Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the various parties came to an agreement on this motion yesterday. The intention is to have the business of this House running as smoothly as possible under the least tiring circumstances.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, as the Committee will be aware, clause 8 relates to the mechanics and the principle of the registration of political parties. When I spoke on this clause previously I moved certain of the amendments which appeared on the Order Paper at a time when certain amendments which had been moved by the hon. the Minister had just been placed before me. I have had a look at these amendments of the hon. the Minister, and some of them go some way towards satisfying problems which I have raised. Accordingly, with leave of the Committee I would like to withdraw amendments Nos. (2), (3) and (7) which I moved previously.

However, I move the two further amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In the English text, on page 9, in line 33, to omit “chief leader and chief” and to substitute “national leader and”;
2. (2) in the English text, on page 13, in lines 30 and 31, to omit “chief leader and the chief” and to substitute “national leader and the national”.

The amendments relate to the usage of the words “chief leader and chief secretary”. These amendments are technical in nature and the argument is merely that in English, if not in Afrikaans, the nomenclature for leadership of a party is not “chief leader”; nor is there a “chief secretary”, who is in fact the “first secretary” of a party. Normally one refers to the “national leader” and the “national secretary” of a party. The amendments I have just moved relate only to the English text and put the provision in the proper language as regards those two particular posts. I ask the hon. the Minister to accept those amendments. The hon. the Minister has already conceded half the story in the amendment he has placed on the Order Paper, but it is my submission that the position was not fully covered and that the Bill was not fully put into what I would term proper English.

In so far as the hon. the Minister’s other amendments are concerned, they are improvements to the clause. They do help the situation I spoke of, particularly in regard to the way in which the clause was worded to the structure of one particular party. I think the amendments of the hon. the Minister ensure that the structures of the other political parties will also be taken into account. The clause is still left with quite a bit of detail and certain bureaucratic requirements and therefore I shall persist with the balance of my amendments and ask him to accept those.

We do have certain objections in principle to the clause and, with your permission, I should like to state those objections. They relate to the registration of political parties as a principle. Our objection to the registration of political parties as such is not as strong as our objection to that which flows from the registration in clause 9. In particular, we are unhappy with the tendency which this clause will create for politics in South Africa, to move away from the concept of the individual representing the public or electorate, of the individual having individual responsibility in so far as the holding of office is concerned, to a position which tends to entrench the vested interests of the big party machine.

We also have problems with the very process of registration as set out in clause 8. We are unhappy about and cannot be in agreement with the rights which are granted, created or given to the chief electoral officer who will now have in his hands the power to decide whether the name of a political party is in order or not. We believe this to be a political function. We do not believe that it is a function that should be exercised by a public servant. While I concede readily that an aggrieved party certainly has the right to go on appeal if the name of his party is rejected, we feel that this duty which is placed in the hands of an electoral officer, who is an impartial official and upon whose shoulders it will now rest to decide whether the name of a political party for instance endangers the safety of the State, is a function which should not be that of a public servant.

The paper work which is required and which is set up in terms of this clause alone, requiring parties to re-register annually, to pay fees annually, to notify changes of address, changes of party leadership and changes of office-bearers, are not necessary in so far as the registration of a political party is concerned. We are also unhappy in regard to the procedures relating to the cancellation of the registration in the latter part of the clause. Such cancellation is, in the first instance, governed by an act of the political party itself, and the procedures are such that in terms of the present formation of the party, the national congress of the party, which is the supreme body of the party, is not recognized, whereas, in effect, I believe all political parties accept that policy is in fact governed by a national congress and not by provincial congresses. The provincial congresses in my political party, for which I can speak, are subservient to the national congress. Therefore we believe that in cancellation procedures, the final arbiter should be a resolution of the national congress. I would accordingly ask the hon. the Minister to take note of the amendment that I moved earlier in this debate in this regard. We feel that a method of registration and the way in which registration is called for, limits the ability of individuals and groups to form political parties. We feel that this cannot be to the benefit of democratic procedures. If registration was required—and I believe that this was the motivation of the Select Committee—purely as a mechanism to enable the name of the political party to appear on the ballot paper, I think the opposition to this clause would not be nearly as firm as it is. However, the clause goes quite a bit further than providing a mechanism for a name of a political party to appear on a ballot paper. It does, in fact, act as a retarding influence on the participation of political parties in by-elections and participation of individuals in by-elections and in general elections.

I have accordingly moved the amendments which are printed in my name on the Order Paper. I would like to say that we would be most grateful if the remaining amendments would be given due consideration by the hon. the Minister and that the hon. the Minister should also take note that generally and in the connotation of the overall provisions and the principle embodied in this clause, we cannot support it in its present form.

Order! I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the hon. member for Sandton has moved two sets of amendments, some of which have the same numbers. I will refer to the second set as his “further amendments”. The hon. member requests that his amendments Nos. (2), (3) and (7) which he moved on a previous occasion, be withdrawn.

Amendments (2), (3) and (7) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling, with leave, withdrawn.

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 5, to omit “he is satisfied”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 16, to omit all the words after “foundation” up to and including “(3)” in line 19 and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 9, in lines 45 to 56, to omit subsection (3).

Firstly, I should like to say that the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister are acceptable to me, since they seek to improve the terminology and to bring it into line with the terminology which we regard as correct. The first amendment which I have moved, deals with the discretion which the chief electoral officer has in respect of the acceptance of the registration of a political party. The proposed section 35B(1)(a) provides that the chief electoral officer shall register a political party if he is satisfied that it is an object of that political party to fight provincial and parliamentary elections. In our view, the words “he is satisfied that” should be omitted, so that the proposed subsection will provide that he shall register a political party if it is an object of that party to fight provincial and parliamentary elections. We do not believe that such a wide discretion should be left in the hands of one person only, but that the discretion in this case should be left to a political party so that it may come forward and say that it is its object to fight elections at parliamentary and provincial level. They should then be registered as such. We believe that such a procedure is closer to the original recommendations by the Select Committee.

The second and third amendments which I have moved, deal with the signatures of 50 persons who are said to have attended the foundation meeting of a party.

†We have no objection to political parties submitting a deed of foundation with its application. My remaining amendments, Nos. (2) and (3), aim to eliminate the prerequisite of 50 signatures being attached to the deed of foundation, as long as a statement accompanies the deed of foundation to the effect that it was agreed upon at a meeting or a congress by at least 50 members. If one reads the original Select Committee report, one finds that it is stated there that there should be a declaration that a constitution was agreed upon by at least 50 people at a congress or at a meeting. From the proceedings of Thursday, 3 June, it can be seen that on a motion by Mr. L. G. Murray, it was decided to delete the requirement that 50 signatures, names and addresses should be attached to it. We believe it is unnecessary. We also do not believe that the divisions must be stated. It is stated in the new proposed section 35B(3)(c) that the names of the divisions where these 50 people come from should also be stated. I have moved that this provision be deleted, because we believe it is quite irrelevant. One can in fact form a political party even if all the members come from one division. The object, intention and purpose of such a party might be to fight for representation in Parliament and the provincial council on a wide basis.

The hon. member for Sandton moved a number of amendments. In respect of those amendments intended to improve terminology, we have no objection. We do feel, however, that the need exists for registration in principle. We are therefore in favour that an annual fee should be paid, etc. If this is not done, a ridiculous situation could be created where anyone can come along, register as a party and for the rest the chief electoral officer must provide that party, which may no longer be in existence, with services. I therefore believe that this could create an intolerable situation, and a provision for the cancellation of a party, as such, should therefore be included. So we shall not be supporting those amendments of the hon. member for Sandton which are aimed at eliminating payment of the annual fee and the process of reregistration.

Mr. Chairman, I have, of course, nothing to say to the Official Opposition, because as far as I am concerned, they were not party to the agreement which has been reached. On the contrary. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, who served on the committee in his ordinary capacity as the hon. member for Sea Point, dissociated himself from many of the clauses which we accepted, and I must therefore assume that they want to go their own way. I therefore leave the hon. members entirely to the discretion of the hon. the Minister. He must deal with them further.

However, I do have an axe to grind with the hon. members of the NRP who, on the one hand, pretend that as the then Official Opposition, they had entered into an agreement, and now on the other hand, want to break away from that agreement. I cannot let the hon. members get away with the idea that they can take from this “package deal” only those things which suit them, and throw the others overboard. It is an agreement which we on this side of the House stand by, and if those hon. members now begin to throw some of these principles overboard, then I wash my hands of them. I want to tell the hon. members that they must not flirt with the PFP for popularity in this connection. They should keep their word of honour.

That is exactly what we are doing!

The hon. member for Durban Point says they are adhering to the principles. But in my view, they are trying to violate the principles with the nonsensical amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. [Interjections.]

It is a conspiracy.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by “conspiracy”? He must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

He is a scoundrel!

Order! The hon. member for Worcester must withdraw the word “scoundrel”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston should behave like a worthy member of this House. He will still cause every single member of the House, even the hon. members of his own party, to lose all respect for him. After all, there are still such things as decency and propriety. I shall leave it at that.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point.

You are making a mistake.

The Select Committee did not draw up a draft electoral laws amendment Bill and submit it to the hon. the Minister for consideration. We decided on certain things, and the hon. member must therefore not hide behind the report. The fact of the matter is that we did not draw up a detailed draft Bill. [Interjections.] The hon. members must now listen to me.

One minute we are hiding behind the Progs and now we are hiding behind the report!

I am now making an appeal to the hon. members. The fact is that in the report, we did not spell out every detail of how a particular principle should be implemented. Now the hon. members come here and object to all sorts of other things, including the provision in connection with the 50 signatures. The idea was surely that political parties should register and that it should not be possible for an individual who has no support and wants to register a party for his own purposes simply to submit a declaration just before a general election that he has formed a party. That would mean that the registrar of parties may not make inquiries about when Mr. Du Preez of Pretoria, for example, formed his Christian Conservative Party, or about who were present at that inaugural meeting.

The hon. member now wants to know why the electoral divisions must be mentioned. From a practical point of view, the Department of the Interior finds it necessary to ascertain whether there were 50 people present at the inaugural meeting of a party. How must the department ascertain that? It can only be ascertained if 50 signatures are recorded at such a meeting. How must the department know whether the people who had signed, were registered voters? Must the entire index of voters now be checked to see whether the names of those people appear in it?

For practical reasons, it is necessary to enable the registrar to ascertain whether, for example, someone like one Johannes Pienaar is registered in Parow. That is why this requirement is laid down in the Bill. The hon. members must not make it impossible for us to stand by these things. They must seriously consider whether they really want to stand by the principles of the Select Committee, or whether they want to extract from it only what suits them and toss the rest back into our lap.

Mr. Chairman, I am not only surprised, but also very disappointed at the attitude of the hon. Chief Whip. What we are doing, is precisely to keep to the agreement. It is the hon. Chief Whip who is running away from his own agreement and from the findings of the Select Committee. I want to prove this. The hon. Chief Whip said that the Select Committee did not draw up a draft Bill. I have the draft report with me here—the “Draft Report of the Select Committee on the Electoral Consolidation Act”. This was the report which was before the Select Committee. Recommendations were made in this report, inter alia, recommendation 6(1) in connection with the proposed section 35A. On page 4, under paragraph 3(ii), there was a proposal.

†I want to tell the hon. Chief Whip that in the draft report, under paragraph 3(ii), there was a proposal that the names and addresses of the said persons should appear on the declaration. This was before the Select Committee, and on 3 June 1976 an amendment was moved by Mr. L. G. Murray to omit paragraph 6.1.3(b)(ii) concerning the names and addresses of the said persons. The amendment was agreed to. That hon. Chief Whip voted for it. He voted for nothing else than the deliberate omission of the requirement concerning the names and addresses. The proposal was put to the committee and that hon. Chief Whip, his hon. colleagues and we, all voted to delete the requirement of names and addresses. Now we find it back in the Bill. Who is now breaking the package deal?

How do you want to implement that in practice?

I am only interested in who has breached the agreement reached in the Select Committee. The fact is that the Select Committee voted to delete this requirement. Now we have moved to delete it in terms of the decision of the Select Committee, the decision that hon. Chief Whip voted for.

I now want to refer to what else the Select Committee adopted unanimously. That hon. member will agree that we voted for the fact that the chief electoral officer shall on request register political parties in the prescribed form. All we are asking, is that what we and that hon. Chief Whip agreed to in the Select Committee, be incorporated in the Bill. The Bill stipulates that it depends on whether the chief electoral officer is satisfied. All we are asking is that the test be a factual one and not one of opinion on the part of the chief electoral officer. We have moved an amendment that that which that hon. member agreed to in the Select Committee, be the law, namely that a party be registered if as a matter of fact it is an object of that party to promote the election as members of the House of Assembly, etc. If our amendment is adopted, it means that a party can test its rejection as a matter of fact. The chief electoral officer can exercise his discretion. He then knows that that is testable on fact. In terms of the Bill it depends on whether he is satisfied and that cannot be tested on fact. It is a matter of his opinion. We are giving him exactly the same discretion to refuse, but we are making it possible to test whether that discretion was properly exercised on a matter of fact. In both these cases—there are three amendments; two cover the same thing—we are taking the exact line that that hon. member and this party have agreed to and voted for in the Select Committee, not without understanding, but consciously. The draft report provided for the inclusion of the names and addresses and we deliberately deleted that provision after debate and discussion and after agreeing that the certificate would be enough.

Now the Chief Whip accuses us of going back on our word. He can say that we have changed our minds, but he must, not accuse us of going back on our word. Members of the Government are the people who have changed their minds, and if the Chief Whip gets up and says they have changed their minds and are going back on what was agreed upon in the Select Committee, for this or that reason, that is his right, but it is not his right to accuse us of going back on what we agreed to in the Select Committee.

In any case, no member of a Select Committee binds his party, and in this case it is not even the party which I represented in that Select Committee. There is no commitment. If we want to change there is nothing to prevent us from changing. However, I am not going to be accused of having gone back on an agreement when what this party is doing is that we are adhering to the agreement while the Government members are going back on what we agreed upon.

Mr. Chairman, I shall first deal with the hon. member for Sandton. I think the amendments that I have moved to clause 8, are an honest attempt at settling all the problems that the hon. member for Sandton and other hon. members had with the designations of executive officers and leaders. In my modest opinion I have accommodated all the old amendments of the hon. member for Sandton, i.e. Nos. (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7). As far as his other amendments, Nos. (1) and (2), are concerned, I consulted the Government law advisers and I am satisfied that the translation of “hoof” or “nasionale leier” and “hoof-sekretaris” and “sekretaris”—in English “chief” or “national leader” and “chief secretary” or “secretary” are linguistically and legally correct. The hon. member for Sandton alleges that the translation of “hoof” by “chief” in English is linguistically incorrect. I cannot agree with him in that regard, not because I am a language expert, but because I obtained the necessary advice in this regard. I therefore think that I have accommodated the hon. member adequately in that regard. I really do want to suggest that there are more important things to discuss than these insignificant matters.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister goes off this point, may I briefly direct his attention to my amendment No. (9), which relates to the question of a dispute arising, a matter which I think I motivated quite clearly. I would like the hon. the Minister’s reaction to that.

I am still coming to that. As regards his objection to the philosophy of registration, I do not think that we should spend more time on it at this stage. We shall simply have to agree to differ. During the Second Reading debate I elaborated at length on the reasons why we want this registration as we want it, and it is very clear that we cannot agree with one another on this matter. I do not think we need give it any further attention.

I have the following to say about amendment No. (7) of the hon. member. In his amendment he proposes an elaborate new method for when a decision has to be taken for the dissolution of a party. I am now referring to his proposed insertion after the proposed new section 35F (1), line 45, page 13 of the Bill. It deals with the fact that when a decision is taken to dissolve a party, the decision has to be communicated. I am very sorry, but I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

We already have the objection of the hon. member for Durban Central concerning a specific official in my department who has to take or refrain from taking certain decisions. I feel that this is a deliberate attempt to draw an official into the struggle and internal difficulties of a party again. One can have the position where there is an argument about the question of whether a party has been dissolved or not. In terms of his amendment, the hon. member now wants to make it subject to the decision of an official. For instance, when it is suggested that certain members of a congress took such a decision, the official must be the final arbitrator by saying that he accepts it or not. I am certainly not prepared to involve my officials in any way in the internal squabbles of a party, because the case to which the hon. member referred is very clearly and obviously a question of dissension within a party as to whether the party should dissolve or not.

That is why I prefer the recognized leaders and chief executive officers to state under their own signatures that the party has dissolved or has not dissolved. Therefore I cannot accept that amendment either.

Then I come to the hon. member for Durban Central. I do not want to intervene now in the altercation between the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Durban Point. They served on the Select Committee and I was not there; this is something I have inherited. All I can do is put the standpoint of the Government and indicate how the Government feels on the matter. The Government’s standpoint is also reflected in the legislation. I want to make something very clear to the hon. member for Durban Central. I honestly cannot understand what his difficulty with the words “he is satisfied that” is.

It is a question of the test.

The new section 35B(1) reads—

1. (a) he is satisfied that it is an object of that political party to promote the election as members of the House of Assembly or of one or more provincial councils, of candidates representing the party.

Whether the words are there or not, surely the relevant official must be satisfied that this is the objective. If one says it or not, surely he cannot deal with that application if he is not satisfied that this is the case. I am very sorry, but I really cannot…

Will you please read the new section 35D on page 11? It is precisely the same.

It can be looked up for me and I can react to it when I speak again later; I do not have the opportunity to look it up quickly now.

I say whether the words are there or not, the official must be satisfied in any event. I therefore cannot see what the objection to the words is. As I have already said during my reply to the second reading debate, if he has acted male fides in connection with this in any event, his action can be reviewed or a mandamus can be taken against him.

I then come to the question of whether we should simply accept a declaration that 50 signatures have been found or that 50 persons do in fact support it. The whole philosophy behind the question of registration of a political party is that we want to eliminate chancers and mushroom parties. What then is more fair under the circumstances than to say that there must be 50 people to sign that deed of foundation? They need not be ashamed of signing it. They must not be ashamed of their names and addresses and the divisions where they are being published. Such a deed of foundation will only have to be signed once. I can really not see that it is an unreasonable or unfair provision. Therefore I am sorry that I cannot accept any of the amendments of the hon. member for Durban Central.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the proposed new section 35D on page 11 of the Bill. I quote—

1. (1) The chief electoral officer shall not register a political party as a political party if … the name … is identical with the name … under which any other political party has already been registered as a political party …

In other words one of the reasons why he can refuse to register a political party, is that its name may cause confusion. He must express his opinion and be satisfied that this is so. It is the very wording used in the proposed new section 35D. But it is precisely the same situation. In the one case he does not register a political party unless certain things happen, but in the other case the words “he is satisfied” are inserted. In o words, if there is a dispute, it must be proved in court that the chief electoral officer was not satisfied. In the case of the new section 35D the facts can be proved. It can be said that the chief electoral officer was wrong about the facts. It can then be tested, and one has the right to go to court and say: “Look, the names differ.” Then the court can decide. But, Sir, in the case of the new section 35B that deals with the basic registration of a party, the matter cannot be tested… All that can be tested, is whether the chief electoral officer was satisfied, and that is an impossible test. One must then prove mala fides, yet it cannot be tested against the facts. As I said, the refusal to register in terms of the new section 35D can be tested in practice. This is all we are asking.

We do not want to deprive the chief electoral officer of his right to make a decision; we merely want the same procedure that is used in the case of section 35D, to be applied in this regard too. The circumstances in the case of both provisions are the same. All we are asking is that what is being done in the proposed section 35D, should also be done in the new section 35B. We do not want to water down the provision; we merely want to make it possible for it to be tested according to the facts instead of according to the opinion of the chief electoral officer. It does not have to be proved that the man’s opinion was incorrect; the facts must comprise the test. That is all we are asking.

In connection with the question of the 50 names and addresses that are required, I just want to ask: Can the NP obtain the signatures of the 50 people who founded the NP?

No.

Exactly; most of them are probably dead. This is the objection we have, viz. that we must obtain the signatures of people who are no longer available.

You are quite wrong; it applies to new parties.

Then we accept it, because it is not such a problem for new parties. The Select Committee agreed on this matter and we are not going to wage a major struggle, but as far as the other amendments are concerned, we believe that it is only fair and reasonable to leave out the words “hy oortuig is”—“he is satisfied”.

Mr. Chairman, as much as I should like to accommodate the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Durban Point, I am afraid I cannot. Their proposals are not practicable. The case that is provided for in the proposed section 35B(1) and the other case where specific provision is made for appeal to the court, are two completely different matters. As far as the proposed section 35B(1)(a) is concerned, I want to say once again that all we are doing here is to incorporate in the Act what happens in practice. Whether we say that the man must be satisfied and whether we do not say it, he must be satisfied in any event. I have repeatedly said that one cannot only go to the court on review, but that one can also request a mandamus. In the case of a mandamus the grounds for appeal are different to the ground fzr appeal on review. I am satisfied, in the first place, that this is not a serious issue; in the second place, that even if one changes the proposed section, the official will still have to do exactly the same, and in the third place, that if he does not act properly, there is the necessary recourse to the courts. I am sorry, but I therefore cannot accept it under the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Chief Whip is correct. I did serve on the Select Committee investigating the Electoral Act. I was not party to private or other agreements between himself and what was then the Official Opposition. In fact, I opposed this registration clause. We are sorry that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendments of the hon. member for Sandton. Such acceptance could possibly have made to this clause marginally acceptable to us. However, it would have been very difficult because we do not like the concept of registration of parties. We have listened very carefully to the Second Reading speeches and to the arguments used again at this stage. It appears to us that the only substantive reason for registering parties is to eliminate or to control what the hon. the Minister has described as “paddastoel” parties. In other words, it really has to be seen in relation to the next clause, which deals with the question of obtaining 300 signatures. We are opposed to the concept of eliminating small parties or making it more difficult for them. When it comes to putting the names on the ballot paper already there is a provision in the existing Act in regard to special votes which allows one to go to the electoral officer or the presiding officer and ask him what party does this represent.

The presiding officer then gives you this information without the party being registered. Already when it comes to the Press, radio and television and the registration of voters, without registering parties there is an acknowledgement that parties exist and there is co-operation between the electoral officers of the department and these parties. It appears to us that in terms of this amending legislation the only substantive purpose for registering parties is to make it more difficult for smaller parties, for parties not represented in this House to stand for election. Because we are opposed to the restriction of the democratic rights of small parties and individuals being on the same basis as those parties represented in this House, I am afraid that we will have to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is rather unfair of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to say that this clause was inserted in the Act merely to make it more difficult for small political parties to put up candidates for election. I think one of the most important reasons is that we felt that political parties should be registered and that their names should appear on the ballot paper to make it easier for the voter to identify the party and the candidate for whom he wants to vote. I want to give a practical example. In the past election I had the privilege to assist in the Jeppe constituency on election day. What happened there? I think three candidates were nominated for the provincial council and two for the House of Assembly. A lady rushed out of the polling booth holding a ballot paper in her hand and asked who she had to vote for. Fortunately someone had the presence of mind to say that she should vote for the bottom two candidates, i.e. the NP candidates. I am just mentioning this in passing. If it had been indicated on the ballot-paper which parties the various candidates represented, she would not have needed to ask anyone for whom she had to vote. In that case she would have been able to ascertain it very clearly from the ballot paper. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition used the argument that in the case of special voters and absent voters, the voter has the privilege to ask the presiding officer who represents what party. Imagine 6 000 to 7 000 people all having to ask the official at the ballot-box who represents what party. It becomes even more difficult if the political parties are not registered and there are a number of independent candidates. Imagine how much explaining the officer will then have to do to every voter who wants to cast his vote. Surely this provision is going to facilitate the whole procedure. The whole idea behind this Electoral Laws Amendment Bill is, when the will of the people is being tested, to make it as easy as possible for the people to cast their votes for the candidates of their choice. If one wants to identify a candidate and associate him with the party he represents, surely it is obvious that one will have to register the political party in some or other way and that is why in my opinion it is important that we should have the registration and identification of parties.

Mr. Chairman, as regards this particular clause I just want to say that I cannot understand why members of the PFP are objecting to it so vehemently. I represent a constituency with a tremendous floating vote. In the past election it was my experience that it was in fact the supporters of the Opposition parties, especially of the PFP, who were the people to insist that it should be indicated on the ballot paper which candidates represent which party.

That is another clause.

The issue here is the registration of parties. It cannot be done if the parties are not registered. I want to give an example. In 1966 the present hon. member for Bryanston was my opponent. He is a Van Rensburg and I am a Van der Merwe. There were many English-speaking people in our constituency. Many of them were of the older generation who did not understand Afrikaans very well. The hon. member for Bryanston and I stood outside the polling booth on election day and two old English ladies who had just voted, approached us. They addressed him and said: “Good afternoon, Mr. Van der Merwe.” Obviously they had voted for me and he lost two votes that day. In other words, this provision that the Opposition is opposing so strongly, is to the advantage of all our voters and they are very keen on it.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the two hon. members who have just spoken, the main purpose of this amending clause does not concern the question of mushroom parties, but putting the names of political parties on the ballot papers. Apparently this is the key idea behind this clause. This, however, is not how we understand the hon. the Minister. From the Second Reading debate it appeared that the main idea was to curtail mushroom parties.

Why?

It was apparent from the Second Reading debate. If it is in fact the case that the most important reason for this clause is merely to put the names of parties on the ballot papers, I want to say that it can be done without this procedure. The hon. Chief Whip will admit that under the present circumstances the voter who will be absent on election day, can ask the presiding officer to identify the party of the candidates. I do not say that it should be done at every polling station for every voter. But since it is possible in the present situation for the presiding officer to indicate to certain voters which candidate represents which party, without the registration of political parties, it is easy to put the names of the parties on the ballot papers without this procedure of the formal registration of the parties. Our main objection is not to putting the names of parties on ballot papers—we may be able to accept that. What we are opposed to is that here for the first time, with this whole procedure, we have the principle of the intervention of the State in the management of an ordinary political party. This is the first time in the history of South Africa that the State has to register the political party, which is a voluntary organization. On the grounds of the reasons for the clause that were advanced by the two hon. members who have just participated, I think this clause is unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react briefly to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He referred to the intervention of the State for the first time in the registration of political parties. I shall concede that it is intervention to a certain extent, but the test is not whether there should be intervention or not. The test is whether there is unreasonable intervention and whether there is unreasonable intervention with the democratic process. I deny this. The measures that are being adopted here, are reasonable. Even the requirement of 50 signatures is not unreasonable. Furthermore, the requirements for registration are not unreasonable either. The chief motive is not simply to prevent mushroom parties. This is envisaged too, but since my department has to take all the trouble and incur all the costs of putting the names of candidates on the ballot papers, surely it is obvious that one must have a system to make quite certain that no confusion arises with the names of the parties and that only the names of bona fide parties appear on ballot papers. Furthermore, we shall see to it that parties must have a minimum degree of support. That is why these requirements are being laid down.

Mr. Chairman, may I just come back to what I consider to be a peripheral matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister just to look once again at amendment No. (9). When the hon. the Minister replied to that amendment a little earlier, he said he did not wish to place his officials within a political dispute. But, if political disputes should occur, the officials of the hon. the Minister are already involved, because it is their right at present to decide for instance whether a name is a correct and proper name or not. If there is a dispute on that…

Subject to appeal.

Correct. However, what I am getting at is that although it is subject to appeal, as the hon. the Minister says, the official is none the less at the centre of a dispute. By giving him that right, one is already exposing him to a possible dispute of some sort or another. Secondly, this particular amendment relates to the cancellation of registration of political parties.

The clause as it stands at present, provides that the chief electoral officer shall cancel the registration of the political party if he is notified in a letter signed by the chief or national leader and the chief secretary or the secretary or chief executive officer or executive officer, and then it goes on by quoting certain provincial officers. In other words, in regard to the cancellation of a political party’s registration, the electoral officer has to have a letter from the leader and the secretary or from the executive officer and the secretary or from the executive officer and, if any, the provincial officers as quoted in the section. It does not happen often that a political party is dissolved. It has happened in South Africa during the past year that a political party was dissolved and then, together with other groups, formed a new political party. It is not inconceivable that in such circumstances, disputes within that political party could arise. All I am saying is that we should not then expose an official of the hon. the Minister to a situation where he has conflicting letters and has to make a decision as to what to do. This amendment states quite clearly that it only comes into play in the case of a dispute, and it is, in fact, the very means that a chief electoral officer can utilize to avoid a dispute when he has a conflict in the documentation before him. In that situation, and only in that situation, can be resort, in terms of this amendment, to a resolution of the national congress of the party. This seems to me to be eminently reasonable as it does not seem to bring the official into a dispute, but allows him to avoid a dispute by giving him an extra avenue to explore upon cancellation when a dispute amongst officials of a political party arises. I do not regard myself as being the final arbiter in the drafting of legislation, but if the wording of my amendment is not exactly as the hon. the Minister would like it, I am happy to accept his wording. I do say, however, that cognizance should be taken of the structures of political parties where the supreme say in that political party is a national congress. That is the gravamen of my amendment, and I ask the hon. the Minister to consider it again.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react briefly to the arguments of the hon. member for Sandton. I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment and the hon. member must accept that I am not trying to be difficult. After all, I have already conceded on other aspects, and if the hon. member is more reasonable, I shall also accede to his requests on other aspects. In this connection, the hon. member himself said that the circumstances for which he is moving the amendment, exist in the event of a dispute. A good example of a dispute is when two factions of a party argue about whether or not they should dissolve the party. A resolution is then sent to the official concerned in my department. One may then find that certain members of the party allege that the congress had not been properly convened or that the voting procedure at the congress had not been in order. The official concerned is then drawn into a minefield of internal dissension, and I am not prepared to allow that.

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Further amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived.

Amendment (4) and further amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Amendment (5) moved by Mr. D. J Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (6) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived and amendments (8) and (9) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—109: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Jong, G.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Palm, P. D.; Pyper, P. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raw, W. V.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, S. F. Kotzé, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—15: Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on page 288 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in lines 18 to 66, and on page 17, in lines 1 to 4, to omit subsection (4) and to substitute:
   1. (4) No candidate shall be regarded as having been duly nominated, unless—
      1. (a) his consent to the nomination conveyed in writing or by telegraphic message, is lodged with the returning officer before the close of the sitting of the nomination court; and
      2. (b)
         1. (i) in the case of a candidate representing a political party which is, on the date of the issue of the proclamation referred to in section 35 or 88, as the case may be, represented in the House of Assembly or in a provincial council by at least one member elected in his capacity as a representative of that political party, there is lodged with the returning officer before the close of the sitting of the nomination court, a statement in the prescribed form, duly signed, on or after the aforesaid date, by the chief or national leader or the chief secretary or secretary or other chief executive officer or executive officer or, if any, the provincial leader or provincial secretary or other provincial chief executive officer concerned of the said political party or by any other officer of the political party who has been authorized thereto in writing or telegraphically by any of the above-mentioned leaders, secretaries or executive officers, to the effect that he is the official candidate of that political party at the election in question; or
         2. (ii) in the case of a candidate other than a candidate referred to in paragraph (b)(i), there is lodged with the returning officer not later than four o’clock in the afternoon of the fifth day before the nomination day a statement in the prescribed form containing the names and addresses of, and signed by, at least three hundred voters (each of whose signature shall be witnessed by the candidate or his authorized representative) whose names appear in the current voters’ list for the division in question and none of whom has already signed, in connection with the election in question, a similar statement in respect of any other candidate, to the effect that those voters support the nomination of the candidate and that their signatures have been obtained on a date specified in the statement (which shall be a date after the date on which the election in question is in terms of the provisions of section 111 deemed to have commenced), as well as, in the case of such a candidate who represents a political party, a statement as contemplated in paragraph (b)(i).”.

1. (2) on page 17, in line 7, after “(b)” to insert “(ii)”.

In this amendment I am trying to accommodate the Opposition on a few points. The first important point is that at the moment, clause 9 provides that a candidate for a provincial council must have 300 signatures if his party does not have a member on the provincial council. My amendment changes this in that a political party does not have to get the 300 signatures for its candidate for a provincial council if that party has a sitting member in any provincial council. In other words, if for instance a party has a provincial councillor in Natal and not in the Free State, it can put up a candidate for election in the Free State without obtaining the 300 signatures. I may say that I have allowed myself to be guided in this regard by the decision of the Select Committee. I am now bringing the Bill in line with the decision and recommendation of the Select Committee in this regard.

Then there is also an amendment to accommodate the hon. member for Sandton’s problems with the names of the leaders, as well as an amendment by means of which I want to accommodate the hon. member for Durban Point This amendment provides that one now has time to obtain the 300 signatures from the date of dissolution, in terms of section 111 of the Electoral Act. In other words, the relevant candidate is given 23 to 28 additional days to obtain the 300 signatures.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has moved his amendments. This clause, of course, is one of the clauses which can be termed a disputed clause in this Bill. However, at this stage I should immediately like to thank the hon. the Minister for incorporating my first amendment, which was originally placed on the Order Paper, in the text of his amendment and, therefore, now in the text of the Bill. It now means that if a party is represented in Parliament or in any provincial council the procedure laid down which requires 300 signatures would not then apply to that political party.

I also note that in the hon. the Minister’s amending draft that further time has been allowed, as the hon. the Minister says, between 23 and 28 days, for the collecting of those signatures. Therefore, whatever disputes we may have in so far as the signatures are concerned, the argument which we might have raised relating to there not being sufficient time is of course not as strong an argument as it would have been had the amendment not been moved. If the hon. the Minister’s amendments, which he has just moved, are accepted—and I presume they will be accepted—all except one of the amendments which I have placed on the Order Paper become inappropriate to move. I therefore move only amendment No. 6 printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment relates to the new proposed subsection (4A) on page 17 of the Bill. It relates to the question of the list of persons supporting the nomination of a candidate, having been lodged with a returning officer, being available for the public to inspect. We feel that this constitutes a breach of the normal understanding of the secrecy of an election. It makes it very difficult for any independent, or a candidate representing a minority party, to obtain signatures if he is aware, in obtaining those signatures, that the persons who sign that document will find themselves publicly, for all to see, nailing their colours to a particular mast.

Many people, in supporting minority parties and even independents, while supporting them in terms of a democratic principle of voting in secret, cannot and will not accept the situation where they have to place their names on a piece of paper for public inspection. In fairness, I think we need only ask the hon. member for Waterkloof or the hon. member for Rissik, bearing in mind the high proportion of public servants living in their constituencies, what the difficulties of such a minority party would be in having those names made public. Therefore we cannot support the principle that this document be made public, quite apart from the fact that we do not support the 300 signature principle. The only interested parties in that document would in fact be the candidates and their authorized agents. They would be the only interested parties, and if they have a dispute and wish to see that that document is properly completed, I think they should have access to it. My amendment makes provision for access to that document by candidates or their authorized representatives. In the normal course of events, however, I do not believe that this should be a public document.

I have four other amendments which, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, I have now had to redraft. These amendments have appeared on the Order Paper and I would move initially, as an amendment to amendment (1) moved by the hon. the Minister—

1. (1) In the English text of the proposed subsection (4)(b)(i), in the tenth and eleventh lines, to omit “chief or national leader or the chief” and to substitute “national leader or the national”;

This again relates to the terminology of “chief secretary”. We have gone through this before and I think we are in disagreement about it. I have moved the amendment, but I shall not bother to motivate it. I shall not move amendment No. (2) as printed as a further amendment to the hon. the Minister’s amendment because I think it is covered in the hon. the Minister’s draft. However, I shall move amendment No. (3), now amendment No. (2), to amendment (1) moved by the hon. the Minister—

1. (2) In the proposed subsection (4)(b)(ii), in the third and fourth lines, to omit “not later than four o’clock in the afternoon of the fifth day before the nomination day” and to substitute:

This amendment relates to the signatures which have been obtained being handed in five days before nomination day. The question I ask is why has this document to be handed in five days before nomination day? If anyone is aggrieved by this document, by the names on the document, thinks that it is false or that it does not satisfy the requirements, he has the fullest right to apply to have the nomination of a candidate set aside. Provision for this already stands in the Electoral Laws Act and I do not see that it is necessary that candidates and political parties should have advance notice of who is going to oppose them. I believe there has always been the principle that nominations can be made until the close of the nomination courts and I believe that a proper nomination, if it is submitted before the close of a nomination court and together with the documents that go with that nomination, should be sufficient to found the nomination. If there is a dispute thereafter, the opposing candidate, who has a right of access to those documents, can easily make application to have that nomination set aside. I therefore do not believe that we should in this way give advance warning to political parties of who is to stand where.

I move amendment No. (4), now amendment No. (3), to amendment (1) moved by the hon. the Minister—

1. (3) In the proposed subsection (4)(b)(ii), in the sixth and seventh lines, to omit “three hundred” and to substitute “fifty”.

This relates to the reduction of the number of signatures to be required. I want to state quite categorically that we are opposed in principle to the obtaining of numbers of signatures to found the nomination of a candidate. We believe that the old procedure should be adhered to and that two signatures of properly registered people should be sufficient.

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon. Chief Whip is aware of the attitude of this side of the Committee. In the Committee Stage it is the duty of those who disagree with the principle to try to limit the application of that principle. It is proper and possible to try to reduce the scope of the principle which has been accepted in the Second Reading. That is why I have moved the amendment.

There are one or two matters of principle relating to this clause. There are three methods or types of nomination which can be received. Firstly, there is the nomination procedure which applies to a candidate of a registered party already having representatives in either Parliament or a provincial council. In this case no signatures are required and the party’s name is placed on the ballot paper. Then there is the candidate of a registered party having no representatives in either Parliament or a provincial council. Here the 300 signatures are required and again the name of the party appears on the ballot paper. In the third instance there is the candidate of an unregistered political party or an independent candidate who will have to obtain the 300 signatures. Under his name on the ballot paper there will appear the word “independent” whether he believes he is a member of a political party or not. No choice is allowed to the third type of candidate as to what should appear on the ballot paper. No description is allowed to him as to how he would describe himself, except as being an independent.

We believe that all registered parties should be treated the same, but the only benefit—dubious as it is—of registration, if that party does not have representation in either Parliament or a provincial council, is that the party’s name appears on the ballot paper. All the other difficulties in relation to signatures still apply. We believe that this provision as embodied in the clause will go a long way to preventing individuals and minority groups as well as interest groups from contesting elections in a proper and democratic way. We understand the views of the hon. Chief Whip and the governing party on this, but we say it is healthy when it is made easy for minority parties to contest elections. We feel that the Government in no country should be allowed to become complacent. We feel that it should be the right of any individual, if he can finance his election campaign and if he can find a couple of people to support him in this campaign, to place before the electorate a point of view by means of being a candidate. We say that you affect a very important principle of democracy when you require 300 signatures, because we believe that you are destroying the secrecy of peoples’ political viewpoints. Party workers do not mind the secrecy of their ballot or viewpoints being destroyed, but we cannot say the same for people outside the political arena, people who are not part of a political party and do not wish their support for a particular party to be publicly known. This is the real argument. We believe that this clause moves some way towards destroying the principle of individual responsibility towards the electorate, and once again favours the vested interests of the major political parties. I therefore move the amendments, as I have stated, with the motivation I have given. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider them very carefully. I must state quite clearly, however, that even if my amendments are accepted, we do not find this clause as a whole acceptable, whether it is amended or not.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon. member to speak I should just like to have clarity in regard to the hon. member’s amendments. The hon. member again has two sets of amendments, some of which have the same numbers. In the first set, which relates to the clause itself, he has just moved his sixth amendment; he did not move the others. In the case of the second group of amendments, viz. those to the hon. the Minister’s amendment, he moved amendments Nos. (1), (3) and (4), and not amendment No. (2). I should just like to make quite sure that this is the position. Is this the correct position?

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, which covers one of the two amendments which I have on the Order Paper, I shall not move the amendments as printed. Instead I move as an amendment to amendment (1) of the hon. the Minister—

The reason for this amendment is that as the clause is now to be worded, neither the Official Opposition nor this party, for example, would in fact have been recognized as being represented in the last election. A party which changed its name and its format in any way between the election of the last Parliament and the following election would not be regarded as having been represented by a person elected as representative of that party. The members of the Official Opposition had previously been elected either as members of the UP or as members of the PP.

I think only one of them had been elected previously as a member of the PRP. The others had been elected either as Progressives or as members of the UP. They subsequently formed a new party although they had originally been elected as representatives of another party. We in this party were originally elected as members of the UP, but we stood in the election as members of the NRP. The members of the SAP had been elected as members of the UP, but sat in this House as members of the SAP. There is a deep fundamental democratic principle at stake here, and that is the right of any political party to change its membership, its composition or its name or the right of any group of a party to break away and form a new party. This is something which has also happened to the NP. Members who had originally been elected as members of the NP broke away during the life of a Parliament to form a new political party, the HNP, and sat as members of that party in this House. All the parties in this House are affected. They did not just change their name; they formed a new party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party.

They did not change anything.

They were elected as Nationalists. A group were expelled or broke away from the National Party and formed a new party, the Herstigte Nasionale Party. They sat in this House as the HNP.

That was in 1939.

We are talking about 1970. All the parties are therefore affected. It is a basic principle that it is the democratic right of any member of a political party to form new parties, to join other parties or to change his party. We believe that it would be totally wrong to force existing parties which may have changed their form or their name not to be recognized as “represented parties”. I will not argue it further because I think the case is so clear and so beyond doubt that I will move the amendment and, if necessary, I will submit further arguments if there is any resistance to it. I believe, however, that the hon. the Minister will get the point from what I have said. If he accepts the spirit of democracy he will accept this amendment.

I am rising to tell the hon. the Minister in the first place that as a result of the four new clauses we got in the place of the original clause 9, there is an improvement with regard to the period during which the signatures can be obtained. Nevertheless it is still a limited period.

†I will obviously not be moving the first amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, but I will just move the following amendment to amendment (1) moved by the hon. the Minister—

During the Committee Stage debate on clause 8, the Minister referred to the 50 signatures which are necessary for a political party to be founded. He said that the test is whether something is reasonable or unreasonable. He then said that the requirement that there should be 50 signatures for the establishment of a political party—which obviously covers the whole country because they must have the intention to fight elections—was a reasonable provision. I am going to use exactly the same argument. In principle we are not against the requirement that one must obtain signatures on one’s nomination form. We submit, however, that 300 is quite unreasonable, but that 50 is in fact what should be regarded as reasonable. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that there is a dividing line between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, what can in fact militate against the normal processes of democracy and what will cause no hindrance or obstacle as such.

The position is that even with the concession that the hon. the Minister has made by more or less accepting the original amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, whereby there will be a longer period in which to obtain the names, that longer period will not be all that long. If one takes as an example what happened last year, the election was announced on, I think, 20 September and one would have had only till 20 October—it was something like 25 days—to obtain those signatures. I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, and I just want to reiterate, that the percentage of your own supporters who will be prepared to put their names down either for new parties, break-away parties or independent candidates, will be very, very small. Very few people will be prepared to put their names on black and white and to have that open for inspection.

Why?

The very fact…

They sign application forms for postal votes.

It is very easy to get two people, but it is altogether a different matter to get 300. The hon. the Chief Whip must please not use his own experience as an example, nor must any of the other hon. members here, because it does not concern well-established political parties. It concerns people who have started new political parties.

The hon. member for Sandton mentioned three groups of candidates, but there is a fourth group in respect of whom we have tried to rectify the provision through the amendment of my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point. Let us just look at the three groups of candidates the hon. member for Sandton mentioned. Firstly, there is the candidate who belongs to a party which has members in Parliament or in a provincial council elected under the banner of the political party concerned. That is the one group. In that case no signatures whatsoever are required. That is the sort of experience all of us here have had in the past because we have stood for parties which have been represented here. Then there is the candidate for election to Parliament where that candidate is the member of a party which is registered as a political party but which has no representation. That is the second group mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton. Then he also mentioned the independent candidate. However, it is the fourth category I am concerned about. I refer to those people who have been elected to Parliament as, say, members of the National Party but who have subsequently formed a new party, perhaps on the very issue over which the election was fought Unless the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point is accepted, the party of such people will also be forced to obtain 300 signatures. If those people come from the ranks of the party in power, the governing party—forget about the the National Party, because they cannot remain in power for ever—how many civil servants will one find who, while they do not know what is going to happen over the next month or two, will be prepared to put their names on a list which could then be displayed to everybody?

That accounts for 40% of the electorate.

Only a very small percentage would be prepared to do that. Therefore, I really do not think it does the image of South Africa any good to apply these sorts of over-kill methods. This is the problem we have with this, but it can be rectified by bringing the number down to 50. To me that would be reasonable. Three hundred is just not on; it is not reasonable.

We have had examples quoted to us of overseas countries, but one must consider the relative circumstances. If one takes into account the percentage of votes involved, one sees that the number required overseas makes for a very small percentage. In relative terms, the number of signatures required in West Germany in respect of a parliamentary election would amount to approximately 20 signatures in South Africa.

But it also applies to their local elections.

The hon. the Chief Whip keeps saying that it also applies to the local elections, but at this point in time we are talking about the position as far as Parliament is concerned. We are not dealing with local authority elections.

Then your example is not valid.

Why not? One cannot form a political party in terms of clause 8 if one’s object is simply to fight council elections. We are talking specifically of political parties that have been registered as political parties and that are fighting elections for representation in Parliament and provincial councils. I have taken into consideration the number of votes involved and the number involved in other countries where they insist on a system according to which not two or three signatures are required, but 200.

I have moved my amendment and I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. When I made my Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister interjected and said that this was not the case. However, I invite him to read clause 9 again for then he will see that it is the case. Even if one has representation here but has not been elected as a representative in that capacity in the name of that party, one will still be required to obtain 300 signatures. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept those amendments.

In conclusion I wish to refer to the further amendments moved by the hon. member for Sandton. Two of those amendments refer to terminology whereas the fourth amendment is exactly the same as the one I have moved. As far as his third amendment is concerned, it appears that the idea is to extend the period for obtaining signatures. We have no objection to this because the longer the period for obtaining signatures can be extended, the better it will be, especially if the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to accept our amendment in regard to clause 15.

Mr. Chairman, it is always interesting to note how arguments change according to one’s circumstances. The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Durban Central made an appeal in connection with elected members who then changed their party. If I remember correctly, the spirit in which the discussions were held in the Select Committee at the time, were such that it was felt that those people should be disqualified. There should actually be a penal measure in this regard. The hon. Chief Whip will provide the exact reference to this matter in the report in a moment.

It is in the report.

I remember very well that when the few Reformists left the UP a long time ago, it was demanded that they should resign because they no longer represented the voters who elected them. Today, however, it suits hon. members better to twist that argument around. I do not know whether they are once again considering changing parties or changing the name of their party.

It could happen to you too.

Of course it could happen to us too, but we do not make provision for all the unpleasant things that could strike one or happen to one.

The hon. member for Durban Central maintained that although the period in which the prescribed number of signatures may be obtained before nomination day, has been increased by the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, the period is still a little short. As far as I am concerned, the question is: Say a prospective candidate cannot obtain the prescribed number of signatures within a period of 30 days, what hope does he have of obtaining them within three months? It really seems to me as if we are scoring political points off each other here as far as the period is concerned. I think the period has been lengthened sufficiently and any prospective candidate should have enough time to obtain the required number of signatures.

The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to public servants who would not be prepared to give their signature for the promotion of the candidature of such a candidate. Both Opposition parties, however, are in favour of 50 people in fact giving their signatures. [Interjections.] I know that those hon. members are opposed to the principle, but their amendment nevertheless allows 50 signatures. 50 signatures are more acceptable to them than 300. The question that arises is whether a small number of people may suffer whilst a large number may not? It is a good thing if a small number of names are made public, but it is not the case where a large number of names is involved. It seems to me as if there is no difference in principle on this matter because the issue is merely a number of signatures.

The hon. member for Sandton debated the secrecy of the franchise. It seems to me as if the hon. member for Durban Central also wanted to raise this point, but forgot to. He alleges that since these people normally cast their vote in secret, it is now no longer a secret because they have supported the candidature of a candidate by putting their signature on paper. In this way it is publicly announced when it is given to the electoral officer.

I must honestly say that I do not want to be a candidate in an election unless I can rely on the loyal support of at least 300 people. These are 300 people that are prepared to stand up and be counted for their conviction that they consider me an acceptable candidate in an election. If I really had to go and fight an election and I could not even rely on the loyal support of 300 people, then I do not want to be a candidate, especially not in view of all the financial implications and other implications involved. In the previous general election a formal election was held in the Newcastle constituency. More than one candidate stood there, but halfway through the election campaign the Opposition candidate became a worker for our candidate. However, he could not withdraw as candidate. In view of that it is obvious that one should at least be sure in advance that one has the substantial support of at least 300 people. This will not only serve as a means of protecting the stronger party in that constituency, but will also be protection for a candidate who may think he has support that he does not in fact have.

As far as secrecy is concerned, I just want to say that anyone who applies for a postal vote and in addition asks a specific political party to handle that postal vote for him, must realize that although it is not pasted on the door of the electoral officer’s premises, it is still available for public perusal. This is just as much open to abuse, therefore, as these lists, which are allegedly not secret, according to the Official Opposition. If they have decided to support the NP, people are prepared to allow the NP to arrange their postal votes for them. Political parties count their postal votes as votes in their favour before the time, even though they do not usually see how those people voted, but the fact that the voter decided objectively to choose the specific party to deal with his postal vote, is sufficient reason for them to count such a vote.

The hon. member for Sandton also referred to the fact that these signatures must be available to the electoral officer five days before nomination day. If these signatures were not checked, the provision in the legislation would be a useless one. The provision states expressly that they must be checkable and identifiable. For instance, one person cannot put ten different signatures on that list. There must be an identifiable person for every signature. Secondly, such a person must also be a voter from that constituency. For example, say the nomination court sits on a Monday. Surely, then, it cannot be laid down that this information should be handed in on a Saturday morning. When can it be checked? Once again this amounts to the argument used in the previous clause, i.e. that the electoral officer must be satisfied that this information is legal and correct, I cannot see, therefore, how we can shorten this period.

Therefore I conclude by saying that the main objective of obtaining these 300 signatures, in my opinion, is to eliminate mushroom candidates. I have yet to see the politician, or anyone else who deals with elections or who had dealt with them, who can object preventing pointless elections being forced upon the public. This applies not only to the public, but also to political parties, the State, and everyone else involved. I believe that all of us can be in favour of the principle that we should burden the country with unnecessary elections.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches will most certainly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. We do it because he undoes quite a lot of the damage of the principles of this clause. It also cuts across the recommendation of the Select Committee, a recommendation which I opposed. The Select Committee was quite clear in that it was to make it “Elected as a representative of a registered political party.” By deleting those words, it comes someway towards meeting our point of view. It does open up a situation to what one can call “paddastoel” parties, provided by some accident of history they happen to have a member in this House. We do not like the control over the “paddastoel” party or any independent candidate. Let me give some illustration as to how this would have worked. In 1961, when the then hon. member for Namib, Mr. Japie Basson, left the NP to form the National Union, the mere fact that he had been elected by the NP …

What about Helen in 1958?

I am now dealing with this case in particular. This would then have allowed that party to stand unrestricted and it would have been dealt with as an ordinary party if the amendment, as moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, is accepted. If it is not accepted, it would have meant that he would have to be treated like any other “paddastoel” party. I am pleased the hon. member for Durban Point’s amendment negates a big part of the provision, because all along we in these benches have been opposed to the severe restrictions contemplated. If one takes as an example the Herenigde Nasionale Party in the 1970 election …

Herstigte Nasionale Party and not “Herenigde”.

I am sorry. It was the Herstigte Nasionale Party. We can also go back to the Herenigde Nasionale Party, but let us rather confine ourselves to modern history. If the four members of the HNP were here, it would have meant that they would have been free of those restrictions. We think this is good. Parties like the SAP and the NRP would have been free from these restrictions in the last election.

And the PFP?

The PFP is not affected. The PFP operated on the basis of the amendments to a constitution of a party which had been elected at the previous election. There was no dissolution of political parties. There was an adjustment and an amendment to the constitution of a particular party at that election. There was continuity, and a legal entity persisted all the way through. We support the amendment because we think it negates an important provision in the clause and also because it is in line with the attitude we adopted in the Select Committee.

I want to look at the extent of the restriction caused by the provision in regard to the 300 voters. How severe is this restriction? We argue that it is excessively severe in three ways. First of all there is the time factor. Even if this period is extended by one week, it still involves an organizer or an individual going around and getting 300 signatures in a relatively short space of time, before the election campaign has warmed up. We feel that the time factor is a very, very severe restriction indeed.

Secondly, we believe that the social pressures, especially in smaller communities, which would bear upon an individual who puts his name on such a list, would be severe. Such an individual will be identified. A notice will be put on the board outside the magistrate’s court to say that the names are available for inspection. We believe that this is, in fact, an intimidatory provision. It is included in the legislation in order to make it more difficult and to pressurize individuals … [Interjections.] The PFP has no problems in this regard, but there are other parties who will have problems. The concept of the ballot is that it is secret, but in terms of this provision 300 voters actually have to have their names recorded on a list and then a notice will be put up saying to everybody: Come and see how we are going to vote in the next election. [Interjections.] The social pressure on the individual supporting the small party will be very, very severe.

Thirdly, we argue that a proportion of 300 in relation to the total number of voters is an inordinately high proportion, especially in constituencies with as few as 8 000 voters. Out of these 8 000 voters, only 5 000 or 4 000 people will actually vote. In these constituencies one is reaching a situation where a significant proportion of the people will have to identify themselves publicly and not secretly in the ballot.

I want to look for a moment at the effect which this provision would have had on a party which does not support me, namely the HNP, in the last election. I presume that all the hon. members on the other side would like to see the HNP stand in elections so that there will be a conflict of views because, after all, they are all democrats. What would the effect of this provision have been on the HNP during the last election? The HNP stood in 55 seats and only in seven of these seats did they get more than 900 votes. In other words, in seven constituencies one-third of the people who voted for them would have had to identify themselves publicly before nomination day.

There were 16 constituencies in which the HNP polled between 600 and 900 votes. In those seats between one-third and one-half of all the votes cast for them would have had to be identified publicly before nomination day. In the remaining 32 seats they got less than 600 votes. In other words, in 32 of the constituencies in which a registered political party whose registration had been accepted by the Chief Electoral Officer put up candidates, over 50% of the people who voted secretly on election day would have had to declare themselves publicly five days before nomination day in support of the candidate and have their names recorded with the presiding officer. This is a negation of the concept of the secrecy of the ballot as far as smaller parties are concerned. It would have effectively eliminated the HNP—for which this provision is primarily designed—from at least half or 30 of the constituencies which they contested. This is the practical effect based on the results of the last election.

Finally, I want to refer to the question of independents. I believe it is a healthy thing in a society like ours, a political society, with such a very strong party-political structure. The concept of independent candidates standing should be encouraged. Very often independents allow people to record a protest vote. This was the case at Ermelo during the last election. Many of these people may still be Nasionaal and members of the party, but for a particular reason they want to record a protest vote. However, if one makes them declare themselves publicly in advance, thus declaring themselves to be opposed to the party they normally support, I believe the effect will be that one will drive independent candidates right off the electoral slate. For all these reasons we shall most definitely vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point serves to frustrate entirely the principle of the provision as it was originally agreed to by the Select Committee. The report states that the candidate is elected as a representative of a mentioned, registered political party and the Bill reads that he is elected as a “representative of that political party”. It amounts to the same. The fact is, however, that if we accept this amendment—it is not as obvious as the hon. member made it out to be—then we are throwing the door wide open again. We have discussed this principle. The hon. member for Durban Point agreed with me that it is the “mushroom clause”. It is to prevent a man like Japie Basson, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, breaking away from his party and founding a mushroom party before an election—like the National Union that he formed at one time—with absolutely no support. Do hon. members want to tell me that that was not a mushroom party? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout entered this House as a result of an agreement he concluded with the then UP, otherwise he would never have come back, because he had no support. The same happened to Mr. Gerdener. I am opposed to anyone who breaks away from his party just before an election, not having to prove that he at least enjoys support, but simply trying to sell himself to the country as a political nuisance. The hon. member for Durban Point agreed with me there.

What is the implication of the amendment by the hon. member for Durban Point? Does it imply that any little party in the country or anyone who registers himself as a party after succeeding in obtaining 50 names of people who say they are prepared to found a party, can remain in the background and just before an election—if it has a great deal of money— recruit an independent member of parliament to join him and then change his colour in order to participate in an election as a registered party or a member of a registered party? The entire principle contained in this clause is circumvented by a single member changing parties with premeditation. The hon. member for Durban Point knew that this was the idea behind these words in the clause. That is why we cannot accept this principle because otherwise we might just as well throw the entire principle overboard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this provision was severe. He said that 30% to 50% of the people would have to reveal their identity beforehand. In my constituency the HNP gained about 350 votes. They gained more than 100 postal and special votes. These are people that they took to the presiding officer and openly indicated in the presence of the Opposition parties that they wanted to vote for that party. This is more than 40%. They identify themselves openly.

That is 100, not 300.

What is the percentage of 300? Three hundred signatures represent less than 2% of the average constituency.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban Central. He referred to the argument I used in connection with West Germany. I maintain that West Germany has the most democratic electoral system in the Western World today because they have taken the best from all the democracies for their electoral system. They use this brake in their political system to prevent disorder arising in the politics, like the disorder that has arisen in the ranks of the Opposition in recent times. I can tell the hon. member for Durban Central that the West German system provides that there must be 200 signatures in a constituency where 80 000 people may be registered. Why is it not 300 or 600 signatures? It is because that same voters roll is also used in a municipal election in a small town where it must also be 200 signatures. Here in South Africa it is different. We are not dealing with municipal elections here, but because we are dealing here with a larger volume of voters than for a municipal election, we must at least have a reasonable figure. Otherwise we could stick to 15 or simply choose eight names to come and sign the lists. The principle has been accepted, and the hon. member for Durban Point not only accepted the principle, he thought that 100 names was a good number and has now adapted it to the PFP’s 50. The fact is that the hon. member did not have any objection to these names being perused at that time. I am merely stating this as a fact. The hon. member agreed with me that it was the preconceived purpose of this clause—that he now wants to destroy—that any person who wants to establish a new political party, must prove that he has substantial support before going ahead.

Any hon. member of the NP could resign today and cross the floor and join the PFP or any other party and stand for them at the following election without obtaining 300 signatures. This is how democratic it is. No candidate of a party that has a single provincial councillor throughout the entire country need obtain the 100 signatures. How far can we go to make the matter democratic? A member can change his political affiliation and go to another political party that is registered and has had candidates elected at a previous election. However if an hon. member enters the wilderness, to create a new political party, he must prove that he has support. We cannot tolerate mushroom parties and the consequent disorder in politics in the country any longer.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, I should like to put the standpoint of the SAP very clearly. It is that we are entirely opposed to the principle of signatures to allow a nomination to qualify. Whether it be 300 or 50, we are opposed to it, because we believe that it is contrary to the spirit of the Act as far as the secrecy is concerned. The hon. member for False Bay pointed out that when a voter applies to a political party for a postal vote, we must accept that that voter is declaring that he will vote for that party’s candidate. I am afraid, however, that this is a wrong approach. The fact that someone applies to a specific party for a postal vote, certainly does not constitute proof that he supports that party and will vote for it. If anyone seeks to draw any such conclusion from an application, it is his affair, because his conclusion may be entirely wrong. Before a presiding officer can deal with a postal vote, he has to specifically swear an oath of secrecy before a presiding officer so that it may be ensured that no one will ever know how the voter who casts his vote through the post, has voted. The hon. member for False Bay, however, says we must accept that the voter is going to vote for that candidate.

No, I explained it at length.

I think it is a very poor argument. In certain territories a candidate in municipal elections must already have five or six signatures before his nomination can be accepted. This in itself is no problem, but I can assure the Committee that sometimes some of the candidates’ strongest supporters are not prepared to put their signatures to that form, because in actual fact, by placing their signature on the form, they are revealing candidate for whom they vote.

One can argue about this until the cows come home, but I want to point out that there are officers, especially municipal and government officials, who would not be prepared to sign their names on the nomination form, even if they were not to vote for the candidate. We must bear in mind that his signature is open to perusal and at some stage or other it may be used against him, in that it may be argued that he supported the relevant candidate. How is he going to prove that he did not in fact vote for the candidate? After all, he signed to the effect that he supports the candidate’s nomination. We are therefore absolutely opposed to the principle of signatures. If we vote in favour of there being 50 signatures, we will merely be doing so because we consider it the lesser of two evils. We are entirely opposed to the question of signatures.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear the attitude expressed by the SAP in the person of the hon. member who has just sat down. We, too, are totally against the principle of having these signatures. The hon. member for False Bay said that, in putting forward an amendment to the effect that only 50 signatures should be accepted, we were accepting in principle the principle of signatures. All I can say is that he did not listen to the speech made by the hon. member for Sandton who clearly stated that we were totally opposed to it in principle, but it was our duty to try to alleviate the more onerous part of the clause should it be accepted. I, too, want to join my voice to that of those others in these benches who have said that the need for 300 signatures is far too onerous and that it negates the democratic principle.

The hon. Chief Whip on that side, however, said that it was designed to get rid of what he—I think—termed political nuisances. What he termed political nuisances are part of the democratic process of the Western world. This process has been established over hundreds of years. The new system will make it absolutely impossible for any candidate who wants to stand as an independent candidate to do so. I shall give my reasons for saying this presently. Firstly, there has been talk of the secrecy of the ballot and many hon. members on this side have referred to them. It subverts the secrecy of the ballot. Secondly, there are the physical difficulties of getting 300 signatures in the time allowed. I should like to make it clear that 300 signatures would obviously not be enough since if any of those signatures should be disallowed for one reason or another, the nomination of a particular candidate would fall away. Therefore, to be on the safe side, such a candidate would have to get a good deal more than 300 signatures on his nomination form. I would submit that anybody who decides, at the time an election is announced, that he wants to put a point of view, will not physically be able to collect those signatures in the time allowed.

I want to deal with another point that has not yet been raised. I refer to the amendment of the hon. the Minister, which provides that no one who, as one of the 300 signatories, has signed for a particular candidate, may sign for any other person as well. Let us take a practical example. Let us assume that I, as an independent, want to stand in an election. I then start visiting voters to ask them to support my nomination. A voter then says to me: “Yes, I will support your nomination.” You establish that he is correctly on the voters’ roll. Then you have to establish also that he has not signed a similar document for somebody else, because in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, his signature is not valid if he has signed “in connection with the election in question a similar statement in respect of any other candidate”.

That is logical, is it not?

No, it is not logical, and I shall tell you why. A voter whom you approach and who has said that he is prepared to support you, signs his name. For some reason or another somebody else may also approach that voter. The other candidate may also ask that voter to sign his nomination form. That voter may then erroneously sign his name a second time. He may be unaware of the situation.

He may change his mind.

Yes, he may change his mind. There are a variety of reasons why he might sign a second time.

He could even do so with malice, knowing full well that he is going to support one of the establishment parties. He may submit his signature knowing that if his signature is disallowed, the nomination of that candidate will be disallowed. The responsibility rests on the aspirant candidate to ensure that all of those 300 people are not going to sign a similar document. That, I would submit, is totally unreasonable. It is totally impossible for any candidate to be absolutely certain that all 300 signatures collected by him are correct and valid. It is unreasonable to expect him to be absolutely certain that those 300 people are supporters of his. I can go to a candidate with malice and say to him, “Yes, I shall certainly sign your nomination form”, knowing full well that I am going to support a candidate for another party. Then I can go and sign another nomination form. By so doing I can bedevil and invalidate the nomination of the candidate I am against. That man can take me to court and say: “You lied. You told me that you had not signed another document, and you had.” But, Sir, what good is that? By that time the nomination will have been disallowed.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing his amendment, did say that he felt there were various aspects of it which were eminently reasonable. We would disagree with that, and I would like to ask him whether, having listened to my argument, he would accept an amendment to the effect that it would not matter if a signatory had signed a similar document for somebody else. I would like him to give consideration to the point I have raised and see whether he would be prepared to accept such an amendment. If he indicates that he is prepared to do so, I shall frame a suitable amendment on the grounds that it is totally unreasonable for an aspirant candidate to be absolutely certain that 300 voters can be relied upon to continue supporting him. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has thought about the physical difficulty involved in collecting these signatures. Has he, for instance, thought about the time which would be involved? Because some of the signatories may be disallowed, a candidate will obviously have to get something like 350 or 400 signatures. I do not know how long it takes to get a signature, but especially in the larger platteland constituencies large distances between farms have to be covered. Members will then have to go from farm to farm to get signatures. Even on the basis of an arbitrary figure of, say, an hour per signature, it will take a candidate, in the time allowed, something like 400 hours to collect those signatures. Is this reasonable? That man may not have support. He may have a message to the nation which is a tremendously important message. Traditionally, election time is the time when you submit that message. Let us take the position when a surprise election is announced. This man might have had in the back of his mind that he has something to say to the electorate, and that is his democratic right, which the members on the other side are now trying to subvert. It is physically impossible for him to get the necessary number of signatures in the time allowed. I would submit that what the hon. the Minister is effectively doing, is in fact putting any chance of independents standing in any future election right out of court. There is no chance of independent candidates coming forward in the future. The hon. the Minister is establishing vested interests, which are largely the interests of the National Party. It is no particular worry to us, but what is a particular worry to us is the democratic process as such. This is what the hon. the Minister is subverting.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove at once that his contention is correct. In terms of the amendment that I have introduced, a person may sign one of these lists only if he wants his name to be counted. I also want to tell the hon. member at once that he need not take the trouble to write out an amendment; I shall not accept it. I think that the figure of 300 signatures that must be obtained, is not unreasonable. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that 300 signatures was a high percentage where only 4 000 people were voting. Firstly, one probably has few cases—I am not referring to constituencies in South West Africa now— where only 4 000 votes are cast. If 4 000 votes are cast, which is an exceptional case, the percentage is still only between 7% and 8%. But there are very few cases of a mere 4 000 votes being cast, except in South West Africa.

Now the hon. member for Orange Grove comes along and makes a big fuss about the fact that a person may put his signature to more than one list. It is highly hypothetical that one will have to two candidates going around collecting signatures. It may happen, but it is highly hypothetical.

Could I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Just give me a chance to complete my argument.

*If you are the first to reach a voter and ask him for his signature, then you would be very stupid if you did not explain the requirements of the law to him and tell him that he must realize that after signing your list, he may not sign another one. If he should sign another one, then his name is cancelled on both lists. I am sorry, therefore, but I cannot accept that argument.

May I put a point to the hon. the Minister that somebody could do that sort of thing with malice. He might want to spoil the nomination of a particular candidate and he might in fact sign his name because he wants that nomination form ruled out of order.

Then there will be two candidates who will be affected.

Well, there could be two candidates. It is not beyond human imagination that another candidate can be put up specifically to spoil the nomination of an independent candidate. Sir, it is open to abuse and there are possibilities of abuse and nobody has any recourse. Once that man has signed another document, there is nothing the candidate can do. There is no means by which he can find out about it No machinery is created in this Bill for the electoral officer to say to the candidate that a certain signature is not acceptable, but that he has time to go and get another signature. Such a procedure would make it a good deal more reasonable, but there is no machinery for that. If any of the signatures are disallowed, the nomination itself is disallowed.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not think that we should start splitting hairs. I concede that hypothetically speaking, the circumstances which the hon. member for Orange Grove sketched, may well occur. The hon. member must bear in mind, however, that the man who signs twice, will affect both candidates. He will not affect only one of the candidates. I cannot imagine that there are many people with the sadistic intention of harming all the candidates who have to obtain signatures in an election. It is an extremely hypothetical case to which I do not want to give further attention.

After all, the candidate can obtain extra signatures.

We discussed the question of encroachment upon the democratic right to secrecy during the Second Reading debate. The principle is already recognized in existing legislation, in that the proposer and the seconder are known. In other words, it is already the case that people announce openly that they support a specific candidate. It is therefore not a new principle. The hon. member for Parow pointed out that it is also recognized in another great democratic country, i.e. West Germany. That, therefore, is another precedent for this.

As regards the question of handing in the list five days before the time, I want to point out that it provides specifically for the case to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred, viz. that there are two candidates handing in lists. One needs time to check the lists. Even if there is only one candidate handing in a list, one needs time to check the signatures in order to ensure that they are in order. I also take it that any sensible candidate will obtain a few more signatures than the required 300 on his list. The hon. member for Sandton, however, made a fuss about an infringement of democratic rights as far as the principle of secrecy at elections is concerned. But he himself proposed that the candidates or their agents should be able to peruse the list. The hon. member’s amendment, however, does not provide for them being bound to secrecy in this regard. In other words, what the hon. member for Sandton is proposing, also encroaches upon the principle of secrecy.

Then I come to the hon. member for Durban Point. He will excuse me if I am a little wilful and play politics a little. This Bill seeks to protect the NRP from making the same stupid mistake of changing their name. I think the hon. member will concede—he will probably not do so across the floor of the House, but when we have a cup of tea together outside the House—that one of the biggest mistakes he and his party made, was to change their name. [Interjections.]

It did cost us votes, but in the long term it will not be a mistake.

There the hon. member himself admits that it cost them votes.

Mr. Chairman, surely we cannot argue about what has happened in the past. The provisions of this Bill are not retrospective. They will only be applied after promulgation. In hard facts this means that if parties want to utilize all the advantages of clause 9, they must simply not change their names. Let me say why I am not prepared to concede the hon. member’s point and accept his amendment. I am opposed in principle to a single discontented break-away member in the House, regardless of whether he is on the Government or the Opposition side, being able to announce overnight that he is going to join a party that is not represented in the House, but is outside the House, just some little party. By crossing to that party he gives all the advantages contained in clause 9 to that party overnight without their having been able to succeed in sending a member to the House of Assembly under their own colours, and under their own programme of principles. That is why I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment. I think this disposes of everything that has been said here. I honestly think that as far as the basic principles are concerned, we should rather agree to differ.

Mr. Chairman, at best this clause could be said to be one aimed at the mushroom parties to prevent their entry into elections in this country. At worst this clause could be said to be aimed at the perpetuation of NP rule. It is disappointing that the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Durban Central have not been accepted.

The hon. Chief Whip of the Government made the point—and it was an interesting point and a fairly valid one—that anyone from the Government benches could leave that party and join one of the Opposition parties in this House and stand as a candidate under the banner of that party. We take his point but we know that in the benches opposite us there are cleavages of opinion. I want to put to hon. members opposite the following question: What is the position if 20 members under the leadership of, say, the hon. member for Waterberg decide that they want to leave the NP and do not wish to join an existing party? [Interjections.] They do not wish to join an existing party but they wish to sit in this House as the Official Opposition, and with 20 members, they could do that. What is the position in that case? If the Government so wishes and calls an election shortly after this kind of break, those people will all be required to get 300 signatures. Is that correct?

They will have to prove that they have support.

So that is correct? This confirms my suspicion that this clause is aimed at the perpetuation of NP rule in this country and any other argument is a very thinly disguised attempt to cover that up.

Mr. Chairman, for the record, I want to say that the hon. member for Parow is correct. I have changed my attitude on the question of a party representative having been elected as a member of that party. I must say quite frankly that at the time the committee met the implications of the restructuring of parties were not obvious. It was only in the light of events which subsequently occurred that one realized how broad the net went. In the same way as that hon. member changed his attitude in regard to the previous clause and voted for something we had rejected in the committee, I will exercise the same right in regard to this clause. As far as the number of signatures is concerned, we accept the principle of having a number of signatures. In the Select Committee I moved that the figure be 100 and the committee divided on that issue. My party felt that even 100 was too high a number and has recommended 50 which, incidentally, we put on the Order Paper first. In view of the refusal to accept a lower number, I am not going to argue the case in relation to the implications of preventing the formation of new parties. We will not support the clause as a whole although we accept the principles that are involved.

We believe those principles are carried to an excessive degree which makes it necessary to oppose this clause.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw to amendment (1) moved by the Minister of the Interior negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling to amendment (1) moved by the Minister of the Interior negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper to amendment (1) moved by the Minister of the Interior negatived and amendment (3) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

On amendment (1) moved by the Minister of the Interior,

Question put: That the subsection stand part of the Clause.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Proposed substitution agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—26: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on page 263 on the Order Paper, as follows—

My department has accepted a tremendous task by undertaking to send out these cards containing particulars of a specific election in future. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members cannot sit and converse so loudly.

Particulars such as the place and the time of the election, the situation of the specific polling station, etc., will appear on such a card. Within a very short period of time the department has to send out more than a million such cards and it is only obvious and quite human that incorrect information may appear on such a card by accident. The effect of the amendment will be that if incorrect information should appear on such a card by accident, the election will not be affected by it.

Mr. Chairman, we shall not oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister. Clause 11 contains a very welcome provision, i.e. the notification by the electoral officer to individual voters of the various details which are of relevance to that voter concerning the election in his area. We obviously support this provision.

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

I very briefly want to motivate my amendment. If we look at the proposed section 38(1 )(b), we see that the chief electoral officer shall be notified as soon as practicable after a nomination court is closed, but not later than 4 o’clock in the afternoon of the day following upon nomination day, of the situation of the polling stations in that constituency. However, when a nomination court closes at 12 noon on a particular Wednesday in a constituency such as my own or any other fairly large urban constituency, the difficulty arises that it does take a measure of time to obtain agreement between the various political parties on the designation of polling booths. I particularly remember that during the last election there was a dispute in two constituencies in relation to polling booths. The matter had to be referred by the regional electoral officer to the chief electoral officer, who today is the Secretary of the department. It was only when that matter was brought to his attention that the dispute relating to the designation of polling booths was settled in a proper and satisfactory manner. However, it took all of four days before that stage could be reached. If one does not allow at least one or two days for a tour of inspection to be undertaken by the nominated candidates, for a discussion and for a decision to be made on the polling booths, I believe polling booths could be designated that would not be in the interests of the conducting a fair election.

I fully concede that there are two ways of dealing with this. The first way is to accept my amendment which stipulates that the electoral officer shall on the third day after nomination day advise the chief electoral officer of the polling booths. The second way is to designate the polling booths well in advance of election day and in consultation with the political parties when one designates the polling areas. If we have an assurance on that, namely that the polling booths will be designated when the polling areas are established, I think this amendment is not necessary, but if we cannot have that assurance, I think this amendment should be accepted in the interests of a fair election being held.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I would like to say that we shall not be objecting to the hon. the Minister’s amendment, and that we shall be supporting that of the hon. member for Sandton.

I want to motivate the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper. I want to say that this clause is in our opinion an improvement on the Act in that the hon. the Minister’s department or the electoral officer will in future notify every voter of his voter’s number, the venue of the election and his polling district, etc. We believe this is a great improvement because up to now this work has normally been done by the candidates themselves. I do believe the hon. the Minister is only able to do this as a result of the fact that the electoral roll is now being computerized. I am quite sure that as time passes we shall find that greater use will be made of the computer, because the powers of the computer are, as we are all very aware, extremely wide and have tremendous potential.

However, at the present time I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the voters’ rolls are in a very bad state. We sincerely hope that in the future they will be brought up to date. However, in the meantime it is still going to be incumbent upon the candidates to endeavour to keep these rolls up to date.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended I was talking about the computerizing of the voters’ rolls, the many advantages which would result from this and, certainly, the great potential for future use which this system has, especially during election times. One of the major problems, and I am sure every hon. member in the House will agree with me, is that during elections there has been the problem of trying to establish if voters are at the addresses at which they are listed in the voters’ roll. This is normally done either by the candidates themselves by mailing literature to each voter, in which case if the person is not there this item is returned to the candidate, or, alternatively, by undertaking a canvass. This amendment as proposed provides for the mailing of literature to each voter, telling him of his voter’s number and where he has to vote, etc. I believe that use could be made of this particular action to assist those who are involved in elections by—if what I am suggesting id carried out— making available to all candidates, on request, a list of the names of people who have moved from the addresses at which they are registered in the voters’ roll. This could be done by mailing the notice early enough. I would like to suggest that this should be done within seven days, although my amendment suggests no later than 14 days after nomination day. When the envelopes are returned to the electoral office the people who operate the punching machines on the computer could feed this information into the computer and the result of this could be made available in the form of a print-out for each polling station, a print-out showing that these voters have in fact moved. On the request of the candidate this list could be made available to candidates. This is just a suggestion as to how the computer could be used to assist those fighting elections, and I would like to put this to the hon. the Minister. I move the two amendments standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, in line 50, after “practicable” to insert:

1. (2) on page 19, after line 17, to add:
   1. (4) The chief electoral officer shall make available to any candidate on request up-to-date lists of all voters in such candidate’s constituency whose prescribed form referred to in subsection (2) has been returned to the chief electoral officer as a result of such voter having changed his place of residence.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member wants three days to be granted after nomination day before the particulars of polling stations are made known to the chief electoral officer. From a practical viewpoint, it is quite unacceptable. We have just undertaken to inform the voters with this card system of, inter alia, the polling stations where they must vote. I was wrong a moment ago when I said that more than a million of these cards would have to be sent out. It is actually more than 2 million of these cards that will have to be sent out. We are in urgent need of this information in connection with the polling stations so that it may be printed on the cards. It may have happened in the hon. member’s constituency, but in practice parties do not agree on the situation of the polling stations after nomination day. In practice parties agree on the situation of these polling stations long before nomination day. In other words, it is a mere formality to send in this information after nominations close. That is why I am afraid that I cannot accept that amendment.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti wants to limit us to 14 days; within these 14 days we must send the cards out to the voters. I cannot commit my department to this period. It is a tremendous task. We have not done it in the past, and I cannot commit my department in advance to 14 days. If the cards are sent back, as undelivered, the hon. member wants us to provide a candidate with a list of such missing voters on demand. I am afraid that this is a matter exclusively for the political parties. It is the task of every political party to be completely au fait with these matters. No matter how much I should like to help the hon. member in this regard, I do not see my way clear to doing so. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister must forgive me if I become a little irritated with him. Quite frankly, I find his answer very superficial and lacking in understanding. I do not know how many elections the hon. the Minister has fought during the last five or six years. However, I can assure him that I have fought four elections during the last eight or nine years. On each occasion the returning officer has refused to treat with the political parties prior to nomination day. Incidentally, one of those returning officers is present here with us now. On each occasion the returning officer has maintained that he cannot treat until he knows who the candidates are going to be. I have found that all returning officers do not in fact designate polling booths until nomination day. The difficulty with that is that in practice the returning officer may well make up his mind privately. That is obviously correct, because he will know of his appointment as a returning officer. Privately he will have made up his mind. However, he will not make public his mind, nor designate the polling booths until he has heard all the properly nominated candidates.

During the last election, both in my constituency and in Bryanston, there had been shifts in population and there was also a breakdown in road-building, which disrupted access routes. That necessitated five polling booths instead of the normal three. As it happened, all political parties were in agreement at the time regarding that particular situation. The returning officer was also in agreement. However, there was a disagreement between the returning officer and the electoral officer at regional level. As a result of that, an appeal had to be lodged. The parties had to be brought together, the sites had to be inspected, and it took at least two days of utilizing the most expeditious and proper procedures to satisfactorily resolve the matter. We are very grateful that the hon. the Minister has brought in this provision that notice should be given to everybody that the election is taking place. Surely, it is not correct, in bringing in one procedure, to negate another very sound procedure of the past. Therefore I would ask the hon. the Minister to take into account the motivation of this amendment with a view to accepting it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton will simply have to pardon me now. I irritate him. However, he must also pardon me now when I say that he irritates me too. [Interjections.] It is true, however, that it is general practice that polling stations are agreed on before the time. I shall, however, accommodate the hon. member for Sandton in one respect. I shall arrange with my department that an administrative measure is made so that this matter is settled between the relevant parties beforehand, that it will take place before nomination day. In this respect I shall accommodate the hon. member. I hope that he will be satisfied now. I am not, however, prepared to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say that I feel less irritated now. I would take it that the hon. the Minister’s statement is an assurance and that it will help the situation if polling booths are designated or negotiated before nomination day. If that is the case, our objection falls away.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to return for a moment to the amendment which I have moved on this clause. I should like to say that I have sympathy with the hon. Minister when he says that to pin his department down to have this notice sent out within 14 days, is asking a bit much. I should like to submit, however, that the root cause of the whole problem which I am trying to overcome is that the department seems to be unable to keep the electoral roll right up to date. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I believe in Great Britain they can call an election within two weeks and have the whole election over within six weeks and that should there be such an election, their roll would be right up to date.

Order! That is not relevant to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that, but what is relevant is the condition of the electoral roll. In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if he is not prepared to do what I have asked him, whether he will be prepared to allow the candidates to go to the electoral office to see which of those have been returned to the electoral office.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the hon. member’s request. The particulars can be made available to a bona fide candidate. However, I am not prepared to accept his amendment.

The hon. member must not place the state of the voters’ roll on the shoulders of the department alone. Political parties also have an obligation in that regard. In any event, we are going to try to introduce a system that will keep the voters’ roll far more up to date.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived.

Amendment moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, we are now dealing with the proposed amendments to section 40 of the principal Act. This section provides for the division of an electoral division into polling districts. The clause which we are considering at the moment seeks to provide that a polling district should contain not more than 3 000 voters unless the State President declares in terms of the relevant subsection why it should not be done.

I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 19, in line 23, to omit all the words after “subdivided” up to and including “to” in line 27 and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 19, in line 32, to omit “hamper the conducting of an election” and to substitute:

1. (d) distances to be travelled within the polling district to such places;
2. (e) parking facilities;
3. (f) the geography and topography of the area;
4. (g) any other relevant factor which will facilitate the conducting of an election.

As I understand that the second amendment is acceptable …

Yes, it is acceptable.

On behalf of the Official Opposition I thank the hon. the Minister for that acceptance. In that case I shall not detain the Committee by arguing on amendment No. (2) and I shall confine myself to discussing amendment No. (1).

I want to address the Committee on the point of having to divide a constituency into polling districts of 3 000 voters each. In this connection I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the provision that a constituency has to be so divided is mandatory. The clause stipulates that it shall be done and therefore it is mandatory. Since this provision is mandatory, the second point is that unless the State President decides otherwise, the division of a constituency into polling districts must be done in accordance with the actual voters roll itself.

I think we all agree that legislation should basically be sufficient to cover all types of contingencies and all types of constituencies. In South Africa we have to do with rural or “platteland” constituencies and urban constituencies. I am prepared to concede at the outset that in a rural constituency, which may consist of areas 200 or 300 miles apart, it could be convenient for the voters themselves to have the constituency divided into polling districts of 3 000 voters each. When one comes to the urban constituencies it is not practical and possible in some instances to divide constituencies, especially when the area is built up, into areas of 3 000 voters each. I can think of Parktown and Yeoville, and there is no better example than my own constituency of Hillbrow. Hillbrow must be the smallest geographical constituency in South Africa. I think it takes ten minutes to get from one extreme end of the boundary to the other end. That is all it takes. There are 15 500 voters. It is physically impossible to find, as I would have to find, five polling districts. In terms of this amended subsection one would have to find five polling booths in that area. This is a physical impossibility and I think the hon. the Minister must accept that.

The let-out that the hon. the Minister has given us here is that the State President may decree otherwise after taking these points into consideration. Paragraphs (d) to (g), which I have proposed to be added, are fundamental to the choice of the polling booth itself. One cannot really separate the one from the other because those are the considerations that must be taken into account. I am afraid that what is going to happen is that the rule—it is a rule because it says “shall”—will mean that constituencies must be divided into five districts, since one has an average of 15 000 voters. Now one has to involve nobody less than the State President. This is the only time that the State President is in fact mentioned in this Bill because he is the man in whose name the regulations are made. Imagine the trouble that one has to go to get the State President to bend the rule to divide a constituency into less than five districts. I think that is going too far. The general rule should be to restore the status quo. From our point of view on this side of the House we feel that the words “where possible, practical and desirable” should be inserted. We also feel that the existing Act, as it stands, is quite sufficient.

I want to point out one further difficulty, namely the number of enrolled voters according to the voters’ roll. In the constituency of Hillbrow there are approximately 15 500 voters on the roll. Technically speaking, one now has to find five polling booths of 3 000 each. However, the whole question of registration comes into play here. We have not got effective registration, as the hon. the Minister explained to us in the Second Reading. He has asked us to rely on RV.1 forms. There has been an election in this constituency. It started with a by-election. In all two parties were involved and they managed to register 15 000 people on RV.1 forms in a complete drive by going to every single voter. Out of 15 500 voters the effective roll was only 10 000 people. In other words, if one managed to get everybody who could possibly vote, it would involve only 10 000 people. One is therefore not going to base one’s 3 000 voters on the 10 000 effective voters, but on the 15 000 people of whom 5 000 are non-effective. They have just gone and disappeared over six years and nobody can find them. On that basis the fixing of a figure of 3 000 on a roll which is not effective is something which I think is going to lead to a lot of problems. For those reasons I would urge on behalf of the Official Opposition, upon the hon. the Minister to allow the possible and practical effects to come into play and to use those reasons for determining these polling districts and hence the polling booths.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that I accept the hon. member’s second amendment. The additional reasons (d) to (g) mentioned by him in that amendment, are fair and acceptable. They are reasons to be considered in the determination of polling stations. I shall not say anything more in this regard.

However, we must have some figure in the Act as an indication of the size of a polling district. One must bear in mind the fact that we now have the provision that a person must be able to prove his identity. This may possibly be a time-consuming procedure at times, one we did not have in the past, and we cannot omit the matter of prescribing a certain number. The Select Committee was of the opinion that 3 000 was a reasonable number, and the members of the Committee are people who have vast experience of elections. For that reason I accept that this is a reasonable number. We are not tied down to that number, however. I think I said during the Second Reading debate that it would be the easiest thing in the world to effect a change in this regard. If the hon. member for Hillbrow is able to obtain the co-operation of the other parties, Hillbrow may still retain one polling district only what this will amount to in practice is that we shall take steps well in advance to investigate circumstances in all constituencies in which the parties want to exceed the figure of 3 000. If it is a reasonable request which meets with general agreement, we shall ensure the acceptance of the higher figure. I do not believe the hon. member should be too insistent on this point.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

Anybody who has had experience of fighting elections will know that voters are not always aware of the actual addresses at which they are registered. This is particularly the case when one is dealing with old people and sick people, who are the sort of people who would be applying for absent votes. Voters’ rolls, too, tend to be very much out of date and it frequently happens that people believe that at a certain time they were registered at a particular address, but that their memories prove to be faulty. I think that this is a small, technical amendment and I understand that the hon. the Minister might well consider it favourably. I shall therefore not bother to motivate it any further.

Mr. Chairman, it is a practical proposal and we accept it.

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

The effect of this amendment will be that it will have to be stated on the application form where the present residential address is to be furnished, whether that residential address is permanent or temporary. I understand that the hon. the Minister might be prepared to accept this amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, this is a practical proposal, too, and we accept it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

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

1. (1) On page 31, in line 8, to omit the first “names” and to substitute “name, address and occupation”;
2. (2) on page 31, in line 46, to omit “with” and to substitute:

This is the first of the clauses relating to ballot papers, on which the names of the political parties are now to be inserted. We do not object to that. I do not think any person will be at all ashamed of having his party appear on the ballot paper. However, we do feel that, despite the space problem one might have on the ballot paper, the addresses and the occupations of the candidates should appear there too.

You cannot be serious.

In quite a few elections the question whether a candidate is a local man or from other parts is an issue. We feel it is a detail which could be included.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. The whole philosophy behind the idea of the registration of parties, etc., is, inter alia, that a candidate will be identified on account of his party affiliation. We are going to all this trouble and therefore I do not see my way clear, with regard to addresses, etc., to imposing an extra work load on my department. It is unnecessary for the Government Printer to publish such addresses and occupations. It also places a heavy burden on my department because the department has to check all these particulars. I honestly do not believe it is fair to expect that this be done as well since we are taking all the other trouble and incurring all the other expenditures.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

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

This amendment is in line with the amendment which I moved in respect of clause 15 and which was accepted by the hon. the Minister. The same sort of circumstance applies in this instance, and I presume the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment as well.

I accept the amendment.

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

Clause 25 deals with the application form for a special vote, and the arguments submitted in motivating the amendment on clause 15, which deals with postal votes, apply in this case as well. I understand the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment.

I accept the amendment.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

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

This was the matter which we discussed a few clauses ago. I will not motivate it again. I would like to record that this amendment was moved by us.

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

We accept the provisions of this clause, namely that the ballot paper should be marked in the ballot book before it is actually handed to the voter. The only suggestion which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister as it is set out in my amendment, is that this should be done on polling day and in the polling station.

Mr. Chairman, we already make provision for this matter in the regulations, but I am prepared to have this provision in the Act as well. Therefore I accept the amendment.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39:

Mr. Chairman, I move that this clause be negatived. This clause deals with election publications. I gave the matter a great deal of thought after the Second Reading of the Bill, and by withdrawing this clause I do not want to indicate that I am renouncing the principle of investigating the question of election expenditure in future. In my opinion we should take another look at election expenditure in future, when we get another opportunity. My problem with the clause as it stands, is that it is totally ineffectual. It means that R10 000 can be spent on election publications in an election where both a parliamentary candidate and a candidate for the provincial council are eligible.

That is too much.

It is too much and in fact makes a farce of the whole matter. The clause was incorporated in the Bill after a recommendation by the Select Committee. If I were to accept today the amendment in this regard moved by the hon. member for Simonstown, viz. that the amount should be reduced to R3 000, we would have quarrelled about whether R3 000 was enough or not. Consequently I prefer this provision to be completely eliminated from the legislation and that we look into the matter once again on another occasion, when we can clarify the matter and have information at our disposal on how the provision should be amended. For the time being I am convinced that the clause should be omitted from the Bill. Another aspect which I have thought about in this regard, relates to the practical implementation of the provision. The fact that in terms of the provisions of the clause, wagonloads of election publications would have been sent to my head office and nobody would look at them in any case is another reason why this provision is being withdrawn. In the light of these circumstances I believe we should rather take another penetrating look at election publications at a later stage. Therefore I shall leave it at that for the time being.

Mr. Chairman, naturally we in these benches are very pleased with the decision of the hon. the Minister. There were certain amendments on the Order Paper that were to be moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I had given notice to negative this clause. In the circumstances, and accepting the explanation that the hon. the Minister has given, it is certainly not my intention to attack the clause or to give all the reasons why we approve of the hon. the Minister’s action. We, too, share the view that any abuses which take place at election time should be eliminated by way of regulations or by way of statute. The question of certain candidates being unduly assisted by financial means or others, is something which we regard as being undesirable as far as our political system is concerned. We believe that the figure of R10 000 for a general election— that would have been the practical effect of it—is an arbitrary figure in that it does not bear any relationship to the size of a constituency or to the increasing costs of production.

*That is an amount which they ruled out of their thumb and inserted in the legislation.

†What did concern us even more was the administration of this clause. Quite frankly, we would all like to find a system which would give the best reflection of the attitude of the voters without undue influence of any kind being brought to bear on them. We support the hon. the Minister’s view that the clause as it stands here would have created an administrative structure which would not only have achieved its objective, but would have imposed such a burden on voluntary workers and political parties that it would in fact have been rendered ineffective.

So, while we would be quite happy to reconsider at a later stage, together with the hon. members on the Government side, some adaptation to the clause, we at this stage have no hesitation in endorsing the hon. the Minister’s decision not to proceed with it.

Mr. Chairman, whilst I appreciate the practical problems of the hon. the Minister—we must accept that they are real problems—I am very sorry that the principle of a limitation now falls away. I hope the hon. the Minister will take early action to institute steps so that we can find some other formula. There is no doubt at all that there has been excessive expenditure on elections in recent years. This was one of the original motives for the appointment of a Select Committee. The original motion in the Other Place also dealt specifically with the question of excessive expenditure.

I am very glad to hear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees that there should be a limitation, because it was from his party that what I believe was excessive expenditure was noticeable. [Interjections.] I have a public representative who says he saw a cheque for R20 000 from the PFP to one of its candidates. [Interjections.] I believe that when one starts pouring that sort of money into an election, one is making it impossible for the ordinary South African ever to stand for Parliament except with the backing of big money. [Interjections.]

That is not why you lost all your seats outside of Natal.

It seems that the cap must fit, judging by the reaction and the squeals coming from hon. members on my right! It seems that I must be striking a sore point. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I know that in the constituency of Durban Point, a seat which they regarded as hopeless, they gave R7 000 to their candidate to blow, to waste.

To waste?

Yes, to waste. He had no chance of winning the seat and the money was used merely to create an election. The candidate admitted it to me. He said that the PFP had given him R7 000 and that he had put aside R600 to cover his deposit. He did not need the R600, so he had that amount left. I believe this sort of big-money election is not in the spirit of democratic elections. If one has the money one throws it around during election time. I hope that we will be able to find some other formula which will ensure that money does not become a major factor in the winning or losing of elections.

When one thinks that one full-page advertisement in a Sunday newspaper costs around R8 000 and that one party was able to publish innumerable full-page advertisements, one begins to see that we are moving towards the American scale of electioneering where only a millionaire can stand for some offices. I think it would be tragic if South African politics became the politics of millionaires and big money. I therefore hope the hon. the Minister will take early steps to find an alternative procedure for limiting the expenditure on elections.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the leader of the NRP said. We are to some extent disappointed because this principle will not be adopted at this stage. We hope the hon. the Minister will not wait too long before looking into this matter. There is an amendment on the Order Paper which I was to have moved on behalf of the hon. member for Simonstown. The motivation for it is that we ought to protect the electorate against a flood of pamphlets and reading matter which will contribute to a certain extent to people losing interest in the election. During the past election voters showed me stacks of this stuff and told me that they were sick of it and did not want to see it any more. I have here 15 different election pamphlets which were issued by one candidate of one party in one constituency.

Which party was it, Dan?

It was the PFP. But I want to add that the PFP candidate who stood against me, was definitely neglected, because I do not think he could afford to send out 15 different pamphlets to people—luckily for me! The pamphlets to which I referred even contained Christmas greetings! Apart from these pamphlets which were sent out in this constituency, they also used the “knock and drop” method. They knock at a person’s door and leave a pamphlet, whether the person wants it or not.

The main motivation behind the amendment by the hon. member for Simonstown was to protect the electorate against this flood. Finally, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we accept that he will look into the matter, but that we hope he will do so soon.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say very much except to say that sometimes there are matters of principle when it suits one and that sometimes matters which used to be matters of principle or which are matters of principle, are no longer matters of principle. I think it all revolves around the fact that nobody minds one spending money as long as one has been able to raise it. However, when one is a member of a political party which cannot raise money, one obviously wants to limit the spending of money. When that hon. member was in the same party as I was in 1972, he as a member of the UP did not object when the UP spent R23 000 in Johannesburg West to fight Mr. Dawie de Villiers. [Interjections.] When the UP spent money to stand against the PP, there was no objection from the UP members then.

That was out of Harry Schwarz’s secret fund. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I should set the record straight by saying that this could only have happened in Transvaal under the leadership of one of the members of that party.

Clause negatived.

Clause 40:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the matter of treating. This will always be known as the Bamford clause, because apparently it was the hon. Chief Whip of the Official Opposition who started the first moan about it. The proposed section 113(1) is divided into paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). We regard paragraph (b) as an improvement. As far as paragraph (a) is concerned, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in the light of my knowledge of legal matters, the retention of the word “corruptly” in the context of this particular sentence will make it very difficult to prove in a court of law that the treating was done in a corrupt manner. I therefore move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 49, in line 54, to omit “corruptly”;
2. (2) on page 49, in line 59, to omit “corruptly”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s intention in deleting the word “corruptly”, which appears twice, is to make this clause a more stringent one. Just to show him that I too can be “verlig”, I want to tell him that I am not prepared to do so. I think it is a principle incorporated in legislation and provisions of this nature that the animus of the offender should indeed be taken into account. I do not want anybody who, completely in a spirit of friendship and without any ulterior motives, offers a cup of tea to someone else getting into trouble too because the word “corruptly” does not appear here. Therefore I am not prepared to make this provision more stringent and consequently I am not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am not going to express a viewpoint on this clause at all, but only want to know whether it is in order to amend a subsection which is not under discussion and which is already part of the Act?

It might be correct, but it is much easier to vote on it.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41:

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that we shall be supporting this clause because in our opinion it improves section 114 of the principal Act, a section which is designed to protect a citizen in exercising his right to vote on election days. We agree with this principle because we all feel, as I am sure all hon. members in this House will, that it is an essential part of democracy that a citizen should be able to vote on polling day unhindered and, indeed, without fear or threat. However, I am quite sure that those of us who have been involved in elections in recent years, will agree with me when I say that there has been a rather undesirable development in recent years, and that is what I would like to call the “harassing of voters” on polling day. This was particularly seen in the Durban North by-election and especially at old folks homes where the elderly people would be met at the entrance to the homes by various parties who, possibly in their enthusiasm—I am prepared to concede that in some cases it was due to their enthusiasm—did tend to harass the people, but, on the other hand, it could be an election tactic to try to influence particular voters. There were many cases where these elderly people eventually ended up so confused and so frustrated that I think it was impinging on their dignity as voters. For this reason I would most certainly have moved an amendment to this clause, in line 27 after the word “person” to insert “harasses or”, but because that would have been out of order I shall not do so. However, I would like to commend this thought to the hon. the Minister in the hope that, because of the principles involved and the indignities which are being imposed upon elderly people, he might consider putting forward such an amendment in the future.

Mr. Chairman, may I first ask whether the hon. member has moved an amendment or not?

No, it is out of order.

I cannot consider anything of the kind in the future either, because it is a tradition in this country to have welcoming committees and it is also very difficult to determine whether a welcome is fair or not. Therefore I cannot consider that, not even in future.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44:

Mr. Chairman, I move that this clause be negatived. I should like to deal with this proposal very briefly. What I actually want to achieve is to restore the status quo ante. This particular clause provides for section 129 of the principal Act, Act No. 46 of 1946, to be repealed. Section 129 of the principal Act contains the provisions in connection with the use of certain hired conveyances. I quote section 129(1)—

This particular section of the principal Act has given rise to serious problems, especially during the last election. During the last election it resulted in two Supreme Court cases involving two hon. members of this House. Fortunately both cases were later withdrawn. Repealing this particular section now directly affects the two Supreme Court actions I have just referred to. Let us therefore examine the position that will be created by repealing this section. The position can only be judged in the light of two other sections of the principal Act. The first one that has a direct bearing on the situation is section 97 of the Act, a section which deals with the election expenses allowed and the limit on the total amount thereof. In the section mention is made of certain items in respect of which election expenses of a candidate are lawful. No mention is made, however, of expenses in connection with the use of vehicles used for the conveyance of voters to or from polling booths. From this it seems that no candidate in an election is allowed to enter into any expense for this purpose.

Further motivation for the repeal of section 129 of the Act can be found in section 121 in terms of which certain expenditure is prohibited. Section 121(1)(a) is relevant to the issue because the expenditure it prohibits is as follows—

Therefore, even while repealing section 129 of the principal Act, as we are doing now, the hiring of vehicles for the purpose of conveying voters is still prohibited in terms of section 121 of the Act. What are we left with then? We are now left with the repeal of section 129(1)(a), and in fact only one small portion thereof. That is as follows—

In other words, we have a completely different situation now. It will now be possible for a candidate to obtain the use of vehicles for the conveyance of voters without paying for that use, either directly or indirectly. In fact, a vehicle which is primarily used for the purpose of conveying people, can now be used. In other words, it could be a bus or even a taxi, as long as it is primarily used, or normally used for the purpose of being let on hire. That is what we are allowing to be done now.

In this respect we believe that some people, especially those with close connections with people in high places, could benefit unfairly by this. People who, for example, have close connections with schools, could possibly succeed in obtaining the use of school buses. We also feel that undue pressure can be exercised, particularly by people in privileged positions, to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of other candidates.

Basically this would be unfair, because it means that a candidate with more influence than another will be able to obtain vehicles which another candidate will not be able to obtain. Therefore we on this side of the House think that the fairest way of dealing with the situation will be by leaving it as it is at the moment. A candidate should not be entitled to pay for hired vehicles. It should not be allowed as an election expense and nor should candidates be allowed to use vehicles that are normally let on hire for the conveyance of voters.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to point out that what we have in mind here, has nothing to do with certain court cases, because the provisions under discussion are not retrospective. We again gave attention to section 129 of the principal Act The section incorporates a ban on an illegal activity which has been declared an illegal activity by the Electoral Act. The provision is indeed archaic, for it originated in a provision which was introduced into legislation in the English law in 1883. Hon. members will agree that the position in England in 1883, as far as transport was concerned, differed vastly from the situation today. As hon. members know, whether a party is big or small, transport during an election is at present by way of vehicles which are made available voluntarily. In actual fact, there is never any question of vehicles being hired. Under these circumstances we feel that the provision in the principal Act is archaic and for that reason we propose that the section be deleted.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 45:

Mr. Chairman, this clause relates to the limitation which is proposed to be placed on the publication of opinion polls prior to an election. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which were stated during the Second Reading debate, but I think there are three very relevant points which can be made and I should like to put them to the hon. the Minister.

If one looks at the report of the Select Committee and takes into account which members served on the Committee, one finds that the two main parties—one of them was the then Official Opposition—were very much in favour of the banning of such public opinion polls. That arose after certain grievances arising out of the Durban North by-election. The recommendation that opinion polls be banned was then included in the draft Bill. Hon. members of the NRP who are the successors to the UP have said that they do not follow that stance, and they do not support the clause at all. I have discussed this matter with many hon. members on all sides of the House and I must tell the hon. the Minister that I have yet to come across one single hon. member who tells me privately that he supports the banning of public opinion polls.

The entire academic world is against the banning of public opinion polls. The banning of such polls destroys a legitimate discipline. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has received a copy of the document distributed by the S.A. Market Research Association. [Interjections.] Well, then I shall not quote it. From that document which contains representations made to all members of Parliament it is clear that this organization has not even been consulted in connection with the clause now under consideration. The entire Press, English as well as Afrikaans, NP supporting as well as Opposition supporting, are for good reasons opposed to this clause. I want to quote from an article in Rapport written by that newspaper’s political commentator Pollux—

Having said that, and having dealt with what I call the “bandwagon effect”, I think a most telling argument was put by the Chief Whip and by the hon. the Minister himself. They said that it was the view of the Government that public opinion polls published very close to election day could influence the public and, moreover, may not be of a high scientific standard. The feeling of the Government members was that the right of reply should be allowed to public opinion polls and that there should be sufficient time for opinion polls to be rebutted once they have been placed in the public eye. Any aggrieved political party should have the right to rebut that opinion poll. The hon. the Minister has accepted this principle, and in doing this there is an amendment on the Order Paper, on which I assume he will speak shortly, to limit the ban to after nomination day. So, in terms of the thinking of the Government, there will be no further opinion polls after nomination day.

There may be. The only thing is that they are not to be published.

I cannot argue that one, because I see absolutely no purpose at all in taking an opinion poll and keeping it secret. The purpose of a public opinion poll is to enlighten the public …

To influence the public.

Please give me a chance to speak. The purpose of an opinion poll is to enlighten the public opinion and with that in view it must be made public. In order to rebut a false impression all that is needed is a couple of days. A political party does not need three or four weeks to rebut a wrong impression. As we are now in the Committee Stage I cannot argue the principle of the Bill or that we would like to have the banning removed completely. Only the hon. the Minister can do this. I can, however, try to limit the scope of the Bill, and therefore as the hon. the Minister has accepted the principle of limiting the scope to nomination day, I would ask him to allow a further limitation, which none the less would allow the right of reply and the right of rebuttal by a political party. I accordingly move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 53, in line 3, to omit all the words after “period” up to and including “up” in line 6 and to substitute “commencing fourteen days prior”;
2. (2) on page 53, in line 12, to omit “, on or subsequent to the said date” and to substitute “or during such period”.

These amendments will have the effect of limiting the publication of opinion polls to a period 14 days before election day. If this is allowed, it will still inhibit opinion polls, but certainly will not stifle an entire profession. It certainly will not close down an entire discipline and it certainly will not in any way stop the public from being informed as to political trends.

I want to quote again from the article by Pollux which appeared a few weeks ago. He wrote as follows—

In moving these amendments I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give them serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was right when he remarked that we cannot now, in the Committee Stage, again debate the entire principle again and that it is basically a question of whether I want to reject the clause altogether, or whether I want to propose that the period be made shorter. Indeed, I move the amendments printed in my name in the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of this is that the period during which an opinion poll may not be carried out or published, is limited to the period between nomination day and polling day. If we take into account that within seven days after nomination day, people may already vote by means of a special vote, it is not unfair that people and political parties should be left to themselves at least during the period between nomination day and polling day. The people who carry out and publish the opinion polls, can have a wonderful time long before that right up to nomination day. So please just give the political parties from nomination day to polling day to fight their own campaign. In the circumstances, I think that my amendment in which I am making a further concession, is fair, and I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton.

Mr. Chairman, I thought some other member might want to take this point up. I find the hon. the Minister’s standpoint completely unacceptable. The hon. the Minister talks about making concessions. He appears to be worried about making any further concessions. I cannot understand why this provision has been put in the Bill in the first place. It is a question of putting a bad clause into a Bill and then making concessions in respect of it.

But the Select Committee recommended it.

Yes, but I have pointed out, as was stated across the floor a little earlier, that this was a package deal. The one party has pulled out of that package deal and therefore there is no longer any package deal. The hon. the Minister does not know the members of his own party. If he looks round the Committee, he will find that there are very few members who agree with him on the question of opinion polls. They may agree with him in public, but certainly not in private. What he is doing is that he is stifling a legitimate and proper discipline in South Africa. I want to read to the Committee what the South African Market Research Association has said in this connection—

I want to say that on this particular issue the members of the Select Committee were like the blind leading the blind. None of them are experts on this. None of them know the first thing about opinion polls as far as I am aware. I include in this the hon. the Chief Whip and all the members of the Select Committee. They do not realize the disciplines that go into it.

Yet, the hon. the Minister has the effrontery to allow to remain in the same clause the right of political parties to publish their own private political canvass results in lieu of public survey opinions. This is ridiculous. What is happening is that for the period from nomination day to polling day the scientifically-taken public opinion poll is being banned—it has been scientifically proven beyond doubt that those surveys do not influence elections—while the partisan party-political opinion polls are being allowed to be published as misinformation for the public. This is nonsense. If the hon. the Minister wants to put legislation like this on the Statute Book and at the same time not accept a very reasonable amendment, I really think that that party is taking it far too far.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take issue with the hon. member for Sandton. If he contends that there is no evidence of the bandwagon effect of public opinion polls, I want to refer him to a specific election result. On 24 April 1974 an election was held in the constituency of Pinelands. The UP polled 5 840 votes and the Progressive Party 3 286 votes. In the Transvaal on that day the Progressive Party managed to win five additional seats. This had a bandwagon effect on Opposition votes. A mere seven weeks later, in the same constituency and with exactly the same voters, the Progressive Party polled 4 921 votes, an increase of some 1 700 votes. The UP, on the other hand, polled 4 887 votes, which was a reduction of 1 000 votes.

Boraine had something to do with that.

That caused a bandwagon effect. What we are opposing here is that public opinion polls are published as if they have been conducted on a scientific basis while that was not the case.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that the opinion poll in that instance showed the Progressive Party as losing the election?

Yes, by a slight margin. There were other factors which also influenced the result of that election, for instance the fact that the NP also put up a candidate. Nevertheless, the increase in the number of votes polled by the Progressive party candidate from the one election to the second seven weeks later, was not affected by the NP having put up a candidate. This clause places a limitation on the publication of opinion polls. The reason is that not all opinion polls are conducted on a scientific basis. It is quite true that many of them are carried out on a scientific basis, and we have no objection to scientific opinion polls as such. However, it is unfortunate that in an election campaign every single organization or newspaper comes with all sorts of Heath Robinson opinion polls and newspapers publish the results as though they were conducted on a scientific basis. Because it is difficult to restrict opinion polls to those which are carried out on a scientific basis, it is regarded as necessary and essential at this stage at least to restrict them to a certain period in relation to an election campaign.

I want to remind hon. members of the fact that the principle of this clause was agreed to at the Second Reading. I must therefore ask hon. members to confine themselves to the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. What he is suggesting is that one should not have elections or by-elections which create a bandwagon effect.

I did not say that.

The hon. member was not referring to public opinion polls. [Interjections.] The public opinion poll conducted at that time of the Pinelands by-election in which Dr. Alex Boraine was elected and published just before the election—within the time period which we are discussing in terms of the amendment—actually indicated that Dr. Boraine was going to lose.

So why do you want such inaccurate things?

It indicated just the opposite. The public opinion poll during that election and published during this period, indicated just the opposite. It indicated that Dr. Alex Boraine was going to lose to Miss Annette Reinecke. The argument is therefore irrelevant.

I sat on the Select Committee. I can say quite frankly that not a single hon. member who spoke in support of a ban on public opinion polls actually produced a public opinion poll which justified their argument. Nobody produced an opinion poll and could say that that particular opinion poll was bad, that it was published during this period and had an undesirable effect on the election. Nobody has produced such an opinion poll.

I want to strike a bargain with the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister, before this clause is put, can produce a public opinion poll in the last ten years in South Africa which has had this adverse effect which causes him to think that we must protect the voters or the public, we will consider it very seriously. Neither in the Select Committee, nor at the Second Reading of the Bill, nor during the Committee Stage of the Bill, has the hon. the Minister or the hon. Chief Whip produced the public opinion polls which misled the voters, which caused the wrong result or which had a bad effect on testing the “volkswil”. We are also putting this challenge to the hon. Chief Whip, because he is the driving force behind the whole issue. If he or the hon. the Minister can produce this information, we are prepared to consider supporting this clause. We think it is reasonable to publish these polls. However, if a stage is reached where they do have a damaging effect, we can review the situation. The parties or the candidates should be given the right to reply. That is implicit in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton, i.e. that the parties should be given the chance to reply to these polls. If the polls are unscientific, unrealistic or if they are damaging, the parties should have the opportunity, two weeks before the election, of responding to them. I would like the hon. the Minister to do two things. Firstly, he should give us an illustration from the past which caused him to want to place this ban on the publishing of public opinion polls. In the second place he should accept the reasonableness of the attitude of the hon. member for Sandton when he says that these polls should be published by all means, but that the parties and the candidates should be given two weeks in which to undo any damage which could have been done through the publishing of any damaging public opinion polls.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to and amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling dropped.

On amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling,

Question put: That the words “on or subsequent to” stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—109: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (2) moved by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—109: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 49:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

follow clause 49:

This amendment makes provision for a new clause 50 to follow clause 49. The proposed clause provides that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply in respect of the holding of elections of members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. For the time being, the provisions of the Bill shall not be applicable to elections of members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council because, owing to the scope and the drastic nature of the Bill, the Executive of that council has not yet had the opportunity of making an in-depth study of the provisions contained therein and to adopt a resolution on it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated his reason for excluding the CRC from the operation of this Act, viz. because the executive of the CRC has not had an opportunity of studying the Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what his attitude is in regard to the Indian Council. We have just passed legislation dealing with the Indian Council. Are Indian political parties to be subject to the operation of this Act or are they not? The position would seem to be that, as they are not excluded, the Act would apply to the Indian community.

They have got their own Act.

Are they not to be excluded from the operation of this Act?

They are automatically excluded. They have their own Act.

New Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, so much time has elapsed since we last debated this Bill that I think it is necessary for me to remind the House that we are strongly opposed to this Bill. In fact, the hon. member for Bryanston moved that the Bill be read “this day six months”. I think hon. members will know that the basic objection which we have to the Bill is that fund-raising is now to be controlled by a fund-raising director, and he alone will determine who will be entitled to collect funds. Because of the stringent imposition of control over the collection of funds and the implications of the Bill as printed, we strongly oppose it.

I wish to begin by referring to the hon. member for South Coast, who was the last speaker in this debate. He accused the Opposition of acting not on the strength of their own convictions, but on the basis of what the Press dictates to them. I must remind the hon. member for South Coast that after the Bill was published in July last year the November issue of Kindersorg issued a report in which it stated that the bad thing about the Bill is that it gives the politicians too much power to interfere with welfare work. Then, the attitude of The Star on 14 September last year, was that in terms of the Fund-raising Bill the Government appoints, pays and controls the director who decides who may collect money for charity and who may not. I think this was summed up a little more effectively on 20 September 1977 in the Natal Witness, which saw this Bill as a device to eliminate welfare organizations of which the South African Government was not in favour. For those reasons, to which we fully subscribe, we oppose the Bill, but the hon. member for South Coast could not be more wrong in the supposition that he made.

The hon. the Minister, at one stage, withdrew the Bill and later came back with another Bill. When he came back with the new Bill we were hopeful that perhaps in view of the 247 representations which had been made to him, the Bill would come back in ameliorated form, but it did not. In fact, it came back in a much stronger form. The hon. the Minister introduced two amendments into the Bill which gave even more dictatorial powers to the Bill. It must be remembered that this Bill is the middle sister of the three sisters. The first sister was the National Welfare Bill, which was the naughty sister. This Bill is the wicked sister. The third sister is the Social and Associated Workers Bill, which is the sister which is not so bad. However, they are all in the same family, the family of welfare work. What we fear is that in the name of social security the Government is creating social insecurity. When the hon. the Minister reintroduced the Bill he had made two amendments to it. Firstly, he introduced a new provision relating to “any contributions solicited”, etc., and that provision, for some peculiar reason, was included in clause 1, the definitions clause itself. This will give him very direct control over funds which come in from overseas. The other amendment which he effected was in clause 29 which he amended in two respects. He firstly introduced the words “notwithstanding the provisions of this Act”, which will give him full dictatorial powers, and he then eliminated the words from the previous section 29 referring to “collections from the public”. In other words, this measure will now be applicable to collections from all. Notwithstanding the fact that reference is made to certain exemptions which are granted—I will refer to that again later—I understand that 1 450 copies of a redraft of the original Bill were then printed before the introduction of this measure. Why this happened, only the hon. the Minister will be able to explain. However, we are at a loss to understand just why the extra expense had been entered into merely to accommodate four amendments introduced by the hon. the Minister himself.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to have one national fund director for all the population groups, particularly since it has now been accepted that this particular legislation makes provision for an entirely new welfare set-up on a regional basis to be established and controlled by the Parliaments of the various race groups in South Africa in terms of the proposed new constitutional plan.

Or is it in fact intended, when the new constitutional plans take effect, that a national fund director will then be appointed for each of the remaining race groups? When this takes place, if at all, will this national fund director then be registering all welfare organizations of all the various race groups in South Africa and is he going to apply the same criteria that applied in terms of clause 13 of the Bill we previously looked at? The hon. the Minister said that the registration of welfare organizations themselves would be merely a formality in that the fund-raising director would decide first of all whether welfare organizations should in fact be registered. I should like to know, however, whether the same criteria that will apply in the case of White welfare organizations will also be applicable to other welfare organizations. On cannot help wondering why it was necessary to amend the National Welfare Act, 1967, in this respect. We know that the Van Rooyen Commission was appointed and that that commission carried out quite a formidable task. We also know that complaints were received in connection with fund-raising organizations, particularly in connection with fund-raisers who received remuneration for the fund-raising which they were doing. In its report the Van Rooyen Commission points out that 55% of welfare organizations were in fact against this type of legislation. Therefore, one could very well say that the hon. the Minister, by introducing this legislation, has really used a hammer to kill a fly.

On page 22 of the Van Rooyen Commission’s report, under the heading “General registration”, paragraph 4.03, the following is stated—

This particular Bill clearly deviates from this recommendation in two respects. Firstly, the paragraph I have just quoted states “regularly collecting voluntary contributions”. In terms of the Bill, however, provision is not made for regular collections, but for collections held once in a lifetime. The legislation before us now provides, not for the regular collector to be controlled, but for control to be exercised over a collector collecting once in a lifetime. The second respect in which the Bill has deviated from the recommendations becomes clear when we consider the matter of collections from the public. The hon. the Minister has, in fact, omitted the words “from the public”, and as the Bill stands at the moment, it covers collections from anyone. All collections are now being controlled.

If we look at the original Act, we find that it contains checks and other measures. When one comes, for example, to the question of formal inspections—I refer to section 30 of the Welfare Act—we find that they are controlled. When it comes to formal inquiries into the question of malpractices, we find that they are controlled in terms of section 21. When it comes to financial statements, we find that they are controlled in terms of section 30(6). All the checks and balances are therefore already contained in the Welfare Act. We wonder why it is necessary to go to the extreme lengths as now proposed in terms of the Bill.

Those controls only affected welfare organizations.

That is exactly my complaint. My complaint is that we are going too far. In terms of the Bill every single person who is raising funds will be controlled.

Fund-raising is not an easy matter. It is not very easy to obtain money. In terms of the three pieces of legislation which have to deal with welfare we are going to triplicate the expenses in connection with welfare. The welfare organizations will now have to cut off their non-White clinics and other welfare work amongst the non-Whites.

In this connection I refer to the medical, the paramedical and the administrative staff who will all have to be triplicated in order to serve the three race groups separately. As a result of this the expenses are going to mount. Has the hon. the Minister considered the expenses? Can South Africa afford it to go to these expenses? Why should we go to such expenses? To fulfil an ideology; that is all. The whole public will have to pay merely because the hon. the Minister wants to fulfil an ideology.

I should like to know, when it comes to the collection of funds, whether the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians will be restricted in the sense that they can only collect funds amongst their own people. It is generally accepted that the R135 million which is alleged to have been collected by welfare organizations last year, was spent irrespective of race and colour. People of all the different colour groups were assisted. In future we shall have to obtain more money. As I see it, the Whites will have to bear the burden to collect money for the organizations of the non-Whites.

There is no racial differentiation in this Bill.

Does the hon. the Minister by that interjection say that from now on and in perpetuity all Coloured welfare organizations, like all White welfare organizations, will be under the control of one director?

I shall give you a reply.

We say that the present legislation is excessive, is stringent and it may affect adversely the functioning of welfare throughout the entire country itself. To complete the point I am making, I want to point out that it is common knowledge that welfare organizations are struggling to obtain funds. The Van Rooyen Commission tells us that there are 567 separately registered organizations which have an income of less than R2 000 per annum. In other words, from the survey that was made it appears that 62,66% of all welfare organizations get an income of less than R2 000 per annum. That is very little and I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees. It is very hard for those organizations to make ends meet on such a small amount.

You are wrong; it is 40%.

I hope it is true that there is nothing to stop funds being collected by one race group for another—I want to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister in this regard—because unless the White community is going to be allowed to carry the burden of raising funds for all the Coloured and Indian organizations, they will not be able to survive and their welfare organizations will die. The wealth is obviously in the hands of the Whites. The mining houses, the industrial houses, the commercial houses …

Anglo American. [Interjections.]

Well, it cannot be said that those houses are in the hands of the Blacks. The Whites are the people who control the public companies and they are the people who make large contributions by way of donations to the various welfare bodies which apply for financial assistance.

I now want to refer to an aspect which has not been touched upon in this debate. There are organizations in this country to which we generally refer as service organizations. Rotary, Lions, Round Table and Rapportryers are some of these service organizations. I think every hon. member of this House knows what their method of working is. Their function is to obtain funds by means of collections from the public. They try to assist welfare organizations in the execution of various projects. The Lions’ president for a particular zone or branch, would, for example, pick the project to which he would give attention during his year of office. He says: “This year I want to help the blind.” The next one comes along the following year and says that he wants to help the deaf. Each one picks on an organization. They do not go to a charitable organization to ask them whether they can do it, but they collect funds from the public, they raise funds and they do jobs for people. That is part of a service organization’s functions. Having collected these funds, they pick upon the charity of their choice and then grant those funds to that charity. In terms of this Bill they will no longer be able to do that.

You are talking nonsense.

In terms of this Bill they will no longer be able to do that. If I may, I would like to tell you what I think is going to happen.

Alex, explain the Bill to him.

The organizations to which I refer will be subjected to the following: Firstly, in terms of clause 2, they will have to register because no one will be able to collect contributions without being authorized to do so by the director. The collection of the funds refers to collections from anyone, and not simply from the public, because that has been eliminated. Why this Bill eliminates “from the public”, I do not know. The only reference to collections from the public is contained in clause 5(3), which deals with the branches of organizations. That is the only reference to the collection of money from the public itself. A registered branch of an organization can do this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in the original wording of clause 2, it was intended to restrict the collection of moneys from the public or to restrict the collection of moneys from anyone, including private persons. Why is there a difference? I am now constrained to believe that he wishes to restrict the collection of money from anyone, and not simply from the public, because, when this Bill came before us with a new amended clause 29, the words “from the public” were omitted. I can only assume that that was done deliberately.

Let me, however, continue with my argument as to the functions of the service organizations. The next difficulty they encounter is to be found in clause 7(1). They will first have to get permission in writing from a fund-raising organization in order to be able to collect money. They will have to nominate a charity of their choice before they can go around to collect the funds themselves. I maintain that this is not the practice of the service organizations. In addition to that, they must produce their authority in terms of clause 7(8). In any event, this is a limited permission, because in terms of section 7(10) it is only granted for a maximum of one year. They can collect funds on a particular premises by holding a bazaar, sale or competition, but it must be under the direct control of the organization that has the permission. This will occur in terms of section 7(11). There is, however, a restriction, because in terms of clause 11(1), the contributions that are collected can only be used for the purpose stated in the authority, unless the director grants a written exemption and consents to this.

The next difficulty they encounter is in terms of clause 12(3). Having collected the money, they have to have their reports, returns and financial statements lying for inspection by the public. This means that if they are a secret organization, like the Freemasons or even the Broederbond, they have to disclose who subscribed and what the amounts of the subscriptions are. It must be publicly disclosed who the donors are and how much they donated. If we look at clause 30(6) we find the situation that an inspector who has been appointed by the director, and who need not be a State official—in terms of clause 30(2) he can be appointed on a casual basis—can inspect the affairs of the organization. Rotary, Round Table, Lions and the Broederbond could, for example, decide to do welfare work. What would they have to pay for it? They have to register, make available to the public for inspection what they have collected, and then an inspector can come and examine their books, documents and membership. This is what the hon. the Minister is doing. Not only can they do that, but they can do it without a warrant. They can search the premises. They can demand records, accounts and documents and they can even ask delivery of those to them. What is going to happen to all the organizations, including secret organizations, that exist in South Africa? Is that what the hon. the Minister is after? Is he afraid? A list can be obtained of all the members of such an organization and it will include their addresses.

However, clause 33 makes provision for certain exclusions listed in paragraphs (a) to (h). Nowhere there are these organizations mentioned. Therefore, they are obviously included. The only possible relief provided in the Bill is contained in clause 12(4), and that does not provide outright relief. In terms of that provision, the director can exercise his discretion—I do not of course know how he will use his discretion. In any event, this only relates to the question of reports, returns or financial statements.

In other words, an organization which has been collecting moneys and wishes to make certain donations and which has been duly registered as required by the Director of Fund-raising, will have to publish its report, returns and financial statements. In terms of clause 12(4), to which I have referred, the director can grant an exemption in this respect. We must, however, look at this exemption very carefully, because it relates only to reports, returns or financial statements. What are we then left with? We are left with the provisions contained in clause 30(6). In other words, we still have the question of a search without a warrant and the demand that all securities, records, accounts or documents of such organizations must be handed over to the authorities. Therefore, even the exclusion for which clause 12(4) makes provision, will not prevent all these facts from being disclosed.

That is then the situation in which an honest citizen may find himself when wishing to do a job for Rotary, Lions, the Round Table, die Broederbond, the Rapportryers, or whomever. That is what he may have to subject himself to, but for what? For doing charity work, for helping a person in need. In this the way to encourage people to do that? Is the hon. the Minister not killing all the geese that lay the golden eggs?

Unfortunately I do not see the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation here. He is a good sport. I have often seen him on a golf course. He knows the organization known as Nomads. It is a very well known organization. It consists of a crowd of golfers who on occasion hold charity competitions. I have seen them raise as much as R20 000 in an afternoon’s golf, for instance to provide bursaries to send nurses overseas. Other organizations also do this. In what situation is an organization like Nomads going to be placed? They will now have to register as a fund-raising organization. They can now have their books and documents examined and they must render returns. What are we actually doing? Take the Community Chests. This is the death knell of Community Chests. It is no good starting a Community Chest anymore. If one were to do so, one would have to register it as a fund-raising organization.

That is no problem.

It has to be registered as a fund-raising organization and the money collected can only be spent on the charities on which the director says one can spend it.

No.

Yes. One has to register as a fund-raising organization in order to collect money as a Community Chest. If one wants to give the money collected to another organization, one has to enter an agreement with that organization.

When it comes to the question of remuneration, as provided for in clause 7(2), we must get a very strict interpretation of what “remuneration” means. If remuneration consists purely of a direct payment for having raised moneys, I understand that that strict measure does not apply. However, if remuneration means holding back funds to cover administrative expenses, the agreement to which I have referred will have to be entered into. Therefore I see great difficulties as far as that is concerned.

As regards chapter II, the Van Rooyen Commission did make mention of funds collected for the three organizations mentioned there. It will bring them under control, and there is a reason why there should be control.

In the last part of my discourse, I want to deal with the provisions of Chapter III and I want to make certain difficulties more pertinent to the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the Government side. Clause 27 provides that—

The hon. the Minister is a lawyer and he will appreciate the fact that this provision places the same legal onus on John Citizen who wants to do something more than just work hard all day, and who wants to do something for his city or the people. He joins an organization and they may make him the vice-chairman or give him an executive job because he is a well known person in the organization or the town.

In this way he innocently comes into an organization and does a job of work there. Like most of these organizations, those people are too busy to run the day-to-day administration and the hon. the Minister will appreciate that fact. They may accordingly appoint a secretary or even a full-time staff for this purpose. One day they may find that they have run out of money, for example, or that they may have done something silly which they should not have done. In this way one is placing this innocent John Citizen in the same position as if you and I, Mr. Speaker, became directors of a company registered in terms of the Companies Act, which may be a private company or a public company, where we as directors must share legal responsibility for what our co-directors and the company does because there is a legal onus on us. What is being done in this instance, is that the hon. the Minister is placing a legal onus on John Citizen who purely joins an organization as a member. If something goes wrong he is legally liable because he has stuck his neck out. I will be frank with hon. members when I say that I would not do that now. If an organization asks me to join their executive and do a job of work which I would like to do, I would be very chary before sticking my neck out because of what might go wrong in that organization. Quite frankly, it is not worth it.

You suffer under so many misunderstandings that I can understand your argument.

I would be very grateful to the hon. the Minister if he would look into that aspect.

The next clause I want to deal with is clause 29. Clause 29(1) provides—

This is the clause to which I referred previously where amendments were effected by the hon. the Minister. As I and hon. members on this side of the House read this clause we assume it is the intention that, for example, a private organization or a private person is now subjected to this control. In other words, if I have a private fund in one of the companies that I may be a director of and I like to give to charity once a year, for example, would I fall under this provision? Are my donations therefore covered as well? If I give a donation to a welfare organization and it is not done in terms of this Act will they have to return the money? They may have to send the money back.

With interest?

No, not with interest. In the circumstances I believe we are causing a lot of difficulty.

Clause 30 deals with the inspection of affairs of organizations and this clause provides, inter alia, that an inspector may without a warrant search premises and securities. This is not an anti-Government political organization that we are talking about. We are talking about a welfare organization trying to do good to assist some charity. Look at what we are subjecting them to. An inspector can come along and search without a warrant and obtain all these documents. These are Gestapo powers. Why does one need Gestapo powers to obtain these documents from a welfare organization? Why must one have these Draconian powers for which provision is made in this clause?

The same applies to clause 31 because this clause provides that where the director suspects that contributions have been collected in contravention of the Act, he may do certain things. It sounds as if a terrible offence has been committed, but money has actually been collected for welfare, although not in terms of the Act, and is intended, out of the goodness of the hearts of those concerned, for a charity organization. However, they have now committed a terrible crime as they have not complied with the provisions of the legislation. The director now suspects that they have done something wrong. The inspector must therefore now implement all the powers that are given to him in terms of this section. In terms of clause 31(3) they must also give back the money which has been received.

In clause 32 we find the same death-knell we found in the National Welfare Act. The death sentence, which was suspended for two years in the case of welfare organizations, is similarly suspended in respect of fund-raising organizations. They can continue to collect funds, but their time for doing so expires within two years’ time. During the discussion of the National Welfare Bill the hon. the Minister said that in terms of the provisions of that Bill, registration would be a mere formality. In the light of that, I ask the hon. the Minister: Will it also be a mere formality, under the provisions of this Bill, when these organizations apply for registration in order to be able to raise funds? Will the hon. the Minister examine their applications in the same way as they will be examined under the provisions of section 13 of the National Welfare Act?

Clause 33 deals with the exemptions and in subsection (1)(b) the State is being exempted, although in terms of the report of the Van Rooyen Commission, the State is not exempted at all. To prove this I want to quote from page 192 of the report of the Van Rooyen Commission where the following is stated in paragraph 17.04.1—

How can the hon. the Minister now argue that everybody else must be controlled, but that the State should not be controlled? He uses the report as he wishes, and when he does not like the recommendations of the report, he rejects it. That is not playing the game.

Another matter that I would like to refer to, is the application of these provisions to political parties. They are exempted in terms of the exemptions under clause 33(1), i.e. from paragraphs (a) to (h), but then there is a complete sting in the tail. The real sting is to be found in the provisions of subsection (3) of clause 33, which reads as follows—

In other words, when the contributions are collected for or on behalf of an organization designated by the hon. the Minister, that designation can be withdrawn. Although the exemptions are granted, they can therefore be withdrawn. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow was really very pessimistic and one could almost say that he held one long funeral oration on a piece of legislation that has not even been piloted through the House yet. I should like to react to one matter that the hon. member raised. He mentioned the fact that there are cases where professional fund raisers, or people who raise funds for remuneration, sometimes pay only as little as 45% of what they collect for a specific purpose, to the relevant organization. The hon. member then gave it his approval by saying that at least the organization then receives 45% of the X amount of money that was raised, while they would otherwise have received nothing. I do not think this is a very sound argument and this is in fact one of the practices that this piece of legislation is trying to eliminate. After all, the public must be protected too. Why should the public be satisfied to contribute 100% towards a matter, knowing that only 45% of it is in fact going to reach the ultimate object for which they donated it? At this stage, however, I do not want to react any further to the arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I should like to devote my attention to the hon. member for Bryanston who made a speech on this same subject about a month ago. The hon. member for Bryanston was particularly opposed to clause 1(2), relating to contributions received by organizations from abroad. This hon. member said, inter alia, that money from abroad is very welcome—

What does the hon. member mean when he says: “… people who need proper defence”? Is the hon. member referring to the competence of our courts or is it simply his way of casting suspicion on our legal system? After all, we have a system of free legal aid for deserving cases. He ignores this, however, and casts suspicion on our legal system. I do not like the spirit of this remark of the hon. member at all. It breathes a spirit of disregard for the realities in our country and, I feel, it gives no recognition whatsoever to the facilities provided for these people.

After all, we are dealing here with circumvention of the law. In paragraph 8.20 of the Van Rooyen Report, on page 77, there is a fine example of this. The paragraph reads—

The hon. member asked against whom the hon. the Minister wants to use the provisions in the clause. I do not think we need digress on this any further. In paragraph 8.23, on page 78 of the same report we have another, even better example of the evils that prevail. In this paragraph the following report that appeared in the Beeld of 6 May 1975, is quoted—

The commission itself then comments on this report and says—

The report goes on to state—

The moment the hon. the Minister published the first draft Bill for commentary, a large number of voices were raised to the effect that that was political intervention on the part of the State by means of legislation on the activities of welfare organizations. My standpoint is that if South Africa’s best interest is our norm, then support of this type of action for which money is received from abroad, is definitely not in the best interests of South Africa. Since these people have political motives, we are not really acting any differently by creating an opening in the law for political intervention on this level.

Of course, the hon. member for Bryanston was once again blinded by colour while he was making his speech. He said (Hansard, 15 May 1978, col. 6977)—

One may justifiably ask: Who are the racists in this House? They are the hon. members of the Official Opposition, who always drag race and colour into debates on every piece of legislation before the House. This Bill makes no mention of race or colour. Everyone will be subject to precisely the same provisions. [Interjections.]

This is equality; there is no question of colour discrimination. However, that is not good enough for the hon. members of the Official Opposition. No. They are seeking an opportunity to suck venom from another Bill that contains no such references at all, and then to present that as the actual intention of the legislation. The hon. member for Bryanston went on to say that he thought that the hon. the Minister would have kept co-operation between the public and the welfare organizations on the right path and went on to say (col. 6978)—

This suggestion on the part of the hon. member would mean that welfare work is taken out of the hands of the hon. the Minister and the department. What does “leadership” mean? The hon. member wants this council to take over welfare work. If we look at the amendments that the hon. member has placed on the Order Paper, we come to the same conclusion, viz. that he wants this council to take welfare work out of the hands of the hon. the Minister and the department. In fact, as far as that hon. member is concerned, this function of the department may as well be done away with. In the nature of things he wants the council to be constituted in such a way that it will determine policy and that it will be multiracial. That may in fact be in accordance with their policy, but it is very definitely not in accordance with our policy.

In contrast to the hon. member, who was so melancholy about the consequence of the proposed legislation, I want to predict that the private sector and the public will once again apply themselves to welfare projects with new confidence, perhaps in a much better way and to a far greater extent than ever before. They will welcome the supervision and co-ordination which the proposed law is going to bring, as well as the accountability and disclosure that it provides for. They will have new confidence and trust in the various organizations because they will know that those organizations have been cleared by the director. They will know that their contributions are safe, that their services are not in vain and that the bodies that they contribute to really are needy because they will be properly identified. They will be satisfied that the action and the result will be properly supervised.

He is concerned that the churches will not be able to carry out humanitarian activities in future. With reference to the churches he said in his speech that they will no longer be able to do good deeds for “the poor and the weak and the oppressed”. I quote (Hansardd, 15 May 1978, col. 6983)—

What is he asking here? Surely he is in reality asking for exemption to be granted to churches so that they may help those who break the law. After all, squatters whose shacks are demolished, are not angels from heaven, but law-breakers. He is asking for legislation to protect and benefit the lawbreakers. I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself. If the hon. member for Pinelands agrees with him, the same applies to him.

If we study the Van Rooyen report and all the problems that it identifies, problems that still exist under the present system, we must appreciate the fact that this Bill wants to eliminate those problems and malpractices. The hon. the Minister said that the Van Rooyen report formed the basis of the Bill, and that is why I think it is a good thing for us to take a brief look at a few of the problems identified in the report.

The first one that I want to point out—the hon. member for Hillbrow also pointed it out, but I think he became confused with the figures—is that 40% of the total number of organizations raising money amongst the public, have an income of less than R2 000 per annum, i.e. an average income of R734 per year. This causes one to ask whether they are really economically viable enough to justify their existence. I think the discretion that will be given to the director in this regard in terms of the proposed legislation and the requirements that are laid down in clause 4, will create order out of this disorder.

A second problem that the Van Rooyen Commission identified, was that the objectives of many of these organizations are formulated or defined so widely that they can collect money from the public for virtually any cause. Naturally, this is an unhealthy situation.

Another problem that they identified was the question of funds for medical treatment of individuals. The report describes the case of a Miss Grobler, for whom money was collected in 1967 to enable her to undergo certain treatment in Hong Kong although the Medical Association of South Africa had serious doubts as to whether the type of treatment that she would receive, would be the right treatment for her problem, and whether it would be at all necessary for her to go abroad. The Press, however, took up the case. In order to generate sympathy among the public the Sunday Times of 3 September 1967 wrote the following, inter alia—

I think it is wrong for this type of thing to be allowed and for the public to be misled in this way. That is why I believe there is scope for anomalies in the present system and the public must be protected against this. I think that clause 4(3) that gives the director the power to institute an investigation himself, after receiving an application, will eliminate many of these uncertainties and also that clause 4(2), that provides for lodging formal objections to certain applications, will lead to far greater clarity in this regard. As far as disasters are concerned, experience has taught us that in the first phase of disaster relief there must be no delay, for disaster may be accompanied by loss of life, and a lack of co-ordination may have very serious consequences. A central board is therefore being established by way of this legislation— chapter II—and I think it is a good thing in order to combat those problems.

Another matter with which the Van Rooyen report deals very comprehensively, is the question of the overlapping of fundraising bodies. The number of organizations that collect funds and the variety of objectives for which funds are collected, often cause overlapping. The large number of organizations may often be ascribed to differences of language, culture and religion, and it is notable that each one of these groups want to serve their own people, and each one claims the support of the whole community, and each one wants to serve the whole community in respect of all shortcomings and deficiencies that there may be in the community. This often includes expensive specialized services. Sometimes it is merely due to a lack of the will to co-operate that there is such a diversity of organizations. Not only efforts and services are being duplicated, but facilities as well. Consequently there is a definite need for the co-ordination of welfare services and there is already practical proof of where co-ordination has produced excellent results. For instance, on page 165 of the report, reference is made to the situation in South West Africa, where the Cripple Care Association and the Association for the Handicapped have pooled their resources, their potential and their facilities and consequently are able to render a far better service to all those unfortunate people. Co-ordination eliminates a great deal of overlapping.

It is notable—and the hon. the Minister also referred to this matter by way of an interjection a moment ago—that the regional welfare boards can do a great deal to promote voluntary co-ordination of services. However, they have no power to enforce it. They cannot force it upon other organizations that are not welfare organizations. That is why it is necessary for us to introduce a statutory amendment to give them that power, so that other organizations may also be subject to it.

Other shortcomings that are pointed out by the report concern the management of organizations in which the managerial ability is in many cases defective. There was evidence that some organizations functioned on a hit-and-miss basis: Without budgets, without any short-or long-term policies or planning, without cost analysis, without priorities, without proper bookkeeping and with injudicious spending of collected funds. An example that is mentioned are honorariums that sometimes constitute 25% to 30% of the total income.

Then there is another aspect to which I should like to refer, and this is the abuse of propaganda slogans. Welfare actions have acquired propaganda value, and this leads to all sorts of malpractices and irregularities. The word “charity” has acquired publicity value and that is why the raising of funds for charity is sometimes linked up with the advertising of commercial products. For instance on page 167 of the report we read about the foreign film stars and other personalities who came to South Africa. There was a great fanfare about the matter and an announcement that some of the income would be used for charity. But eventually it turned out that those matters that were presented as though they would be for charity, had nothing to do with charity and in any event were not situated in South Africa, but in the USA.

Another very interesting problem that the commission pointed out, was the role of status in the raising of funds from the public, which may sometimes have objectionable consequences, for instance as regards disaster funds and mayoresses charity funds. We read an interesting example of this on page 168 of the report, where a certain town had a Mayor’s Legal Aid Fund and which used the funds to defend a certain school principal in court, after he had been accused of hitting one of the children. On inquiry, various matters came to light, including—and I quote what he told the commission—

Surely this leaves a question mark against these funds and the way in which they are being administered.

Frequently, too, the generosity of the public towards religious institutions, the sick and physically handicapped, educational and cultural objectives, is exploited. The feelings of the public are played upon, and in many cases the purpose for which the collection is intended, is not disclosed. For instance, I refer to paragraph 15.15 on page 167 of the Van Rooyen Commission report, where mention is made of reports in the newspapers in connection with two people who, during May 1973, collected thousands of rands on behalf of the Multiple Sclerosis Society and then disappeared. In the same paragraph we read that one of those two people allegedly collected R60 000 in a month for an organization for the blind, of which amount he himself received 70%.

From further evidence presented to the Van Rooyen Commission it became apparent that even the National Cancer Association is also of the opinion that its good cause is often harmed by people who collect money with the ultimate objective of putting it in their own pockets.

Then there is also another interesting example. It is in connection with the raising of money for an organization that is not a welfare organization at all. I am now referring to the Sandy Bay case. Sandy Bay is not used for welfare, but to satisfy the primitive instincts of some people. We also read in the report that in Natal, within the space of a few weeks, almost R65 000 was collected by the Natal Mercury for the preservation of Sandy Bay. Surely this has absolutely nothing to do with welfare work. [Interjections.]

It is well known that the Act, in its present form, does not make provision for all the other funds that deal with welfare work.

For the sake of balance therefore, I think it is a good thing that the legislation is made so extensive that it now includes all the other raising of money.

Words like “soldiers”, “police”, “wounded”, “border funds”, “war”, “aid to victims”, etc., are magic words, words with a magic influence. The Van Rooyen Commission has indicated to us that there have already been people who used these magic slogans in order to collect funds and who were sentenced in court. We also know that even prominent people have already been involved in court cases of this nature, prominent people who participated in the collection of funds. It is therefore necessary for the public to be protected as far as this aspect is concerned.

Another matter to which the Van Rooyen Commission draws attention, is the way in which welfare is advertised. It is also mentioned that that type of publicity often brings discredit upon the relevant welfare organizations. For instance the collection of funds is often presented in a sensational, exaggerated way. On 19 August 1974 a report appeared in Hoofstad under the heading “80 000 weggooikinders in Suid-Afrika”. It was so bad that the Natal Regional Welfare Board asked—

Therefore, the welfare organizations themselves are also concerned about the fact that their name and honour may be jeopardized as a result of the methods that are used.

Other criticism was also expressed, particularly against the Bill as it was originally published for cognizance and comment. There were many prophets of doom. Most points of criticism also coincided with the matters that the Official Opposition raised during this debate. I want to point out only one of them. The comment of the hon. member for Pinelands appeared in The Argus of 11 April this year. In it he says the following—

I must honestly say that I tried to answer for myself what this paragraph actually meant. It is the only reference in the newspaper concerned to the standpoint of the hon. member for Pinelands. It indicates absolutely nothing. It was followed up, however, by the editor of the Cape Herald, Anthony Richmond. He wrote—

I just want to point out that, on page 52 of the report of the Van Rooyen Commission, there are detailed tables indicating what percentages of the funds collected are used for administration costs and what percentage actually reaches the ultimate objective. I just want to quote one interesting figure. The administration costs of the Salvation Army are the lowest of all mentioned here, viz. 1,6%. The highest are those of the Union of Jewish Women, viz. 46,66% for administration costs, as against the average administration costs for all the groups, of 17,4%. If we take into consideration that that 17,4% represents an amount of approximately R8 million, it is a considerable sum of money that is involved.

Therefore, when one takes all these factors into consideration, one is convinced that this is legislation that has been introduced in good time. In contrast to the hon. member for Bryanston, who says that the legislation will hang around the neck of the hon. the Minister like an albatross, I feel that the public will participate in welfare to an increasing extent if they know that all this flotsam and jetsam around the present Act, will be properly administered in future. I believe that the legislation will redound to the credit of the Minister in the future as a result of the proof that will be produced in practice.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member for False Bay made such a violent attack on Sandy Bay. We all know that it is the playground of young people, but the hon. member might reach the age when he will only be able to look, and then he may find the place handy. [Interjections.]

You include yourself, of course.

As in the case of the National Welfare Bill I should like to put the standpoint of the SAP. We wholeheartedly support the legislation. We support it because to a certain extent it introduces control in regard to fund-raising. It is an area where control has been essential for a long time. Fund-raising has reached the stage of being a burden from the point of view of the donor. One sometimes find that the donor donates merely to get rid of the collector, and no longer because it is a matter of goodwill. I am therefore of the opinion that it is essential that this matter be properly controlled.

We see absolutely nothing sinister in this legislation. One thing is very clear: The Official Opposition is once again trying to cast suspicion on legislation. Their efforts to cast suspicion run like a golden thread throughout the debate. The hon. member for Hillbrow discussed the “death-knell of the Community Chest” today. I do not think he did the Community Chest a favour because if regular donors now have reservations about the future of the Community Chest and withdraw their support he will be responsible for the fact that this very good cause has been harmed. The Community Chest is a registered organization.

It does not behave the Official Opposition to talk about “Gestapo powers, Draconian powers” and the other powers to which they referred.

We shall see.

Yes, we shall see. In the years to come, we shall see the benefits of the control that is being exercised in the sphere of fund-raising. The hon. member for False Bay referred to the statements by the hon. member for Bryanston and dealt with them very thoroughly. The issue is that the hon. member for Bryanston objected to funds entering the country from abroad for purposes that are definitely not charitable, being controlled and restricted.

There is always abuse.

The hon. member says that these are funds that come in for humanitarian purposes and he says that it is to assist the hapless victims of racial legislation. It is really strange that such a small percentage of our population should become involved in these court cases and should have to be protected because they are the “hapless victims”. The vast majority of our population never need it. I ask myself: Is the Official Opposition more interested in that small percentage which comprises the “hapless victims” than they are in the large percentage in our country that need charity?

The hon. member for Bryanston describes it as follows—

Funds can enter the country in any guise. He says “any source whatsoever”. If these funds were to come from Russian, would he condone that as well? Surely we know that they will not be for humanitarian purposes; we know what they would be intended for. The hon. member goes on to ask: “What are the dark intentions of the Government with this provision?” They see dark intentions in this. They are casting suspicion on fundraising and charity among people who devote themselves to these matters. The attitude of the Official Opposition will create the impression among uninformed people that they now have to be careful as regards what organizations they should support. If they were to listen to the advice of the Official Opposition, they would hear that there is nothing good in this legislation. I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston what he is trying to protect. Is he perhaps trying to protect money for the Defence and Aid? Whom does he want to protect? Perhaps it is the World Council of Churches. Is he trying to protect funds that come here on the pretext of being what he calls “for humanitarian purposes”, whereas we know that they come here for the subversion of law and order in this country? I want to ask the hon. member a question.

†What are his dark intentions and what are the dark intentions of his party where they defend such moneys coming into our country, funds from doubtful origin and funds for doubtful purposes?

*While the hon. member was speaking, the hon. member for Boksburg referred by way of an interjection to the World Council of Churches. The hon. member for Groote Schuur then made a further interjection and said: “So you are gunning for them.” That lets the cat out of the bag. These people are protecting the interests of the World Council of Churches here in South Africa. We cannot permit organizations to continue sending money to our country under that pretext when we do not know what the funds are being used for.

What is of greater importance is that this Bill does not make provision solely for fundraising. It does three other very important things. It makes provision for the establishment of a disaster relief fund. It makes provision for the S.A. Defence Force Fund and it makes provision for a refugee relief fund. The effective, united, Official Opposition is so effective in its efforts to protect questionable foreign funds that it totally overlooks and ignores the value of these three funds. One would at least have expected that if the Official Opposition was dissatisfied with that part of the Bill concerning fundraising, they would express their dissatisfaction with that specific part of the Bill and then, if necessary, vote against it at the end of the Second Reading. But what did they do? They moved that this entire Bill be read this day six months. In other words, not only do they disapprove of fund-raising, but they express their opposition in summary fashion to these three funds. Therefore we must now deduce that the Official Opposition is opposed to a disaster relief fund and opposed to the Defence Force Fund and opposed to a fund for refugees.

They are opposed to South Africa.

I think that these people should show a little more grasp of reality. The people within and outside this House that have been concerned with these three bodies know what it means to have flood damage and other disasters in one’s community. They know the value of a Defence Force Fund. The people on and near our border in particular are aware of the extent of the problem posed by the refugees that flee to our country in the face of Marxism. Those refugees need real humanitarian aid and these people know what is necessary and they therefore realize what the value of the fund will be. We hope that the people in the disaster areas that have in the past derived benefit from disaster relief funds, for example Ceres, the Eastern Cape, Transvaal and South Coast in Natal will take note that this legislation provides for funds which may be utilized in such cases in the future, and that the Official Opposition has expressed its opposition to those funds. They do not want to approve the legislation, in other words, they do not want to have these funds established.

You are talking rubbish again.

I am not talking rubbish. I am giving the facts. The Official Opposition expressed themselves against the Bill in total. In other words, they are also against the three funds I have mentioned. Therefore I am not talking rubbish. These are facts. I hope the public at large will take note of the attitude of the Official Opposition.

These are three funds in existence right now, and you know it.

I know.

Do not talk nonsense then.

I know that there are three funds, but we have here an effort to improve the position, an effort is being made to give those funds more teeth so that they will be better able to furnish assistance. However, the hon. members of the Opposition are so anxious to plead the cause of the World Council of Churches that they entirely forget the interests of those funds.

Tell me what your contribution has been to those three funds; then I shall tell you what mine is.

If I were to tell the hon. member what my contribution to those three funds is, then he must first tell me what his contribution is. The hon. member makes a big fuss about his contribution, but I wonder whether his contribution can be audited. I want to ask him whether he also comes from an area where flood damage has been suffered on a number of occasions within a few years, and we have been saddled with people who have not only lacked shelter but who not even had food or clothing. Then he asks people who come from such an area what their contribution has been! I think he should search his own heart.

Answer the question. [Interjections.]

I want to deal briefly with various aspects of the Bill. We are in favour of protecting the public against exploitation. We believe in the principle of accountability, disclosure and the protection of law and order, as the hon. the Minister put it in his introductory speech. We do not doubt that the funds raised openly and with honest intentions will comply with their envisaged aims. We are convinced that these funds will never encounter difficulties, but that on the contrary, they will enjoy encouragement and co-operation, not only from the Government but also from all local authorities. We agree with the principle of proper supervision. I am therefore of the opinion that the hon. member for False Bay dealt very soundly with the question of professional fund-raising.

We are also opposed to the situation where a person approached for a donation makes a contribution while under the impression that his contribution will be given to the cause in question, and is unaware that much of his donation will in fact find its way into the pocket of the collector or organization concerned with the collection. He must be aware that a part of his contribution will not go to the welfare organization in question, but to the collector. If that is the case in future, it will result in donors giving their contributions more freely and not waiting until they are asked for them.

I want to conclude. There are a few other aspects I want to elucidate. The first is that it seems as if insufficient provision has been made for consultation between the Director of Fund-raising and the welfare boards. I see no such provision in the Bill. I take it that the hon. the Minister will cast some light on this. We foresee that conflicting interests could perhaps arise in future between the Director of Fund-raising and the regional welfare boards. I want to suggest that there could be better liaison between the Director and these boards if he were to be appointed as Director of Fund-raising and secretary of the National Welfare Board at the same time. This is merely an idea. I take it that the hon. the Minister will deal with this point.

There are organizations which, due to the nature of their work, carry out disaster relief work. Those organizations have branches throughout the country, so that the local branch can take action immediately. Here I have in mind organizations such as the Red Cross, the Noodhulpliga and St. Johns. These people or their representatives are available in an area where a disaster may take place. I want to ask what the position will be if, in time of disaster, such organizations establish a disaster relief fund in the specific community where the disaster has taken place. Will they be allowed to raise funds and then administer them, or must they necessarily operate through the disaster relief fund already established? Personally, I think that the public will sooner donate when a local organization concerned with disaster relief work requests such a donation. For the rest, we do of course go along with the question of accountability and we are also in favour of proper auditing. Here I want to refer to a problem as we see it. The costs of auditing may be a problem for small organizations. I have in mind, for example, small organizations which do not handle a great deal of money and which will now be obliged to submit properly audited statements. To such an organization the cost of auditing could be a burden. In certain areas, for example the rural areas, registered auditors are not always available, and it is therefore difficult to obtain the services of qualified auditors. In this regard I wonder whether a little more flexibility could not be displayed by making use of people such as bank managers and accountants who are able to do auditing work although not registered as auditors by law.

Furthermore, I want to state our standpoint briefly with regard to clause 29, because I know that this clause is a contentious one. We are usually careful when it is a matter of powers such as those which, under clause 29, give the hon. the Minister full power to prohibit the collection of funds for certain causes merely by notice in the Government Gazette. However, since we adopt a strong standpoint—and I want to put this clearly—in regard to the unlawful collection of funds for questionable purposes, we can of course see why it is necessary, if it is in the interests of the country, for the hon. the Minister to have the power to step in, and this is the basis for the power which the hon. the Minister is taking upon himself. We trust that these powers will only be exercised in extraordinary—and that is important—in justified circumstances. However we should welcome it if the hon. the Minister were to give us a degree of assurance that this is in fact the case and that the activities of bona fide organizations will not be affected. To that I want to add that we are convinced that organizations that have nothing to conceal need have no fear. Nevertheless we should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance.

In conclusion, I want to express the hope that co-ordinated fund-raising will now also involve the public at large in the welfare effort in our country. Charity is not solely the task of certain bodies, but is undoubtedly the duty of all. We hope that when this legislation is implemented, more people will be involved and more people will contribute their rightful share.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central supports the legislation on behalf of his party and we want to thank him for that. The hon. member made a responsible speech and at the end of his speech he touched on certain aspects relating to detail which could be fruitfully debated during the Committee Stage. Nevertheless we thank him for his support of the legislation.

The central principle contained in this Bill is that the bona fides of organizations collecting money from the public must be above suspicion. This is the central principle expounded in the Bill. The legislation contains two very important provisions in this regard. Firstly there are clauses 1(2) and 16, which I want to dwell on briefly. Clause 1(2) provides that funds collected abroad are subject to the same statutory provisions as funds collected in the Republic. What this amounts to is that the principle of disclosure also applies to those funds collected abroad, whether under the cloak of religion, welfare or education. These funds, too, must be able to stand the test of daylight.

Clause 16 of the legislation provides for the introduction of an S.A. Defence Force Fund. The exclusive aim of this fund is to provide financial assistance for members and former members of the Citizen Force who have suffered privation in times of active service. In this regard it is of special importance to take note of the words “active service”. Active service is defined as service in the defence of the Republic.

I have now briefly sketched the content of these two clauses and it is clear that this affords everyone in this House and every party the opportunity to do two things. In terms of the provisions of these clauses, every individual and every party must express its opposition to subversion and must also make a choice in favour of South Africa. I want to put it clearly that the attitude of the Official Opposition towards these two provisions is shocking. What is happening now? Under the pretext of striving to further the interests of welfare organizations, they are in fact championing the cause of and arousing sympathy for the undermining of law and order. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bryanston …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bellville permitted to say that this party—and he mentioned it by name as the Official Opposition—under a pretext are the speakers for and the preparers for … [Interjections.] … the undermining of law and order in South Africa?

Order! The hon. member may not say that the Opposition was championing the cause of the underminers of law and order. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. Analysing the speech of the hon. member for Bryanston from a different point of view, one would be able to say that it creates an atmosphere in which the subversion of State authority could flourish. The House and the public must take cognizance of the attitude of the Official Opposition in this regard. The public, and this House, must also take cognizance of the fact that neither the hon. member for Bryanston, nor the hon. member for Musgrave nor any of the other hon. members who have spoken thus far, have expressed a single word of appreciation for the introduction of the S.A. Defence Force Fund. Not a single word has been said about the fact that this Parliament is accepting joint responsibility for funds in this connection. Not a single word of appreciation has been expressed for what this fund and similar funds have done in the past for those who defend South Africa. In contrast, the hon. members avail themselves of the opportunity, under the provisions of clause 1(2), blatantly and unashamedly to champion the cause of people who want to incite revolution. The hon. member for Bryanston sympathizes with people who openly defy law and order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I gave the hon. member the benefit of the doubt, but it is now quite clear to me that he has now once again said that the Official Opposition, in the light of the views which we expressed on clause 1(2), are those who speak on behalf of those who are prepared to cause revolution in South Africa.

Order! My attention was elsewhere and I was not listening to the hon. member. The hon. member must please tell me what he said.

Mr. Speaker, to assist you I shall withdraw the words and reformulate them as follows: The attitude of the Official Opposition in regard to clause 1(2) is such that it cannot be expressed in parliamentary language. [Interjections.]

Although there is now an opportunity to express appreciation towards those who defend our country’s borders, the hon. members do not do so. Instead of covering the backs of those who are defending our country, they advocate the approval of funds being provided from abroad to pay for terrorists’ trials. That is a shame. It is an attitude which we on this side of the House reject in toto.

There is an opinion in some circles that civilization and society are not based so much by the actions and dealings of the people who are obliged to do so, but far more by voluntary, spontaneous actions. It is argued that it is the voluntary action in the arts, literature, religion, music and also in regard to the welfare organizations of man that really constitute the barometer of a society’s civilization. Whether one agrees with such a view or not it is a fact that this spontaneous and voluntary action form a major part of the welfare efforts in society. The fact is that these efforts, whether cultural, educational or for the sake of welfare, depend on the financial support of the general public. Because this type of organization raises funds and appeals to the feelings, sympathy and good faith of the general public, certain problems can arise, and have in fact arisen in practice. These problems can for the most part be divided into three groups. Funds collected from the public can in the first place be wrongly utilized; that is to say, not spent for the purposes for which they were collected. In the second place, unethical methods can be used to collect funds from the public and, thirdly, fund-raising can overlap and in this way make the public unwilling to support welfare organizations.

The chief aim of the Bill before the House, then, is to place the bona fides of voluntary organizations collecting funds from the public beyond all doubt and to regulate fund-raising efforts in such a way that the public is not made misuse of and misled, so that it becomes unwilling to provide the necessary support for fund-raising organizations.

This whole Bill is a practical Bill. It is a Bill that seeks to regulate the practical side of things. If we look at the practice in this regard as spelt out to us by the hon. member for False Bay, we see that there is cause for concern. According to the Van Rooyen Report the whole aspect of welfare work is totally confused. There are 3 940 welfare organizations. The annual revenue of 40% of these 3 940 welfare organizations is less than R2 000 per annum. This comprises 1% of the total amount of R135 million collected annually for welfare work.

Looking further at the figures in the Van Rooyen Report, we see that on average, 67% of the funds collected are used for the purposes for which they were collected, and the 20% are used for administrative purposes. The whole essence of the matter is that the field of welfare has been flooded and there is unco-ordinated action by smaller welfare organizations, action which encumbers welfare work. It is important that welfare work be done, but it is far more important how it is done. The whole aim of this Bill is to co-ordinate everything in the interests of welfare.

Any organization that collects funds from the public on a permanent basis is subject to registration by the director of fund-raising. This includes, for example, all crossword puzzles, rag funds, community chests, service clubs and trade establishments. This Bill before the House, together with the National Welfare Bill and the Social and Associated Workers’ Bill which is still to be discussed, is a team effort to regulate the sphere of welfare in South Africa, and it ushers in a new era. Pioneering work is being done in this regard. For those reasons we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like just to comment on one or two points the hon. member for Bellville has raised in his speech. Possibly I shall then just refer to some of the clauses with which we shall be dealing in more detail in the Committee Stage. Primarily the intention of rising to speak on this Bill will be to pose certain questions to the hon. the Minister, questions which have been asked of us and which we are asking of ourselves concerning a number of organizations which may well be affected by this Bill.

The only aspect in the speech of the hon. member for Bellville to which I should like to refer, is his reference to clause 1(2). I should like the assurance of the hon. the Minister, in respect of the tone in which the hon. member for Bellville has spoken, that the idea of this clause is not to undertake a witch-hunt in those organizations from overseas who have seen fit to invest certain of their funds in South Africa. I do not single out any specific organization because I have any suspicious about the organization, but one thinks of the very excellent work which has been done by organizations in South Africa, e.g. the Carnegie Fund, the Ford Foundation, certain Rotary grants, etc. I sincerely hope that the tone of the hon. member for Bellville and the insinuations about subversive activities do not indicate that subparagraph (2) is going to be used for that intention.

Of course! What else?

I would like to comment briefly on our attitude towards the Bill. During the earlier part of the Second Reading a few weeks ago the hon. member for Umbilo did indicate that this party support the Second Reading. However, that does not mean that we are not dissatisfied with certain sections of the Bill and that we shall not be moving amendments in the Committee Stage.

The general purpose of the Bill is, we know, to extend almost identical, although slightly extended, powers to the Minister also to control organizations other than welfare organizations which are in essence fundraising organizations. We think this is correct. I think that the field of fund-raising in South Africa has been considerably exploited, unfortunately always by a minority, and in the interest of the majority we should attempt to protect the exploitation of the public, especially when it deals with emotional appeals, such as were adequately outlined for us today by the hon. member for False Bay. At the same time, before going further, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he could really solve a lot of fund-raising problems in South Africa by the very simple expediency of convincing his party and the Cabinet of the value and worth of a State lottery to bring in the funds which charities need. I think this would eliminate a great deal of the problem which the hon. the Minister is trying to solve by means of this particular Bill. I am sure this is not the first time that the hon. the Minister has heard this suggestion from these benches. There may well be a considerable amount of merit in it, and it could well be done in such fashion so as not to offend the values of a large section of our community.

We recognize that the Bill has been designed primarily to fulfil three functions: Firstly, to attempt—I deliberately use the word “attempt”—to protect the public from exploitation and from fraud, to protect them from exploitation by professionals who commit fraud, and also to protect the public from over harassment in terms of the fundraising function. Secondly, we believe that it is the intention of the Bill to protect bona fide fund-raising organizations in South Africa. Thirdly, I believe the function of the Bill is, in a sense, to protect the State from subversion via the control of fund-raising or from the introduction of funds into South Africa for organizations whose motives and objectives are contrary to the interests of the South African State.

Dealing with the first object of the Bill, I think one has to be fairly realistic in regard to the extent to which this Bill is actually going to be able to protect the public. In so many cases it is going to be a question of the members of the public being the first line of defence. That means that if the public are sufficiently interested to get rid of bogus fund-raisers, they will have to become involved in the prosecution which follows the identification of unregistered fund-raisers.

We know from past experience that the public are extremely reluctant to become involved in any kind of prosecution. But what this Bill at least does do now, is to provide the public with a very handy piece of legislation for the prosecution of bogus fund-raisers. Whether it will succeed, will obviously depend on the co-operation which the authorities get from the public in the identification—difficult as it may be—or recognizing a bogus fund-raiser from a bona fide fund-raiser. I think that difficulty has to be appreciated, and perhaps the public should not expect too much from this Bill in terms of protection for themselves in that sense.

Secondly, the protection of bona fide fundraising organizations outside the welfare sphere, I think is a very important step. I think that the bona fide organizations will welcome the fact that the prohibition on over-harassment of the public is, in a sense, going to give them a certain amount of protection and that the people operating mala fide will now not have access to public funds. I think the bona fide organizations also now have an improved status in the eyes of the public because the fact that they are registered indicates in a certain measure to the public that these are approved organizations. I believe it is so much easier now for the public to be able to give fairly generously, because they will have made up their minds whether they are in fact dealing with an approved organization or perhaps with an organization which is not all that well disposed towards the use of the funds collected. I believe this will be a considerable advantage for these organizations.

Thirdly, I believe that the bona fide organizations as such have very little to fear as a result of this legislation, provided they keep their house in good order and provided they do what they tell the public they are going to do. However, as always, it is a question of co-operation. Organizations that are prepared to co-operate in terms of these measures will find that it is only to their advantage. We will find, however, that those organizations that are not always working in the interests of charity will find that they benefit considerably should they give their co-operation to the authorities concerned. Again, however, when it comes to the question of the protection of the public, one finds that in so many instances the public is robbed first and only then is the culprit caught and prosecuted. It is so often a case of the stable door being shut only after the horse has been stolen.

Nevertheless we feel that the protection which the bona fide organizations will get in terms of this legislation is very worthwhile. I will not deal with the question of the protection of the State against subversive organizations because I think that has been reasonably well dealt with by other hon. members speaking before me. However, there are a number of items with which we will be dealing …

You talk nonsense. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Houghton really is irrelevant. Therefore, I will not waste any time on her. [Interjections.]

Your usual repartee. [Interjections.]

As has been indicated earlier, our major concern lies with clause 29 and clause 30. However, we will deal with those two clauses during the Committee Stage. Before going on to the problem of individual service organizations, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to kindly give us his motivation for clause 29. I can see no justification for clause 29 if what is really intended here is a link-up with the powers of the Director in the fund-raising field. I see no justification for this, and we would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would state his motivation for the clause.

Clause 30 deals with measures which hon. members of the official Opposition have referred to as “the granting of Draconian powers”. We would prefer to call this a sledge-hammer measure. I do not believe it is called for in the nature of this kind of legislation. Firstly, it is not called for as far as the protection of the public is concerned and, secondly, also not in so far as the protection of fund-raising organizations is concerned. We may have appreciated this if it had been in the interests of the protection of the State. Simultaneously, however, I believe there is other legislation in existence which can be adequately used for the protection of the State, and that a measure of this severity is not needed. We do not believe that these Draconian powers,—as they are often termed by hon. members of the Official Opposition— are required at all. Therefore, we have brought in our own amendments in this respect.

The last thing I should like to deal with relates to clause 33. We should like to know what the position of the private schools will be. Clause 33(1 )(e) provides for the collecting of funds by schools from their own old pupils. However, many of the schools today collect from other people, people who are not old students. They also collect in areas which are quite remote from their own geographic locations. Secondly, the question of the service organizations raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow does cause us considerable concern, not only in terms of the registration of their central organizations and branches, but also the problem relating to their objectives which have to be stated in the registration certificate. As has so eloquently been explained by the hon. member for Hillbrow, organizations such as Rotary, Lions International, Rapportryers and perhaps even the Broederbond do collect funds for different causes. The causes can perhaps not so readily be identified, but they will safely be covered under the heading “charity”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will indicate to us whether he intends using his powers in terms of clause 33(8) in order to give those organizations a blanket exemption for all their branches to collect funds for charity purposes.

Fortunately political parties are being excluded from the Bill and no doubt the registration requirements which the House passed earlier during the day will now make it easy to identify what is a political party.

In so many instances there are loopholes in this type of legislation for the professional subverter and the professional fraudulent operator to be able, for example, to call their organizations “religious bodies”. By calling themselves religious bodies it will be quite easy for them to escape the provisions of the Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how, in this event, he is going to define a church or a religious body. I can foresee the difficulties which he is going to have in curtailing the operations of an organization which is undesirable, but which calls itself a church or says that it acts in a religious fashion.

Finally, I want to confirm that we in these benches do support the Bill in principle, but we shall be coming to the hon. the Minister when we discuss our amendments during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, if there has been any doubt in one’s mind about how far-reaching this Bill is going to be when it becomes law, then the speeches which we have heard today, coupled with the Van Rooyen report itself, leave one in no doubt whatsoever. It is quite clear from the speech of the hon. member for False Bay that, at least for himself, he has very definite and specific organizations in mind when he thinks of this legislation. The hon. the Minister of course did not come clean in the same way and I shall turn to his introductory speech to this Bill in a moment. I would have thought that he needed to become a little more explicit so that one could make up one’s own mind as to whether the fears of many people are well founded or justified or whether this is just because one has a very suspicious mind. When we look at the speech that has been made by the hon. member for False Bay and his direct reference to the Van Rooyen report and having read that report with some care, it is quite clear to us that there are sinister overtones to this Fund-raising Bill. I shall come back to them in a moment. Unfortunately the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is not in the House at the moment. He said the fact that we are voting against this Bill means that we are voting also against the three funds which are referred to in a portion of the Bill. As I made clear by way of an interjection, it is simply not true. The funds exist already and what we are doing here is to co-ordinate them into a central fund. I will return to this when I come to it in the Bill.

The hon. member for Bellville surprised at least myself today. I do not know why he is not here now. Anyway, I do not want to spend too much time on him. I can only assume that the departure from his normal approach and style is because he was speaking under instructions. Some of the far-fetched, exaggerated and untruthful allegations that he made, and was subsequently asked to withdraw, are quite unworthy of him. He not only makes his attack in very carefully prepared words, but then leaves the House, which is unfortunate.

The hon. member for Durban North has expresses the views of his own party, which were expressed earlier also by the hon. member for Umbilo, namely that they are going to support the Bill, but that they have major reservations about certain clauses. I always find it very difficult to understand how the NRP can, when a Bill is as far-reaching as this one, do their fence-sitting act.

It depends on the principle. Are you opposed to the principle?

I will come to what the principles are in a moment. [Interjections.] I want to return very briefly to the hon. member for Bellville. I see he is now back in the House. I want to say in just a sentence what I have said in a few sentences earlier on, namely that I find his whole approach and his speech objectionable in the extreme. Not only his insinuations, but also his blatant statements regarding the Official Opposition are quite untrue. I am surprised, because he does not normally adopt this kind of approach.

Oh yes, he does!

No, he does not.

I want to say to him across the floor of the House that I do not believe that he would have written such a speech of his own volition. The kindest thing that I can say about him is that he was writing and speaking under instructions.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, we are quite convinced that there is need—and I want to choose my words—that there should be regulation of fund-raising. I want to stress the word “regulation”, because I believe that is what the present Act does. We see, however, a vast difference between the regulation of fundraising in South Africa and the control to be exercised by the State as envisaged in this Bill. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said that there were Western countries with very similar legislation to this Bill. In fact, I will quote his exact words: “In die meeste Westerse lande word dit noodsaaklik geag en word maatreëls vir die beheer daaroor redelik algemeen toegepas.” Now, if one has ever read the Van Rooyen Report— on which I assume he is basing that statement—and has looked at page 291 and those following, it is quite clear that it is not Western countries which have something comparable, but Austria. Austria is the only country. The hon. the Minister is normally very precise in his use of words and looks very carefully at the logic of an argument. He starts from a basic premise, develops it from there and criticizes us on this side if we depart in any way from a logical approach and a precise approach. I want to ask him whether he actually wrote that speech. I find it very difficult to believe, because it is not his style, Sir.

Do you want to suggest that I was under instructions as well?

You can write his speeches!

Not his! No, not at all. I could never write a thing like that. In his motivation for the legislation which is before us, the hon. the Minister referred to the 1965 Act and then made the point that only welfare organizations are controlled under that Act, but not other organizations, and that the chief motivation for this legislation is to expand the existing control so that not only welfare organizations, but also all organizations involved in fund-raising fall under it.

There are many ordinances and by-laws which control many organizations already. All we are doing is coming with yet further legislation, casting the net wider, and introducing unnecessary legislation, we believe, in order to have further State control. I submit that the hon. the Minister’s argument—this is very important when one seeks to look at the principle of the Bill—is very weak and unsound. I want to state again that we agree that the public should be protected, but not in the manner prescribed and laid down in this Bill. The hon. the Minister referred to the Commission of Inquiry and it is quite true that appreciation must be extended to those who have worked for a very long time on that commission. However, I want to say that the tenor of the report, as far as we are concerned, is not acceptable in broad terms. We do not believe that we have to have further State control in South Africa—there is too much of it already.

The hon. the Minister in his motivation talked about the cornerstones of the Bill. Thereby I assume he means the two major principles as he understands it and sees it, namely accountability and “publication”, i.e. making known to the public what has been collected from the public. Although the Bill has many definitions, there is one definition that is not there. As far as I can see, there is no definition of the word “public”. I would ask the hon. the Minister if that was considered and why this particular definition was omitted. It is very, very important. The word “public” appears again and again in the Bill. The organizations we are looking at are organizations that get money from the public. Therefore, I think we must ask ourselves what we understand by “public”. I suggest there should be a definition of that in the list of definitions of which there are so many.

We agree that there must be accountability. We agree that, where money is taken from the public in order to perform a service, that should be made known to the public. However, this Bill goes way beyond the present legislation. It goes way beyond the 1965 Act. It does not simply go “ietwat verder”, as the hon. the Minister said in his speech. He just tossed that aspect aside with the attitude: This is just a new little thing I should like to have. This goes a great deal further. What I am trying to say to the hon. the Minister is that we see a difference in the regulation and the ordering of fund-raising and in the control over fund-raising which the hon. the Minister introduces in this Bill.

What is the difference?

There is a very real difference which comes out in the very clauses about which I think all those on this side of the House with the exception of the members of the SAP have very real reservations and are very deeply concerned. I refer for instance to clause 29, but in fact clause after clause gives incredibly far-reaching, wide powers to the Minister and of course to the Director himself. According to the hon. the Minister, all the Bill does is to provide the necessary machinery to bring about accountability. However, if one looks at the powers of the Director, I think I can say without any exaggeration that in him we have a potential dictator. These powers are dictatorial.

Nonsense.

No, this is in keeping with the whole mood of that party. Why have so many people become so concerned? It is not only certain cloak and dagger organizations that are worried, but all sorts of well known and well recognized organizations all over the country. The hon. the Minister admitted that there had been this concern, that there had been a lot of misunderstanding and that we were responsible for a great deal of it, as usual. The fact of the matter is, however, that letters are still coming in, telephone calls are still being made and letters are still appearing in the newspapers. There is still a great deal of concern, particularly about this Fund-raising Bill. The hon. the Minister will not deny that. I do not think this is because these people are too stupid and cannot read the Bill. The real reason is that they are now beginning to read the Bill for themselves.

They have read the speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston in the newspaper.

No, they are reading the Bill for themselves. Unfortunately one simply has to ask this question of the hon. the Minister: In terms of this Bill before us and in terms of the changes made to the original Bill as it was first drafted and then amended, published, withdrawn and brought back again as a new Bill, who has the hon. the Minister really in mind? What is he really trying to do?

What do you suspect?

I do not suspect anything. [Interjections.] Hear me out. I do not suspect anything but I know … [Interjections.]

Why do you ask them?

It is quite clear …

You tell us.

No, I want to hear it from the hon. the Minister himself because he tells us there is nothing sinister about this Bill and that no organizations have been named. He says it is all above board and all he is trying to do is to get accountability and to make sure that certain things are published and so on. [Interjections.] All right, the hon. the Minister has made a very nice and bland speech of introduction. That was until today and until the hon. member for False Bay made a speech.

That was my own speech.

Was it the hon. member’s own speech?

Yes.

Well, it just about reached the low standard that that hon. member normally aims for, so he can keep his speech writer. There is no question about it. The reports, the suggestions, the recommendations of the Van Rooyen Report and the speech made by the hon. member for False Bay make it quite clear. Then there is the introduction to the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a minute. I will come to you. The sting lies in clause 1(2). [Interjections.] What does this clause provide? When one reads this clause the remarkable innocence of the hon. member for Durban North comes to the fore—

As I read the Bill it is quite clear that that means if the Ford Foundation wishes to give money to assist in an educational project or whatever project they may wish to assist, and wishes to give money to any particular organization working in that field, what will have to happen is this: The Ford Foundation will have to register with the director according to the way this clause is worded. Absolutely.

No, the South African organization accepting it.

All right. The South African organization accepting it. What about an organization like the Ford Foundation or the Carnegie Institute or any of the many organizations who give a great deal of assistance and have done so over many years? What about their books and their documents? Are they also going to have to be available? Remember that they are giving money and that they are deemed to be giving money to the public.

Read the legislation.

Yes. That is how it stands and that is why I want a definition of the word “public” as well.

Let us come clean on this issue. One of the objects of this Bill is to make legal aid in South Africa more difficult. Is it or is it not?

What do you suspect?

I do not only suspect. I know. Why? Because the hon. the Minister of Police and of Justice expressed his dismay at the matter here in the House and said that he was going to look into the matter as he did not like all these huge sums of money coming into the country. What are these sums of money for? To assist with the defence of political prisoners.

Of terrorists!

One does not necessarily have to agree with the politics of a prisoner …

The accused.

Yes, the accused. This is a point the hon. member for False Bay and the hon. member for Bellville missed completely. According to their arguments it is as if the people are guilty by virtue of being accused. The very fact is that many of the people who go on trial and are defended by virtue of the fact that there is money coming from overseas, are found to be innocent…

A very high percentage.

Yes, a very high percentage. I think this speaks for itself. If that money was not available, adequate defence might not have been available either.

Why not?

Who is going to pay for it? [Interjections.] Let us be serious about this.

You started this.

I want us to be serious about it. The S.A. Council of Churches receives a very large sum of money every year; hon. members know how much. A lot of that money goes directly to assist in the defence of the politically accused, people who are accused.

Why?

For their defence. Many members in the House will agree that everybody should have an adequate defence, no matter what the charge might be. The whole idea of defining a church as an organization which must collect its funds on a Sunday and then use the funds for “religious purposes”—as though that is the definition of a church—falls very far short of what the church is all about. The very founder of the Christian faith was seen as a political prisoner. One of the things that he said was that we should care for prisoners and that we should visit the prisons. I say that whatever the charge might be, whether it be murder or rape, that person still needs help and care.

Why give it only to political prisoners? [Interjections.]

We do it simply because there are always adequate funds for those who are … The only ones who really require the assistance, are the political prisoners. [Interjections.]

You are getting cautious.

Let me make my point another way: There are people who are political prisoners’ dependants. Let us assume the father has been found guilty in a court of law, has been charged and is serving a sentence of seven, 10 or 20 years.

Guilty of what?

Guilty of a political crime. [Interjections.] There are a whole range of political crimes.

Terrorism?

All I am saying is that that man very often leaves behind a wife and children who know nothing at all about his activities. Who cares for them?

Who cares for the families of other criminals?

There are State funds available.

There are also State funds available for …

No. Not for political prisoners. [Interjections.] There are no State funds available for the families of political prisoners, and hon. members know it. There are organizations in South Africa who are caring for people who have no-one else to care for them. This Bill, in terms of these clauses, are going to make their lives almost unbearable. Once again, there will be an encroachment, the drawing of the line. [Interjections.] I emphasize the word “political”. People have different political positions. The Government does not like people to oppose them …

You are showing us what you are. [Interjections.]

When one of the major churches in this country first read the provisions of the Bill, they asked for a special amendment to be inserted. I want to ask if the hon. the Minister …

The Methodist Church?

No. It is the Church of the Province of South Africa. The amendment read like this—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will accept such an amendment. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to reply now, but if he replies, will he please tell me whether or not he will accept an amendment such as this? [Interjections.]

Reference has already been made to private schools. In clause 33 the organizations which are excluded from the provisions of the Bill are listed. 33(1 )(h) reads—

I have read the Van Rooyen Report and I know that there was concern from parents/ teachers’ associations, but I cannot understand why private schools in particular and schools as a whole cannot be excluded. I am quite sure hat the hon. the Minister and his department are not gunning for private schools and schools in general. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to look sympathetically at and accept our amendment which is already on the Order Paper in which we ask that the exclusion of all schools which come under any other legislation in the country, be specifically stated. We feel this is necessary because schools—private school and ordinary Government schools—do receive funds from all over the country. They do not only receive money from Natal because they happen to be in Natal, or only from Cape Town because they happen to be in Cape Town; they get it from all over the country and even from beyond the borders of the country. They receive it from people who have heard of the school, who believe in what the school stands for and therefore send funds. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at this amendment sympathetically and write it into the legislation so that schools may be excluded in the same way as universities and technical colleges are excluded. I have been approached by the schools and they are still very concerned indeed. I hope very much indeed that the hon. the Minister will take that into consideration.

Bearing in mind the incredible far-reaching powers of the director, I also want to ask whether there is going to be a report made to Parliament, either by the director or by the council itself. I believe there ought to be such a report, and if there ought to be, then we need an amendment to insert such a provision. I am prepared to move an amendment in the Committee Stage which will provide that the director or the council should report to Parliament. The registrar is going to have an enormous job, and I believe Parliament has the right to know what he is doing and why he is doing it, and the right to call him to account.

The hon. the Minister referred to certain guarantees which are built into the legislation and that people therefore would not have to worry. What are the guarantees? The withdrawal of the original Bill? The second Bill is far worse than the first! The hon. the Minister also says there is an opportunity for appeals. That is true, but why in this instance did the hon. the Minister not accept the recommendation of the Van Rooyen Commission? On page 195 of their report the commission recommends that there should be a further appeal, i.e. to a court of law. So many of the Van Rooyen Commission’s recommendations have been accepted that I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister did not accept that recommendation as well.

There are many aspects of the Bill which are very far-reaching, but perhaps one of the worst is the provision to enable inspectors under the control of the director to enter premises, offices, and presumable also into homes, without any warrant.

I specifically want to ask the hon. the Minister why this is so and I hope he will reply. Why is it necessary for this director to have more power than the police? Why is it necessary for him to have to enter those buildings without even a search warrant? Why should organizations, so many of which have spent years, money and their skills, be subjected to this kind of treatment? I do not believe it is necessary. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us why he thinks that those powers are required and are necessary. He gave us no indication in this regard. He just brushed over it.

I now want to refer to the three major funds. I can well understand why full-time staff should be employed to administer the S.A. Defence Fund because that is a fund which is in existence all the time and needs a full-time staff. However, chapter III of this Bill calls for full-time staff for the other two funds as well. I do not believe that is necessary. It is a waste of money. I am now giving the hon. the Minister notice that we shall be raising questions about this in the Committee Stage as well, because it does seem to us that there are certain funds which can operate very ably with a very small skeleton staff. A fund like the S.A. Defence Fund needs a full-time staff, but I believe some money could be saved if some changes were made in this regard.

Finally I want to say that we in these benches reiterate that we cannot support—indeed we oppose it as strongly as it is known how to oppose—this Bill before us at Second Reading. We hope that the hon. the Minister will in his reply give us the real reason why he believes this kind of legislation to be necessary today.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we heard from the hon. member for Pinelands this afternoon the real reason why the Official Opposition is opposed to this Bill. The hon. member for Bryanston was not prepared to tell us the real reason why the Official Opposition is opposed to this Bill.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that we wanted to get at people and bodies like the World Council of Churches … [Interjections.] … the Ford Foundation or the S.A. Council of Churches, bodies that want to bring money into the country to pay for the defence of political prisoners. I think it must be placed on record that we do not have political prisoners in South Africa. Nor do we have any political detainees in South Africa. [Interjections.] I think we should be clear about our terminology. People detained in terms of the state security legislation we have in South Africa cannot be called political prisoners, because these people were not engaged in doing certain things as members of an organization in a lawful political system. They are people who are being detained because they pose a thread to the security of the State. They are not political detainees. We can take this argument further in another debate because I do not think it is appropriate to do so in this debate. I just want to state the facts. That hon. member said that the issue was the defence of political detainees, and that we were now prejudicing the whole situation as regards the legal aid which is available to them at present. No one in South Africa need appear in a court in South Africa without being able to obtain legal representation to undertake his defence. It simply is not true that that man cannot obtain legal representation. It is also true that legal aid is available to any person who wants to be defended in South Africa. That is the absolute truth.