Mr. Speaker, I move—

After slowing down moderately towards the end of 1969 and in the beginning of 1970, the South African economy accelerated to higher rates of growth during the current financial year, and the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch estimates the growth in the real gross domestic product in 1970 at 5.5 per cent as against a growth of slightly more than 7 per cent in 1969.

A feature of particular significance to the Railway Administration during the past year was the high level of private consumption expenditure, as reflected in the sharp rise in the index of manufacturing production, motor vehicle sales, the retail trade and the considerable volume of imports of both capital and consumer goods.

During the last quarter of 1969 merchandise imports set a record of R2,456 million per year—seasonally adjusted—but during the second and third quarters of 1970 this figure escalated to an annual rate of R2,545 million and R2,571 million, respectively, boosting high-rated railway goods earnings considerably.

Neither railway nor harbour revenue derived much additional benefit from exports, however, the gross value of which rose by only 1.5 per cent during the period April-November. 1970. The export of agricultural products was affected by the smaller wool clip and sharp fall in the price of wool, but more particularly by the restriction which had to be placed on the export of maize on account of the low level of domestic stocks, which unfortunately occurred at a time when maize was obtaining record prices on the international markets. In the case of manufactured goods, exports were sluggish, largely because of the buoyant demand on the home market.

Mr. Speaker, it will be with a sense of shock and indignation that the nation will learn of this Budget. It is still another contribution to inflation and to the problems of each businessman and each housewife in South Africa, a contribution amounting to R58.5 million per annum. To gain a realization of what is going on, we must not see this Budget as a detached phenomenon; these increases in tariffs are not standing on their own feet and alone. Since the previous session we have already learned of the increase in postal tariffs and that this increase will amount to approximately R40 million per annum. The Minister of Finance could not wait for his Budget and has already increased the taxes on people who buy goods by R47 million. This makes a total first instalment of R145.5 million, which we as South Africans have to pay for the privilege of keeping this Government in power. The nation should take cognisance of the fact that what is happening today is happening in the department of the only man in the Cabinet who has the reputation of being an efficient Minister; and I do not want to deny for one moment that he is indeed an efficient Minister; I want to accept that. But in that case we see that even a most efficient person is unable to run the largest business of our State properly with the company he is keeping in this Cabinet.

It is clear that the administration of South Africa by this Government is collapsing, that the Government can no longer cope with the administration as it has geared itself for implementing a wrong policy, an impracticable policy, a policy which causes shortages of labour and shortages of services, a policy which cannot keep abreast of the pressure existing in the private sector of South Africa towards expansion and towards growth. We have a Government that cannot, because of its shortcomings and its lack of insight, satisfy the wants of a living nation like the South African nation. Now we can also understand why the election was advanced by one year. It had nothing to do with the small insignificant Hertzog group. It was a Government that wanted to be returned to power before the nation could realize what that Government’s regime and management were costing South Africa, because they knew full well that if these matters were to have been known at the time of the election, the results would have been even worse for the Government than they were in any event. Now the question arises, what is the hon. the Minister going to do? He has the reputation of being an efficient man. I think he works hard for that reputation. Is he satisfied to be constantly associated with an inefficient, incapable, incompetent and inadequate regime such as the Vorster regime over South Africa? Or will he take the initiative and assist the nation to rid itself of the people who are frustrating and making inadequate even his own efficiency? if he does not want to do so, indeed the nation of South Africa will do so at an larly opportunity. [Interjections.] We shall hit the Government when it suits us to hit it. We shall await the opportunity.

He is a Cassius Clay.

Because there are details in the Minister’s speech which deserve further study, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Message, as follows, transmitted to the Senate:

The House of Assembly returns to the Honourable the Senate the Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill [A.B. 14—’71] (MS.) passed by the House of Assembly and which has also been passed by the Honourable the Senate.

The House of Assembly having considered the versional correction notified by the Honourable the Senate, namely:

has agreed to the same and now desires the concurrence therein of the Honourable the Senate.

House of Assembly,

10th March, 1971.

When the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was referring to the challenge which the hon. member for Johannesburg North issued to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I am glad the hon. member is present here today. Yesterday evening he was not present. He issued the challenge to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should test the feelings of the urban Bantu of Soweto in regard to this legislation before this House now, by way of a referendum. In the first place, I want to emphasize that this measure is merely an administrative arrangement which only holds advantages for the urban Bantu looking for work and as far as freedom of movement is concerned. Hon. members are reading things into this measure which are not contained in it. [Interjections.] It is a pity that hon. members on the other side are squealing so much; it just shows how much they are suffering. I want to repeat that this measure is merely an administrative arrangement. In matters of policy and the governing of this country, this Government has always referred to the people of South Africa. Since 1948 the National Party has on seven occasions received a mandate to continue governing this country in terms of the policy of separate development. The White voters have always determined how this country was to be governed. In addition, they have determined how the non-Whites in White areas were to be governed.

I now come to the crux of the matter. Hon. members opposite must now tell us whether they, if they should come into power and wanted to place a measure or any legislation affecting the urban Bantu on the Statute Book, would go to the Bantu every time in order to hold a referendum on it. Would they test every measure by way of a referendum? Hon. members opposite expect us to do this, but they must be honest now and tell us whether they would do it. They are just sitting there now. They want to force us to do it, but they themselves are not prepared to do so. If hon. members opposite were sincere in what they expect from us, they would, if they came into power, which I do not believe will happen, have to ask the urban Bantu how they must be governed and what they want. What would the United Party do if these Bantu said that they wanted representation on the city councils?

You are talking nonsense.

Now they say that I am talking nonsense, but surely they are then fleeing from their own spectre. They want to bind the National Party to test the reaction of the Bantu by way of a referendum, but if they were to come into power, they would not be prepared to do so. The United Party is afraid, because in the past election they gave certain guarantees to the voters. They said at the time that the voters who would be tested were the White voters. However, the hon. member for Johannesburg North let the cat out of the bag. It is very clear that he and his party have fallen into the lap of the Progressive Party and into the hands of the hon. member for Houghton. It is very clear that the United Party politically deceived the voters in the past election when they said that they gave the White voters of South Africa certain guarantees. Here it has become clear, however, that as far as they are concerned the voters include the non-Whites. This shows exactly where we stand with the United Party.

I want to touch upon a few other matters briefly. In this debate we have listened to the following hon. members from the opposite side: the hon. members for Transkei. Johannesburg North, Houghton, Jeppes. Pinelands and one or two other sneakers of lesser importance of whom nobody takes any notice. Various speakers on this side of the House have proved that none of the members I have just mentioned came to this House with their own ideas. None of them had any original ideas. Not one of them had original ideas. None of them raised original objections. All the objections they raised here, cannot convince anybody that it is not essential to place this measure on the Statute Book. As has been said by hon. members on this side, speakers on the other side are nothing but followers and imitators of the South African Institute of Race Relations, which is a half-brother of the Christian Institute and a full brother of the Black Sash.

A very nice family.

Yes, and the hon. member for Houghton is hiding with them under the same blanket.

It is very cosy.

I am sure it is probably cosy under that blanket, because there are probably all sorts of smells and flavours. The hon. member for Ermelo proved how the hon. member for Transkei had echoed the South African Institute of Race Relations in regard to the hostel conditions in Soweto and when he compared the hostel conditions in Soweto with those in Diepkloof and Meadowlands. But it was very clear to me that the hon. member did not know what he was talking about. He only displayed his ignorance here. What is the basic difference between Soweto and the Resettlement Board? The basic difference is that Soweto is managed by the Johannesburg City Council. This management is many years old already, while the Resettlement Board was only established on 1st August, 1954, and then had to incur heavy expenditure and carry out major tasks in connection with clearance work, etc. I say this was a ridiculous comparison to draw. But I shall come back to this point in order to show that the comparison that was drawn was falsely represented in this House.

We had the attacks of Cupid and her captive, i.e. the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. They attacked us about the lack of welfare services and sports facilities in those areas. They said here exactly what the Institute of Race Relations had said. What is the factual position? They did not put the factual position to this House. This Resettlement Board subsidizes crèches with 120 children each to the tune of R250 per year and the needs are met. The hon. member for Jeppes waxed lyrical here about the services in Soweto. But apparently the hon. member for Jeppes does not know that there are clinics in Meadowlands. Apparently none of the hon. members on that side of this House knows this. I have never before come across a group of people who are so ignorant about their own constituencies and their neighbouring constituencies.

Reference was also made here to the question of sports fields and it was said that there were no sports fields in Diepkloof or Meadowlands. Do hon. members not know that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education opened sports fields there and that these sports fields are among the finest on the Rand? We therefore have sports stadiums there which that side of this House suggested did not exist.

Just like the Institute of Race Relations, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City based their attack on the argument that it would be illogical to transfer some of the surplus funds to the Bantu Trust for the development of the homelands. What percentage of the Bantu in our urban areas are here on the basis of migratory labour? Surely they are also people who spend their money. The profits made in those non-White accounts also come from the pockets of the migratory labourers. Therefore it is not such a ridiculous proposal that those profits should be ploughed into the development of the homelands, because it is after all their own money. For that reason one is grateful that town councils like the Vanderbijlpark Town Council and others, on the advice of the Non-White Advisory Board, donated money from their surplus funds to the Bantu homelands for the development of old age homes. I say this is only right.

But then they went on to say that this legislation would affect the autonomy of the local authorities. A local authority had no autonomy in regard to the management of non-White affairs in its area. The local authority was only the licence-holder and agent of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The approval of the department had to be obtained for everything which local authorities wanted to do in this regard and also in respect of the money which they could spend. The hon. member for Jeppes, who served on the Johannesburg City Council for years, was apparently not present when the hon. member for Welkom explained very clearly what the functions of a local authority are in regard to the management of the non-Whites in urban areas. Where is the so-called autonomy which they are so worried will be affected? Some hon. members have even made the statement that we will not have an elected Bantu administration board now, but that we will have an appointed board, while the members of a city council are elected members. I ask in all fairness: What city councillor in any White city council is elected on his knowledge of non-White affairs? They are talking the biggest nonsense here. Apparently they do not know this. City councillors are elected by the Whites. They are not elected as a result of their knowledge of non-White affairs.

I want to suggest that we print this yellow pamphlet of the South African Institute of Race Relations in full in Hansard and add to it: The following members of the United Party spoke. Then we would have the contents of everybody’s speeches. I think we would save this House tremendous expenditure in this way. Other speakers referred to the establishment and the necessity of the creation of the Resettlement Board and to the important role it has already played on a regional basis. This part was played, inter alia, in the time when the Johannesburg City Council was too ineffectual to carry out its duties. The hon. member for Pinelands then tried to parry by saying that the City Council in office at the time, was a Labourite one. But surely it is six of one and half a dozen of the other, because the one is as bad as the other. Now they put forward this story.

I have already referred to what has been achieved by this Resettlement Board. However, I want to emphasize that in terms of its policy this Resettlement Board houses its Bantu who are living in White areas, economically, as against the Johannesburg City Council, which, in spite of repeated requests, are still subsidizing their housing schemes from the general White account and from Bantu beer profits. Then they want to talk of sound management! It is unsound management. Thus far we have only had the attack of the United Party members on this legislation. I have also tried to indicate how effectively the Resettlement Board functions on a regional basis, but I want to proceed by mentioning another example. In that way I want to prove how effectively such a regional Bantu administration board can in fact function. I should like to refer to the Sebokeng regional board, which was established on 1st April, 1965, and which has proved its worth in practice in this short period. According to the United Party members it is a “yes-man board” because its members are appointed by the hon. the Minister and are not elected members. I shall prove to hon members what such a so-called “yes-man board” has done in its short life. Hon. members will now ask how the Sebokeng Management Board originated and what its function is.

I shall briefly sketch its background. The Bantu townships of Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark and Meyerton all had to be expanded at one stage in order to meet future requirements in regard to non-White housing. It is laid down by ordinance that every local authority must see to the development of Bantu townships. For that reason each of those areas had to decide where they could develop their Bantu townships in future. They had to purchase the land on which the Bantu townships could be built. It was a long drawn-out struggle between local authorities, because when a local authority decided it wanted a Bantu township, it received objections from the Whites in that area. When such a local authority decided, it received similar complaints from the other local authorities that the proposed township was too close to its area. As a result we also found that a town council such as Vereeniging, which was a United Party town council at the time, purchased unnecessary land such as Mfubé, and in this way wasted the money of the taxpayers.

New Bantu townships had to be established, because in terms of United Party planning not enough provision had been made and Bantu townships already existed at Meyerton, Sharpeville, Bophelong and Boipetong. Another four must now be established. Where must this be done? There would have had to be at least eight or nine Bantu townships in that area. The industries required dwellings to be provided, because they were expanding and there could be no delay in the provision of housing to the workers. In the end one communal site was agreed upon where the future Bantu township of that area would be situated. This was only achieved after the help of the late Dr. Verwoerd, then Minister of Bantu Administration, as arbitrator had been called in. It was then agreed that the future Bantu township of the Vaal Triangle should be developed next to the existing Evaton. Evaton was also established by the old United Party and what a mess there was in the old Evaton! The non-Whites could obtain proprietary rights there and I wish I could have shown the hon. members what went on there. Some people owned property and had rows and rows of rooms on a morgen of land. There were no lavataries, the pit system was used and the most unhygienic conditions prevailed. There was overcrowding and in that Evaton area there was a greater population density than even in certain parts of Hillbrow. That new area had to be linked up with this.

Thanks to the assistance we received from the Department of Bantu Administration and from the hon. the Minister, Minister M. C. Botha, the town councils reached a compromise. It was decided that each would not continue with the development of its own Bantu township. What would this have resulted in? It would have resulted in a squandering and wastage of capital and manpower. Each local authority would have had to create an infrastructure in regard to services. Thanks to the assistance of the present Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, an agreement was reached, and thus the Sebokeng Management Board was established on 1st April, 1965. The composition of that board is in essence what is proposed in the legislation before us, namely a chairman and representatives of the town council concerned in such an area, the peri-urban board and the department. But in regard to the composition of the proposed boards, the proposal contained in this Bill is a great improvement because commerce and industry will now get representation on that board, as well as agriculture, if necessary.

What was the first task performed by that “yes-man board” to which the United Party members referred? The Residensia township had a small White community living very close to a railway line. Within a very short period of time, that board had bought all that land from the Whites. There was no expropriation; we know how long that can take. Since 1965 no more Whites have been living in that area. Everybody left there happy and satisfied. This is what was achieved by a “yes-man board”! In addition, they immediately tackled the problem of overcrowding at Evaton. I can tell you today that there is far less unemployment than before that board was established. Unemployment has decreased tremendously. In its short existence since 1965, the Bantu administration board has settled 61,500 Bantu in the new townships. (In this short period of time, this so-called “yes-man board”, to which hon. members referred so contemptuously, built 9,817 economic homes. I can tell hon. members that by the seventh day of the month, virtually not one cent of rent is owing on those houses. There are officials of the department here today who can testify to the truth of this.

In addition, they have done educational work in that area. Today there are 8,000 hostel beds, and provision is being made for an additional 2,000. The hon. member for Houghton, as well as other members, referred so cuttingly to the hostel position in Diepkloof and Meadowlands. I can tell hon. members that Diepkloof and Meadowlands are the only places where one finds single-room hostel accommodation. Provision is now being made for this at Sebokeng as well. These hon. members speak about comparing houses. I can tell hon. members that the houses in these areas compare very well with those in Soweto. But this “yes-man board” went further. In its short period of existence it has already started with the erection of a Bantu hospital which will have 750 beds. A brewery is being built. There is sufficient school accommodation. Why do hon. members try to compare the Johannesburg City Council with these regional boards? But if we want to be fair, we must pay tribute to a man such as Mr. Willie Heckroodt and his management boards.

In addition, I refer to the Resettlement Board and the Sebokeng Management Board. These people have laid down a practicable pattern for South Africa which is to the benefit of the Republic. In future this board and this country will reap the fruits of the pattern which these people have created for us. In the first place, it eliminates overlapping. It leads to efficiency and uniformity. The Sebokeng Management Board has also proved that it can be done effectively on a regional basis.

I want to address two requests to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Firstly, I want to ask him, since the Sebokeng Board already exists to consider extending its area of jurisdiction so that the agricultural holdings in that vicinity may in future be classified under this administration board. Secondly, I want to ask him to keep an eye on something. Since these Bantu administration boards will now be established, it will mean that certain municipalities will experience certain disadvantages when they switch over. I am referring to the fact that the salary scales of senior posts in town councils, are determined in proportion to the revenue account of such a town council. Since the Bantu affairs account will now be eliminated, and a Bantu administration board will be established, it may place that town council in a worse position as compared with other town councils.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to see whether for the time being, while the boards have not all switched over yet, we cannot ensure that such town councils are not placed at a disadvantage. This Bill will make it possible to make wider use of the available professional and experienced Whites who are at present responsible for Bantu administration in town councils, and will ensure better co-ordination and make it possible for the Bantu policy to be implemented more uniformly. Furthermore, this measure may lead to a saving in manpower, and also in buildings, because the police and the Bantu affairs commissioners can now be housed together. Besides a saving in accommodation, it may lead to a saving in transport as well. In the long run these savings should amount to millions of rands for the State. The same applies to our rural areas. For example, the Transvaal Peri-Urban Areas Developement Board may be made responsible for the control of smaller towns such as Oogies, Machadodorp, Bronkhorstspruit and others. The board need not necessarily be near these small places in such cases.

This legislation is therefore flexible enough to take over all the existing Bantu administrations without any disruption being caused.

We on this side of the House are by now used to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, to his hectoring and baying when he makes a speech here and the arrogant way in which he refers to “daardie mense in the SAP-banke”, and all that kind of thing. We have come to expect that of him. The only thing that surprises me is that the hon. member too has now joined the swing to the brilliant shirts. I must come to the conclusion that these hon. members are beginning to practise for television. As a matter of fact, television must be close round the corner when we find hon. members like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark coming out in shirts of that colour. The hon. member did not hesitate to refer to us on this side as “vyande”, without even qualifying it by speaking of “politieke vyande”. We are his enemies. When one thinks of what is facing us in this county today and one finds an hon. member accusing us simply because we do not agree with him, of being his enemies, we see nationalism à la Vanderbijlpark having gone completely crazy. The hon. member nearly had a heart attack when my hon. friend the hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned a referendum. But all the time he forgot that his own Government some two months ago had already called this principle into being when it agreed to have a referendum in South-West Africa in which all the people there were going to be consulted. What is fish for the one is fowl for the other and, consequently, the hon. member is on very weak grounds when he comes with that kind of talk.

By saying that the attitude of our party has been influenced by the Institute of Race Relations, the hon. member seems to infer that the Institute of Race Relations are the only people in South Africa who can see that things are wrong. If he says that everything we say comes out of a pamphlet sent around by the Institute of Race Relations it means that nobody else in South Africa, except the Institute of Race Relations, have the vision to see what is wrong with Government legislation. Of course, that is the biggest lot of nonsense I have ever heard.

I have said on a previous occasion and I repeat it here today that the difference between us and the party opposite is that we are concerned with civilization and they with separation. In this legislation we find that difference emphasized. I want to stress the part that has been played in the past by local authorities in the process of civilizing the Bantu who, as a primitive population coming out of tribalism, backwardness and squalor, have moved into the urban areas into the most sophisticated standards of living on the continent of Africa. There they have been put to work and absorbed in a modern economy. They had to adapt themselves to standards of living which were completely alien to them and to pressures of living which were completely alien to them. And up to this very day those people have been accommodated and inducted into the modern way of life in South Africa by local authorities.

That is the reason why they are advancing today as they are, why they have attained the standards they have attained—because local authorities under the guidance of provincial authorities have been actively concerned with their settlement and progress and with ordering their way of life. But here we have the department coming along and taking away completely and absolutely the interests of local authorities in those people. The concern which has been felt by established local authorities in the welfare of the Bantu living within their borders has been an enlightened self-interest, because the interests of the White population under the control of local authorities are bound up with those of the Bantu also under the control of those local authorities. We have the Johannesburg City Council contributing more than R1 million a year towards welfare services, etc.—self-interst of the highest sort, enlightened self-interest. The employment, the health, the welfare and the leisure of the White people in those areas are also affected by the welfare, employment and contentment of the Bantu peoples on whom every single activity of the White man also in many of his leisure hours depend. We have been taken to task during this debate …

We are doing this because we think we can improve on that position.

That will be the day!

I will deal with that hon. member; let him only stick around a bit. I want to talk about the attitude of all city councils and not only of that of Johannesburg. This debate has so far focused on Johannesburg because Johannesburg is the one on which eyes automatically focus. But all other local authorities are acting in exactly the same fashion. They too have been concentrating on the well-being and on doing what they could to assist the Bantu population under their control. Let me contrast that with the attitude of the Department. Here I want to offer my sympathies to the hon. the Deputy Minister, my heartfelt sympathies because my heart bleeds for him. He came here with a lovely speech in which he told us what a magnificent step forward this was—this was for administrative purposes and was going to improve the lot of the Bantu, an honest effort …

You only have to believe it, that is all.

I would love to believe the hon. the Deputy Minister but a certain poet wrote: “save, oh save me from my candid friends!”. If ever there was a debate to which that can be applied that debate is this one. The hon. the Deputy Minister hardly sat down when the hon. member for Brakpan started jumping up and down telling us that this was to reinforce the attitude of the Department; the Bantu did not want to work and therefore they had to be weeded out and sent back to the homelands.

He let the cat out of the bag.

Yes, a sort of two-coloured black and white cat. What he did was to reveal that this legislation was merely another tentacle of the octopus which is slowly strangling South Africa. That octopus is that Department, the Department of Bantu Administration. Sir, to make the policy of the Nationalist Party work, because it is so impracticable, because it really has nothing to do with reality in South Africa, the whole way of life of White South Africa has got to be changed; it has to be taken over; the tentacles of this Nationalist Party’s Bantu Administration Department have to close around the whole thinking of White South Africa because unless that happens, until they have total power, the policy of this Department and of this Government can never be carried out. Sir, I want to say this and I want to put it carefully because I do not want to be accused of saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister is a Stalin. Anybody who has read the book written by Stalin’s daughter will have seen there the way in which the system in Russia grew up whereby the leaders of those people themselves became imprisoned by the machinery that they had built up. Sir, if you read that book, “Twenty letters to a friend”—and I recommend that hon. members read it—it is most interesting to see the position of Stalin’s bodyguard, a man who started off as a captain but who after a period of about 10 years was a general, and after another four years was a fat general, a general with a motor car of his own, a house of his own, a whole position of his own. The system had caught up with the people who were involved in it, and that is what is happening in this country of ours today.

The Bantu Administration Department has become like an octopus which is today getting into every single activity throughout the whole length and breadth of South Africa, and this is merely one of the last places where there is contact between the elected representatives of the White population and the Black population of South Africa. I believe that the depersonalization of administration which is going to take place is going to affect very radically indeed the relationship between White and Black in South Africa. I sincerely believe that up until now, where there have been elected representatives of the White municipalities who have had to deal with the day-to-day life of the Bantu population, you have had that intimate local concern which I believe is so important. You have had people on the spot knowing what their own needs are. Today you are going to have a take-over by a department which is the universal department and a department which is going in this direction …

It knows much better what to do.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree for one single moment. The hon. member knows that every single department in this country today is battling as far as staff is concerned. Sir, when you come down to the local questions, then surely the local elected representatives can deal with them on a better basis than the hon. the Minister’s department can. That is my opinion and the opinion of this party and that is why we are opposing this legislation. The question of greater mobility of labour is just a charade. The Minister saw an opportunity here of providing something for which the industrialists were crying out as a result of the absolute shambles which the Government have made of the labour supply of this country. They were prisoners of the system, and now the need has come to expand the ability of the Bantu to move about within the prescribed areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister took the chance to implement that, to make it easier for the Bantu to work in the greater area, but at the same time he decided that he would take this out of the control of the local authorities altogether and bring it under the control of his department.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the section 10 Bantu are the key to the survival of the White man and White civilization in this country. Sir, in this debate there should be an absolutely clear statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister that section 10 will remain in the legislation of this country for as long as he can see because, Sir, these people under section 10 are the backbone of civilization; they are the settled urban population of Bantu people and they will not be repatriated. If they are repatriated and their rights are infringed, then I believe that this is simply inviting disaster for all South Africa, White as well as Black. We in the United Party accept their permanence; we accept that they are there and that they will stay there. We are prepared to accept the consequences that flow from that, because we believe that it is far better to recognize local interests, as I have already said, by means of the communal councils which we have put forward; that you recognize the local interests of a group of Bantu people rather than force them out of our society into frustrated nationalism. We think it is a far better way of dealing with the problem which faces us here in South Africa. I ask what can the urban Bantu learn from the Department of Bantu Administration? I have said already that by their relationship with the elected representatives of the White people they have the opportunity, by means of their urban councils, advisory boards and that kind of thing, to see how the democratic process works in local administration. But how can that continue if there is now a Government department which is not elected and a board which is nominated, which will have complete control over just about anything that they do? What can they learn from that board? Because you have here a grouping of regional people and you have local authorities represented on the board, but you have lost touch now with the elective principle. You have people who are nominated by the Minister, and I believe that we are losing here a vital link in the process of educating the Bantu population of this country, the permanently settled urban population, in the process of local administration and in the process of democracy. I believe that this is destroying a vital link in the process of upliftment on which we are engaged today. And I believe that in some cases the wishes of the Department are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the local people. The hon. the Deputy Minister remembers what happened at Randburg, where there was a considerable “gavolt” about servants and the housewives of Randburg put him to flight in rather precipitate fashion. I believe this is only one case.

But it lost them the provincial seat.

Yes, they lost a seat and I hope it happens a few times more.

There were several other points which came out in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Brakpan, in the startlingly original contribution he made, suggested that there should be a system of mass transport to bring the Bantu from the Reef to Mafeking and Groblersdal and Wolmaransstad and all these places. Sir, the problem is already to move the masses of people we have to move. Last year the hon. member for Durban Point introduced a motion in this House asking for precisely this system of mass transport to be used today to convey the present Bantu population to their work and the Nationalist Party, through the Deputy Minister, turned it down and said it was not practicable. It could not be done with what we already have now, let alone transporting hundreds of thousands of people from Groblersdal and Mafeking. So I think that that hon. member was not really quite wide awake. And, you know, Sir, when you talk about the jumbo jets, there was an application by Air Cape just recently to supply an air service from the Transkei to Cape Town. This was opposed by the S.A. Airways on the basis that unless it carried only Black people they were not prepared to see this licence being granted.

They should use a pipeline.

Yes, I have heard the suggestion of the pipeline, but certainly as far as concerns the two suggestions of the Airways themselves and the mass transport system, that Government is already on record as having said that they cannot work or will not be allowed to happen. I think this is typical of the muddled sort of approach we have had from the hon. member for Brakpan, who I am sorry is not here now.

There is one point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister in relation to the boards and the Bantu Commissioners. At present on our farms there is an advisory committee on Bantu labour which functions under the Bantu Commissioner, and the function of the committee is to say that on a particular farm so many labour units may be held. Now obviously between the prescribed areas there are going to be considerable areas of farm land involved. I would like to know whether this board is now going to be charged with that function of seeing that the limits are kept and seeing to the repatriation of any surplus Bantu on farms, because the clause in the Bill states quite clearly that that board shall function, if necessary, to the exclusion of the Bantu Commissioner. I should like to know how this board is going to function, what areas of farmland the hon. Minister sees is going to be encompassed by it and what the attitude of the board is going to be in view of the committees which are today already in being and which have already made determinations as far as my area is concerned and, I think, as far as the greater part of Natal is concerned.

There is one other matter I would like to raise. I want to ask whether the hon. Deputy Minister can give us some information about it. I want to refer to the area around Pietermaritzburg—although it applies to other cities as well—and particularly to the Swartkops area, which is not an urban area but a Bantu reserve. It is becoming very, very densely settled indeed. I would like to know from the hon. Deputy Minister how the board is going to operate in areas such as that one.

What area?

Swartkops. It is a homeland. Does the board have no part in it at all?

No.

I mention this in passing, because I will return to this matter. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to take notice of the fact that there is a tremendous problem arising in that particular area and in other areas close to the urban centres in Natal. I wish to say that I support very enthusiastically indeed the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has also referred on a previous occasion to the blue shirts, red shirts and I do not know what other shirts that are worn by the gentlemen on this side. I wonder what kind of obsession he specifically has with shirts. I wonder whether he could perhaps be a grey shirt or something of that nature.

I am a verkrampte. I am wearing a white shirt.

The hon. member mentioned here various points, to which I shall come back. The one point which I cannot allow to pass without comment now, is a point that was made by him and various speakers on that side, namely “the take-over by the Department of Bantu Administration as it is at the moment”. The hon. member’s words were “the take-over by the department”. That betrays a flagrant ignorance of what is involved in this legislation. The department is not going to take over. Let me say most emphatically here at the beginning that the position is that this legislation is enabling legislation. That means that this legislation enables the Minister to establish administration areas and boards on an ad hoc basis. In my Second-Reading speech already I very clearly gave the undertaking that the establishment of administration areas would be effected with the utmost circumspection and care. If an administration area is not established, a board cannot be established either. This measure is very clear on that point. In discussions with the United Municipal Executive, as well as the Institute for non-White Officials. I gave the undertaking that a proper investigation would take place so that the hon. the Minister might be advised in respect of all the matters of which it is important to have knowledge, before such an administration area would be established. For instance, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the townships, the transport, the position of funds in an administration area and a thousand and one other points. I say that I have given an undertaking that, before an administration area is established, such an investigation will take place. I repeat that it will be effected on an ad hoc basis. In the light of this undertaking the numerous arguments advanced on that side fall away, arguments to the effect that local authorities are now, all of a sudden, going to be stripped of their interests, etc., in regard to Bantu administration affairs. This is the first point I wanted to mention.

Surely, the department is going to take over all the officials.

Let me add that I even went so far as to conduct negotiations with both the United Municipal Executive and the Institute for non-White Officials. I mentioned this in my Second-Reading speech. I at least told them there who would be serving on that committee so as to give advice on how such an administration area will be constituted. I said that representatives of the United Municipal Executive were to serve on that committee. It seems to me as though hon. members opposite do not know what or who the United Municipal Executive is. [Interjections.] If hon. members opposite had known, they would not have raised quite a number of the arguments they did. For the sake of clarity I want to emphasize that the United Municipal Executive is the highest representative body of all the municipal councils in the Republic of South Africa. It is, therefore, an authoritative organization. As I have already said, representatives of the United Municipal Executive will serve on such a committee to assist in determining what such an administration area will look like once it has been established. The Institute for non-White Officials will also have representation on that committee. The Institute for non-White Officials is the highest body of all the officials who are in municipal service throughout the Republic of South Africa and who deal with Bantu affairs. Therefore, if this body speaks, it speaks authoritatively. Incidentally, I want to say that it affords me great pleasure this afternoon to see the members of the managing board of the Institute for non-White Officials in the gallery this afternoon and that they have been following this debate with interest. It also affords me great pleasure to know that they support this Bill unanimously. They are the people who are doing the work in our interests and also in the interest of the Bantu, and who have first-hand knowledge of these matters. On that committee for establishing such an administration area on an ad hoc basis, there will also be a representative of the Institute of Town Clerks as well as a representative of the Institute of Treasurers and Accountants. In addition, senior officials of my department will also serve on that committee. Can anything be more fair than that?

Now I want to refer to the basic error made by hon. members on that side in their argumentation against this Bill. I could quote various speakers to support my point, but I want to do so in the light of what was said by the hon. member for Mooi River, who resumed his seat a moment ago. He referred to a “take-over by the department”. That is not true at all. What is the true state of affairs? Hon. members opposite completely lost sight of this point, and I want to emphasize it very strongly now. When an administration area is established, the Minister is granted the power to constitute a board. In a moment I shall deal with the constitution of such a board. Of what kind of people will this board consist? It will consist of experts—and I also emphasized this in my Second-Reading speech—who will have two outstanding characteristics, as was also very clearly pointed out by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In the first place, these people will have knowledge, but knowledge of what? They will have knowledge of Bantu labour and other matters in this regard, and also, and this fact I emphasized, knowledge of the Bantu as a human being. One cannot regard labour as being something separate. The Bantu in a White area has at least two powerful aspects, namely his labour which he sells to the White area, and, secondly, the fact that he has human needs, such as housing, health, social and sports facilities and many more.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

The hon. member should give me a chance to put my case. Once I have done that, I shall reply to a question from him with the greatest pleasure. All of these various problems and aspects are included under the protection of this board. I want to say at once that local authorities will have representation on such a board. Commerce and industry will also have representation on this board. When hon. members opposite refer to a “take-over by the department”, they are ignoring a potent fact, namely that this board which is being established here, is a statutory board, that the board is a body corporate and will be a board just like the C.S.I.R. and Iscor. If hon. members on that side of the House do not know what a statutory board is, they would be well advised to take legal advice on what it is. If they know what a statutory board is and if they see that it is clearly provided in clause 2 that this board is a body corporate, they will not be able to speak of a “take-over by the Department”. Once the Minister has appointed that board, it is a statutory board. What is more, the Minister does not have additional powers for interfering with that board, except in so far as this legislation will allow him to do so in respect of regulations, etc. I shall come back to this matter at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Is it not true that the hon. the Minister may dismiss the members of the board as he pleases and that he alone may make regulations?

Mr. Speaker, I wish hon. members would give me a chance to complete my argument. I shall come to that, for the one other aspect that was raised by hon. members opposite, was the very question of the terribly wide powers that were allegedly being granted to the Minister. But I want to say straight away that this is not the case. However, I promise hon. members that I shall come back to this point. I may as well mention now that, as these arguments were advanced and as they are devoid of any truth, I considered the matter and decided to move an amendment in respect of this clause in order to incorporate in this Bill, beyond any doubt, the intention which I myself, the hon. the Minister and the Department have from the very outset had in regard to this matter. Therefore, it is my intention to move an amendment in respect of clause 4 (3). I shall come to that in a moment.

But I am pointing out that it is not correct to make the statement that we are dealing here with a “take-over by the department”. I am taking my time to explain it, for I should like hon. members to understand this. Are hon. members unable to see that this whole school of thought does, in effect, introduce a new phase, for if a statutory board is established for the purpose of managing these affairs, it represents, to my mind, a mighty step forward in the Republic of South Africa in respect of regulating relations and in respect of regulating Bantu administration. It is for that reason that the U.M.E. supports this Bill; it is for that reason that the Institute of Administrators of non-White Affairs supports this Bill unanimously. It is important to understand this.

Having said that, I should also like to point out that it is not correct to suggest that with this legislation the Minister is going to receive such wide powers, for all the existing laws are going to remain in force as they are. In essence, the only additional power which the Minister is going to be granted under this legislation, especially as viewed in the light of its being my intention to move an amendment in respect of clause 4 (3), is the power to appoint the board. But other than that the status quo is being maintained unchanged. We can discuss this in detail in Committee.

But before dealing with other details, which I promise to do, I just want to add as background information that in the commercial world and in all other spheres the trend is towards increased specialization. It is not really without a touch of pride that I want to state here that what we are doing now, after two years of expert investigation and discussions with the bodies and persons concerned, is to promote this element of specialization and the elimination of overlapping, delays and red tape. To try to eliminate overlapping, etc., by way of specialization is to the advantage of the White public and to the advantage of the Bantu and, therefore, also to the advantage of the regulation of relations between the Whites and the Bantu in South Africa. All we ask hon. members, is that they should level criticism when necessary, but that they should not level these wild accusations, as they did in this debate. Give us a chance to try to specialize in the right direction. That is why I want to tell hon. members now what views my department and I have on the foundation on which this specialization, this step forward, this new phase in regard to Bantu administration may be initiated. We want to try to initiate it in all modesty, and I want to state here on what foundation it should rest. Now, I hope that when I say this the hon. members are not going to create the impression again that they do not believe me. I also hope that they will not again try to explain it away lightly. I think I have, after all, proved sufficiently …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

Oh, Uncle Bronkie, won’t you give me a chance to complete my argument?

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he repudiates what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan …

Order! That is not a question; that is an argument. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with a serious matter, i.e. I am trying to indicate on what foundations this administration should rest. I also want to say at once that, when these boards are established, my argument will be that the administration of Bantu affairs in the White area is a major and comprehensive matter and that it involves a great deal of responsibility. Furthermore, it is a difficult and delicate task in a multi-racial country such as ours. It should be handled with the greatest measure of circumspection. That is why I say that everybody who is involved in it, and also the hon. members on the other side of the House as responsible members of the House of Assembly must realize this, should see to it that it is implemented in a sympathetic, a decent and a humane manner. We shall also have to ensure that sound relations between the Bantu and the Whites are promoted under all circumstances and that points of friction are avoided and eliminated wherever they may occur. We shall also have to ensure that the administration will at all times be fair and just, yet, from the nature of the case, firm and positive at the same time, with a view to maintaining law and order, which has always been the greatest feature of a good government in any country.

I should like to see that these boards, once they have been established, will rest on these foundations, and that they will view their functions against that background. Now, every hon. member on that side of the House will agree with me that this requires exceptionally high standards. What has saddened me in this debate, was the fact that the hon. members opposite tried to do something which I cannot forgive them lightly, namely to contrast sympathetic action towards the Bantu and the policy of multi-national development with each other. This is neither fair nor correct. It saddened me to find that this was the case. The leaders on the side of the National Government have, from the very first leader who declared in favour of multinational development, always maintained that the implementation of the policy of multi-national development can only succeed if it is applied in a fair, just and humane manner. In his first speech after he had been elected as Prime Minister of this country, our present Prime Minister said in his message to the people of the Republic of South Africa—and that includes everybody, the Bantu as well—“Live and let live”. That is why I say that to my mind it is extremely irresponsible to try in advance to present these boards in a suspicious light and to contrast, on the one hand, a sympathetic and humane attitude towards the Bantu with, on the other hand, the implementation of the policy of multi-national development. I say that it is a pity that the hon. members opposite have been indulging in this.

I want to ask hon. members kindly to refrain from doing this. Now that I have said this, hon. members should also appreciate that it is not fair of hon. members opposite to level, on the one hand, frequent accusations at the Government to the effect that it is doing too much for the Black man, but, when it suits them, to suggest again, on the other hand that we are oppressing the Black man in South Africa. That was the refrain that ran through this debate. I could mention speaker after speaker on the side of the United Party from the hon. member for Transkei to the very last one, who did that. On the whole he made a responsible speech.

Did I accuse you of doing too much for them?

Wait a moment. It was a refrain that virtually ran throughout the debate, i.e. during the debate on this Bill hon. members on the opposite side of the House said and insinuated that these boards would adopt an attitude of indifference towards Bantu Affairs and would not be as sympathetic towards Bantu affairs as, for instance, the local authorities. That was the accusation they made.

Yes.

Now, my reply to that is the one I have already furnished. That is why I say that it is a pity and that hon. members should not do it. These two matters should not be contrasted with one another.

I reject with contempt the fact that hon. members opposite want to broadcast the statement from this House that in its implementation of the policy of multi-national development this Government has adopted an inhumane, callous and indifferent attitude towards Bantu affairs in South Africa. That is what hon. members are trying to make us and the country believe. That is not true. But there is another thing they have been trying to do, namely to make the country believe that, because of the callous attitude of these boards towards the Bantu, the local authorities would in that process allegedly be stripped of their powers. Now, I have already said that these boards will be ad hoc boards which will be constituted on an ad hoc basis. Consequently that point is not correct either.

Now I should like to respond to the points made here by the individual Opposition speakers. But before doing so, I want to refer to the speakers on our side of the House, virtually all of whom are experts in the sphere of local authority affairs. I do not know of one member who spoke on our side who has not been a member of a local authority for some period or other. Therefore, they knew what they were talking about. They replied very effectively to many of the points that were made here.

Especially Brakpan.

Now the hon. member says, “Especially Brakpan.” I was in fact going to mention it. Hon. members opposite, and the hon. member for Houghton as well—this was very widely reported outside—tried to create the impression that what we envisage here, namely labour mobility, more effective administration and the involvement in the administration of professionalism and knowledge, should be contrasted with what was mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, namely that these boards would also be there for moving the Bantu from the cities to the homelands. But now I want to say this. Whereas the objects of these boards will be those which I once again emphasized this afternoon, and will rest on these foundations which I very strongly emphasized this afternoon and actually dealt with in too much detail, and whereas hon. members may take it from me that I give the undertaking that upon the establishment of every such board I shall make a point of requesting that board to try to implement the administration on these foundations, the hon. member for Houghton is, of course, expecting too much if she thinks that we are going to request these boards to implement her policy in South Africa. That we shall not do. Similarly, it would be expecting too much if hon. members of the United Party were to think that we would ask these boards to implement their policy. That we shall not do either. It is, therefore, quite wrong to contrast what I have tried to say here in all sincerity with what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan. There is no contrast. The fact of the matter is that we on this side of the House have a vision and a policy, and these boards will, of course, implement that policy, the policy of multi-nationalism. We are dealing here with people with peoples, who are different from us. Whether a Bantu was born in Soweto or in any other prescribed area, he is and remains first of all a member of his people. First and foremost he is a man of his own people. Through descent, language and culture he is and remains a member of his people—irrespective of whether he was born in Soweto or in any other prescribed area. Nor does it matter how long he has been living there. He remains a member of his people. Membership of a specific people does not allow itself to be disparaged by economic prosperity or the so-called class-consciousness. That is why I say that these stories of the hon. member for Houghton, etc. come from liberalists and integrationists, stories aimed at trying to keep us from implementing our policy in a decent, fair and just manner. That is why the hon. member for Brakpan is absolutely correct in this respect, i.e. that against the background outlined by me these boards will implement our policy of multi-national development as far as possible. Hon. members opposite want to contrast the Bantu living in Soweto with other Bantu, as though Soweto were a kingdom in itself. But they forget that in Soweto there are Zulus who can only be members of the Zulu people. We say that they are, first and foremost, men of their own people. [Interjections.] I have already said that it does not matter whether or not he was born in Soweto—he remains, first and foremost, a man of his own people, and we are not prepared to accept that we should view the Bantu areas in the White area in a vacuum; in other words, isolated from the homelands and the people of which those persons are members. If hon. members opposite think that they can induce us to abandon that standpoint, they are making a grave mistake. I am sorry that what I said, was contrasted with what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan, for that is wrong and unfair. [Interjections.] Hon. members can accept my bona fides.

I am now going to deal with what was said by individual members. The hon. member for Transkei did, at least, concede important things here; he made important concessions and I am thankful for his having done so. He said, inter alia—

Later in his speech he said—

I said “it might be said to be desirable”.

I am very thankful for these fine statements made by the hon. member. I received from many Bantu boards letters and telegrams in which they said that they were supporting this legislation.

Only a part of the Bill …

I received them after the Bill had been published for the first time. I am pointing out that the hon. member for Transkei was correct in saying that the Bantu welcomed this legislation. If you want to doubt my word, just take a look at what The Bantu World had to say about this matter. If he did that, the hon. member would not come here with allegations of this kind. Amongst others I received from the Bloemfontein Bantu Council the following telegram (translation)—

Sir, with that Opposition I am very grateful for these fine words that came from this Bantu body. And yet hon. members opposite waxed lyrical here. For instance, the hon. member for Johannesburg North came forward here with the idea of a referendum. I do not want to take that seriously. In any case, that was dealt with effectively by other hon. members on my side. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether we can now tell the electorate that it is at present the policy of the Opposition that, when it comes to the handling of Bantu administration in the White area of South Africa, a referendum should be held amongst those Bantu before steps are proceeded to. [Interjections.] In regard to this matter there is a contradictio in terminus between the hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The hon. member for Transkei says that the Bantu support this legislation, and he is quite correct. But the hon. member for Johannesburg North, on the other hand, has asked for a referendum. There is yet another question which I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. on what grounds are the Bantu of Soweto allegedly more important than the Bantu of Kroonstad, of Brakpan and of other places in the Republic? Why are the Bantu in Soweto to be consulted on a Bill which deals with the entire Republic?

That is a stupid question.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Houghton now; I shall come to her in a moment. There is a third question which I want to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As far as I know, the Opposition has never had voters’ lists for the Bantu on the basis of which they can hold a referendum. If they now want to hold a referendum among the Bantu of Soweto, are they going to prepare a voter’s list for that purpose? [Interjections.]

What are you going to do in South West?

Who is going to vote in Soweto?

Who is going to vote in South West?

I still have a fourth question to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

May I ask you a question?

No. I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this question: Who is going to vote in Soweto? Bantu men above the age of 18? Or above the age of 17? Are Bantu women going to be placed on the roll? I repeat: If they want to hold a referendum, let us hold a referendum in Soweto now. If they have supposedly decided now to draw up a voters’ list for the Bantu there—and they must, for how the Bantu will be able to vote without a voter’s list, you, Mr. Speaker, will certainly not be able to tell me. They want the Bantu of Soweto to vote on matters which affect the White area and have nothing to do with the homelands. You should note, Sir, that in actual fact the hon. member for Johannesburg North is raising Soweto to the level of a suburb of Johannesburg, for he is not asking for a referendum to be held amongst the Whites in Johannesburg, but only in Soweto. Then I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us at the same time, if they want to hold a referendum in Soweto, how they will prevent their having to hold another referendum on matters affecting the White areas of South Africa, a referendum amongst the Bantu in Kroonstad, amongst the Bantu in Koekenaap and every little place throughout the Republic of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to reply to this at some stage or other.

I was saying, Sir, that we had received telegrams from numerous urban Bantu councils. I read out to you, Sir, the one we received from Bloemfontein. We received a telegram from Potchefstroom which reads as follows (translation)—

They also said—

This telegram was sent by the secretary for the Bantu Advisory Committee. I want to mention one or two other telegrams as well. We received a telegram from Wesselsbron and a telegram from Hoopstad, and I received one from Kimberley. [Interjections.] I shall hand all of them to that hon. member. I also received letters. We received support from far and wide. I received the following telegram from Kimberley (translation)—

Sir, so I could continue, I did not mention these few examples for nothing; I did so because those hon. members tried to make out here that we did not consult the Bantu in regard to this Bantu Affairs Administration Bill. Here I have proved to them that they were well and truly consulted. I repeat that I have proof here that the Bantu in Soweto were consulted, for we have a carefully worked out system for consulting the Bantu in the White area of South Africa; we do not hold referendums; that is against our policy. The local authorities act as our agents, and it is the duty of the local authority to consult the urban Bantu council. This Bill was, for instance, submitted to the urban Bantu council in Soweto, and one of their councillors wrote an article in The World in which he supported it. The urban Bantu council acts on behalf of the Bantu in Soweto and the same happens in all the other places. We have this carefully worked out system, which has obtained in South Africa for all these years, for consulting the Bantu. That urban Bantu council is free to make representations to the urban local authority, which acts as our agent; the urban local authority then comes to my department and tells us what the representations of the Bantu in that regard are. Subsequent to that those representations are considered and a decision is taken on them. Let me state here this afternoon that not from one single Bantu or from one single urban Bantu council have either my department or I received anything but support for this Bill. Sir, this is the reason why I dealt fully with the matter: It is a pity that this kind of statement is being made here so lightly. I told the hon member for Houghton by way of interjection, “Don’t jump to conclusions too quickly”; she will still remember that. Sir, these statements are being exported to the outside world, and they are not fair to South Africa; nor are they fair to the National Government.

The hon. member for Transkei mentioned various other points to which I should like to reply now. These points were also raised by various other members on that side. The hon. member wanted to know why these boards could not be established in terms of a section 40 agreement. Sir, approximately two years ago, when we started with this matter, we held discussions with the U.M.E. and the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs. We held discussions—in order to do what? To bring about greater mobility, because that was our premise in the first place. At the first few meetings this question arose: What was the administration going to be if greater labour mobility were brought about, and what was the control over it going to be? At those discussions with the U.M.E. there were members of the U.M.E. who also said that it was to be done by way of section 40 agreements. Sir, for hours and days we devoted attention to the possibility of this being done under section 40 agreements, and we arrived at the conclusion that it could not be done under section 40 agreements. Sir, do you not find it striking that, whereas quite a number of members on that side of the House wanted to know why it could not be done by way of section 40 agreements, not one single one of them made any specific suggestions on how one would be able to achieve under section 40 agreements what was being achieved here. Let me put it to hon. members this way: Suppose one wanted to bring about greater labour mobility on the Witwatersrand and that one wanted to declare the entire Witwatersrand to be one administration area. In that case one would be saddled there with nine or ten local authorities. Sir, what person or persons do hon. members opposite want to make the body, in terms of a section 40 agreement, that is to enter into a section 40 agreement with all ten of those other local authorities? Hon. members must bear in mind that the Johannesburg City Council is a U.P. city council. I assume that they want Johannesburg to be the leading local authority if one wants greater labour mobility on the Witwatersrand and if one wants to make the whole of Witwatersrand one administration area.

Obviously.

The hon. member says, “Obviously”. Can the hon. member for Brakpan tell us whether he thinks the municipality of Brakpan would fall in with such an arrangement?

Never.

Do hon. members think that any of the other local authorities would fall in with such an arrangement? Sir, one would need a King Solomon to solve the problems that would arise with having ten local authorities with ten prescribed areas. In that case section 40 would still have to be amended, for section 40 only provides that by way of agreement between local authorities one may establish one body, as happened in regard to Germiston and those other six, for the purpose of controlling, for instance, the Thembisa Bantu residential area there. But greater labour mobility is not being created, for the prescribed areas remain just as they are; a larger administration area is not being created. In any case, one would have had to amend section 40 in order to have been able to do that.

That is correct.

But, Sir, if one amended section 40, one would come up against the problem we came up against during the discussions with the United Municipal Executive and the Institute, namely that in that case one would have to amend one’s laws accordingly. Then one would land oneself in such a myriad of insoluble legal and administrative problems in bringing about co-operation between so many local authorities, that one would simply not be able to get past them. Hon. members may take my word for it that it was impossible and that we investigated the matter fully. I want to be honest in saying that I, too, was absolutely in favour of that, if it were practicable to achieve by way of a section 40 agreement the same ends as one would in terms of this Bill; if that were the case, I would have been in favour of it, but it was impossible to do things that way. But for a few exceptions on the United Municipal Executive, all the members of the U.M.E. and all the representatives of the Institute of Administratives of Non-White Affairs agreed that it could not be done by way of a section 40 agreement.

The other matter that was raised by the hon. member for Transkei—I have been very brief on the question of section 40, for there are many other things to be said and I still want to reply to the question of consultation in connection with assets—is that he said, or rather wanted to know why we said “after consultation” and not “in consultation”. I just want to tell him that as an attorney he himself should, after all, know that this is accepted practise, that in cases where the Minister has to consult with quite a number of bodies, especially bodies which may not all hold the same views, one would, if one were to say “in consultation” in the Act, tie oneself into so many knots that one would reach a point where one would simply not be able to take any action. After all, the hon. member know this. I just want to mention to him that in Britain, for instance, the position is that the Minister has to submit to the local authority concerned all the information he has at his disposal, and that he has to give them a fair chance to comment on it; that is the position in respect of health and other services which the Central Government in Britain may provide in a local authority area, and no other term than “after consultation” is being used. I also want to point out to the hon. member for Transkei that if I were prepared to write “in consultation” into this legislation, it would place one in a position where it would be possible for people and local authorities who do not want to co-operate, to obstruct one in a quite unreasonable manner in that one would then be forced by the Act to have a situation of complete unanimity, and we do not see our way clear to doing that; that is why we cannot do it in this case.

Now I come to what I promised, i.e. the matter which the hon. member for Pinelands raised in regard to clause 4 (3). The hon. member for Transkei also made the point that terribly wide powers were being granted here to the Minister, and several other members on the other side of the House waxed lyrical about this clause, which provides that the Minister may summarily remove a board member from office. I have decided to amend clause 4 (3), not because it was the intention that it would now be possible for the Minister to dismiss a member of the board for any insignificant reason, but because it was a term which was being used in other legislation and because the law advisor deemed it fit to use the term here. After the Opposition came here and made the accusations, which are not true, I decided to amend it so as to bring its wording into line with section 13 (5) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Let me just read out to the hon. member how it will read now. Clause 4 (3) will now read as follows—

Did you know that we were going to move that amendment?

I shall move that amendment. I have already arranged for this amendment to appear on the Order Paper tomorrow, before the Committee Stage, and also for other amendments. And it gives me great pleasure to do so, because I should very much like hon. members opposite to appreciate that it is not our intention here to grant the Minister powers which as they are saying, are “Tzarist powers” and all that sort of thing, and because we want to make it clear that it has never been the intention to remove such a member from office for insignificant reasons, but to put it beyond all doubt that this can only happen when he has been guilty of these offences. It is for that reason that I shall move that amendment, and I hope that in doing so the argument advanced by the other side will fall away, i.e. the argument that such exceptional powers are allegedly being granted to the Minister here and by means which suspicion is being thrown on these boards in advance. I hope that as a result of this amendment the bottom will fall out of that argument, that the argument will be destroyed.

The hon. member for Transkei asked me whether, in terms of clause 8, it would be possible for such a representative of a local authority on the board to report back to his local authority. I may as well deal at the same time with this point and with another point that was made by the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. the point he made in regard to the representatives of local authorities on this board. Let me just point out to him that if an administration area were established now, and if, for argument’s sake, there were 10 prescribed areas or 10 local authorities in that administration area, each local authority, all 10 of them, would have on that board one representative each.

That is obvious.

Yes, but it was not obvious to me whether the hon. member for Transkei quite understood it. I just want to emphasize that each of those local authorities will have representation. He has now asked me in terms of clause 8 whether such a representative of the local authority may report back to his local authority on the activities of that board or on things happening in the normal course of its activities. The answer to that is that such a representative is subject to the ordinary rules of privilege. That means that it will be possible for such a representative on the board to report back to the local authority on all matters affecting that local authority. In other words, the position is that it will not be possible for such a representative of a local authority such as Johannesburg to report to the Johannesburg City Council on matters affecting the city councils of Brakpan or Benoni, if they are serving on the same board. These are the ordinary rules of privilege which come into force here.

In regard to the question of excessive powers to the Minister, the hon. member for Transkei said that the Minister would now have the power to repeal ordinances and to do as he pleased. He specifically referred to clause 11 and clause 22 (3) (a) and (f), which deal with regulations. I asked the law advisors for their opinion on the charge made by the hon. member for Transkei, a charge that was heard on the other side like a refrain, and I shall now read out to him what the legal opinion on this matter is (translation)—

It is very important that the hon. member should understand this. For that reason I want to repeat. Clause (f) does not grant the Minister the power to make regulations which are not related to the contents of paragraphs (a) up to and including (e) of clause 22 (3)—

I want to make this very clear—

Furthermore, that the powers of regulation contained in clause 22 (3) (e) and (4) would allegedly make the Minister a dictator, or, as the hon. member said, “to dictate to employers of African workers at will, which appear to be designed to determine labour quotas to be assigned to different categories of employers and to compel workers to take up employment as directed so that, for example, urban Africans could be ordered to work on farms”. Now, that is—and I am putting it mildly— really a distortion; that is not correct. I honestly think that this is not even an interpretation, for the movement of labourers between the areas of various boards— and now I want to reply at the same time to the hon. member for Mooi River, who also raised this point—should be viewed in the light of existing legislation, i.e. that labourers are classified into the categories of commerce, industry, the building trades, the agricultural industry, domestic service, etc., so as to ensure that one does not find the wrong Bantu in the wrong categories of work. For that reason it is, after all, obvious that, just as labour surpluses and shortages may, generally speaking, occur in the areas of the respective boards, which may result in people being transferred to and fro surpluses and shortages in these various employment categories may also occur within the area of a board. Surely, that goes without saying. The board must, therefore, keep an eye on this situation. To those categories in which there are surpluses, the board has to offer employment in those categories in which there are shortages. That does not mean—and this is also intended for the hon. member for Mooi River—that there will now be transfers from non-prescribed areas to prescribed areas. The board is there for the very purpose of trying to regulate such matters.

But all of them may be in one area.

Yes, it is one area, but it still does not follow that these people may simply be transferred left, right and centre. I am making this very clear. However, it will be possible to make judicious offers in the employment categories on the basis of scientific data on surpluses and shortages, which such a board can obtain. That is the reply to that part of the statement made by the hon. member for Transkei in respect of those areas. I am speaking at length and I do not want to elaborate on this matter any further. If hon. members are not satisfied with my replies, we can, with the greatest pleasure, continue our discussions at the Committee Stage. The only point I want to make here, is that the hon. members opposite are not correct in suggesting that these specific matters are giving these so-called wide powers to the Minister, for that is not the case. As far as I am concerned, it is a foregone conclusion. I investigated the matter thoroughly. We can settle it at the Committee Stage.

Various hon. members on that side raised another matter in regard to the funds for these boards. Let me tell the hon. members opposite that, out of the more than 450 local authorities in the Republic of South Africa, there are only 21 which have deficits in their Bantu revenue accounts, deficits which have to be subsidized from the general account. There are only 21 of them. In reading out their names, I find that a very significant fact emerges, namely that, but for a few exceptions, all of these are small places. Hon. members should note what the exceptions are. I shall read out the names: Aberdeen Allanridge, Bethulie, Cookhouse, where it is so hot, Colenso Dalstroom Heilbron Johannesburg, Cape Town, Kloof, Marydale, East London, Phalaborwa, Port Edward, Queensborough, Rhodes, Uitenhage, Queenstown, Walmer, Bredasdorp, and Gordonia. These are the only places in the entire country where there are deficits in the Bantu revenue account which have to be defrayed from the general account. [Interjections.] I am not making any charges I am merely stating a fact.

Why did you bring it up here?

Just listen to that! The hon. member wants to know why I brought it up. I shall tell him why I have brought it up because the other side of this House are trying to make out a case here that these boards will not have the necessary funds at their disposal. The hon. member for Houghton went so far as to say—

That is why I have in fact made this additional point. I also said this in the course of my Second Reading speech. We investigated this question of funds very thoroughly. I want to emphasize once again that these boards will be statutory boards, they will be corporate bodies. For that reason we provided that these boards would not be dependent upon the Treasury for their funds, for if that were the case, such board would no longer be a statutory board with a corporate existence of its own. In this entire country there are only 21, and there is therefore no lack of funds for allowing these boards to function properly. I do not have the time, but I have here a list indicating the very large surpluses which exist in Bantu revenue accounts. I feel very much tempted to emphasize what the hon. member for Lichtenburg pointed out so strikingly here, namely the benefits which these administration areas and boards are going to have, especially in the rural areas, where a small town cannot afford an engineer, etc. A small town cannot afford to pay workers big salaries. However, when there is a large administration area with all its benefits, the living conditions of the people in the entire area can be improved considerably.

The hon. member for Transkei made other points as well, and I am furnishing him with replies to all of them, seriatim. The hon. member said that the clause, which provides that a fine of R200 may be imposed by regulation, was “outrageous”. I just want to tell the hon. member that this is no new principle. A fine of R200 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months may be imposed by the hon. the Minister in terms of section 10 (3) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, 1970, (Act No. 70 of 1970). Similarly, the same penalty may also be imposed by the Minister by regulation in terms of section 48 (3) of the Agricultural Credit Act 1966, (Act No. 28 of 1966). The same penalty may also be imposed by regulation in terms of section 34 (3) of the Hotels Act, 1965, (Act No. 70 of 1965). Why do hon. members opposite level this accusation against us whilst it is very clear that the position is that this is not a new principle and that it is being provided in many other Acts that a fine of R200 and imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months may be imposed by regulation? It was unkind of the hon. member for Transkei to say this.

The hon. member also spoke about the Bantu Services Levy Fund. I want to tell hon. members most emphatically that this question of the Bantu Services Levy Funds is a very sensitive matter. In this regard I do not want to give rise to any misunderstanding whatsoever. The position in respect of Bantu Services Levy Funds remains absolutely unchanged as far as this Bill is concerned. For this reason I have placed an amendment on the Order Paper for tomorrow in order that it may be clear that this matter will be dealt with in terms of clause 11 (1) (e), in which the Acts are tabulated. That means that in respect of the Bantu Services Levy Fund action in terms of this Bill will be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Bantu Services Levy Act. In other words, the status quo in respect of the utilization of levy funds is being left absolutely unchanged by this Bill. I hope this is very clear to hon. members opposite. If hon. members want an assurance, I am giving it now. I do not want anybody to be under a misapprehension in regard to this matter. I have here the assurance which Dr. Verwoerd gave at the time, and I can read it out. The question of levy funds is a matter which I could discuss with hon. members at length and in detail. I am not only giving the assurance, but I have also laid down in this amendment that this should only happen in terms of the Bantu Services Levy Act. I really hope that no further discussion will take place in regard to this matter.

The hon. member also said that it was the “height of audacity” that “services on the same charges as those which normally apply within the local authority” were being laid down in terms of clause 16. This is a very important point. This legislation provides that a local authority has to provide a board, which is to be established, with facilities, such as water, at the same charges at which it is providing its own people with such facilities. The point which the hon. member for Transkei made at that stage, was how it was going to work if, for instance, such a local authority subsidized water for the Whites in its area. The reply to that is simply that in such a case the local authority will have to consider what it is going to do in respect of that water subsidy in the future, where the board to be established is to be supplied at the same charges. Or do that hon. member and the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. Opposition want the board to pay more for the water that is to be supplied to the Bantu, if a local authority were to subsidize water in respect of the Whites? Surely that is unfair. Unfair to whom? It is unfair to the Bantu. If that is the standpoint of the Opposition, the hon. member should simply tell us. I think the hon. member is chasing up a hare here. What is more, this is an old accepted principle, for section 20 (2) of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act provides very explicitly—

I am dealing with it as a technical point. But what are the consequences of this kind of statement that is made here? It is being sent out into the world—and this is in fact the way it was interpreted by the newspapers—that unfair steps are being taken here in respect of the local authorities, whereas this is an accepted principle which has obtained all these years and which is incorporated in the existing Bantu (Urban Areas) Act, which is not being amended at all. And last but not least, the United Municipal Executive accepted clause 16 as it is, because they realized that this was the true state of affairs.

I have almost finished. I think I have replied to all the points raised by the hon. member for Transkei. I think I have also responded to those points which were raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and which I considered to be of importance. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark responded, more especially, to the story which was brought up here in regard to the Resettlement Board area and the Soweto area and in which these two were compared with each other. Hon. members on that side of the House spoke almost disparagingly of the Resettlement Board. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark dealt very effectively with that. I am not going to succumb to the temptation of responding to it, apart from saying most emphatically that the Resettlement Board, which has only been operating for five or six years, has accomplished a very great deal during these few years of its existence. It was not fair of hon. members on the other side of the House to speak disparagingly of the Resettlement Board by way of contrast with the Johannesburg City Council and in respect of Soweto. Hon. members opposite should merely take a look, as I did, at the Bantu hostel at Dube, and compare it with the Bantu hostel in Diepkloof.

I also want to be very emphatic in saying that, whenever it is brought to our notice that improvements may be effected in certain cases, I have the courage of my convictions and, after I have carried out investigations and if I consider such improvements to be necessary, I am not ashamed of effecting them. When, some time ago, a storm of criticism was raised about Diepkloof, I paid visits to those two places, Diepkloof and Dube. Let me say now that the Diepkloof hostel is in many respects better than the one in Dube. They are at least comparable. In any case, the Diepkloof hostel has single rooms, which the Dube hostel does not have. Regard should be had to the fact that the Diepkloof hostel is still a new one. Gardens, etc., have not yet been laid out there. Diepkloof will become a very popular hostel. The point I want to make here is that when this criticism was raised. I requested the Resettlement Board to submit to me a proper report in regard to the standards they maintain. I made sure of the fact that they complied with the standards laid down for Bantu hostels. I want to thank them for that. But what else did I do? We are not being callous about these matters; we are fair and sympathetic. At the time I went along and said that they had in fact acted within the standards but I nevertheless asked them to go back in order to improve the conditions there in respect of a number of things. I mentioned a whole string of them. They are doing some of those things at the moment, and they have also done many of them already. It is because they are doing such excellent work that I reject the criticism in respect of the Resettlement Board. Now, if one wants to draw a contrast, I may just mention that the Resettlement Board is not in the Red as far as its accounts are concerned. There is no need for the board to subsidize its affairs out of the general White account, and to my mind this is indicative of good administration. Furthermore, the hon. members should remember that the relations between the Bantu and the Resettlement Board and also the council of Sebokeng, can hardly be sounder or better. Nobody can dispute that. Provision is being made for all the basic needs. The administration there is based on fair, just and humane grounds and, at the same time, also on the maintenance of good law and order and the necessary decisiveness. Do hon. members know what the result of that is? The result is that in respect of the collection of Bantu rentals in Sebokeng there is virtually a 100 per cent collection. As far as the Resettlement Board is concerned, the collection of rentals is well over 90 per cent. For that reason there are no deficits, and for that reason things are going well there.

The hon. member for Houghton came forward here with the big complaint that “there was a crying need for funds for housing for Bantu people in Soweto”. Now, I just want to mention to the hon. members the following facts, and after that I shall leave the matter at that. Are hon. members aware that from 1967 to 1970 the National Housing Fund granted, through the Bantu Housing Board, the following amounts to local authorities for Bantu housing? In 1967 the amount of R8,742,000 was granted. Do hon. members know how much of that amount was used during that year? The amount of R8,524,000 was used. That means that it came out fairly even that year. What was the position in 1968? The hon. member wants to make the world believe that “there is a crying need for funds for Bantu housing in Soweto” and the implications that are coupled with it. Really, I want to reject that with more than just the ordinary rejection —and then it is strong! In 1968 the Bantu Housing Board was granted R11,839,000 by the Department of Community Development. Do hon. members know how much of that was taken up by the local authorities? Only R8,642,000 was taken up. More than R3 million was not even taken up, and then this hon. member says “there is a crying need for funds for Bantu housing”.

I want to expose that hon. member by showing her what is actually happening in South Africa, because in the discussion of this Bill she wants to make the world believe things which are devoid of all truth. I hope may say this, Sir. In 1969 the Department of Community Development granted R9,594,000 to the Bantu Housing Fund. Do hon. members know how much of that was taken up? Merely an amount of R6,989,000. That means that R3 million was left. The previous year an amount of R3 million was left as well, and then she in her typical feminine way, is the one who tells the people that “there is a crying need for funds for Bantu housing”—that is what she said whilst over the last two years there was an amount of R6 million that was not taken up. I took the trouble to try to obtain the figure for 1970. In 1970 an amount of R7,642,372 was voted by the Bantu Housing Board, and they assured me this morning that there was no need to refuse funds for one single approved scheme for Bantu housing in White South Africa. However, they were as yet unable to say what amount had actually been taken up. Now I leave the matter at that.

How long does it take to approve those plans?

I just want to add the following. The hon. member as well as other hon. members on that side waxed lyrical …

Order! If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to reply to all the interjections, he will never finish his speech.

No, Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to reply. As it is important, I want to add that there are hon. members who have been creating the impression that there is such a terrible shortage of Bantu housing in Soweto. That is true; there is a shortage of Bantu housing. We are not denying that—but let me, with the greatest emphasis, give hon. members the assurance this afternoon that since I became Deputy Minister there has not been one request made by the Johannesburg City Council for Bantu housing that was refused by my department or by me.

There are many other matters to which I could have replied. I am not going to reply to any other points now. I think I have elaborated at very great length on most points that were raised here. I want to conclude by just adding that, in so far as it is possible to incorporate in this Bill the requests which were made by hon. members on this side of the House—i.e. the hon. members for Langlaagte, Stilfontein, Lichtenburg and Brakpan—and which I considered properly and thoroughly, I shall see to it that the necessary amendments appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. I am leaving the matter at that.

I conclude by saying that from what I said, hon. members will appreciate that these boards are being established as statutory boards and that the administration will be attended with fairness, justness and humanity and with the implementation of the policy of multinational development. Sir, by your leave I want to extend my very sincere thanks to the senior officials of my department who were involved in this Bill for the major contribution they made in this matter. You will also permit me. Sir, to thank the Institute of Administrators of non-White Officials, not only for their support, but also for the important contributions they made. You will permit me, Sir, to thank the United Municipal Executive for the contributions they made. I am particularly appreciative of the fact that, while some of them did not agree with the principle, they lent their full co-operation in regard to this Bill.

Whereas we have here, in an unbiased manner, made an honest attempt at improving, by way of specialization, Bantu administration, bringing about labour mobility and involving experts, I want to conclude by asking members opposite to give us a fair chance and opportunity to initiate a new phase, to introduce a new direction with many possibilities in regard to Bantu administration in this country, which we would gladly do with great dedication—and I am speaking on behalf of everybody who is involved in the matter.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of this Bill is to amend the provisions of the Publications and Entertainments Act of 1963. In broad outline the amendments comprise the prohibition of the exhibition of cinematograph films intended to be exhibited in public, unless approved by the Board; the provision that the Board may impose conditions in respect of the giving of any public entertainment; the provision that members of the Board or persons so authorized may seize certain objects and publications, and the application of the Act to South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now proceed to explain the above mentioned and other amendments. To make it convenient for hon. members, I shall deal with them clause by clause.

Clause 1: All that is being done in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this clause is to rectify the references to other statutory provisions which have been substituted, viz. the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, which was substituted for the Customs Act of 1955. Provision is being made in the proposed paragraph (b) to include the Territory of South-West Africa in the definition of “Republic” as well. It will then be possible to apply the provisions of the principal Act and of this Bill in the Territory. More about this later.

Clauses 2 and 3: These clauses also contain only the necessary rectification of the references to the Customs and Excise Act of 1964.

Clause 4, in which amendments to section 9 of the principal Act are being proposed, is important and I am going to deal with each of the five paragraphs separately. The following amendments are being proposed:

Paragraph (a), which amends subsection (1) (a) will entail that a prohibition is placed on all exhibitions of a cinematograph film, intended to be exhibited in public, except to a person concerned in the making thereof, unless such cinematograph film has been approved by the Board. This provision proceeds from what is already contained in subsection (1) (b), viz. that any such cinematograph film which has not been so approved, may not be published. In this connection it can be explained that it has happened that a cinematograph film intended to be exhibited in public, has been privately exhibited before it was reviewed by the Publications Board, or without the cuts recommended by the Board having been made. It can only be assumed that the purpose of this previewing was to influence certain members of the public, before the Board considered a cinematograph film, to express opinions in favour of the cinematograph film shortly prior to or during the consideration of such cinematograph film by the Board. Apart from the fact that previewing of cinematograph films intended to be exhibited in public amounts to a stirring up of public opinion against the Board when a cinematograph film is considered, it defeats the object of the Act because cinematograph films which are intended to be exhibited in public are then exhibited without the approval of the Board in any case. Hon. members will agree that this is an undesirable state of affairs, which definitely cannot be tolerated, and therefore must be rectified. Here I should like to make it very clear that private cinematograph films are not affected by the proposed amendment of subsection (1). The existing statutory provision does not prohibit the exhibition of a cinematograph film provided it is not, as laid down in the subsection, exhibited in public or at any place to which admission is obtained by virtue of membership of any association of persons or for any consideration, direct or indirect, or by virtue of any contribution towards any funds. These are existing provisions which have already been passed by Parliament and included in the Act.

To give the lie to the statements which have been made so enthusiastically in the Press, viz. that these provisions and the provisions in paragraph (c) of this clause, to which I shall come in a moment, also relate to cinematograph films which are not yet in South Africa, perhaps I should state at this juncture already that it was never the intention to involve those cinematograph films and that the Government law advisers have repeatedly assured me that such an intention cannot be read into the paragraphs as they have been worded. I also want to state that in the opinion of the Government law advisers a cinematograph film which is still in the process of being made cannot be regarded as a cinematograph film for the purposes of the Act. After all, the Act does not require parts of uncompleted cinematograph films to be submitted to the Board for approval, but the provisions of the Act are in fact applicable to parts of completed cinematograph films intended for public exhibition. As a matter of fact, this interpretation has always been maintained in the application of the Act. What the proposed amendment amounts to therefore is that although a cinematograph film is intended to be exhibited in public, it may not be exhibited in private without the approval of the Board either.

The proposed amendment of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) is simply a correction of the wording in the light of the proposed wording of paragraph (a).

In paragraph (e) of this clause, i.e. the proposed amendment of subsection (4), it is provided that the Board may determine to which group of persons a cinematograph film which has been approved may be exhibited. A group of persons specified by the Board may be any group, for example an age group or a population group, and in the same way as no reference is at present made to age groups in the subsection either, it is also not necessary to refer to persons of a particular race or class. In terms of the existing statutory provisions, the Board must in any case specify in its approval the conditions under which and the group of persons to whom a cinematograph film may be exhibited. Furthermore, with a view to the proposed application of the Act in the Territory of South-West Africa, it is being ensured that no statutory provisions which may possibly be interpreted as being based on race or class, shall be applied in that Territory. You will recall that during the previous session the hon. House also approved of this action when the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act and the Marriage Act was being applied to South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to paragraph (c) of the clause, i.e. the insertion of a new subsection (4) (a) in section 9. The intention of this subsection is, in the first place, to prevent the person who has control over a cinematograph film intended to be exhibited in public, in other words, the person who has to submit the cinematograph film to the Board, from doing anything to influence the Board in its assessment of the film. In the second place, the subsection is aimed at preventing public controversy during the consideration of a cinematograph film.

Why?

Hon. members will agree that it is a completely undesirable state of affairs, and I do not expect that hon. member to agree, that the Board should be deliberately influenced and that everyone should participate enthusiastically in public in the assessment of a cinematograph film when a statutory body has to assess it objectively in accordance with certain statutory provisions and prescribed rules. Such a body, which is also a quasi-judicial body, is to some extent entitled to the protection of a rule such as applies in regard to pending court proceedings to eliminate prejudice—yes even condemnation of the body established by law, mostly without all the facts— while it is still engaged in the consideration of a cinematograph film.

[Inaudible.]

I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give me a chance to make my Second Reading speech without interruptions.

After decisions have been taken, however, the public must be at liberty to level criticism so that public opinion may in this way be ascertained.

Thirdly, the objective with this new subsection is to prevent the publication of any particulars relating to a cinematograph film which may possibly not comply with the requirements of the Act or which have been prohibited by the Board. It would completely defeat the object of control over undesirable particulars in cinematograph films if such particulars, that is pictures and dialogues, are published through another medium, e.g. newspapers, magazines and books. However, if reporting in newspapers which are members of the Press Union is done according to the code of behaviour of the Press Union, it is in my opinion unlikely that particulars of rejected cinematograph films will be published in such a way in such newspapers that it will defeat the object of the Act in regard to control over cinematograph films, and if there is any infringement by other publications in this respect, steps can be taken against them in terms of the provisions of the existing Act.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of what I have just said, I shall during the Committee Stage move that the proposed subsection (4A) of section 9 be substituted by a subsection which will read as follows—

Hon. members will note that this amendment, which I shall move, will now make subsection (4A) applicable only to the person who has to or will submit the cinematograph film to the Board. However, if it happens in future that other persons deliberately attempt to influence the Board while it is engaged in assessing a cinematograph film, then I want to make it very clear now that there will be no hesitation in expanding the provisions of the subsection to include them as well. I hope that very careful heed will be paid to this warning.

The proposed amendment in paragraph (d) subparagraph (7A) is merely consequential, and makes any contravention of the new subsection (4A) punishable.

Mr. Speaker, the object of the proposal as contained in paragraph (e), i.e. the insertion of a new subsection (8), is to afford any person who is charged with having admitted a person who falls within the age restrictions imposed on a cinematograph film by the Board to a place where it is being exhibited, an opportunity in court of proving that be believed on reasonable grounds that the person whom he admitted did not fall within the prohibited age group. This is actually a principle which applies in general in respect of the onus of proof, but it is being included here as a guiding line for the courts. The onus remains on the person responsible to take the necessary reasonable precautions in this connection.

We come now to clause 5—this is an amendment of section 10 (c) (xiii)—and here I should like to draw attention to the beginning of paragraph (e), viz. “depict in an offensive manner”, and then the sub-paragraph (xiii), “scenes of violence”. Whether there are Whites and non-Whites involved, does not make it more offensive. In other words, scenes of violence are offensive or they are not offensive, and the words “involving White and non-White persons” should be omitted, when this matter is viewed particularly in the light of the present-day tendency of cinematograph film-makers to depict and overemphasize scenes of violence in an offensive manner. This is the main reason for this.

Mr. Speaker, as section 12 (1) of the Act reads at present, the Board may only prohibit a public entertainment. The need exists, however, to invest the Board with the power, as in the case of cinematograph films, to allow entertainments conditionally, i.e. to place restrictions, inter alia, in respect of dialogue, place of exhibition and groups of persons to whom it may be exhibited, etc. Consequently it is being proposed in paragraph (a) of clause 6 that the existing statutory provisions be amended accordingly. The proposed amendment in paragraph (b) of this clause is merely consequential, and the one in paragraph (c) contains the same principle in respect of the onus of proof as is contained in clause 4 (e) and which I have already explained.

In clause 7 it is being proposed that a new section 13A be inserted after section 13 in the principal Act, in which it is being provided that a member of the Board or any person authorized thereto in writing by the Board, may enter upon any place in which it is suspected that any undesirable publication is printed, published, manufactured, exhibited, sold or offered or kept for sale, and may examine and remove such publications or objects. Section 5 (1) of the Act already places a prohibition, non-compliance with which is punishable, on the production and dissemination of publications and objects of this kind. The Department of Customs and Excise is at present doing this work in respect of imported goods in terms of the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act, but in due course consideration will have to be given to appointing inspectors for the Publications Control Board to trace obscene materials manufactured or printed in the Republic. At present the Board must confine itself to what is submitted to it. In respect of cinematograph films and public entertainments there is in fact a provision in section 13 (1) to admit to such an exhibition a member of the Board or a person authorized thereto in writing by the Board.

It is by no means the intention merely to appoint untrained and uninformed persons for this purpose. However, it may be alleged that if the Board should be in error in this respect, it cannot be called to account, and I shall consequently in the Committee Stage propose that the word “Board” in line 51 on page 6 of the Bill be omitted and the word “Minister” substituted.

Mr. Speaker, clause 8 is also merely another rectification of the reference to the Customs and Excise Act of 1964 in section 14 (1) of the Principal Act.

As regards the amendment of section 16 which is being proposed in clause 9, viz. the insertion of a new paragraph (dA) after paragraph (d) of subsection (1) I should like to explain that the Board receives numerous requests for the issue of duplicate certificates to persons who rent or purchase cinematograph films from the major companies. The companies refuse to part with certificates to lessees or purchasers. Provision ought to be made for charging fees for this service. The present powers of the Minister to make regulations, do not include the power to charge fees in respect of duplicate film certificates. It is further being proposed that any regulations in this regard shall be made in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

In clause 10 it is being proposed that section 20 of the principal Act, which amended section 21 of the Customs Act of 1955, be repealed. This section is at present merely academic since this provision has been incorporated in the Customs and Excise Act of 1964.

Mr. Speaker, as will be noted, it is being proposed in clause 11 (section 22A) that the provisions of the principal Act, with the exception of section 10 (c) (xiv) shall also apply in the Territory of South-West Africa. In this connection I should first like to explain why section 10 (c) (xiv) is being excluded. The paragraph in question should be read as follows—

This provision must most certainly be retained for the Republic because it is aimed at not allowing any cinematograph films which give such depictions to disturb the harmonious co-existence of our many peoples. This is in keeping with the policy of the Government in this country. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, it is being ensured, as has already been indicated previously, that no provisions of this Parliament which may be interpreted as being the application of our internal policy in this respect in that Territory, are applied. In the Republic the definitions, as laid down in the Population Registration Act, 1950, are followed in legislation which refers to White and non-White persons, and that Act is not applicable to South-West Africa.

Secondly, I want to repeat, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the provisions of the Act are being made applicable in South-West Africa, as envisaged in the South-West Africa Affairs Act, Act No. 25 of 1969. Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the aforesaid Act refers. In clause 12 (1) it is being proposed that certain Ordinances which still exist at present in South-West Africa, be repealed. These do not require any further explanations. Nor do the proposed provisions of clause 12 (2). These merely provide that cinematograph films which are approved in that territory in terms of existing legislation, are deemed to have been approved in terms of this Bill. In clause 12 (3) it is being proposed that clause 12 and clause 11 (that is the application of the Principal Act to South-West Africa) shall come into operation on a date to be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

I think it is necessary to explain the circumstances which gave rise to this. During the consideration of the matter with the commencement of the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969 (Act No. 25 of 1969), it was decided not to disturb the position in South-West Africa, and the Minister of the Interior acted in terms of section 19 of the said Act by appointing a Board of Inspectors for the Territory in terms of the provisions of the Cinematographic Film Ordinance. 1928, of South-West Africa. This Board, consisting of at least three members, was anointed for three years until 31st March, 1972, and is only concerned with the selection of cinematograph films which have not already been approved by the Publications Control Board. Consequently these are mainly German cinematograph films intended only for the Territory. It has now also been decided that, taking into account all the factors and circumstances, it will be desirable to allow that Board to serve for the full period of its appointment, i.e. until 31st March, 1972, and that the promulgation by proclamation in the Gazette of the application of the Act to South-West Africa should coincide with the expiry of the term of office of the Board of Inspectors. Here it is not a case of the application of an Act of Parliament in South-West Africa by way of proclamation. Clause 11 provides that the Act shall be applicable there. It is only that, for the reasons I have mentioned, the juncture at which the Act will come into operation there shall be determined by the State President by proclamation. Clause 13 contains merely the short title of the Bill.

In the light of the proposed amendments to clauses 4 and 7, I shall also, during the Committee Stage, propose that the long title of the Bill be amended by omitting in the fifth, sixth and seventh lines the words: “to prohibit the publication of particulars relating to certain cinematograph films or certain portions of certain cinematograph films”, and to substitute the words: “to provide for the unfettered performance of functions by the Board and the Minister,” and by omitting in the twelfth line the words “said board”, and to substitute the words “the Minister”.

I want to let the foregoing explanations suffice for the moment. The details of the clauses in question may, if necessary, be discussed more extensively during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Before concluding, however, I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the proposed amendments do not comprise any fundamental changes in the principle of the principal Act. It is primarily aimed at rectifying existing deficiencies. I therefore want to make an appeal to hon. members to confine themselves to the discussion of the proposed amendment and not to elaborate on the principle of control and selection of publications, cinematograph films and entertainments, which was approved as long ago as 1963. If necessary, attention can be given to this matter and the actions of the Publications Board during the discussion of the Interior Vote.

Mr. Speaker, the one matter the hon. the Deputy Minister has not dealt with is to explain to this House the strange passage of this particular piece of legislation. It appeared very early on the Order Paper. It appeared there in a clear form, but the story since then is one of inefficiency, of muddling and confusion as far as this particular legislation and the department are concerned. The Bill first appeared on the Order Paper with high priority. It sank lower and lower on the Order Paper as the days and the weeks passed. The reason for this has become clear over these weeks. First of all, the public reaction exposed certain ridiculous aspects of the legislation which was to be placed before this House. Secondly the hon. the Deputy Minister himself, through the press, made it known that he was receiving innumerable representations and that he had received and was receiving deputations. Now we come today to debate this measure and the hon. the Deputy Minister stands up and indicates fundamental changes to the Bill as published. The hon. the Deputy Minister was good enough a day or two ago to give me copies of the amendments that he proposes to move at a later stage of this Bill. He did so in confidence. I take it that the hon. members sitting in this House have received tonight for the first time, an indication of the amendments which the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to introduce into this Bill. They have not been published on the Order Paper. They have not been made known to the public which has become vitally concerned with this piece of legislation. Now we have what are new principles foreshadowed in the proposals of the hon. the Minister.

I do not want to anticipate the ruling which may be given by the Chairman in the Committee Stage regarding the admissibility or otherwise of these amendments, but I should like to say that the amendments are directed at one point only which I want to mention at his stage. That is to stop the very thing which caused this hon. Deputy Minister and the Government to amend this legislation, namely public opinion. They are not to be fettered by public opinion in the administration of this legislation. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that so far as the long title was concerned, he proposed to say that one of the intentions of this Bill was to provide for the unfettered functions by the Board and the Minister. Unfettered by what? Unfettered by public opinion. That is certainly not a concept which we on this side of the House can support.

Perhaps I can remind hon. members that this is a complete somersault from the whole approach of the Government in 1963 when this legislation was first introduced. The hon. Senator De Klerk, the then Minister went to great pains to say that it was not censorship that was aimed at in this legislation. It was to be control. He said—and I refer to Hansard of the 11th February, 1963—that the actual judge of these concepts will be the reading, the seeing and the listening public. The public will determine. The public will give directions. Public opinion will assist in establishing a yardstick. That was the very basis upon which this legislation was introduced in the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he is introducing no new principles in the legislation which is before us tonight.

Hon. members will be in some difficulty, having read and heard of the proposals for the first time while the hon. the Deputy Minister was speaking. I want to make one or two …

You had them for five days.

Who had it for five days?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister will know that he gave it to me in confidence. It was confidential to me and he was the one who would make the first announcement in this House. He wanted to assist me personally because I had to reply immediately after he spoke. This is the position in which the House finds itself this evening in debating this particular issue.

I have already indicated the view which we hold regarding the procedure and the handling of this Bill, a conclusion in which we are justified. I think we are justified too to point to the clumsy handling of this legislation. Perhaps I might say to the hon. the Prime Minister that there is one Department in which his exhortation to “opknapping” has not been applied. That is in so far as the handling of this particular Bill is concerned.

I definitely will not ask your advice about it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the basic differences between this side of the House and the hon. the Deputy Minister in the approach to the control of publications. I should like to get the record perfectly straight so far as this side of the House is concerned. There are few, if any, responsible citizens in South Africa who would advocate the uncontrolled publication of certain matters whether in a film or in any other way. First of all I refer to the publication of matters which are indecent, obscene or harmful to public morals. Secondly we support the control and the prohibition of the publication of matters which are subversive to the maintenance of law and order in this country, or which are subversive to the authority of the State, as assembled here in Parliament. We are opposed to the publication of such things and we desire the control of matters which are blasphemous. We have stated before in this House that we on this side of the House believe that legislation to deal with these matters are necessary.

However, it is asking us to go too far if the Government want us to accept legislation which contains principles such as we have before us this evening in this particular legislation. We, on this side of the House, have appreciated and we have realized, and I am sure the position is the same with certain members on the other side of the House, that legislation must be balanced in such a way that it does not provide for the permissiveness of the libertine, if I may use the words which have been used by the judges in our courts. At the same time legislation must not permit the imposition of the bigotry of a prude on the whole nation’s reading and the films they will see.

The Bill introduces major matters of principle. Again, I want to say at the very outset that we on this side of the House accept the attitude which has been adopted in regard to the one loophole which has existed, and that is the private showing of films which have been censored for public showing. If a film has been censored we believe it should not be shown uncensored to the public in general and it should not be available uncensored for the select few to be seen in whatever the circumstances may be. To what extent we are in agreement with the Government. However, we want to add that in our view, this makes it all the more necessary that censor hip and control should be exercised in such a way that they carry the support of public opinion. In other words the public should feel that what has been done has been done in a fair and in a just manner and not because of the bigotry, as I have said, of a prudish approach.

The Bill before us deals with several matters and I will deal with some of them. Hon. members on this side will deal with other aspects of this Bill, firstly, the draft of clause 4(A), which is before us at this moment, exposes the whole approach of this Government in regard to censorship. The Government’s approach to censorship is to impose a shroud of secrecy around any matter which does not carry the approval of the Publications Board. The second matter I want to raise is the aspect to which the hon. the Minister has referred, and that is the provision to permit the Board to now embark upon its own tours of inspection by establishing its own inspectorate. The Minister has now said that he will appoint what is now called, the corps of “super snoopers” and that they will not be appointed by the board any more. But the principle there is an extension of the existing law that the board itself now can have its own inspectorate attending to or looking into various matters, visiting various premises and calling for the production of various documents which to them might seem objectionable.

But the hon. the Minister also has not explained to us how this Bill came to be published. Where did this particular clause, clause 4(A) come from? From where did the thought of the necessity of this shroud of secrecy emanate? When the hon. the Minister was asked whether this Bill and the thoughts contained in it emanated from the Publications Control Board, he said: “Oh, no. In fact the board has not even seen the final draft of the Bill”. Where then does it come from? What is the need or this particular legislation? I think the hon. the Deputy Minister, in replying and asking us for the Second Reading, should indicate to us which is the brain that masterminded this piece of draft legislation. Where does it come from? It certainly has not been asked for by the Publications Board, according to the reply which he gave to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I do not think myself that I could even accept that it came from the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. There must have been some other prodding, and we would be most interested to know where that prodding came from. What does clause 4(A), as it is here before us, mean? The hon. the Minister has now conceded that this Government brought before us legislation which would have precluded the introduction into this country of any books, magazines or periodicals dealing with films or the film industry which might depict films not yet approved of by the board, that is as the law was.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister himself conceded that it would have prevented publications of that kind. This was put onto the Order Paper before us as a piece of legislation.

Okay. Go on.

All knowledge of this hive of activity in the film industry of the world, from the artistic centres of the world, must be concealed from the public of South Africa until the Publications Control Board has said it will be good for the public to know what is going on in Vienna, Rome, Los Angeles, London, Paris or any other part of the world. No, Sir, the Deputy Minister has now tried to backpedal with the indication of the amendment which he has suggested. But what is the amendment? If anything, the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to introduce during the Committee Stage, is even more absurd than the provision in the law as it is now. What does the Deputy Minister say? He wishes now to prevent any person, who is concerned with the distribution of a film, doing anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister in coming to a decision. He has now been kind and frank enough to elaborate a little more on that topic and has told us that what he means is that there must be no “opsweping van die publieke mening”. What a suggestion with which to come to this House! What is this influence of public opinion? Surely, it is the very basis of democratic government that we have regard to public opinion, that we conform to public opinion, that we try and guide public opinion. But to put complete blinkers on or to blindfold public opinion is, I think, something that was stopped some centuries ago and has no place in the modern life of this country.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

When the House adjourned, I was dealing with the amendment of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given notice in the course of his introduction of this measure, and I suggested that what he was proposing to put into the Bill in place of subsection (4) (A) was, if anything, worse than what is there at the moment. The Deputy Minister has suggested that he intends moving for the inclusion of the following provision—

The Deputy Minister added that what was aimed at was the elimination of the influence of public opinion in so far as those two decisions were concerned, i.e. a decision by the board or by the Minister. Mr. Speaker, why this veil of secrecy? Why this veil of secrecy as far as the activities of the board are concerned? Should an individual in terms of the Deputy Minister’s suggestion make known a cut that has been imposed on a film, he will contravene the Minister’s ideas of what is permissible under the application of the Act. In 1963 the then Minister said the basic concept of this legislation was that there should be a searchlight on the activities of the board so that public opinion could be formulated in support of the activities of the board. That is the correct approach because it is basic and axiomatic that justice must be seen to be done. Those who sit in judgment should publicly discharge those duties. What is more, one would hope that those who sit in judgment would be prepared to ensure that by their decisions they would gain the confidence and approval of all decent minded people in the country. It is up to the Board to gain the confidence and the approval if public opinion is allowed to play its part in determining whether or not the activities of the Board are to gain support. The principle which the Deputy Minister stated, that there shall not be an expression of public opinion and that no reason should be made public, is the very principle which the Prime Minister complained about when he referred to a decision of the World Court in overruling an objection submitted by South Africa, an objection which was summarily dismissed, without any reason given. Sir, we cannot have two standards for testing what is right and what is wrong in the administration of laws or in the carrying out of responsibilities imposed by the law. As I have said, it is basic and axiomatic that justice must also be seen to be done. Unfortunately, the proposals of the hon. the Deputy Minister gives evidence once more that in so far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, and in so far as this Government is concerned, negative thinking is part of their philosophy; its entire approach is “thou shalt not —thou shall not do this, thou shall not do that; thou shall not see this, and thou shall not see that”. It is a basic approach of this Government that all legislation ought to be based on the approach of “thou shalt not”.

As I say, there ought to be more publicity than there already is in so far as decisions of the Publications Control Board are concerned. Mr. Justice Fannin in dealing with an appeal recently against a decision of the Board referred to the powers of the Board and said these “were very extensive, indeed almost draconian”. Now, ought these powers to be exercised in secrecy? Should decisions of the Board be revealed or should they be concealed from the public? I believe they ought to be revealed, particularly so far as films are concerned, so that film producers, playwrights and authors will know what norm the Board applies to their productions and publications. We expect such open conduct in other aspects of our national life. Let me refer you, Mr. Speaker, to one or two comments emanating from our learned judges in dealing with the activities of the Publications Control Board. For instance, Mr. Justice Rumpff in dealing with a decision of the Board said—

What case was that?

I shall give my hon. and learned friend the Supreme Court reference later. But let me proceed to quote Justice Rumpff. In regard to the basic requirements applicable to control exercised by this measure he said—

That is the whole approach. That is the whole spirit which we find manifested in what the hon. the Deputy Minister has suggested tonight. There have been criticisms of the Board and of its decisions, and I will quote very briefly from others which have been made by the judiciary of South Africa. Mr. Justice Diemont, in connection with another case, said—

He continued—

Sir, that is the unbiased approach which has come from the judiciary and which applies equally to films as it applies to books. Mr. Justice Tebbutt, in another judgment, went further and said—

Sir, this is an objective approach, and if the decisions of this board are not cloaked in secrecy, it can look forward to having public support and public backing for its actions.

Finally, Sir, I would like to quote from a judgment of Mr. Justice Fannin, in which he referred to certain publications which were published for the purpose of explaining certain aspects of pregnancy, of conception and birth. He said these are not matters which must be hidden from the public, and unless the Control Board gives its reasons for cutting scenes or cutting passages in books dealing with these subjects, the public does not know what is motivating the Board.

They still believe in storks.

Sir, I quote these matters because I believe, quite frankly— ard I am strengthened in this view by the way in which this Bill has come before us —that the Government itself is unaware of the norms which are applied by the Board. I was interested, for instance, to read in Die Burger of 9th February, 1971, in the column by André Rossouw. He wrote—

It was a particularly hot week-end in the Cape—

Sir, I was interested when this was mentioned in Die Burger, because I had on my desk the official journal of the Bantu Affairs Department, which portrayed exactly the same scene. But I presume that the scene which was cut, was of a White skin and the scene which is permitted is of a non-White skin. Of course, Sir, I submitted this to the Board and I asked them to be consistent. I suggested to the Board that if that cut should be made from the film, then surely this January issue of Bantu equally offended against their standards. [Interjections.] I did it in writing, and I received a reply from the chairman, who was good enough to regard it as an official submission and then placed it before the Board. I was advised that the Board found nothing objectionable in it. I cannot ask the Board for its reasons; it would not give me any reasons, but if because of this veil of secrecy public opinion cannot be directed towards two decisions of this sort, how can we find out what is the norm which is applied by this Board in controlling publications?

I believe that the whole attitude of the Board should be more implicitly directed towards the giving of publicity to the performance of its duties. It is empowered at the present moment—and these powers will be even further entrenched—to act in vacuo; to give decisions without any motivation whatsoever. Sir, the Board has been approached by responsible persons and organizations to give reasons for its decisions so that the publisher, the playwright and the film producer can know where and how he might offend the susceptibilities of the Board in applying the law as it is. I want to quote some of the answers that have been given by the Board. When the Board was requested to give the reasons for banning a book, the reply was—

When it was asked for a reason for cutting a scene from a film, the Board replied—

When it was asked to comment on the banning of a poster the Board replied—

You are criticizing the Act,

I am quoting the words of the Board, Sir. When asked to reconsider a decision the Board replied—

I am very glad, Sir, that there was one exception when the Star’s overseas edition was banned in error. There it reconsidered its decision and withdrew the banning order.

But, Sir, the most important and serious one is this: These requests may have been from persons with a direct interest. But when the South African Libraries Journal, which is a serious publication in South Africa, makes an approach to the Board so that it can give the public the motivation of the Board and tell the public how it acts and what norm it applies, I find that in the January, 1971 editorial of that journal the editor reports that—

And—

Sir, surely South Africans should not be treated in this way by a body which is created by statute.

What journal was that?

The South African Libraries Journal of January, 1971.

There was an article, was there not?

This was the leading article in the journal, saying that they had not received a contribution from the Board. Sir, I believe that South Africans by and large are responsible persons. Their judgment between right and wrong and good and bad does not have to be replaced by the arbitrary powers of the Board—I stress the words “arbitrary powers”. Their decisions are not even made known in respect of films and which now, according to the hon. the Minister, if his attitude is correct, may not even be discussed because they might result in fettering his judgment in deciding whether or not to allow an appeal. I repeat that we should aim at obtaining the co-operation of the public. None of us in this House preaches uncontrolled permissiveness, but we do seek public awareness of what is going on in the film industry and in so far as publications are concerned. Secrecy arouses curiosity and it is the very secrecy which has been attached to film censorship in the past which has aroused the curiosity of the public who have in the past sought opportunities of seeing uncensored films because they want to know what the board has been up to and how it has cut films.

I do not propose to deal at length with other aspects of the Bill, except to mention one or two clauses in passing. I want to deal briefly with clause 7, which provides for the establishment now of a board of inspectors at the instance of the board, or, as the Minister has suggested, under his control as far as the appointments are concerned. Sir, surely this is unnecessary. Surely this is an unnecessary step in twentieth century South Africa. We have found, and we know from reading reports in the press, that the vice squad of our South African Police is able to deal very effectively with cases of pornography, etc., that should be punished. The specialist divisions of the Police are able to deal with these matters without the establishment of a special corps of inspectors as envisaged by this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has gone to some trouble to try to explain to us the reason why there should be a change in the law so far as South-West-Africa is concerned in applying this particular legislation. The position at the moment is that in future South-West Africa will not be subject to certain conditions and prohibitions on exhibiting films which show the intermingling of the different races, of Whites and non-Whites. I looked at this and I do not know whether it is a compliment to the citizens of South-West Africa who will not be corrupted when they see these scenes or whether it is an insult to the citizens of South Africa who apparently will be corrupted if they see such scenes, which will not be offensive to South-West Africans. I think the hon. members from South-West Africa apparently feel with me that this is a tribute to the citizens of South-West Africa.

Or else the Government does not care if they are corrupted. That is the point.

I believe the time has now arrived for the Government to realize that its approach to censorship and to the control of publications in South Africa is unacceptable to the vast majority of people in South Africa. They regard it as insulting for every South African to be treated as a juvenile, or to be told, when he must not see a film or read a book, and that he will not be given a reason why he cannot see that film or cannot read that book. I mentioned in the commencement of my remarks before dinner that the approach to this Bill by the Government in 1963 was an acceptable one. It was based on the assumption that public opinion would be cultivated and would be persuaded by a frank disclosure by the Publications Board that what was being done by the board was correct and justified. Tonight we find in the proposals before us a completely opposite approach, and I believe an approach which, as I say, is not acceptable to South Africa, and an approach which we on this side of the House certainly do not accept. Therefore we will oppose this legislation.

The tone of the hon. member for Green Point’s argument betrays his bitter disappointment about the fact that the Minister, as he said here, has proposed fundamental changes in the Bill. Sir, when the hon. member said that his entire hour-long speech was also at an end, and since then he has only engaged in trivialities that are really not worthy of him, and as a legal man he quoted long citations here, from which it was clearly apparent that he had nothing to say, citations that were only aimed at criticizing the present legislation. I say that the bitter disappointment of the hon. member for Green Point, the Opposition and its Press, which had prepared itself, under the cloak of this legislation, to unleash a hysterical tirade against the Minister, and particularly against the Publications Board and its chairman and members, is obvious. Now their fun has been spoilt. They are now disappointed and they have nothing to say.

Now the hon. member speaks of the “strange passage” of this Act, and he says that it is thanks to public opinion that this amendment is being introduced into the legislation. Sir, surely the hon. member does not live in a fool’s paradise, at least he ought not to be living in one. This surely is not the first time that this law has come before this House in a polished form. After all, the control of publications and entertainments is a ticklish question. It is like a prickly pear that has thorns on all sides and must be approached in a very tactful way. One must be a realistic and responsible person, and one must bear in mind that one will never be able to exterminate such an evil, but this does not keep one from one’s responsibility to try to combat the evil as far as one can and as efficiently as possible.

I just want to tell the hon. member that he must delve a little into the history of this legislation and he will find that before a law was passed in 1963, there were four pieces of legislation before this House. As he himself knows, a commission was appointed in 1954, the Cronje Commission. They issued a report in 1957 in which a Bill appeared, but that Bill was altogether unacceptable to the public and it never saw the light of day in this Parliament. Then the Government itself came to this House in 1960 with legislation to test public opinion. That legislation was also abandoned because there were violent objections, particularly against the so-called “pre-publication censorship” contained in it. Just as in the case of this legislation, the Government did not continue with that legislation that was introduced here. In 1961 the Government came along with a third draft Act which was introduced in the House. This was referred to a Select Committee which amended it. The Select Committee came along to the House with a fourth piece of legislation which was eventually passed in an amended form. I therefore say that it is nothing new for this ticklish question, which must be converted into legislation, to be polished up before it is passed by the House in its final form.

Then the hon. member argued here about the meaning of section 4 (a), and he referred to the implied ban on reviews and publications about cinematograph films abroad. Sir, here the hon. member totally missed the mark. He obviously let himself be taken in tow by the English Press that does not understand the legislation. This never was the intention, nor is it the present intention of the legislation, because in respect of this point there is no fundamental change. It was never intended that anything like this would be banned. The hon. member must not ape the ignorance of the English newspapers. After all, he is a legal man who ought to know better; as a legal man he surely ought to know that a law is territorial and that one can only make laws that have a bearing on one’s own country. The hon. member ought to know the fundamentals. The only restriction in clause 4 (a) is in respect of completed cinematograph films intended for public release in this country. That is all.

Then the hon. member says, in addition, that in 1963 the Government had acceptable reasons in connection with the principle Act. He said that there they had the correct “approach”. I want to ask the hon. member whether they supported the legislation at that stage, when the Government had reasonable and acceptable reasons, and the correct “approach”. I know that then they were just as spineless, without direction and negative as they now are. Their members sat with Nationalists on the Select Committee. They agreed unanimously with the draft Bill that had to come before the House. When it reached the House and became public they changed direction like a flock of lost sheep because of criticism and unfavourable reaction from the English Press. They then turned against the Bill just as they are doing today. Now they come along and say what a good Act the principal Act was. What were the statements they made about the Act at the time? Their main speaker said (translation)—

That was now the correct “approach”. Those were the so-called acceptable reasons. The main speaker went further and said—

That was the correct “approach”. He went even further and said—

That was the correct “approach”, which he is now praising here to such an extent. No, they have never been in favour of this legislation, and they are opposing it in principle. I want to tell the hon. member here that he can argue as much as he wants to. I want to charge the Opposition with being opposed to efficient control of undesirable publications and entertainments in this country. I charge the Opposition with trying to neutralize efficient control as far as possible. It is an obsession, particularly with the hon. member for Orange Grove, to act as protector for everything that is unacceptable to ordinary, decent people. If the United Party is not trying to break down control as far as possible, how can the hon. member for Green Point defend his standpoint in respect of his criticism of clause 7? Clause 7 (a) requests, in effect, that inspectors be appointed to make the implementation of this Act more efficient. After all, this is not the first time that legislation has provided for inspectors to be appointed to make the implementation of an Act efficient. After all, this is a feature of so many Acts in this country. Why is the hon. member opposed to this if he is not trying to restrict the efficient implementation of the Act?

The position already is such that in clause 5 an offence is being created. The existing Act instructs the board to ensure that undesirable publications are controlled. It is as plain as a pikestaff … [Interjections.] That hon. member should preferably confine himself to the Bantu of Hammersdale.

It is as plain as a pikestaff that the amount of filth in respect of publications and objects distributed in society in our country is increasing by the day. Since 1963 5 785 publications were banned. Only last year 645 publications were banned, 20 of which were of local origin. In other words, the extent of the filth and obscenity is clearly evidence from the results of the control. As the Act now stands the board is dependent upon people who submit their complaints, except for such control as it exercised by the Customs officials. The fact is that the public does not readily submit objections and carry along complaints. That has been proved. Last year there were only 109 complaints by the public, as a result of which 35 publications and objects were banned. However, the Opposition goes further. The hon. member for Houghton goes out of her way to intimidate these people who lodge complaints by demanding their names here across the floor of the House from the hon. the Minister. I think that this is very improper. I therefore want to ask the Opposition whether they are opposed to the appointment of inspectors who are officials of the State, so that they themselves can initiate investigations in cases where, as the legislation states, it is upon reasonable grounds suspected that undesirable documents are being kept for distribution? Why is the United Party acting here as the advocate of obscenity and indecency? Why are they trying to prevent efficient control from being exercised in respect of publications?

I now want to come to our problems in connection with cinematograph films. Today we have certain problems in regard to the film industry. In the first place there has been an ever increasing tendency to exhibit privately films that are meant for public exhibition, either to influence or criticize the board, or to make propaganda for the film. Then there is yet another practice where newspapers and magazines publish photographs and discussions of what has already been banned by the board. I want to allege that as competition in the film industry increases, increasingly more kinks and dodges have developed in the industry. The legal machinery we have today to exclude obscenities from cinematograph films is in actual fact 40 years old. In the principal Act of 1963, the provisions in respect of the control of cinematograph films were simply taken over verbatim from the old Censorship Act of 1931. In other words, the legal machinery we have today for preventing undesirable elements in cinematograph films is already 40 years old. Now hon. members opposite are making a fuss when slight amendments are made to link up with modern needs. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that it has never been the intention with the legislation to adversely affect or restrict the film industry in South Africa. On the contrary.

That is what you are doing.

If the State was doing that it would surely not have been as “stupid” as the hon. member for Rosettenville implies and have spent fantastic sums of money every year specifically to give the film industry positive assistance. Does the hon. member not know that 44 per cent of the production costs of English cinematograph films and 55 per cent of the production costs of Afrikaans cinematograph films are subsidized by the Government? Can the hon. member imagine what that amounts to? Why do hon. members on that side of the House now want to imply that this Government, which is doing so much positive work to develop and help the film industry in South Africa, will now try to come along with legislation to adversely affect the film industry?

But we must accept that as the scope and production of the film industry increases, so the number of contraventions will equally increase, and this justifies better control. Since 1964 the board has considered 14,440 cinematograph films. This is a fantastic number. 218 of them were banned in toto, 1,764 approved in part, and 757 banned for Bantu. Last year alone the board considered no less than 800 cinematograph films, of which 517 were conditionally approved and 49 banned.

I want to admit frankly that this legislation, as it will now be amended, still in no way covers all the problems we have in connection with this industry. But what it does do is to create a period of calm from the time the film is delivered to the Publications Board for consideration until it is approved, a period of about seven to 30 days during which the board, which is a statutory body, and the hon. the Minister have an opportunity to express an opinion and form a decision about the picture without being influenced. Is it so unreasonable to ask that while these cinematograph films are under consideration by the board, no influence must be exercised, influence by those with financial control of the film? I think that this is a reasonable opportunity that we are creating.

Let us now briefly examine the objections that there are against the legislation. I am referring here, in the first place, to the legislation in its unamended form. The first and foremost objection, in my opinion, against the legislation in its original form, i.e. as we have it here before us today, is that it will handicap the industry as a result of the fact that a cinematograph film cannot be advertised properly during the process of manufacture. This is an erroneous conclusion in the first place, and yet it is an objection that is being raised. The second objection is the so-called stifling of criticism of the board and the Minister at all times. I feel that while the first objection is based on a miscalculation, there was perhaps some reason for criticism against the possibility that the legislation, as it now stands, could be read to mean permanent stifling of criticism of the Minister and the board. But with the amendments, as now proposed by the hon. the Minister, that objection is, however, being met.

In five points I just briefly want to sum up the present position in respect of the film industry by saying that in the first place only cinematograph films that are intended for public exhibition in the future may not be privately exhibited before those films are approved by the board. I think the hon. member for Green Point agrees with us on that point. The second point is that cinematograph films that are made, purchased or imported for private exhibition, whether they are objectionable or not, are altogether excluded by the Bill. They can, as in the past, be exhibited completely as desired; we are not getting at them. [Interjections.] The hon. member for North Rand can always, therefore, still have his small private pleasures. The third point I want to mention is that nothing in terms of this legislation prohibits any sales promotion, advertising or publicity in respect of cinematograph films manufactured abroad, except that they may not be exhibited in South Africa before they have been submitted to the Publications Board. The fourth point is that nothing in this legislation prohibits any advertising, sales promotion or publicity in respect of locally manufactured films while they are in the process of manufacture. The last point is that no criticism whatsoever is being stifled after the board and the Minister, in the case of an appeal, have concluded their task in respect of a cinematograph film. The view of the erstwhile Minister of the Interior, who introduced the principal legislation, can be summed up in this one paragraph. He said (translation)—

We realize that we are dealing with a ticklish question here. That is specifically why we are handling this legislation so circumspectly. The hon. member for Green Point and other members on the opposite side of the House believe that they have a self-appointed task, a task whereby, in season and out of season, they try under the cloak of this legislation to present this Government as being obsessed with the idea of eliminating any form of criticism. They profess that the Government is always trying to suppress the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech.

Yes, the proposals of the verkramptes.

The hon. member says “yes”. He says the Government is obsessed with that. The hon. member and other hon. members opposite do not believe themselves in this connection. Because there is too much, in this legislation as well, that gives indications to the contrary. Let those members opposite, who point a finger at the Government and this legislation, tell me where in the whole wide world there is more freedom of speech, freedom of the Press and freedom of criticism than specifically here in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as we listened to the hon. member for Parow’s speech, we heard a miserable speech on a miserable Bill. Half of his speech did not refer to the content of the Bill at all; it consisted of personal attacks on the United Party. The other half gave as a defence of this Bill certain facts or certain surmises on his part which I challenge him to prove are in this Bill. Nowhere in this Bill does it say that it only applies to completed films. Where does he find that? His statistics were just as bad as his speech. The hon. member gave two sets of statistics only, and he prided himself on them. What were those two sets? The first one was that last year there had been 109 complaints “only” by snoopers to the Publications Board. With pride he said further that 35 had been agreed to and that 74 had been rejected. His second proud statistic was this: Last year the Publications Board investigated 800 films—and over 500 of them were placed under restraint and 49 were banned. That, he said, is a wonderful example of freedom of speech in this country.

*The hon. member advanced the argument that it was not the desire of the Government to prejudice the film industry in South Africa. Oh no, Acts of this kind, and this Act in particular, are now surely going to be to the advantage of the film industry. I do not ask him to be a witness —I turn to the producers of films in South Africa to supply an answer to that. I want to supply one answer this evening. I have here the words of that brilliant man, Jans Rautenbach, who was responsible for the two films Katrina and Jannie Totsiens, who was designated Man of the Year last year for his film work, and who also received a Medal of Honour from the Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. I quote what the man who makes the films says of this Bill (translation):

I am quoting from Rapport:

This has been changed, but now he may not make any propaganda for his film—

This is what Jans Rautenbach says, and who knows more about film-making, Jans Rautenbach or Pen Kotzé? He continues:

The maker of the film must be able to make propaganda for his film in advance, but this is now being prohibited by the new clause 4 (a), which states that he must not endeavour to influence the Board. Here it is in the legislation I have before me. If he makes propaganda for the film he is, of course, influencing the Publications Board. “He is not allowed to do anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister in his decision in respect of such a film.” I quote further:

†This is the opinion of South Africa’s foremost producer of films of this type of Act, and it is not the first time that Mr. Jans Rautenbach and Mr. Emil Nofal have said things like this.

I can think of few Bills, when first presented, which caused such a protest, such an outcry from freedom-loving people in South Africa. People from the universities, people from art and literature condemn this Bill in the form in which it was presented. Literary men and newspapers, not only from this side, but from the other side, too, condemned this Bill. All decent, enlightened opinion rejected it. That was the voice of public opinion and that is the voice of which the hon. the Deputy Minister is afraid. I say this is a miserable, verkrampte and vindictive measure. Originally, it was a shotgun aimed at everyone who wanted to write about a film. Now it has been transformed into a high-powered rifle aimed at the exhibitors themselves. That is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous in that respect.

This Bill is a smear on the good name of our country. How can we claim to be defenders of the values of the West? How can we claim that we are a bastion against the ideas of the Kremlin and its terror, when the Government introduces a measure of this nature, interfering with the freedom of the citizens? This Bill, Sir, is censorship gone mad; it fills one with revulsion. I demand to know who is behind this Bill. Did the idea originate in the Minister’s own mind? I put questions to him and asked him whether the Publications Control Board considered this Bill. Twice he replied that it did not have this Bill before it. Well, how can he come to this House with a Bill which the Publications Control Board has not considered at all? Is he prepared to deny that this Bill was born only in the mind of the chairman of i the Board? Or is that the case? Is that the gentleman who has been insisting and demanding that this malicious measure should come on the Statute Book? And was the Minister too weak to say “No” to Mr. Jannie Kruger? It is not that I exonerate the Publications Control Board from blame for this Bill. There are men and women on that Board of whom I expected better, men and women who I feel should now come forward and object to a Bill of this nature or else stand condemned for sharing responsibility for a measure such this. Otherwise their names should be added to the list of infamy of those responsible for this Bill.

But why is the Deputy Minister introducing this Bill? It is a very radical Bill. Surely, one could have expected the Minister himself to introduce this Bill. He is supposed to be the lighthouse of verligtheid in that party and I trust we shall hear him on this Bill, that he shall speak on this Bill.

I shall speak on it.

I sincerely hope that you would. But he should have introduced the Bill because he is the Minister responsible; it is not a Junior’s work.

I object to the way in which the Deputy Minister dealt with the proposed amendments. He handed them to one member, the hon. member for Green Point, and for that I do not blame him, and am actually glad of it. However, he said the amendment was entirely confidential and that no other one on this side of the House was to know about it.

I did not say that.

That is the impression the Deputy Minister gave. [Interjections.] If he wanted to make amendments available he ought not to have made them available only to one member of the United Party. He ought to have made it available also to the hon. member for Houghton for instance. [Interjections.] We are considering a Bill which has been before the public of South Africa during the period between the First and Second Readings. According to constitutional practice that is the time during which the public can come forward with ideas and criticism. Persons can come to their respective members of Parliament and inform them what is wrong with the Bill. But the hon. the Deputy Minister comes along and secretly changes one of the fundamental clauses of the Bill. At this very moment only about 100 persons in this House know what the actual contents of this measure are going to be. The public outside do not know and we are rushing through the Second Reading and into the Committee Stage. That is not the way in which to conduct a legislative programme. [Interjections.]

This Bill contains 3 basic provisions. The first one is, what I like to call, the pirate clause; the second one the exhibitor clause, and the third one the snooper clause. The pirate clause is the one aimed at private exhibitions of 16 mm films rented from people who imported or bought them and these films are then shown in private clubs and homes. The hon. member for Green Point has already indicated our attitude to this, i.e. that it is unfair that only certain privileged people should see films while those films are denied to the general public. At the same time it should be asked why these private showings, these private clubs came into existence. They came into existence as a result of the absurdity of our censorship law in South Africa. If he had wanted to prevent them he could have amended those laws. After all, these people did not actually break any criminal law, not as far as I know, else the hon. the Minister would not have come forward with this change in the law. It is not that we want to deprive a section of the public of South Africa of the right to see films; we want a relaxation, not a removal, of the censorship laws so that more people would be able to see films less mutilated than at present. The second clause to which we object is what I call the exhibitor clause. In its original form it was one of the ugliest clauses ever introduced in a Bill before this House. It denied every citizen the right to mention that a film has been cut …

That was the clause.

So the hon. member admits that that was the clause. But how can a clause like that come before this Parliament? Let him answer that. The only clause before the House now is the one in the Bill. He did refer to an amendment and read out the terms of it, but how many hon. members on the other side can remember the exact wording? As a matter of fact, they do not know what is in it. All that we have before us is the clause in the Bill we have before us at the moment. I stand appalled at the narrow type of mentality which thought up the original clause.

They are dense.

I can tell you what would have happened had this clause been passed. It would have meant that one could not publish the news of the arrival of a film, a great film in another country. One would not have been allowed to do that. Magazines from overseas containing reviews and news of such films would have been banned, cut or mutilated and the South African public would have been kept in ignorance. It was so bad that some distinguished journalists of the Nationalist Press were moved to some of the bitterest attacks that I have read in regard to a measure of this nature.

*Let me read to you, Sir, what Mr. Grosskopf said about this in his column “Kruis en Dwars” in Rapport. When this was submitted to him he said (translation)—

“Schoolgirls in their giggling years”—hon. members opposite are being compared to them. He went on to say—

These are not my words. These are the words of their people, their journalists. Then why does the hon. the Deputy Minister come forward with a Bill such as this in the first instance? I want to know in whose morbid mind it was born. The article continues—

Even if a film has been completed, the director has every right to discuss his film before submitting it to the Publications Board. I read on—

and I think members of the Publications Board are being paid up to R7,000 per year, which is what the chairman gets—

This is what that old 4 (a) meant. We now learn about the new 4 (a) which is to come.

†How much better is this new clause 4 (a) in reality? This is the high-powered rifle aimed at the exhibitor in which he is told that he is not to do anything calculated to influence the Publications Board or the Minister in its or his decision in respect of such a film. Sir, what does this mean? I have read to you what Jans Rautenbach’s opinion is of a measure such as this. He will be denied the right to say that this is a good film which should not be cut, a film that the Publications Board must not touch otherwise they will be ruining it. He is denied the right to say that before it comes before the Publications Board. That is what the Bill says; that is what these words mean. Let them deny it, Sir. A future exhibitor may not, as Jans Rautenbach did, consult beforehand with the Coloured people to find out whether “Katrina” was acceptable to them, or with the Anglican Church to find out whether they accepted it. He could not consult with psychiatrists to find out whether “Jannie Totsiens”, that other fine film, would be acceptable to them and whether the correct medical approach was followed. Then, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister has the political effrontery to say that he is introducing this Bill “om openbare polemiek te voorkom”. Sir, instead of being intended to “voorkom openbare polemiek” it is to prevent public debate, and any prohibition of public debate can be a form of incipient dictatorship and I say that it is so in this case. This Bill is an attempt to blind the people and to gag the public.

Sir, he came with the argument that the Publications Board, after all, was like a court of law and when a film or a book was before it it was almost sub judice and one dare not discuss it. Sir, what a strange court of law this is with judge Jannie Laksman at the head! The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that secret courts, star courts, inquisitions, are abhorred by freedom-loving people. Are the deliberations of the Publications Board secret or are they public; can the public be present when they deliberate over a film? Of course not; you cannot compare it with a court. In a court of law an interested person can bring his lawyer along to plead his case. Are lawyers permitted to come and plead the case of a film before the Publications Board, yes or no?

No.

There is no comparison between the Publications Board and a court. A court gives reasons for its judgment. Does this Publications Board give reasons? Sir, when Senator De Klerk introduced this Bill he told me, “Oh, it is quite all right; you can write to me and I will give you the reasons why a book or a film has been banned; I will tell you; don’t be afraid to come to me; I will not be trying to hide anything”. But what is happening now? If I put a question to this hon. Minister he refers me to a single clause in the Bill itself, which I too could have quoted to him. He might just as well have referred me to the Bill and said that it was banned because it transgressed the Publications and Entertainments Act. It is stupid to make a comparison between the Publications Board and a court of law and to suggest that things before the Publications Board are sub judice. I believe he is hiding what the Publications Board is doing, and what they are ashamed to do in public.

I then come, Sir, to the next clause, the third clause in this Bill, the snooper clause, the clause for getting paid informers, because ordinary, decent people do not and would not come forward as snoopers and complain to the Publications Board about books which their neighbours might have, or complain about some scene or other that they did not like in a film. Sir, the hon. member for Parow said that these would be public servants. Where is it provided in this Bill that they shall only be public servants? Anybody can be appointed, according to this Bill. A relative, an adult son of a suspected person, can be appointed. We know of countries where not so long ago children were sent along to spy on their parents. That sort of thing can happen under this Bill. A person can go into your home without permission, Sir. There is nothing in this Bill which indicates that they have to get a warrant for entry. Anybody can go into a Bill …[Laughter.]

Go into the Bill.

I meant “into a home”, but I certainly am going to go into this Bill. Sir, I shall not mention any names but a well-known and distinguished lady, the wife of a Cabinet Minister, stated in public the other day—and it was published in the Press—that she had a banned book in her home. What is the hon. the Minister going to do? Is he going to appoint her husband, a colleague of his and a Minister, as a snooper to go and collect that book?

Sir, he denies that the freedom of the Press is being interfered with in this Bill. I say that this Bill does hit the Press too, in this respect that the Press cannot go to a producer after a film has been completed and have an interview with him, publish the interview and state his case because it will be interpreted as an attempt to influence the Publications Board before the film comes before the Board. This article that I quoted from the Rapport cannot be published if this Bill is passed —this article referring to Jans Rautenbach criticizing the Publications Board and defending his own film. A similar article cannot be published by the Press after this Bill has been passed.

Sir, I cannot understand the argument that the Bill will be stopping polemics. I admit you do find polimics about a film or about a book before it is exhibited or released to the public. But, after all, the real polemic starts after a film has been cut; then the argument starts, then the public starts talking about it. The hon. the Minister claims that this freedom of speech will remain. In that case you are not really stopping polemic. Why then this stupid provision to stop discussion between that strange period after a film has been completed and the time when it comes before the Publications Board? Sir, think of the ridiculous situation that can arise, for instance, a film is completed on Monday; the previous Saturday the producer could have said nice things about the film; he could have defended it and said that the film should not be cut. But the moment that film is finished on the Monday he has to shut up. On Wednesday he decides to put in a new scene. Hey presto! Now the film is not finished and he can start discussing the film again; he can start criticizing the Publications Board, but as soon as the scene has been completed he has to shut up again. If that interpretation is wrong, will the hon. the Minister tell me how, where and why it is wrong?

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is taking its place in an unhonoured row of Bills interfering with the freedom of the mind in South Africa— the censorship provisions in the Customs Act, in the Post Office Act, in the Criminal Procedure Act, in the Public Safety Act, in the Native Administration Act and in many others. It is a case of another light going out in South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must not reflect on the laws of the land.

I am dealing with the way in which the censorship provisions in those measures are applied.

Order! The hon. member may not reflect on the laws of the land.

I am not reflecting on these measures, Sir; I am reflecting on the way in which the censorships provisions are applied. I know how I would apply them if I were in charge. This is a case of another light going out; another barrier going up; another door being locked. We in the Opposition, let me assure the hon. the Minister, are proud not to be associated with a measure of this nature, a measure which is backward and primitive. Let me say to hon. members that if they do not like modern films, stay away from them. If you do not like reading good modern literature, do not read it; remain uneducated, for heaven’s sake. We do not mind if you remain backward, but we say, for heaven’s sake leave your ordinary intelligent citizen to use his intelligent judgment in regard to matters such as this and for heaven’s sake mind your own business when it comes to the freedom of the citizen. [Time expired.]

The United Party is blowing hot and cold; it is not adopting a consistent standpoint in this House. In the first place the hon. member for Green Point came along and said that they, too, were in favour of control and he quoted the Act which lays down under what circumstances it should be applied. It is very clear to me that he simply wants it on record in the event of the United Party being criticized afterwards for not wanting to have control over undesirable publications and films; because he immediately proceeded to disparage, because he thought it a popular cry, the provisions of the Act and the Publications Control Board in the most unfair fashion. The hon. member for Green Point said they were in favour of control. When the hon. member for Parow furnished figures to this House a short while ago and said how many publications had been banned—I think it was slightly more than 5,000—the hon. member for Orange Grove cried, “Shame”!

Hear, hear!

And the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District says, “Hear, hear”! He said it was shameful that these 5,000 publications had been prohibited. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove this …

Not all of them; of course not all 5,000. There were great works among them.

It will not get the hon. member anywhere to adopt this attitude now. The hon. member now wants to try to find fault with and rouse enthusiasm against the legislation and its application as a whole. As soon as mention is made of publications which have been banned, he says it is shameful and the other hon. members say, “Hear, hear!” Sir, last year this hon. member attended an exhibition of publications which had been banned. He knows it was absolutely essential to have banned them, and if he wanted to render a service to this country in this House today, he should have argued here that it was essential for us to have control and that we should strengthen the hands of the persons who must exercise the control.

There was pornography amongst those publications, but great literary works as well.

Now the hon. member for Orange Grove speaks of great literary works, but surely he is talking the biggest lot of nonsense under the sun.

Another aspect of the performance of these two hon. members was very interesting to me. The hon. member for Green Point started off by saying that the opposite side of this House accepted the amended section relating to films. It was interesting to notice that the hon. member for Green Point refrained from discussing that amendment regarding films at all, and I am referring specifically to that clause which makes it impossible for the owners of films to exhibit them to private audiences. What happened immediately afterwards? The hon. member for Orange Grove said that those private gatherings where the films were shown to large groups of people, were mainly caused by the application of this Act.

They came about because of that.

In other words, in the eyes of the hon. member for Orange Grove, it is essential to have these private shows. Is that side of this House in favour of this new amendment? These two members should have discussed matters more closely in the caucus. If the hon. member for Green Point says they want private shows to be prohibited and the hon. member for Orange Grove says private shows came about because the Act was being applied in a way in which he did not want it to be applied, surely he should have been opposed to the insertion of this clause, and he should have said that these private shows were essential. No, the hon. members were confused in what they said and evidently did not discuss this problem properly in the caucus.

There is another important aspect where I feel the hon. member for Orange Grove did an injustice to Mr. Jans Rautenbach. Mr. Jans Rautenbach commented on the form of the Bill as it will not appear on the Statute Book. The hon. member for Orange Grove knows that this clause to which Mr. Rautenbach objected, will not appear on the Statute Book, and that it is not the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to proceed with that section. He knows that section is no longer of any importance, but in spite of this, he quoted Mr. Rautenbach’s opinion in this House in regard to that clause which will not appear on the Statute Book. I want to allege that the hon. member for Orange Grove did Mr. Jans Rautenbach an injustice and that he tried to mislead this House by giving out that Mr. Jans Rautenbach’s commentary was in regard to the Bill now before this House. Sir, I maintain it is shameful that he tried to drag Mr. Rautenbach’s name through this House in this way.

We now come to the question of public opinion. Hon. members on that side tried to create the impression that this side of this House was trying to avoid a political debate on this matter. They wanted to create the impression that we did not want to take cognisance of public opinion; that we do not want to take cognisance of public opinion in general. They wanted to create the impression that this side of this House did not want public opinion to be formed in regard to these matters. But this is simply not true, and I challenge the hon. member to tell me where the formation of public opinion in regard to a particular film is being prohibited in terms of this Bill. Where is it being restricted in any way? Surely nothing of that nature is contained in this Bill.

May the director start forming public opinion, for example, against the Publications Control Board, before the film has been considered by it?

In other words, the hon. member is saying that his objection really means that the director may not cause public opinion to be formed against the Publications Control Board. [Interjection.] What we are dealing with here and what we are concerned with here, is public opinion in regard to the film, not public opinion in regard to the Board. This merely proves that here we have really seen the cat being let out of the bag, and what we have seen is this. These hon. members want a controversy to be conducted against the Publications Control Board. They are opposed to the Publications Control Board and they want to disparage the Board and break it down until nothing remains.

Why may the Publications Control Board not be discussed?

The Publications Control Board may always be discussed, its decisions may always be discussed, and the public is entitled at any time to express its opinion in regard to a film or something which has been banned. There is nothing prohibiting the public from doing that. The hon. member did not present arguments based on the Bill before us. What we do in fact have here is the insertion of a sub judice clause in regard to the actions of the Board. I think we may fruitfully dwell on the question …

Who is the judex?

We shall come to that. We may fruitfully dwell on the question whether the clause is fair or not.

What does this Publications Control Board do? The Publications Control Board exercises a judicial function. The Publications Control Board does not have a discretion which it may simply exercise without reference to any law. The Publications Control Board is bound by the provisions of the Act which provide the framework or skeleton within which the Publications Control Board must base their decisions. This is a common thing in South Africa. Parliament passes an Act. For the sake of argument, Parliament says that, for example. theft is a crime. A court takes the specific facts of the case, applies them to the Act and decides whether those facts constitute theft or not. What does the Publications Control Board do? It takes the film—these are the facts of the case—or it takes the publication concerned—these are the facts of the case—and it applies that film or publication to the principles of this Act. The Publications Control Board cannot act arbitrarily. It is restricted by the provisions of the Act.

How do we know it is not acting arbitrarily if it does not want to give reasons?

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove has had his turn to speak.

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that I am not afraid of him. He may make his interjections. I should like to reply to these interjections as well.

Order! The hon. member is not to interject while I am in the Chair.

The hon. member asked me who the judex was? In other words, who is the judge? I shall tell him who the judge is. The judge is, of course, the Publications Control Board, because it must exercise a judicial function. It is true that we do not call it a judge, but its functions are those of a judge. In terms of the Act, it must apply the facts to the Act. We must develop this argument just a little further now.

They are completely unqualified.

I am going to interrupt myself in order to react to the interjection made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said, “they are completely unqualified”.

Pietermaritzburg District.

Pietermaritzburg District or Pietermaritzburg North, he is in any case serving his last term here. Next time he will be out. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said, “They are completely unqualified”. What does this show us? It shows us we are concerned here with an action directed at the personalities on the Publications Control Board. We have here a political attempt to disparage the Publications Control Board, because they think it is a popular thing to do. But for the sake of the record, they maintain that they are in favour of control. On what basis has the hon. member said that they are “completely unqualified”? The persons serving on it are the best qualified persons available in South Africa to perform those duties.

I now want to continue my previous argument. We have seen, and it has been published in the newspapers as well, that the decisions of the Publications Control Board are subject to appeal in certain cases. They are in any event subject to appeal to the Minister in the case of films, but otherwise they are subject to appeal to the courts.

What do the courts say?

We shall tell the hon. member what the courts say. The court says it must ensure that the judicial discretion has been exercised properly. If a court decides it has not been done, it rejects the decisions of the Publications Control Board and if it says “yes”—and this has happened—then it accepts the decision of the Publications Control Board. This is the principle of appeal we have introduced here. Surely hon. members on that side of this House ought to know this principle. It happens virtually every day that magistrates and magistrate’s courts decide cases, after which the cases go to the Supreme Court on appeal. Sometimes the decisions of magistrates are reversed. Sometimes judges make very derogatory remarks about the actions of magistrates. If the aggrieved party is not satisfied with the decision of the judge, it takes that case on appeal to the Appeal Court. We know that the Appeal Court sometimes rejects the decision of the judge. Now what does this mean? Does this mean now that we should abolish magistrate’s courts, because their decisions are sometimes reversed by the Supreme Court? Of course it does not mean this. Does this mean now that if a judge’s decision is reversed by an Appeal Court, that particular judge must be removed from office? Of course not. Absolutely no deductions can be made from the fact that certain decisions have gone against the Publications Control Board.

The next point I want to mention is very important. When a new measure appears on the Statute Book, we have a process of court interpretation which sometimes continues for 20 to 30 years. Arguments are advanced before the courts as to how such an Act should be applied. The courts give their decisions and these decisions then serve as guide lines to the lower courts, such as magistrate’s courts. These courts then apply the decision in that way. In regard to this measure, we have the same principle. The Act places the Board under the obligation of testing certain films against the provisions of that Act, The Board presents its finding but it is rejected. The court will then give its reasons and say why the Publications Control Board has acted wrongly. Now it is the duty of the Publications Control Board to allow itself to be guided and led by the decisions of those courts in the time which lies ahead. And this means that the Publications Control Board will learn from the decisions of the courts. It will mean that in future the decision of the Publications Control Board will be attacked much less frequently in the courts. The Board will be far more informed and will subsequently know exactly what the court expects of it and how the Supreme Court wants this Act to be applied. I should like to predict that in the same way as these decisions of a magistrate in regard to a particular Act may be rejected by an Appeal Court and will subsequently no longer be rejected in regard to similar cases because the magistrate has received guidance on the application of that Act from the Appeal Court, so we shall have far fewer cases against the actions of the Publications Control Board in the years which lie ahead. In addition. the actions of the Publications Control Board will become less controversial in future. If the actions of the Publications Control Board remain as controversial in future and are as often discredited as in the past, it would mean that the Publications Control Board had not heeded the decisions of the Supreme Court. I definitely do not believe that this will be the case. If this does happen, the matter will have to be taken up with the Publications Control Board. I am sure that in future the Publications Control Board will adopt the standpoint that in the matter of forming a judgment, it must apply the law as prescribed to it by the court.

I now come to the principle of the sub judice rule. The judge or magistrate who decides a case must base his decision not on the opinions of people outside but on the content on the film in as far as the provisions of the Act can be applied to it. In other words, he must be impartial, unprejudiced and uninfluenced in giving his decision. Without any outside influence, he must then state whether that particular set of facts is applicable to those principles contained in the Act. It is a cardinal principle in our legal system that no judge may be influenced in his decision. Because the Publications Control Board exercises judicial powers, I think it is only fair that it, too. must be allowed to exercise its powers impartially, and without prejudice or influence. In regard to court cases, a person or body is still entitled to publish all details with regard to that court case. However, it may not be done for the purpose of influencing the court. The hon. member for Orange Grove as well as the hon. member for Houghton asked by way of interjection where the word “calculated”, which is what is meant here, is contained in the proposed amendment. Apparently the hon. member has not come to realize that we have introduced the same sub judice rule in this Bill which we have in the case of ordinary court cases as well. It is exactly the same. We must have it because the Publications Control Board does not have discretionary powers, but is bound by the principles of the Act.

Why the secrecy?

Mr. Chairman, I shall come to that secrecy story in a moment. The position is that we must protect this Board in the same way in which courts must be protected. I should like to challenge hon. members on that side of this House to debate with us what constitutes the unfairness and unjustness in protecting the Board in the same way as the courts are being protected. But we must examine the provisions of this legislation very closely, not only what is in fact provided for, but also what is not provided, for. The provisions of this legislation mean that any director, Jans Rautenbach or whoever, may publish every possible detail in regard to his film. This is what this legislation provides. He may publish anything in regard to his film. In addition, his advertising and promotion campaign in respect of the film may continue in normal circumstances. Anything may be published, as in a court case. But, viewed subjectively, nothing may be done for the specific purpose of influencing the Publications Control Board or the Minister. In other words, a director may make propaganda for his film among the public just as he likes. It depends only on the subjective purpose of the person launching the propaganda or promotion campaign, because his subjective …

Oh?

Of course this is the case. The hon. member should simply read the Bill. I am convinced that if the hon. member has in fact read it, he did not understand it.

Now it means that when this matter comes under discussion, the court will be obliged to determine whether the person concerned had the subjective purpose of influencing the Minister or the Board, and if he had wanted to influence the Minister or the Board, it would be an offence on his part. But until such time he would not be guilty of an offence. There ought to be no problem with the application of this provision, because every day the courts apply a similar section in South Africa and in the rest of the world in regard to court cases. There is no problem. It is exactly the same position we have in regard to court cases. This provision is based on fairness; it embodies in this legislation protection for the board which ought to have existed long before.

In regard to the “super Snooper” type of section, or whatever it is called, the two hon. members of the Opposition who spoke, made certain misrepresentations. They built up an argument in regard to this clause, disregarding certain words contained in the clause. Mr. Chairman, they said that a person …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member address the Speaker as “Chairman”?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that they were guilty of misrepresentation. The words of which they did not give a proper account, are the words “reasonable grounds”. They argued that such an inspector, or whatever he may be called, would be able to enter any place and simply investigate matters there and that he would be able to stop any performance. No, a restriction on such action is written into the Bill.

Reasonable grounds!

That is exactly what it is. In other words, there must be reasonable grounds before a person may enter any premises. What does “reasonable grounds” mean? It means reasonable grounds based on facts and not reasonable grounds which are unfounded.

Who will decide that?

The court will decide whether there are reasonable grounds when the case is referred to it or when there is a dispute in regard to their matter. The principle of reasonable grounds is a legal precept which we know very well in South Africa. It is not something new, because the courts have often had to decide whether reasonable grounds existed for doing a particular thing. Reasonable grounds are based on facts and is not on arbitrary right given to a particular inspector. The hon. members of the Opposition are misleading this House and the country when they create the impression that an arbitrary right is given to the members of the Publications Control Board. They may act only if reasonable grounds exists for such action. In addition, I want to point out that these inspectors, or whatever they are called, to be appointed will not be able to prohibit any publications but only undesirable publications. In other words, the publications must be undesirable, as defined in the legislation. The meaning of words such as “undesirable” and what is to be understood by them are being interpreted to an increasing extent in the courts. In regard to their future actions these people therefore ought to gain more and more clarity.

With this I think I have covered all the points mentioned by those hon. members. I conclude by saying that what those hon. members tried to do in general, was to launch an attack on the legislation in respect of publications and entertainments. Furthermore, I want to say that hon. members on that side have raised arguments in this House, which, in my opinion, cannot be based with fairness on the provisions of this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down fulminated in his speech and said that the members on this side of the House were guilty of certain disgraceful actions, but the way he floundered was really a disgrace. In the first place I would like to refer to what he said about Jans Rautenbach. He said very clearly that Jans Rautenbach only objected to the proposed subsection (4) (c), which is being amended here. But this is not correct. If one reads the article that was quoted, one finds that Jans Rautenbach said the following in this regard (translation)—

And then he continued:

Surely this does not relate to the new subsection (4) (c). The hon. member said here that Jans Rautenbach’s objection to this legislation was only based on the proposed subsection (4) (c) to which we now have an amendment. Here it proves to him that it also has to do with the clause preceding it as far as this matter is concerned.

The next point that I found astonishing is where these super-snoopers are referred to, and he, as a lawyer, by way of offering an excuse for it, quoted from the new section 13A (1) (a), where it reads: “may enter upon any place in or upon which it is upon reasonable grounds suspected …” He went on and tried to link paragraph (c) with this. Under paragraph (a) one finds (i) and (ii). Paragraph (c) reads—

Paragraph (c) is not preceded by “upon reasonable grounds”. Even that argument which the hon. member tried to use, i.e. that it is based upon reasonable grounds and, in terms of the Act, is not subjective but objective, does not hold water. In this same Bill it is provided that these snoopers may seize any object appearing to afford evidence of its contravention. This is purely subjective, and the part about the “reasonable grounds” falls away completely.

We also had the other case where the point as to what the controversy was about was apparently missed completely. The hon. member surmised that somewhere or other there was a controversy which had to be prevented. He did not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the controversy which had to be prevented was aimed against the board or against the films themselves. I therefore want to put it to him very clearly here that, for the board to carry out its functions, it is of the utmost importance that there should be a controversy somewhere. They have to be guided by the public.

†If we really want to test this amending Bill here tonight, it is necessary for me to read to hon. members what the Chairman of the Publications Board said about six months ago when he addressed a meeting of the Afrikaanse Studentevereniging at Stellenbosch. I am quoting a newspaper report—

I believe this is very important, because we must test this particular legislation against the expressed desires and wishes of the chairman of the control board. This is, if we are really sincere about censorship in South Africa. I want to say straight away that I believe once this legislation is passed, a couple of things will happen. Firstly, society as such will cease to support and co-operate with the Publications Control Board because it will lose confidence in it. If we are really serious about censorship and in trying to protect our society, we must realize that the success of censorship depends on the amount of support for that particular board or legislation amongst the public. We know, of course, that society is determined to draw a line between liberty and licence. Because of this, I would say that censorship has its natural enemies.

What does your church say?

I will come to that. There are natural enemies among some writers, artists and actors. These people, to whom I would refer as the natural enemies of censorship, inevitably take the view that too narrow a line is being drawn between licence and liberty. They can easily indicate that what are regarded as immoral publications in one age become acceptable and permissible interpretations in altered circumstances. This is the one point that we must keep in mind. We must look at this particular legislation and ask ourselves whether we are going to encourage the natural enemies of censorship. The reason why censorship is possible in any country is that society is, after all, concerned with what is permissible in this day and age. It is not concerned with what will eventually perhaps become permissible, nor is it concerned with what was regarded as permissible many years ago. The other point is that as long as the standard set is such and the method of application of this particular legislation is such that it reflects the wishes of society, so long will society support it and so long will the chairman of such a board have the co-operation and the confidence of the public and it will be possible for it to protect the morals of the people. The moral of the story here is that the Publications Board can only do this as long as it can set down norms and assess public opinion. Whichever way you look at this particular Bill, you will find that the public as such will cease to co-operate, not because all of a sudden everybody has turned corrupt in South Africa but because it will lose confidence in the system; it will start to regard the system as completely unfair. It will dislike and disagree with the methods. The moment that stage is reached, then I believe that society will join forces with the natural enemies of censorship. This should be the point that we should consider first and foremost when we discuss the advisability of passing this legislation.

The importance of public guidance for the Publications Board, or for that matter the Minister, was illustrated by a former Minister of the Interior in about 1962 or 1963 when he was still Deputy Minister of the Interior. It is a pity that he is not here tonight because I believe that he would be the ideal person to get up here and advocate the principle that the Publications Board must always keep in close contact with public opinion.

You will remember, Sir, that we had an Afrikaans film called Debbie, which was produced by, I think, Jamie Uys, and which was about premarital teenage sex. The first thing that happened to this film was that the Publications Board laid down an age restriction of 4 to 16 years. The former Minister of the Interior then went along himself and saw the film. Relying only on his own subjective judgment he decided that this was such a shocking film that he must raise the age limit to 21 years. There was immediately an outcry and within a week the then Deputy Minister reversed his verdict and decided to impose no restrictions on the exhibition of the film at all. I quote—

*Sir, the question being argued here is whether it is desirable to exclude public opinion. The hon. the Deputy Minister put it clearly; in actual fact they want to place the Publications Board in a vacuum, as the hon. member for Parow said, for a period of seven to thirty days, during which time there is to be no controversy as such, the object being that it should not be possible for them to be influenced and for public opinion to play its part in this matter.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central made it very clear that judges—he said that they were judges—should actually not be influenced, otherwise they cannot pass judgment. A moment ago I read out to hon. members an example of where a former Minister was grateful for the opportunity he had to ascertain public opinion. While we now have a new Minister who comes from the same province as I do, I wonder whether he would not tell his colleague not to be so selfish as to withhold from him the benefits which he enjoyed. I believe the hon. the Minister should really be on our side, especially since we have had proof here of the extent to which it can facilitate his task.

Then there is the question of secrecy. A great fuss was made when we referred to the original legislation. When we spoke of the original legislation, the hon. member for Parow said that we should only Speak about the amendments. But while I sat listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister introducing the legislation, it was very clear to me how he first explained very carefully how the original section in connection with non-publication of details had read. The hon. Minister advanced enthusiastic arguments to justify those provisions. And immediately afterwards he explained the new amendments to us. The important point is that when he explained the new amendments, he immediately came up with a threat. Unfortunately I do not remember his exact words. I notice the hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head in agreement. But he said that if it did not work, then you know of course …

There was no threat.

The position is very clear. If it does not work, their real aim is what I have just explained. Surely it is very clear. As far as the film industry is concerned, it is clear that if you furnish particulars beforehand or within the said period, it can only have one object, and that is that you are trying to influence people. However, the amendment says it has to be proved that the person did this. But quite obviously it can be said of any person who granted an interview to a newspaper that he granted that interview with one object only, and that is to gain publicity and to start a controversy. Starting a controversy is being prohibited because it leads to unfair pressure being exerted.

I now want to refer to other clauses in the Bill. I particularly want to refer to clause 6, which makes it clear that the holding of public entertainments is to be prohibited either in full or in part if the Board is satisfied that such a public entertainment or the part of it concerned would not have a wholesome effect. I have not heard it as yet, but I expect hon. members opposite will welcome this and say that it is really a good thing because more and more entertainments will now be allowed. But do hon. members know what is going to happen? More and more entertainments are going to be chopped to pieces. In the past it was a difficult task for the Board to decide whether to ban a certain entertainment totally or to allow it to be exhibited. The result was that permission was obtained for more and more entertainments to be exhibited. But the temptation will be there to cut out one piece after another. What is of importance here is, of course, that it is a well-known concept in literature and in art that it is much better to judge a work of art as a whole rather than to judge little bits of it. The danger is that, if a piece or part of it is removed, the whole story is mutilated so that it no longer has any meaning. In this connection I would like to read out what Milton said a few hundred years ago—

That was in the 17th century.

What is going to happen is that cuts will be made in more and more pieces of entertainment. The temptation will now be that it will be allowed to excise only a part. More and more good works of art are going to be ruined as a result of parts being excised. As has been said here, reason itself will actually be destroyed.

Returning to the snoopers, of whom the hon. member for Pretoria Central was apparently quite unaware, we find that the accent is going to fall particularly on the individual who will do the snooping. This applies to clause 7 (c) in particular, in terms of which he may remove something which appears to him to be a contravention.

It is a person appointed by the Minister.

He may be a person appointed by the Minister, but he is going to be a person acting as individual and passing his subjective judgment as an individual. [Interjection.] I am not talking about the board now. After all, there is more than one person on the Publications Board. In that case it is not the opinion of one person only, but the opinion of a number of persons. But this inspector will only rely on his own subjective judgment. [Interjections.] No, I have already read that to the hon. member. I might as well read it out again, seeing that there are so many hon. members who do not do their homework. It is clearly stated that such a person may be appointed. I read further—

With the law it is the normal …

What will happen then? The particular person from whom it was removed will have lost his good name because the inspector only acted according to his own subjective judgment. The publication or object will perhaps be seized to be submitted to the Publications Board as evidence. The Publications Board can pass a more objective judgment—and I am now talking about a relatively objective judgment—because it consists of 9 or 10 persons. What happens if they find, after an inspector has acted, that his subjective judgment was wrong?

Well?

Well! What would consequently happen to the person who became the victim of the error resulting from one single person’s subjective judgment? It does not matter whether this person had been appointed by the board or by the hon. Minister. In this connection I want to make a further quotation, because this affects a person’s good name. The mere fact that one has been involved in something like this will damage your good name. Shakespeare said the following:

I believe that this is precisely the effect which the actions of these super-snoopers will have. As far as I personally am concerned, I have not the slightest hesitation in completely rejecting these amendments and the Bill, because I believe they will only harm the Publications Board and, what is more, will harm every individual in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central said very little on which one can comment. The gist of his whole argument was the fact that if the Publications Board does what the public wants, the public would then co-operate with the Publications Board. It seems to me to be a very stupid argument, because what then is one’s purpose in having a Publications Board? His interpretation of clause 7 in connection with the inspectors seems to me to be a completely distorted one. One assumes that the people who are going to be appointed will be very responsible people, that they will act in a responsible way and not easily take possession of an article if it is not very clear that in terms of the Act it ought to be banned.

I listened to the speeches of the three speakers on that side of the House, and I tried to do so carefully. I can really not distinguish what fundamental principle in Western civilization, or in our South African way of life, is at issue, a principle they are defending so vehemently and which has elicited such a tremendous Press campaign. I wish hon. members opposite would tell me what principle they are defending in their opposition to this measure What is the basic principle they are fighting against? If one knew that, one could also advance other arguments based on principle. However, hon. members opposite are treading water and floundering. The one says this and the other says that. It is tragic for one to have such a politically bankrupt Opposition party when one ought to be thinking together, consulting one another and making plans for trying to protect South Africa’s way of life against a wave of permissiveness and obscenity threatening Western civilization. It is tragic that there are hon. members on the opposite side of the House who are trying to make political capital out of this, instead of planning their defences together against this threat to the Western world, the Western way of life, and the South African way of life in particular. And that is precisely what hon. members opposite are trying to do. In the first place, hon. members opposite were rendered pathetically helpless by the amendment moved here this evening by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It took all the wind out of their sails. It deprived them of the political capital they hoped they could make. There was a long Press campaign about this Bill. They did not oppose this Bill out of conviction. This evening they have not yet mentioned any fundamental principle that they stand or fall by. They did so because they hoped that they would be able to make political capital in respect of a certain portion of the community who are in favour of this permissiveness. All three hon. speakers on the Opposition side only advanced one argument here, notwithstanding their double talk. The hon. member for Green Point said that they were not altogether opposed to control, but that they did advocate responsible control. But there are conditions involved Of course, we have been familiar with that double-talk for many years. It began when a start was made on consultations about introducing control. They were members of the Select Committee, and there they agreed that there should be control. The hon. member for Orange Grove was one of the Opposition members who served on that Select Committee which decided, in 1962, that control measures had to be introduced against permissiveness and obscenity. But when that Bill was eventually submitted, he was the man who referred to the Publications Board as a secret intrigue of inquisitors and snoopers into the private affairs of the country’s citizens.

Mr. Speaker, tonight hon. members on that side of the House have tried to settle one matter, i.e. the question of public opinion. They say that public opinion must decide, public opinion must lay down the norms. There must be no control. Public opinion must speak and be given the chance to lay down the norms. How is public opinion formed? It is formed through letters and articles in the Press and by incitement. But it is a small minority, who are less responsible, who want this control abolished; they are the people making the big fuss. It must not be thought that this tremendous Press campaign that was launched against control enjoys the support of the majority of the general public. A small rowdy minority are behind it. And the Opposition has been taken in tow by that small minority.

It is important to note that as far as the control of films is concerned, South Africa does not stand alone in the world. In recent weeks, in which this tremendous campaign was in progress, hon. members opposite and the English Press tried to make the people believe that this Government wants to exercise a stranglehold on the people of South Africa and keep knowledge, information and works of art from them by control. They acted as if we stand alone in the world. But this is surely not the case. In every civilized country of the Western world today there is still control in respect of cinematograph films perhaps with the exception of Sweden. But not one of those hon. members would have the courage to stand up and say that Sweden’s moral norms are the ideal. A book was written by Neville March Hummings and completed in 1969, a book called “Film Censors and the Law”. After he had made a study of censorship in eight different countries, i.e. England, the U.S.A., France, Canada, Australia, India, Sweden and Russia, he arrives at the following conclusion—

This proves to us irrefutably what the position is. Here is a man who has made a thorough study of this subject. He specifically refutes the claim of hon. members on that side by virtue of the fact that he has determined that in all the eight countries he made a thorough study of, films are still being controlled. Now where does the hon. member for Orange Grove get the ridiculous argument that South Africa alone displays this narrow-mindedness?

What other Western countries have a severer legislation than this?

I do want to concede that today there is a tendency in the world to gradually convert the control of films into a system of film classification. Thereby young people, children and population groups enjoy a measure of protection. But it is probably also necessary to point out that there is a great difference between the composition of the Swedish population and its level of development and that of ourselves. Where they are a reasonably homogeneous population group, with a reasonably homogeneous level of development, we in South Africa have various population groups in various stages of development. We surely cannot treat all the sectors of our public alike, as is done in some European countries. If all the Western or European countries do find control necessary, how on earth can we in South Africa, according to the hon. member for Orange Grove, do away with all forms of control?

That is nonsense. I never said that.

No, the hon. member did say it! We cannot and we may not do it because it would be in conflict with our national character and our attitude to life in South Africa. We ourselves like to boast of being a Christian country, and our continual resistance and vigilance in respect of things such as drugs, subversion and the spirit of permissiveness must specifically be seen in the light of our Christian national attitude to life. If this Government were to look on helplessly while this wave of permissiveness, which is paralysing Western civilization and engulfing the Western world, swamps South Africa, as that hon. member wants it do do, this Government would be committing a crime against the people it is representing here. The hon. the Minister of Defence warned this House and the general public on various occasions that forces were launching a total attack against South Africa. They make use of the force of arms, terrorism, subversive elements and bomb throwers, but they also make use of a much craftier method, i.e. the destruction of our young people. They are bent upon bringing about the destruction of any form of discipline. When they have succeeded in changing the people of the country into a lawless, sex-conscious mass devoid of discipline, they have come far along their road to victory. The hon. the Minister of Community Development was in Taiwan a few months ago. If there is a people in the world that knows Communism well, it is the Nationalist Chinese, who live close to the Communist Chinese mainland. The Minister says that in Taiwan he did not see a single long-haired hippie. There are no “bop sessions” or anything of that kind, because those people know that that is the method the Communists use to undermine their young people. Communist leaders, inter alia, Lenin, said openly—the trouble is we do not believe them—“We must undermine the morale of Western youth before we can go any further with our revolutionary effort.” We know that there was a stage when the Communists virtually had the film city, Hollywood, in their hands, and from there they sent their propaganda throughout the world. I do not want to claim that every film contains Communist propaganda, but I want to claim without hesitation that there is no other medium in this country that can have a potentially greater corrupting influence on the moral and ethical life of our people than specifically the film industry. In spite of the control we have, in spite of the Publications Board, numerous cinematograph films are constantly being exhibited, displaying these elements of Communist propaganda in a very crafty and disguised way. This is the case because the Publications Board is engulfed by a mass of bad films from abroad. They must make a choice. Because they cannot ban all the bad ones there are always still some demoralizing ones that are passed.

I want to point out that in the Republic today there are altogether about 630 theatres—ordinary bioscopes, cafe bioscopes and drive-in theatres—which are patronized each day by an average of about 400,000 White South Africans. According to information that I could obtain, between 5 and 6 million people went to bioscope in December, 1969.

So what!

This proves irrefutably that we are dealing here with a mass medium that can be particularly influential, and through which the attitude and approach to life, particularly of our young people, can be very seriously influenced. People who claim that effective control is not necessary, do not know what they are talking about, or they do not care about the fact that the moral and ethical attitudes of the people are being undermined. How can effective control be applied? In the past a film was exhibited to large groups of private persons without having appeared before the Publications Board, and also to Press men who then launched a campaign with the public in order to create the impression that, as the hon. member for Orange Grove also said, there are a lot of old morons sitting here waiting with devilish glee and a large pair of scissors to clip, cut to pieces and destroy. They then make the people believe that they are being done a terrible injustice by the supposedly destructive urge of the Publications Board. This is what this hon. member and the Press campaign are bringing home to the public.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, we are going to adjourn in a moment.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.