is registered and which has representatives in the House of Assembly, but not in all the provincial councils, two sets of procedures operate, depending in which province the party is putting up the candidate.

Firstly, there is a technical problem. We shall deal with this in the Committee Stage, but I want to point out that the way in which these two clauses are written, is based on the structure of the governing party and not on those of other parties which may have a different system of organization. Some political parties are organized on a regional basis, others on a federal basis and others on a rigid provincial system. My first and technical complaint about this provision is that it does not take into cognizance the structuring of political parties which govern themselves on a regional basis as against political parties which govern themselves on a provincial basis. This is geared to the NP structure. If there is going to be any agreement, even at Committee Stage, the structure of this whole system has to change. I believe this is wrong and unfair. Secondly, it creates a bureaucracy. The whole system creates a further bureaucracy which, we believe, limits the rights of individuals to form themselves into political groupings without official approval and to contest elections. We do not believe that if people wish to represent a group point of view, they should have to go through the paraphernalia that is set out in this Bill in order to contest an election. We believe that democracy should be for the individual and that it should contain within it the right of minorities to contest elections whether or not they enjoy mass or public appeal. They too have a right to the expression of their viewpoints and to contest elections without having to cope with the type of administrative bureaucracy set up in this Bill. We believe that this bureaucracy has been created to control democratic expression. The people, the groups and the organizations which will be hit by it, will be the minority groups, the less well-organized groups.

A very real and not technical objection to the Bill relates to the provision in terms of which 300 signatures require to be obtained and supplied five days prior to nomination day. We understand that this is probably a provision which has been brought in—it has been punted by hon. members on that side of the House—in order to stop the candidatures of those people of nuisance value. We understand that it is inconvenient to people to have to fight elections against, let us say, the HNP, who may only draw 400, 500 or fewer votes in a constituency, but we maintain that it is not only the right of those parties to contest the election in an easy and simple manner, but also the duty of those people who hold the seats to defend their position. This provision in terms of which 300 signatures are required, will limit by-elections and challenges by independents. Most important of all, it will destroy the secrecy of the vote or the political expression of at least those 300 people. We cannot go along with that. [Interjections.] Let me ask a question. Let us assume we are dealing with a constituency like Waterkloof, Sunnyside or one of the other Pretoria seats, which are populated at least to the extent of 40% by public servants, people who owe their employment to the Government. It might be very difficult for an Opposition party to obtain 300 people who will publicly state that they are going to support the nomination of a candidate against a Government Minister. This is a possibility. My argument is that what we are doing is that we are going outside the realms of those people who are party political organizers and members and into the realms of getting the public to destroy the secrecy of their ballot. I am sure the hon. Chief Whip of the NP will realize that this provision affects all political parties in this House except the Government.

In other words it is a case of “I’m all right Jack”, because it is only the Government which is represented in the House of Assembly and in every single provincial council throughout South Africa. In a case such as this it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to look to the interests of the minorities. Above all, we believe that the provisions of clauses 8 and 9 will shift the emphasis away from an individual representing an electorate to that of the big party machines reigning supreme. This is an unhealthy development. I believe that the savings in time, energy and money which will be gained by these provisions and which will be gained by limiting by-elections will nonetheless represent an overall loss in the democratic expression. We are not per se against the political party affiliation of a candidate being put on a ballot paper, but we say that the machinery which is being employed to make this possible is in fact destroying the concept that democracy is for the individual. The method which is being used goes far further than that which is recommended by the Select Committee.

I should like to mention an objection which we have to clause 39 of the Bill. This clause will largely be argued in the Committee Stage, but there is one point which struck me quite forcibly, and that is one of the effects which will result from this provision. The wording of the provision which prohibits people issuing certain publications, will ensure that nobody except candidates or participants in the election, those people who are intimately involved with the election, or people acting for or on behalf of candidates in the elections, will be able to put out election publications which will be able to do anything to influence the voting tendencies of the public. This will hit all sorts of interest groups, people who have specific interests in specific issues. I can think of ratepayers’ associations, of several groups who have political viewpoints who will now be silenced at election time, at a time when in effect they should be allowed to put a political point of view and to try to persuade the electorate to support a candidate who holds a certain political point of view. We say that this is an incursion into the rights of minorities who wish to support or promote a particular viewpoint. Let us assume the East London Ratepayers’ Association …

Leave me alone!

… want East London declared a free port and that they will support a candidate who promotes a free port. They are now prevented from putting out publicly anything to support that viewpoint. We cannot go along with provisions of that sort.

I now come to what I call the cherry on the top. I refer, of course, to clause 45, in terms of which opinion polls are banned at election time. I sense that the Government’s heart is not in this provision, because even before the debate had begun the hon. the Minister had placed an amendment on the Order Paper limiting the application of the restriction on opinion polls to those taken on or before nomination day. Already the application has been dissipated. I cannot help feeling that this new ban has come about after pressure from the old UP and that the 1974 polls and subsequent polls in Pinelands and Durban North had a great deal to do with it One of the columnists stated that as the old UP went from set-back to set-back it developed a particular paranoia about the opinion polls. I cannot say that I blame them. From Pegasus onwards the polls accurately reflected the decline of that once great party. However, that is all that can be said about those polls. They do not cause things to happen. They do not cause opinions to change. They reflect what is happening and what the current political trends are. That is what opinion polls do.

Their very publication cannot change viewpoints, but by their topicality they assist in the enlightenment of the public. The processes of democracy, as was stated by one of the newspapers, are best served by an informed electorate, not by a blinkered one. The bandwagon effect is what most people are worrying about. I have proof but I do not, unfortunately, have the time to read this out to the House. However, the bandwagon effect is a myth. What happens is that if a party’s progress is on the ascendant, it continues to be on the ascendant; if it is on the descendant, it continues to be on the descendant. A political opinion poll can have no effect on it.

It was Prof. Schlemmer of Natal University—a favourite of the hon. member for Durban Point—who said: “Rather than produce the bandwagon effect, the polls help to create interest in an election, which is a good thing for democracy.”

There is no scientist of repute who will concede that opinion polls actually influence elections. However, what we are doing, is to cut out scientific polls—polls conducted by independent people—and to allow polls which are conducted by partisans, by campaigners for political parties, polls which are less accurate than ever, to be published. Surely this is inverted logic. It is a step calculated to misinform the South African public. Opinion polls are as much part of modern politics as the weekly hit parade is in the field of pop music. I believe that the banning of public opinion polls is nothing less than an incursion into the right of the public to be reliably, scientifically and impartially informed.

In conclusion, I would like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the background to the legislation which is before the House at the moment, is a Select Committee of this House, a committee which was appointed in August 1974 and which—as the hon. the Minister said—presented a report in June 1976. For the sake of hon. members who are not in possession of all the facts in this regard, I just want to mention that in the meantime we have had a sub-committee of the Select Committee which visited Britain during the last British election. The sub-committee also visited France and West Germany at the same time with a view to making a study of the electoral procedures of the countries concerned, especially of the British system since it is a system which is very closely connected to our own and one which has had a very considerable influence on our system. The purpose of the sub-committee’s visit was to take a closer look at these electoral procedures during the practical implementation thereof. That sub-committee presented a report and I shall be obliged to refer to it from time to time in the course of my speech.

Before I continue, I want to express my thanks to the members of the Select Committee. I particularly want to thank the hon. member for Durban Point who was the senior member from the ranks of the then Official Opposition. In addition I want to thank all members of the committee for their assistance in enabling us to present a very positive report, the result of which is that we are about to include very sound principles in our electoral laws. We accepted those sound principles in the Select Committee by way of agreement. There are things, of course, which hon. members on the opposite side do not like or will not like very much. There are also certain things, however, which we on this side do not like very much.

What are they?

The legislation, however, is the result of negotiations in the spirit of which the hon. member for Sandton said that it had become customary in our democratic system in South Africa over the years for any change made in the rules of the game—as they are applied to elections—to be made only after the Government had come to an agreement with the Official Opposition. The Government has always kept to that golden rule, and as far as this side is concerned, no hon. member can point a finger at this side.

Today I also want to express my thanks to the Cabinet for the fact that they saw fit to accept, with a few minor exceptions, virtually all the positive recommendations of the Select Committee. I cannot hold it against the Cabinet for not accepting the proposal that a political party should submit its constitution at the time of registration. If they had accepted this, it would of course have placed the Opposition in an extremely embarrassing situation and in my opinion it was the main reason for the rejection of the proposal as far as the Cabinet is concerned. They wanted to save the Opposition that embarrassment.

Our constitution has been published.

The fact of the matter is that we succeeded in having fresh, new principles incorporated in the electoral laws, while eliminating at the same time a great deal of the old red tape surrounding the various electoral procedures. We streamlined the electoral procedures and we came up with a few things that are essential to have in the country’s electoral laws.

The hon. member for Sandton had very little to complain about and that is why the drastic amendment he moved amazes me after he had so little to say about what was allegedly wrong with the legislation. There was virtually nothing on which he did not agree with us in principle. Except perhaps as far as the question of opinion polls was concerned, he agreed with all the other principles.

You could not have been listening.

I want to point out a few of these things; it is impossible for me to go into everything in detail. However, there are a considerable number of hon. members who served on the Select Committee and who will go into many of the things in due course.

The hon. member for Sandton said that it was a tremendous disappointment to him and his party that we were deviating from the objective of compiling the voters’ roll from the population register as from 1 July this year. Before dealing with that aspect in more detail, I want to say that there are sound reasons for our deviating from that objective. It was put to this House that the plan was to put all Whites on the voters’ roll before 1 July this year. That was one objective. A second objective which the department set itself, was to have the names of all holders of driver’s licences on the population register before 28 February 1978. It was a formidable task, and the department did everything in its power, as was explained here by the hon. the Minister, to reach that objective. In the end, however, a spoke was put in the Department’s wheel and the objective became out of reach, mainly because of the fact that we had an election last year. This threw the whole machine out of gear for a while, to be used for the preparation for and for the election itself. Surely this is simple enough for the hon. member for Sandton to understand.

How many months were lost in that way?

Now it is still possible to set an earlier objective than the one mentioned by the hon. the Minister with regard to the legislation. But it was also mentioned in the statement issued by the Minister during the discussion of his Vote, that it was a question of funds. If it is not foreseen that the next election will take place within a year or two, is it necessary to have a huge staff working two shifts and to get people from outside to draw up the voters’ roll in a hurry? What for? We do not need it tomorrow, the day after or next year, in any event not as far as we can foresee. That is why it is only logical for the department to make haste slowly and to see to other things as well. While there is time, a thorough investigation must be conducted into all the aspects that will make it possible to achieve this objective soon, or at least as soon as possible before the next election, but in a way that will contribute to our obtaining a more accurate and improved voters’ roll than one that may be based solely on entries in the population register.

Of course, the population register as a basis for a voters’ roll has many attractive possibilities, such attractive possibilities that the Select Committee decided that ultimately it was the ideal thing to achieve. The hon. members of the Select Committee know, however, how much cross-questioning there was and how many assurances were asked for in an attempt to ascertain whether these things were possible and whether this was the best thing to do for South Africa. The subcommittee published a report which indicates just the opposite. Our experience in Western Europe was just the opposite, viz. that the decentralization of voters’ rolls was the order of the day in Western Europe. We in South Africa have 3 million people to be placed on the voters’ roll, but in France, West Germany and England there are millions, and they simply do not consider the possibility of a centralized register of voters. Over the years practice has taught them—and they are old democracies—that the more local the nature of a voters’ roll and the more decentralized it is, the better the voters’ roll will be that one will obtain, a voters’ roll with many possibilities.

There is even the possibility of printing a voters’ roll according to the sequence of streets. Therefore I am not altogether convinced today that the best voters’ roll is not the one compiled by local authorities on a decentralized basis, under the supervision of a regional electoral officer. Local authorities have much more information at their disposal than the Department of the Interior with its electoral offices. The local authorities can make use of water accounts, electricity accounts and housing lists. They can even use the officers responsible for the collection of dog tax and bicycle tax to obtain information in order to bring their voters’ rolls up to date. That is why, to be brief, I am pleased that the hon. the Minister intends investigating the possibility of whether local knowledge and local means can be utilized in order to keep the voters’ rolls up to date. If the hon. the Minister wants to make a big mess of the voters’ rolls in future, he must do what the hon. member for Sandton wants him to do. He would have to proceed head over heels and produce a roll in a limited time, one that will be based purely on information in the population register which I do not consider the best voters’ roll in South Africa at the moment.

The hon. member said: What about by-elections and a possible early general election? He said that basically we should retain the present voters’ rolls. This is precisely what we want to do. We are retaining the present voters’ rolls. Political parties are being requested to use the old RV1 to register people in the meantime. Eventually, if necessary, surveys will be made by the local authorities, even from door to door, in order to produce a voters’ roll before the next general election that will hopefully be a model for South Africa.

Then the hon. member for Sandton also had a complaint about the registration of political parties, especially about the question of signatures to be obtained. In order to eliminate any misunderstanding, I just want to say that I am sympathetic towards the hon. member’s amendment on the Order Paper concerning a party that is represented in the House of Assembly but not in a specific provincial council. In principle I agree—I think that this was also the spirit of the agreement—that if a political party has a representative in Parliament, it is also indemnified from obtaining signatures as regards the provincial council.

Will you then support that amendment?

I am not the Minister. I said that I was sympathetic towards that principle which is in line with the agreement which we as political parties made. I think the hon. the Minister has been reasonable in this regard so far. I also think that the principle has already been accepted in clause 8 that the registration of political parties in provinces in which they are not represented, will be on the same basis as in other provinces. I think that in all fairness we can leave it to the Minister to take a decision as far as this matter is concerned.

They can also register in the Free State without the 300 signatures.

It seems to me the hon. member based his entire argument against this clause on a wrong premise. However, I grant him the point he made. I want to add, however, that if he comes forward with the ridiculous argument that we are interfering with democracy by means of this system, he is very wide of the mark.

There is clear evidence that mushroom politicking is on the increase in South Africa. In due course hon. members on this side of the House will prove by means of statistics how mushroom politicking has increased in this country over the years and has gained ground.

But what is wrong with that?

If the hon. member would hold his tongue for a while, I shall tell him. The fact of the matter is that there are people in this country who have more money than sense. That is why I agreed with the Opposition that we could decrease the deposit.

There are very rich fools in the country for whom a deposit, even if it were to go into thousands of rand, would not be a deterrent. There are many rich fools. There are windbags and leaders without a following who are simply out to make the State spend as much money as possible and to be as much of an annoyance to existing political parties as they possibly can without their having any basis of support whatsoever. It makes a mockery of democracy in this country. The NRP, the old UP, accepted the principle concerned, although they squabbled about the required number of signatures. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was opposed to it, but now they have progressed so much that they already support the principle. The hon. member for Sandton said that he was satisfied, but that he just wanted to reduce the number of signatures from 300 to 50. Why does the hon. member move such an amendment if he does not support the principle? If he does not support the principle he should have asked for the clause to be deleted. Therefore, those hon. members have already accepted the principle. In fact, it is generally accepted by this whole House that it is a principle that must be introduced so as to serve as a check on mushroom politicking, as I like describing it. I want to tell the hon. member where it comes from. This principle is being taken over from the West German electoral system. Hon. members will know what role the one-party system has played in Germany’s political history and that it is something that weighs heavily on their conscience. After the Second World War, West Germany investigated the Western democratic political systems and took the best of them in order to design an electoral system that is probably the model of the democratic world today. The West Germans are hypersensitive about the democratic rights of their people and the promotion of political parties, so sensitive that they encourage political parties by paying them R1 for every vote cast in favour of that political party during an election. What is more: Donations to political parties are tax-free up to an amount of R500. Therefore the West Germans are not intent on smothering political parties, far from it. On the contrary, they are stimulating political parties in every possible way. They have this provision in their system because they believe that one cannot make a mockery and a farce of democracy as has happened in other countries. Therefore, there must be checks.

If one looks at certain countries in Western Europe, one finds that every second person establishes a political party. In those countries one never finds a majority party governing. I do not want to refer to specific countries, but hon. members will know what countries I am talking of. It is impossible to get a majority party into power because every second person establishes a political party which attracts a few votes. The West German system, however, has a check. The West Germans can say today that they have taken the best out of the democracies of the Western world. They are hypersensitive, particularly on account of their background, about any possible infringement of the democratic system. That is why the hon. member for Sandton is wide of the mark if he comes to this House with this type of story today.

Another question the hon. member was concerned about, was the question of opinion polls. First I should like to deal with the hon. member’s objections to publishing the results of opinion polls. The report published by our sub-committee states that we did not find opinion polls being prohibited anywhere in Western Europe. We did come across many objections, however, to the publication of the results of opinion polls during an election. We sent a delegation to England during the previous election in that country. On that occasion Wilson came into power whereas all opinion polls had indicated that he would not come into power. On that occasion the newspapers in England abounded with articles in which it was said that opinion polls were something which was to be condemned and terminated. In our report we said—and I stand by this—that there was a strong school of thought in the world that people must at least have sufficient time to refute the results of an opinion poll before election day for otherwise such results could be abused in a most outrageous way. We must accept that acceptable, scientific opinion polls are conducted, but then hon. members on the opposite side must also concede that an opinion poll may be conducted which need not have any scientific basis, which need not be subject to any discipline and in which those conducting the poll need not be bound by any code.

Are they banned in West Germany?

These opinion polls are simply undertaken in an amateurish, superficial, one-sided and biassed manner and with motives which are not altogether honest There were even cases where the opinion polls were calculated to influence elections to one direction or the other. If it is true that an opinion poll is not aimed at influencing the voters, surely there is nothing in this legislation that prevents any undertaking from conducting an opinion poll during the election for scientific or other purposes or in order to ascertain the feelings of voters at the various stages of the election. The only thing is that they must not make the information known. If those hon. members are honest, they will concede that the insistence to have the results of such polls made known flows from the very reason that such polls, to a larger extent, seek to influence people.

It does not happen.

It does. I must concede that there are in fact acceptable scientific opinion polls, but it is also true that any Tom, Dick or Harry may conduct an opinion poll today—without their saying who conducted it or how superficial it is—with the preconceived malicious intention of influencing voters shortly before the election, a day before the election or even on election day, by making known the results of such a poll. Such polls are often based on nothing but fraud with a view to influencing voters and creating a bandwagon effect. Moreover, the people who undertake such polls know that there will not be any time for the interested parties in that election to expose or to refute the findings of the poll. That is why the approach of the Government is, and this was the approach of the committee as well, that opinion polls may in fact be conducted, but that there must be sufficient time available for everyone who has an interest in the elections to react to those polls and say what he thinks of them. In my opinion this is democratic and fair to all interested parties.

Why don’t you stop it a week before election day?

It is a question that was discussed in the Select Committee and, in our wisdom, we decided on a specific date. If the hon. member agrees with us in principle, we have already made a great deal of progress.

In the few remaining minutes at my disposal, I should like to react to a few other positive aspects of the legislation. One of the finest, most important new principles embodied in the new electoral legislation, is the fact that a voter is informed of the election by the Department of the Interior or by the chief electoral officer by means of a card. This is the practice all over Western Europe. The voter receives a simple card informing him of the fact that an election is to take place, of the place at which he is to vote, of the constituency in which he is to vote, of his voter’s number and of other similar particulars. In other countries voters set great store by this card they receive. In France, where a general registration takes place every three years, the card is a different colour each time. There is space on the card for a stamp. So, when a voter votes in a Parliamentary or municipal election, the card is stamped so as to indicate that he/she did in fact vote. I feel it is a step in the right direction in our electoral system that the State on its part will inform the voter of an election and send him all the particulars in good time so that he/she will not be mainly dependent for all these particulars on the information furnished by political parties. A system like this will create an election spirit amongst the electorate at once, because the person who does not receive his card, will make inquiries and will want to know why he has not received his. If another voter’s card reaches him, he will want to know why the card of the person who occupied the house before him, has reached him and he will start inquiring about his own card. This may lead to the discovery on his part that he is registered in another constituency. In that case he will arrange for a postal vote or he will arrange to get to the ballot box himself. What is more, these amendments will eliminate a great deal of confusion. I am thinking for example of the confusion caused when a person moves from Parow to Pretoria.

Parow’s municipal area covers four constituencies, but all he is able to tell the presiding officer for special votes, is that he is registered in Parow. Heavy costs are incurred and a great deal of trouble is taken—he may have been driven by car over a distance of many miles—whereas he should in fact vote in one of the other constituencies and not in Parow. On the basis of the new system, everyone will know precisely where he or she is registered. I think this is a very positive step in the right direction.

I also want to express an opinion very briefly on the question of postal and special votes. On the basis of the recommendations of the Select Committee in question, we have, in my opinion, succeeded in simplifying the procedure in this regard. Our main objective was to reduce as far as possible the number of actions which might result in errors being made which would eventually render the voter’s vote worthless, and we did this by simplifying the process as much as possible. The initials which an applicants had to put next to his reason for desiring a postal or special vote, meant that the votes of thousands of voters were lost. This is one of the reasons for the large increase in the number of spoilt ballot-papers during the last election, because everyone can have his own opinion as to whether the initials are correct or not.

As I have said, the committee made a simpler system its main objective. In South Africa, postal and special votes represent the dominant activity of the political parties. The tremendous amount of money spent by political parties during an election, is spent chiefly on arranging postal and special votes. In my opinion the time and organizational effort spent on arranging postal and special votes, make the game not worth the candle in many respects. This may possibly be an exaggeration, but the effort is definitely out of proportion to the percentage of votes which postal and special votes represent. In other countries, postal and special votes are a simple process in which political parties are not involved. In most of the countries a list of postal votes is drawn up. I do not have the time to go into the details of this. After nomination day the people whose names appear on the list of postal votes are simply issued with a ballot-paper. The voter and a witness must sign a simple identity document and the signatures are not even compared to other signatures but are accepted at face value. They do not have so many presiding officers as we do. I think the reason why we in South Africa are so concerned about all the details, is because we are looking for malpractices. We go much too far in this regard. We should rather step up the penalties for offences, instead of keeping such a watchful eye over the voters. Let them do with their votes what they wish.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chief Whip on the Government’s side was, of course, the chairman of the Select Committee and the provisions of the Bill are in many respects based on the findings and recommendations of that Select Committee. The leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point, served on that Select Committee and will during the course of this debate have a contribution to make and thank the hon. Chief Whip. Having, however, served on a previous Select Committee on the Electoral Laws, also under the chairmanship of the hon. the Chief Whip, I am convinced once again that they have done a thorough job of obtaining information and sifting the evidence. At least, this is the impression I gained from reading through the report of the committee.

I think it is appropriate that I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the general secretary of the old UP, the hon. Senator Horak, played a major role in having a Select Committee appointed, as well as in determining the actual matters which the Select Committee investigated. After the general election in 1974, Sen. Horak introduced a motion relating to the electoral laws.

In this motion he asked for an inquiry to be conducted or instituted into the operation of the Electoral Consolidation Act of 1946, preferably by a judicial commission, and for particular attention to be paid to, firstly, expenditure of moneys for election purposes, and secondly, the provisions of the Act relating to the offences of treating and undue influencing and to voting by absent voters. I just want to mention—I think it may be of interest to the House to keep this in mind— that I was rather intrigued when I listened to the hon. member for Sandton trying to cast the blame on the UP in this regard. I just want to point out that at that particular time at least six hon. members on those benches were members of that particular caucus which gave the green light to the hon. Senator to move his motion. Some of them stayed for a long time. [Interjections.] I am just pointing out facts. Later on I shall state the NRP’s attitude towards this motion of the hon. Senator.

The hon. Senator made it clear that while he would have liked a judicial commission, he was quite prepared to accept a Select Committee, which was appointed. When one studies the provisions of the Bill and the recommendations of the Select Committee, one clearly sees that while entirely new principles have been introduced, Senator Horak’s objections with regard to treating and expenditure have to a great extent been met. I found it very strange that the hon. member for Sandton never said a word about the “treating” clause, clause 40. If treating was allowed to carry on as we were led to believe, rightly or wrongly, was the case in 1974, we would have been dealing with an evil which would have made the functioning of the normal processes of democracy in this country very difficult.

I think I must point out at this stage that obviously the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. Senator Horak did this as members of a different party caucus in which there were just as many hon. members now in the PFP as there are in this party. As a new party, the NRP, therefore had to look completely afresh at the findings of the Select Committee and also at this particular provision. I just want to point out to the hon. member for Sandton that he took it for granted that we would be in favour of public opinion polls. I must disillusion him by saying that the NRP, having considered it and having discussed it in a caucus meeting, will not be supporting clause 45. That is our point of view regarding the situation. The hon. members in those benches are always so desperately trying to run away from their past. I accept my past and look to the future. Although certain aspects of this matter were acceptable to the UP, I want to say that, having duly considered the principles involved, the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. At this stage we shall confine ourselves to the underlying principles in the Bill. Again, I must agree with the hon. Chief Whip of the NP that the hon. member for Sandton seemed to disagree merely on the details of the Bill, and not so much on the actual principles. The amendments which are introduced by this Bill involve a large number of principles. We have certain difficulties with some of the details and the application of some of these provisions. We have already indicated that we shall move certain amendments at the Committee Stage and we have given notice of others which will only appear tomorrow. We shall be using both the Second Reading and the Committee Stage to try to eliminate some of the defects in the Bill.

It is quite true that the Electoral Act sets out the rules of how the game of democracy is to be played in this country. The purpose of this legislation is to set out quite clearly what is to be allowed, what is considered to be foul play and what is considered to be fair play, and then to decide upon the rules and to apply them. In view of this the NRP wish to consider the following main principles. First of all, we come to the matter of registration of political parties. This is an important new principle which is being introduced. We have no objection to the principle of a political party being registered. We can see difficulties if a situation is allowed to develop in a country where every person can claim that he represents a political party and for that reason demands the service that the Chief Electoral Officer is able to give to bona fide political parties.

That would be an unhealthy situation and it would be to the detriment of bona fide political parties because I believe bona fide political parties should receive much more assistance than they are getting today from the Chief Electoral Officer, especially now that we have reached a stage where the system is being computerized. I know there are certain difficulties, but one must sometimes look beyond the next hill. By the use of computerization eventually a system will be found where bona fide political parties, people who are in the game to win elections, will receive far more assistance from the Chief Electoral Officer. For that reason there is a need in principle to have political parties registered. If that principle did not exist it would endanger—I use that word quite emphatically—the normal process of democracy. It would endanger it because it would clutter up the whole system and it would work to the detriment of bona fide political parties. Having said that we accept that principle, we do not believe that unlimited power should be given to the Chief Electoral Officer when it comes to the registration of political parties.

His powers are not unlimited.

I would say that once the hon. the Minister has had the wisdom to accept our amendments in the Committee Stage his powers will no longer be unlimited. However, at this stage one could argue about that and one could say that in some respects his powers are unlimited. In terms of the proposed new section 35B in clause 8 it is stated that the Chief Electoral Officer shall register a political party if he is satisfied that it is the object of that political party to fight provincial or parliamentary elections. If the hon. the Minister objects to my saying that it gives him unlimited power, it in fact certainly gives him a very wide discretion. We should like to narrow that discretion.

You asked for it!

That may be so, but that is something of the past and we in the NRP are moving forward. I accept that, but life does not stand still. However, as far as the principle is concerned, we accept that there should be registration. I do not want to preempt the Committee Stage, but if we can rectify the matter in the Committee Stage by means of an amendment we shall be quite happy. We are happy, too, that a deed of foundation of the political party should be submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer for registration. However, we are not happy with the idea of the names and addresses of the 50 members being attached to the elect of foundation. It is no use the hon. member for Parow pointing a finger saying that the hon. member for Durban Point supported certain proposals in the Select Committee. The hon. member for Parow and other hon. members of the NRP also supported certain proposals in the Select Committee, proposals which were subsequently ignored in the drafting of the Bill before the House. [Interjections.] Therefore, I suggest the recommendations made by the Select Committee did not finalize the matter and that we should not claim recourse to those recommendations.

If one reads the report by the Select Committee one will find, for instance, that the committee agreed unanimously that the names and addresses referred to here, should not be published. All parties present voted in favour of that recommendation. If the hon. member for Parow now wants to point an accusing finger to the hon. member for Durban Point, I think I should point out to him that even he and his party have changed their opinions in some respects. However, I regard it as a healthy attitude. Therefore I believe we should not argue about it.

What is the merit of consensus in a Select Committee if that is your attitude?

The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to know what the merit of consensus is. The hon. the Deputy Minister should not forget that hon. members of the NP have also changed their minds in certain respects.

That only involves detail! [Interjections.]

That is exactly what I have already told the hon. member for Parow. My problem with this lie, in many cases, with the detail, and not so much with the principle. However, I should like to warn the hon. member for Parow not to become excited. [Interjections.]

For registration purposes, we believe that it should be sufficient—in the spirit of the Select Committee—to have only a declaration stating that the foundation of a political party was agreed upon by 50 members. Such a declaration should carry no names or signatures, I suggest. In this way we would be working together in the co-operative spirit of the Select Committee.

The hon. member for Sandton saw a problem in the likely refusal by the chief electoral officer to register a political party on account of his disapproving, for example, of the name of the particular party, etc. I do not quite understand why the hon. member for Sandton should have a problem with that, because in the event of such an occurrence the particular political party would still have recourse to a court of law. The hon. member, in his Second Reading speech, concentrated exclusively on this aspect, describing it as something terrible. However, that is an aspect which I am quite prepared to accept, by virtue of the fact that in the event of something of this sort happening the political party concerned will have a definite recourse to a court of law.

Let us now move on to the principle of nomination procedures. Nomination procedures are being drastically amended by this new legislation. The principle that a candidate must have at least a certain number of signatures of qualified voters on his nomination form is something which is as old as our democratic system. At the moment two such signatures are required. I have witnesses who can testify that in a particular seat during the last general election a candidate turned up but although he had his R500 or R600 in cash ready, he could not find two registered voters who were prepared to nominate and second him.

That must have been an HNP candidate.

No, it was a Nationalist who tried to stand as an independent candidate in Durban Point. We do not quarrel with the principle; it is an old and accepted one. What we find here today, however, is that the principle that a certain number of signatures are required is being extended in respect of independent candidates and candidates whose political parties are not being represented in either Parliament or the provincial council concerned. That principle is now being extended in that instead of two, 300 signatures will be required. This is what we are arguing about.

It is not the same principle. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Chief Whip should allow me to continue. There are many other hon. members on that side who intend coming into the debate and they can react to what I am saying. He should rather give them some advice.

While we have nothing against the principle that more people should be required to sign nomination forms, we quite frankly feel that in this respect, where it is insisting on 300 signatures, the Government has gone for the overskill. Let me immediately compare this with the West German system. I read in a report that in West Germany they require 200 signatures. I have just been informed that the average constituency in West Germany comprises 160 000 voters.

But their constituencies are the same for local elections.

The hon. the Chief Whip should give that advice to somebody else. I have only 12½% minutes left While they require 200 signatures for constituencies of more than 160 000 …

But municipal elections are included.

I am now dealing with parliamentary elections.

[Inaudible.]

Here we find that the Government insists on 300 signatures. I feel that we should not have such a drastic increase. I am glad that our amendment to reduce the 300 to 50 will be supported—very wisely so—by the hon. members of the PFP. I believe that were it to remain at 300, one would be entitled to say that this goes far too far as far as our democratic process is concerned. Candidates of political parties will be given a very limited time to obtain those 300 signatures. The candidates will be required to obtain those 300 signatures in as short a period as 16 days or, at the maximum, 23 days. The names and addresses of the people who attach those signatures must also be attached to the nomination form. The hon. member for Sandton quite correctly drew attention to the fact that for an opposition party or a newly formed political party it will be very difficult for instance to get a public servant to sign such a nomination form which will be open for inspection. In fact, one can say that before a political party or group has had the opportunity of bringing its message to the people, it will be prevented to do so. This is an overkill. I believe that the history of this clause indicates that it is an anti-HNP provision. This has been foremost in the minds of hon. members opposite.

Most elections in South Africa are sprung on us. The very issue which gives rise to the election can give rise to the formation of a new political party. Members of such a new political party, even if they are sitting members of Parliament, but not elected under the banner of that new political party, may find this new requirement to their detriment. They will be eliminated because of this provision.

You need only seven days to re-register your name.

Yes, you will need seven days to register your name. It is quite clear, however, in the clause as it stands that one will have to be represented by a member elected under a particular party’s name. If the Chief Whip, for example, were to have the courage at the next election, to resign from the NP and form another party such as the Verligte Front or whatever—of course, one cannot stop hoping in life!—he would have to find 300 signatures.

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

You are wrong as far as that is concerned.

I would be so delighted if I were proved to be wrong in this particular case. However, it is a well-known fact that one would only get a small percentage of people who would be prepared to put their signatures on such a public document An individual candidate may have a 50-50 chance of election in a particular constituency, but if he has to go through this type of procedure—and he must obtain, within 16 days, some 300 signatures—I believe he would only find about one-fifth or 20% of the people, who will ultimately vote for him, who would be prepared to put their names on paper in such a way. In order to get 300 signatures he would therefore most probably have to canvass 1 500 of his own people.

2 000.

If he has a 50-50 chance, he may find that he would have to canvass something like 3 000 people, and if it is an urban constituency, where one only finds about 50% of the people at the first canvassing, he may find himself having to process about 6 000 cards. This is quite clearly going far beyond what I think the intention here should be.

Oh, rubbish! If he has an organization, he can do it in the space of one evening.

I wonder whether hon. members opposite cannot see further than their own small, protected environment. We are not talking about people who have been elected by political parties in this House. That hon. member must not use his own influence in his own constituency as a yardstick because that is not the argument. The argument involves people who are outside, who have legitimate reasons to form a political party because they think the Government has made terrific mistakes.

If they have a following, they will get the signatures.

All of a sudden, they are given only 16 days in which to obtain these signatures. I am proving to hon. members the difficulties in this respect. Hon. members must please not come with the argument that this is incurring unnecessary expenditure. I have just worked out what the history of the past 30 years of government has been. Do hon. members know what election last year’s election should have been? It should have been, if elections had come at normal intervals, the election of 1983. So who has been the greatest culprit— and I did not even count the referendum; I left that out—when it came to causing unnecessary expenditure in this respect? It has, in fact, been the NP, the Government itself. If one adds up the figures, one sees that the years wasted in premature elections add up to more than one election interval. I really do not think that one should put a price on democracy. That I do not accept.

Let me finally come to the points that we agree with fully. One of these points is the limitation on expenditure. I think this issue is contained in clause 39 which we welcome. This was something the Select Committee asked for in the first place. There are, however, some loopholes, but since other countries have limitations in this respect, we do not find ourselves alone. The main point is that we have allowed the situation to develop all along the line, and I am not impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Sandton that a ratepayers’ association is going to fight on a parliamentary basis. I do not think that is a valid reason. Surely, there must legally be a limit to expenses which can be incurred.

Then we come to the anti-treating clause, a clause on which there has been silence from the hon. member for Sandton up to now. The anti-treating measure contained in clause 40 is more than welcome. Once again it is not watertight. Ten people can be treated at a time.

That is a PFP clause as far as we are concerned.

Oh, is it a PFP clause?

It is a Jan Marais clause!

There you are! We have another convert! Somebody else has possibly seen the light. We may be enjoying the support of that hon. member in regard to this important clause. As I have said, the hon. member for Sandton was silent on this clause. I do not want to make accusations, but I want to say that there have been signs that this type of thing can be totally abused in this day and age. Therefore we are 100% behind the Select Committee’s recommendation, also in respect of the limitation for which provision is made. We do not believe that, as it stands, it is completely watertight, but it will go a long way towards protecting the normal processes of democracy in South Africa.

*Another important aspect which we greatly welcome, is the fact that the names of political parties will appear on ballot papers. In the past many people, especially older people, became confused. By mentioning the names of political parties, we shall simply be helping people to cast their vote properly. The hon. the Minister was quite correct when he said that that principle already applies in respect of absent voters. They have the benefit of this. There are people who have absolutely no idea who the candidates of the various parties are. However, at that stage they were already placed in a position to exercise their democratic right. We also believe that it will be of great assistance in identifying people more easily at the ballot box. Of course we are having tremendous problems with the state of the voters’ roll at the moment. The hon. member for Durban Point will go into this further. We shall also make certain suggestions in this regard.

†Finally, I should like to apologize for not being able to stay in the House much longer since I have to attend the committee sitting in the Other Place. We have, however, great pleasure in saying that we shall support this measure and we hope that during the Committee Stage we shall get the hon. the Minister to help us to make this a better Bill and we will be able to appeal to the members of the Official Opposition to come forward and assist us to overcome the defects that exist.

Will you help us in return?

If the hon. members have a good case, we will help them. I have already indicated that in respect of one clause they have our support.

Mr. Speaker, I have noted the partial support for the Bill by the hon. member for Durban Central.

He only supports those things which suit him.

We said we would support the Second Reading. It is therefore not partial support.

He said they would support the Second Reading, but there were many stipulations. He was also a member of the Select Committee which deliberated on this matter for three years. On the Select Committee, I gained the impression that this Bill was an agreed measure as far as the then Official Opposition was concerned— with only the dissenting vote of the hon. member for Sea Point.

The hon. member for Durban Central has now placed great emphasis on the question of the limitation of election costs. Our side of the Select Committee was not very much in favour of that, but we accepted it because the hon. members of the then UP felt very strongly about it. In fact I think an amount of R5 000 for publicity expenses in an election is very low. In my constituency I normally make use of the very best printing work—in fact, colour printing work. I do not believe I can keep it up with R5 000. However, we accepted that, at the time, and we stand by our undertaking.

I want to return to the speech by the hon. member for Sandton. He mentioned the necessity of postponing the general registration until 1982, and that the population register will not serve as an electoral register before that date. However, I want to assure the hon. member that one should not get the impression that a general registration, or the registration of voters, must be altogether discontinued until 1982. Constant registration still takes place and any person who is entitled to be registered as a voter, can be placed on the voters’ list by merely filling in the RP. 1 form. That also applies to people who change their addresses and who want to register in a new constituency. Therefore one should not get the impression that the postponement until 1982 suspends all registration. That is not the case. Constant registration is still taking place. I can now refer to the population register as the basis for the voters’ list. I know that in a few cases voters’ lists were compiled from the population register by way of an experiment, to establish how far the department had progressed. One electoral division in which 16 300 voters were registered, already had 14 900 voters on the voters’ list which has been compiled from the population register. That is an indication of the great progress which has been made, because only 1 400 names of voters had not yet appeared in the population register. It also appeared that in certain polling districts in that constituency, there were, according to the population register, more voters than according to the voters’ list. One should, however, proceed from the basic assumption that a person who is entitled to vote, is also entitled to register. But if he fails to fill in an RP. 1 form, he is disfranchised. Then it is his own business. But if we use the population register as a basis for the voters’ list and a person has not yet obtained his identity document, or has not yet applied for it, then such a person will not be disfranchised as a result of his own negligence, but as a result of departmental action, and that would be unfair. I am very sorry that we are postponing the general registration, and the hon. the Minister knows that. However, I accept that that is the situation and in all fairness, one must concede that under the present circumstances, it is the right procedure to adopt. The hon. member for Parow also referred to the fact that there is no pressing need to do it now, because the election took place last year. Therefore there is sufficient time now to tackle the task calmly and peacefully and to put the matter in order without wasting money on overtime work. As has already been indicated, it is possible that if sufficient progress is made with the compilation of the population register, registration may perhaps take place before 1982. However, we and the department will have to keep an eye on the matter to see whether it is possible.

The hon. member for Durban Central spoke about the question of the 300 signatures which are necessary to obtain nomination. I can understand his concern, because the three parties sitting on the opposite side of the House, have all recently undergone a change of name. In actual fact, they ought to regard this Bill as protection for themselves, for they will not change their names so readily in future. One should not be ashamed of one’s name or run away from it. One can modify or adjust one’s principles, but I do not think one’s name can sell one to one’s voters. It is what one stands for that sells one to one’s voters. The hon. members need not be concerned that they may perhaps not obtain a sufficient number of signatures at the next general election.

I also welcome the requirement that the registration of political parties will be necessary in future and that the abbreviated name of the party will be indicated on the ballot paper with that of the candidate. The hon. member for Sandton will understand why I welcome that In 1965, I lodged an election petition after I had lost at the polls by three votes. At the time, the hon. member for Sandton was the instructing attorney for the other party, namely the person against whom I instituted proceedings. I am merely placing this on record, because that is the reason why one sometimes does certain things. I had two very faithful National Party voters who were absent from the constituency. They both lived a short distance away. Both had the name “Van Zyl” and the occupation of both was “foreman”. When they received the ballot papers, they asked the sergeant—in those days, the presiding officer was a policeman or a postmaster—who was the National Party candidate in fact was, because my opponent also had an Afrikaans surname. The sergeant replied that he was not allowed to say. One of the Van Zyls—Van Zyl senior—and his wife then decided to vote for my opponent because at least he had an Afrikaans surname. They were also under the impression that at some stage or another he had stood as a Nationalist candidate in a municipal election. Their son, on the other hand, decided to vote for me, just to be otherwise. If the parties had been indicated on their ballot papers, I would not have lost the election, because the two Van Zyls who had voted against me, would have voted for me. I therefore want to stress that it is essential that party affiliation should be indicated on the ballot paper. There are very good reasons for that.

Another matter which I wish to raise, is the question of the numbering of tickets.

What happened to your court case?

It was settled, as the hon. member knows. Clause 11 of the Bill holds the prospect that in future a notice will have to be sent to every voter after the election has been announced. The full particulars of the voters will appear on this notice. That is yet another aspect which I welcome. Perhaps this supersedes to a great extent what the parties are already doing in this connection. Before the election, the respective political parties send every voter his voter’s number, and at the same time they also indicate where his polling booth will be situated. The department will now, to a great extent, take over this function from the political parties so that they need not do this. In this connection, I also hasten to add that if the department were to do it, we should really be moving closer to democracy rather than away from it, as hon. members on the opposite side of the House are trying to imply we are doing. The more the department does officially to get the voter to cast his vote, the less the parties need to do that, and the less influencing there need be. This enables the voter to exercise his own free choice. I like fighting an election—and so, I believe, does every hon. member in this House. It is an undertaking which one plans, and certain basic elements are necessary for it. In the first place, one has to have a sound electoral act. In my view, the legislation now before this House, is a very important step in the right direction. Clause 12 of the Bill makes provision for smaller polling districts, and I hasten to state that it is a matter which I strongly support. I tried it out in my constituency, and the election runs far more smoothly and without problems as a result thereof. Eight polling stations are used, and only one of them need handle more than 3 000 voters. It would be a good idea to apply this system in every electoral division.

Clause 13 of the Bill provides that the attendants of sick voters will be entitled to postal votes or to vote as special voters. This is a very great step forward, because a problem always arises in the case of an aged couple of which one can vote by post or by special vote because he is ill, while the other one then cannot vote at all because he or she has to care for the ailing person. A serious problem exists in this connection, and that is why the Select Committee felt very strongly about it. The provisions of clause 19, too, which deal with the identification of a voter, are a great step forward.

In the past, the identification of a voter was limited to the production of one of four documents, i.e., the identity card, the identity document, the passport, or the driving licence. The range is now being extended to other official documents on which a photograph of the voter appears. That is consequently an improvement.

Another provision which I welcome, is to be found in clause 26. That provides that when a voter applies for a special vote, the presiding officer must accept his bona fides, and cannot refuse to permit a special vote to the applicant for such a vote. In my own constituency, there was a case of the presiding officer who had misinterpreted the Act and accordingly refused to issue ballot papers to intending special voters because, in his view, they were not entitled to then. This possibility is now being eliminated, and the application must be accepted unless the presiding officer has good grounds for believing that the statement is untrue or that the grounds advanced for the application, do not exist.

Then there is also the question of the marking of ballot papers. Clause 32 provides that in future the returning officer may designate an officer to mark a book of ballot papers with the secret mark in advance. Up to this stage the polling-clerk had to stamp every ballot paper separately before he issued it. I welcome this provision, because at the time when I lost an election by three votes, there were six postal votes which did not bear the secret mark—as the hon. member for Sandton will remember. This amendment therefore effects an improvement.

I have already dealt with the question of postal votes and should now like to come to opinion polls, which the hon. member for Sandton kicked up quite a fuss about. That is a question which we felt very strongly about on the Select Committee. This really concerns what I would not describe as improper influencing of voters, but at least as an unscientific influencing of voters. One finds so-called learned professors who give a personal opinion in advance and who is then described as an expert in the field of constitutional matters and the holding of elections. But when the election results are announced, they are completely at variance with his opinion poll. Such influencing should not be allowed to take place. The best type of opinion poll is the ordinary canvassing done by the party. In my own constituency—I am sorry that I have to blow my own trumpet— the number of votes cast for my opponent, was only 14 more than the number which I predicted for him on the basis of my canvassing. That is an indication of how accurately one can ascertain these things. The only proper, scientific survey is to task every voter in one’s constituency whom or what party he supports. To ask 10, 20 or even 1 000 people what party they support and then to form an opinion on that basis is unscientific, and I do not believe it ought to be allowed in respect of elections and parties.

In conclusion, I want to state that it was a privilege for me to serve on the Select Committee, especially under the able guidance of the hon. member for Parow, who was not only an excellent chairman, but also made an excellent speech today in which he stressed that we on this side of the House stand by our undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston District made an allegation here which, in my view, was somewhat ill-considered. He said the name of a political party did not really sell the party. But if the NP were now, after 30 years, to change its name, it would find in the next general election that it had made a mistake. I therefore believe that the name of the party is indeed important. I say that because we gained experience in this regard during the recent general election. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon. member for Parow that it is not easy to draft legislation, especially electoral laws, which will meet with general approval. For example, we shall never reach the stage where amendments moved here in the House, will be unanimously approved. We must accept that there will always be quarrels about them. In this Bill, there are quite a few provisions which are improvements, and our party will therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill. However, we also have certain objections to the Bill, and we shall oppose certain clauses during the Committee Stage.

In the first place, we are pleased that in future it will be a requirement for the name of a party to appear on ballot papers, because our experience has been that there is considerable misuse of the fact that the names of political parties do not appear on ballot papers. We had cases, for example, where postal votes were issued to people and by the time one visited these people to ascertain what their political views were, they had often voted already. One finds that a person who went to have the application form completed, had not disclosed his own identity. The voter applied for a postal vote and a ballot paper was issued to him, but he did not know who the candidates were, and he was then told what to do by the returning officer—something which is illegal in the first place. One discovers that certain people sailed under the flag of certain parties, while they were in fact not the candidates of those parties.

Maybe in Port Elizabeth, but not in our part of the world!

I do not know the hon. member had only angels in his constituency.

Just more intelligent!

I do not care in what constituency the people are so intelligent, but I do want to say that there is not a single constituency in which there are no party workers who are dishonest. They are the people who mislead the voters. Because it is no longer necessary today to have a witness present at the completion of a postal vote form …

You do not know Fauresmith!

Do I not know Fauresmith? I do not think an election is ever held in Fauresmith. I am not at all sure that they know what a postal vote is.

The registration of parties is a step forward. The hon. member for Sandton objects to it, and he describes it as “interference with the right of minorities to contest elections”. That is not the case. I think any group that wants to regard itself as a party, ought to follow the prescribed procedure and register. At one stage, in the Transvaal in particular, there were a number of parties which one heard about from time to time and from which one received circulars—I am still receiving circulars, especially from the Transvaal—but one does not know whether such a party does indeed exist and whether it is a party or merely a group. I therefore think it is essential that parties should register. No one will be prohibited from registering, provided he complies with the requirements.

In connection with the matter of independent candidates, we find that we cannot support the clause in terms of which the signatures of 300 voters are required. I think that is in conflict with the principle of confidentiality during elections. The electoral laws have always been designed to prevent voters from disclosing how they vote, or that they should be placed in a position where someone will know how they voted. If a voter were approached to sign a statement to the effect that he supports a certain candidate, it is surely obvious that he signs his name below a statement that he will vote for that candidate. This document is open for inspection by the public, and anyone will be able to come and tell the person that he voted for the candidate whose candidature he had supported. Therefore we cannot support this clause. If the clause is accepted, however, we shall be in favour of 50 signatures, as proposed by the NRP, but definitely not 300 signatures.

In connection with the deposit, I agree with the hon. member for Parow that it does not really make any difference. In the past, we had the experience that persons who could afford to do so, merely put up a candidate for election and paid his deposit, with the result that not only did he cause his opposing candidate unnecessary expense, but the State as well, by fighting an election while he did not really intend fighting an election and also did not stand a chance of ever being elected.

As regards the clause dealing with the maximum of 3 000 voters per polling district, we feel that a measure of discretion should rather be left to the returning officers. We are not opposed to the principle of making things easier for the voters, because we know that a large polling district with several thousand voters, can create serious problems, especially during peak periods in the cities. But it can happen that the polling district with 3 500 voters, may well be accommodated at that polling booth. If we confine ourselves strictly to the clause, it has to consist of 3 000 voters, and the returning officer will therefore be compelled to set up a second suitable polling booth. That will also create problems—also for the department—because the electoral officer will then have to appoint additional staff to man the second polling booth.

And unnecessary expenses!

Yes, it will also entail unnecessary expenses.

The polling district may consist of more than 3 000 voters.

Well, I am pleased to hear that, because I understood that it was a maximum of 300.

With the consent of the State President.

With the consent of the State President? We know that, but can you imagine what problems it will create, because the electoral officers who already have to work hard, will then have to approach the State President first. It will not be a matter of going directly to the State President. Their head offices will have to go through the prescribed channels to obtain the necessary consent for that. I therefore think that the consent of the State President may be left out and that a measure of discretion should be given to the chief returning officer. If the returning officer in the Cape Province feels that there should be 4 000 voters in a certain polling district, he should obtain the approval of the chief returning officer and not that of the State President. In any case, I doubt whether the State President will ever say “no” if application is made to him.

Another aspect of this legislation about which we feel very strongly, and about which I am very pleased, is the notices which must now be issued to voters. This is a step forward, a step in the right direction. The voter will now receive official notice that there will be an election, and he will receive official notice as to where the polling booth is, etc. If he then wants to blame anybody for his name not being on the voters’ list, he will not be referred to the candidates, but certainly to the returning officer. That was one of the problems which existed in the past.

As regards the opinion polls about which the Official Opposition feels so strongly— especially the hon. member for Sandton— they realize their value, of course. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Sandton was involved in the Pegasus episode a few years ago. The PFP is aware of how effective such an opinion poll can be. Such an opinion poll is supposed to be factual. Yet we know that when a poll is to be undertaken, people must be temporarily appointed to make the surveys. How easy is it not for someone to fill in a form at his home with imaginary facts? How often have we, who are active in politics, not encountered the canvasser who does his canvassing in his lounge? Subsequently he gives one the “facts”. He says certain voters are for one and certain voters are opposed to one. In that way, a newspaper or even a political party can initiate an opinion poll and make sure that the finding of that opinion poll will be to its benefit because, when the findings are published, voters will be influenced in a certain direction. We feel very strongly that no one ought to be influenced. Every one should be able to decide for himself what he wants to do.

In connection with meetings on licensed premises, that is something which we should have had years ago. Problems are often encountered in finding suitable halls in small communities. We who are active in politics, know how difficult that is. Sometimes there is a hotel with a large room which can be used, and until now we have been prohibited from making use of that In actual fact, it does not matter where one has the meeting. If a candidate or his workers want to bribe a voter, they will bribe him even inside his own home or inside his own lounge. It is not necessary to do it over a drink at a hotel.

As regards the use of rented vehicles, I agree with the hon. the Minister that this requirement is hopelessly outdated. There was a time when there were one or two taxis in a community and the candidate who got there first, could commandeer those vehicles for his own use. These days, there is a choice of 50, 60 or more vehicles for hire outside air terminals. The same thing applies on the election day, and any candidate, or a worker for a candidate, can, for example, go to D. F. Malan Airport and hire any number of vehicles which are not marked in any way. The people who hire out these vehicles do not know for what purpose they are used. We are therefore in favour of the deletion of this provision.

The main object of the Bill is to facilitate the procedure for elections. Let me quote just one example. There may, for example, be the voter who is more than 50 km from the nearest polling booth. There are people who live in remote areas where roads and communications are poor. They can now, in their own time, make arrangements to vote either by post or by special vote. Then there is also the provision in regard to attendants of patients. We have often found in the past that people could not leave their patients and that reasons were then sought to issue postal votes or special votes to such people. In terms of the new provisions, this may lawfully be done, whereas in the past, it sometimes took place unlawfully. There are, of course, still opportunities for the abuse of this legislation. However, we shall never succeed in eliminating all possibilities of the abuse of legislation.

There is yet another aspect which, in my view, ought to be looked into at some stage or another, especially in view of the fact that the procedures for the issuing of special votes and postal votes are now being made easier. I am referring to the aged—people who no longer have proper control over their senses. During the recent general election, I had the experience that a special polling booth had been set up at a home for the aged for the convenience of old people who participated in the election by means of special votes. It was tragic to see how those aged voters were ordered about while some of them, if one were to ask them for their names, would perhaps not have known who they were and where they were. Those people’s names are on the voters’ roll, and it is argued that they are entitled to vote.

Why did you not organize postal votes for them?

The hon. member for False Bay wants to know why I did not organize postal votes for them. The position is that there will be the same abuse, regardless of whether it is a postal vote or a special vote. I did not want to have it on my conscience that I organized postal votes for such people. However, I was present while those aged people brought out their special votes, and I must say it was a tragic experience.

Do you want to disfranchise them?

No, I do not want to disfranchise them at all. All I am saying, is that something ought to be done about the matter. Something should be done to stop this type of procedure from continuing.

In conclusion, I want to say something about the compilation of the voters’ list The hon. member for Sandton has referred to it as “a mess-up of the system”. In all the years I have been involved in politics, there has always been dissatisfaction in every election about the condition of the voters’ list.

It has always been that way and it will always be that way in future, because there will always be many people who do not realize their duty—people who do not ensure that they are registered as voters. Some people who have not been registered as voters for 20 years or longer, and who have even been out of the country in the meantime, turn up suddenly just before an election, and are then very upset because their names do not appear on the voters’ list. As far as I am concerned, the onus is on the voter himself.

It is necessary, however, that we should make the voter realize that he himself ought to do something and that it is not the duty of the returning officers or of political parties to see to it that the names of voters appear on the voters’ list No matter how unsatisfactory the Act may be, we shall always experience problems. The solution to this specific problem lies in the hands of the Government. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that he has the powers, although—and I realize that—it is not a popular power. In order to solve the problem of incomplete voters’ lists, it may be necessary, at some stage or another, to summon half a dozen or more of voters who have neglected their duty—their duty of registering as voters or of giving notice of their changes of address—before the court. If such a thing happens, and if it is given publicity, if it is made known that in a few constituencies, people have been summoned before court because they did not put their registration in order, then I do not doubt that in future we shall have less difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, the idea that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has just mentioned with regard to the possibility of fining people who do not register their change of address in order to have the voters’ roll changed is a very interesting one. I want to point out that such a measure can already be implemented in terms of the existing legislation. I think, however, that he is as aware as we are that such a measure can hardly be implemented summarily by any Government. Any Government would be hesitant to fine voters, because that would be a very unpopular step. I agree with him that only a handful would have to be fined before the vast majority would themselves take steps to register when they changed their address. It is a fact that any Government would be hesitant to take such a step.

It is also interesting to note that throughout the history of democracy, and even in the days before democracy, people fought and even sacrificed their lives—in some cases there were even members of the fairer sex who rode stark naked through the streets on a horse—for the right to vote. Today, however, we find that people are much too careless to take the trouble to retain and exercise the right to vote during an election. This is how it is in a democratic set-up: If people have a right, they get careless about it. It is only when they do not have such a right that they are prepared to take extraordinary steps to fight for franchise.

Specifically with regard to the registration of voters there is one provision in the legislation that is at issue. I am referring to the fact that the computer list for identity cards will now only be used from 1982 as a basis for the registration of voters. I personally doubt whether the use of the book of life will effect much improvement in our efforts to keep the voters’ roll up to date. I personally doubt whether the citizens of South Africa will really take more trouble to report their change of address for the purposes of their identity book than they are now taking to report their change of address for the purposes of the voters’ roll. I think that they will only do this if more stringent measures are adopted to take steps against them—the imposition of a fine can be included—if they do not report their change of address. Other measures can, in fact, be adopted. In the course of the deliberations of the Select Committee we have, in fact, discussed such measures. It can be arranged, for example, that when someone requires electricity at his new address, or any other service, he will have to prove first that he has reported and registered his change of address for the purposes of his book of life. It is true that in many countries throughout the world there is a system of compulsory registration of voters, but there are few countries in which it is totally effective.

The only advantage of our using the book of life as a basis, is in my opinion the elimination of the uncertainty that sometimes prevails among voters as to where they are registered. If the identity book is used as a basis, the people will at least know at which address they are registered as voters. During the last election we had the situation that when they reported at an electoral office, people did not know where they were registered as voters. They tell you that they should be registered at this or that place, but in the meantime they have changed their addresses two or three times. On inquiry it is often found that they are not registered at any of their previous addresses. They simply cannot remember when last they took the trouble to register. The only improvement the new system can effect is, therefore, that it can eliminate the uncertainty as to where voters are registered.

We are very sorry that the book of life is not yet being used as a basis for the registration of voters. We are very sorry that the department found it difficult to get the computer system up to date in time. I wonder if there was not perhaps a certain, amount of over-optimism in the evidence previously submitted to us. Be that as it may. I want to say that it is a pity that we cannot change over at this stage. During the last election we had the opportunity to register people according to the RV.1 registration card, which we have been using all these years. We had the opportunity to re-register people who changed their addresses on that basis. Many candidates and parties, however, did not take the trouble to do that, because it was said that the computer list, the identity document, would be used as a basis from July of this year. The voters were aware that the book of life was to be used, but now it is being postponed for another four years. Therefore it is a pity. However much it is publicized, this leads to confusion and extra work. I want to express my regret about that confusion which resulted from the public not co-operating by applying timeously and smoothly for the new identity document.

The hon. member for Sandton objected to the postponement of the general registration until 1982, in other words, until shortly before the next normal date for the next general election. He made the statement that this was detrimental to the minority parties because there had been shifts in the population density. He referred to two constituencies, inter alia, his own constituency with 16 800 voters, and Witwatersberg with more than 18 000 voters. I want to deny in the strongest possible terms that the fact that demarcation is being postponed, is in any way to the detriment of smaller or minority parties. The contrary is true.

I want to quote a few statistics here. In the first place, I want to point out that during the last election there were 44 uncontested parliamentary seats. Of those 44 uncontested seats, the NP won 42 and the PFP only two.

Provincially, however, the picture is completely different. Provincially the NP won 101 uncontested seats and the PFP, three.

One can, however, also look at the analysis of the number of voters. This reveals still more important figures which can be mentioned here. Seven of the 17 seats won by the PFP were won with fewer than 500 votes. However, let us look at the NP’s votes. Apart from the 42 parliamentary seats in which the NP was uncontested, there were 18 seats won with a majority of more than 5 000 votes, 21 seats with a majority of more than 6 000 votes, 15 with a majority of more than 7 000, seven with a majority of more than 8 000 and one, that of the Prime Minister, with a majority of more than 9 000. There were therefore 62 seats for which elections were fought and where the NP had a majority of more than 5 000. Therefore, in 104 seats out of 165, the NP won the seat uncontested or with a majority of more than 5 000. It is an irrefutable fact that the vast majority of the seats with 15 000 or more registered voters are NP strongholds. If there is any question of the postponement of the demarcation harming any party, it is the NP which will be harmed, because the strongholds of the NP will be spread over more seats if a demarcation takes place earlier. It is therefore an absolute fallacy to argue that the fact that the demarcation can be postponed until 1982, will harm the smaller or minority parties. I should like the hon. member for Sandton to admit this openly when he takes part in this debate again later on.

Another aspect which is in fact an entirely new innovation here, is the fact that it is being asked in this Bill that for the nomination of independent candidates and candidates of parties not already represented in a provincial council or in Parliament, the candidate in question should obtain a minimum of 300 signatures on a nomination list. I have already pointed out that at the provincial level, the NP won 101 seats uncontested and in Parliament only 42. Therefore, if one compares the provincial level with the parliamentary level, it means that in the case of the seats uncontested provincially but not parliamentarily, the parties or candidates nominated in those seats at the parliamentary level knew that they had no chance at all. If that had not been the case, they would also have nominated provincial candidates and not only parliamentary candidates. In 59 constituencies no provincial opponent of the NP was nominated. In those seats, therefore, the parliamentary candidates knew they had no chance at all. If one makes an analysis of the independent candidates and the candidates who were, in fact, nominated but whose parties do not have representation in this House, one comes to the conclusion that an enormous number of elections were forced onto the country, elections in which the candidates knew in advance that they had no share whatsoever in the democratic system and merely adopted the premise that the candidates had to be pinned down in the constituencies concerned so that they could not go and help elsewhere, or whose views, as the election showed, was not popular at all.

Let me just refer to the seats where the HNP put up candidates. In Natal they had two candidates and gained 346 and 517 votes respectively. In the Cape Province they had seven candidates and in six out of seven constituencies they had fewer than 500 votes. In the Orange Free State they contested seven constituencies and in five of the seven they gained fewer than 500 votes. In the Transvaal they contested 40 seats, but in 12 of them they gained fewer than 500 votes. It is interesting to note how the independents, who belonged to no party, fared. In the last election we had a minimum of independent candidates. There were three in the Transvaal. The independent candidate in Carletonville was a former member of this House. In Ermelo there were two, one of whom was also a former member of this House and gained 3 208 votes while the other gained 1 196 votes. During the past election, therefore, the independent candidates were not the troublesome candidates; it was really the candidates of a party which really does not have much support in the country and which therefore should not go so far as to merely cause a bother in the election in general. The recent election cost the State R732 000, and that was an election in which just more than 120 of the 165 constituencies were contested. If the cost per constituency is calculated, the total, in round figures, is R4 500. If one takes into account the uncontested seats—because the cost in regard to those seats is far less— the cost to the State probably amounts to R5 500 per constituency. One can therefore calculate how much the State could have been saved if unnecessary elections had not been held in those constituencies. However I want to state very clearly that the HNP did South Africa a service by putting up so many candidates, in the sense that we were able to get majorities of 7 000, 8 000 and 9 000 in those constituencies. Thus we could show the world the tremendous support, the Government of South Africa enjoys. However, the question arises whether it is necessarily a prerequisite for the conducting of a normal democratic election that these elections should take place. In my opinion it is not necessary for us to pin down candidates unnecessarily or have them be involved in elections or that we should involve the whole machinery of State in elections in constituencies where there is really no support worth mentioning for candidates belonging to parties that have no support in any case. The idea was mentioned by members opposite that democracy should not be measured by the amount a state has to spend on elections. I also adopt the premise that that is not the most important factor.

However, the democratic right to participate in elections should not be abused either, in a democratic system. This means that candidates with a reasonable expectation of getting a certain amount of support should have freedom to participate in elections. That reasonable hope will exist if candidates in constituencies with an average number of voters of about 12 000 can get at least 300 names of people who declare themselves openly to be supporters of a particular candidate or party. Therefore, the fact that 300 nomination signatures are required is in my opinion not an unreasonable requirement It does not prejudice the basic, democratic system we have here in South Africa in any way.

There are certain other requirements, too, which are being introduced for the first time by this legislation, inter alia, the registration of political parties. It is not strange that political parties should be registered. We have seen in South Africa people who have not even formed a political party, pretending to be members of a party. They give the party a name, and they thereby try to create confusion amongst the voters. I have in mind, for example, the Democratic National Party. In the case of that party someone in Pretoria has had himself nominated as a candidate in various elections. That is a party which, as far as I know, has never had a meeting with more than 50 people present. It is also a party which has not nominated candidates anywhere else except in that constituency. In my opinion therefore, it is, essential for political parties to be registered and to have names and abbreviations of names which cannot cause confusion among the voters at large. It is also part of a fair democratic system that confusion should not be created by abuse of the democratic dispensation. If, therefore, it is required in this amendment Bill that political parties should be registered in the future, it is actually for the sake of the proper regulation of the democratic system that the voters will in future be fully aware that political parties have a vested right in their name and that they will have a proper place in the democratic system. This does not therefore prejudice any party whose intentions are sincere and honest, and the aim of the provision is only to eliminate confusion which may arise. Political parties are also registered in other countries. In fact, in certain countries more than just the name of the party is registered. Their principles, their procedure as regards the registration of members, the resignation of members, the rights and duties of members, the duties of the office-bearers and how the system works in general, also have to be registered when the political parties of certain countries have their names registered.

One of the provisions of this amendment Bill refers to the limitation of expenditure with regard to printing matter. As we have indicated, we were not very eager to accept that provision. However, in the negotiation among the various parties, it was decided upon and therefore we accept this measure. There are countries like Britain, where there is a limitation not only on printing matter and publicity, but also on the total election expenditure any party may incur in any constituency. Parties and opposition candidates watch their opponents with an eagle eye to see to it that the amount allowed is not exceeded. Nor is that amount as high as it is here in South Africa; it is considerably lower. In other countries like America and Germany, the contributions of the public to political parties have to be disclosed in an annual report to the Registrar of Political Parties. Therefore clear statements of all funds given to parties have to be submitted. Various analyses are then carried out to determine how much money was collected by contributions, membership fees and other sources. Proper control is therefore exercised over the financing structures of the political parties. We in South Africa have not gone so far yet, but I can fully imagine that these measures were adopted in other countries, not to weaken democracy, but indeed, to strengthen democracy. It does give every political party a fair chance to be able to fight a proper election, without the disadvantage of being over-powered by enormous contributions from certain individuals or organizations. The limitation on the expenditure with regard to printing matter is, therefore, a measure which we can readily accept, since it gives every party and every candidate a fair chance to approach an election on an equal basis. Therefore we accept the provision in that sense.

The hon. member for Sandton raised a complaint in this regard as well. He said that this clause also placed a restriction on those people who are not directly involved in the election, but who become involved by issuing publications and making appeals to the public to support certain parties. If the hon. member regards it as a disadvantage that people should be restricted from getting involved in this kind of thing, I can only put it to him that it might also entail advantages. It also results in individuals, organizations or parties not involved in the election, being limited in their appeals to support certain candidates or parties. In my opinion the advantages of this is the fact, that the Communistic Party in South Africa, for example, is hereby prohibited from publishing propaganda in support of the PFP, for instance. [Interjections.] This, therefore, also has its advantages. [Interjections.]

There is another aspect to which, in my opinion, attention should be given. The Bill aims at eliminating confusion to a greater degree, inter alia, with the aim of trying to reduce the percentage of spoiled votes. A number of measures are being introduced to eliminate confusion and facilitate the procedure in general. If one makes an analysis of the spoiled votes in many constituencies, there are certain interesting inferences one can make. I have with me the figures in respect of a number of elections in regard to the number of voters, the votes for the various parties and the spoiled votes cast in the various constituencies. One aspect which should be noticed is that since parliamentary and provincial elections have been held at the same time, the percentage of spoiled votes has increased substantially. On the one hand, this high percentage can be attributed to the confusion created by people realizing that they had to vote twice and then perhaps voting twice on the same ballot-paper. From the analysis of ballot-papers in the polling booths I also know that a high percentage of the spoiled votes are in fact ballot papers on which two or no crosses appear. This shows that one possible reason is that people, knowing that they have to vote twice, make their cross twice on one ballot-paper and leave the other one completely.

Another factor which is probably not taken into consideration generally, is the personal choice of voters. When in the past separate parliamentary and provincial elections were held, people who were, for instance, supporters of, say, the ABC party but who did not like their party’s candidate, could merely stay away from the polling booths. During simultaneous elections we find that the voters might like the parliamentary candidate, but dislike the provincial candidate as an individual. At the polling booth they will then vote for the parliamentary candidate, but spoil their vote with regard to the provincial candidate, or vice versa. This is also a factor which contributes to the higher percentage spoiled votes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Sandton has indicated, there are a number of improvements to the existing Electoral Act in the Bill which we can accept without difficulty or argument. We shall do so in the Committee Stage. Unfortunately, however, in our opinion the bad outweighs the good in the Bill and consequently we must reject the measure. There are provisions in the Bill which are totally foreign to the democratic ideas we have always recognized concerning matters such as party formation, the right to stand as a candidate, a voter’s right to secrecy, the voter’s right to make propaganda and the right of candidates, parties and the Press to provide and publish information. All these longstanding and recognized rights are infringed upon in this Bill to such an extent as to destroy important democratic rights. This is to the detriment of the voter and is only to the benefit of established parties, particularly the ruling party.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior is a relatively new Minister in that post and consequently this Bill is not his baby. I hope he will recognize that our opposition to the Bill is not a personal matter as far as he is concerned. In the circumstances, however, we had hoped that he would not proceed with the contentious parts of the Bill. We have just had a general election and there is no haste as far as the electoral laws are concerned. I think it would have been as well—perhaps we should have indicated this earlier on—if the hon. the Minister had first conducted discussions with the Opposition, at least in regard to the contentious sections, before proceeding with the Bill.

There is a tradition—the hon. member for Parow also referred to this—that changes to the electoral laws and other laws affecting the franchise should as far as possible be agreed measures. I do not believe that any ruling party ought to change the electoral laws by which it came to power unilaterally and without the official co-operation of the parliamentary opposition. At this stage I even want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, after having heard argument concerning those parts of the Bill which we find unacceptable, to consider at least letting those contentious parts stand over till the next session so that during the recess he can conduct in-depth discussions with the Opposition and, if necessary, with interested parties, concerning this matter.

Do you want a Select Committee?

I know that the hon. the Minister will recognize—my hon. friend is now pointing this out—that for the most part the Bill is the product of a Select Committee on which all parties were represented. We understand that, but there are at least two reasons why this argument is not valid. The first is that since the Select Committee sat and completed its work a few years ago, there has been a general election in which the composition of this Parliament was changed in an important way. This ought to be taken into account in a matter of this nature. The second is: The Select Committee, which published its report in 1976, had a specific history which, in my opinion, we should not lose sight of. The Select Committee was established after the general election of 1974. It arose directly out of grievances which the UP, which was then the Official Opposition, had against the then PP and grievances which the NP had against the HNP. I do not say this reproachfully. The UP is dead, a death in which I had no part. [Interjections.] No, I did not dissolve it; I voted against its dissolution. I had nothing to do with it. I merely refer to the history of the situation and I am not reproaching anyone. The hon. member for Durban Central stressed today that the party to which he belongs is a new one. He knows that the UP is dead. The fact is that the UP was aggrieved because it had to forfeit a number of seats to the PP. Instead of sitting down and seeking the fault within itself, as I, and others, recommended, it sought the guilty parties outside itself and pointed to two scapegoats. The one scapegoat was the Press and the influence Press opinion polls supposedly had on the voters, and the second scapegoat—this was the most important real grievance—was the unlimited financial resources which the PP was supposed to have and use. Then Senator Horak, who was at the time chief secretary of the party, introduced a private motion in the Other Place in which he accused the UP of excessive expenditure and proposed that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate, inter alia, whether the Electoral Act should not be tightened up in this respect. That is history. I am merely mentioning this in that connection. Senator Horak’s motion was largely responsible for and a direct cause of the appointment of the Select Committee. What was remarkable is that when Senator Horak had to submit evidence concerning the statements he had made in the Other Place, he was totally unable to state a valid case on the issue of excessive expenditure. The proof of this is to be found in the published report. Apart from the grievances which the UP had against the PP, after the election of 1974 the NP was openly irritated at what it regarded as “unnecessary” elections against the HNP. That we heard again today, as if parties are static, as if parties do not sometimes start small and then grow. That happened in the case of the NP, and I give them all credit for that. There were times when it was unable to gain 500 votes in an urban seat. But the party carried on and it made progress. Those hon. members who speak in terms of the needlessness of parties do not take into account the fact that parties can grow. The NP’s grievance was against its small opponent, the HNP, and the fact that it had to fight seats against that party “unnecessarily”. The NP’s Transvaal leader who was the then Minister of the Interior clearly intimated that he would like to see it being made more difficult for candidates of the smaller parties, and independents, to take part in elections.

The argument was repeatedly advanced here that it cost the State so much money if a strong party was challenged by a small party, a party which attracted few votes. This argument is totally invalid. I do not think this ought to come from a Government which spares no expense to hold one general election after another, in advance and unnecessarily. The hon. member for Durban Central mentioned this. Over the past 29 years we have had eight general elections, approximately one every three and a half years instead of every five years. Then the expenditure does not matter. Nor does the Government count the cost when it turns out Parliaments, Prime Ministers, Cabinets, members of Parliament and elections like hot cakes in accordance with its new proposals.

I want to point out that the 1976 Select Committee had two main participants: the UP, that wanted to change the Electoral Act for its own reasons, and the NP, that wanted to make life more difficult for the HNP. I want to concede that there were additional and more justified reasons and considerations. For example, I think it is a good thing, and indeed essential, that the Electoral Act should be revised from time to time. In 1974 we had joint elections for both the provincial councils and the House of Assembly being held for the first time. It was therefore necessary to take another look at that machinery as well. However, to the chief participants the major considerations on that Select Committee, did not concern the rights of the voters so much as the interests of the two political parties in question. Another point is that that committee sat before the last general election and that that election gave rise to new circumstances. For example, there is a new chief participant on the Opposition side and a new Minister on the Government side, whereas parties which participated in that Select Committee have disappeared entirely. I therefore think that the Government has a duty to revise the contentious provisions of this Bill before proceeding with it.

I now want to deal with the major objections of this party to the content of the Bill. I just want to deal with a few of the principal objections because other hon. members will deal with others. In the first place, I want to discuss the registration of political parties and what that entails. The argument is advanced that there are other countries in the Western World where political parties have to register. That is correct. However, the circumstances there are entirely different to those in this country. Similarly, the reasons and motives for registration are different to those that apply here. For example, in America I saw— in the State of Michigan; and I believe that this applies in the majority of states—that all levels of Government are voted for simultaneously. I also saw a ballot paper on which 34 choices could be made simultaneously by a voter. The name of the political party appeared at the top of that ballot paper. That was followed by the names of all the candidates in the election, from the federal to the local level. The election is done mechanically and by means of this system the voter is enabled to vote simultaneously for all the candidates of his party—by way of the so-called straight ticket. The elections there are based chiefly on the party, rather than on the individual. In those countries the registration of voters is not used to make matters more difficult for either the voters or for candidates.

Even if differences of this nature between other countries and ourselves had not existed, that would still be no reason for us to introduce the registration of voters here in the unheard of way proposed in the Bill. The principle which all political parties have always upheld is that membership is confidential. That principle is being destroyed in this Bill. The words “Strictly confidential” appear clearly on the membership card of every political party. Members are free to publicize their political applications themselves, but the parties do not reveal the membership of their members.

This has always been the case. Indeed, this is in line with the underlying principle of the secret vote, another principle that is jeopardized in this Bill.

In this Bill new political parties, and non-established politick parties, even political parties that do not have representation in a specific provincial council or in the House of Assembly, are compelled, before being allowed to register, to have a specific number of founding members. The founding members all have to be registered voters. They must furnish their full names and addresses and their signatures to the Chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer is free to furnish those details free of charge to anyone. That is what is provided in this Bill.

It is divulged for a fee.

Moreover, the chief electoral officer has the right to question and investigate those details. He has the right to divulge those details to anyone, on demand. He may divulge the membership of the founder members of a specific political party. [Interjections.] To me a principle is involved here. This is in total conflict with the established principle that membership of political parties is confidential.

When the Act requires that the confidentiality of the membership of political parties—and this applies to all political parties—is violated, the door to intimidation is opened.

A Nationalist is never ashamed of his party affiliation!

I am not engaged in party politics now. A Bill of this nature ought certainly not to be approached from a narrow party-political point of view. [Interjections.]

Order!

Moreover, this Bill makes far-reaching inroads on the voters’ right to secrecy. An independent candidate or a candidate of a party which does not have representation in the House or in a provincial council must obtain 300 signatures of voters who indicate that they are prepared to support him. That is what is expected of him before he is permitted to stand as a candidate. This does not mean that he must furnish proof of having 300 supporters. He could even have 3 000 supporters. What is important is that he has to find 300 people who are prepared to say in public, before the election has taken place, that they give their support to that specific candidate. That is what this amounts to. [Interjections.]

You want it to be 50!

No. I am not at all in favour of this. I propose two, as required in the Principal Act. But we must bear in mind that in the majority of constituencies one has to exclude businessmen, teachers, public servants and other dependent people who find themselves in difficult positions.

Why?

We understand politics, after all. The names of the 300 voters have to be nailed to the door of the chief electoral officer during the election, for everyone to see. [Interjections.] In my opinion it derogates from the whole system of the secret ballot. I think this is a scandalous provision. I think it is scandalous that a Government should come to this House with a measure of this nature.

What does it mean in practice? There are constituencies with a little more than 8 000 voters, and sometimes it happens that only 4 000 of them vote. This would mean that the candidate would have to obtain between 7% and 8% of the peoples’ names and signatures. The candidate would have to do that before the election took place.

You are probably referring to Namaqualand now.

The other day the hon. member for Tygervallei proposed that Walvis Bay, with 3 000 voters, be made a separate constituency. If his proposal were to be adopted, an independent candidate or a party without representation would have to obtain 20% of the voters, in advance, to sign their names and to commit themselves to vote for a specific candidate if …

How do you get 20%?

20% if only half of them vote. [Interjections.] It would be 10% if everyone voted, but after all, not all 3 000 voters will vote. I do not think any democrat should vote in favour of such a measure.

Furthermore, there is the provision that the registration can only take place if the chief electoral officer is “satisfied” that it is the object of the party to put up candidates during the elections. How does a newly established party convince the chief electoral officer, years before the time, that it is going to put up candidates? How can it do so before it has had the opportunity to do so? What does such legislation mean?

Then one has the situation that the name or the abbreviation—the legislation is not clear on that point—may not consist of more than 30 letters. Why? That would mean that the name of the old Herenigde Nasionale Party or Volksparty would have been turned down.

In any case it was an ugly old name.

That does not matter; the hon. member helped to found that party. It is one of the many parties to which he belonged. [Interjections.] This would also mean that the PRP, that had “South Africa” before its name, could not have been registered either.

Are you now salving your conscience?

Furthermore the party has to have a chief leader and chief secretary, or chief executive officer, whatever that may mean—who have to furnish their signature. The UP never had a chief leader … [Interjections.] … because it was organized on a unitary basis. The NP, on the other hand, never had a chief secretary, because it was organized on a federal basis. However, the legislation provides that the party has to have something of the kind. The legislation also provides that the party should have a deed of foundation which has to be submitted within 30 days after the foundation. Presumably if the party has not applied for registration 30 days after its foundation it cannot put up candidates for the following election. It is a requirement that if any of these details are changed, notice must be given of this within 14 days, and beware if any of the changes appear to be of such a nature that they might have disqualified the party for registration in the first place. In such a case its registration will lapse.

Looking at the detail of the legislation, one sees that it is half-baked and ill-considered. I infer from the Bill that if any of the original 50 voters who were founder members were to withdraw from the act of foundation, the whole future of the party would be in the balance. The whole package of regulations is as undemocratic as can be. On top of that, a party has to pay R500 in registration fees. This is clearly intended as a means to discourage small parties and the development of new parties. The most remarkable provision of the Bill is, however, the provision to the effect that a party may not be registered if its name is indecent, obscene or offensive or harmful to public morals—whatever they may be. Nor must a name be blasphemous; it may not be offensive to religious feelings, etc. However, how all this is to be determined, is not stated. [Interjections.] Why this nonsense? Can anyone give me the name of any party in history that has been blasphemous and has been offensive to public opinion?

Surely that is too ridiculous to be true. The chief electoral officer is now becoming a one-man censor board with—the hon. the Minister mentioned this—drastic discretionary powers. The only difference between him and the Publication Board is that an aggrieved party can appeal to the higher courts if that party has the money to do so. In my opinion, provisions of this nature in an electoral act are ridiculous. If I were a foreigner from outside and I were to read such provisions in the act I should wonder whether there was a tendency in this country for people to establish parties with such odd names. Mention one example of this from our history or the history of the world.

What about the National Union, for example?

Parties exist to try to gain votes, not to try and chase them away. I wonder whether there is a single example in history of parties established with names that were offensive or indecent, etc. It is unthinkable. I cannot imagine a person calling his party the Rotten Apple Party, although such parties do exist. [Interjections.] The tragi-comedy of this situation is that from now on, our country will have the doubtful distinction of being the only country in the world where a political party’s policy and aims can be offensive to other population groups, where its aim may clash with the religious convictions of the majority of the people, where its policy may assail other peoples’ dignity and be harmful to relations between population groups—that this is permissible, but the party’s name must just be nice enough to satisfy the angels and lead the voters up the garden path. To me it is incredible that such farcical provisions could appear in an electoral act.

Then, too, there are serious objections to the provisions relating to expenditure. Many of us have been in politics for years and remember a great many elections. For as far back as I can remember we have always had provisions in the Electoral Act that controlled expenditure by candidates and also by parties. Accounts have to be rendered, long forms have to be filled in and no party was against this in principle. I have never heard a party being against this in principle. Ultimately, however, all the parties in the House of Assembly agreed to abolish it, not because they were against it in principle. I think everyone feels that if it can be done effectively then there should be control of this matter. However, it was abolished for the simple reason that it had no practical value or effect. It was impossible to implement it effectively. We have learnt that elections are not really won with money. There were times when the UP had more money and organizers than any party in South Africa will ever have. Moreover, there were times when the UP had a strong group of Afrikaans newspapers and the whole English-language Press following it slavishly. Nevertheless it lost and went downhill. There was a time when Mr. Oppenheimer—and Anglo American is so often mentioned now—sat on the UP side in this House. I know that his name is mentioned very unfairly in this connection. In the ’fifties the UP had a vast trust fund. However, what happened? It lost the 1953 election more hopelessly. In contrast, the NP was initially a poor party. Today it is a well-off party but it did not win its elections by spending money. That is not why the NP won. The role of money in elections is being totally exaggerated. The usual election period is about six weeks. That is therefore too short to do more than the necessary. Surely we as politicians all know that in fact, elections are won in the long period of hard work before the election, and not by means of the money spent in the election period.

If there must be control, it is not the principle that is being objected to—it all depends on its implementation. The existing electoral laws determine what expenditure a candidate may lawfully incur; it determines what constitutes proper expenditure and what constitutes improper expenditure. So far it has worked very well. There are only a few people who have had complaints, who were not really able to prove their statements, and who lost for reasons unrelated to the money spent by their opponents. However, the Bill before us seeks to deviate from the principal Act and add a series of provisions which are not only totally impracticable but which make drastic and dangerous inroads into the democratic rights of the ordinary voter.

Look, for example at the effect of clause 39. It provides that no person shall produce or distribute an election publication. It does not state “produce and distribute”: he may not even produce it without being guilty of a serious offence involving a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment No one may produce or distribute an election publication unless he has authorization to do so from a political party or a candidate concerned. In practice, this means that it will be a serious offence if a voter or a group of voters spontaneously produces a photograph of his or their candidate at home in order to exhibit it, or if he wants to display a homemade placard before his house to indicate that that is the candidate for whom he wants to vote. This is the practical effect of that if he does not obtain the necessary authorization. A group of voters such as ratepayers may not spontaneously send out a circular in a ward saying that a specific candidate has done good work in that ward. Under this Bill they will be unable to do so. Clause 39 bristles with roundabout, complicated and unpractical procedures affecting every voter and subverting the entire democratic election.

Just look at the mentioned amounts of R5 000 and R10 000 which may not be exceeded. This will give rise to endless bureaucratic red tape. There is another problem as well. In the recent election there were seven constituencies with 8 000-plus voters, and a further seven with 9 000-plus voters, whereas in other constituencies there were as many as 18 000 voters. This means that the candidate in a constituency with 18 000 voters has twice as many pamphlets and numbers to send to voters, whereas he has only the same amount—R5 000—for that purpose as the candidate in a constituency with half his number of voters. Surely that is unfair.

There is yet another difficulty which I myself encountered as an organizer and later as a candidate, namely that an opponent distributes a pamphlet containing a totally untrue allegation about a person a few days before election day. If one is then in the position that one has already spent one’s quota of money, one cannot reply to it in a pamphlet at the final moment, whatever the enormity of the untruth against one that is being distributed.

It is impractical to insert provisions of this nature in a Bill. Consequently, in my opinion, the Bill creates an untenable situation in regard to these aspects. I must say that it is weak and half-baked in regard to these aspects and is not a credit to those who thought it out.

Mr. Speaker, every Select Committee that is appointed, is appointed by this House. In this case a Select Committee was appointed to make an unbiased, in-depth investigation of the electoral laws, and I believe that a very thorough, unbiased report was presented to the House. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, however, is now saying that the Select Committee did not act and make decisions in the interests of the voters, but in the interests of the two chief political parties. I feel the hon. member owes the House an apology for his statement.

The interjections prove it.

The hon. member alleged that Senator Horak asked at that time for a limitation to be placed on election expenditure. At that time they were both members of the same political party and therefore members of the same caucus. Now, however, he is speaking contemptuously of Senator Horak’s point of view. How can you explain that, Mr. Speaker? That hon. member now wants the Electoral Act to be changed— this is how I interpret his request—so that it would favour the PFP in particular. In other words, he wants to favour big money above the parties of small means to an even greater extent. We all know—it is all past history now—that when President Nixon participated in the election campaign in America that led to his election as president of that country, it cost him the amount of approximately $60 million. We are going the same way in South Africa. I wonder if one would get an honest, sincere reply if one had to ask the PFP: What did the election campaign of the PFP cost that party during the last general election or even during the past few elections—including the Sea Point constituency?

Less than yours.

Another important argument that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well as other hon. members of the Opposition raised, was that they objected strongly to the 300 signatures that an independent candidate or a candidate who is not a member of the House of Assembly or of the provincial council, has to obtain before he can be nominated as a candidate. If the argument is that there is no secrecy as far as these 300 signatures are concerned, the same argument is also true of the amendment moved by the hon. members, viz. that the number of signatures should be decreased from 300 to 50. After all, there will be no secrecy about those 50 signatures either. Sir, every political party arranges postal votes for its own voters. No political party arranges postal votes for another political party’s voters. In the first place one arranges postal votes for one’s own party’s supporters. Furthermore one accepts that 99% of those voters will vote for you because that is why you have arranged postal votes for them. That is why I want to allege that not all postal votes that are cast, are secret according to the criterion which has been laid down here today.

We generally speak about the “12 apostles” when we refer to the presiding officers appointed in terms of section 42bis of the principal Act. In terms of that section, every candidate or political party may appoint 12 presiding officers in order to handle its postal votes. It amounts to there not being any secrecy as far as those 12 officers are concerned because they commit themselves to a particular candidate or political party. I could refer to a few other examples. When the hon. member rose to make his speech, I sat here quaking in my boots because I would have to speak after such an experienced politician. I feel that the arguments that the hon. member raked up here, were actually an insult to the dignity of the House. He is completely underestimating the integrity of this House by coming forward with such rubbish. [Interjections.] Hon. members must excuse me, but one cannot but become irritated if one has to listen to such rubbish. Sir, the Electoral Act is a wonderful act [Interjections.] If one reads it, one observes that amendments have been made to some or other section here in Parliament almost every year. Political parties have already sent officials abroad in order to compare our system with those of other countries, and the hon. Chief Whip of the Government also said correctly today that experts have already been sent abroad from both sides of the House, to study elections in other countries. This resulted in extremely important, interesting amendments being made to our Electoral Act. Various Select Committees have discussed the changes to the Act over the years. Many sections were added, sections were deleted, but the end is not yet in sight. The reason for this is that we are trying to make it easier for every voter to cast his vote. Only by testing legislation in practice can one determine its weak points and come back here to the House and move further amendments to it. I am therefore very pleased that this is the case once again with the legislation that is before the House at the moment. According to the amendments that were made to section 42 of the principal Act, it is now possible—in this regard I want to agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central—for a voter to apply for a postal vote or a special vote if he lives more than 50 km from the polling station in a specific polling district With particular regard to our expansive rural constituencies, it is definitely a big advantage. The hon. member for Germiston District referred to the fact that if a voter is caring for another voter who already qualifies for a postal vote or a special vote, that person may also apply for a postal vote or a special vote now. It is a step forward and one is grateful that these amendments are being made to the Act.

I am also pleased about the deletion of the provision that every voter must initial the reason for his application himself. This gave rise to many voters being disfranchised. It also gave rise to all sorts of uses and malpractices and everyone of us in this House is very pleased that that senseless initialling is no longer necessary. The amendment of section 40 of the principal Act is also very necessary in my opinion, for in our more densely populated urban constituencies in particular, where one finds easily 17 000, 18 000, 19 000 and up to 20 000 voters, there are often only two polling districts and it is therefore almost impossible to get 10 000 voters to the polls in one polling district. Basically it amounts to the fact that if one can vote from 7 o’clock in the morning until 9 o’clock at night and if 10 000 voters must vote, approximately 700 voters must vote per hour, or to put it differently, 12 voters per minute. This is a totally impossible task that the political parties simply cannot keep up. However, this amendment makes it much easier for all political parties to get the maximum number of voters to the polls without them trampling one another.

This afternoon we heard arguments from both sides of the House about the registration of political parties. I think it has become essential in our political set-up that candidates who make themselves available for election to the House of Assembly or the provincial council, should belong to a registered political party and that they should produce proof to this effect. If they cannot do so, they may stand as an independent candidate who has to comply with other requirements. On the fifth day before nomination day, he must present a statement in the prescribed manner, no later than 4 p.m., signed by at least 300 voters that appear on the relevant constituency’s voters’ list. I am pleased that this has now been laid down in legislation. I think all of us ought to welcome this amendment. Earlier in my speech I have already argued about the question of the 300 signatures. I want to disregard the Opposition’s objection in this regard as a worthless one.

The Bill also provides that every political party that registers and already has a representative, must pay R500 when it applies for registration and such a party must pay a further amount of R50 as re-registration fee before the end of January each year. It is also of considerable importance to me that the registration of a political party requires its full name and its abbreviated name—whether Nat, UP or whatever it may be—as well as the signature of the leader and secretary of the party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout correctly said that the UP never had a chief leader. That is old news, however. We all know it. The present Official Opposition does not have a chief leader either. The application for registration must also be accompanied by the signature of every provincial leader and every provincial secretary. Furthermore, the business address and postal address of the party’s head office, as well as the addresses of every provincial office, must also accompany the application.

Any new party that is going to be founded, must hand their deed of foundation, that is accepted and signed at a meeting of at least 50 voters, as well as the addresses of these of these voters, and the names of the constituencies in which they are registered, to the chief electoral officer within 30 days after the inaugural meeting. Therefore, for the first time in history, this amending Bill will see to it that there is order, especially in the sphere of the Opposition parties. What total chaos would not have arisen amongst them if this legislation had applied last year? They would not have been able to keep up with the changes of all their names. However, I shall leave it at that.

I should like to express my thanks for the provision that a political party’s name appears after the name of a candidate on the ballot-paper. I cannot but emphasize the necessity for such a regulation. I think we are all unanimous in feeling that it is a step forward.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that a very carefully compiled guide would be sent to electoral officers and others. In conjunction with this I want to ask the hon. the Minister to spell out one aspect very clearly in that guide.

We have a great deal of appreciation and a great deal of respect for those who act as electoral officers. In most cases they are magistrates. When it comes to holding elections, however, a magistrate is a wonderful thing. He does not want to understand the spirit of the Act either. The only person who has any understanding of the spirit of the Act, is the chief returning officer, but it is unnecessary to make a request of him in this regard because he is involved with the Department of the Interior. The magistrate simply states that he does not care what he says. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have it put very clearly and frankly in that guide that magistrates must in fact take note of the guiding role that the chief returning officer plays during an election. Then, our elections will go off far more peacefully in future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kimberley South has spoken enthusiastically about this measure, which at one stage he described as “’n wonderlike wet”. I think his enthusiasm is largely based on the fact that this Bill enforces much more rigorous control over the whole electoral process of South Africa Our function in this Parliament is to decide whether that more rigorous control is a plus factor or a minus factor. The hon. member for Kimberley South purported to join issue with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on the question of having to obtain the endorsement of 300 voters in the event of one being an independent candidate or a candidate of a political party in certain circumstances. He joined issue with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout because he, together with a number of other hon. members, had criticized that point. The hon. member asked what the difference was between having to obtain the endorsement of 300 voters and having to obtain the endorsement of 50 voters in terms of the amendment put on the Order Paper by the other Opposition party. Quite clearly we on this side of the House would certainly prefer the present situation to obtain, where an individual standing for Parliament or public office would initially need the endorsement of a proposer and a seconder. However, if the situation has to change, certainly a smaller number of people is far better when it comes to observing some sort of secrecy in the case of the voters who have to endorse that candidate.

The hon. member for Kimberley South then said that in the postal vote system the political affiliations of people became easily identified because it was known to which party they went. That argument also opens up a large number of questions as to whether the postal vote system is properly operating. I thought that the postal vote system was supposed to be a secret one in terms of the Act and that the fact that one went to a political party did not necessarily mean that the vote of that particular voter would be case in favour of that political party. One wonders what respect the hon. member for Kimberley South has for the secrecy of the postal vote system as it is presently operating when he uses that sort of argument. What other interpretation can one place on that sort of argument? One also wonders where in the eyes of the hon. member for Kimberley South and other hon. members the secrecy of the ballot in South Africa should begin and where it should end. I believe we as legislators making laws in this Parliament have a bounden duty to ensure that wherever possible and as far as possible the individual voter, in casting or showing his preference for any candidate in the election, knows that that preference can be kept as secret as possible.

Our attitude to this Bill has been clearly stated by both the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think it was the hon. member for Parow, following the hon. member for Sandton, said that apart from indicating opposition to the Bill before the House, the hon. member for Sandton had advanced no real reason why we were opposed to the measure. I do not think that is a true reflection of the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton. I think if the hon. member for Parow would reflect on and consider the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton and if he were to weigh up the speeches made by hon. members on this side of the House, he would find that there were probably five basic areas of difference between us and the hon. the Minister who moved this Bill as to why we cannot support the Bill in its present form.

We are opposed to it, specifically, in the first instance, because of the unrealistic and unnecessary extension of the period relating to the general registration of voters, an aspect the hon. member for Sandton has referred to at length.

It is an extension which has presumably been put into the Bill in order to await the ability or otherwise of the Government to apply its own policy in regard to the whole question of the identity of people and the issue of the Book of Life to people in South Africa We have a situation that the whole electoral system of South Africa must suffer the fate of grossly swollen electoral rolls until such time as the Government is able to put its own policy into effect in regard to the identity and the identification of voters. The first reason why one objects to this legislation is that it extends the whole period for a general registration of voters and that for some time to come we are going to go forward with grossly unrepresentative and unrealistic voters’ rolls in the various constituencies of South Africa.

The reason you have given has no substance whatsoever.

That is your opinion as against mine. I believe it has every substance, as indicated by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Sandton relating to the changing of boundaries, the increase of population, and East Griqualand being taken from the Cape Province and being put into Natal. This, together with the natural growth of population, indicates that the existing voters’ rolls are going to be totally inadequate to represent the true distribution of voters in South Africa. There is no reason, other than the Government’s inability to come forward with its identification system, for the extension of this period of time.

Our second reason for objecting to this Bill are the provisions relating to this formal registration of political parties to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sandton have referred at length. Thirdly, our objection to this Bill will be based on the provisions relating to the nomination of candidates. This has also been dealt with at some length. Fourthly, we shall oppose this Bill because of the unreasonable and unrealistic control of expenditure for which this Bill provides and fifthly, we shall oppose this Bill because of the intended abolition of opinion polls. I believe that these are five very sound reasons why the Bill in its present form cannot be acceptable to people who have the electoral system in South Africa at heart.

The last reason is your only real reason.

These are our specific objections to the Bill, but I believe they can be sumed up in the general condemnation of the Bill in that it is in effect a diminution of the right of the individual to participate in a free electoral process in South Africa, either as a candidate or as a voter. It is a diminution of that right. In fact, it is a surrender to the big battalions and a final capitulation to the party system, putting any ordinary citizen operating out of that system at a tremendous disadvantage.

Oh, come on!

The hon. member must rather answer my argument. I do not believe it can be said that this is not a diminution of the right of the individual in South Africa, or of the minorities in South Africa to participate freely in the electoral processes in this country.

I listened with some interest and a great deal of amusement to some of the remarks made by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill. He referred to his desire to protect the rights of the individual, and dealt with such matters as the limitation of expenditure. He said that he was concerned about these matters and talked about the embargo on any liquor at any type of gathering held for election purposes. I must say that I had very special thoughts about this, inasmuch as I am a voter in the Pinetown constituency, when the hon. the Minister dealt with the lifting of the restriction on any sort of meeting for political purposes on licensed premises, and with the lifting of the restriction on the use of hired transport.

That is not retrospective.

No, I am not saying it is retrospective.

So it is irrelevant.

I am merely telling the hon. the Minister that I had some very special thoughts when he referred to that and I was also very touched by his concern all of a sudden for this sort of situation operating in South Africa The hon. the Minister again made touching references throughout to the need to protect individual voters when he dealt with the rather quaint and unreasonable ban on opinion polls in South Africa which he thought would influence voters unduly in the casting of their votes. However, despite the hon. the Minister’s attempts to justify the Bill on the grounds that it will be to the advantage of individual voters, the balance of the effect of this Bill is heavily weighted against the individual voter in favour of the big battalions. The whole procedure laid down relating to the registration of political parties is offensive. I do not want to go into any further detail, but if one refers to clause 8, a clause which was also referred to by the hon. member for Sandton, one finds the whole procedure laid down for the registration of political parties. The tremendous power given to the chief electoral officer I think is an unfair power, not that one has no confidence in the person who will occupy the position as chief electoral officer, but I believe it is unfair to give to any public servant the type of responsibility which this Bill in its present form gives to the chief electoral officer. There was the question too of the chief electoral officer relating to the registration of political parties, the question whether this individual must be satisfied that a political party has the object to promote the election of members to Parliament or to a provincial council. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has indicated that this is totally unrealistic. It is totally unrealistic to ask any individual to determine whether any political organization has that as its object before it is recognized as a political party. One wonders about the sorts of problems that will arise when one tries to give interpretation to the provisions of this legislation in matters of this kind.

Then one has had the situation relating to the laying down of all sorts of provisions for political parties, applications that will have to be made, the question of the whole constitution of a political party being open for public inspection, and matters of this kind. Furthermore, there is the question of a deed of foundation which will have to be lodged, as well as other matters which will be open to free public scrutiny.

What is wrong with that?

It is totally unnecessary. Why have controls of this kind? This is putting people at a total disadvantage, as has already been indicated. When the names and addresses of people are open to public scrutiny for the simple purpose of registering the formation of a political party, I suggest it is totally unnecessary.

It goes on to say that the chief electoral officer will also have enormous powers, powers to determine whether the name of a political party is acceptable or not…

If you are not satisfied you can go to court!

Yes, I know that interjection would come from that hon. member because it has come from other hon. members on his side. Certainly, I concede that there is a saving clause in the Bill, a clause which provides that there can be an appeal to the superior courts. However, what about the time involved, and what about the money involved in appeals to court in matters of this nature? Why should we over-legislate in matters of this nature, in matters relating to the name of a political party? Why should we not leave it to the general public of South Africa, to the voters of South Africa, to respond to whether they like the name of a political party or not? We should leave it to the good sense of those who form political parties to provide names which will be acceptable. [Interjections.] This is very much the point. This should not be a matter which should be determined on this basis by a senior electoral officer in South Africa.

If you choose the name Progressive National Party, you’ll get it in the neck. [Interjections.]

The chief electoral officer has further enormous powers in terms of this legislation. He has the power to cancel the registration of political parties and to deal with matters of that kind. Leaving aside, however, the question of political parties; leaving aside the question of whether political parties should be registered, and the question of the person who will qualify for a candidate, I believe there is a very real objection to this Bill, despite what the hon. member for Kimberley South has said, and despite what other hon. members have said, in that it puts minorities at a very distinct disadvantage. I believe it puts individuals or independent candidates at a very distinct disadvantage.

The hon. member for Parow dealt at some length with this question. He spoke about minorities, about individuals, and also referred to “paddastoel-kandidate”. Now, what is the matter with “paddastoel-kandidate”? What is the matter with them taking their part in an election campaign in South Africa? Why should they not take part in an election? Why should individuals, if they think that they have a contribution to make, not be allowed to participate in free elections? Who are we, as part of the political party organization to bar these people from trying to have their say in the electoral processes in South Africa? What is wrong with an ordinary individual in any democracy who stands up and claims that he wants to stand for higher office and that he is going to put up his name as a candidate? Why should we put so many obstacles in the way of that sort of individual? That is exactly what this Bill is doing. It is the democratic right of people to participate in free elections, and unreasonable obstacles should certainly not be placed in their way.

The provision of having to obtain the names of 300 voters, and their addresses, and the provision for these to be made public …

What is wrong with that?

These are major obstacles being placed in the way of ordinary individuals who might seek to stand for election of either a provincial council or of Parliament in South Africa. In the past it was not considered necessary. In the past we were satisfied with any candidate for Parliament or a provincial council having the declared support of a proposer and a seconder. Why do we now suddenly jump to 300 people in this sort of situation? This provision threatens the right of an ordinary individual, a non-party man, to stand for Parliament. It also makes it very difficult for people to indicate their support for him because they know that there is no secrecy involved in the indication of that support because their names are going to be published and they will be open to public scrutiny and surveillance. All and all we believe that there are very serious inroads into the democratic right of individuals to stand as candidates. We urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider this provision particularly. I am referring to the question of 300 signatures having to be obtained.

I now want to deal with the question of the limitation of expenditure as it is contained in this Bill. I believe this is unreasonable and it is going to be extremely difficult to enforce. I believe that this provision will also act unfairly on the smaller parties and will once again favour the big battalions, in this case the Government of the day, the NP. I say this because the restrictions on finances relate basically to publications, to manifestos and to publicity attached to electioneering. They place a restriction on parties to propagate their policies or sell their candidates at the time of an election. While it may be said that this applies to all parties and that within the confines of the provisions of the Bill, this will operate equally on all parties concerned, this, in fact, is not the case. No restrictions are placed, for example, on the use the Government of the day will make of the mass media. No restrictions are placed on the use the Government of the day will make of radio or television facilities during an election. We know, to our cost in South Africa, the totally conscienceless exploitation of the SABC at election time.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense at all. The evidence is there for all to see. No objective observer of SATV or of the SABC at election time can say that any degree of fairness was meted out to the Opposition parties. Hon. members know that to be the case. Although they know it, they will blatantly continue to use the public media which belong to all the people of South Africa to further the interests of the NP. Then they come as their next step with legislation of this kind in an endeavour to restrict the amount of money which ordinary political parties or other ordinary organizations can spend at election times.

Is it because they saw so much of you that you fared so badly?

No, the trouble is that they did not see enough of us; they saw too much of some other people. We did not have those opportunities and the hon. the Prime Minister knows that very well.

There is no doubt that whatever money may be spent on manifestos, on election material, not as great a value can be placed on their impact on the electorate than what one sees on television or hears over the radio. I believe therefore that this clause is not a fair clause. I believe it is going to restrict people unnecessarily and unfairly and I believe it will also restrict groups, interested in an election, when it comes to indicating a preference for candidates and preferences for particular issues which they believe should be considered by the electorate at election time. I think this is also an important part of the electoral process. I believe on any issue, be it a save-our-seals campaign or whatever issue it may be, there should be a right on the part of interests groups to be able to circulate voters, to ask questions of candidates and to indicate a point of view which they believe should be accepted by the electorate. This provision however, as I read it, will exclude the operation of those groups during election time.

How would it stop them?

As I see it, this will be an expenditure of money and it will be exhorting people to adopt a particular stance in support of particular issues. If I am wrong, the hon. member must enlighten me.

The candidate can authorize.

Well, I do not know whether it is the candidate or who it is. The candidate may well be exhorted to sponsor particular causes and if he does so and these outside interests groups spend money to circularize voters to support that candidate because of his support of those causes, then I believe they will fall within the provisions of this legislation. There is also the whole question of free services which can be provided by party supporters. One wonders whether this will not present very grave problems of interpretation. How on earth is one going to place a value on free services given to party supporters on matters referred to in this Bill? I believe that this is going to lead to endless complications, and I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was quite right in reminding the House of the complications which occurred under the previous piece of legislation when accounts had to be submitted. One knows that on the part of all political parties there was a scramble to present accounts, a scramble to submit vouchers, etc. In the end, however, this achieved very little indeed except a great deal of confusion amongst the political parties concerned.

Finally, there is the question of the opinion polls. I think this is a totally retrogressive and outdated step at a time when, whatever individuals might think of opinion polls, throughout the world they are recognized, either in the commercial or political field, as being a fairly scientific test of the commercial or political market. I do not believe that they are there to influence people. I believe that they are there to provide an assessment of market trends and political trends and that they do become a very vital factor in maintaining the interest of the voters and the general public in the progress of the election. I believe they are important and should not be done away with. I feel that the Government should do a rethink on this entire issue. Generally, when one looks at this legislation and weighs up the improvements—and there are improvements; this much I do concede to the hon. the Minister—against the overemphasis on the structuring of political parties and the disabilities placed upon individuals and smaller groups, one finds that the disabilities far outweigh the merits of the Bill. That is why the Bill invites the Opposition of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave, who has just resumed his seat, gave what in my opinion was for the most part a summary of the speeches of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sandton who spoke before him. He also did so very quickly. Come to think of it, it reminded me of a speech which I heard years ago in Hyde Park.

I am also a little concerned about the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not yet entered the debate. Since the hon. member for Musgrave for the most part gave a summary of the objections of the previous two hon. members who spoke in his party, I do not know what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as a person who also served on the Select Committee, is going to say. I am fully aware of the fact that he commented adversely on many of these recommendations, but there are many of the others that he agreed with. If I think back to the contribution that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made, I, for my part see that he made quite a number of negative remarks about a committee appointed by the hon. Speaker to investigate this important matter; a committee on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself served. I want to point out that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke, inter alia, about ill-considered, thoughtless decisions. He spoke of the fact that the bad outweighs the good in this legislation as a whole, although the largest portion of the legislation is based on the recommendations of the Select Committee. I find it shocking when an hon. member uses this type of language in this House about the functions of a committee that has investigated this matter for two or three years. I also find it shocking because of the fact that the committee was made up of representatives of the various parties in this House. To come along now and to say that it is ill-considered and thoughtless is, in my opinion, indicative of contempt for the Select Committee and the work it did, a Select Committee of which the leader of the hon. member’s party was also a member.

As far as the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave is concerned, there is only one thing to which I should like to react at the moment. He commented adversely on the clause that provides that candidates must receive 300 signatures at the time of their nomination if their party is not yet represented here. He said that minorities were being wronged. At the same time he also mentioned that it was in conflict with the principle of democracy, that we should protect the democratic right of every voter to make himself available for election and that we should not put problems in his way. On the other hand, though, we cannot make a mockery of democracy. I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is quite possible to make a mockery of a good principle in practice if it is applied incorrectly. In contrast to the limitations that obtaining 300 signatures will place on the democratic right of a voter, I can say: What about the thousands of other voters and the State as a whole when we are dealing with the type of party that the hon. member for Parow called mushroom parties, that are going to force an election upon a constituency with a concomitant loss of time, manpower and a large amount of money? Does that not count more than the right that one gives every voter in any event, after he has obtained 300 signatures, to make himself available for election? After all, one is not depriving him of the right completely. If such a person feels that he belongs to a party that has the right to make him eligible for election, a party with the necessary aims, etc., we are not putting an impossible obstacle in his path, because he can nevertheless make himself available for election. I think it is also important for us in this regard to take into consideration the right of the other voters as far as the loss of money, etc. is concerned.

It was hon. members of the Official Opposition in particular who were guilty of drawing comparisons between the parties during the discussion of this legislation. Nevertheless it is those same hon. members who also make a big fuss about us taking the principle into consideration. I want to agree that as far as this matter is concerned, we must take the principle into consideration and not play the parties off against one another.

In any democratic country, an election is an extremely important occasion because that election will establish the Government, and the Government of a country in its turn will determine the future of the people. It determines either its survival or downfall. It determines the aspirations of that nation. It determines its foundation and its principles. It determines whether there will be economic progress or stagnation. It determines its relationship with other countries as well as its domestic relationships. It also watches over all the citizens of the country. We adhere to a democratic system in terms of which we want to give every person the right to decide for himself who should represent him and consequently what Government should represent him. That is why representatives must be elected by all enfranchised citizens.

The way in which the election takes place, and the electoral system as such, is therefore extremely important. I feel that a system like this should definitely comply with certain requirements and I want to point out a few of those requirements. Firstly, it must not leave any uncertainty about any aspect of the election itself. I think that our Electoral Act and the amendments to it that are before the House at the moment, do this very well indeed. Secondly, it must be fair towards all citizens as well as towards all political parties who have an objective and who qualify in the sense that they can come up with a policy. Thirdly, it must decide fairly about who may receive the franchise. Our Electoral Laws make excellent provision for this. Furthermore, the system as such must be simple and easy to understand. In this regard I want to point out that clause 18, for instance, provides for the use of two envelopes, one for the parliamentary election and one for the provincial election, with special and postal votes. This is one example of how this legislation aims at making our system easy for and understandable to the voter. Clause 32 determines, inter alia, that ballot papers for the election of candidates for the House of Assembly and the provincial council should be printed in contrasting colours. Clause 48 provides that the words “Vote for one Candidate only”, should be deleted from the ballot paper since it has been proved in the past that these words cause confusion amongst the voters. The amendment Bill before the House at present, therefore succeeds very well in achieving the goal of establishing a simple, understandable system.

An electoral system, however, must also be efficient. Clause 12 provides, inter alia, that a polling district may not consist of more than 3 000 voters. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth objected to the figure 3 000. His main objection is based on the fact that one cannot apply to the State President within a short period of time for a constituency to consist of more than 3 000 voters. After all, it is clear that we know how many voters there are in a constituency long before the nomination day is determined. I cannot see why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central should have problems with it. Clause 11 provides that every voter should be informed in writing of the place where the election is going to be held, of the polling station, the date, the voting hours and the identification requirements that voters must comply with.

This is a wonderful demonstration of the efficiency of the legislation that is before us at the moment. The legislation also provides that the period between proclamation and nomination day should be extended from 21 days to 28 days. This will contribute largely towards the efficiency of the system.

There is also another requirement with which a good electoral system must comply, viz. that every registered voter must be afforded an opportunity to make himself available for election provided he complies with certain fair requirements. Proof of that is that the deposit is being reduced from R600 to R400 so that it should be financially possible for every candidate to pay his deposit if he wants to make himself available for election. Clause 39 limits the cost of election publications to R5 000 per constituency during a general election, and R10 000 during a by-election. Hon. members of the Opposition are objecting to this provision, but it is nevertheless in the interests of a candidate that he should be able to compete on a fair basis with another candidate who may have abundant funds at his disposal.

It is for that very reason that I feel it is a sound principle that a limit should be placed on the application of funds for elections so that everyone can be treated alike. Another requirement is laid down, viz. that it should be made possible and convenient for every voter to cast his vote. The legislation succeeds here too, and I am now referring to clause 3. That clause provides that voters who live in an independent homeland are registered in the constituency in which the closest magistrate’s office to his place of residence is situated, measured in a direct line. Furthermore, clauses 13, 16 and also various other clauses succeed in making it possible for every voter to cast his vote conveniently.

Another requirement is that voters must be protected from intimidation or unjustified influence. Clause 39 places a limitation on the costs of an election. In terms of clause 41 the prohibition of undue influencing is made more effective. Clause 45 deals with the prohibition of opinion polls. The hon. member for Sandton said that the voters have the right to be provided with information. There are various other ways, however, in which voters can be provided with information during elections. It is not necessary to use an opinion poll because such an opinion poll may be extremely confusing for the voter if it is done by using specific questions aimed at creating a specific image. That is why it is also important that the voter should be protected against such undue influence.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned for dinner, I pointed out that a good electoral system in a democratic country must comply with certain requirements. Amongst other things, there should be no uncertainty; it should be fair towards all citizens and political parties; it should be simple and easy to understand; it should be efficient; it should offer every registered citizen the opportunity to make himself available for election and it should make it possible for every voter to cast his vote. Then there are three other requirements which must be made. Firstly, the voter must be protected against improper practices by parties or representatives of parties. Clause 40 of the Bill also succeeds in granting this certainty in the sense that it prohibits treating and that the provisions in this regard will be applied more strictly in accordance with the legislation before the House at the moment. A further requirement is that the voters must be protected against the party whose objectives are not clear and whose existence is not justified. Clause 8 of the Bill provides for the registration of the parties and also that the deed of foundation and the registration documents of the party should be available to the public. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout objected to this very strongly, but I am of the opinion that if a political party has a policy of which it may be proud, and of which it wants to be proud, it will be very pleased to seize every opportunity to put its policy, including its deed of foundation, etc. at the disposal of the public, so that the voters can know what it is all about. I therefore cannot see why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout objects to the fact that these documents should be made available to the public. Furthermore, clause 8 also provides that the name of the party to which a candidate belongs, should in future appear on the ballot paper. I feel this is also a particularly important amendment since problems may arise when candidates in the same constituency has the same surname.

Finally, an electoral system must comply with another requirement too, i.e. that it should protect the country against unnecessary, excessive election expenditure and the concomitant loss of time and manpower. In order to prevent this, clause 9 provides that candidates who do not even enjoy nominal support in their specific constituencies must present 300 signatures at the time of their nomination. Various hon. members objected to this. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said, inter alia, that he was in favour of 50 signatures, but not of 300.

The hon. member was also opposed to making available the names and addresses of the people whose signatures were obtained. I have already dealt with this in the sense that I cannot understand why a party that is to be founded, or a party that has already been registered, is of the opinion that its policy is such that it will find it difficult to obtain 300 signatures. The period within which it must obtain the 300 signatures, is also adequate, in my opinion, especially if such a party’s documents are in order and if its policy attracts the attention of the voting public. As far as the hon. member’s argument against providing the addresses and names of the people whose signatures are being used, I just want to say that I personally am not ashamed to be a Nationalist. Hon. members who raised the argument that there may be public servants, teachers, etc., for whom it may not be possible to have their names and addresses appear on the list. If the people’s signatures appear there, surely they can be identified in any event, especially when the constituency falls within a small area. I therefore cannot understand how hon. members can object to the fact that the names and addresses should also appear in full when these people affix their signatures to the declaration.

I therefore content myself with the opinion that this specific amendment Bill will produce good results in the future. Tested against the principles, this electoral system is a system of which any democratic country may be proud.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall refer to certain of the aspects raised by the hon. member for Virginia. I agree with him in respect of many of the matters he raised, but there are other aspects we can argue in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

In the first place I want to express my appreciation to the Chief Whip of the Government, the hon. member for Parow, who acted as chairman of the Select Committee which considered this Bill and the background to this Bill for more than two years. It was a Select Committee which took up duty very seriously, a committee which, week after week and year after year, devoted attention to problems which had arisen throughout the history of elections. As the hon. Chief Whip has said, the committee even went so far as to study systems and methods that were being applied abroad. I think the subcommittee to which the hon. Chief Whip referred, was a very good choice. There could not have been a more able subcommittee, and it came back with new ideas and new concepts. I am convinced that if further investigation is necessary, the hon. the Minister will know whom to look to carry the investigation further and to go into matters more thoroughly, matters which, owing to a lack of time, we were unable to investigate properly!

The NRP supports the principle of the Bill, and therefore also its Second Reading. I shall motivate our support for the legislation within a few moments, because I think it is necessary that everybody should know where my party stands in this matter. When we come to a decision, the House and the nation should know what we have taken decisions about. Objections in principle have been raised to the Bill, and I think it is necessary to refer to them immediately.

†The hon. member for Sandton moved an amendment rejecting the Second Reading of the Bill and motivated his amendment on a number of premises which he said made the Bill unacceptable to the Official Opposition. He was then followed by other hon. members of his party who carried that motivation further. I want to say immediately that on a number of the issues which were raised, the Official Opposition has as usual missed the point entirely. Let us take the first basic reason for opposition, i.e. the opposition to the postponement, in terms of the Bill, of a general registration until 1982. The Official Opposition has immediately jumped to the conclusion that there is going to be no general registration, no cleaning up of the voters’ roll, and that we are going to sit back happily for four years. Exaggerated language was used and reference made to a “grossly swollen roll” and a “totally unrepresentative roll”.

A draconian measure! Their usual expression!

That is the problem when one uses excessive language to try to express opposition. However, that is not the object of this postponement. The PFP knows that as well as I know it, because it was discussed with Opposition parties. The intention is to try to find some better way of creating an up-to-date voters’ roll. The present envisaged system of the Book of Life is obviously and clearly not going to work.

The Government do not admit that, do they?

The Government do admit it. The mere fact of the introduction of this measure incorporating the postponement and the statement which explains it, is an admission that the Book of Life will not produce the up-to-date and clean voters’ roll we had anticipated.

Are you talking on the Government’s behalf?

It was admitted to me quite frankly. If it has not been admitted to the PFP, it must show some lack of confidence from the Government in the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] However, in discussions which I have had, it has been accepted that even if people have their Book of Life, they do not notify changes of their addresses sufficiently to ensure that the Book of Life will give one an up to date voters’ roll. In his introductory statement the hon. the Minister said that they were considering—I want to urge that this consideration be very serious—a decentralization of control over the compilation of the voters’ roll. In, for example, four constituencies in London, between them containing 250 000 voters in one municipal area, four staff members keep that voters’ roll up to date virtually in complete order up to the last adjustment, because they have at their disposal all the information available to a local authority such as the electricity accounts, water accounts, council housing rent lists, and all the records which show the movement of people from day to day. This staff of four, who have the use of a computer, are able to keep 250 000 strong voters’ roll up to date, ready to be used at any moment at short notice. I believe this is what we must do in South Africa. The voters’ roll should be compiled at the level of major municipalities which have the facilities to handle it. This could be decided upon next year. According to the hon. the Minister an investigation is at present in progress. If that investigation produces the answer, we can amend the legislation next year to provide a new system which can provide a new voters’ roll.

I have already discussed it with the municipal authorities.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his interjection that he has already discussed it with the municipal authorities. However, what does the Official Opposition propose? They propose that we immediately have a general registration, one year after a general election! In four or five years’ time, when we have another general election, one will have a voters’ roll which will be totally out of date and totally useless. What sort of alternative proposal is that? We accept that this postponement until 1982 is simply to allow a better and more effective procedure to be investigated. We shall certainly make our contribution in the form of positive proposals in order to achieve that better system and we hope the Official Opposition will also consider doing so.

I now want to refer to the registration of parties. The registration of parties is suddenly described as an unholy and macabre system designed to destroy democracy, to remove the rights of individuals and to cause small parties to be dominated by big parties. As a small party we accept the principle of registration. There is a state of flux in politics today. One of the things we encountered in the last election in constituency after constituency was voters wanting to know who the candidates were for the different parties. They did not know. They were confused and they wanted to know the names of the parties of candidates. It appears on a British ballot paper. I have here an example of the Wandsworth/Battersea South constituency which shows the name of the party, i.e. the Conservative Party, the National Front candidate, the Liberal Party, the Labour Party.

Do they register parties?

No. They have them on the ballot paper. The Official Opposition opposes the principle of having the name of the party on the ballot paper. [Interjections.] One of their speakers said so.

Who said that?

One of them.

No. [Interjections.]

Thank you, they are halfway there then. I have established my point. The PFP do not oppose having the name of the party on the ballot paper.

You were not listening!

I was listening. I want to get a clear acceptance. They therefore accept that the name of the party must be on the ballot paper. However, they accept that the candidate can claim anything that he likes, i.e. that he can claim to belong to any party. He can give it any name he wants and it need not be registered. Whatever the candidate says his party is, that name must be put on the ballot paper. They go halfway and then stall at the logical conclusion which it leads to. If they want the name of the party on the ballot paper, surely one must register it? Are they afraid of registering their party? They have had three names in three years. [Interjections.] We have only changed once. They were the Progressive Party, then the Progressive Reform Party and now they are the Progressive Federal Party. They are also holding a congress in November to find a new policy. They do not want to have to keep changing their names on the register. But that is not a reason for opposing the principle of the Bill. The fact that they keep changing the name of their party annually is no reason for opposing the principle of registering the name of a party.

We have certain difficulties regarding the mechanism of the Bill, with which we shall deal in the Committee Stage. The Select Committee agreed that names should not be attached to the document registering the parties. That was a proposal which was unanimously accepted by the Select Committee. I have a copy of the report of the Select Committee here, but I shall deal with it in the Committee Stage. However, it was agreed in Select Committee that no names would be attached to the document registering parties. It would simply be a declaration stating that 50 people had attended. This was unanimously accepted except for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. All other hon. members accepted that and we shall therefore move that we return to the recommendation of the Select Committee. That destroys the whole argument of secrecy on which the Official Opposition based their frantic opposition to the registration of parties.

I now wish to deal with publications. I wish to clarify this matter in the Committee Stage, but as I read the provision it allows for R5 000 per election, i.e. a parliamentary and a provincial election. This would therefore mean R10 000 per joint election, an amount which was suggested in the Select Committee, namely R5 000 per candidate.

That is so.

I read it that way, too.

It is R5 000 per candidate.

That means R10 000 per election. Any political party that wants to spend more than R10 000 on publicity and publications, i.e. on printing, to fight an election, is not fighting an election as we know it in South Africa. They then become the cohorts of big money. They become the money power in politics. If they want to spend more than R10 000 I believe that they are then introducing the American system of elections in South Africa, a system which South Africa does not need and does not want. South Africa does not want the million dollar candidates, the man who can only fight an election if he has the big money behind him. We fight for the right of anybody to fight an election and not just the nominees and pets of big money in South Africa. We are therefore in favour of the limitation of this expenditure.

We have heard very little on the question of expenditure on treating and liquor parties. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Groote Schuur, being the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, whether he remembers a certain tent where his colleague the hon. member for Rondebosch held nightly cocktail parties to introduce himself to the electorate? This happened night after night in a marquee tent. Did the hon. member for Groote Schuur object to that?

Yes!

Yes, the hon. member objected to it. Did we obtain legal advice in order to try to put a stop to it, just to discover that it could not be stopped? This hon. Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, whose party now opposes the limitation on the entertainment of voters … [Interjections.] That hon. member was the one who took exception to the treating of voters with liquor in a marquee tent in Rondebosch, where voters could call on their way home from work to meet the candidate and to be influenced in how they were to vote. [Interjections.]

Did that happen in the last election?

No, that was during the 1974 election campaign. [Interjections.] As far as I am concerned a principle remains a principle whatever party I belong to. I do not change my policy and my principles because I have changed my party. What was wrong in 1974 remains wrong in 1978. Because it was wrong when that hon. member lost the election it does not make it right when he wins an election. [Interjections.] It remains wrong and I still maintain it is wrong. [Interjections.]

Then, we have the political floating trophy of South Africa, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was opposed to the registration of political parties because, according to him, it is undemocratic; it takes away a man’s right to change his party. According to him it takes away a man’s right to change his ideas and to follow different ones. Well, the floating trophy—they say after winning it the seventh time you keep it … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout started as a member of the UP. From there he went to the NP; then to the HNP—of course, that was then the Herenigde Nasionale Party—and then again to the NP. From there he went to the National Union; then to the UP again, and finally, he is now with the PFP. Seven times lucky! I hope they keep their floating trophy. [Interjections.] Is the registration of political parties going to remove his right to change? Does it remove my right to belong to my party after my old one decided to dissolve? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon washed his hands like Pontius Pilate of the dissolution of the UP. [Interjections.] He now claims to have had nothing to do with it, to have voted against its dissolution. Mr. Speaker, I have a file, a bulky file, on that particular issue. If I had the time to deal with his part in the destruction of the UP … Well, he is now where he is happy. We dissolved the UP and we formed a new party, as is our right. [Interjections.] I say to the Government that this party is going to grow bigger and bigger. This party of ours is going to be a force in South African politics. We are not afraid to register our party, to have it openly known to the world and to get people to know who we are and what we are. [Interjections.] We accept the principle of registration. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Musgrave keeps on interjecting. I can suggest something else in which he might have taken an interest. However, I am not going to raise it now. All I can say is that I think he was very fortunate in having the opponent he had in the last election, an opponent who did not use certain apologies and public admissions which he had in his possession. The hon. member talks of the rights of individuals. I do not intend to take this matter any further, but I should like to advise the hon. member … [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that he knows that one of his workers filed a public apology which his opponent did not use, a public apology in connection with misrepresentation. [Interjections.] The hon. member says he knows nothing about it. I say the more we can clean up the electoral laws to prevent any sort of abuse, the better I shall like it.

What innuendoes are you casting? Please explain yourself.

I am not casting innuendoes; I am saying that one of the hon. member’s workers filed a document admitting that he had made false statements about his opponent.

I know nothing about it.

The hon. member’s opponent was too much of a gentleman to use that at the election.

Will you please elaborate?

If the hon. member says he knows nothing about it, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt.

The benefit of a bad memory.

Let me come to some other aspects of the measure which is being so violently opposed. We have raised certain questions which we shall take further during the Committee Stage. Firstly, there is the question of the number of voters who should sign a nomination. We have suggested 50. This, however, is a matter of detail. The principle that there should be a certain number of signatures is a principle which we can accept. We shall argue during the Committee Stage as to what that number should be.

We have accepted that the registration system can be delayed while we find a new one. We have accepted a limitation on expenditure on printing and publication. We accept the limitation of treating to liquor not more than 10 persons on the cocktail circuit.

We regret that the recommendation of the Select Committee in regard to the interference with and harassment of voters was not incorporated in this measure. In recent years—I say it here without any fear of contradiction—and since the advent of the PFP and its fore-runner, this has become even more marked—the interference with voters as they arrive at the polling booths, the physical grabbing of them and mauling them to a table, is something which I believe is not worthy of South African politics. [Interjections.] When people do it, others react to it, but I condemn it whoever does it. I should like the British system applied here. In Britain people come in and once they reach the polling booth the car must drop them outside the gate and they must walk in totally unmolested and totally unassisted not even in so far as the issue of their numbers at a table is concerned. They go in with their voting cards—I have an example of such a card here—which they then hand to the returning officer and they obtain their ballot papers. Political parties do not in any way interfere with them. We should like to see that happen in South Africa.

We should have liked to have seen the introduction of the postal vote only being permitted to a person who could not obtain a special vote. As the hon. the Chief Whip has mentioned the British application form for a postal vote only has three entries on it. That is all a person fills in for a postal vote; none of the elaborate procedure we have here. I should like to see a simplification, but at the same time a limitation that you can only apply for a postal vote if it is awkward or difficult to use a special vote.

I should like to have seen a reference by the hon. the Minister to the recommendation in regard to one free postal delivery of a candidate’s manifesto or documentation. The State should finance, as they do in other countries, one posting …

We need not legislate for that.

Yes, that is so, but the hon. the Minister did not mention it. I said that I should have liked him to mention it.

I should have liked to hear him refer to the unanimous recommendation that parties should be granted time on TV to put political policy and that there should be political panel debates. This was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee which I hope will still be implemented.

I should obviously have also liked to see something that not even the Select Committee would accept. I refer to the subsidization of political parties as they do in Germany. I should, however, not like to see it done on the basis of an equal amount per vote. I think it should be given in inverse proportion to the number of votes the parties get!

Finally, I should like to have seen reference—and perhaps the hon. the Minister will reply to this—to the suggestion that we consider mechanical voting in the major urban polling booths to eliminate spoilt papers and to make instantaneous counting possible. It involves a simple machine which would cost next to nothing, and by simply pulling a lever one nominates one’s candidate. There are no spoilt papers and no count. One simply reads off the final vote on a dial. There are various other aspects of the Bill that we want to come to during the Committee Stage where we shall deal with them in more detail.

What about opinion polls?

Opinion polls, sorry! Yes! I do have a note about that. [Interjections.] I have changed my mind about opinion polls.

Why?

I have changed my mind because I believe that it would be wrong for us, a party which was harmed by opinion polls, a party which was knocked by them, to now react by supporting their abolition by Parliament.

But it is a matter of principle.

I believe that it would be wrong for us to use our position in Parliament to this end. Remember, the Select Committee sat before the last election; after one opinion poll, but before the last election.

If it was wrong then, it is wrong now.

I believe that it would be small of us and dishonest to say that because we got hit, we are now going to support the abolition of these polls.

Are you getting upset?

I agree, and I make no bones about it, that I do not like opinion polls. The evidence overseas is that they are not liked, but I believe it is wrong to come as the loser, the squealer, and attempt, through co-operation on a matter like this, to cover oneself.

Did you hear what Pyper said this afternoon? [Interjections.]

Order!

I heard him say that we would oppose them, and that is what I am saying we are going to do. I am, however, motivating our reason for having changed our attitude.

Over supper?

No, over the last eight months. Over the last eight months we have seen ourselves suffer as a party. The results, however, show that those polls were correct about our position, and because of that we accept that it would be wrong now to use our position in Parliament to try to fight against something because we were the victims of a something which was proved correct. We would consider banning them over a period before the election, as we argued in the Select Committee. The hon. Chief Whip will remember that we argued that they should be banned during the last 10 days before an election.

If that is your moral basis, why do you not stick to it?

Because we believe that they should not be limited completely during an election, as this Bill wants to do. Because of our position … [Interjections.]

The trouble is that the Official Opposition does not recognize a thing called gentlemanliness, sportsmanship, playing the game, call it what you will. That rule says that one does not misuse one’s position to hit at something which has hurt you. In this case we were the victims and we do not want it to appear that because we suffered, we now come to Parliament in an attempt to destroy, to prevent or outlaw the holding of those polls. We are prepared to face the consequences. We do not like them. I make no bones about that. We are not, however, prepared to associate ourselves with their banning at this stage because we do not believe this would be in the correct spirit in the situation we are placed in as a party. We are a new party. We have had to take a decision on this in the light of our situation today and not in the light of the situation as it was in 1975 and 1976. In the circumstances as they exist today, we are not going to support it, but at the same time we are not going overboard on this. We are simply stating that we do not want to tie ourselves to the opposition on this.

Other matters we want to deal with will be raised in Committee. There will be ample opportunity to discuss them all. I hope we will get some answers from those who have seen fit to attack our stand and our approach in supporting this measure at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have very great respect for the knowledge which the hon. member for Durban Point has of organization work for elections. He has many years’ experience of that, and while he was speaking, I was with him almost all the way and agreed with him in almost every respect I must say, however, that as far as his logic in respect of opinion polls is concerned, I have never seen anything to equal that. We have heard the peculiar logic from the hon. member that although he and his party are in fact opposed to opinion polls and although the last election demonstrated that their opposition to opinion polls was justified, because their party was the one to suffer as a result of opinion polls during the recent election, they are going to support opinion polls precisely for that reason. I could hardly believe my ears when a senior parliamentarian like this hon. member came to light with this kind of argument.

So much has already been said about the subject, that very little can be added. I think one can merely sum up by saying that as we see it, this Bill is the result—as has already been stated—of two years’ hard and meticulous work on the part of the Select Committee, that well-considered recommendations have been made, and that, in the main, effect has been given to those recommendations in this Bill. The hon. member for Virginia laid down quite a few requirements with which a democratic election in South Africa has to comply in order to comply with Western standards. I just want to summarize briefly the three basic principles. According to Western standards, elections should be secret; voters must be free of influencing; and the election procedure must be simple and understandable. Every single clause in this Bill complies with these requirements. Every clause actually results in greater and more effective compliance with these principles. I do not want to go into that again, because that has already been done more than adequately by previous speakers.

Seen from our side of the House, this Bill is therefore simply an attempt—in my view a successful attempt—to make our election machinery function more smoothly and effectively. As the hon. member for Kimberley South correctly stated, our election procedure should be a changing procedure, because our circumstances change. In this connection, one need only refer to new means of communication which makes several aspects of elections different today from what they were in the past. In addition mechanical voting procedures will probably make election procedures different to what they are today. From our point of view, it is therefore improved legislation. But if one listens to the fluttering of the Opposition parties, for and against the legislation, one comes to the conclusion that, because one of the smaller Opposition parties does in fact support the principles, this legislation is indeed a protection to the smaller parties. In view of the cardinal aspects of this measure, one can see how hollow are the arguments of the Official Opposition that the man in the street, the small party, will suffer as a result of this measure. In fact the smallest of the smaller parties is the staunchest supporter of this legislation.

In passing, I want to refer to yet another aspect, and that is the reference by the hon. member for Durban Point to the postal vote system. He said he would like to see this system disappear completely. He therefore prefers only the postal vote system or the absent voter system to be used when a voter is unable to make use of a special vote. As I have said, the entire purpose of this measure is, inter alia, the simplification of the legislation, and it is directed at facilitating the opportunity which the voter has of casting his vote. If, by the use of the two systems, one affords more voters the opportunity of casting their vote—whether by way of postal votes or by way of special votes—it would be wrong to curtail that opportunity by forcing all voters to make use of the one system only. The hon. member for Durban Point has also spoken of “harassment” and stricter measures which they would like to see to counter the influencing of voters. However, sufficient provision has already been made in this legislation to counter the phenomenon, and such provision is also made in the existing Electoral Act. If legislation were to be adopted which altogether prohibits physical interference with voters, the welcoming committees which political parties have at polling booths, would be jeopardized. After all, the presiding officer at a polling station has a discretion which he is able to exercise.

In conclusion, I should like to stress that we have before us a valuable piece of work by a Select Committee which, in my view, has resulted in a valuable piece of legislation. There are also recommendations by the Select Committee which will not be or need not be handled by way of legislation. I think it would be a pity if there were to be no reaction to these recommendations, and I trust that it is the intention of the Government to give effect to these recommendations as well. A very important recommendation has been made in connection with the consolidation of the Act and the regulations. Furthermore, there are also administrative matters which, I think, require improvement. I am thinking in particular of constituencies in suburban areas. During the past election, we found that election campaigns in such constituencies were accompanied by great inconvenience if a magistrate was designated as returning officer while his office is situated in the centre city, approximately 15 to 20 km from the constituency. I can enlarge on that, but I do not think this is the time or the place to do so. According to the report by the Select Committee, we are moving in the right direction, because effect is being given to a great number of the recommendations by the committee, and I trust that those recommendations which can be implemented by administrative means, will also receive attention.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central put our point of view regarding this Bill as a whole. We support the Bill as a whole, but we strongly object to certain provisions of the legislation and we are going to vote against those provisions as the hon. member indicated.

†I want to speak briefly on three clauses of the Bill tonight, i.e. clauses 39 and 40 and the clause relating to public opinion polls. These three new clauses are in the Bill due to the activities of one political party, and one political party alone. No one is enthusiastic about the requirements, under the principal Act, to make election expenditure returns. Most of us found that it was tiresome and that it was a nuisance. With the abolition of that requirement, however, came abuse of the whole system of fighting elections, not in the platteland, but in the towns. Clause 39 of the Bill amends section 97 of the principal Act and deals with expenditure on election publications. It makes provision for the return to the electoral officer of particulars of expenditure arising from the printing of posters, pamphlets, notices and circulars and the issuing of special election newspapers. It places limits on election expenditure to the extent of R5 000 per candidate for a general election, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, and R10 000 in a by-election. We think those limits are too high and we propose moving an amendment in the Committee Stage which will reduce the expenditure for these purposes, i.e. for election publications, to R3 000 per candidate in the case of a general election and to R5 000 in the case of a by-election. The new limiting provisions of clause 39 are good provisions in that they do not favour the rich at the expense of the not so rich. They in fact equalize the candidates’ ability to sell themselves to the voters. We think it is a necessary provision and that it is a provision that is specifically there to prevent the abuse that took place particularly in the ranks of the Official Opposition in the 1974 and the 1977 elections.

The technique employed by the Official Opposition in these last two elections, has been to have thousands and thousands of posters, tens of thousands of handbills issued and delivered by hand, tens of thousands of letters and pamphlets sent through the post. Let us look at their posters for a moment. Their technique—I speak for the urban areas, because they never see their way clear to fighting a platteland seat—is to put their posters on lamp-poles with the objective to try and crowd out their opponent. They have as many as five, six, eight or even ten posters on both sides of one lamp-pole. This practice leads to retailiation by their opponents. This is regrettable, but it happens; it is extreme provocation when one is unable to get one’s posters onto any lamp-post within miles of a polling booth. This is then the sort of reaction one can expect. It is entirely due to Prog selfishness and the new form of techniques of fighting elections which come from the Official Opposition.

It is the American technique.

Let us deal with the question of pamphlets. These pamphlets are not party policy pamphlets, but special election pamphlets. In my constituency, Simonstown, as many as 15 election pamphlets were issued during the course of the election. It was done by post and by hand and, in the case of deliveries by hand, it was of course Coloured and Black deliverymen who had to put the pamphlets in the post boxes.

You are fortunate not to have been opposed by the HNP!

These are some examples of the wholesale abuse of normal election practices in so far as the advertising of a candidate is concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister too whether he has perhaps given thought to the insertion of full-page newspaper advertisements. I do not know whether this is in fact covered in this Bill, but it is something which we shall certainly have to give consideration to. Hon. members will remember that there were at least two full-page election pamphlets in The Argus, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Express. According to one of these advertisements Colin was flying to Johannesburg to meet Harry and then he was going to meet Japie, Kowie, Zac, Dave and the whole lot of them. When a critical type of propaganda was effectively being used against the PFP, another enormous page appeared in the Sunday Times—I understand it must have cost R5 000 per page—under the heading “It’s a lie” and refuting everything that was being said about the PFP. Who but they can afford such propaganda?

Clause 40, which substitutes a new section in place of section 113 of the principal Act, outlaws treating. In recent years we have had the spectacle of house meetings organized by Progressive candidates and their helpers where cheese and wine are served and beer flows freely, even amongst the youth. I must say that the abuse which has taken place on those occasions by young people is something to be deplored by all of us involved in the political process in South Africa. There were even instances such as the hiring of tents, referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point, in the case of the first election of the hon. member for Rondebosch, cocktails for voters before lunch and cocktails before dinner—the most sophisticated form of liquor entertainment that one can think of! [Interjections.] I hope that this particular clause concerning treating is sufficiently widely framed to be able to combat all the abuses that have been perpetrated by the hon. members of the PFP in fighting elections here in the Peninsula. [Interjections.]

I have referred to the question of their techniques. These are techniques which are not South African techniques. They have been imported; they have been learnt by these hon. gentlemen overseas. They are the worst kind of electioneering methods, methods which I think they have learned from their friends in the United States of America It is only right that they should be stopped and I welcome the provisions of the Bill which in effect will stop these abuses.

I want to conclude with a few remarks about opinion polls. I have not changed my mind about opinion polls! I do not believe that opinion polls such as we have seen in the last couple of elections have been fair opinion polls.

I do not believe they have been correctly and properly conducted. I believe they have been perpetrated with a view to shaping election results.

Have they been accurate?

This method of opinion polls has also been imported. Mr. Speaker, I have so far this session not reacted to one single interjection by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. He happens to be the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in the House. In the period of time that I have been in the House, I have come across good and bad Government and Opposition Chief Whips. But of them have conducted themselves with some degree of dignity and some degree of courtesy. In the case of this particular hon. gentleman, it is time that he went back to kindergarten and learned some good manners and dignity.

And the courtesy with which you treated me about your offices at the beginning of the session? [Interjections.] Ask the Speaker about that!

As I have said, the method of opinion polls has also been imported. I say that with the Press monopolies that exist in South Africa, the results can only be loaded against the opponents of those particular newspapers. In the case of so-called academics who have taken part in these opinion polls, it seems, to me that they have been nothing more nor less than the agents of the PFP. If there were a free Press in South Africa one could support the idea of opinion polls, but opinion polls in a monopolistic Press situation like under the present circumstances are as biased as is the political reporting of the so-called free Press.

What about Rapport?

These opinion polls cannot be true reflections of public opinion because the publishers of those public opinion poll results and the people who run them, are not free men.

I should now like to come to the question of expenditure at the last election. I shall not go as far back as the 1974 election, but I will deal with the 1977 election. I should like to challenge the PFP, and more particularly the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition here tonight, to publish the expenditure in a constituency here in the Peninsula that was won by the PFP. We shall take, for example, the constituency of Sea Point. I challenge the hon. Leader of the Opposition to say how much they spent on winning Sea Point in the last election. I then let the PFP also publish the figures of expenditure in a constituency where they lost. Again, in the case of the Peninsula, they can take the constituency of Simonstown. Let them publish how much they spent on the constituency of Simonstown and I shall make available my books for public scrutiny as to the amount which I spent on that constituency. [Interjections.] I also suggest that the PFP take for example a couple of seats on the Witwatersrand and give the figures of expenditure that was spent by that party during the last election. The public’s eyes would then be opened!

With regard to these three clauses of the Bill, there is one political party in South Africa, and one political party alone, which is to blame for the legislation which is being introduced in the House, and that is the Official Opposition, the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down seems to share obsessions which I think run through this legislation. He has a particular bee in his bonnet—he has had it for a session or more— on the question of the Press. In the background he has a problem about the progress the old PP, later the PRP and now the PFP, have made. I shall say what is wrong with the hon. member. Instead of challenging other people to disclose what is confidential information, this gentleman, who possesses all the information about alleged abuses, should have appeared before the Select Committee. He, MPs and political parties were invited, but not a single member of the then UP, with the exception of Senator Horak, came along and gave any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the kind of loose talk and arguments we have heard from the hon. member. The hon. member knows that the publishing of figures concerning political parties expenditure is not the normal procedure. [Interjections.] We shall ask the hon. former mayor of Port Elizabeth to present all the figures of all the by-elections he has fought in his time!

Give a round figure. That will satisfy me.

I called for a number of accounts concerning random constituencies to obtain the figures of what my party had spent—not to defend it, but because I believe that the figure of R5 000 or R10 000 is an arbitary one. I served on the Select Committee and nobody ever presented me or the Select Committee with the reason why it should be R5 000 and not R4 000 or R20 000. The figure of R5 000 or R10 000 was just presented without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it. All I can say is that I have the audited accounts of a number of constituencies. One of them happens to be the Sea Point constituency, where in the area which this Bill seeks to control there will be another 100% to spare on the money spent on publications. That is the situation. The hon. member can accept this. He can accept the situation that a small political party which is fighting 60 constituencies at the drop of a hat, could not be in a position to expend these tremendous sums he suggests. The hon. member is looking for excuses. What he should own up to is the fact that had it not been for the active support of the Nationalists in Simonstown, he would not have won at all. The hon. member must take his medicine. He came into this House on the back of the NP. If the NP accepts him, he might even in due course join it. After the next election he will either be gone or be a member of the NP.

Before I come to the Bill I want to deal briefly with the hon. member for Durban Point, who, as is his wont, livened up the proceedings this evening by saying that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had changed his principles while he himself is “behoudend”, consistent, and never changes his principles or arguments. However, having voted for and having instituted the concept of abolishing public opinion polls—it was his initiative that we should abolish them—he now says that because in the last elections his party suffered from them we should therefore not abolish them. Is he putting the interests of his party beyond the interests of the country? If it were correct to argue in favour of public opinion polls a year ago, why is it wrong to argue in favour of them now? Even on historical evidence the hon. member is not correct, because I know of no public opinion poll which damaged the hon. member during the last election. His party was after all a brand new political party. There was no history or record of attachment of the NRP. No public opinion polls were produced which were damaging one way or the other to the Opposition parties, because they were new political parties which had just been formed and there was no record with which they could be compared. However at the very time the hon. member was arguing in favour of banning public opinion polls—it was after the election of 1974—he alleged that the UP was damaged. He also said that they were damaged by public opinion polls during the by-election in Pinelands and yet he voted in favour of banning public opinion polls. After the Durban North by-election, during which The Sunday Tribune ran public opinion polls, conducted by Prof. Laurie Schlemmer, the hon. member said his party had been damaged by it. However, on this occasion too he voted for the banning of public opinion polls. At a time when he is not affected by public opinion polls the interests of his party, one way or the other, should suddenly come before the interests of South Africa. Either it is good to have public opinion polls or it is wrong to have them. The hon. member has retreated from something he saw as a matter of principle when we were members of that Select Committee.

Secondly, he talks about big election money. He put the exaggerated view that he is not for the fat cats, the American type of big political party, and said that unless expenditure on publications is controlled you are into that league. The hon. member travelled overseas with the Chief Whip of the NP. He should realize that big expenditure in elections, whether it is in America or in other countries, is not incurred at the level of publications which are put out on behalf of the candidate. It is incurred at the level of the radio and of TV.

Any analysis of overseas election expenditure shows that it is moving away from the candidate’s material to the image building material of the mass media of radio and TV. What would be much more relevant in this Bill would be if we had regulations which would affect and control the abuse by the SABC and SATV of the general election situation. The hon. the Prime Minister is not here, but this afternoon he interjected when the hon. member for Musgrave was referring to the lack of time or sympathy which the Opposition parties received during the general election. I can recall the hon. the Prime Minister on 20 September, the day he announced the general election, very coyly stating that he was cutting himself out of a TV programme—I think it was “Spectrum”—because he did not want people to think that he might use television in the interests of his political party at election time. However, he was not so shy, he was not nearly so coy when he was asked by Mr. Saunders to come on TV and try to get his party out of a hole because of the statements of the hon. the Minister of Justice. Right throughout the election there was increasing abuse and increasing exploitation of the State-controlled television in the interests of the governing party. I am not complaining so much about the time that was allocated, although I think it was unfair, but I do think that the climate that was created and the issues that were dealt with on television … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a serious question on this particular point? He says that television plays an undue role in the electoral process. Why then is it that his party did not put up candidates in those country districts where there is no television?

That is such a ridiculous question. Rustenburg, Welkom and Virginia all had television. What is the hon. member worried about? I now realize that the new hon. member for Maitland is not the kind of person to whom one should give time to ask questions.

The question of treating during elections has been referred to. I have reservations on this. I think that the present Act, strictly applied—and I know it is difficult to apply— might well be satisfactory. If it is felt that there should be a tightening up of restrictions in relation to treating, let us accept them and see if they work. There may be practical difficulties even in applying this Bill if it finally becomes law, but we are not going to vote against the clause which will tighten up on any abuse of treating or undue influence during the course of an election.

*As hon. members know, I was a member of the Select Committee which deliberated and reported on the Electoral Act. I am also aware of the practice that wherever this is possible, it is desirable for unanimity to be reached between the Government and the Official Opposition with regard to electoral affairs. In that spirit, both as a member of that Select Committee and in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition, I have been listening attentively to the pleas and the arguments of hon. members on Government side. There is a difference in principle on one important issue, and that is the registration of parties and the requirement that the nomination of the candidates of certain parties, or the nomination of independent candidates, has to be supported by 300 people. I have very little hope of our being able to reach unanimity across the floor of this House on this point of principle. However, when I consider the other points, other aspects of this legislation which the hon. member for Sandton mentioned originally, they seem to be regarded by Government members not as conflicting points of principle, but as matters in respect of which there is only a certain degree of difference. In this regard I believe the hon. the Minister should accommodate the Official Opposition to some extent so as to enable us to reach the largest degree of unanimity before we come to the end of this debate. In the course of my speech I shall refer to a few of these matters, matters with regard to which I believe the hon. the Minister can, in fact, accommodate the Official Opposition.

Before I continue, I just want to convey my thanks as a member of the Select Committee on this Bill, to the hon. the Chief Whip of the NP, who, in a very friendly and—if I may call it that—smooth way …

Competent!

… served as chairman of that Select Committee. For the moment “smooth” will suffice. I shall come to the competence of the hon. the Chief Whip later on. Of what the hon. the Chief Whip possibly discussed informally with the hon. member for Durban Point—who was the chief representative of the former Official Opposition—I know very little. Even when unmotivated arguments were advanced in the Select Committee at times, and when some of the proposals were left up in the air without our having had an in-depth discussion on them, I must admit that the hon. the Chief Whip always acted in a friendly manner and with a smile and that he was always smooth and competent in his actions, as befits a Chief Whip of a governing party. [Interjections.]

Is this your opinion poll?

This is my opinion poll. There are, of course, a few other matters. I shall come to them later on. Last but not least, I also want to pay tribute to and convey my thanks to the officials who served us for two years, who assisted us faithfully and who furnished us with thoroughly prepared and detailed information throughout. Without their assistance we would never have reached the stage when we would have been able to submit a report like this to the House.

†I want to move on now. Let me say, by way of background that we are dealing with the electoral process which, in a way, affects the very core of our parliamentary system, because unless the electoral processes are working properly the parliamentary system cannot function efficiently. I believe we have to be extremely cautious because, as we sit here—if not as individuals, then as members of political parties, as members of Government and Opposition—we have a vested interest in the running of the electoral process. We are directly affected by it, if not in our personal capacities, then as representatives of our parties.

In these circumstances we have to be acutely sensitive to the fact that we should avoid—we who sit here in Parliament— making it any more difficult for people who are not in Parliament to get here. We should be extremely sensitive to the fact that we can use our power to block out the small man, to make it difficult for the other man. Yet I believe that as members of this House, as people responsible to the parliamentary system, we should go out of our way to see to it that we do not use the power which reposes in us to the disadvantage of anybody who might challenge us, whether that challenge be big or small.

Throughout this debate I have formed the impression—and the hon. Chief Whip knows that—that the Government in particular shows a degree of impatience, with opposition in general perhaps, but in particular with opposition which might come from small groups of people who were in fact once part of the Nationalist movement in South Africa. One finds an acute sensitivity about the whole question of the HNP, the question of “afwykendes”. The interjections which one has heard throughout this debate have revealed an acute sensitivity to opposition in general, but in particular to people who oppose from within the ranks of the NP.

To make a statement like that just shows how little you know of politics in South Africa!

I believe we have to be very, very careful that this is not reflected in the legislation of this House.

This Bill has four main features. One is the question of the switch-over to a voters’ roll based on the book of life, and the delay caused by that, I believe, were the inefficiencies and the errors of judgment which were made under the control of the former Minister of the Interior, now the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development.

And of Information!

And of Information. He led us to believe that these things would be done but, in fact, these things have not been done and it appears they never will be done.

In the second place there are clauses which are merely bringing about administrative changes. They eliminate problems which arose because we now have parliamentary and provincial elections on the same day. They facilitate in particular absentee votes, whether they use the postal vote system or the special vote system. As the hon. member for Sandton has mentioned, in the main we agree with these. We think they are substantial improvements to the existing procedure.

Thirdly there is the whole issue of the registration of political parties which to us appears to be designed to create the machinery which will make it more difficult for small parties or new parties or independents to stand against the established parties at election time.

Fourthly there is a series of amendments which deal with election expenditure, alleged malpractices and public opinion polls.

The first two that I have mentioned, the question of the book of life and the administrative procedures, affect the operations of the electoral officer and the State officials, but the latter two have to do with the part played by political parties, by candidates and by the media From the time these amendments were first mooted in the Select Committee, I sensed that they were based on two obsessions. On the one hand one sensed from the NP side an obsession with the HNP. Why they are so worried about them—there is a sense of crazy insecurity and annoyance with them—I cannot understand. They should forget about them; let the HNP challenge them. However, some way or the other it came right through all the time: “How can we prevent these people from challenging us in our constituencies?”

Forget about them; they are irrelevant.

There are also references to “paddastoelpartye” and “onafhanklike kandidate”. These references are a reflection of the Government’s arrogance and impatience towards small parties and towards individuals.

The other obsession appeared to be the obsession of the UP of that time with the growth of the PP who had won six seats in the 1974 election. They were particularly annoyed when Dr. Boraine became the MP for Pinelands and then there was our subsequent breakthrough when Mr. Harry Pitman became elected in Durban North.

Where is he now?

This was their attitude, instead of the people at that time realizing that the then Official Opposition was a waning political party while the PP and the PRP were growing parties with highly motivated voluntary workers and with a well directed election organization. The UP tried to explain its election setbacks by making exaggerated allegations about extravagant expenditure and abuse of the electoral system. As was pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, this whole thing was initiated by the hon. Senator Horak who, in 1974, in the Senate made a speech in which he called for a Select Committee to investigate electoral abuses. He afterwards appeared before the Select Committee where he was asked to give evidence. His evidence was cast in general terms. At the end it was said to him: “You want election expenditure curbed; can you tell us what you think it should be? Will you present a memorandum both showing abuses and what you think the election expenditure should be and how it should be controlled?” I do not have time to read all his evidence, but he gave no evidence to support his arguments about excessive expenditure and although he assured the Select Committee that he would come back to present a report, that Select Committee and this House are still waiting for the report on what he thinks election expenditure should be.

From there it went on to the hon. member for Durban Point and the subcommittee with the hon. Chief Whip and, I believe, Mr. Booyens of the Department of Interior. That subcommittee went off to Europe in October 1974. When the subcommittee returned the two politicians produced a report in which they made certain recommendations. Although in the end the hon. member for Durban Point asked that there should be a banning of opinion polls, his own report stated that they could find no evidence of the banning of opinion polls.

Although he asked for nomination requirements to be tightened up in respect of small parties, he said that in the United Kingdom there was nothing, that in France there was nothing and that in West Germany there was a restriction—and I shall deal with that in some detail. The restriction in West Germany was that if one belonged to a party not represented in Parliament, one had to produce supporting signatures from 200 voters, in constituencies averaging 160 000. There was a very good reason for that as well, and that is that any person who stands as a candidate, whether for a party represented in Parliament, the Bundestag, or not, after the elections can recoup his election expenditure at a rate of approximately R1 for every vote cast. Therefore there is a very good reason why one should not have all kinds of people saying: “Let us have an election for kicks, because after all the Government is going to pay for it and we can recoup our expenses in due course.

They then went on to the question of controlling election expenditure. It was not controlled in Germany, it was not controlled in France, and in Britain it was controlled on fairly generous basis. In Britain, in addition, there was the situation that one did get one free posting of an election manifesto for everybody in one’s constituency.

£3 400 for about 64 000 voters.

It was 6 pence per eight people on a voters’ roll plus £ 1 075 per constituency. I do not know at what stage it happened but one sensed that there was a growing understanding, on the part of the Chief Whip on the one side, of the hon. member for Durban Point’s obsession with the PP and the PRP, and on the part of the other hon. member, of the NP’s obsession with trying to do something about “padda-stoel” parties. Out of this emerged, not the recommendations which I think this House is going to accept unanimously, but three or four key recommendations, some of which I hope the hon. the Minister is going to withdraw even at the Second Reading Stage.

I want to deal very briefly with these four facets. First of all there is the question of the delay in the switch-over to the book of life. We find this quite intolerable. The Select Committee met with the officials. Subsequently I and others had discussions with the then Minister of the Interior. Legislation was introduced in this House at the beginning of 1977. In the hon. the Minister of the Interior’s Vote, halfway through 1977, he said that ever since 12 June 1976 we have been giving priority to this and that it would only take two years to apply.

But there is no switch-over.

But we want to switch over; that was the recommendation. That is why the Select Committee said that provided it could be done within the two years it would recommend a delay in a new registration. Now, however, there is the suggestion that we should wait until 1982. Once one does that, there will be no change-over. One cannot get the public geared up to co-operating with this book of life, co-operating when parties say, “Do not register on the RV. 1 forms but switch over to the book of life”. That was what we were asked to do by the previous Minister of Information and of the Interior. He said: “Do not register. Get people to apply for their books of life”. One has a situation where the parties and the public are geared to that. We had a general election, but I believe that the voters rolls’ were in a chaotic state. There were far too many postal votes and I would also say that in certain constituencies the state of the voters’ roll was decisive as far as the election results were concerned. I want to say that it was quite disgraceful. I believe that we were misled. I believe that there was a degree of incompetence on the part of the previous Minister of the Interior, incompetence which is unforgivable as far as the electoral system and the compilation of voters’ rolls are concerned. The hon. member for Durban Point has said: “Why worry about rushing it? We are saying four years, but in fact even this year perhaps the hon. the Minister can make a decision.” I want to quote, however, from the hon. the Minister’s speech. He said—

In other words, the hon. the Minister has said: Only when we have completed this work will we be in a position to make an assessment of whether we must continue with the book of life system or not. This is what he has said. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that during the next 12 months he must make up his mind. I believe it is unfair on the parties and on the public and that it is bad in respect of by-elections. What is more, I believe the hon. the Prime Minister will call an early election. When the Government have got their new constitutional dispensation and this Parliament is relegated to a secondary position in South African politics, I believe that, just as the late Dr. Verwoerd called an immediate election after a constitutional change, so it will be appropriate for the hon. the Prime Minister to call an early general election. I believe we are entitled to have newer and updated voters’ rolls. For this reason we believe that the date for the compilation of a new voters’ roll should not be extended more than one year. It has already been extended from five years to six years. We will agree to an extension from six to seven years, but we believe that it must be no more than that.

I leave out our approval of a number of the electoral procedures which have been changed. We think that nearly all of them are good and positive changes. I do, however, want to go on to the question of the registration of political parties and the restrictions which I believe are going to be placed on small parties and on independents. Make no mistake about it; the total impact of the passing of clauses 8 and 9 will be to further entrench and strengthen the party political system in South Africa. It will tend to play into the hands of the party machine and not be in the national interest. It will tend to increase Government interference, by a Government that has a propensity for interfering, in the organized political activities of the people of South Africa. There can be no doubt that, whatever the intentions of the hon. members opposite may be, if we pass clauses 8 and 9, we will shift the emphasis even further away from the individual and towards the party, and away from the small party towards the larger party. That will be the impact of this legislation. We in these benches just do not believe that this is a healthy trend in South African politics.

As regards registration, it has been argued that it may be necessary to put the names of parties on the ballot paper. It has, however, been pointed out that in respect of special votes the public already has the right to ask to have the party identified with the candidate concerned. We will argue that, whatever is required to be done, even in terms of the Bill, it is not necessary to register political parties. Already political parties are recognized in a hundred and one different ways without being registered through the machinery of the State. The chief electoral officer calls in the parties to discuss with them the whole question of voters’ rolls and the distribution of voters’ rolls. In regions one finds the returning officers and the regional electoral officers co-operating with the parties without them being registered. Radio and television, controlled by the Government, can identify candidates. They identify spokesmen and announce the results, all the time identifying the people concerned with their parties without there having been a need for a formal registration of the political parties through the State machinery. There is for instance the question of delimitation. Parties are invited to appear before the delimitation commission. We can see no reason why we should now require the registration of parties on a formal basis with the chief electoral officer.

Secondly, I want to deal with the question of the nomination procedure restrictions. It is our view that especially at the level of 300 signatures in support of an independent candidate or a small party candidate, this procedure negates part of the democratic principle of the freedom of each citizen to participate to the full in a general election. There is a new test which is to be applied and that is that, before one can be nominated, one has to prove that one has a certain amount of support from the constituency in which one is going to stand. We believe that this is grossly unfair. We believe that to ask 300 people to sign and witness such a nomination and to have that nomination lodged with the presiding officer and to have that list available there is an invasion of the privacy of individuals who might be wanting to support one or other candidate. We also believe that the time provided is inordinately short, especially in stretched out platteland constituencies. The candidate has 16 days in which to get the 300 signatures. He has 21 days less the five days prior to which it has to be presented to the electoral officer.

Given the pressures which a strong political party, and especially a governing party, can apply on individuals who openly declare themselves to be against the Government of the day, we believe that this is nothing short of a coercive measure which will act as an intimidatory factor against minorities who do not want to toe the line to the big parties. We should be encouraging more and more electoral contests. The Government should want to have election contests to prove its own strength. We believe it is a bad thing for South Africa that there were so many seats uncontested during the last election. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the case of West Germany where 200 names are required in constituencies of 160 000 for the very good reason that I mentioned, viz. that once you are a candidate you can recoup your election expenditure from the Government to the tune of approximately R1 per vote cast. It makes for a rigidity in party politics, and one can look at this in the light of the experiences of the past. It would have meant that the old Progressive Party of 1961 would have had to go through this procedure. There may be hon. members who disliked the old Progressive Party but, nevertheless, it was a viable political party and it would have been entitled to stand in these circumstances although it would have had to find these 300 signatures in every seat. There is also the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his National Union Party. Hon. members may not have liked them …

You had a member in Parliament in 1961.

The law is very clear; one has to be elected representing that party or a party which has ceased to be a political party. We were not elected in 1958 as representing the Progressive Party and the United Party had not ceased to be a political party. Likewise the National Union would also have had to go through this procedure. The same applies to the HNP in 1970. Hon. members might dislike the HNP, but they also would have had to go through this procedure. Basically we believe that there is far too much emphasis on the party and not enough emphasis on the individual or the small growing leaven in the bread of South African political debate.

Thirdly, I want to come to the question of the control of election expenditure, which is dealt with in clause 39. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the purpose of this provision is. He said it was to prevent a candidate with access to money having an unfair advantage over the other candidates. In that case I think we must look at all the influences and all the factors which might give an unfair advantage to one person or the other. One cannot just control one small aspect of the total election expenditure, leave radio, television and the Press out of it and say that one has now seen to it that no single candidate has any significant advantage over the other. As I mentioned, Senator Horak, when he first raised this matter in the Senate, said he thought expenditure was too high. He mentioned the fact that he had heard that the hon. member for Pinelands had claimed an expense account of R12 000 in respect of the Pinelands by-election. We now have the situation where there is a Bill before us in terms of which one can spend R10 000 merely in respect of election publicity. Therefore the original motivation is gone. We are already setting a limit which is beyond the limit which the introducer of this whole concept felt was a reasonable one. If it were possible to devise a system in terms of which every facet of an election campaign could be taken into account, such as one’s workers, the radio, the Press, television, the media, one’s own direct mail and telephone and telegraph expenditure, to see whether one could control that on an even balance in some way, we would say: “By all means, let us do it,” but this has been tried over the years and there is no effective system of dealing with this particular problem. The Government is now introducing a clause which I honestly do not believe is going to work. We do not argue with the figure of R10 000. We believe that R10 000 is more than any one candidate has need of spending at a general election on election publications on his own behalf. That is more than enough, but there are other restrictions which are involved as a result of this. The first is that clause 39 provides that nobody may issue any election publication which, on the face of it, can influence the result of an election in a constituency except by the authority of the candidate. That means that any interest group, any church, any ratepayers’ association, any members of the community who felt that they wanted to influence that election because it was in their interest to do so, would be forbidden from doing so and they would be guilty of an offence involving a penalty of R1 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment, or both.

This completely stultifies the concept of the public at large participating in an election and it drives a whole election into the hands of the party machine.

They simply have to clear it with the candidate they are supporting.

They should not have to clear it with the candidate if they want to do it despite the candidate and they have a strong feeling on certain issues. What we are now saying, is that nobody other than the candidate’s nominee can in any way write anything or disseminate anything which can have a bearing on an election in the constituency. This is crazy, it is not going to work and, if it did work, it would have an inhibiting effect on the whole freedom of public participation in the electoral process. In the second place the Government is now to create machinery to monitor this expenditure. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is really aware of what he has done. He says that any person who has been authorized to spend on or to set up any election publications, must within 30 days sent that publication, together with an invoice or an assessment, to the electoral officer concerned. Throughout the country, in 165 constituencies, whether they are contested or not, these will have to be sent in by the candidates concerned, and not only by the candidates, but by anybody who sends out a notice, puts up a notice or sends an invitation to a meeting. A replica of all these documents will have to be sent in together with the account and together with their assessment of any free service that has been rendered. In the second place, anyone who is authorizing this activity has to follow the same procedure within 45 days. Can hon. members realize what this will involve? In the last general election there were 342 candidates and every one of them and everybody in the constituencies who produced any election publication, would have had to send all this evidence through to the presiding officer. I do not believe that this is going to work. If any individual does not send the evidence through—I am not referring to the electoral officers or to the authorized agents—and if he did not have the authority for sending out an invitation to a meeting, he once again becomes liable on conviction to a fine of R1 000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. The measure is therefore not going to work. The hon. the Minister and the public are going to be saddled with an administrative burden in dealing with expenditure which we believe is within the limits, in any case, of what is being spent at the elections in South Africa today.

We therefore believe that this is not going to work just as we do not believe that the whole question of public opinion polls is really relevant to this legislation. No evidence can be found that public opinion polls in South Africa have materially affected any general election result. They have been of interest to the public, they have stimulated interest in tke elections and we now have the situation where the parties can claim support on the basis of their prejudiced canvass figures. Anybody going canvassing for a party is prejudiced in favour of that party and these figures can be published, but nobody can conduct an independent opinion poll to try and give an independent assessment of what the electorate is saying or doing. This is once again an inroad into the rights and into the general freedoms of electoral politics in South Africa. I want to conclude by suggesting to the hon. the Minister that there are certain areas in which we can come together.

Clauses 8 and 9, which deal with the registration of political parties and the restriction placed on small parties, we see as a matter of principle. It is the violation of a very fundamental principle to move in the direction of clauses 8 and 9. On three other clauses we would ask the hon. the Minister to have a rethink, i.e. clause 2, which deals with the question of postponing the date to 1982. We would ask him to make it next year so that the period will be one year only. The hon. the Minister should think about this, he should consult with the parties and then, in a year from now, he must take a decision as to what electoral system we ought to use for compiling the voters’ rolls.

We cannot accept that we have to wait until the work on the book of life is finished, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, before we take this decision. In view of the time factor involved in this respect, we believe it makes common sense to decide whether we are going to use the RV1 forms, the book of life or whether we are going to use a regional computer system. We cannot wait, however, for another four years before we take that decision.

In regard to the question of the control over expenditure, we all accept the fact that we do not want to have excessive expenditure. We believe that the system being introduced, to control merely the election publications aspect of the total expenditure, is so cumbersome that it is going to be unworkable and that it is going to have a negative impact on the ordinary individual who wants to participate in the election. It is really not going to achieve its purpose if it does not control people who have access to the radio and television services at election time. Finally, I want to say that we cannot believe—we have listened carefully to Government speakers— that there is any great enthusiasm on that side of the House for the concept of abolishing public opinion polls.

*We have all read the opinion polls in Rapport. What harm did they do to the then Official Opposition, the governing party, or the PFP? It was an interesting dialogue with the voters. It was an independent market survey and opinion poll and I do not believe that it harmed any political party in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity whether we cannot reach an agreement during the Committee Stage tomorrow. Could we not delete the clause which prohibits opinion polls? Could we not leave clause 39 aside, because there will be problems and bottlenecks with its implementation. Can we not, finally, see whether we can delay the decision about which system of voters’ registration we are going to adopt with one year?

†If the hon. the Minister cannot give us these assurances, we in these benches believe that this Bill, with its good features, does, as the hon. member for Sandton said, make a damaging impact. It does deprive ordinary South Africans from a significant right in regard to participation in the electoral process. We shall not be able to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it will not be possible for me, in the time at my disposal, to reply to each hon. member individually. Allow me therefore, in the first place, to thank all the hon. members on this side of the House for their positive contributions. I also want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Simonstown for their support and for the support of their respective parties in principle for the Bill. I thank all the hon. members, on this and on the opposite side of the House, who made positive contributions to the debate.

I want to come at once to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and specifically to the question—this is not the first time it has happened—that my hon. predecessor is being played off against me in regard to the population register. I think I must deal with this aspect in full. I honestly thought that after my long, openhearted and—in my opinion—honest statement on this matter during the debate on the Interior Vote, no further attempts would be made to play my predecessor off against me. The fact of the matter is that my predecessor and the former departmental head did everything in their power not only to make a success of the population register, but also to finalize it before the target date, viz. 1 July of this year. Hon. members must remember, however, that this system was devised a few years ago and that if one devises a system in theory, there are many unforeseen circumstances. I shall mention a few of these. The one obvious unforeseen circumstance was the sudden election last year which was not expected at the stage when the Select Committee was sitting.

There is also the question that literally thousands of applications for identity documents received by the department had not been filled in properly. What is particularly awkward is that thousands of applications do not furnish any addresses. Then there is also the question, which I dealt with fully in my statement, that a target date, which was to have been 28 February of this year, was set for the new driving licences. This suddenly brought the entire system to a virtual standstill during October, November and December because people availed themselves in such tremendous numbers of the opportunity of making application for the new licences. These were all circumstances which were not thought of when this system had been devised in theory and it had appeared in theory as though everything would go off smoothly. In view of the practical experience which my new departmental head and I have acquired, we now know that these problems do exist. However, it is extremely unfair to say that my predecessor or the previous departmental head should have foreseen these things, and that they are the guilty parties because matters did not turn out the way they should have. But what are we doing now? I think the hon. member for Durban Point, who has a great deal of experience of matters of this kind, hit the nail on the head. We are now postponing the requirement that one’s name should appear on the population register after 1 July 1978 if one wants to vote, to 1 July 1982. As the hon. members for Durban Point and Parow and other hon. members correctly observed, we are not going to sit with our arms folded now. We went to work and issued requests to all interested parties to complete their R.V. 1 cards so that we can bring the voters’ lists up to date. By means of methods which worked quite well in the old days we are trying in all possible ways, inter alia, by the issuing of R.V. 1 cards and by obtaining the co-operation of political parties and other bodies, to bring our voters’ lists as up to date as possible before 1 July 1982 in any case.

We are now requesting authorization to postpone the next general registration until 1982, but this does not mean to say that we are committed to this. I could issue a proclamation before that time ordering a general registration. Therefore, we could have a general registration before 1982. We are not running away from the question of population registration. All we are asking for is sufficient time to bring the population register up to date and to give our fundamental attention to one serious problem which we have experienced so far, viz. in what practical way one can trace a voter who has changed his address without notifying us so that one can record the latest information on the voters’ list. In this connection I said in a statement made during my Vote—and I am repeating it this evening—that we will give serious attention to the system of decentralization, which was, inter alia, advocated by the hon. members for Parow and Durban Point. We shall give very serious attention to this. We have not been fast asleep either. I have already had talks with the United Municipal Executive on this matter. They were very friendly about this. At this stage they have not yet given any undertaking, but I think there is a favourable possibility that we will be able to co-operate with local authorities in that connection and that in future they will be able to help us to a tremendous extent on a decentralized basis in keeping changes of addresses up to date.

The next matter I want to discuss is the registration of political parties, a matter to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and several other opposition speakers referred. We must be fair. A great deal of criticism in regard to this matter was levelled at me by hon. members of the Official Opposition. When my party reached a consensus on this matter on the Select Committee with the Official Opposition, the hon. members were also in the Official Opposition. In most cases this was the position.

Which hon. members?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sandton, the main speaker of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense. [Interjections.]

What did the hon. Chief Whip say?

To what year are you referring?

1974. If I may ask, when were the resolutions adopted?

1976.

He was not in Parliament.

Where were you then? [Interjections.]

Just go on to the next page.

I want to tell the hon. Chief Whip of the Official Opposition that he is the last person who should tell me that I am talking nonsense. I shall not allow him to point his finger at me either. [Interjections.] Objections were raised to the 50 signatures on the deed of foundation. The hon. the leader of the NRP also objected to this. He said that a consensus was not reached on this matter in the Select Committee. I concede that the provision here differs from what they originally agreed to. I am afraid that I am not prepared to make any concessions in this regard, but I am prepared to make concessions in regard to other more important aspects. I shall come to that in a moment. I shall not be satisfied with a provision which merely states that it should be reported that 50 members signed the deed of foundation. I think the registration of a party is important in the context in which we see it, and that there should be 50 people who attached their signatures to a deed of foundation and who are not ashamed to do so. We definitely do not want parties which spring up like mushrooms, and in regard to which it is stated that 50 persons signed the deed while this was not the position.

In the same connection the hon. member for Durban Central referred to the proposed subsection 35(b) and objected to the words that the electoral officer shall be satisfied that so many persons have signed and that it is the objective of that party to promote the election of members. His argument was that it was being left to the judgment of the electoral officer in question. However, that is not a valid argument at all. Although the legislation does not make provision for an appeal to the court, it is still possible, if the electoral officer has used his judgment incorrectly or mala fides, to request a mandamus from the court against him, or a court may be requested to review the decision of the electoral officer in question. It is therefore a minor matter, and I do not believe that it deserves any further attention.

We shall argue about it at a later stage.

We can argue about it again during the Committee Stage.

I come next to the objection raised by the hon. member for Sandton and by other hon. members of the Official Opposition to the provision relating to the chief leader and chief secretary at registration, and to the disbanding of a political party. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Sandton would give me his attention now. What the objection of the hon. member and other hon. members amounted to was that the provision in question is worded in such a way that it accommodates only the governing party. If the hon. members tell me—in the same way as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout indicated that the old UP did not have a chief leader—that they do not have a chief leader or that they do not have a leader, I am quite prepared to accept that, as long as their amendment is fair and is intended to accommodate their party. I shall accept such amendments in order to accommodate the Official Opposition as well in regard to the question as to whom, when it comes to the registration and dissolution of a party, has to sign.

It is merely a question of the wording.

Yes. It is a triviality. I am quite prepared to say that we should look into this matter again.

Furthermore, an appeal was made to me to approach this legislation in a spirit of accommodation and goodwill. Now I want to give the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition a good example of how far I am prepared to go in order to be accommodating. I must say that I am doing this reluctantly. Nevertheless I am doing so. What is involved now is the question of representation in a provincial council. As the Bill reads at present, a party must have a representative in a specific provincial council in order to be exempted from the provision of presenting 300 signatures. This consequently eliminates the Official Opposition entirely in the Free State, in the sense that they have to submit 300 signatures in that province before they can appoint a candidate for the provincial election. [Interjections.] However, my attention has been drawn to the fact that consensus was reached in the Select Committee on the basis that a party shall have a representative in only on provincial council in the Republic in order to qualify, without again submitting 300 signatures, to nominate candidates for all the provincial councils. As I am saying, I do this with great reluctance. Because a consensus was reached on this matter in the Select Committee—and it is an important matter—I am prepared to move an amendment in order to amend the provision concerned, in accordance with the consensus reached in the Select Committee.

Why did you deviate from the original proposal and recommendation of the Select Committee?

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mean that other proposals have been deviated from?

No, from this proposal which was made unanimously by the Select Committee.

The pot cannot call the kettle black. There has been deviation on both sides from things which were agreed upon. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now want to reproach me for making an important concession here because a consensus was reached on it? If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to make the concession, I shall withdraw it.

I am merely asking for your motivation.

I say again that it is an important concession which I am making and I hope that it will be regarded in such a spirit by other hon. members of the Official Opposition.

I come next to the question of the 300 signatures. A consensus was also reached on that principle—with a dissenting vote of course; I admit that. However, the principle was accepted by the Select Committee. Why 300 signatures? I think the hon. member for Klip River motivated the question of why there should be signatures and why there should be 300 signatures so clearly that I need not go into it any further. As far as I am concerned, 300 is not unfair. If a person cannot find 300 people who are prepared to support him openly in a constituency, it is my contention that he is wasting the time of the constituency, his own time and the time and money of his party.

And the State’s money.

The principal objection here is that it violates a democratic right of secrecy which has existed up to now. I maintain that that is not the case. Under the existing system one has a proposer and a seconder who openly sign their names to indicate their support for a candidate. And not only that. There are literally hundreds of supporters who openly demonstrate their support for their candidate.

Where?

At the nomination court.

Oh, please! The names and addresses are given in public? [Interjections.]

I shall not allow myself to be put off by the hon. Chief Whip on the opposite side. It is very clear that he knows very little about elections in practice, even though he writes books about them. It is not merely a question of the actual nomination of a candidate. In the active campaign for a candidate there are literally hundreds of supporters who, rosettes and all, go about supporting a specific candidate. All right, I concede the hon. Chief Whip is correct and that they do not walk around with their names and addresses pinned to their lapels, but in the community in which they are active, everyone knows them. In the final instance, when they go to cast their votes, their votes are secret. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, is it not possible to draw a distinction between urban and rural constituencies? Cannot one make the number of required signatures in an urban constituency more than the number in a rural constituency?

The hon. member for Simonstown is implying that it is more difficult to obtain 300 signatures in the rural areas.

Yes, of course.

I do not think that that is the case. Although the number of voters there are fewer, the voters know their candidates better than is the case in the urban areas. Even though the numbers are fewer, it is easier for them, or just as easy, to obtain 300 signatures.

But the area to be covered is larger.

I concede that the area is larger. However, I am still coming to that. It is said that the candidates have 16 days in which to obtain the signatures. That is not true. They have 23 days for that purpose. Consequently they have more than enough time to obtain the signatures.

I come next to the question of election publications. The inexplicable argument has been advanced that outsiders are now going to be prohibited from producing their own publications to promote the candidature of a person and that the outsider who produces such a publication would allegedly be guilty of an unlawful act. To my mind that argument does not hold water at all. An outsider who wishes to promote the candidature of a person by producing a publication at his own expense, is a heaven-sent gift for that candidate. Any candidate with any sense will immediately give such a person his consent in terms of the Bill to produce their publication. Consequently I cannot understand that argument. In addition I think that when it comes to experiments to control costs, election publications are a good starting point. I think that the definition of election publications is a fair definition and that the maximum permissible expenses laid down are fair amounts.

We come then to the question of opinion polls, on which everyone, with the exception, I think, of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, reached a consensus, but which seems in the meantime to have become a contentious matter. The hon. member for Durban Point also intimated that he, too, does not see his way clear to supporting it now. In that respect I am again prepared to display a certain degree of accommodatingness. The amendment Bill before us provides that no opinion polls shall be allowed between the date of dissolution and polling day. An amendment already appears in my name on the Order Paper to the effect that the period shall be limited and that opinion polls shall only be prohibited between nomination day and polling day. I think that that is a fair concession. I think that the provision, as modified by my amendment, will be a fair provision.

We come now to the question of opinion polls as such. I want to admit that there are persons and organizations who make these so-called market surveys and opinion polls their business and who are well organized, are people of integrity and who do this kind of work on a disciplined and scientific basis. As far as I know—I am speaking under correction—there is no organization or superstructure which places this entire question of opinion polls under discipline. Nor is there any assurance that organization X, Y or Z, is an organization that conducts an opinion poll on a 100% scientific basis, and with the necessary integrity.

There are two ways of asking a voter whether he supports the PFP. The question may be put in an objective way, or a voter may be asked: Are you going to vote for this party which is selling South Africa out? It is therefore very important how the question is asked. In other words, since there is no true discipline for this kind of occupation, I do not think …

You cannot say that.

Mr. Speaker, I say that there are many firms that conduct opinion polls that have integrity and that do the work scientifically. However, I am deliberately making the contention that we have no certainty that all of them do it in this way, or that the same discipline is present in all of them. [Interjections.] Since there is no discipline which controls surveys of this kind, I maintain that it is unfair that an organization that conducts opinion polls should publish the result of a specific opinion poll which is not accurate and in that way prejudice a political party during this critical period, viz. between nomination day and polling day.

Mr. Speaker, if the problem is as the hon. the Minister has stated, why does he not register firms who do opinion polls, as the hon. the Minister of Tourism has done in respect of tour guides, instead of banning their work completely?

Surely that is not an objective question.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the hon. member for Sandton adopted a negative attitude to the registration of tour guides. Therefore I do not think that I shall have his support for the registration of organizations conducting opinion polls. Opinion polls are something of an innovation in our country, and the organizations conducting them in our country are still new. What happened overseas? Numerous examples may be quoted of where opinion polls overseas were completely wrong. What happens is that one finds a certain kind of voter who would like to climb onto the band wagon, as was said here. Why should such a person be influenced, during this critical period to which I referred, by an incorrect opinion poll?

Mention was also made of the question of polling districts.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister is banning scientifically conducted opinion polls, may I ask why he is allowing the publication of polls which are conducted in a partisan party political way by a political party? What is the sense in that?

The reply to that is very simple. It is a political election, and one cannot ban the work of a political party, even if it consists of opinion polls. If I had done that, I would have liked to have heard what the hon. member for Sandton would have had to say about that. The hon. members must keep quiet now. I still want to try to dispose of the Second Reading of the Bill this evening.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred specifically to the limitations which we are placing on the numbers as far as polling districts are concerned. The hon. member said that it is being provided that we may obtain the State President’s approval for exceeding the maximum number of 3 000 voters per polling district, but that one cannot, in the short period prior to an election, succeed in obtaining the State President’s consent for that. However, the hon. member’s objection cannot be reconciled with the practical implementation of the matter. The sizes, etc., of polling districts are determined long before an election, and I can give hon. members the assurance that if it can be proved that a polling district should have more than 3 000 voters, it will be done. There is no problem whatsoever in this regard. On the contrary. Polling districts are determined after consultation with political parties and even after consultation with sitting MPs. I do not think that any appreciable problems were ever experienced in this regard in the past.

The hon. member for Durban Point raised a few objections to our having retained the postal vote system and having entrenched it to the extent to which we have in fact done. In this regard I want to state frankly that circumstances in our country differ greatly. A postal vote is very suited to one constituency and a special vote less so, while in other constituencies the special vote is better suited to that constituency that the postal vote. We felt that we do not want to do anything at this stage to impair the rights of political parties as far as postal votes are concerned. The hon. member also said that it was a pity that we had not included the provisions which counteract the unlawful interference with voters at a polling station in the legislation. We did not omit that type of provision from the legislation lightly. With our traditional system—which has been developed over the years—that voters are welcomed to the polling station, it is going to be very difficult to determine when unlawful interference with a voter is taking place, and when not. We therefore felt that under the circumstances it is best to leave the position as it is at present.

I think I have now replied fully to most of the arguments which were raised here.

Finally, as hon. members on both sides of the House also did, I want to convey my thanks to the senior officials of the Department of the Interior who worked for many years on proposals to improve our electoral system. In spite of the criticism expressed here today in regard to the legislation before this House, we are, after this Bill has become law, going to have a better system to enable my department to continue to improve further on the system, not only to the benefit of the big man and the big party, but also to the benefit of the small and the small party.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. B. R. Bamford, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Mr. D. J. Dalling, Dr. Z. J. de Beer, Messrs. C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill, which will amend certain provisions of the S.A. Indian Council Act, 1968—Act No. 31 of 1968—is merely aimed at amending the constitution of the council and at making provision for an elected council and related matters. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance. It is late in the day.

Hon. members will recall that this Act was amended last year too in order to provide for the State President to extend the term of office of members of the council by one year at a time until an election can be held in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act for Indians, 1977.

The term of office has already been extended once, and one should not like to see this procedure carrying on for an indefinite period. In the meanwhile the S.A. Indian Council has also indicated that it wants the next council to consist of 40 elected members.

As hon. members will notice, this wish or decision of the council is now being complied with, but the matter is taken a little further. The leaders of parties in the council are being afforded the opportunity of appointing three members on a pro rata basis.

In addition, the State President appoints another two members on the recommendation of the leader of the majority party in the council. Consequently the council will eventually consist of 45 members and the leaders of the parties are being afforded the opportunity to include on the council people whom they would like to have there.

As in the case of this Parliament, the life of the council will now also be five years and no longer three years as before. The qualifications and disqualifications of members and the vacation of seats is also being brought in line with those which apply to members of this Parliament. Members of the council and of the executive committee had formerly to take an oath before a magistrate. In future it will be taken before the Chief Justice or a judge nominated by him. All members who have to take the oath after the first meeting, will do so before the chairman of the council, just as new members in this council take it before the Speaker.

The election of the chairman of the council and his functions are more or less being brought into line with the procedure followed in this House. Furthermore, the State President will now appoint the leader of the majority party as chairman of the executive committee as well as the remaining three members of the executive committee after the chairman of the executive committee has submitted their names to him. Hon. members will notice that the executive committee will from now on consist of only four members and not five as before. The reason is that in the light of the present organization of the activities of the department, the fact that the University of Durban Westville has academic autonomy and the fact that the M. L. Sultan College for Advanced Technical Education is a fully autonomous institution, more than four members cannot be justified.

As in the case of Ministers of the House of Assembly, members of the executive committee will now also remain in office during the pleasure of the State President. The chairman of the executive committee is also granted the authority to appoint a member as chairman in his absence. Only when he is for some reason unable to do so, do members elect an acting chairman.

The remaining provisions of this Bill are self-explanatory, and I believe hon. members will have noticed that the Minister and the Secretary for Indian Affairs are no longer involved in constituting the council.

Mr. Speaker, at this fairly late hour we have listened to the hon. the Minister with some interest, but not with a great deal of surprise. The hon. the Minister has dealt with this measure in very basic terms as a simple measure offering improvement to the composition and the operation of the existing S.A. Indian Council. He related it to legislation which was discussed in this House last year when the life of the Indian Council was extended. For all intents and purposes the Bill before the House appears to be a fairly simple one which, perhaps from the initial and prima facie point of view, should pass through the House without a great deal of comment. However, unfortunately nothing in this life is simple, and while I want to offer some specific comments on the specific aspects of this proposed legislation, I do not believe one can allow this Bill to go through this House without comments on the system which it purports to extend.

The hon. the Minister will know that there are very basic differences between that side of the House and this side of the House with regard to the very system of group representation in South Africa and the representation of the Indian community in South Africa. Indeed, I am bound to say that if this were a normal society with a normal Government, and if we were looking at this Bill in a Second Reading debate, together with the existing Act, I have no doubt that we on this side of the House would reject it out of hand. I think one must say that, because the hon. the Minister will know that the entire concept of group representation is repugnant to this side of the House. However, although we know that some of these factors are not present, and although we know that we are dealing with this Bill as a Bill amending existing legislation and giving additional power to a body which already exists, perhaps we should ask ourselves a number of basic questions. We would have done this in the normal course of events before having rejecting the Bill in the manner in which I suggested we might have done. I think we would have asked ourselves in normal circumstances, in a normal country with a normal Parliament and a normal Government…

And a normal Opposition.

Well, that is a question of opinion. In those circumstances we might have asked ourselves why, at this stage, we are feeling so righteous in extending a few basic, but very limited, rights of citizenship to the South African Indian community. Perhaps we should also ask ourselves why, whenever further rights are extended to the Indian community, whenever something positive is ever done for the Indian community, we behave in this Parliament as if we are doing the Indian community a great favour. I have observed this sort of behaviour during the debate on the University of Durban-Westville and other measures. We behave as if we are doing the Indian community a great favour rather than giving them something which is no less than their right as South African citizens. Perhaps in other circumstances, in circumstances of normality, circumstances of sanity in South Africa, we would remind ourselves that we are dealing with a section of the South African community—a minority group they may be, but nevertheless a section of the South African community—most of which is comprised of third and fourth generation South Africans. Perhaps we would also remind ourselves that we are dealing with members of a group who, in war and in peace in South Africa, have shown themselves to be loyal South African patriots and who economically and culturally have become an essential and integrated part of the multiracial fabric of South Africa. Perhaps in a normal situation we would also ask ourselves why these people—and I think this is very basic—these South African citizens, these people who are born in South Africa, these loyal South Africans, are not in fact represented here in this Parliament with us tonight rather than on some separate basis. [Interjections.] Those are the questions we would be asking ourselves at the present time if we were facing up to the realities of the situation in South Africa, instead of debating a measure of this kind which is an extension of rights to a body which merely fits within the framework of NP policy. Perhaps, instead of debating a measure of this kind, instead of debating a measure which the hon. the Minister has introduced in a matter of five, six or seven minutes, or whatever the length of time was, what we should really have been doing now, in the interests of the Indian community and the general community in South Africa, is to have devised ways and means by which it could be made possible for all sections of the community to participate in taking decisions together about their future in what is a joint and common fatherland.

You know that is coming next year.

Well, one wonders how much joint decision-making there will be. The hon. the Minister says it is coming next year. We shall await with interest what comes next year. I believe that what we should be doing in South Africa is that we should be doing this against a background of the constitutional framework which would be the result of the joint thinking of all the people in South Africa and which would provide equal citizenship rights for all the people of South Africa.