Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed—

I am introducing this amendment mainly at the request of the Administrators. At the moment teachers are also being trained at institutions other than universities and colleges, and in view of that this amendment is being effected in order to cover all the cases and to retain the status quo.

There are two matters that I wish to raise under this clause. (In the Second-Reading debate the hon. the Minister indicated that he would at each clause during the Committee Stage indicate the differences which existed between this Bill and the Gericke Commission Bill. I regard that as a courteous offer, not as a challenge, and I wish to avail myself of this offer. I wish to ask the Minister why in this Bill before us he has omitted the definition of a “college for advanced technical education” which appeared in the Gericke Commission Bill. Then I wish to ask the hon. the Minister why colleges for advanced technical education have been omitted from the definition of “teachers’ training” which appears in this Bill.

If the hon. member would take the trouble of reading the definition of “college”, he would find that it is defined as “any institution or part of an institution … for the training of white persons as teachers”—and this includes a college for advanced technical education, because it is a State college—“and which is maintained, managed and controlled or subsidized by the State (including a provincial administration)”. It is, therefore, no longer necessary to define “college” as it was defined previously, i.e. colleges for advanced technical education. The definition of “college” is now all-embracing.

Then the hon. member asked me a question in connection with the definition of “teachers’ training”. The definition of “teachers’ training” in this Bill is all-embracing. It is now being defined as—

Except when this takes place in a faculty—

This covers everything. This is a much better definition, and the legal advisers accordingly recommended it.

Sir, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I raised this matter because the Minister twice indicated in his Second Reading speech that not one jot or tittle of this Bill differed from the Gericke Bill; he said: “Die een is net soos die ander”. I believe, although the Minister has explained the reason, that the colleges for advanced technical education do not enjoy the same status by virtue of …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this particular clause.

Then I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give me the assurance that although this definition is omitted, the status of the colleges for advanced technical education will remain the same.

Order! That matter cannot be raised at this stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I move the following amendments, as printed—

I do not think there is a great deal to be said about the hon. the Minister’s amendment. Really it is just a change of nomenclature, but I should like to refer to the fifth point, in which in line 49 he wants to omit the words “such colleges” and to substitute “universities and colleges in the province concerned”. I do not see why the hon. the Minister should have added that at all. It seems to me to be superfluous. However, if he wishes to have it, I have no objection.

Now I come to the amendment standing in my name and I think the Minister will understand why I am moving it. It is because during the Second Reading debate I stated very clearly that we do not approve of rigid demarcation in the teachers’ profession between people who are trained for one kind of teaching and another. We do not accept that there should be one institution only for the training of secondary teachers, and another institution for primary school teachers. Nobody so far has mentioned what kind of institution we should have for the training of university lecturers, and in many cases I think they are in need of training. But nothing is said about that and we feel that it is most important that this discrimination in the teaching profession should not be accepted. Now we are receiving support from unexpected quarters—at least unexpected to me. I understand that hon. members opposite have had circulars from Pretoria asking them not to agree to this distinction that is laid down in the Bill. A report in the Press yesterday gave a verbatim statement of letters hon. Ministers have received from the Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging and from other bodies. It is quite clear that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country, and because of that I want to express my view in the form of this amendment, which I now move—

The amendment amounts to this: In the new section 1A, I propose to omit subsection (1) of the proposed section 1A. There is one operative word there that I object to. This is how the provision reads: “Subject to the provision of subsection (2), the training of white persons as teachers for secondary schools may be provided at a university only.” It is the word “only” that I object to. There is no reason whatever why teachers should not be trained for secondary education at other institutions. At present they are being trained at other institutions, and for a very good reason, the reason being that the universities do not supply sufficient teachers. Because of that the Departments of Education in Natal and in the Transvaal have made great efforts to have teachers who will teach in secondary schools trained at colleges. That is my first point.

I now come to the second point, which is to omit all the words after “Department” in line 44 to the end of subsection (2). Subsection (2) will now read in this way: “The Minister may, on such conditions as he deems fit, grant permission that during such period as he may determine the training of persons as teachers for secondary schools in any such subject as he may determine be provided also at a college maintained, managed and controlled or subsidized by the Department.” In other words, the Minister makes provision that in his own colleges for technical education he can make provision for the training of teachers, and I think that is quite right. But it goes on to say that on the advice of the council he will give permission to the Provincial Administration. Why should he have to do it on the advice of the council? If it is good enough for the hon. the Minister to train them in his Department, it is good enough for the provinces to train them in theirs.

I now come to the third part, namely to omit the proviso to subsection (3). This is what subsection (3) will then say: “The training of white persons as teachers for primary and preprimary schools shall be provided at a college or a university.” I am satisfied with that. It is unnecessary to have this proviso which provides that it will be with effect from a certain date, as we have it in the Bill. I move that the proviso should be omitted.

I now want to refer to the new section 1B, which is to be inserted. I wish to omit subsection (2) because it is quite unnecessary to lay that down in an Act. Here we are talking about establishing a regional committee. I was a member of a regional committee in the Transvaal 30 years ago. All that can be left to the Administrator to decide. That is why I have made my alternative suggestion. He can do that, because he has been doing that and he has been doing that very successfully.

Before the hon. the Minister replies, I want to point out to the hon. member that the new section 1A (1) contains a major principle of the Bill and, therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the proposed omission of subsection (1) as it would be destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, does that apply to all the sections of section 1A that I have mentioned?

No, only subsection (1). In other words, I cannot accept the amendment proposing the deletion of subsection (1).

Mr. Chairman, may I discuss the third amendment of the hon. member for Kensington, as it appears on the Order Paper?

Yes, that is in order.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, the hon. member also wants the proviso in the new section 1A (3) to be omitted. The proviso reads as follows:

The hon. member wants to have the part which I regard as important, omitted. This part deals with the object and principle of the Bill, and the object of the Bill is to serve education in general. Now, the question should at all times be asked: What can be done in the first place to education, and in the second place to the teaching profession, to increase the status? To me the answer to that is locked up in this very clause. The object of this provision is that even primary school teachers will be able to receive their academic training at universities in the future. I agree with part of what the hon. member said. I also want to say that no one approves of a state of complete separation developing between the training of secondary school and that of primary school teachers. Dividing the teaching profession in a small country such as South Africa, as it exists, into groups with two kinds of training is definitely not a sound system. It is not a sound system because the position in South Africa may develop into what is being experienced in the Netherlands. There, firstly, one finds masters (leraars) for the secondary schools, and secondly, teachers (onderwysers) for the primary schools, with the result that there is a considerable difference in status.

In the Free State it is already the position, as it used to be in the Transvaal, that every student at the teachers’ college is at the same time a student at the university. To me personally this is the ideal system. In my opinion more stringent academic requirements will raise the level of education as such as well as the status of the profession. As a result of the level being raised, the profession will, in my opinion, be more attractive. The advantage of having a system such as the one set out here, is that a teacher who undergoes the three years’ training can subsequently take a degree as well. No one wants pre-primary and the primary education eventually to consist only of persons who merely had three years’ training. They should not be deprived of the opportunity of receiving also a fourth year's training as well—and with this I mean a degree course. This is precisely what the Gericke Commission recommended. Hon. members are so upset about the recommendations of the Gericke Commission allegedly not being embodied in the Bill. Now the hon. member for Kensington must please listen very carefully. In this respect the Gericke Commission said exactly what is said in this clause. The report read as follows, in paragraph 68 on page 36—

1. (a) (ii) the provincial training colleges, which in the opinion of your Commission are capable of training certain categories of teachers efficiently and have also done so up to now, should continue in existence for the training of primary teachers, in particular, but that the training shall be given in co-operation with the universities.

This is exactly what we want, i.e. that that training will eventually be given in co-operation with the universities. In my opinion this is also the system we used to have in the Transvaal previously with the old T3 and the old T2, the training undergone by many of us who used to be in education in the Transvaal, in terms of which a prospective teacher received university academic training at the university and professional training at the college. In terms of this Bill I see the possibility of such training again being given in the future.

Mr. Chairman, following on what was said by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I want to say that we must read the entire meaning and purport of the Gericke Commission report as a whole. The Commission emphasized time and again that its method in drawing up the Bill in the report was that there would be a gradual closing of the gap between the university and the training college. They would gradually come closer to each other.

The Chairman ruled the first part of the amendment out of order. As regards the second part of that clause, I cannot see what the hon. member for Kensington’s objection to it is as it stands. If that part were omitted, it would only make the matter much more complicated. He is quite satisfied with the first part, i.e. from “The Minister may, on such conditions as he deems fit” up to “provided”, but when he comes to “… at a college maintained (these are the colleges for advanced technical education) managed and controlled or subsidized (these are the training institutions where nursery school teachers are being trained at present) and, on the advice of the council …”, he is dissatisfied. Clause 6 (1) of the Bill proposed by the Gericke Commission provides that an Administrator shall, in consultation with the Department and the university concerned, appoint a joint advisory and coordinating committee for teacher training for each centre or region. Now the hon. member puts forward this amendment. If I incorporated his amendment in this legislation, it would result in the constitution of regional committees, on which the hon. member himself served for a long time, being complicated. They necessarily have to differ from one place to another. For example, when such a committee has to be established for Pretoria, representation on it will be given to the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education. At Potchefstroom, however, there is no such institution which can be given representation in this way. Furthermore, if we come to training colleges such as those at Oudtshoorn and Graaff-Reinet, it might perhaps be necessary to give representation to totally different bodies on that regional committee, because they are remotely situated. However, what will happen in reality is that when an Administrator wants to appoint such a regional committee there will be mutual consultation between the Administrator and the Minister and other interested parties in order to ensure that the provincial administration obtains the necessary representation, which also applies to the universities, the Department of Higher Education, etc. In short, it must be a balanced committee. There are various possibilities. So, for example, the body that plays the major part in a training college may be a church society, so that it is desirable that they should also get representation because the church concerned has the greatest interest in education there. In other words, we will be looking for those interested and concerned. Consequently I cannot accept this amendment moved by the hon. member. In fact, I cannot see the use of it.

The hon. member also moved that the proviso to subsection (3) of the proposed new section 1A be omitted. In my opinion it would be a retrograde step to do so, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort said. You can imagine that we do not want division. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section 1A, which provides that white persons may be trained as teachers for secondary schools only at a university, is to remain. But what do you want in regard to primary and pre-primary education? You want the teachers for that to be trained at colleges and universities, i.e. as the status quo is to-day. But on the other hand you do not want a gradual growth to take place between training colleges and university.

I have no objection to that.

Then the hon. member should not omit the proviso. The date which has to be determined by the Minister as the date for such training at a college and a university in close co-operation with each other, is not a date that will be determined by the Minister in an arbitrary way. He will determine that date on the advice of his council. Surely it is clear that his council must advise him on all matters. The date may differ from one region to another. The intention here is —and the hon. member for Koedoespoort said so and I know the hon. member for Kensington also wants this—that each trained teacher, whether primary or secondary, should get the opportunity of extending his professional knowledge at a university, because a university is the foremost institution when it comes to professional knowledge. It is after all the ideal. Even if a teacher only obtains a first-year B.A. or B.Sc., i.e. the lowest professional teachers’ degree, the way is nevertheless open to him to continue his studies later or even to do so by means of private study while he is teaching. This, after all, remains the ambition. At the moment we are not giving him that opportunity at all—he can obtain his training at a college without spending one single day at a university. We must bear in mind the saying, “Unknown, unloved”. However, once that person has seen a university from the inside, the chances are much greater that he will do his utmost to improve his qualifications at a university. I think that on reconsidering this matter the hon. member for Kensington will agree that, as the first part of his amendment was ruled out of order, the rest of the clause should remain as it stands.

Here we find the evolutionary way I referred to, which creates greater opportunities for improved qualifications for our teachers.

When the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate he made it clear that be regarded the training of primary school teachers and the training of secondary school teachers as two different types of training altogether.

No.

I read the Minister’s reply very carefully. But if he is prepared to accept that the training for both should be the same, then there is not the slightest reason why a secondary school teacher should not be trained at a training college, at least in so far as his professional training is concerned.

Order! I have ruled that particular amendment out of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I point out to you that the hon. member is talking against the clause.

No. The hon. member is speaking to a particular amendment he moved.

The hon. member is talking against this particular subsection as a whole because we are going to vote against it. Surely, he ought to be allowed to do that?

The hon. member may continue.

I should like to proceed a step further and refer to the proviso. The hon. member for Koedoespoort does not like the proviso. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to prescribe a date at all. The process he is so anxious to establish is already taking place, and is taking place very rapidly. All of us are in favour of teachers being trained at a university, but what we also say is that where provincial administrations train teachers at colleges there is no reason why such teachers should not have the opportunity to qualify academically as well as professionally. The Minister would know that the Gericke Commission suggested that some of these colleges could even develop into tertiary institutions, issuing their own degrees, although that was not found acceptable. But that has been advocated and canvassed in the educational world. I want to state again that what we are anxious to have is no distinction whatsoever in the profession. I want to quote from a letter that has been sent out by “Die Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging” to members. They say:

They continue in that vein. They wish to have them trained together, if necessary at a university or training college. The hon. the Minister’s effort to have all training under the umbrella of a university at this stage is not justified.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with section 1A (2), which is inserted by clause 2 of the Bill. I listened very carefully to what the hon. the Minister said when I raised the matter under clause 1, in regard to colleges for advanced technical education and his interpretation that these would be included in colleges managed and controlled or subsidized by the Department—I refer to lines 43 and 44. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of certain remarks which he made in connection with these colleges for advanced technical education when the Bill concerned was before the House. I should also like to remind him that I asked him a question in the Second-Reading debate, and I have had no reply. I want to appeal to him and put before him an appeal which comes from the people interested in the colleges for advanced technical education, to ask him whether he would not be prepared to consider broadening this description so that it makes it quite clear that they are included and protected. At the moment they will be recognized for the time and at the whim of the Minister. This is not the desire of the colleges for advanced technical education, Sir, I pray your indulgence to put this before the Committee, because I believe it is a matter of importance.

What particular clause is the hon. member discussing?

I am dealing with lines 43, 44 and 45 where it says:

I wish to put on record the opinion of someone who speaks on behalf of these colleges. They are not happy with this clause. I am asking the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards this clause in order that he could entrench in this clause some of the provisions which appeared in the Gericke Commission Report in the corresponding clause. This is what the spokesmen for the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education say:

I think hon. members will agree with me on that.

That has been disposed of. I ruled the amendment in that regard out of order.

I am not dealing with the amendment. I am talking against the clause. This is what they say:

Order! The hon. member is now making a Second Reading speech. Those points have been disposed of during the Second Reading debate.

I am still seeking a reply from the hon. the Minister. I have made the point during the Second Reading debate. However, the hon. the Minister did not reply to me. I am addressing an appeal to him.

I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to reply, because it is a Second Reading point of principle.

But the hon. member is talking against the clause. Surely, if one disagrees with a clause, one is allowed to say how one disagrees with the clause.

Yes, then one speech can be made dealing with why hon. members are against the clause. Then (the Committee will vote on the clause, but I cannot allow a repetition of the Second Reading debate.

The hon. member who is speaking now is taking a different line to the hon. member for Kensington. He is on a different point. I submit he must be allowed to state his point.

He made the same point a little while ago. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue. This is what the comment is—

The whole tenor of the letter is to appeal to the Minister to indicate more clearly in this clause that he is aware of these facts, that the colleges for advanced technical education are in fact the only bodies who can train teachers on this basis, and to make sure that this is entrenched in this clause, as it was in the Bill of the Gericke Commission.

Then, Sir, I want to deal with another aspect which also arises out of subsection (2) and that is in regard to the position of the provinces, because as I understand the position now, the training of secondary school teachers will be undertaken in institutions or training colleges sponsored by the provinces only at the whim of this particular Minister and for such time as he decides. T want to put one aspect to the hon. the Minister and to this Committee. In regard to this particular clause the Minister has said that vested interests are concerned and that the provinces are vitally concerned. We know that the provinces are in control of 16 out of the 33 institutions which undertake the training of teachers. On this basis, as I read the clause, it will mean that the provinces will not be allowed in future to establish new training colleges for secondary teachers, and that their whole existence, subject to the advice of the council, will depend on the whim of this Minster, and the period within which they may have to discontinue their activities, will also depend on his whim Sir, the hon. the Minister has been associated with education for a long time and I believe that he understands the position. But, Sir, his place may be taken by another Minister who does not have the sympathy and understanding that this Minister has in this particular regard, and speaking in support of these institutions. I would be loath to see this particular clause embodied in this Bill. I ask the hon. the Minister therefore to deal with this matter on such a basis that the provinces will be sure that the autonomy and the vested rights which they have enjoyed for years, will not be taken from them.

The principle of the training of secondary teachers is laid down in the proposed new section 1A (1). As a matter of fact, the Gericke Commission stated quite unequivocally in its Bill that secondary teachers were to be trained at universities. This is the principle that has been accepted, and consequently it is not under discussion now. In the second case the hon. member for Durban (Berea) now wants training colleges and new colleges that are established to have the assurance that they may also train secondary teachers. This is totally out of the question. What is being done in the proviso is to grant this permission to training colleges in order not to cause a vacuum, and in order to ensure, as I have now proposed in my amendment, that they may be granted permission to train teachers in subjects or in courses. Colleges for advanced technical education will receive the same right to train people as long as it is necessary. But as soon as the universities are able to provide the training, the permission may be withdrawn. I cannot say how long it will take before that stage is reached; it may take five years, ten years or longer. One cannot have two parallel institutions where the same kind of training is provided. It is the function of the universities to train people for degrees, and we do not want to create 18 training colleges as potential universities which are going to do the same work. After all, the State has to pay for this; it is paying the major share, and everything in the case of training colleges. So I want the hon. member to understand very clearly that there is no question of any departure from this principle, and for this reason the second part, relating to pre-primary and primary teachers, cannot be accepted not as regards their academic training either. It is necessary in that regard as well. In the Second Reading debate it was made very clear that if a secondary teacher needs sound professional knowledge, a primary teacher perhaps has an even greater need of it, because he is the teacher who has to lay the foundation, and there is no question of an inferior position being occupied here. The hon. member for Kensington is right. The primary teacher is still free to receive university training; he is not barred from this. However, that is why a certain date has to be fixed from which he must get a certain measure of university training. Originally my Department and I also mentioned all the subjects, and as regards the colleges for advanced technical education the subjects were specifically mentioned, that could be taught at a technical college, but the law advisers said: “No, this is no way to draft a law,” and I have to bow to their superior knowledge. But the definition of a college, as it stands here at present, includes those colleges for advanced technical education. I cannot tell the hon. member any more. It is the third time now that I am explaining this. The hon. member must accept now that this is the position, and he cannot accept that I have been misled by the law advisers. I am not trying to mislead anyone here. As it stands here, it includes colleges for advanced technical education.

First amendment proposed by the Minister of National Education put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore in subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed section 1A put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Second amendment proposed by the Minister of National Education put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. P. A. Moore put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining amendments proposed by the Minister of National Education put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—90: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, T. D du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

The object in omitting certain words in lines 62 and 63 of the clause and the substitution therefor of the words “in regard to the general”, is to change the wording, at the request of the Administrators, because the remainder of Act No. 39 of 1967 affects the general policy. While there was doubt about this new education council which is to be appointed, the idea is, since we are dealing with an amending Bill now and three members are being added to the executive committee, so that there will be an executive committee of seven members, that there will be two committees. One committee will advise the Minister on the general policy in regard to schools and the other committee will advise the Minister on the general policy in regard to teacher training. The word “mainly” is being inserted in lines 32 and 35, subsection (4), so that there can be no doubt about it that these two large standing committees of the executive committee, plus the full council, will deal mainly with matters concerning teacher training and that the other members of the education council will deal mainly with matters concerning the policy in regard to schools. However, as I said in my second reading speech, when we have to deal with overlapping principles, such as when the same principles apply to both schools and teachers, the full council meets. We intend making this very clear in the regulations, so that overlapping work will not be done separately, but together, and so that there will at the same time be specialization, i.e. in the form of a group of four persons who will decide on the policy at schools and another group of three members of the executive committee who will decide on the policy in regard to teachers. I think this amendment is an improvement and will remove all doubt.

Mr. Chairman, we shall vote against this clause because, like the teaching profession generally, we do not regard this as the kind of advisory body we ought to have. The teaching profession is still saying so and they are issuing statements from time to time in which they express the view that they wish to have their own professional body which should advise the Minister on the training of teachers. I had hoped that it would have been possible and that it would have been the nucleus of a professional body similar to the Medical Council or the Pharmacy Board or the Engineers’ Association or the Law Society. I hoped that, at last, the teaching profession, the cinderella of all the professions, would have had an opportunity to build up such a body.

I want to look at the hon. the Minister’s proposal, as regards this council. The hon. the Minister is going to merge the two councils and in merging them he is going to have an executive council of seven members. Why does he need these people? The hon. the Minister has an excellent department, namely the Department of Higher Education. In his department he has professional advisers; should he need further advice it is very easy for him to convene a meeting of the Committee of Educational Heads, representing all the provinces, with the Secretary of Higher Education as the chairman of that body. This body seems to be a body which can operate without this complicated system, as we have here, where seven executive members have to be appointed. These executives will presumably remain at the head office, where there is no work for them. When we dealt with the previous Bill, now Act No. 39 of 1967, we said at the time that this body is not required. I can quite understand that it might be necessary to bring a group of people together for discussion two or three times a year. I can see that that is possible, but it is quite unnecessary to have this large executive which is to be nominated by the Minister.

Paragraph (b) provides that:

Why should the Minister appoint representatives from the provinces?

Order! That point is dealt with by the existing Act, which reads:

No amendment in that regard is proposed in this Bill and therefore that point cannot be discussed.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he has not considered the suggestion which is made in the Gericke Report, because they recommended a body consisting of 13 members. I am not going to talk about what the number ought to be. There is only one operative word in the Minister’s Bill and that is that they are “appointed” by the Minister. The Gericke Commission’s proposed Bill says:

Why does the Bill provide that they should be nominated by the Minister?

The present Act lays down that they should be appointed by the Minister and that has not been changed in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to discuss the provisions of the Act, but I wish to refer to the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I point out that this section is substituting the entire section of the principal Act to which you are referring. Therefore, this is an entirely new section. I therefore do not think that we are bound by anything which appeared in the principal Act. This is a complete substitution.

Only those parts of the Bill which are underlined or which are in brackets are under discussion and not the rest of it.

Not at all?

No, not at all.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member not discuss the appointment by the Minister because this subsection provides that he can appoint two members whereas before he could only appoint one.

That point is not at issue at all.

I now want to refer to paragraph (c) which provides:

This is in order, because it is the Minister’s own Department. That is what I wanted to see apply to the other members. They should all be designated.

I now want to refer to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). Paragraph (d) provides:

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: Can he appoint a member of the staff of a university? Should he not go to the university and say, “I should like you to designate or nominate a member”? Has the Minister the right to go to a university, an autonomous body, and say that he will appoint people to his board? This is with regard to paragraph (c).

Now we come to paragraph (e) which reads, “one member appointed by the Minister from among the universities”. How one appoints one from amongst the universities I do not know. If the hon. the Minister had said that he would appoint one member designated by the Committee of University Principals, I think it would have been in order.

We come now to paragraph (f), which reads “two members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations”. Surely, the Federal Council, the council of the education profession, can nominate their own members? Has the Minister to go to them and say, “That is the man I want”? Surely they are the people the Minister should approach and ask to send certain representatives. Surely, the “Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging”, the T.T.A. in the Transvaal and the Federal Council, which includes them all, can nominate these members.

We come now to paragraph (g), which reads, “one member appointed by the Minister who shall be a member of either the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education …” Well, that is the Minister’s own Department. I suppose he could appoint that member. That is a matter for him to decide. I am not prepared to dispute that with him.

With regard to paragraph (h) …

There is no change with regard to paragraph (h).

That is right. Thank you, Sir.

Now we come to subsection (2) which reads “Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1), the members … shall be persons who have distinguished themselves in the field of education …” I suppose that is in order. But the clause goes on. They are to maintain the prestige of the profession, and so on. It is only words, words, words. It is quite unnecessary. The hon. the Minister could have appointed a professional council, as the Gericke Commission sets out in one short clause, of 13 members. Remember what they say. They want to have some of the members designated and not all appointed by the Minister. The Minister should have gone to these bodies and said “Give me representatives, and these people will advise me”. The Minister wants all his advisers appointed by himself, especially his executive. We will oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington also wanted to discuss the old Act now. Let me tell him what the procedure is. It is simply impossible for a Minister to say: “I am appointing these four persons from the universities. I am appointing these persons from the provinces.” The procedure which has been followed since this clause, which is a section of Act No. 39 of 1967, was placed on the Statute Book, is that I asked the Administrator to recommend certain persons to me. If one has to be appointed, he would give me two or three names. There is a very good reason for this. If two appointments must be made, he would give me four, five or six names of persons whom he considers to be suitable to serve on this council. The reason for this is that I find matters very difficult. I have to maintain proper ratios as far as such a council is concerned. The first ratio I have to maintain, is that I have to see to it that there are both Afrikaans- and English-speaking persons on the council. I must see to it that there are both men and women on the council. Hon. members will be astonished to hear that the position in regard to the highest posts in the education departments of the provinces is such that no English-speaking persons qualified for this and that even a province like Natal only sent me two Afrikaans names. This was done by the Executive Committee of Natal. I had to ask them to help me to find English-speaking persons. In regard to these matters hon. members do not know what is going on behind the scenes. This is not done arbitrarily. Are hon. members aware that in the present council the three persons who can be appointed additionally by the Minister under paragraph (h), are three English-speaking persons? I tried to maintain the ratio. As far as English- and Afrikaans-speaking persons are concerned, the ratio on the Education Council is sound. As far as these educationists are concerned, I have to consider their respective qualifications. I cannot appoint only one type of educationist. I have to see to it that I get people whose fingers, as I have said, are still white with chalk. I have to consider educationists who have done good work. This is not a matter of simply making an arbitrary choice. This is after all a council which has to advise the Minister. On all the councils the members are appointed by the Minister, but he will never do so without having consulted the various parties. They will be consulted again when this council is appointed. We shall do our best to maintain the correct ratios everywhere. There are provincial ratios, for example. After all, I cannot appoint those four persons and the fifth one from the universities from one province only. I shall do my best to appoint two out of the four from English-language universities and two from Afrikaans-language universities which are situated in different provinces. These ratios must be built up. Everybody checks to see whether these ratios are correct. But then hon. members must not make my task impossible by making these allegations. Then I shall be left to face the music and I will have to pull the chestnuts out of the fire.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am surprised to hear the Minister say that he is going to choose people because of their language group or their sex. To me these are the last qualifications one requires. I should have thought that he would have sought out people according to ability and would not care whether they are English speaking or Afrikaans speaking, whether they are women or men. That would certainly be the basis on which I would choose these people.

Well, that is your point of view.

Of course it is. It is a jolly good point of view, too.

But it is not the South African point of view.

It is based on merit and not on any silly prejudices. That is why it is a good point of view. [Interjections.] I am not interested in whether the majority are Afrikaans speaking or English speaking. It would not matter at all to me, as long as they are able people and could give the hon. the Minister the right sort of advice.

Apart from this, my objection is that there is one word that appears with alarming regularity throughout this clause, which is, of course, the principle clause in the Bill, namely the word “appoint”. Whichever section one looks at, whether it is the original section, which I shall have to leave to one side, or whether it is the new section, which I have to concentrate on, I see in every single regard it is the Minister who appoints.

29.

29 men, women, English speaking, Afrikaans speaking, good and true, all are appointed by the hon. the Minister.

If you had it your way, there would have been 32 members.

Well, I do not care how many there are. [Interjections.]

Oh yes. That is what the hon. member for Kensington proposed.

I am not even talking of the numbers. I might have cut them down in every regard, but I would have made it more representative. I would not have made it bigger; I would have made it more representative. That is all.

How?

I would not only have had the seven members appointed by the Minister on account of their special knowledge of teachers training. This is not the only thing that matters. As I said earlier on, it is not only educationists that know about the requirements in the country; economists know about requirements in the country as well. It is the employers of labour in commerce and industry who know about the requirements of the country. All this is important. I would have obtained their advice in this matter as well. [Interjections.] Of course I would have. Where I wanted universities to give me advice, I would have asked the universities to suggest the people they thought were best to represent university interests. Where I wanted the vocational training section or the advanced technical education section, I would have had representatives sent by those bodies, and not ministerial appointments. I do not know why the hon. the Minister thinks his Administrators know so much about it. Why would the Administrator of the Transvaal necessarily know who would be the best people to represent the universities of the Transvaal, for example the University of Pretoria, Witwatersrand or R.A.U.?

We will not ask him; we will ask the Committee of University Heads.

Ah, that would be a horse of a very different stable, but the hon. the Minister has not said that. He has not said it in debate. He did not say it in debate and he does not say it in his Bill. How are we to guess that he is going to consult the Committee of University Principals? There he has a point; I would agree with him. He is going to the right people to ask them who would be the best people to represent the interests of the universities. But, Sir, there is nothing like that in the Bill. There is no guarantee of this at all. The hon. the Minister might decide on somebody or the Administrator might suggest somebody, and that will be the end of that, even though this person will not be representative at all of the universities or of any of the other sections which are meant to be represented. Sir, I object to this whole concept of control from the top. All appointments are being made from the top; nothing is representative. More and more, in all the legislation in this country, we are having everything decided from the top by Ministerial decree and for that reason I am going to vote against this clause.

It is precisely in this clause 5 that the antithesis between the recommendations of the Gericke Commission and the Minister’s Bill comes to light. I think we ought to understand that the purpose behind the recommendations of the commission was to establish a professional body who were going to be charged with the training of teachers, and what the Minister has done is to enlarge the advisory council which he has to-day and to convert it into a council …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause. He is not on the clause at all now.

Sir, I am talking on clause 5, which talks about the establishment and functions of the National Education Council.

The hon. member is discussing the council as established under the present Act, and that is not under discussion at all.

Under subsection (4) the Minister “shall designate one of the vice-chairmen referred to in section 4 (1) (a) to manage matters relating to teachers’ training”. The whole point about the Minister’s appointment of these members to this council is that they shall be charged with the training of teachers. Surely I am entitled to speak on that, Sir?

Yes; go on.

Order! Will the hon. member make his point again?

Subsection (4) reads that “the Minister shall designate one of the vice-chairmen referred to in section 4 (1) (a) to manage matters relating to teachers’ training”. This is one of the purposes of the clause. The Minister is now expanding his council; he is reconstituting it and creating extra posts, and a considerable number of the people appointed are going to be appointed because of their knowledge of matters relating to teachers’ training. Sir, this is something with which the provinces have been charged up to the present time, and in this clause the Minister is taking over their power and incorporating it under the wing of his Department. As I say, this is the antithesis between what was recommended by the Gericke Commission and the Minister’s Bill, and that is why we are against this clause, because here the Minister is directly infringing upon rights which the provinces have enjoyed. When I said that in the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said I was talking nonsense. Here you have a provincial department which up to the present moment has selected and trained teachers and paid for the education of teachers, both primary and secondary, to staff the provincial schools, and now the Minister comes with an advisory body who are going to advise him on how those people shall be trained. Surely then I was perfectly correct in what I said the other day. Surely this an infringement on what the provinces have been doing up to now, and it is an expansion of the Minister’s Department in a further direction. I am afraid that we object very much indeed to the power which the Minister has taken unto himself in this particular subsection and in the whole clause. That is one of the reasons why we are opposed to this clause.

If the hon. member for Mooi River had been here on Friday—he apologized for his absence—he would not have made the speech he has just made here, because I replied fully to this point on Friday. It was the main point made by the Opposition, but after I had duly informed them and quoted the Gericke report to them, hon. members on the other side understood the position and dropped the whole of this point. I can understand that they want to vote against this clause, but this speech by the hon. member was quite untimely. He should have made this speech on Friday.

I was unable to be present.

I know. Sir, the hon. member for Kensington complains about the fact that I am appointing the people, but what does the Gericke report say? I quote the commission’s proposed clause 3 on page 54—

This is the only place where he does it—

I have been telling hon. members from the beginning that the entire course followed by the Gericke report was followed in this Bill, and I have gone further. I referred on Friday to the functions of the council and pointed out that all the functions mentioned in the report of the Gericke Commission are contained in this Bill. Now the hon. member for Kensington is belittling this; he asks why all these functions should be inserted in the Bill; he says it is obvious that they should do these things; that one does not need a council to do them. On the one hand hon. members of the Opposition are trying to create the impression outside that I have departed from the proposals of the Gericke Commission and on the other hand, when it suits them, they reject the Gericke report as well as the Bill. They are so inconsistent. I repeat what I said here on Friday: It is perfectly clear that hon. members of the Opposition, largely as a result of ignorance, are trying to display their knowledge here.

I want to refer to the new section 4 (3) (c), which reads—

Sir, what does this mean? This is a council without power; it cannot apply sanctions to any teacher. How must the council promote respect for education and for the teaching profession? Compare this council with the Medical Council or the Pharmacy Board of the Law Societies. These councils represent learned, responsible professions but the professions which they represent are no more learned and no more responsible than the teaching profession. These councils have the power to administer discipline, they have the power to impose sanctions, and the reason why they have that power is because they are partly elected …

And they are professional bodies.

… and they are responsible professions. That is the way in which a civilized country treats a responsible profession. Engineers are being given disciplinary powers, and the bodies representing the architects and surveyors all have the power to impose sanctions because they are really representative of their professions. You find all over the world that civilized professions are given responsibility for their own Acts. They are the only people who can judge. Even the courts of law do not interfere with these responsible professional bodies as long as they are autonomous and act correctly according to their professional status. But these people are powerless. Why does the Minister put in a clause like that which is completely stupid and unimportant?

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—89: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M C.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots. J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tender, J. A.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vostoo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 6, which deals with the control over recruiting and selection of students, from which particular clause of the Gericke Bill was this clause taken and, if not, from where did the clause emanate?

That clause was in the 1968 Bill. It was not in the Gericke Bill, but I was requested by the Administrators, and it was a very strong point of the Administrators, to insert that clause. They proceed from the principle, which is perhaps the right one, that the body which must use the teacher must have control over him and must select the teachers. I readily inserted it because I consider it a great improvement and also essential.

Arising out of that reply, will the Minister then concede that his statement that the Gericke Commission’s Bill and this Bill were identical was not in fact accurate?

I did not say that. What I said was that I did not omit one single clause from the Gericke Bill, but I immediately added, and the hon. member was probably not listening attentively …

“The one is like the other”. Those were your words.

I immediately added …

You said “not one jot or tittle”.

Will the hon. member then say what I said, because he keeps on talking, and then I shall remain seated.

The Minister said twice in his Second Reading speech “The one is like the other”, and they did not differ one jot or tittle. Then I do not understand the meaning of words.

Order! What has that to do with this clause?

The hon. member cannot get away with that. I said that there was not a single provision of the Gericke Bill which does not appear in this Bill. The hon. member may ask me where each provision of the Gericke Bill is. But I added that of course the sequence was different; the various provisions were rearranged. In addition I said that clauses had been added for the sake of completeness, and I mentioned three exceptions, and this is one of those exceptions. I mentioned it and the hon. member may look at my speech if he wants to.

I take it that the new section 4A that is to be inserted, is in regard to colleges, either provincial colleges or the Minister’s technical colleges. There is no provision made for universities, I understand. They do not come under this clause. In other words, a student may be admitted to a university for a three years’ course and then there is one year’s training. Of course the Minister has no control of that.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

I move the following amendment, as printed—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill is not in the House and I do not know whether I should now move that we report progress.

Keep on talking. I shall make a note of what you have to say.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister of Transport will not be able to give me a proper answer on the point I want to raise. [Interjections.] But in the circumstances I move as an amendment—

This amendment is self-explanatory and I hope the hon. the Minister of Transport will now indicate on behalf of the Deputy Minister concerned whether or not he is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, not being a mind reader, I am not in a position to say whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept the hon. member’s amendment. However, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus would still like to say something on this.

Mr. Chair man, as I understand this amendment of the hon. member, it introduces a totally new principle into this legislation, and the principles of the Bill have already been accepted. The hon. member wants the word “possession” to be substituted for the present word “title”. To my mind that implies statutory protection for theft. A thief steals a thing in order to possess it. Now a second thief comes along and he steals from the first thief—in other words, from his predecessor in possession. I maintain, therefore, that in this way we would be taking a series of thefts under our protection once the required period of prescription has elapsed. The Bill, on the other hand, provides that it has to be a “predecessor in title”; in other words, a person must have some right or other to that article. But the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) gives legal stature and protection to a series of thieves. Consequently his amendment is destructive of the principle of the Bill as agreed to at the Second Reading.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister not to take any notice of the tirade of the hon. member for Odendaalsrus —he merely filled in space so that the hon. the Deputy Minister could come to his seat.

Reply to my argument.

I shall, but first of all I should like to talk on my amendment. The effect of my amendment is the substitution of the word “possession” for the word “title”. This part of the clause provides that by means of acquisitive prescription you may become the owner of land after you have possessed it for a certain period of time. That is the general rule, i.e. if you have possessed for 30 years you become the owner. It is also provided here that if your predecessors in title also “possess” you may add all those periods together for the purposes of determining your 30 years possession, if all that possession was adverse to the true registered owner. My amendment seeks to omit the word “title” and to substitute the word “possession”, so that it means in actual fact your predecessors in possession. “Title” indicates ownership. You do not have a predecessor in title. That is what you are trying to achieve, i.e. title, ownership. Your predecessors were possessors.

What about a series of thieves stealing seriatim the one from the other?

The hon. member speaks about a series of thieves. Will he then tell me why nec clam, nec vi, nec precario, nec vi especially, are omitted. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus supported the Second Reading of this Bill on the basis that nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are not required. A series of thieves would be excluded by the Act as it is now by means of that expression. What we are talking about here is a successive number of possessors—people who have possession, not title. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of title in law as “right to ownership of property with or without possession, the facts constituting this; title deed— legal instrument as evidence of right”. The expression should be predecessor in possession and not predecessor in title. You do not have a predecessor in title because you do not have title; you do not have ownership, but merely possession. Thus, your predecessor is the predecessor in possession. If your predecessor in fact had title, then he is the owner against whom you are exercising adverse use. Consequently, in terms of the new definition you will become the owner in this place. It is against him that the right of possession runs.

In the circumstances I think this is an amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister should accept and I hope he will.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to apologize to the hon. member for Durban (North) for not being present in the House when he made his proposal.

You should not apologize to him only, you should apologize to the whole House.

I shall apologize to the House as well. I merely went out in order to consult a legal adviser in regard to this very matter with which we are dealing now. I did not think that the previous Bill would be disposed of so soon.

In regard to this amendment I just want to say that in my opinion the hon. member for Durban (North) has not given a completely accurate picture of the position as it is in law. Let me refer him to “Principles of South African Law” by Wille.

What edition is that?

It is probably the latest edition. On page 172, under the heading “Continuity of Possession”, the author deals with this very matter of possession. He says—

Now I just want to elucidate these two examples. Suppose a person has the right of possession for 20 years and has possession as if he were the owner. Now he sells that property to the next person as property. He does not sell the right of possession; he sells the property because he pretends to be the owner. The person who buys does not acquire the right of possession, because he did not buy the right of possession; he bought the right of ownership. That is why we refer to the predecessor in title, because even if the title he held were an apparent one in that case, it would still be, as far as he was concerned, the title he had bought. He did not buy possession. If we were to say “successor in possession”, we would reveal the whole matter. If only the right of possession were sold, the seller would be admitting that someone else was in fact the owner and the buyer would also be admitting that someone else was the owner. Then there can no longer be any question of prescription, for in that case neither the one nor the other would be the owner. That is the point I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. member. I would nullify the whole matter if we were to accept that proposal.

In addition there was the example of inheritance. Suppose a person inherited certain property, such as a bedroom suite which had already been in the possession of the other person for 20 years, as if he were the owner. Now he bequeaths it to his son. The son acquires it thinking that his father is the owner. His father held it as though he were the owner. Then he acquires it and also holds it as though he were the owner. But if the father bequeaths it to his son and says that he is not the owner and that he does not hold it as if he were the owner, the son is also unable to acquire it as if he were the owner. In such a case both of them would know that the other person is the owner, and they would no longer hold it as though they were the owners. I think it is very clear that it should read “… in title”. It cannot be otherwise. Let me rather put it this way: in this case the title is an apparent title. That is true, but this becomes reality later on. It is to preserve that appearance that it is stated in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s answer. I think the real problem is that although he holds this article as if he were the owner, nevertheless if the true owner came along then he could dispossess him immediately and replace him immediately, because he is not in fact the owner. He does not in fact have title. I do not think that it would upset anything at all. One sees this expression in Wille, namely predecessor-in-title. I appreciate that. What I suggest is that the predecessor-in-title expression used in Wille is not the right expression. I feel that when we are passing laws as important as this we ought to use an expression which relates to the situation we wish to deal with. We should not slavishly follow either Wille or anyone else. I appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply. It is tacit of course that he will not accept this amendment. I do not wish to press it any further. I appreciate that usage has given it some sort of meaning. However, I nevertheless feel that it is the wrong expression to use. It should be properly expressed as his “predecessor in possession” and not his “predecessor in title” no matter what he pretended and no matter what he held up to the world.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has quoted Wille. If one looks at page 173 of the book, he goes on to deal with the openness of possession. He says—

It goes on to deal with possession nec precario and nec clam as my hon. friend has said. However, the point is that if a person has title, he assumes that he is legally the owner of the article. One cannot have title unless one is the owner. Clause 1 now reads that—

If one talks about a man having title, there can be no dispute as to the fact that he is the owner of the thing to which he has title. However, if he is in possession, he can be in possession without having title. He acquires by prescription merely by being in possession. If he had title, he would not have to acquire ownership by prescription, because he then has title. If he acquires some object and holds it for an uninterrupted period of 30 years with his predecessors in possession, he would be entitled to it by prescriptive right even though the person who previously had possession had no title.

But he did have it.

He may not have had title. He may have acquired possession without having title to the object. He keeps it for 20 years and then hands it over to someone else. He had no right to hand it over, because he had no title to it. The other person then owns it for 10 years. So you have your 30 years which is the prescriptive period. Surely then the title will pass after 30 years. Is that not the object? Or can it only pass after it has been given by somebody who had title? If the person has title, he gives title to the next person. Therefore, there is no acquisition by prescription.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot agree with these hon. members. Apparently they take “title” to mean right of ownership only. “Title” means the right which a person has and which he transfers. That is the position. One cannot say that this is a right, because it is still not a right of ownership. The right the person has at that stage, will only develop into the right of ownership after 30 years. In the meantime such person has a right which another person does not have as yet, because he holds it as though he were the owner. The Act acknowledges that a person has such a right as though he were the owner.

But he does not have a title.

You are identifying the word “title” with “right of ownership”. That is not the case. Title does not only mean right of ownership in all cases. Title is the right one has to that property.

In this case it is the right of ownership.

No, that is not the case. I think the legal terminology is leaving you in the lurch. That is all. You should view the matter this way: the right which exists and which has not yet developed into the right of ownership, if the right which passes to the person who succeeds him. More than that I cannot add.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is the same as the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North) to clause 1. Therefore, it is just a question of repeating an argument which was used before, and as the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendment in that clause …

This amendment is the same as an amendment which has been negatived, and accordingly the hon. member cannot move it.

I was going to withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

I shall be very pleased, because this proposed amendment is out of order.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for a very important change in the law of prescription. The change is that after a certain period, one’s right, whatever it may be, becomes prescribed by the effluxion of time. The law at the moment provides that your right is merely rendered unenforceable after the relevant period of time had expired. The proposal here is that the right shall be extinguished, the difference being that, if I owe Smith a hundred pounds under the present law and he takes no action against me under a written contract, then that right is rendered unenforceable. Now it is proposed that that right should then be completely extinguished. But at present if Smith later owes me some money and I then sue him for what he owes me, he is entitled, in law at the moment, to set off against the debt that he owes me, the amount that I owe him. That is the law at the moment. Despite the fact that the period of prescription has run, all that happens under the law is that my right has become unenforceable, but I can set it off against a claim by Smith against me. It seems to us that this is a very good rule of equity. We appreciate that it should be prescribed after a certain period for all the good reasons which motivate the Law of Prescription such as the question of evidence; there will not be any evidence and therefore, how can your right be enforced, as in any event it is against public policy to allow people to enforce a right which is so old that the evidence in regard thereto would be unreliable. This is a matter of equity, even if it is a good rule of equity, that the right should not be extinguished but should merely be rendered unenforceable and that one should always have the right to set off that particular debt which has prescribed against the debt of some other person towards oneself. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate why he does not want this old, but a very good rule of equity, to survive, by providing that the debt is to be extinguished altogether.

Mr. Chairman, in my Second Reading speech I dealt with this matter in quite some detail. I pointed out that as far as debt is concerned, we have a two-stage prescription in the Act as it stands at present. As it stands at present, only the right of claim becomes prescribed after three years; in other words, after three years debt can no longer be collected. After 30 years the entire debt is extinguished and it is no longer possible to have any set-off against it. That is to say, one cannot do anything with it, because after 30 years the debt is extinguished in its entirety. In my Second Reading speech I pointed out that there was no real reason for the retention of this two-stage prescription in our law. There is no reason for retaining it, and there are very good arguments as to why it should not be retained. It is not found in any modern law system in the world. In fact, this provision still stems from law systems as far back as Roman Law. In Roman Law the exception was introduced. In those times they did not employ a right of claim, but exception was taken to a claim and this exception became prescribed after three years. In other words, the right of claim became prescribed after three years. Now it is proposed that the whole debt become prescribed after three years. I did not deal with the views of the old law writers in my Second Reading speech. All the writers who dealt with this matter in Roman Dutch Law, persons such as Voet, Van Leeuwen and Van der Linden, were not agreed that that two-stage prescription formed part of Roman Dutch Law. This two-stage prescription started with legislation introduced in the Cape about a century ago. That is why this type of prescription is still in force here. I do not think there is any good reason to retain this system; not even on the score of equity. It is not equitable, because if security is to be created through prescription, the prescription must really work in every respect. If one cannot prove the right of claim to debt within three years’ time, there is no hope on earth that one will be able to prove after 30 years that the debt does exist. This is a good reason why the right of claim should become prescribed after three years. There is no reason for extending the period for the extinction of debt to 30 years. If a person cannot get hold of any evidence within the space of three years, he can have no hope of obtaining it in the space of 30 years. Therefore it is being made one period now, so that the debt together with the right of claim will become prescribed after three years.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has talked about 30 years. Of course, this applies to all sorts of things. It could be three years and not only 30 years. But what distresses me about the hon. the Deputy Minister is the sort of “gees” that is passing through our law at the moment, and that is the predilection with the old authorities, the old “skrywers”. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that these old authorities did not deal with that and that it was not part of the old Romeins-Hollandse reg. Of course he is quite right that it was developed in the Cape, but this is the wealth of our law. In Great Britain they had courts of equity which developed because the law was in fact so rigid that it did not meet the norms and the practices of the day. The wealth of our law is in the fact that here we developed, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, firstly in the Cape courts of the olden days, a system of equity. We grafted on to the old authorities, we grafted on to this wonderful stable tree of the Roman-Dutch Law a system of equity, of which I want to give an example. If you take the case where you lend a friend a thousand pounds and you do not want to sue him for that amount because he is a friend of yours and because there are various reasons why he cannot nay you back, and after three years that right becomes prescribed. That means it is unenforceable. If this friend of yours then sues you for an amount of say two thousand pounds, or in terms of some other arrangement you have made, surely, this is a matter of equity. This is why this law has developed. You should be able to say to him, if the arrangement involves you owing him two thousand pounds, that you are only going to pay him one thousand pounds, because equity demands that that should be the position. This is what it is.

Let us not, for goodness sake, go back to the old writers. Let us look at what our law has produced and why it has produced it. Why, when we have produced a principle of equity which has become law, must we abandon it because it was not in the old writings? The hon. the Deputy Minister said “except on the basis of ‘billikheid’ ” and I think this word means equity and fairness. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will not reconsider this. I know these recommendations were made by the Law Revision Committee, but this committee is not a holy cow. I notice that in to-day’s Minutes Item No. 2 of the proceedings of the House on Friday reads as follows: “Mr. S. Frank, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Family Maintenance Bill, recommending that the Bill be not proceeded with.” This committee clearly exercised its right as a select committee of this House. Despite the fact that the Law Revision Committee drafted the Bill and that the Chief Justice and various people who also have the same sort of predilection for the old authorities, served on that committee, the Bill was rejected. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take his cue from the example set by the select committee and that he will examine the provisions of this Bill without having any fear that he will be offending this holy cow, namely the Law Revision Committee who took 13 years to investigate this matter.

The other matter T want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is in regard to subsection (2) namely the words “a subsidiary debt which arose from such principal debt”. There was a short exchange during the Second Reading debate, and when the hon. the Minister was invited to give us some examples other than the obvious one, namely that the interest is a debt arising out of the principal debt, he did not give us any. It seems to me that this expression means nothing unless it means interest. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned a surety. A surety does not have a debt arising out of the principal debt, but a debt which is the same amount as that of the principal debtor and which only becomes a debt upon the happening of certain events. It does not arise out of the principal debt, however. There is one debt and two obligations separately contracted between the creditor and two independent debtors.

What about a raising fee?

Does the hon. member mean the raising fee charged by attorneys?

Yes.

Surely that is an obligation which is quite separate. One can pay the existing principal debt and a raising fee may then still have to be paid. The raising fee can also be paid where a principal debt still exists. The one does not extinguish the other one. It may be that the circumstances which give rise to it result in the payment of a raising fee, but that is the causa of your right to ask for the raising fee. The causa is certainly not the original debt. They are two different debts. They are owed by two different people. I cannot think of any other example. The hon. the Deputy Minister talked about a judgment during the Second Reading debate. If someone owes me R1,000 he will then receive judgment for R1,000. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the cost of the judgment would arise from the original debt, but it does not. The original debt is there and the costs flow from a judgment by a court, and not as a result of a debt, in other words, not as a result of an obligation which arises as a result of a contract or whatever other cause, and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with this matter as well as the first one.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the old writers I want to tell the hon. member that this is a matter which is uncertain in our common law too. Under the old colonial government in the Cape, there was legislation called the Prescription Amendment Act, of 1861, which provided that actions became prescribed, but not that debt became prescribed. These provisions had an influence on subsequent decisions by our courts, namely that it was an action which became prescribed, and not debts. The Law Revision Committee came to the conclusion that when speaking of prescription, we should not only speak of the action, but of the entire debt and the entire obligation or commitment. The obligation becomes null and void, just as for example in the game of libel. When libel actions become prescribed, the obligation becomes prescribed. In other cases the obligation becomes prescribed as well. Why, then, should the entire obligation not become prescribed in respect of certain debts? I can furnish the hon. member with many court decisions in regard to this matter, because the Department went into this matter in order to find out how the decisions differed from one another, and the hon. member will see that they did differ. However, we want to have certainty on this matter now. I think the Law Revision Committee examined this matter carefully and if we were to interfere with it now, I think we would be going a bit too far. We cannot, during this Session, decide the matter here in this House with the same thorough knowledge as the Law Revision Committee decided about it. I just want to mention that all the lawyers of our country collaborated in this legislation. The bench, the lecturers at universities, the Bar and the Side Bar collaborated in this legislation. I think we should leave it at that as far as this matter is concerned.

I should like to deal now with the argument raised by the hon. member in regard to subsection (2). I think that in reading this subsection, the hon. member allows the accent to fall on the wrong words. This subsection reads as follows: “By the prescription of a principal debt a subsidiary debt which arose from such principal debt shall also be extinguished by prescription.” The accent falls on the subsidiary debt, and what a subsidiary debt is. When does a subsidiary debt arise? A subsidiary debt can only arise if there is a principal debt. The key words therefore are “subsidiary debt”, which is extinguished when the principal debt is extinguished. One asks oneself the question as to when one has to deal with a subsidiary debt. You can call to mind cases of subsidiary debts yourself. I mentioned the example of a contract of suretyship. That is a subsidiary debt. A contract of suretyship cannot continue in existence when the principal debt has fallen way. That is simply impossible, and it is extinguished together with the principal debt. Surely, when a debt has become precribed, one cannot claim interest on that debt? This interest, which is a subsidiary debt, must fall away together with the principal debt. If the principal debt becomes prescribed, what reason is there to think that the interest may remain? It is obvious that it is a subsidiary debt and that it must fall way.

Is “ancillary” not the word you want, and not “subsidiary”?

I compared the words and to my mind the word “subsidiary” is just as good a description for “neweskuld” as is the word “ancillary”. If one looks up the word “subsidiary” one sees that it means subordinate, and therefore “neweskuld” means subordinate debt and not principal debt. We must not argue about the use of words, but I think it is clear what a “subsidiary” debt is. These words “subsidiary debt” have been used in previous legislation, i.e. in the Magistrates Courts Act. Consequently we made use of a term which is already known, and if we were to substitute the word “ancillary” for it now, it may cause difficulties.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

The only matter I wish to raise here is this: As the Act stands at the moment, a written contract is prescribed after six years. It is now provided that it shall be prescribed after three years unless it is a debt arising from a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument or from a notarial contract, unless a longer period applies in respect of the debt in question in terms of paragraph (a) or (b). As the Act stands at the moment, any written contract is prescribed only after six years; that is made very clear in section 3 (ii) (b) of the existing Act—six years in respect of written contracts including bills of exchange and other liquid documents, but excluding mortgage bonds unless a shorter period of prescription is applicable under other provisions. Sir, why have all written contracts now been given a prescriptive period of three years instead of six? One of the objects of prescription, as the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has said this afternoon, is that you prevent people from bringing action because there is no evidence, but, of course, in the case of a written contract, the written contract is the evidence; that is why you enter into a written contract, i.e. so that you will have evidence which will outlast the memories of people. That is why people enter into written contracts, and under the Act as it stands to-day they knew that that contract could not be prescribed, if they reduced the terms to writing, until six years had elapsed, and now, except for these small exceptions which are provided for, these contracts are to be prescribed after three years.

That is not correct.

If I am not correct, then I am delighted, but I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate where I am wrong. The Act at the moment provides that written contracts shall be prescribed after six years. Clause 11 (c) provides that the period of prescription shall be “six years in respect of a debt arising from a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument or from a notarial contract, unless a longer period applies in respect of the debt in question in terms of paragraphs (a) or (b)”. Paragraph (a) deals with judgment debts and taxation debts owing to the State, and paragraph (b) provides for a period of prescription of 15 years in respect of any debt owed to the State and arising out of an advance or loan of money, and this obviously does not apply to the normal business contract. The normal business contract which is negotiated every day does not fall under any of those; so it can only fall under paragraph (d), which says—

The only Act of Parliament which provides otherwise is, of course, the Prescription Act of 1943, which is being amended in the Schedule to this Bill. If I am wrong, I am delighted to hear it, but I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate why I am wrong.

The hon. member must not think that under the existing legislation all written contracts are prescribed after six years and all oral contracts after three years. That is not so. Let me first tell the hon. member what the existing Act provides. The existing Act provides that the period of three years will apply to any oral contract but, in addition, to any compensation or expenditure whatsoever payable to anyone, whether the contract is an oral or a written one, for or in connection with services rendered. As the Act stands to-day, a service contract is also prescribed after three years. Under the existing Act any claim in respect of the price of movables sold and rendered is also prescribed after three years, whether the contract is a written or an oral one. Any claim in respect of goods rendered is prescribed after three years as the Act stands to-day, and the written contract has nothing to do with it. Any claim in respect of rent, in terms of any contract, whether written or oral, is prescribed after three years in terms of the existing Act. Any claim in respect of interest payable in terms of any contract, including a mortgage bond, is prescribed after three years. As the Act stands to-day there are quite a number of claims in respect of which the period of prescription is three years, and this creates a good deal of confusion. Some written contracts in respect of certain goods, services, etc., are prescribed after three years and the others are prescribed after six years. What we are doing here, is to lay down one period for all of them. I can mention further examples of claims which are prescribed after three years; condictio indebiti and condictiones sine causa are also prescribed after three years in terms of the existing Act, but we are now making the period three years for all contracts, except certain written contracts, and then we are laying down what those written contracts are. These are only debts arising from bills of exchange or other negotiable instruments or an ante-nuptial contract. As far as the antenuptial contract is concerned, it is a contract which is entered into notarially; there are certain formalities which have to be complied with, and they all serve to lend more weight to such a contract. Bills of exchange and negotiable instruments are in general use, the whole of commerce is geared to bills of exchange, and accordingly we do not want to amend the law relating to bills of exchange so drastically. We are retaining the existing provision because we do not want to alter the law too drastically. I think this makes the matter much simpler and much easier. Sir, I do not know whether the hon. member still has any objections after having heard my explanation. I do not know whether he still wants to retain the untenable position under the existing Act according to which certain written contracts are prescribed after three years and other contracts after six years. We want to do away with this differentiation, except in the case of bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments and antenuptial contracts.

Sir, I appreciate what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, namely that there has been a variation because of the various Acts that have been passed. If your particular contract falls under one or other of the Acts, you are governed by the period laid down there, and there are different periods laid down for different written contracts. This is one of the difficulties which there was before and which this Bill to a large extent clears up. You had to know on what grounds you were suing, whether it was a condictio indebiti or a quanti minoris, or whatever, because different periods of prescription applied. But these are not the things I am talking about; I am talking about the ordinary contract entered into between businessmen. It is an ordinary contract which is reduced to writing so that there is clarity; it is reduced to writing so that there can be no doubt about it. What I am referring to is the ordinary contract that is entered into every day between businessmen, contracts of sale, etc., in which delivery dates, etc., are fixed. That is what I am concerned with and that sort of contract does not fall in any of the categories mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Surely, it is a matter of great concern to businessmen to know that if they do reduce their contract to writing, it will not be prescribed within three years; that it will only be prescribed after six years. I should imagine, although I am not a businessman, that there are many contracts where the terms of the contract only come into operation after three years, and it will probably be a year after that before you know in fact whether you have a claim. Sir, I am not talking about the various matters which the hon. the Deputy Minister discussed here; I am talking about ordinary business contracts. Under the existing law, the ordinary business contract, if it is not dealt with in terms of some other Act relating to the contract in question, is prescribed after six years. That contract is now to become prescribed after three years. It is quite true, as the Deputy Minister has said, that this brings about greater clarity. True, it makes the position clear, but what we suggest is that it is not wise to provide that a written contract shall be prescribed after three years instead of after six years. This is the point which I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with in his reply.

I think the hon. member for Durban (North) has created some confusion now. He has created confusion through his continual use of the words, “the contract is prescribed after three years, whereas a notarial contract is prescribed after six years”. Sir, it is not the contract which is prescribed; it has nothing to do with the contract; it is the debt arising from the contract which is prescribed. I can enter into a contract with a person in terms of which I incur obligations which are payable ex contractu in five, ten or twenty years’ time, and they will be perfectly valid and will not be prescribed. It is not the contract which is prescribed; it is the debt arising from the contract which is prescribed. In other words, if I enter into a contract which stipulates that my rent is payable annually, and I do not pay my rent at the end of the year, then that particular instalment will become prescribed three years later, but not the future instalments which I still owe in terms of the contract. We must use our terminology correctly; it is not the contracts which are prescribed; the Act states explicitly that the debt is prescribed.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

I move the following amendments, as printed—

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you want me to withdraw the previous amendments first.

The other amendments will fall away if the hon. the Deputy Minister does not move them.

Have you asked the permission of the Law Revision Committee?

Order!

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

It has been evident in the debate so far that the principle of this Bill is accepted by the Opposition, as specifically stated by the hon. member for Durban (North). We can therefore expect no heavy artillery at this stage, but we can expect a lot of desultory small arms fire in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Durban (North) has taken aim at certain clauses and has given notice that there will be a bit of shooting in the Committee Stage! The hon. member objected to the fact that no White Paper was laid upon the Table in this regard but I do not think the hon. member was very serious in regard to his representations on a White Paper. He objected in a very friendly manner and I do not think he experienced any difficulty in understanding the Bill without it.

I was thinking of your members.

I want to give the hon. member for Durban (North) the assurance that he need mot be concerned about this side of the House. If he wants to start a shooting match, he will soon find out where the trenches are.

As far as this Bill is concerned, the basic principle is that a sense of responsibility and the privilege of possessing a weapon are twin brothers. The approach we find in this Bill is different from that which is found in certain other countries. If one bear in mind that there are countries where one can purchase a weapon over the counter of a grocery shop, or even through the post, through mail order catalogues, we are grateful that we have a Bill such as this which consolidates the existing legislation and which makes control over arms possible. That such control is in fact necessary appears from the facts available from police reports. I took the trouble to peruse the last three available police reports and to have a look at the statistics on crimes involving arms. When we note that for the years 1964-’65, 1965-’66, and 1966-’67 we find, for example, theft of arms: 1,524, 1,533 and 1,563 cases reported, respectively. When we come to the illegal possession of firearms by non-Whites, we find that during the same period of three years the following cases were reported: 1,586, 1,576 and 1,320. But what is even more striking is that when we come to offences involving firearms we find the following convictions, among Whites there were 412,366 and 384 and among non-Whites there were 1,509, 1,080 and 1,218. Now we have a provision in this Bill dealing with the authority to possess arms, the grounds on which one can be declared to be unfit to possess arms, as a result of irresponsible behaviour with arms by, for example, threatening other people with arms. Now it is interesting to note that in the same period of three years (the latest figures available) we have 108, 82 and 92 convictions in regard to the aiming of firearms by Whites. We therefore have here a real need for stricter control. An arm is something which must be handled with great responsibility. Consequently I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Durban (North) said, and in particular I want to welcome this central arms register. The hon. member mentioned certain advantages, and the Minister also mentioned advantages, but apart from those which have already been mentioned I would like to mention a few advantages which arise from this, practical advantages, now that the identity card number will in future be linked to relicensing and licensing.

We have the case of people with precisely the same name, father and son, and with precisely the same address, and it is not at all clear whether one or more persons possess these arms. There are the cases where arms are at present still registered in the name of deceased persons. With this central arms register and re-licensing we will now be able to eliminate such anomalies. In addition, we will have this further exceptional advantage that in future, if it were to be found on the scene of a crime, it could immediately be traced to the owner, and the same would apply if it got lost.

There are other features of this Bill which I should like to emphasize, and I think one of the most important of these is that no person’s existing rights are being tampered with, not in the case of juveniles, either, who are at present able to possess an arm at the age of 14 years. They can also continue to do so, only in future they have to be at least 16 years old. No person’s existing licence rights are being prejudiced in any respect. But in addition to all this we must welcome the much stricter control, which becomes apparent in this Bill, in respect of the smuggling of arms. If we look at the powers which the Minister is taking here, the permit system and also the regulatory powers which he can apply according to circumstances and needs, we want to express a word of profound thanks for the fact that provision for this is being made in his Bill.

Certain amendments have been added to the Order Paper by the Minister, and on behalf of the members of this side of the House I want to thank the Minister for the amendments which there appeared as a result of our representations. We appreciate this very much. As I have said, there is no need for us to go any further as regards the main principles of the Bill. This is in fact a Committee Stage Bill. But there is one matter to which I should nevertheless like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention because it is a Bill of this kind, i.e. not a political Bill. The Minister is aware of my feelings in this regard, but I am presenting it for his consideration again. We have a presumption clause, clause 40, which deals with presumptions. When I raise this matter, I want to say immediately that I accept, and we are aware of this, that presumptions are an integral part of our legal system and our law of evidence. Not one of us has any objection to that, but I ask myself the question, and I put it to the Minister, whether the presumptions which are being created in clause 40—we also find a similar presumption in clause 37 (3)—are not too wide, whether the net has not been cast too far. We welcome the presumptions which are essential, but I am reading clause 40 to you—

This is a very useful presumption, I admit, but I want to give a practical example, in these days where we find, for example, the hijacking of aircraft. There is a pilot in charge of this aircraft and passengers on board, and now, until the contrary is proved, which will be very difficult for such a passenger, the presumption must stand that because he was present in that aircraft and there were weapons in illegal possession aboard, he is deemed to be in possession of said article. Perhaps I am giving a far-fetched example. I do not want to bore the House with further examples, but I do want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that these presumptions are very wide.

I know that we still have the discretion of the Attorney-General, as to whether he will prosecute or not, as a kind of safety valve. I find the wording of clause 37 (3) to be a similar case, and then I come to the unfortunate friend of the hon. member for Durban (North) who was so careless about locking his drawer. In that case that friend of his was possibly guilty under law, but clause 37 (3) states that the Commissioner must be convinced that this person was incapable of preventing the minor from getting possession of his arm or ammunition. The word used is “prevent”. This is an unusual onus which is being imposed here. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot consider the possibility of his having been negligent in his actions and having in this way enable the minor to get possession thereof. For to prevent is after all putting it very strongly. It need not even be his own child. Any person will be able to prevent another person from getting possession of an arm if he sits armed in front of the safe all day and keeps people away, but one’s keys can be stolen. How can I prove that I could not have prevented it? I want to ask that the question of negligence, or culpa, be used instead of this wording. That is my plea to the Minister and I know that he will, in all fairness, consider it. But if this will not be possible in practice with the implementation of the Act then I reconcile myself to it, but I am, with all due respect bringing this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus, who has just resumed his seat, quoted some interesting figures, and I will only quote one or two to support the reason why we believe that this Bill is necessary. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (North), we welcome the Bill. We welcome it in addition because this side of the House has in fact requested such legislation over the years, both here and in the Other Place. I believe that we cannot afford the record of the U.S.A. which just recently published figures to the effect that 17,000 people a year are killed in the U.S.A, by firearm accidents alone and that since 1900 over 750,000 people have been killed there as a result of firearm accidents, a figure which is higher than that of all the soldiers killed in the wars that the U.S.A, has been involved in since 1900. But our record in South Africa is such that we cannot be particularly proud of it either. For instance, in 1967 4,566 cases were reported involving firearms. And yet it appears that no record is being kept of all these cases. Some time ago I put a question to the hon. the Minister asking for details of firearm accidents, crimes involving firearms, etc. However, he told me that the information I required would be too difficult to collect under the prevailing circumstances. Therefore, it appears that this particular matter is not being accorded much importance, because we do not maintain a full record. The Minister in his Second Reading speech estimated the number of firearms in South Africa to be 1½ million. If one accepts this figure and relates it to the fact that most firearms in this country are in the hands of Whites—the non-Whites do not have very many firearms in their possession, not legally anyway—it means that there is one firearm almost for every family in South Africa. As such this figure is probably the highest in the world, in so far as the civil population of any country is concerned. One firearm for every two Whites is a very high figure indeed. It is, therefore, small wonder that so many firearms are reported stolen or lost. It is interesting to note that while 14,883 firearms were reported lost and stolen to the police during the period 1962 to 1967, 16,799 firearms were in fact recovered by the police over the same period— in other words, over 2,000 more firearms were recovered than were reported stolen. It seems to indicate that people are losing firearms and are completely unaware of it. This must be the reason for the fact that the police recovered 2,000 more firearms than those reported lost during the period 1962 to 1967. This brings us to the reason why a central firearm register is of such vital importance.

However, such a central register would not have any value unless people are required to produce the firearm when they renew their licence. Otherwise, what guarantee is there that the person renewing his licence still has the firearm? He may believe he still has it while in fact he has lost it although he still has his licence. These are the circumstances under which many thefts of firearms occur. People put firearms away in what they consider to be safe places, so safe that they cannot find the weapons themselves after a while. So, to have a central firearms register is all very well indeed but unless a person produces the firearm together with his licence it will be of no value whatsoever because it will not give us an indication of how many firearms are still in the possession of those with licences.

The risk is that if he takes his firearm to the police station it may be taken away from him.

The question is what happens if a person takes his firearm to a police station and is held up.

He only has to be quick on the draw!

The question is, what happens if his firearm is stolen from his house? How many members sitting in this House carry a firearm in the cubbyhole of their motor cars? I believe that the question of my Whip, with all due respect, is not a very serious one. As I said, I believe that a register and licences for firearms would be of no value unless the firearm is produced with the licence. It is my guess that a very high percentage of the population will go along to a police station, have their licences renewed, but in fact have not the slightest idea where that firearm is. It might have been stolen or lost years and years ago. That is why I make this plea in all sincerity. If this register is to be of any effect, let them produce the firearm at the same time as applying for licence renewal. If hon. members think that this is placing difficulties in the way of people who have firearms, my answer to them is that, if they own a firearm, no difficulty is too great; because it is about time that we had some sort of safety in this regard. I shall give hon. members a few instances in a moment. We do have the position where people are collectors of firearms and have a great many of them. Perhaps the hon. member for Pinetown will have a point then, if one expects a person to go to the police station with half a dozen firearms or weapons. I agree that that is a problem. But that problem is not really so great when one remembers that collectors of firearms are not the culprits in this respect. They are the people who know where their firearms are. Their firearms usually are in a good condition and well cared for. They will be able to tell one how many firearms they have in their collection. So they are not the culprits in this respect. I think if they have to take a great number of firearms to the police station, I am quite sure that most police stations would be only too happy to oblige and send in these rare cases a policeman to the residence concerned and examine the firearms there, because the number of instances where that will happen will not be very great.

The hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned the repository for people who go away on holiday. I must support him in this respect. The hon. the Minister also mentioned the fact that there is a rise in the age limit of licence holders from 14 to 16. He also cited a number of sad cases of children being killed or injured by firearms. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister with all respect, that raising the age limit from 14 to 16 will not prevent any of the particular cases he mentioned, because I think the age groups of the children he mentioned were very much below this figure.

More or less in that vicinity.

But in any event, the children who meet with firearm accidents do so through the rank carelessness of the licence holder of that firearm and for no other reason whatsoever. That firearm is placed in too accessible a place so that the children can get hold of it. I do not believe that raising the age limit is going to make a great deal of difference in that particular respect, though I fully support that the age limit should be raised.

Another instance where one wonders just whether this Bill in fact does go far enough, and whether the regulations could be altered, is the following. There was a report of a suicide in Pretoria last week, where the lady who committed suicide by means of a firearm, in fact was reported to have done so with exactly the same weapon that her husband committed suicide with two years previously. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that where a firearm is used in cases of threats, where somebody owning a firearm threatens somebody with it, where it is used in cases of culpable homicide or in the case of suicide and other instances where the police think it would be right and proper, that firearm should be confiscated. It should be lost to that licence holder for all time. Here we have a case where a person used a firearm to commit suicide. The firearm was left in possession of the family, and the wife herself committed suicide with the same weapon within two years.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member may think that this is going too far, but I would like to repeat that anybody who knows anything about firearms and weapons believes that no restriction is too severe. There are far too many accidents and deaths caused by the incorrect use of firearms. When it comes to carelessness, how many members in this House can say at this very minute where their particular firearm is kept and that they know it is in a safe place? I am quite prepared to say that more than one member, to put it at its lowest, will not know where his firearm is and will not know, in fact, if it has not been stolen in the past month. When one thinks that something like 14,000 weapons were reported stolen in a five-year period and 16,000 were reported as recovered, one wonders how many of those were recovered from criminals using the firearm in the course of holding up somebody or endangering lives and how many of those firearms may possibly end in the hands of some terrorists at some time in the future. So I say that no restriction, no regulation, is too strict when one deals with the question of firearms. In this respect I should like to suggest again to the hon. the Minister that his register is all very well, but it will be of no value unless the weapon is produced at the same time as the licence is produced. In fact, I am going to go just one step further and say to the hon. the Minister that his register will be valueless in two or three years’ time if, in fact, the police do not call for a reproduction of that firearm or licence periodically. One may find that within a year the register is fine and brought up to date, every firearm is registered and the licences issued. It is left like that. Within three or four years I believe the position will be back to where it is now, unless there is a periodic renewal of the licensing of these firearms.

In conclusion I should like to say that any steps taken to reduce the number of accidents in regard to firearms, to reduce the number of firearms that are stolen and to bring home to the people who hold firearms the importance of looking after them, is very well worthwhile. For that reason we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the fine cooperation we received in regard to this Bill. The general impression was clearly that this Bill was welcomed by both sides of the House, as we naturally expected.

I want to begin by also expressing my appreciation for the fact that the question as to whether there should have been a White Paper or not has now been settled. It is no longer necessary for me to comment on that. The hon. member for Durban (North) stated that he asked for it because he thought this side of the House needed it. However, it was stated on this side by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus that we did not. I assume that in the circumstances it is not necessary for us to comment further on this. But it is true that this Bill deals with matters so practical that it was possible to state it very clearly and unequivocally, clause by clause. That is why the Bill is easy to read and to understand.

There was also discussion on the possible amendment of certain of these clauses. I think the most important points raised here were those of the hon. member for Durban (North) and the hon. member for Port Natal, i.e. that it is not only necessary to display the licence upon re-registration, but that it would also be desirable if the arm was displayed. I must admit that this seems to me to be a slightly negative approach, particularly because I cannot conceive of any person applying for reregistration if he does not possess any arms. The only possibility which exists of this ever happening is that of a person who is so irresponsible that he goes to all the trouble of renewing a licence without making certain whether he is still in possession of that arm. In fact, the licences are mislaid more easily than the arms themselves. There are many people who do not put away their documents in a safe place, and therefore cannot find them when they have to be produced. That is why we also deemed it practicable that a person who does not have a licence or who cannot produce a licence, can register a weapon without any action being instituted against him if he were perhaps in possession of an arm which had not been registered. Now I want to say to hon. members who discussed this matter, viz. clause 4, that this was something which we took into consideration when drafting this Bill. But because we realized that it would impose a considerably more onerous burden on the public, because they would have to produce the arms upon re-registration, we came to the conclusion that we should omit it from the Bill. But at this stage I can say that I am not unwilling to include this there. I therefore want hon. members to give this matter their careful attention. If hon. members think that the extra burden which we are going to impose on the public by their now having to take their arms to the police to display them there for re-registration, is reasonable and fair, I am not unwilling to make the necessary provision for that. But a case will have to be made out for this being desirable and necessary. What we want is the registration of arms which do exist. We are not really interested in the registration of arms that do not exist. What we want to know is that when an arm is found we will be able to trace the person who was the registered owner of that arm. Consequently a measure of doubt exists in my mind as to whether the additional trouble we are going to burden the public with in this connection is really worthwhile. But I say again that I am not unwilling to do this. If hon. members think that it is desirable and necessary they can give serious consideration to it during the Committee Stage. Perhaps they can then insert something in this connection.

The hon. member for Port Natal also mentioned an arm which was used in connection with the suicide of a husband, while that same arm was subsequently used in connection with the suicide of the wife. The hon. member deduced from that that an arm used in this way should be confiscated. I am afraid I must point out to the hon. member that it is not the use of an arm which determines whether that arm may remain in the possession of a person. We are dealing here with the responsibility of a person who is entitled to the possession of that arm. If one were to analyse that position we would find the case of an arm which was inherited by children from their parents. In the case which the hon. member mentioned, of the husband who committed suicide, it does not mean that the wife who subsequently became the possessor of that arm was necessarily a person unfit to possess it. On the contrary, I take it that one would in all probability expect that such a person, who was in this case the surviving spouse, would be a fit person to possess such an arm in the opinion of a magistrate as the Act reads at present and that of the Commissioner as it will read in future. As a result of that it also appears to me that the suggestion by the hon. member is a little far-fetched.

The hon. member for Durban (North) moved a few other amendments which he would like to put forward in the Committee Stage. The hon. member was so kind as to give me notice in writing of the clauses in respect of which he will move his amendments in the Committee Stage. As the hon. member informed me he wants to substitute the word “nor” for the word “or” in clause 8. I have some doubts as to whether this will make any difference in the meaning. I want to admit however, that I would probably accept the hon. member’s knowledge of English above my knowledge of English. Perhaps I would not be able to say the same in respect of Afrikaans. We shall, however, consider this matter, and if the correct word there is “nor”, we will effect the necessary change.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus raised the question of presumption. The hon. member stated that the net had been cast rather wide. I want hon. members to ask themselves how necessary it is that the net be cast widely. In many of these cases it is often not only difficult but also impossible to produce the necessary evidence. It is particularly in those cases where it is so difficult for the State to produce proof that the onus is placed on the person who committed the deed. This is how it is stated in clause 40. The hon. member mentioned the far-fetched example of a person travelling in an aircraft and because he was in possession of a firearm with which he had threatened the pilot there could be a presumption that any one of the other passengers had also been in possession of a firearm. I think that case, as the hon. member himself remarked, is a little far-fetched. In the case of clause 37 as well, the position is that when a juvenile uses a firearm the owner of that firearm must adduce proof that he had been unable to prevent it. This is not another instance of onus. The hon. member suggested that the word “negligence” should preferably be inserted there. But then I still ask myself: Is it necessary for the State to prove that the person was negligent? Or should we, if the word “negligence” were to be inserted, presume that the person was negligent until he proved the opposite? In the circumstances it is to my mind an open question entirely, and this matter can be discussed further. If necessary something can be done about it in the Committee Stage.

The most important of the clauses which will quite probably be discussed in the Committee Stage, is clause 11. This deals with the question as to when a person should be declared to be unfit to possess arms. I should like to inform the hon. member for Durban (North) that the administration of this Act previously came under the control of the Department of Justice. Then it was, from first to last, the responsibility and function of the Department of Justice that had administered the previous Act. Since this Act is now going to be administered by the Department of Police, I want to state as my opinion that whatever we do in respect of clause 11 it will have to remain under the administration of Police. I cannot for one moment imagine that a magistrate is necessarily in a better position to hear a person’s case in this connection than, for example, a senior officer in the Department of Police. That is why I am quite willing to consider that, when the Commissioner is of the opinion that a person should be declared unfit to possess arms, such a person should be afforded the opportunity of indicating why he should not thus be declared unfit. Although I am willing to consider an amendment in this connection in the Committee Stage, I now want to say that I should like to retain this matter under the Department of Police so that it will not be a case of two Departments having to deal with the Administration of this legislation. If something can be done in this direction, so that such a person who may be declared unfit to possess arms, can be heard by a senior police officer, or if the matter can be administered by the Department of Police, I would be quite satisfied to give consideration to hon. members’ objections in respect of this clause. In the light of these circumstances, Sir, I think that we can conduct the further discussions to good effect in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Publications and Entertainments Act, 1963 (Act No. 26 of 1963), provides that if any publication which is imported into the country, is found to be undesirable by the Publications Control Board, subsequent numbers or editions of such a publication may also be declared undesirable by the Board by notice in two consecutive editions of the Gazette. Such a prohibition remains of force and effect until it is withdrawn in like manner by the Board, i.e. by notice in the Gazette. If this provision did not exist, the Board would have had to examine every edition of such a publication so as to be able to declare it to be undesirable. In other words, the Board would have been able to pass judgement only when the series had already appeared. However, an anomaly exists in the Act in that it contains no provision for dealing in like manner with series of publications which are published in the Republic. With the ever-increasing appearance of publications of this nature in our country, It has now become necessary to make that provision, particularly in view of the fact that undesirable and sordid material is being published in many of these publications. The proposed legislation seeks to amend sections 8 and 14 of the Act whereby the Board will be empowered to take similar action as in the case of imported publications, and the amendments also make provision for appeals to be lodged against any decision of the Board.

You now want to take Veg firmly in hand.

No, no more than necessary. I think all hon. members will agree that it definitely is in the public interest to grant the aforementioned powers to the Board. As a matter of fact, various hon. members including hon. members of the Opposition, expressed their dissatisfaction with the aforementioned undesirable literature in the past.

Sir, I should like to elucidate the proposed amendment to section 11 of the principal Act, as contained in clause 2, in more detail. The existing section reads as follows—

As will be noticed from subsection (2) of the quoted section, the Minister may delegate powers to a person to inquire into, consider and also take a decision on any particular appeal, which decision, for the purposes of the Act, shall be deemed to be a decision of the Board, and in terms of subsection (3) neither the decision of the Minister nor that of his delegate shall be subject to any further appeal. From the nature of the case it is, of course, impossible for the Minister to inquire into and to consider all appeals personally and for this reason this provision was written into the Act at that time. In cases where the Minister has been unable to give his personal attention to the matter, it has always been the policy up to now for the Minister for the purposes of an appeal to delegate his powers to the chief magistrate of the place where the applicant can show the film. Although it did happen in the past, by way of exception, that the Minister or the person to whom he had delegated his powers, upheld an appeal as a result of which no real problems were experienced, cases did occur, however, where decisions of the Board were varied and/or set aside by the delegate of the Minister. These decisions were praised in certain quarters, but on the other hand they also evoked severe criticism. A big fuss was also made about that in the Press. As a result of these occurrences and also as a result of representations which had been made to me, I went into the matter very thoroughly and found that shortcomings did in fact exist in connection with the procedure followed at present. In the first place I want to point out that when the Minister delegates his powers to a person, there is no provision that such a person either has to submit a report to the Minister or even report back to the Minister before he takes a final decision or announces that decision. For example, the first time the Minister learns of the decision is when comments about the decision appear in the Press. In the second place, I want to point out that there consequently is no contact between the Minister and the person to whom he delegates his powers, nor is it possible for the Minister to set aside the decision which has been taken if he does not agree with that decision. In the third place it must be remembered that the person need not necessarily be an official of the Minister’s own Department and also that the Minister cannot in any way prescribe to him how he should act. Any action on the Minister’s part may amount to interference or influencing, and so on. If differences of opinion were to exist, these, too, could create major problems. In the fourth place T want to say that the Minister is the person who has to defend in Parliament any action and/or decision taken by him or the Board, and it is understandable that his task becomes extremely difficult and virtually impossible when he has to defend a decision taken by another person in terms of the present modus operandi. Under the circumstances, amendments are now being proposed in clause 2 which will have the following effect—

1. (a) When the Minister instructs a person to inquire into an appeal on his behalf, such a person may only submit a report on his findings to the Minister and not take a decision.
2. (b) The Minister, in considering the appeal, will have the following at his disposal—
   1. (i) the written grounds on which the appeal is based;
   2. (ii) the written comments of the Board as regards its reason(s) for taking action and on the reasons advanced against its decision; and
   3. (iii) a report from a third person, i.e. a third opinion.

It may be mentioned in passing that (i) and (ii) are already required in terms of regulations made in terms of the Act. As a matter of fact, at present these are made available to the person when he is delegated by the Minister to inquire into and consider an appeal.

The proposed amendments should not be seen as a motion of no-confidence in the delegate or delegates, but should be seen in the light of the problems and improvements as I stated them earlier on in my speech and as ones which will ensure that the Minister will have better control over specific films.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister was almost casual in his suggestion that this first clause of the Bill was merely an extension of what already exists in so far as foreign publications are concerned. The hon. the Minister has failed to place before the House the fact that this particular problem was canvassed fully at the time that the principal Act was debated in this House. This matter was canvassed for obvious reasons, because the extension of censorship in any form is to be avoided if at all possible. It is an infringement on the normal procedures of the individual and of groups in deciding what they would like to read and what they would like to see. Parliament, as hon. members will recall, was extremely cautious in the introduction of the principal Act in 1963. When the matter came before Parliament it was a culmination of three or four draft Bills. There was also a Select Committee on the subject. We had a long and protracted debate before the principal Act was enacted. I think it is necessary that we should bear this in mind in determining whether or not this extension to censor in advance is necessary. The principal Act imposes criminal sanctions for printing or publishing or distributing undesirable publications. It imposes criminal sanctions for certain types of imports, importing without permits into this country, and also imposes sanctions in so far as publications on specified subjects by specified publishers outside the Republic. When this Bill came before the House, we on this side of the House opposed it in its then form on the ground that it was going too far. The ban on importation of publications of a particular publisher or dealing with a particular subject was one of the points upon which we on this side of the House opposed the Bill. We see no reason to-day why the opposition which we had at that stage should be replaced by support of the extension of the very provisions which were objectionable to us then. We on this side of the House can see no objection to the Minister restricting his powers and the powers of censorship to the present provisions of the Act as it stands, namely that no person shall publish an undesirable publication which is indecent or obscene or offensive or which is harmful to public morals. That is the definition as it stands. If a person does that there are the criminal sanctions which can be imposed. Now the Minister has suggested to us that this prohibition of future publications should apply in South Africa. The power to ban future publications in South Africa was left out of the original Act for a very specific purpose. The hon. the Minister, as a lawyer, will know that the difference between the overseas publisher and the South African publisher is that the South African publisher is subject to the jurisdiction of the Republican courts. May I remind the hon. the Minister of what the hon. the Deputy Minister who dealt with the Bill said in 1963 when his particular power of censoring future publications was considered. It was suggested that censoring publications overseas and not in the Republic was victimizing an overseas publisher as against the South African publisher. The Deputy Minister of the Interior at the time, Mr. Viljoen, made this remark—

That appears in Hansard column 1565, 19th February, 1963. That was the very reason why this provision was not put into the principal Act. The hon. the Minister now comes to us without any motivation and says that he feels that this should now be added. He has not motivated it. From what he has said, it would appear that the Minister was unaware of the attitude which was adopted by the Government at that time. I believe it was a correct attitude, because a publisher in South Africa who publishes an undesirable publication is within the jurisdiction of our courts. He is subject to criminal sanctions which may be applied to him.

One looks at the prerequisites also as to whether or not this power to prohibit future publication should be established. The hon. the Minister wishes at the present moment in the draft Bill before us to say that if a publisher has been found guilty under section 5 (1) (a) and has been prosecuted successfully on one occasion or if the board has expressed its opinion that the publication is undesirable and that opinion has not been reversed and in both cases the board then says that it is of opinion that subsequent publications are likely to be undesirable, those subsequent publications can be prohibited. Anybody who has anything to do with publication of journals will know how very easy it is for an article or paragraph to appear in some publication, if it is of any size, which is in itself undesirable and might well be sufficient to substantiate a conviction under section 5 (1) (a). With one conviction of that nature the board can then sit back and apply its own tests and say that they believe that this publisher will transgress in the future and they may then close down the publication of that journal for that reason.

Surely that is an extreme contention.

No. The hon. member has not read the Bill, because the Bill says after one conviction and if the board feels that that publisher is likely to publish something undesirable in the future, they can close down his business. I believe there is no justification for this. Over the 16 years that this Act has been in operation in the Republic, what transgression has there been that has necessitated criminal action? The hon. the Minister told me recently in this House that there have been 10 prosecutions over a period of 16 years. Either the criminal sanctions are not being used or this evil is not what it is made out to be, if that is the total number of prosecutions.

As I have said, the proposals before us are unrealistic. An isolated undesirable article might appear in any of this type of publication and it is sufficient to fulfil the first or the second of these prerequisites for this Bill to become operative. Once that has happened the publisher is at the mercy of the opinion of the board as to whether or not he is likely to publish undesirable publications in future. I would like to remind hon. members what difficulties there are regarding the fact whether something is undesirable or not. There is only one case which was before the courts of this country which I can trace. The courts had to determine whether the book “When the Lion feeds” by Wilbur Smith was an undesirable publication or not. When the case came before the Cape Supreme Court two Judges said that the book was undesirable and one said it was in order and not objectionable. The matter was then taken to the Appeal Court. In the Appellate Division, in attempting what we are now asking the Board of Censors to do, three Judges decided that the book was undesirable, but two Judges found that it contained nothing objectionable. When this matter was therefore decided upon by eight of our Judges the ultimate decision was, therefore, five against three. The presiding Appeal Judge then said that the court was applying the test as to the effect of the book on the ordinary reader, who was not a prude or a libertine. Is this test now, after only one conviction, going to be handed over to a board so that they will decide who are likely to publish something undesirable in the future? The test is not objective, because there is nothing before them upon which to make up their minds. The test which will be applied is as the object is seen through the eyes of the beholder. In the past we have asked for the elimination of certain dangers which are inherent in censorship. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout moved certain amendments which were not accepted by the Government. We see no reason why we should depart from the attitude which was adopted before. The hon. the Minister might have had some case if he came to this House with some provision in the Bill which will establish a course of conduct on the part of a publisher. One undesirable publication or one conviction and an opinion of the Board is not a course of conduct, whereby a publisher should be put out of business. I believe this is another instance of over-legislation, namely trying to govern every possible situation.

Provision is made for criminal sanctions. I want to remind hon. members what the sanctions are. Sanctions can be applied against a person who makes a habit or publishes more than one undesirable article. Section 15 (1) of the Act provides that any person convicted of any offence under this Act shall be liable—

1. (a) In the case of a first conviction to a fine of not less than R300 and not more than R500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment;
2. (b) In the case of a second conviction, to a fine of not less than R1,000 and not more than R2,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding more than six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment;
3. (c) In the case of a third or subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than R2,000 or imprisonment for a period of not less than six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Surely these sanctions are sufficient to contain and to control any person or company or firm who is likely to continue with the publication of undesirable articles? Sir, I believe that they can be used. They have not been used. The information which the hon. the Minister gave me in reply to a question shows that if this evil is here to the extent that we believe it is in some quarters, then there should have been a prosecution. But a prosecution also has this effect: There is one decision by a court of law as to whether the publication is undesirable; the culprit can be penalized and he pays his penalty, but if we adopt the course which the hon. the Minister now wishes us to adopt, then what happens? If the Censor Board considers that some article which has been published is undesirable there is a right of appeal to the courts on the opinion of the Board. The matter then comes back to the Censor Board which says, “We are of the opinion that this publisher is likely to persist in publishing this type of publication.” Admittedly there is a right of appeal, but on what? The appeal is then on the question as to whether the Censor Board as reasonable people were justified in coming to a decision. It is not an objective test as to whether the article in itself which is being published is an undesirable one. Sir, for those reasons we on this side of the House feel that we must oppose this clause. We do not believe that one should apply a blanket censorship on unpublished matter, as will happen under this clause if it is passed; it is a blanket censorship on unpublished material and we do not believe that that should be done. We believe that where the publisher, as he is in South Africa, is under the control of the courts and under the jurisdiction of the courts of this country, criminal sanctions can produce the desired effect of controlling undesirable literature or any other matters which come under the principal Act. Sir, as far as the other clauses are concerned, one appreciates the difficulty of the hon. the Minister in performing a function as an appeal court. One knows how many of these films are examined by the Film Board, and one can appreciate that it would be almost an impossible task for the Minister to attend to this matter himself. It does appear to me, as far as this particular power of delegation is concerned, which the Minister seeks under clause 2 of this Bill, that persons who are members of the board should be excluded, and that if he does delegate his powers it should be to some person outside of the board itself. I presume that that will be the procedure that the hon. the Minister will adopt, but the Bill is silent on this point. Sir, for those reasons we on this side will oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Green Point supports the second portion of this Bill which concerns the important question of films. I should briefly like to say something about his objections in connection with publications. Sir, the Publications and Entertainments Act was passed in 1963. One first wanted to see how the Act would function in practice, and after it had been applied in practice for six years the hon. the Minister and the Department found that there were certain loopholes. All that is now being done here, apart from the provision which has already been made in the existing Act for criminal proceedings, is that a clause is being inserted in terms of which unscrupulous distributors of undesirable literature, and also the publishers of such literature, can immediately be dealt with firmly. The hon. member who has just spoken said that the hon. the Minister did not indicate what type of publication he had in mind with this Bill, but I have in mind these lecherous photo-novels which we have in South Africa to-day. There are booksellers to-day who have allocated special sections in their shops for these novels. They have entire shelves full of photo-novels which are being distributed. I can assure you that at times there is a great deal of objectionable and undesirable literature, and photographs of virtually naked girls, appearing in some of those photo-novels. This particular clause has now been inserted in order to restrict this type of photo-novel which is appearing from week to week. This is also being done in order to deal firmly with publications such as the Telegraph, which appears regularly here in Cape Town, and which continues, from week to week, to make one disclosure or another about matters such as sodomy, lesbianism, sadism and other such unsavoury subjects. I merely want to quote you a few headings from one of the issues of this publication: “Two jealous women killed in pistol duel”; “Middle-aged women marry younger men”; “Unmarried girls adopt babies”; and so it goes on. It is usual for this type of publication to begin with a series and then to carry on with it from week to week. If the lengthy, tedious and time-consuming procedure, which is prescribed in the old Act, is to be followed, i.e. first to investigate the publication, the entire publication is sold out before the Minister can act. Therefore it has become absolutely essential that the Minister be empowered to ban such a publication if there is any suspicion—and the suspicion is supported by the fact that the publications usually reveal what items are to be published in the following week—that the undesirable type of literature will continue. That is why it is important to insert this new clause. It is extremely important for this type of publication to be dealt with firmly, because the people of South Africa no longer read good books to-day. Just look at what is read by people travelling on buses and trains: many of them read only these photo-novels, with all this undesirable literature and photographs of naked girls. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has come along with this Bill this afternoon to put a stop to this.

As far as the question of films is concerned, the Minister is, as he rightly said, responsible for the eventual decision of whether a film will be allowed to be shown in this country or not. Although he did not mention it, I want to refer here to the great fuss which was made a few months ago when the film “Prudence and the Pill” was allowed to be shown in South Africa. After the initial prohibition had been placed on the film, and had subsequently been lifted, it was claimed that the hon. the Minister had revised his opinion, but I am sure that this was not the case because at the time he allowed the film to be seen by someone else. The hon. the Minister was nevertheless attacked from all sides because he had allowed that film to be shown in South Africa. I do not want to say that it is a type of film which ought not be be shown here, but I am merely using it as an example. It is therefore important that the hon. the Minister should, in the final instance, give the decisive answer in connection with films being shown in South Africa. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will not merely confine himself to chief magistrates but that, since there is so much interest in films in the House of Assembly, he will also from time to time delegate members on both sides of the House to go and see films and then report on them.

Sir, it is becoming evermore essential in South Africa for the hon. the Minister to take very careful note of the type of film which is being imported into South Africa. It is becoming so bad that one sometimes has to take one’s birth certificate along when one wants to go to a cinema, or to a drive-in cinema, because age limits are being placed on so many of the films which are being shown to-day. The majority are subject to the restriction that persons between the ages of 4 and 18 may not see them. This just shows how important it has become for the Minister to exercise very much closer supervision over the films entering the country. Sir, I want to quote you a recent leading article in Die Vaderland in connection with this stream of films, with risqué themes, entering South Africa. All the risque themes which were initially tackled by writers in their books, are now also being tackled by the film makers under the cloak of “mature art”, and with this stream of films entering the country I am of the opinion that it has become necessary for us not to allow the final onus to lie with a delegate, but with the hon. the Minister who must answer to this House when he is criticized because he has allowed or disallowed certain films. I want to refer to what Die Vaderland said in a leading article of 11th March, 1969, about the stream of films with risqué themes which are entering South Africa today—

The article continues—

With this influx of films from all parts of the world you will understand, Sir, how important it has become for us to take these powers in this clause.

Before I resume my seat I merely want to bring a matter, about which I am very concerned, to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I want to ask him whether, in the Committee Stage, he could not consider doing something about certain gramophone record concerns in South Africa who are evading the Publications Control Board’s prohibition on risqué films. There are certain risqué films which are prohibited, but certain obscene, undesirable tunes which are played in the films are then circulated by means of records. I am referring specifically to the performance “Hair”, which I saw in London and which was one of the dirtiest performances which I have ever seen. Inter alia, there are tunes sung such as “Black boys are delicious”, and “Hippies hairy-high and hairy-low”. One tune extols LSD. Another tune which is sung in the film is “Let the sun shine in”, by which they mean that everyone on the stage must undress. Sir, there in the West End of London, for the very first time in my life, and I go to the theatre often, T saw people undressing on the stage. Sir, all these ditties, all these tunes, are to-day available from certain select record dealers in Johannesburg. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this matter, because it is nothing else but an evasion of the Censorship Board’s prohibition on undesirable performances and films, and their contents.

Then in conclusion I want to refer to the question of the covers of these records. Records are often offered for sale in South Africa with covers on which virtually naked people appear. I hope that the hon. the Minister will also find a way of restricting this type of advertising which is undesirable and obscene. We on this side support the hon. the Minister in full as far as this Bill is concerned, and I hope that during the Committee Stage he will be able to give attention to the other matters which I have mentioned here.

Sir, I must admit to being highly amused at the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein in the latter portion of his speech, particularly his reference to a visit to the West End of London. Sir, while he was talking the thought went through my mind, “But this is an adult man; when he went there surely he must have known what he was going to see”.

They make records of those songs.

If he was shocked at what was going on there, why did he go there in the first place?

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

With respect and submission, Sir, I am trying to make the point that the hon. member had a choice and this has something to do with the Bill.

With regard to the question of censorship, we have taken the stand that the public should have a choice, and in this matter the hon. member for Turffontein had a choice whether or not to visit these places, and when he visited them he should not have been shocked at what he saw there. I will agree with him with regard to certain records and recordings that have come through, that a lot of these are obscene and offend against public morals, but the Minister has the power and I for one sincerely hope that the Minister will use that power; and I want to ask him why he has not used that power in the past to restrict the circulation of certain articles which have come into this country and other which have been published in this country, but I will discuss that with him a little later.

To come back to the hon. member for Turffontein, he has my wholehearted support in his plea to the hon. the Minister about drive-in theatres. I have a young family. The drive-in theatre is an absolute boon to those of us with young families, but we are finding it extremely difficult these days to go to a drive-in theatre because of the type of film being introduced into this country and displayed at the drive-in theatres. There are half-a-dozen or more in Cape Town. I had my four children here during the Easter holidays and on two nights only were we able to go to the drive-in theatre. I support the hon. member for Turffontein wholeheartedly. Let us try to get some decent films into this country. I want to repeat what I said a couple of days ago, that I fear this merger which is taking place, because we now have the position that 90 per cent of the film industry in this country is being controlled by one company, and this is going to lead to a continuation of what we have to-day, unless the Minister is prepared to take his courage in both hands and act in terms of the powers he has to-day. The hon. member mentioned “Prudence and the Pill”. I want to mention the film “Interlude”. I saw both those films. I know lots of people who also saw them. Here I want to make the point that this question of censorship is a personal matter, and I would say that generally it is a question of the atmosphere which is created and the personal reaction of the individual. “Prudence and the Pill” shocked me. I disliked it terribly. I know there are a lot of people who cannot understand my attitude towards it.

That just proves how difficult my position is.

I understand and I have told the Minister that I know his position, and this is what I am coming to; I am leading up to this, and I hope the Minister does not lead with his chin because I know it will be in the wrong place. “Interlude” as well I thought should not have been passed. But I had the opportunity or the privilege a little while ago of seeing, at a private viewing, a film which has been banned, and do you know, Sir, I looked at this film and I thought that really and truly this was absolutely beyond me. It left me stone cold in more ways than one. I could not understand the attitude of the Board of Censors in censoring it. This is really leading up to what I want to say a little later. I want to make the point again that 99 times out of 100 when it comes to matters of censorship, it is a question of, firstly, an adult having a choice, and secondly it is a question of the reaction of the individual.

The hon. member for Turffontein mentioned the publication called The Telegraph. The Minister has had the power to curb or curtail circulation of this periodical or newspaper by prosecution. He has banned editions after they have been published, but has he prosecuted them? If he has prosecuted them, has it had any deterrent effect? The Minister does not reply. I want to tell him that my experience of The Telegraph is that since he took action against them—or was it his predecessor last year?—the tone of this newspaper has improved. I do not think the Minister can disagree with that. It shows that he has the power now and he does not need the power he is taking in this Bill. The first point mentioned by the hon. member for Turffontein was in regard to these picture magazines, or photo romances. I admit that there are an awful lot of these which should be banned. This is where the Minister should take action, but I fail to see how he or the Board, who have not taken action in terms of the powers they have to-day to ban individual publications, can now want to take the power to look into the future, to be a soothsayer, and to say: I am not going to allow you to bring out future publications or future editions, because they are going to be banned. But he has not acted against those which were published in the past.

Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 8 of the Act, which sets out the powers of the Publications Control Board. These are that at the request of a person, the Board can examine any publication or object and pronounce upon its desirability or, if I may coin a phrase, its undesirability. Secondly, at the request of a policeman or customs official it can examine any publication and decide upon its desirability or otherwise. That is for imported articles. Thirdly, to approve the importation under permit of certain articles or to reject them, and fourthly, to prohibit the importation of any publication or object if it is satisfied that it is undesirable or it is likely to be undesirable. The last two provisions, of course, apply only to publications which are imported into this country. As he said, and as the hon. member for Green Point has said, the principle of presuming the intention of the publishers of future editions has been introduced. The Minister has that power, and if he has reason to believe that they are not reputable firms, he can ban the importation of any of their publications. We accept that because the Minister has not got the power to deal with them in any other way, but that does not apply to our South African publications.

The Minister has the power to deal with anything published in this country except this clairvoyant power he now wants to take to say: We will not allow you to publish anything because you are going to publish something which will be obscene or will offend public morals. We opposed the original Bill and as the hon. member for Green Point has pointed out, we are going to oppose this one now. It has the effect of making of the Board a panel of 14 inquisitors, somewhat reminiscent of the Dark Ages, particularly of the Inquisition. With submission, it makes of the Board seers and soothsayers because they shall have to predict what will appear in future editions of these periodicals: that the Board will now be able to express an opinion on a publication which has not yet been published, and of course it is also being given the power to pronounce on the work of artists before that work is published. When we look at the definition of “undesirable”, as it is laid down in section 5 of the Act, I feel it will not be out of place to quote in this House the words of George Bernard Shaw, who wrote the following—

That speech was made as long ago as 1963.

It can still aptly be repeated to-day. [Interjections.] I wonder who quoted that in 1963? It must have been somebody who now sits on the other side. He does not sit in this House but he supports the party opposite, and I wonder what he feels about it to-day, whether he feels any differently from the way he did in 1963.

Order!

Let us face it, Sir, right is right. Publishers are going to publish views which are on occasion disturbing; they are going to publish articles on difficult questions, on social questions, political questions and religious questions; and in every one of these instances they are going to tread on somebody’s toes. They are going to offend some section of the public. How does the Minister think that he is going to determine that an article which might be published in the future is going to offend some section? Of course there is another question, and that is that there are times when it is perhaps inconvenient to a governing party when certain things are published. Articles on these subjects, social, political and religious, can be harmful to relations between sections of the public if viewed from one particular standpoint. Some articles are only harmless if viewed from one attitude; possibly they are in the public interest when viewed from another standpoint; and particularly so when you have political parties involved, parties with ideologies which stand at opposite poles. In this Bill we now expect the Board not only to decide on past issues of periodicals, but also to prognosticate on the contents of future issues as well.

Order! That point has been made already.

I had made a note here. I wondered whether this provision was not aimed at Veg and the S.A. Observer. Of course we did have the interjection earlier by the hon. member for North Rand and the reply by the hon. the Minister.

Order!

I want to come back to the question of how the Minister expects the Board to apply the criteria of whether a publication will be indecent or obscene, and of course I want to ask against whom it is aimed. We know that the Act which is now in force came into being as a result of a commission, the Cronje Commission, and I want to quote from the report of that Commission, paragraph 3192, which said this—

If you look at section 5 (2) of the Act, is reads—

We have had in this country, and we will continue to have, a number of publications which are issued periodically, which have on their covers distinctive pictures. Many of these are provocative, obscene and suggestive. In fact, if anything, they shock the morals of the public even more than the contents themselves.

Column 431 …

I do not know what the hon. member is “bromming” about over there. It makes no sense to me.

Order! The hon. member should ignore these interruptions.

I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, but it is hard when they are perpetually coming while I am addressing the Minister. As I say, these pictures offend, if anything, more than the contents.

Jolly nice things, too.

Well, of course, that depends on what view one is taking when looking at them. Now, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister, has he, or his board, at any time taken action against any firm for the publication of a picture on a cover which offended? I know that where there is an advertisement for a slimming diet, or something of that sort, and there is a picture of a person in the nude, this is acceptable. I know that in the galleries a painting of a nude is also acceptable. But when one gets this sort of thing on the cover of a magazine, I want to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do. As far as I know, he has done nothing up to now. I have not yet heard of a prosecution for this type of thing. I want to pass over to the hon. the Minister the front page of a magazine that I have here. It is called “Die Masker”, featuring Rex Foster. It is published by Republikeinse Produksies. It is a local production. It comes out periodically. It is one that I brought at random. I was afraid to bring more than one in case I should be in trouble for carrying around indecent pictures. I want the hon. the Minister to look at this and to know that this is merely one that I have brought along. But there are many, many more which are as bad as this. Oh, does the Minister already have it? It shows not only a lady very scantily dressed, but in a most obscene pose. Now, firstly, is this sufficient cause for the banning of this periodical? Secondly, is this sufficient cause for the hon. the Minister to say that, because of these obscene pictures which appear on the front pages of these magazines, he should now ban all future editions? Mr. Speaker, I say not. If the hon. the Minister will act in terms of the power he has under the Act to-day and prosecute the publishers of these periodicals, including this Republikeinse Produksies, who are guilty of many of these, on a few occasions, he would find that the tone would improve in exactly the same way as with the Telegraph. I say, let us protect the morals of our youth in this country, but the hon. the Minister does not require the powers which he is asking for in terms of this Bill. He has sufficient power to control all this, and I will oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to listen attentively to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). The hon. member had nothing to say and proceeded to say it. It is a pity that he said it so poorly. However, I want to adopt a more serious attitude and say something about the hon. member for Green Point. When one is listening to the hon. members of the Opposition, it is difficult to determine where they get their arguments from. What is the basis on which they build their entire argument? I knew in advance that we would not get it from those hon. members to-day. I then went back and looked at the original debates which were conducted when this Act came under discussion for the first time. At that time the main speaker on that side of the House had the following to say—

At this stage there was an interjection from a Government member, i.e. “Licence”. The member then went further and said—

I therefore merely want to pause for a moment to ask the next Opposition speaker to tell us clearly where they get their arguments from when they speak about freedom. There was a very interesting publication recently about the whole concept of “freedom” from which the hon. members of the Opposition could be getting their views. I merely want to mention it briefly in support of my argument. The work is by Dr. G. de Ru, entitled “Over Vrijheid”. He deals with various opinions about freedom by, inter alia, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Camus, and so on. It seems to me exactly as if the whole basis on which the Opposition argues is the basis which forms a part of the entire system of Western liberal thinking. Because they argue from that angle they are blind to the dangers and the problems of our day. They have blind spots. When it comes to the infiltration of these immoral aspects into our society, whether by way of the written or the spoken word, or whatever, they are blind. Therefore I am grateful that the hon. the Minister, who has only recently taken over this portfolio, is already active, in spite of the apparent general popular opinion on the part of the U.P., in improving and strengthening the original Act which was a result of the report of Professor Cronje, a well-known sociologist. I think that we must tell the hon. the Minister that everyone whose intentions towards the education of our youth are sincere, the educational bodies as well as the churches, are very grateful that the hon. the Minister is continuing in this way with a strengthening and an intensification of the principles of this Act.

It is actually regrettable that one has to come along each time to close loopholes. It is regrettable that we even have to turn to our own country to wipe out these things from our society. It is regrettable that people and movements from outside are influencing us to such a degree that our people have already been affected locally. With these corrections that he is bringing about in the Act the hon. the Minister, as a member of the Government, is guided by that basic principle which has nourished our white culture here. It is those principles which always serve us as a norm. Only when one does it in this way does one ensure a strong social entity. These publications, which we are opposing, are disposed towards the disintegration of all family life, and thereby of our whole community. These publications damage the fine relationships which ought to exist between men and women in a society and create unrest, tension and lust. It could lead to the disintegration of the entire community. There is a further benefit inherent in this Bill. There are not only Whites living in this country. There are also various non-White groups. If one were also to make an analysis of those communities, one would find that they also have specific norms. Their morals are determined by those norms. The Opposition should just go and take a look at the latest magazines which are, for example, being circulated among the Bantu. These publications are controlled by people who do not care about the morals of the Bantu. There are innovations which are being brought into the Bantu communities and which are going to cause us very much greater problems in the future. In other words, the amendment which this Bill entails will not only function well in respect of the white community, but will also contribute to our ability to maintain our guardianship in respect of the non-Whites. Therefore I want to say that we are grateful that the hon. the Minister is now amending this Act and that he and his Department will continue with it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik, who has just sat down, wanted to know what our objections to this Bill were. If he had listened to my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, he would have realized that our objection is quite simply that this entails an extension of powers to the Minister with regard to censorship. We strongly object to this and we believe that it is completely unnecessary because the Minister already has sufficient powers to handle any aspects relating to this particular problem we are discussing. Censorship, and what is considered to be offensive or immoral, has changed over the years. Even hon. members on the other side will admit this. What was considered offensive a few years ago, is not necessarily considered offensive to-day. Just as customs have changed, our viewpoint in regard to what is immoral or objectionable changes as well. We must ensure that we do keep pace with the century in which we are living. In many countries of Europe to-day, pornographic books and pictures are sold freely across the counters to people of all races. Because this is done openly, the shops which trade in this type of pornography are finding themselves trading in a line of business which no longer attracts the population. Sir, is this not perhaps one of our answers to censorship? Perhaps we should not extend censorship in the way we are doing, but rather be very careful to bear in mind the freedom of the intelligent individual to decide for himself what he should read and what he should not read. I believe very sincerely that if we were to take away the label, we would find that people would no longer be interested in many of the things we to-day consider to be pornographic, and that the quality of our literature would improve. I am not in the least way advocating that we should do away with censorship, or that some form of control is not necessary. However, contrary to what the hon. member for Rissik would like to see, I do believe that few of us are qualified to act as the sole arbiters for the rest of the population. The hon. member mentioned the non-White population, and the effect that some of these publications have on them. I believe that he is, to a certain extent, perfectly correct, but I wonder whether the hon. member will admit that non-White morals were of a higher standard in many respects before the white man came on the scene, than they are to-day. Very often it is the white man who is responsible for the lowering of these morals. If the non-White is to ape the white man in every respect, his morals would probably be a great deal lower than they are.

But I should like to deal specifically with a matter raised by the hon. member for Turffontein. I would say to him that I think he will agree with me as a member who had worked for the Press, that it is essential for us that we do not ban a book or a periodical on isolated passages only. Too often this has been the problem in the past. What we must seek to do is to ban or prevent what is being called hard core pornography. During the last few years over 10,000 books and magazines have been banned in South Africa. We have even gone so far that a private library in the Transvaal has banned books by Enid Blyton. I submit that any intelligence who feel that books by Enid Blyton is a danger to the young generation, is an intelligence to which we cannot subscribe. It also is a fact that during the last few years 50 per cent of all the films shown in South Africa have been cut to some extent. I should like to remind hon. members that a professor at Wits University wrote an article last year in the South African Law Journal about censorship. He mentioned the titles of three books which were in circulation at the time and which, according to the provisions of the Act, could be banned. Soon after that the Censorship Board proceeded to ban the books.

I should also like to remind hon. members that it is not only the Censorship Board that censors books in South Africa, but each individual library has its own system of banning books. Many libraries in the country decide what their reading public should read and what they should not read. Therefore, in South Africa we do in fact, whether we like it or not, have a double form of censorship. One wonders all the time when we are involved with this, just where censorship starts and where it ends? I submit that any form of censorship is undesirable if in any manner or any form it can be avoided. We would rather seek ways to avoid censorship than ways to strengthen it, as this Bill does. In our permissive society one accepts that publishers and distributors who initiate books and periodicals of an undesirable nature without any literary merit, do so solely to stimulate sales.

The hon. member for Turffontein touched on one of the problems which, I believe, this Bill is aimed at solving namely the publication The Telegraph which the member for Turffontein mentioned. Last year in this House I raised a number of questions in regard to this particular publication. In raising them again, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that he has taken steps under this Bill which are completely unnecessary. He already has the necessary powers under the principal Act as the hon. member for Green Point pointed out. The interesting fact is that six consecutive issues of this particular newspaper published in Cape Town were banned last year. The reasons for the banning were quite clear. I do not think there is any need to repeat some of the headlines to some of the stories that appeared in that particular magazine. I asked a series of questions in regard to this newspaper with the object of establishing why such a newspaper could be in circulation in South Africa without any action being taken against it. For instance, I found that this particular newspaper was registered in October, 1967, and when I asked the hon. the Minister whether they were called upon to pay a deposit, he answered that a deposit for this newspaper was not necessary.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, it has everything to do with the Bill. I am showing how the Minister had and still has the powers to take action against the particular publication under existing legislation rather than obtaining the powers by virtue of this Bill. The point I am trying to make is that he did not ask for a deposit on this newspaper at that time.

Was the newspaper banned?

Certain issues of the newspaper have been banned, but the newspaper is still being published. The newspaper was registered with the department, as it had to be. The interesting thing is that I also found out from the hon. the Minister whether he had asked for a deposit from this particular newspaper because he is entitled to ask for a deposit from newspapers of this sort. In his reply the Minister at that time told me that this newspaper had not paid any deposit and that he had not asked for one. However, he asked the Durban Civic News and M.R.A. Information to pay a deposit of R10,000. He also asked some other papers to pay a deposit. I particularly want to draw hon. members’ attention to the difference between …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. This has nothing to do with the Bill. It is a different matter altogether.

The point I am making to the hon. the Minister is that under his present legislation he can ask for a deposit. He already has the right to do that.

The hon. member has made that point over and over again, and it has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with submission, this Bill asks for powers to prohibit this type of publication under certain circumstances. What I am trying to say to the hon. the Minister is that he already had these powers, but that he has not used them and therefore the powers under this Bill are not necessary. In that way, I am in fact explaining why we are opposing this Bill.

Every speaker has made that point thus far. The hon. member was present when those points were made.

Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. the Minister why he did not call on this newspaper for a deposit and why he did not prosecute the publishers after banning their publications for six successive weeks? He had the power then to call upon the newspaper to pay a deposit. He did not do so, whereas he asked other papers of an entirely different type to pay these deposits. That, then, is my reason for dealing with this particular newspaper.

I should like to repeat what we have said so far …

Again!

Yes, again, and if I repeat it, it might sink in with the hon. members. What we are saying is that under the present legislation the Minister has the power. If there are certain periodicals or newspapers at which he is aiming with this legislation, our argument is that he has not prosecuted them to date. In this Bill he even goes further in that he can prosecute them for future publications. This, we believe, is something which should not be condoned, because in the case of this particular newspaper which we have been discussing, the attitude of that newspaper has already undergone changes because of the action the hon. the Minister took last year. So, if the Minister takes action against the publishers of newspapers, why must he have the power to ban the newspaper in advance? The Minister will receive this power by virtue of this new legislation. Presently, in Cape Town, a newspaper changed hands; in other words it came under new ownership. The new ownership will probably bring about a new style of publication and many of the objections which the Minister might have had under the old ownership, would fall away under the new ownership. Here it may well happen that the newspaper can be banned in advance. We on this side of the House want to say to the Minister that we feel that this step is repugnant to the ordinary essence of control or censorship of any sort. We can see no reasons for this banning in advance. Therefore, we cannot support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal, repeated almost all the arguments which were raised by the other side. Therefore, if I now reply to the others, I am replying to him at the same time. I must say that with his criticism and his opposition to the Bill in his introductory speech, the hon. member for Green Point acted very much more responsibly than did his predecessors in 1963. This must inevitably be the case, because this legislation is responsible legislation and the hon. member could, in fact, not do otherwise. The hon. member expressed a few doubts and I want to refer to them at a later stage. I see that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has just come in. I should have liked to reply to the hon. member’s speech, if it had not been for the fact that the late Dr. Abraham Jonker replied to it in 1963. That hon. member’s speech is word for word the same as the speech by Mr. Badenhorst Durrant at that time. I honestly cannot find a single original idea in the hon. member’s speech as far as this matter is concerned. As I have said, the hon. member for Green Point discussed his matter in a very responsible way. The hon. member’s chief objection was that there should not be an extension to this control over publications. The hon. member wants us to be careful in this connection. The hon. member’s point was specifically that the hon. the Minister had not actually motivated this extension sufficiently as far as he was concerned and that the publishers here in South Africa fall within the jurisdiction of South African law and are subject to its penal provisions. However, penal provisions in respect of this matter do not really have the desired result; at least, not in my personal opinion.

Why not?

I shall come to that. By the time the hon. the Minister or the Board is in a position to take action against a publication, that issue is already on the streets and has already been sold out; in other words, the whole purpose, i.e. to keep obscene and undesirable publication from the public eye, is frustrated because the procedure is too sluggish to prevent the circulation of the publication. Now, there are cases where these people have been fined, but then the imposition of fines is accompanied by excessive advertising. In other words, it is definitely a recommendation for these people, who are publishing indecent reading matter, if they have already been fined in terms of criminal procedure. The result is that the publishers ensure that the next impression will be greater and that it will be sold out immediately. It is specifically with this problem that we are faced, and we want to obviate this.

As far as that is concerned, I want to quote another authority. Before I come to that, however, the hon. member claimed that the banning of a periodical could take place merely as a result of the fact that the Control Board finds one indecent paragraph in a certain publication. By way of an interjection, I said that it was an absolutely far fetched statement. It is, of course, theoretically possible, but in practice, surely, a responsible Control Board would simply not go out of its way to ban some publication or other simply because of one obscene paragraph which they spotted.

It has already been done with books.

We have magazines in mind such as those which the hon. members mentioned. With magazines such as The Telegraph one knows in advance that the publishers are disposed towards the future publication of obscenities, notwithstanding the penal provisions of the present Act. This Act now specifically provides that these publishers of such a magazine cannot publish it before they have proved the contrary. It is also the only safety valve which we have in that connection. The hon. member for Green Point made out an extensive case for the fact that recently there have as yet been very few convictions within the framework of the existing Act; I think he mentioned a figure of 10. There have, in fact, been few convictions and if I may now be less original, I want to quote something for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District’s information, and I do so with acknowledgements to the persons I am quoting. On page 52 of the August, 1960 edition of Standpunte, Justice Marais made certain statements in this connection. Those statements were at that time quoted in this House by the Minister of the Interior. I feel that those statements of Justice Marais are specifically applicable now because they are concerned with domestic publications and with the small number of convictions. He put is as follows:

This is still so to-day. Then he stated why:

Then he stipulated further why there were actually so few complaints and why there were consequently few criminal prosecutions. He concluded—

This specifically is the reply to the hon. member for Green Point’s statement that there were so few convictions in terms of the existing Act. The reason for that is motivated here by Justice Marais. I do not want to quote him further, but I just want to say that the Judge also expressed the hope that this did not need to result in an interminable process in our court procedure, because magistrates would very quickly be able to lay down a system of rules for themselves, according to which they could determine penalties. After the first six or more convictions a vigilance would develop on the part of the publishers of these publications. It would also result in the fact the distributors of these publications, the responsible business men, according to Justice Marais, would not take the risk with these publications either, if they were not sure that they had previously been read by responsible officials and that the right for publication has been granted to them.