Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, Mr. Botha is representing South Africa at the World Court in The Hague.

Motion put and agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I was indicating that those opposed to control constituted a small but noisy minority. Lately this small group has been making a special point of creating a false image of the chairman and members of the Publications Board. The pattern which they are following is clear; disparage the person, make a laughing-stock of him and in that way destroy all confidence in the decisions of that person. So we come to reach the stage when a piece of pornography and blasphemy which is being sold in the streets of Cape Town at this moment is accepted as being a bit of students’ fun and innocent students’ humour. Do hon. members on the opposite side agree with the way in which things are presented in Sax Appeal? I hesitate to do so, but I nevertheless want to quote one small passage from this magazine, Sax Appeal, of the University of Cape Town, and I want to hold it up to this House as an indication of how far we have already gone on the road advocated by hon. members opposite. I quote from page 55—

Shame!

I do not want to offer any further comment on this. Hon. members opposite accuse those who object to this kind of thing of being dyed-in-the-wool grousers. This, too, shows how far things have already gone. Naturally members of the Publications Board also make mistakes, they are, after all, human too. Each day they have to take decisions based on human judgment. Errors are made. Which one of us is perfect? As far as I am concerned, I want to express my highest appreciation towards the chairman and members of the Board for the fine work they are doing in the interests of South Africa under extremely difficult circumstances. I and any other decent human being detest the sustained, artificial and shameful campaign which has been launched against these people. There have been very few changes in the staff of the Publications Control Board since its establishment. Five of its members have been serving on that Board since 1963. The chairman is a highly civilized respected man of wide reading, a person of whom a nation may be proud. The Publications Board does not make its own laws and regulations as hon. members opposite tried to profess. On the contrary, the Board merely implements the laws of this Parliament, and today it is still doing this according to the same norms and standards which have applied since 1963. In addition to this one should remember that the chairman of the Publications Board does not have dictatorial powers, as hon. members opposite and the press also professed He cannot act in any way he pleases. The ten members of the Publications Board are not dummies without any opinions of their own. They are people of high standing—some of them are university professors who are held in high esteem by society. Any decision of the Board has to be passed by a quorum of the Board. The public must realize that the Publications Board is an autonomous and independent board, a body which has to implement the laws of Parliament. They go about this in a scientific way, as scientifically as possible under circumstances. It is a pity that the English language press has allowed itself to be used in a campaign against the Publications Board in general and against the amending legislation at present under consideration in particular. This is a campaign of creating suspicion, one in which no great respect is being shown for the truth. In order to illustrate this, I want to quote from the leading article of The Argus of 5th February, 1971. It reads, inter alia—

†Mr. Speaker, here we have an excellent example of the serious misrepresentation of the true facts.

I wish this House, Sir, to take very careful note of the words used: “The Government is ready to take excessive steps”. Where are the excessive steps in this Bill to control public access to information and ideas? Since when, Mr. Speaker, have pornography and obscenity and nudism been information and ideas? Information about what; ideas about what? But this is used to influence the public. How on earth anybody can come to such conclusions on the contents of this Bill is beyond my comprehension.

But this is only one example to show how the English language Press tries to stir up public opinion against any form of control. What is more, it proves conclusively that in this campaign they have no great respect for the truth. Fortunately, Sir, this campaign has also proved that there is a vast silent majority of English-speaking citizens who do not agree with this view. I have in my possession many letters from English-speaking individuals and organizations who support censorship and who are in favour of this Bill. I wish to read out only a very short extract from a letter written by a constituent of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. This person says—

*Sir, this shows that right-thinking and educated English-speaking citizens are not participating in this campaign along with members of the United Party and along with the English language Press. It is clear that the United Party, by trying to make political capital out of this matter, by trying to catch a few votes, has ranged itself recklessly and irresponsibly on the side of irresponsible people who are in favour of unrestrained permissiveness. It is clear that the educated and right-thinking English-speaking voter is going to estrange himself from that party because of this very standpoint, because their stablemates are no longer only Mr. and Mrs. Noble of Durban, who have found in the hon. member for Durban Point an instrument for carrying their petition; they now include the Pasquino Society of Johannesburg; they now include Dr. Wollheim and the Civil Rights League. It is possible that the United Party will discover the truth of the saying, “He who sups with the Devil needs a long spoon”, but when they have discovered this, it will be too late for them.

I should just like to refer briefly to a few points made by the hon. member for Algoa before I come to my own argument. The first point he made this afternoon, and yesterday evening too, is that the noise, the uproar, which is being made, is being made, as he said, by a small, rowdy minority. It is true that we have, during the past week or two, found that opinions have been expressed in various newspapers in regard to the specific Bill which is now before the House, and that certain of the opinions were certainly rather loud. Where the hon. member goes off the rails, of course, is when he tries to make this House believe that those opinions were aired only in the columns of the English-language Press. The hon. member quoted to us this afternoon from the English-language Press. I will not even take the trouble, because he ought to know that the Afrikaans-language Press also had a great deal to say about the vices of the specific Bill which is now before the House.

But they were responsible.

Let us now look at the effect …

He does not read the Afrikaans-language Press.

No, I would really not go so far as to say that about the hon. member. He quite probably does read the Afrikaans-language Press as well. But let us now see what the effect of these statements made by this so-called rowdy minority was. We have had a Bill before this House for weeks now, and a day or two ago we found that the hon. the Deputy Minister had thought fit to come forward here, quite suddenly, with an amendment of the Bill in regard to important matters.

You have had it all of six days ago.

I have no objections on that score. I have no quarrel with the hon. the Deputy Minister about that. Six days, or seven days, makes no difference to me, but the question I should like to put is this: Why should the hon. the Deputy Minister have come forward with this amendment? I cannot believe that he sat in his office, in isolation, in a vacuum, reading and re-reading the legislation, and then suddenly decided one morning that he did not like clause 4 (c); he was going to change it. Certainly specific forces had an effect on him, and I want to suggest for consideration by the hon. member for Algoa that those forces were in fact the so-called rowdy minority. The hon. the Minister will probably allege that the Bill as he has now amended it, is better than it was. Not that I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister, but he will doubtless say that his handiwork is better now. If that is the case, I must also tell the hon. member for Algoa that the effect of the rowdy minority on the hon. the Deputy Minister has even been responsible for the improved Bill which is now before the House. He must therefore not pay too little heed to what he calls, the rowdy minority. Its opinions were expressed in both the English- and the Afrikaans-language newspapers.

The second point is that he tried to tell us yesterday evening that it is in fact communism which we must, to some extent, look for behind the Bill. Now, I am the last man to underestimate communism and its dangers. Communism is indeed a formidable foe which we find in fronts where one would scarcely expect to find it. But I must tell the hon. the Minister that long before Karl Marx was born there were already similar arguments about the principle of Press control or censure in the history of the world. Then the nations of the world simply sought other Karl Marxes. I repeat, I do not underestimate communism, but it would also be dangerous if one were, believe me, to see a communist behind every bush.

The idea of censure is nothing new. It is as old as the hills. Control over the formation of opinion and control over morals is nothing new. It will not be the first time that we discuss it in this hon. House, nor the last. As one man of culture expressed it, the social history of the Western nations is the history of censure over the ages. Now I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that when it comes to censure and control, when we talk about people who stand guard over the spiritual and the moral life of a people, then long before we arrive at this law, there are powerful forces in our country and in other countries as well namely our spiritual and moral leaders. They, too, play a tremendous role in regard to the morals and the spiritual life of our people. I want to point this out to the hon. member for Algoa, and it is a point which he made repeatedly, but he must be careful not to tell us that we are opposed to control. He was doing this deliberately. He is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to this hon. House. But where we differ with the hon. gentleman and with the hon. the Deputy Minister and his party, is in regard to the method of control, the way in which control should be exercised. The Bill before the House is in fact an amendment regarding the method of control as we would like to see it here in South Africa.

The first point in regard to which one can differ, is definitely section 4 (a), and what does that section state? It states that no person may exhibit a film to any other person, a film which has not yet been approved by the Publications Board, except to the makers thereof. I want to state at once that this seems to me to be too limited just to single out the makers and then to exhibit a film only to them, a film which has not yet been approved by the Publications Board. I can think of quite a number of examples. A man may send his agent to Italy, which is quite a practical thing to do in the film world. The agent purchases a film there, perhaps at a great expense. The film is intended for publication in South Africa. When he brings the film to South Africa he cannot even exhibit it to his own employer before the Publications Board has approved of the film. The employer of the agent who is here in South Africa and who has paid for the film is not the manufacturer. The second point which causes me concern is that even the man who owns the film cannot even exhibit the film in his own projection room because the operator of the projector may not see the film. Only the film-maker may see it.

I want to mention another example. I may be wrong, but this is the way I see it. The owner, the man who bought the film, submits the film to the Publications Board. In terms of the Act the Publications Board rejects the film. In terms of the Act the owner of the film wants to make representations to the Publications Board or to the Minister in the usual manner. It is usual for him to call in a legal adviser to draw up his representations. But the legal adviser dare not see the film. He must now draw up a document and make out a case according to what his employer has seen. He must therefore make out a case on the basis of second-hand knowledge to submit to the Publications Board. I really think the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to that point.

The hon. member should read the amendment.

No. I am talking about paragraph (a). I am not talking about the section denoted by a capital “A”. I now come to clause 4 (c) which the hon. the Minister saw fit to amend. I want to say at once that I am talking now about an old clause and a new clause. The old is the one before the House and the new is the one which, according to the hon. the Minister, will be introduced during the Committee Stage. The old clause places a prohibition on the disclosure of specific particulars. In regard to the new clause I want to tell the hon. the Minister respectfully that I believe he is doing the public of South Africa a disservice by having delayed the amendment he wanted to introduce for such a long time and to place the prohibition of secrecy on it when he made it available to the hon. member for Green Point. The Bill now before the House is in fact being amended because we find that the friction of public opinion had its effect on it. The people of South Africa were able to consider the Bill as it stood. The hon. the Minister will allege that he improved the Bill, precisely because that was what public opinion wanted. But when he wanted to improve it, according to his views, he did not consult the public. He hid it away. All at once, in the Second Reading, he submits the new amendment to the public of South Africa. With great respect, I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister did the public of South Africa or the Publications Board a service by going about it in this specific way. I now want to argue on the basis of the amended clause which will be introduced. The hon. the Minister motivated his case by saying that he was going to propose this amendment because he wanted to prevent public opinion from being stirred up against the Publications Board or the opinions of the Publications Board. He said that he wanted to prevent specific influence from being exerted on the Publications Board. To strengthen his case, he took his comparisons rather a long way and said that he wanted to compare the Publications Board to a court of law. He was not the only speaker on that side of the House who did so. The hon. member for Pretoria Central waxed lyrical about the role of the court of law and the Publications Board which was supposedly operating in the same sphere as that of the court of law. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is a basic difference between a court of law and the Publications Board.

The first point I want to mention and in regard to which I want to indicate a difference, is the fact that it is a basic rule in the court of law that the other party is also heard. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that this is not the case with the Publications Board. Surely he knows that the case of the other party is not heard by the Publications Board. Surely he knows that the Publications Board is prosecutor and judge in its own case. After all, there is no such thing that a case be put to the Publications Board in the first instance.

But there is a second point of difference. This is a very important point. The court of law must, above all else, motivate its case. It must tell the people and the persons who appear before it what the reasons are for giving a specific decision. Those reasons are not secret. Those reasons are even available to the public. Those reasons are not above criticism either. Court decisions are often criticized, but is this the case with the Publications Board? I also want to say, just in passing, that the fact that the court must supply reasons for its conduct and must be able to motivate them, is one of the greatest self-disciplinary actions one can find. The court knows that it must answer to itself and to the public. This certainly maintains the balance as far as the court is concerned. If we did not have that disciplinary action, and when the person giving a verdict no longer has to supply the reasons the body in question, in this case the Publications Board, can give a verdict which in my humble opinion is not based on human reasons, but which is based on whimsy, which is based on prejudices, because nobody is there to consider the case. Now we find that the Publications Board does not have to motivate its case.

May I say, for the hon. House to reflect on, that the Publications Board which stands guard, if I may express it like that, over the morals of the people of South Africa, is a Board which has not been appointed by the people of South Africa, but is a Board which sits in camera and issues its instructions from behind closed doors. Unless it is possible in some way or another to exercise a measure of control over the deeds and opinions of the Publications Board, the Publications Board will become the dictator over the conscience of the people of South Africa.

There is only one way in which the Publications Board can justify itself, and that is by seeking and maintaining constant liaison with public opinion. We have many examples of errors which have been made by the Publications Board during the past few months. These were serious errors, errors which are probably of such a nature that it did not do the reputation of the Board any good. Unless an exchange of ideas takes place between the Publications Board on the one hand and the people on the other hand, I do not think this Board can perform its duties properly.

There is still a third point in regard to the comparison between the Publications Board and the court, which I want to mention. The court’s criteria are clear. The court applies the criterion of the law, and together with that it is important for the court to consider the actions of a reasonable man. How far do we get with the Publications Board? What are the criteria applied by the Publications Board? One writer stated that the Publications Board dealt with the entire spiritual activity of the nation. It covers not only the morals and the moral practices. It also covers the social life, the religion and the politics. In fact, if you look at this Bill or at the original Act, you will find that there are no fewer than 55 matters in respect of which the Board may issue directives.

The second point I want to make is that the norms are not really so wide, but are never static either. The norms the Board has to apply, are continually changing. Now we expect the Publications Board to do its work in isolation, in a vacuum. This hon. Minister now wants to build a wall between this Board and public opinion. He wants to entrench the Board to such an extent that it seems to me that he, to a great extent, wants the Board to be placed beyond the criticism of the people. To my mind the safety valve and the only link between public opinion and the Board is: The fact that we can level criticism. If we take that away, the Board acts in isolation. Then it means that there is no liaison with public opinion. The people must consequently be satisfied, without criticism, with the judgment of the Board. That means that the Board cannot go back on its decision and then perhaps does not know how the people feel about these matters. If the Board wants to set the pace of the development of the life of the people, it is of the greatest importance that the Board should also make itself subject to criticism. Is the Board afraid of that?

Here we now have an example of how thé Afrikaans- and the English-language Press forced the hon. the Minister to change a clause. Was that wrong? Was his reaction wrong? Why should we be afraid now? There is no reason for us to be afraid. If you look at clause 4 (c) which was inserted into the Bill, we will see that it is clearly stated there that no person may do anything which could influence the Board and the Minister. This is a tremendously wide statement. No person can commit a deed which may in any way influence the Minister or the Board. “They want to perform in an unfettered manner.” They want to be able to act without hindrance. I repeat that the most balanced fetters which ought to bind this Board, is public opinion. I am not talking about the outcasts, the extreme verkramptes and the extreme verligtes; I am talking about the solid middle section of the people of South Africa which has, under the strength of its moral and spiritual leaders, always been a very healthy people. I do not think that we need be afraid of the criticism of these healthy people. Nor do I want to accept for one moment that the criticism as it appeared in the Afrikaans- and English-language Press, was levelled by the outcasts of society of South Africa. This was sound criticism and it was a reflection of the sound public opinion of the nation. What we need is friction of ideas. If one puts a stop to the friction of ideas, and this is what the hon. the Minister is attempting to do by means of this new clause …

What clause of the legislation says this?

The hon. member can go and read it. The clause has been stated widely enough, so that one can interpret it in this way. If one tries to put a stop to it, even to some slight extent, then I maintain that to the extent to which you are trying to put a stop to the friction of ideas, to that extent we will find ideas in South Africa stagnating. To my mind one fact is as plain as a pikestaff. If you destroy public controversy, and that is what the hon. the Minister is doing, and if you destroy the contentious exchange of ideas, this is the most certain way of destroying true freedom and wisdom in the life of one’s people.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he wants the people of South Africa, the people over whom the Publications Board has to stand guard, to have respect for this Board, he must tell the people that he is not afraid that their criticism will cause the Board to deviate in any way from its course. He must then say to the people that he is not afraid that the Board will allow itself to be led astray by the criticism of the people. If he does not do that, I want to tell him in all modesty this afternoon that to the same extent to which he, attempted to protect and to entrench the Publications Board against criticism, to that extent is he indicating the lack of confidence he has in the Publications Board. He is afraid that the Publications Board will not be able to do its work. We have often heard that the Government does not like criticism … [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

In conclusion I want to say that mutual respect between the Board and society is of the utmost importance, The public must not get the idea that this Board has fallen behind the times. This is a Board which must set the pace and must keep pace with the development of a balanced and true opinion. As long as the Board fulfils its function in this way, I have no doubt whatsoever that it ought to be able to withstand the criticism of the people.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very interesting to listen to the debating of the hon. member for Maitland. At the beginning of the year the hon. member told me that in 1966 he had had a motor accident. Now I do not know, other hon. members will probably be able to help me, whether the hon. member spoke more coherently before he had the accident than he does after the accident. The hon. member for Maitland said that the United Party differed from the National Party about the method adopted in this measure. It is interesting that when one makes an analysis of the political philosophy of the United Party it is clear that their one great philosophical thinker, Gen. Smuts, summarized their attitudes to life in the holistic word picture. In practical party politics, however, one notices that although the United Party is theoretically and philosophically holistic, they are nevertheless dualistic. They are divided. The hon. member says they differ from us only in respect of method, and at a later stage I shall elaborate still further on that. The United Party says that it agrees that one wants to keep the disgusting aspects of the permissive society out of our system, but that they only differ from us in respect of method. The Opposition differs from the National Party not only in respect of method, but also in respect of the basic principles we must live by.

What principles?

I shall point them out to the hon. member in a moment. The United Party says, for example, that they advocate the survival of the White man. In other words, not only in respect of the physical aspects, but also in respect of the deeper values which that White man is the bearer of. In the political sphere the United Party speaks of a race federation, but in connection with this measure they tell the whole wide world that they are also in favour of these elements being blocked out of our society. But not one of the speakers on that side has yet indicated to us in a balanced, scientific way how, by the method they want to apply, justice will prevail in respect of the continued survival of the values of our White civilization. The hon. member for Maitland, for example, spoke very derisively about subsection (4A). He spoke for a long time about how the film projectionists would not be allowed to see the film, nor the usherettes or the people bringing the tea. However, the hon. member did not take a very deep look at that clause. The key words in that clause are surely “any cinematograph film intended to be …” In other words, a cinematograph film intended to be exhibited in public. But the entire argument the hon. member built up does not tally with this basic point of departure in the clause. He goes further and says that this Publications Board is a body that will neither listen to or accept any criticism, and that it sits there as a kind of dictator who wants to enforce his perverse wishes on the people. That is what the hon. member said. But in recent times there have been cases of appeal from people who took the decisions of the Publications Board to court, and the judiciary gave the decision against these people. Surely it is now very far-fetched for that hon. member to use that kind of argument. There are still many other matters the hon. member raised, and I shall come back to them.

In the last few months a tremendous storm of propaganda has broken loose on this proposed amendment of the Act. The hon. member for Kensington probably worked overtime getting all his little affairs in order for publication in the Sunday Times, writing about them and creating tensions in respect of this Bill. But after I had listened to the hon. member for Green Point and the other hon. members, it was once more a case of the mountain being delivered of a mouse, as the proverb states. Take the hon. member for Green Point, for example. To look at his hair the hon. member is an old member of the House. To use the Bantu proverb, he is actually one of the stalwarts. If one were to move closer to the classics one would say that he was a member of the Tipesbutepoi—he is one of the older ones. From him the venom about the National Party’s standpoint now really had to issue forth.

But let us go back for a minute to what that hon. gentleman actually said. Very early in his speech he said the following—

It is a very simple argument one has to consider here. But just to prove how wrongly and how unscientifically the hon. member set to work after all the tension had been built up, not giving this House a correct account in respect of this particularly friendly gesture on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister …

What friendliness?

The friendliness is embodied in the fact that the Deputy Minister revealed certain information to him which, I think, he did not necessarily have to do. But that is not the argument. The hon. member for Green Point himself said that the Minister “was good enough”. In other words, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must now settle with the hon. member for Green Point whether the Deputy Minister was “good enough” or not. But the hon. member for Green Point says here “a day or two ago”. He made this speech yesterday. In other words, this hon. Minister gave these amendments to the hon. member for Green Point on Monday or Tuesday. By way of an interjection the Deputy Minister said that it was five days ago. I conclude that it must have been more or less on Friday, because on a Saturday or a Sunday we are not together in any case. I therefore conclude that the hon. the Deputy Minister handed over these modified amendments to the hon. member for Green Point on Friday afternoon at the latest.

According to the Minutes the House adjourned on Friday at 6.30 p.m. until Monday at 2.15 p.m. In other words, there was sufficient time for the hon. member for Green Point to hand over the amendments to his group. Why did the hon. the Deputy Minister specifically give the amendments to the hon. member for Green Point? He did not do so because the hon. member for Green Point is a fine fellow, or because he has such a fine son-in-law, or for any other reason, but because the hon. member is the main speaker about such matters on his side of the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not seek out the hon. member for Green Point simply because he wanted to take him into his confidence. That is an absurd argument. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon. member for North Rand not to put his foot into the trap. Last night the hon. member for Green Point, in the presence of a large crowd, including the Press who, from the nature of the case, are not very well disposed towards me …

Why not?

For certain reasons, but we shall leave the matter at that.

Today you celebrate a great verkrampte victory.

Order!

The amendments were given to the hon. member for Green Point because he is the shadow Minister on that side and will therefore handle the Interior portfolio one day if they come into power. Last night he said here, in the presence of a large crowd—

[Interjections.]

In confidence.

I shall come to that. [Interjections.] That was surely wrong. Does the hon. member for Transkei agree with me?

I do not even know when he got it.

Does the hon. member for Yeoville want to tell me that that hon. member was correct in saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister only gave him the amendment two or three days ago? That is surely wrong. [Interjections.]

Order!

May I ask you a question?

No, I am sorry … no, let the hon. member ask his question.

Will the hon. member accept my word if I, as one of the speakers on this side, say that I never saw those amendments, and heard about them for the first time when the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to them?

That is a very intelligent question. I am surprised that such an intelligent question can be forthcoming from an hon. member on the other side. In any case, I accept the hon. member’s word; I accept it wholeheartedly, as people say. The hon. member for Green Point said in this House that he only saw the amendments two or three days ago. I have said that the reason why they were given to him is because he is the person on that side of the House that handles matters such as this. This means that the hon. member for Green Point left his own team in the lurch. He said to the hon. the Prime Minister by way of an interjection that the Department of the Interior needed a slight overhaul. But the group on that side which is responsible for home affairs must be overhauled, and I say this to the hon. member for Yeoville who is the senior member there at the moment. According to my deductions the hon. member for Green Point already had the amendments on Friday. And yet he still comes to this Home and says that he only got those amendments on Monday or Tuesday. I think it is scandalous of him. At the next group meeting the hon. member for Durban Central must take the hon. member for Green Point to task because he left them in the lurch. The result is that members of the United Party came to this House unprepared. They were not qualified to debate this matter here. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove repeated his 1963 speech here. I specifically checked on that. The speech he delivered here yesterday he prepared before the amendments were made available to that side of the House. Or did the hon. member have the amendments? Did the hon. member for Green Point show them to him?

I got hold of them after the Deputy Minister referred to them in this House.

Then the hon. member must also speak to the hon. member for Green Point about it. In any case, the hon. member for Orange Grove prepared his speech on insufficient information. Recently the English Press—and the Afrikaans Press has also allowed itself to be misled slightly—tried to build up a case to show that the Government is unqualified to ensure that the morals and norms of our community, White as well as non-White, are handled properly by this autonomous body. I find it disappointing that the hon. member for Green Point handled the matter in this way. He said that there are certain basic differences between them and us on this side. I accept that—that is why we are two different parties. We approach South Africa’s problems from two fundamentally different points of departure. We therefore do not only differ in respect of method. That is what the hon. member for Maitland claims. The United Party is very holier-than-thousand I say this gently—when they come along and tell the people that they can protect the values of the South African public, that they will ensure that there is no infiltration of anything that can encroach upon the foundations of our people. If we consult the 1963 debate, we find that the member opposite who introduced the debate—I think it was Mr. Badenhorst Durrant, seconded by the hon. member for Transkei, felt so strongly about the Bill that they moved that it be read this day six months. At the time the hon. member for Orange Grove typically made certain predictions. He said, inter alia, (Hansard 1963, column 436)—

He says it was a bad Bill and mentions three reasons in support of that. Now he comes along here and carries on about this Bill. It is his proper right—he can do so if he wants to, but he cannot in the same breath discredit an institution such as this that has already been functioning for eight years. And let me tell you that the members of the Publications Board are doing good work. Not that errors of judgment are not made; that they let something slip through here and there that should not have slipped through, or that they stop something that should not have been stopped. Theirs is a difficult task, one of the most difficult in the community. It is difficult when one has to determine rules and norms. That is why I should like to have seen us lifting this matter out of the realms of party politics. I leave the hon. member for Houghton at that. She says that the principle she advocates is different to that of the United Party; she does not say that they advocate the preservation of the Whites in South Africa; that is why I am simply leaving her in peace. But the United Party says that it also advocates the survival of the White man. Then they come along and they villify the one body in South Africa that has one of the most difficult tasks of all, i.e. trying to stem the sea, the wave of permissiveness that is washing over the world. They impede that body’s task. The hon. member for Durban Central is shaking his head, Sir, but just go and read one day, quietly and levelheadedly, the arguments of the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I tell you that you will want to run as far from the hon. member for Orange Grove as your legs can carry you. But at a later stage I shall still briefly be coming back to him.

Sir, the United Party does not differ from the National Party in respect of method alone; they differ in basic principle with the National Party, and that is why they differ in respect of this matter. The basic difference amounts to this: We also advocate the freedom of the community and the individual. The United Party says that they also want to maintain the freedom of the individual within the family or community context. But their freedom is based on the liberalistic attitude to life and to the world, which in its ultimate logical conclusion cannot but result in the most absurd licentiousness. If that is your basis, you cannot but end up there. The National Party, on the other hand, also advocates freedom, but freedom that emanates from a sense of responsibility. That is why there is this basic difference.

The hon. member for Green Point says that this Board conducts its functions in a “shroud of secrecy”, but surely that is a ridiculous argument. They want to create the impression that we are dealing here with a lot of sorcerers who are sitting with caps on around a cauldron. The hon. member for Maitland said a moment ago that we are building walls between these people and the community. That is surely not true. Sir. After all. these people have fixed norms on which they must base their arguments, and all that is being asked here is that these people must be given an opportunity, for a certain period when these films must be considered, to have a well-balanced look at these matters; that is all. We are not being told that we may not criticize them. The film industry is not being told that it may not make propaganda, and that they may not exhibit their cinematograph films. We are only asking for a quiet spell in which these people can have an opportunity to do their very difficult work. We ask only that they be protected against those people in the community who are supposedly “lovers of freedom”, like the hon. members of the Opposition, and who will want to use every method imaginable simply to stigmatize or threaten these people who are undertaking this responsible work, or, for example, say to them that if they do not make a specific decision they are sheep, dolts or fools. That is all we are asking.

Sir, hon. members of the Opposition also say that we will not consult so-called public opinion. That is just as ridiculous. If there is one party today in the world that has probably been exposed to the heaviest barrage of criticism, locally and abroad, since 1948, then it is the National Party. It is the one party that daily has to take notice of public opinion, whether it wants to at times or not. To say now that we do not want to take public opinion into account is beyond me.

Last night, by way of interjection, I said to the hon. member for Durban Central. “But what does your church say?” The relationship between Church and State, the responsibility of the State and that of the Church, are very difficult matters to handle, particularly in a debate such as this. But I now want to ask the hon. member whether for a single moment he has had a quiet look and asked what those people say. I am not speaking now of the radical theologians, so to speak, but of responsible people. What do they say in respect of this legislation? Last night, after I asked that hon. member that question, the hon. member for Turffontein also replied by way of an interjection that I thought was shocking, a reply that is not on record, and I am glad for his sake. I want to tell the hon. member that like himself I am also one of the younger members of this House, and when one is young one must very frequently suffer the jeers of other people because one is young. But I shall excuse him and not recount today what he said last night when I made this interjection.

I am not ashamed of that. I said it was verkramp.

Would you repeat that?

It is my church and your church.

Oh, you say the church is verkramp?

I say your church and my church.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Sir, I am very sorry that the hon. member, in his youthful impetuosity, still has the temerity to say those things. I think it is a very poor show for the hon. member to have dared to repeat what he perhaps said last night in a mood of merriment. Since the hon. member has now said it, I want to refer him to two passages in the Bible where two young people are being discussed. Solomon said that youth is vanity, and I now want to say that with this interjection that hon. member has reached the pinnacle of vanity. I rather want to refer him to what Paul wrote to Timothy, saying: “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example”.

When the announcement was made that the Publications and Entertainments Bill was probably going to be amended, and that the control of reading matter and cinematograph films was going to be stricter, and it was to be hoped, more efficient, this was immediately greeted by a chorus of protests. This emanated from those circles that usually voice their opinions about these matters. In their arguments we learn a lot about the unfavourable implications that the proposed amendment supposedly entails for the film industry, particularly abroad. It is also remarkable that there is a detailed analysis about the way in which the Press, bookshops and film companies can be adversely affected and the public kept in ignorance. Very little is said, however, about the extent to which the morals of the people are affected and the spirit tarnished by pernicious reading matter, cinematograph films and dramas where there is insufficient control or no control whatsoever. Every step or attempt that could in any way lead to restrictions on the freedom of expression or enjoyment, is immediately condemned as the most atrocious transgression that the authorities could ever commit in respect of their subjects. Those who are entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of handling these strict measures usually receive nothing but criticism, abuse and frustration in the execution of their tasks. What we again notice in the violence of the storms of protest is the old familiar liberalistic demands that man must be completely torn from the bonds and the restrictions that are imposed upon him from outside.

It is the demand for a freedom in which no interference from higher authorities are tolerated. We gain the impression that freedom is being claimed for people simply to be able to write anything, read anything or present and see anything by way of plays and films that they want to, and in whatever way they choose. Apparently one altogether loses sight of the fact that it is specifically the permission of this same kind of freedom which also indicates to us in other facets of social life how people simply come to throw the limits of refinement, decency and morality overboard altogether. What this kind of freedom leads to we have already had sufficient indication of from the countries where the spirit of permissiveness has already taken over and where discipline has slackened altogether. Church and State leaders are today virtually powerless and want to throw in the towel, as it were, in this struggle against moral decay. In a church magazine a Dutch writer recently used the fitting expression: “The terror of freedom”, because in some countries it has become a true reign of terror. Everyone who regards the passage of events in the Western world with concern and who asks where our civilization is going to, concedes that the root of the evil must be sought in the false conceptions of human freedom. If true freedom must exist in the fact that man can think, speak and write completely as he wants to, and pollute his spirit as he chooses, regardless of the world in which he moves and the forces placed over him, then he is truly a law, a norm and an authority unto himself. We, the governing party, have a function and task of our own, i.e. to formulate and develop legal possibilities and laws for individuals and human relations and to maintain and protect these laws with authority and force so that orderly, harmonious co-operation faithful to one’s calling is mutually possible between individuals and human groups. When we at least try here to realize this part of the given calling and to protect ourselves, as far as it is humanly possible, against the onslaughts of pernicious literature and films, co-operation rather than protest and agreement rather than abuse ought to be displayed.

I thereby want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we shall perhaps still have to amend this Act frequently in the future. But we do it with an attitude and in a spirit that is aimed at maintaining and developing the true and basic values of White civilization, and at trying to create a world for our children in which orderliness and high moral norms will be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, the greater part of the hon. member for Rissik’s speech, or certainly the beginning of it, was taken up with discussing the amendments which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given to the hon. member for Green Point. I want to say right away, whatever the arrangements were between those two gentlemen, which I obviously cannot comment on, that I take the greatest possible exception to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not see fit to allow me and every other member of this House to see those amendments. Amendments which Ministers or Deputy Ministers intend to move at the Committee Stages of Bills are not supposed to be kept as dark secrets. The House is supposed to be made aware of changes which Ministers are intending to introduce. I cannot understand why it was that the hon. the Deputy Minister saw fit to deliver these precious secret amendments into the keeping of one hon. member of this House and not allow anyone else to have a glimpse at them and, in fact, to have any knowledge of them, until he himself introduces the Second Reading of this Bill in the House. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would look at the present Order Paper we have before us, he will see that there are three other Bills, two of which have not even had their Second reading yet, and on which Ministers have already tabled their amendments. He will see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has tabled many amendments which he intends to move at Committee Stage after the Second Reading of his Bill has been taken. I do not understand why it is that the hon. the Deputy Minister decided to adopt this course of action. I believe that he owes this House an explanation of what he has done. For the rest, I will say to the hon. member for Rissik that I do not think that he is really very well qualified to discuss the meaning of liberal philosophy. I do not think he even begins to understand what liberal philosophy means.

Are you qualified?

Yes, I am qualified, because I am a self-acknowledged liberal. I can say with the greatest possible emphasis that he is quite wrong when he says that liberals do not distinguish between licence and liberty. He believes that, unless everybody agrees with his own narrow point of view, they must obviously be libertines. He does not understand the meaning of liberalism at all. I want to say at once that liberals do recognize that there is a difference between liberty and licence. They do recognize that freedom of speech, for instance, in which I believe very sincerely, does not mean that I can, for instance, go into a crowded cinema and shout “Fire!” It also does not mean that I can libel people. Freedom of movement, in which I also believe, does not mean that I can trespass on my neighbour’s property. We are very well aware of these distinctions. Equally, liberals do not approve of pornography. But they certainly do not approve of the methods that this Government has introduced to fight pornography. There are Obscenity Acts and laws which can be used. These in fact were used in South Africa until 1963, when the Government saw fit to establish the Publications Board. I believe that the old way in which we fought obscenity in this country was perfectly capable of coping with the problem.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will resolve for us this interesting question as to who really was the father of this Bill. Where does the paternity of this Bill stem from? Was it the hon. the Deputy Minister himself or was it, I wonder, the Chairman of the Publications Board? I want to say that whoever was responsible, the month of conception was November. 1970, because in that month the hon. the Deputy Minister told the Nationalist Party at its Transvaal congress that the Government was contemplating legislation to give the Publications Board greater powers. During the very same month the chairman of the board told the Rapportryerskorps in Cape Town that the board would act more strongly in the future. It is clear therefore that both these gentlemen were thinking along the same lines. I want to say at once that whoever it was who fathered this Bill, was responsible for a very messy, premature little brainchild, because that is what the Bill is. That is certainly what it was before the hon. the Deputy Minister told us about the amendment which he was going to introduce to clause 4. I want to say at once that I do not think that the amendment has made very much difference to the Bill. The mopping up operation has not really improved the Bill at all.

The amended Long Title, which is what interests me very much, now reads that one of the objects of the Bill is “to provide for the unfettered performance of functions by the Board and the Minister”. We are therefore being asked today to remove Some of the fetters which existed and which troubled the chairman of the board. Are we acting rightly by removing these fetters? Should we not examine, first of all, how the board has behaved in the past before we can decide whether it is desirable to remove what fetters there are?

I should like to give the House one or two examples which I hope will prove that the House should not in fact remove whatever fetters there were on this board. I believe that this board has made us the laughing stock of the Western world. I want to give one recent example, namely the famous pantihose example, where this ridiculous board decided that it would ban the appearance on store counters of a brand of pantihose unless this brand was put in plastic covers. This having been done, the company which produced the pantihose found themselves in some difficulties, because they decided that they had better send the new package designs in the future to the board for what they called “moral reconnaissance.” One of these new packages showed a woman in pantihose bearing a vague but undesirable outline in the chest region. “Take out”, was the stern response from the board, according to a report which I have here. The next thing was that these stocking manufacturers came out with a new idea, namely a yellow arrow across the offending portion of the anatomy in order, they said, to make the package without the offending bulge. Then they thought they had better take further steps and so they sent out people to look for a model who had none of this offensive bulge, and who could model pantihose for them. The agency told the people here that they were searching for a flat-chested woman.

Twiggy.

Yes. And finally they were able to cable the local agents as follows:

Now I ask you! We have come to the stage in South Africa in 1971 where this sort of absurdity can happen because of the actions of the board under its present fetters. Heaven knows what will happen if we do in fact remove these fetters.

I must say that the board cannot claim infallibility in the past. It claims a number of other things, as I will show in a moment, but it cannot claim infallibility. If one looks at the record of what the board has been doing over the last few years, one finds that in 1967 it had to unban ten books which it had previously banned, including a classic “I, Claudius” by Robert Graves. That book was banned in its paperback edition. It had to unban it on second thoughts. In 1968 it had to unban eight books which had been previously banned, one of them a book by Emile Zola and two of them by D. H. Lawrence. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member for Prinshof by saying that one of them was not “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”. Last night he was very anxious to know whether “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” should be unbanned.

One must ask how does the board do its job with the powers it has at the moment. It bans over 700 books per year. That is the average to date. I admit that many of those books are pornographic books, that many of them are obscene pieces of literature, but a great number of them are not obscene literature. They are political works which should be allowed because any adult should be allowed to judge for himself what he thinks of the political works. Many of them, of course, are popular books, which are read in every country of the world by adult people.

Apart from the fact that they are banning an average of two books a day, the board, of course, is also very busy listening to records, like those of the Beatles and others. Then they also examine objects, undefined, which are referred to them by the public. One of the recent items was a poster with one of Michelangelo’s works on it. I understand it was first embargoed and then again released. I do not know what standard is used by the board, but heaven help us if it is compatible with a letter which the chairman, who is a very prolific letter writer, sent to The Star and at a later date to the Cape Times. As I have said, heaven help us if we start removing the fetters that presently inhibit the board to some extent. What he said is this:

He has read into the author’s mind. He goes on:

One of his panel presumably marks the offensive words, the member of the board skims through the book and he then finds the words which have been underlined by the member of the panel. And what is the result? Out go these works of considerable merit! Just imagine that in this day and age we have panels of readers who are simply looking for offensive words in modern literature and thereafter works of considerable merit are banned.

He goes further than that. Now this Bill, in clause 7. introduces a special army of snoopers who are allowed to go round, enter anybody’s home, snoop around to look for what they believe will be undesirable literature, objects or publications and submit these to the board to get their opinions thereon. Let us look at the board’s record as far as film banning is concerned. Here one must remember that the only way of appeal is to the Minister. There is no appeal where the banning of films is concerned to the courts of law. I am hoping that in his reply the hon. the Minister will tell us how many films have been submitted to him on appeal and how many of these appeals he has upheld. I know of one and that was done by the former Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Police and Economic Affairs. He upset a ruling which had been given by the board in regard to the film “Prudence and the Pill”. I must say that the comments of the chairman of the board are rather revealing. I am glad that the hon. member for Pretoria Central is here, because he was one who last night suggested that the board was going to build up a body of precedents to which it could refer. I just want him to know what the chairman said after the Minister had unbanned a film which the board had banned. When he said what I am going to quote now, he forgot that it is not the policy of the board to give reasons for banning. He was so shocked that the hon. the Minister had unbanned this film that he gave some reasons for their banning of the film. He said:

The naughty old Minister! He was not prepared to allow this film to be banned. He did not mind it at all. However, the chairman said:

Thus in the case of one appeal re a film which was allowed by the hon. the Minister, when the Minister uses his judgment to unban a film which has been banned, the board dismisses it and says that they will take no notice of him in the future at all. What sort of a dogmatic attitude is that? Yet it is to this board that we are asked to give even greater unfettered powers. Its actions are to be put beyond any public criticism or polemic, as the hon. the Deputy Minister put it, that may spoil its solemn deliberations. Last night the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is I believe a member of the Pretoria Bar, actually put the Publications Control Board on the same basis as a court of law, as a judicial body. I must say I was amazed to hear a member of the Bar say such a thing.

Shocked.

Yes, I was shocked. By what possible yardstick can the hon. member put a Publications and Censorship Board on the same basis as a court of law? He said that the same sort of sub judice rule should apply to the board to protect it in its deliberations as that which applies to a court of law.

I gave you my reasons last night.

I do not think that they were very good reasons at all.

He does not seem to know much about a court.

No, he does not seem to know very much about courts. I do not see why the hon. member imagines that this board should be protected from public opinion, because that was really what he was asking for. He was asking that the board be protected from public opinion as if this is such a solemn matter, as if people’s lives are at stake.

I never said that the board should be protected from public opinion.

If the public is not allowed to express its opinion because of a sub judice rule what is that other than protecting the board against public opinion?

This new amendment does not affect the public at all. It only affects the owner of the film.

The owners of films happen to be members of the public. Let me put it another way. Will the hon. member interpret for me, or perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can, the meaning of this new clause? I think it is so widely worded that no person who is busy making a film is going to be able to make head or tail of it. The new sub-clause (4A) is as follows:

I do not understand what that means. Supposing somebody making a film decides that he would like to get some sort of expression of opinion on the sort of film he is making and somebody writes a letter to a paper about this. Is this or is it not influencing the board while it is engaged in its solemn deliberations? This clause is very widely worded indeed. If he himself initiates something like this …

If he initiates it and it can be proved, he is definitely liable.

Yes, if he initiates it he will fall foul of this clause. This is precisely the point I want to make.

The onus rests on the court to prove that.

I am glad that occasionally we do have laws left in this country where the onus is on the court and not on the wretched accused. When the 1963 Act was passed one hon. member on the other side told us that the rule of law will eventually be our censorship in this country and that the courts will decide what the norm is. Last night the hon. member for Pretoria Central told us that we can expect fewer and fewer cases to be heard in front of courts because the board will have taken notice of previous decisions of the courts and that they will have built up this body of precedents. In this regard I want to remind the hon. member of a recent court decision by Judge Henning. The judgment was passed on October 2nd 1970 in connection with one of the Scope cases. The judge’s comments included terms like “utterly absurd”, “incomprehensible”, “quaint”, “unjustifiable” and “sucked out of the air”. He could not have been more forthright in his condemnation of the board’s actions in banning that issue of Scope. But what did the chairman of the board have to say about that? He said: “This is an individual case and the judgment is only binding as far as this particular thing is concerned, that is all.” Does this sound like the actions of a man who is taking note of decisions of a court of law and the actions of a man who is building up some body of precedent on which he can rely for future cases? Certainly not! This man simply acts without any humility whatever as far as previous court decisions are concerned. So much for the hon. member for Pretoria Central’s hope that a body of precedents is going to be built up. I say the board is going to continue on its merry way, making quaint, absurd and incomprehensible bannings and decisions, completely oblivious of the criticism of judges, who are surely, I would say, just as able to pass judgment on films and publications which should or should not be allowed as is the board.

I might say that the board’s chairman is anything but modest in the claims that he makes for members of his board. He has said that four of the topmost literati are members of the board. He went on to say that there is one member who is perhaps one of the greatest authorities in the world on matters of ideology, politics and philosophy. Well, that is some claim! He did not tell us who it was.

He was thinking of himself.

The hon. member for Pinetown may be right. Perhaps the chairman was indeed thinking of himself. But I should like to know what this great authority on matters of ideology, politics and philosophy knows about modern films. That is all I can ask. Even with the existing curb of public polemics and criticism, there are very weird antics one can point to on the pert of this brilliant board. It has been very active indeed in slashing films to ribbons or prohibiting them. In the first 13 months of its existence the board banned 20 films completely. By 1969 this figure had more than doubled. Last year 49 films were banned. Of the films that were approved, just about half were approved on condition that they were subject to excision. So only about half of the films that were approved were in fact allowed to be shown in toto to the public.

Whatever the qualifications are of this splendid board, I want to know what are the qualifications of the panel members. Perhaps the House ought to know, because I put this question. The qualifications of the three members of the panel who sit on the board of censors, that is, the film board, are the following. One has senior certificate. One has senior certificate plus final piano and advanced violin. One has a licentiate in music. These three ladies have served on the board for very many years. I must say they were regrettably referred to by one incensed film producer whose film was recently banned as “those old tannies”, who banned the film on the sole grounds that it was not truly or typically South African. Now this Bill wants to remove whatever curbs there are.

Are they unmarried?

No, I think, as a matter of fact, they all are married ladies, as far as I can remember. That does not always help, I might point out to the hon. member.

While I am on the subject of films, I do want to say at this juncture that I do not agree with the attitude taken by the official Opposition on clause 4 (A). That part of the clause now prohibits private showings of uncut films. My view—the liberal view, as the hon. member for Rissik will no doubt point out—is that if there are a few people who are lucky enough to see these uncut films, well, good luck to them. Who cares? I really do not care at all. These are not blue films. They are not pornographic films. These are perfectly good award-winning films. I can give the House a few examples of films which I have seen overseas, uncut. I have seen them, cut, here. There are films like “Women in love”, “M + A + S + H” and “Midnight Cowboy”. Those are not blue films. They are films which have been acclaimed throughout the modern world as wonderful examples of modern film-making. For us, adults White or non-White South Africans, only to be able to see these films after they have been cut to ribbons by this board of censors, is to me ridiculous. The more people that can see them uncut, the better as far as I am concerned. I conclude by saying that I was dead against the original measure which brought the Publications Board into existence in 1963. I was not in favour of the type of control which was set up then and I am still not in favour of it—less so now after having seen over seven years how this board operates. Consequently I am certainly not in favour of extending the powers of the Publications Board. Every other Western country is engaged in a process of doing away with Victorian forms of censorship but here in South Africa we are in the process of adding to the powers of a board. Through that we are moving right away from the rest of Western civilization. We seem to think that we have a certain special brand of civilization in this country. Well, if that is the sort of protection hon. members opposite feel they require, I do not. In fact, I think it is an insult to adult South Africans to be subjected to the tender ministrations of this extremely narrow-minded board. Consequently I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

The speech made by the hon. member for Houghton does not differ much from those made by hon. members of the Opposition who have already expressed their opposition to this Bill. In fact, I found it striking to see with What attentiveness hon. members of the Opposition followed the speech made by this self-confessed liberalist. They listened to her with respect. The language she spoke, is that of the United Party in general. In this regard she only differs from them in one minor respect. It is because I want to deal with the speeches made by members of the United Party that I do not want to deal with her speech in detail. After all, the language of the one is, by and large, the language of the other.

I just want to furnish the hon. member for Houghton with certain information which she asked from the Minister, information which she actually has in her possession already. She has already asked the hon. the Minister the following question: Whether any appeals were lodged during 1970 against the restrictions imposed on cinematograph films by the Publications Control Board; if so, on how many occasions, what titles, etc. She also wanted to know whether those appeals had succeeded; if so what titles. She has received his reply to that question but has now asked the question again—for what purpose, I do not know. The reply she received, was that there had been 19 cinematograph films against which appeals were lodged, and that 5 appeals had succeeded. Then she hinted that the rulings of the Publications Control Board were being thrown out by the courts one after the other. But what are the facts? In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Green Point, information was furnished in regard to the number of publications that had been prohibited from 1963 up to the end of last year. There were 5,787 such publications. Of these 5,787 only 14 of the bans were lifted after they had been subject to appeals to the courts, and in the case of publications one has free access to the courts. Consequently one must infer that this Publications Control Board is doing its work thoroughly. The Publications Control Board prohibited this large number of publications, and in spite of the fact that people are free to go to the courts in order to obtain rulings in regard to this matter, only 14 of the Board’s rulings were set aside.

But, Sir, I should like to come back to the speeches made by the previous speakers on the Opposition side. I have examined them carefully and arrived at a few conclusions. In the first place, I want to say that hon. members of the Opposition had little to say about the amendment to the law before us at the moment and about the effect thereof, with the possible exception of the hon. member for Maitland, but they did have much to say about the effect of control over publications in general, control which, in this debate, they want to equate with the principle of censure, although we know that this is not the concept that should be read into this Bill. In reading the speeches made in this House in 1963, we see that the intention of this Act was not censure, but in fact control. Then I also come to the conclusion that hon. members of the Opposition have been trying to ride on a self-imagined wave of popular opposition, opposition which, in my modest observation, originated mainly with certain columnists in our daily papers, particularly those daily papers which adopt a more popular tone in their reporting. I want to assure them that they are as usual riding on the wrong wave. They will find that they are completely out of touch with the views of the broad masses, the silent masses outside. I have also found that, whereas hon. members of the Opposition, especially through the mouth of the hon. member for Green Point, are coming out in favour of control, they are attacking the machinery of control, as was also stated here by the hon. member for Maitland. May I say here to his credit that to my mind he, uncharacteristically, almost made a very responsible speech here in this House. Perhaps this is to be “blamed” on the good influence of his M.P., who is speaking here now. He made a very responsible speech, for he also said this and he emphasized it. This is the gist of the speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition: They want control, but they are attacking the method. They are even going so far, as was done by the hon. member for Orange Grove, as to attack and disparage the whole machinery of control to such an extent that one may rightly ask whether these hon. members are in fact in earnest about the retention of the principle of control …

Never.

… for they are not substituting anything for it. They want control; they have been pleading for it, but they are substituting nothing for the machinery which exists at the moment and which we now want to cause to operate more smoothly.

Have you ever heard of the old Board of Censors?

The hon. member is asking me about the old Board of Censors. Why was it rejected? Why was it investigated for many years; why were there commissions of inquiry, in which hon. members of the Opposition also participated? Why did we pilot legislation through Parliament if it had not been for the fact that at that stage that old legislation was ineffective and the present legislation was the more effective method of control? This is the control which we want to exercise, and this is the control which they now want to undo.

But listen to what the hon. member for Green Point said in his speech. He said—

These are the three points in respect of which they want control. Up to this point I have no difficulty in following them. There are no problems in that regard. There may be differences in degrees amongst us as to how far one can go by those means. We may even go a little further than they would, but I still find it possible to support this statement. But now he has to squeeze past the machinery in terms of which this control is to be exercised, and then he says—

Therefore, that is the criterion in terms of which he wants to measure the effectiveness of the control, i.e. “that it carries with it the support of public opinion”. I shall come back to this in a moment. Then he went further and ruined his whole case. Up to this point one could still follow him, but then he ruined his whole case by going on to say—

And in that vein he carried on with the rest of his speech.

†Sir, where is this “shroud of secrecy” in the legislation before us today? There is no shroud of secrecy in the legislation before us today. It is only a prohibition against the influencing of your Minister and your board. [Interjections.] It is the same sort of thing that was adequately dealt with last night by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. Sir, I think the principle of sub judice is well established in our country and it could very well apply here. I only think we are not going far enough. I think we should protect the chairman and the board itself against ridicule, as they are sometimes ridiculed in the popular Press. I think the same sort of principle which applies to Judges of the Supreme Court and to magistrates should also apply to the chairman and the members of this board of control. I do not think the legislation goes far enough in this respect.

They must not be ridiculed whether they are right or not.

After the hon. member for Green Point made his remarks, he went on to quote a number of court decisions criticizing the fact that the Publications Board need not give reasons, and the rest of his speech was practically devoted to that aspect. I suggest and submit that it is totally irrelevant to the matter before us today in this Parliament, became here he was attacking the principle in the main Act, and not the principle in the legislation before us here today.

What nonsense!

No, I am not talking nonsense. The hon. member will have his opportunity. He was attacking the principle in the main Act that the Publications Board need not divulge the reasons for its decision. There is nothing contained in the legislation before us about that. Let the hon. member not display his ignorance here.

*I therefore submit that the hon. member for Green Point wasted two-thirds of the time he used here on saying things that were actually irrelevant, but since he did speak and since he did adopt a certain attitude, which the hon. member for Maitland also supported very strongly, I should like to touch upon it for a moment.

The hon. member said, in the first place, that there had to be control, and I find that a good thing; I endorse it, but then, in the second place, he came forward with a very vague half-truth, the depth of which I cannot quite fathom, by saying that the control had to carry with it the support of public opinion. And that was also the point made by the hon. member for Durban North. The mistake he made though, was to claim that the findings of the present Publications Control Board did not carry with them the support of public opinion. In that respect the hon. member is absolutely mistaken. There are many people, more than hon. members on the other side of the House realize, who endorse the actions of this Publications Control Board. This is also proved by the figure I quoted a moment ago, namely that only 14 of the rulings given by the Board were rescinded over the period from 1963 to last year. After all, this must endorse the finding that this board has been doing good work and that it has the support of the majority of the population of South Africa.

The hon. member for Maitland observed that all history was the history of censure. That is true. The problem of freedom, freedom to write, to say and to do as one pleases, is a problem which has existed in society from ancient times. This question has been debated from ancient times: What is freedom? What should the restrictions on freedom be? Where should the line be drawn? Who draws the line? In ancient Greek philosophy we had the doctrine of Plato in his “Republic”, i.e. that man is a political being. Since he is a political being, he is bound to his community, and the restriction of his actions lies in the very fact that he must do nothing which may prejudice his community. For a while these ideas were lost, but they were rediscovered during the Renaissance. These are in fact the ideas which still hold good in our community today. Shortly after the Greek philosophies had originated, we had the rise of the Roman Empire. During this period the idea of the natural law originated once again, the generally accepted natural law, principles beyond man, God given principles. Then one also had the rise of Christianity, which lay down generally accepted ethical principles in the same manner: a divine universal right and divine universal moral principles. Gradually the Western civilization embraced the idea that there was something beyond man, something stronger than man, something which is universally acceptable, something which ought to be endorsed by all people. Now, we must determine what that something is. The Opposition tells us that they equate it with public opinion. They want to impose these restrictions on freedom by means of public opinion. They want to allow public opinion to dictate to us precisely what the norms are which we should like to see upheld in our society. By whom is this public opinion expressed? Whose opinion is it? Is it the opinion of the hon. Opposition? Is it not perhaps the opinion on the Government side? Is it the opinion of the producers of films? Is it not perhaps the opinion of the church? Is it the opinion of the Beatles, or such groups? Who determines the public opinion that was cast in our midst by the hon. member for Green Point, supported by the hon. members for Durban North and Maitland? Is it determined by the columnists, or some of the columnists? Or is it determined by some of the more responsible columnists in our more popular dailies and weeklies?

Such as Rapport.

May I tell the hon. member for Kensington what the Vice-Persident of America, Spiro Agnew, said about television network departments, i.e. people who are following more or less the same profession he is. Should I tell him how he described them? He described them as a “tiny and closed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by government”. That is how this pressure group in our society, these supposed opinion-makers, may be described. They are the people who want to bring pressure to bear on society in order to guide it along a certain course, a course which is correct in their opinion. We refuse to accept that these people alone are the rulers of the fate of the morals and the mores of our population in South Africa. To whom are these hon. gentlemen accountable? Are they accountable to the electorate? Do they have to go to the polls every five years in order to fight an election? If not, to whom are they accountable? The responsibility to take decisions lies with those people who are in contact and in touch with the people. That is where the responsibility lies to decide on these matters. Who determines the norms of what is right or wrong or decent? If I had to listen to the hon. members of the Opposition, the reply would be, “A cross-section of the views of the community as a whole.” I want to believe that that is what their “public opinion” means. Not one of them has said this so far; they have not yet been able to reach that point. All they have done, has been to seize upon the idea of “public opinion”. I think that their idea of “public opinion” is coupled with the “public opinion” of the journalists. That is as far as their “public opinion” goes. I hope that I have already proved to the hon. members that in this society of ours there are more people than merely the journalists who think about and have an understanding of these matters. I say, how are we to determine this public opinion? Would hon. members say that it is determined by reading newspapers? Do we determine it by listening to the more talkative elements in our society? Or do we determine it by considering what is being felt in the hearts and the minds of the silent majority? Only then would we be moving closer to the concept of the universal right, what is right and irrefutable beyond all suspicion, those standards which are accepted by all of us as being right.

I make bold to say that this side of the House, the Government, is moving much closer to this silent majority than does any other group in South Africa. It is this silent majority which is giving us the responsibility to act the way we do. We are interpreting the mood of the people outside. As the silent majority has placed its confidence in us, we are obliged to provide and maintain the necessary machinery for carrying out its instructions. That we did as far back as 1963. At the time we introduced a whole series of standards, which, in our opinion, is the reduction of the universal idea of what is right and proper. With this legislation we have not removed the right to criticize. The right to criticize remains intact. After a ruling has been given by the Publications Control Board or by the Minister, there is nothing to prevent any hon. member here from telling the Minister that he has taken a wrong decision. It is possible for them to speculate on what his motives were and to criticize him. Then it is for him to decide whether he wants to furnish his reasons. We are prepared to allow the machinery of control to function in terms of certain norms, as stated here in the Act. We are prepared to accept the responsibility for it. The Opposition wants control but, at the same time, destroy the possibility of control by attacking the procedure of control, without substituting anything for it and without stating how public opinion is to determine these norms. We support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville made a great point of the fact that only 14 decisions of the Publications Control Board had been set aside, and alleged that this proved that the board was doing good work. But the hon. member will concede that this is a very poor argument, for the simple reason that we in South Africa have a relatively small market and that there are very few publishers who can afford to go to court and have a decision tested there. It is a fact that for most people it is not worth the trouble to institute a court case. What the hon. member should have told us, however, is what percentage these 14 cases are of the total number of cases which have come before the court in this regard. If one examines this, it becomes apparent that the court has set aside a very large percentage of the board’s decisions in respect of which appeals were lodged with it. I am quite convinced that if all banned material were submitted to the court for judgment, the number would not have been 14, but hundreds and probably more than a thousand. I may just add that this is a matter of opinion.

If there is one Government body about which there is great and justified dissatisfaction in the country, it is the Publications Control Board. There is a very strong feeling among the people that it is time that Parliament thoroughly revised the composition, powers and duties of the Publications Control Board. It is a pity it has not been done, because this is the opportunity for having done so. Although this legislation is an amending Bill, it makes the principal Act applicable to South-West Africa. Consequently the whole of the principal Act is involved in this amending Bill.

I want to say immediately, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point, that we are not only going to vote against the Bill, but that in the Committee Stage we are also going to vote specifically against every provision which makes the principal Act applicable to South-West Africa, unless we receive an assurance from the hon. the Minister that, after this amending Bill has been dealt with, he will submit the principal Act to a Select Committee of Parliament for thorough revision.

Anyone who has watched the activities of the present Publications Control Board with an open mind, who has read the criticisms and who has taken note of the condemnatory judgments which one judge after another has given in regard to the actions of the Publications Control Board, will have to admit that there is something seriously wrong. It is not without reason that the hon. the Minister too, who is, after all, regarded as responsible by his own party, time and again finds himself in the position that he has to set aside the decisions of the Publications Control Board. There must be something wrong. Some decisions of the Publications Control Board were, without the slightest doubt, archaic. Others were simply comical. In the past 12 months and more, the sorely tried taxpayers have had to pay thousands and thousands of rands for the blunders committed by the Publications Control Board. There is simply no indication that matters are going to improve in future.

Members of the Publications Control Board hide behind the provisions of the Act and the strict instructions which the Act gives the Publications Control Board. There is an element of truth in this, but then this in fact proves that the standpoint we adopted in 1963, and which we are again going to adopt here, was correct in that we opposed the Act as it appears on the Statute Book at present and that we are perfectly justified in saying that this legislation should not be extended and made applicable to South-West Africa before it has been subjected to a thorough revision.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us no satisfactory reason why the principal Act should be made applicable to South-West Africa. He did not tell us whether anyone of importance in South-West Africa had requested it. He did not tell us whether he had consulted the various cultural groups in South-West Africa on the matter. What is more, he told us nothing about any representation on the Publications Control Board of the relatively strong German cultural group in South-West. We all know that South-West has a strong German background. At the moment the censoring, especially of German films, is done by a special committee of three there. They will simply fall away next year. It would seem to me that the German cultural group there will then be as neglected as the English cultural group in the Republic is at present in respect of representation. Today the English cultural group is faced with the position that about 95 per cent of the material, books, films and shows which pass through the hands of the Publications Control Board, is English material, but that of the 24 paid persons who work for the Publications Control Board, not more than five and I think only four, have been drawn from the English cultural group. On another occasion we will once again examine the question of the composition of the Publications Control Board, but we expect information from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to how he is going to make provision for the interests of the German cultural group before the principal legislation is made applicable to South-West Africa.

This brings me to one of the most peculiar aspects of this legislation. The principal Act of 1963 is to be applied to South-West Africa with a very significant exception, i.e. with the exception of section 10 (c) (xiv). Section 10 of the principal Act deals with films; and subsection (c) (xiv) instructs the Publications Control Board that it shall not approve any film which in its opinion “depicts in an offensive manner intermingling of White and non-White persons”. As everyone knows, the word “offensive” in the principal Act has a relative meaning because of the political policy of the Government. Social intercourse between Whites and non-Whites, which takes place normally in other countries, is also regarded as offensive in South Africa. The result is that, as it stands at present, section 10 (c) (xiv) means in practice that the Publications Control Board is obliged to ban all films in which White and non-White actors associate on a non-apartheid basis. This is being done, even though it is concerned with normal life in other countries of the world. This section has already resulted in the ridiculous situation that some of the best films ever made, and some of the best actors the world has ever seen, cannot be shown in our country because of this instruction to the Publications Control Board. It is this section that almost caused an interesting film such as “Katrina” to be banned. As far as South-West Africa is concerned, this single section of the principal Act is now being eliminated by the new legislation. It is not being eliminated in so far as it is applicable to us. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave the following explanation. I quote from his Hansard—

The statement made here by the hon. the Deputy Minister is an extremely important one on behalf of the Government. There will be an occasion, but the present will not be an appropriate one, when we will want to investigate the implications of this statement of policy more closely.

What we can see is that we here have to deal with a very interesting pattern which is developing and of which we have already seen quite a few examples. References to race, colour, White and non-White are being removed systematically and with great care from legislation which is applicable to South-West Africa. Incidentally, I wonder if this will not ultimately implicate the White political representatives of South-West Africa in this House as well. I myself have always believed that at some stage or other there would have to be a retreat, a whittling-down such as we are now seeing. I must say it does not really matter to me whether the whittling-down of petty apartheid starts in South-West Africa, as long as it starts. It is important enough that it has started and that it is being done in the form of contra-legislation. What we want to object to strenuously today, is that section 10 (c) (xiv) is being eliminated from the Act only in so far as South-West Africa is concerned, but is not being eliminated from the Act in so far as the Republic is concerned. I can think of nothing more comical than an arrangement of this nature. People move to and fro between South-West Africa and the Republic. The same sort of people living there live here in the Republic as well. I can see no good reason whatsoever why the Publications Control Board should be instructed in terms of this amending Bill to approve a film for exhibition in South-West Africa and to prohibit the exhibition of the same film in the Republic in terms of the same Act. One would then have the situation that a film such as “South Pacific”, just to mention an example, would be allowed to be exhibited in its entirety in Windhoek if this measure is passed, but would not be allowed to be exhibited in the Cape. This is utterly ridiculous. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how this double standard will be handled in practice. We shall watch the position and see how it works in practice. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether films are now going to get a label: “Suitable for South-West Africa, unsuitable for the Republic”? Is this what is going to happen? I am putting this as a specific question to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I hope he will give us a reply in regard to how this double standard will be applied in practice. I sincerely hope, however, that he will consider not proceeding with this farce, but that he will simply remove section 10 (c) (xiv) from the principal Act completely so that it will fall away for South-West Africa as well as for the Republic.

I now come to the controversial clause 4. The hon. the Deputy Minister notified us that he was going to amend the proposed section 4A. I just want to say in passing that the fact that he is going to do this and is also going to make other amendments to the Bill, is entirely due to the vigilance of the Opposition, the Press and various academic institutions which play the role of watchdog organizations in the country. I hope this will help to bring home a deeper realization to the thinking public of how necessary it is to be vigilant in the light of the attitudes of the Government. In my opinion the amendments the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to effect are very limited in scope. This means that we on this side of the House cannot support the new 4A. It remains as unacceptable to us as the original provision in the Bill. The new 4A reads as follows—

What are the limits of this? What does “do anything” mean in practice? The hon. the Deputy Minister did not enlighten us about that. This is not how legislation should be passed. When legislation which exposes people to penal provisions should they contravene it, is placed on the Statute Book, that legislation must be specific. What does “do anything” mean? Our entire democratic way of life is based on the right which people have to argue, to put forward pleas and to influence. What would we be doing here in Parliament if we did not have the right to try to influence the Government and the Minister, whichever Minister it may be, to take the right action? We as members of Parliament and the Government are exposed all day to the influence of public opinion. Nobody has said that we must accept public opinion as the final arbitrator. The Government of any country has the final say. What we are pleading for, is that when a decision is taken public opinion should not be left out of account. As members of this House we are exposed to public opinion every day and we must continually account to public opinion. Why should public servants, such as the members of the Publications Control Board, now suddenly not be exposed to the same influence of public opinion? This is our complaint. What kind of board is it which causes the public taxpayer to pay thousands of rands for its mistakes, but which looks to Parliament for protection against the influence of those people in the form of public opinion? I think if there is anything improper, undesirable and offensive, it is the protection which is being sought here.

I do not want to ascribe the blame for this attitude only to the members of the Publications Control Board. The Government had the power to refuse them the powers they requested. But I am afraid we have to deal with Government members who are as allergic to the formation of opinion which they think may be directed against them. Nothing proves this better than the attitude the hon. the Minister adopted in the amendment which he submitted to this House at the last moment. I am convinced the Minister walked around for a long time with this amendment in his pocket. It is an important amendment, but he did not publish it. Why did he not publish it? Not only does he, as a politician, want to avoid public discussion, but he does not even want the Members of Parliament, who must decide on Bills, to discuss and consider the matter properly before the time so that they can conduct a proper debate on it. Apparently the Minister’s attitude is that important pieces of legislation must be prepared in secrecy, be submitted here as a surprise and then be pushed through this House as quietly as possible. This is an undemocratic approach. Because this sort of spirit lies at the basis of clause 4A, this new amendment, we are completely opposed to it.

In conclusion, I want to object to clause 7 as well. The long nose of the Publications Control Board is being made considerably longer by this amendment. Its powers are not only being extended, but are being extended in a way which will make it an even greater source of irritation in the country than it already is. What is in fact being created in this clause, is a new category of police, namely cultural police, who, for a wide variety of reasons stipulated here, may now visit persons in order to search through their libraries if they want to. The clause provides that “any person”, including a member of the board, may qualify for this work. It need not be a person who is deemed to be competent, but any person. The Minister may appoint any person, any Dick, Tom or Harry, to do this type of work, regardless of whether he is deemed to be competent or not. Admittedly the clause has been amended in such a way that it must be ordered by the Minister, but the Minister is a politician. In any case, we know from experience that the Minister will have to rely to a large extent on the recommendations of the board. A Minister is a busy man, and he will naturally have to allow himself to be guided by the board. I want to put it in this way, that if we had a board with a different outlook, we might perhaps have had less objection to this clause. But the board has shown that it has such a tremendous appetite for the banning of books and placards, etc., which enjoy world-wide recognition as works of art and classical works that one has the difficulty that today there are very few private libraries indeed where people are not unwittingly guilty of displaying books which have been frowned upon by the present Publications Control Board. It will be no use if the hon. the Minister gives us the assurance that he will not misuse the clause. We know how often assurances have been given in the past about the application of legislation, and how those assurances have as often been flung to the winds. Members would do well to read the debates of 1963. They would do well to look up the promises made by Minister Jan de Klerk at the time in regard to the application of the Act. The Publications Control Board may read those things as well. Hon. members would then be able to judge how many promises were made at the time in regard to the implementation of the Act, promises which have not been kept at all, in other words, have not been fulfilled as made here at the time. We believe there is sufficient legislation to deal with real contraventions. Therefore we are most strongly opposed to the proposal that the Publications Control Board should now be given a new function, that of cultural policeman.

While I was listening to the hon. member, it struck me how obsessed he was with petty apartheid, indeed, so obsessed that he could not refrain from mentioning petty apartheid in a discussion on a Bill like this. I do not know whether we should call the hon. member Japie Petty Apartheid or Petty Japie Apartheid.

In the ranks of the United Party we find the following peculiarity; one speaker states the policy of the United Party dogmatically just to be followed by another member who states it differently. The hon. member for Green Point said last night with reference to this matter—

In contrast to that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said that what they intended doing is to oppose each section of the principal Act anew. He uses South-West Africa as a smokescreen in order to evade the obligation of confining himself to the amendment before this House; he uses South-West Africa as an excuse for bringing up this legislation as a whole to be discussed anew. As far as his remarks on the position in South-West Africa are concerned, I shall not hazard an opinion in that regard. I shall leave that matter in the capable hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister. But with regard to the matter which is before this House at the moment, I want to say the following in broad outline: I think we probably cannot overemphasize how difficult legislation of this nature is. As things are developing in a modern world we realize and we accept that we are concerned here with a liquid matter; that we are concerned here with changing norms. When we have regard to the fact that what we are concerned with here is the radio, one of the most modern inventions of our time, and within the foreseeable future would possibly include television, etc., we realize that it would be attempting the impossible to try to make water-tight laws and to pass water-tight legislation in a dogmatic fashion in this sphere to hold good for now and for all times. We realize that we shall have to review, and possibly amend, this legislation carefully from time to time. Sir, in saying this I realize full well that in this sphere we cannot apply mediaeval dogmas to present-day society. I realize that we have to adapt to the school of thought of a modern society.

Sir, it is true that the human urge of self-expression and true creativity cannot be suppressed, and nor is it the idea to do so. We fully accept that what was probably regarded as improper yesterday is accepted as correct today. We accept that the whole way of thinking of a people is determined by what it reads, by what it sees and by what it hears. For that reason we realize that the effective application of control in this sphere, as regards this facet of our society, is a ticklish and particularly delicate task. Sir, the saying is: “It can not all be pure white and black.” This is true, and it also holds good in this particular case. In other words, it is difficult to demarcate a matter such as this, to demarcate it to such an extent that one is able at all times to separate the chaff from the wheat unfailingly. As the saying goes, the uneasiest company to keep is that of the man who knows what is absolutely correct and that of the woman who knows what is absolutely wrong. In this connection I want to liken the hon. member for Orange Grove to the woman who always knows what is absolutely wrong.

Sir, because this is the position and because the task which this Board has to fulfil is a difficult one, one finds the position which is obtaining at present; for that reason one finds that the court decision went against the Publications Board in the case concerning the book “Free Love and Marriage on the Campus”. The position is indeed that this is a decision of the court, a decision based on norms accepted by that court as the correct ones in its opinion. I submit to the decision of the court, but I want to say that the decision of a court is also based on various norms. In cases of this nature where one cannot decide a case with precision according to legal rules, where it is not a question of A plus B being equal to C plus D, where it is a question of the conclusion of one man as opposed to the conclusion of another man, it is difficult at times to obtain the correct interpretation and to obtain uniformity. The fact that the court would uphold an appeal in one case still means absolutely nothing to me. In a multi-national country like South Africa, this matter is so much the more difficult, particularly in view of the fact that it is the State’s task and responsibility, also in this sphere, to ensure peace and quiet and to see to the good morals and the education of its people; where one is dealing with population groups who economically have become self-dependent in certain cases but who culturally have not yet been educated to this extent.

Against this background and in view of all these aspects. I find the contribution of the United Party to this debate truly shocking. The most shocking is the conduct and the contribution of the hon. member for Orange Grove who delivered a tirade here in an uncontrolled and unrestrained fashion, one which made me feel ashamed in this House, one in which he used what I want to describe as platitudes such as “miserable”, “vindictive”, “verkramp”, and he even compared this to the “Kremlin and its terrors”, and said: “We are proud not to be associated with this Bill.” I think this bears testimony to a view held by that hon. member which has truly reached a low-water mark. He is a frontbencher of the United Party. He is an hon. member who aspires to serve as a shadow Minister of the United Party, an hon. member who claims to be speaking on their behalf when they discuss broadcasting, etc., a man of whom one would surely have expected to maintain a high standard in the cultural sphere. And then the hon. member for Green Point came along and said: “The Nationalist Party must not impose the bigotry of a prude.” Sir, one wonders at the reason for all this loquacity. What is the position in South Africa basically, seen in relation to that in other countries, and when we speak of other countries we are speaking of other civilized countries. The point which was emphasized here by way of an interjection was the following: Reference was made to the “Stone Age” as though we here in South Africa were acting in an extremely backward way …

We are.

The hon. member says we are. Reference was also made to “negative thinking is part of the philosophy of the Nationalist Party”; “freedom of speech a facet of civilization”, “the board that wants to elevate itself to the position of saints”. But let us view the position in the light of what obtains in other countries of the world. In England one has a reasonably strict measure of censorship. In the year 1967, only a few years ago, they banned a well-known work, i.e. Selby’s “Last Exit to Brooklyn”. In Australia one has stricter control than one has in South Africa. In respect of the same film which was passed by our Publications Board for exhibition to people over the age of 12 years, Australia imposed an age restriction of 16 years. In America there is a similar measure which lays down that certain films may only be shown “by prior restraint”. These films are examined in advance. In Switzerland the position is that films first have to be certified as being suitable for children before they may be exhibited. In Ireland the position is much stricter and much less liberal than here. One finds the liberal approach only in the Scandinavian countries, the so-called freedom, which has to serve as an indication of those things which can be banned in the Western civilization henceforth. May we be saved those things here.

The Minister’s announcement that amendments to this Act are essential, we accept for good reasons. To have previews of contentious films, for example, has lately become an absolute racket. This position is being exploited to such an extent, i.e. exhibiting films to selected audiences, that it amounts to an absolute circumvention of the provisions of this Act. These films have been exhibited even to people who have not yet reached adulthood. According to what I have heard, they have on occasion been exhibited to members of the United Party on the quiet. This amounts to nothing but a circumvention of the Act and for that reason we welcome the amendments of the hon. the Minister.

In connection with clause 4A. earlier actions were aimed precisely at bringing pressure to bear on the board. This virtually amounted to a kind of third grade inquisition. This amendment, in fact, does not prohibit sincere criticism. A great fuss was made by hon. members on that side of this House about the question of secrecy. This is no secret organization. The only thing we are dealing with there is an administrative body with quasi-judicial authority. This is nothing new in our system. If this is to be compared to other similar legislation, for example, to that of administrative boards, this is no new insertion. One has in mind particularly one’s local authority ordinances relating to the establishment of road councils, the establishment of hospital boards and the establishment of other bodies. One finds similar provisions for these boards and councils.

It is correct that this board must have the right to consider its judgment objectively, clearly and soundly. Its function must not be anticipated. Its task must not be taken over. This provision can, in fact, prejudice no-one. Why has it become necessary to improve and to modernize the Act, as proposed by the hon. the Minister, and to adapt it to new circumstances? Why has it become necessary to intensify the provisions of this Act to this extent? In my opinion one is dealing here with a world which has become the victim of permissiveness and all its manifestations. When one keeps a wary eye on the position, one finds that the youth are being bombarded with violence, sex, licence and drugs from morning till night. Hardly a book, film or show in this country which one reads, sees or hears fails to involve sex and so forth in some way and to emphasize those things excessively.

J. Edgar Hoover said—

Now we have the strange situation that as soon as we touch legislation dealing with control, we find that we have stirred up a hornet’s nest. The cry goes up to the heavens, not only with regard to the amendment involved in this case, but with regard to the basic struggle which is being waged throughout the world, i.e. whether or not there should be control. On this occasion the United Party has proved this over and over. This is a struggle which in past years was waged not only in South Africa, a struggle of which we have the signs here, but also in America in the fifties from the conservative days of Senator McCarthy up to the year 1957 when the Roth court case was brought against the American Administration, a case which was regarded as a break-through for the free thinkers of that time. With what consequences did this struggle degenerate in America? In this way the Negro problem in America was stirred up and incited by liberal publications and films to such an extent that it got completely out of hand and created a major problem in America. If we want to take into account the influence it has had on the American youth, I need only refer to Heinke, who was chairman of the students’ council of the University of the Witwatersrand. He is a product of that American liberal idea, a person who grew up in that atmosphere and who in this way caused problems for us to arise in Johannesburg. It happened to such an extent that strict measures had to be taken, with the result that he has now been given an exit permit.

Here in this country this struggle is also raging. The whole underlying idea is not to oppose this particular amendment under consideration but to offer complete resistance to the legislation. It is being instigated and incited by the so-called art critics such as the Pasquino Society, whose name has already been mentioned here. Terry Herbst of the Cape Times and Michael MacNamara. I may as well say that some of our Afrikaans authors are vigorously lending a hand in this regard. Unfortunately the United Party has heard something in this regard but it does not know what the rights of the matter are. They are merrily joining in this cry, but the South African nation, comprising Afrikaansspeaking as well as English-speaking people, supports not only this legislation but also this amendment. I have learnt that it has the support of, for example, the three Afrikaans churches in South Africa. It is with appreciation that we take cognisance of the actions of the Publications Board. The fact that it is taken to court does not bother us. To us that is an indication that the board is doing its work with dedication. We know that its task will become more and more difficult. The Opposition says that we shall lose our confidence in the board. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that it will create confidence in that body amongst us and amongst the people, confidence in a body that is prepared to watch over the good morals of our people in this way.

I, too, have a daughter. She, too, goes to see films; she, too, reads articles and books. I prefer to see her coming into contact— and I think each hon. member will agree with me—with those things which are culturally of high standing and uplifting. The intertwining of sex under the cloak of art is a banality. Unfortunately our youth do not see the art. Our youth see only the banal theme concealed therein. For that reason I think it is correct that we in South Africa should take steps for keeping out cheap literature and films of this nature. It is our task as legislators to guard over the morals of the weaker ones in our country. And also over the morals of the United Party.

The Afrikaner in this country is characterized by his conservatism. In the past this has always been his salvation. Let us rather be 30 years behind the times than heading for licentious permissiveness. Let these noise-makers make their noise. When Gilbert Gibson says, “It is a complete cultural black-out and a period of artistic sterility”, I call that so much nonsense. When a fellow such as Prof. Meiring talks of a “cultural tyranny” and “covering up of the Publications Board’s pathetic sense of values”, I say that that is the trite language of learned barbarians.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo, who has just sat down, spent a long time really saying nothing. He referred to the fact that the youth today are bombarded with what he called sex, pornography, violence and various other nouns.

I should like to ask him, particularly with regard to South Africa, where those publications come from in particular. My hon. friend from Port Natal has repeatedly raised the question with the ex-Minister of the Interior of the publication of certain periodicals by a Nationalist-orientated publishing house. As one of the distributors of magazines of various types in this country, I want to say that I know that the most pornographic, the most violent, the most sex-orientated magazines of all that are published and allowed in this country, come from this Nationalist-orientated publishing house. It is no good that that hon. member and other hon. members try to be sanctimonious about it because their hands are as dirty as anybody else’s when it comes to this sort of thing.

The hon. member said he was glad that this Bill was going to take care of private showings of bad films. Where has he been during the last two hours while we have been debating this? He has obviously not read this Bill or if he has, he does not understand it. This Bill does not take care of private showings. Nowhere does it do so. I know that the hon. the Minister has been advised of this but I do not see that he has taken any action, unless he has another amendment up his sleeve with which he is going to surprise us tomorrow.

I want to take the hon. member for Ermelo to task for his reference to my friend, the hon. member for Green Point. He took him to task for saying that the Board must not apply the bigotry of a prude. If he had listened and if he had paid attention he would have heard my friend say that these were the words of a judge, a judge of appeal, when he decided a case under the Act which we are now amending. Now he is criticizing the judge and he is criticizing the decision of the Appeal Court of the Republic of South Africa. I do not think I need go any further with that hon. member because, as I have said, during all the time that he spoke, he really said nothing.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Rissik. I believe we have had here this afternoon the most shocking exhibition of political bankruptcy—it is almost dishonesty, but I cannot call it that—when he launched an attack on the hon. member for Green Point for not having disclosed to us, the members of his group, the amendments proposed. Here I must also take the hon. the Deputy Minister to task, because, by way of interjection, he also implied that he had expected the hon. member for Green Point to make these amendments available to us. What did the hon. the Deputy Minister do when he handed these proposed amendments to my friend?

Were you present?

I was not present, but I have the word of the hon. member for Green Point, whose word I accept. He was told that this was in confidence and that this was not to be published. I, the secretary of the group, only became aware of it yesterday when this debate began. This is the integrity of hon. members on this side and now we see what type of integrity we can expect from the other side of the House.

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the integrity of other members?

No, Sir. I am merely commenting on their interpretation of what such a request would mean. Their interpretation will be that they can make it available to members of their caucus. Instead of doing that, the hon. member for Green Point took the request of the hon. the Deputy Minister as a gentleman in an honourable way and he kept that amendment to himself. I do not want to hear any more about this, because I think it was a shocking exhibition we witnessed here yesterday.

Daan, you have hurt them.

That is an example of what I am referring to, namely the type of integrity that we can expect. It is quite clear that the hon. member does not expect his chairman to respect such a confidence when passed on to him. As I have said, we accept this now. This is fine; we now know what we have to deal with.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who unfortunately is not here. He attempted to justify the Minister’s proposed amendment in clause 4 (c) whereby no person shall, in relation to a film intended by him for exhibition, do anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister. Surely, the test that has to be applied here is public opinion.

Whose public opinion?

It is not a question of “Whose public opinion”; it is public opinion. I will tell the hon. member who is now interjecting, how the board decides what is public opinion. They seem to make no contact whatsoever. In terms of these proposed amendments of the hon. the Deputy Minister they are going to make even less contact. They are going to have even less opportunity of gauging public opinion. While my friend, the hon. member for Durban Central was speaking, the hon. the Deputy Minister asked him, what is public opinion? The hon. member for Durban Central gave him a number of examples of what he meant by public opinion and how this could gauged. A hundred years ago a lady was not permitted to show her ankles. Twenty years ago it was considered most immoral for a lady to show her knees. But today we have mini-skirts, micro-minis, and pants; these things are today generally accepted. This is public opinion and it is in the light of the mini-skirts, the micro-minis and the hot pants that the board must make its decisions, and not in the light of twenty years ago when a lady did not show her knees, not in the light of a hundred years ago when she could not even show her ankles.

There is one exception, i.e. the hon. member for Sunnyside.

Yes, the hon. member for Sunnyside is of course entirely opposed to mini-skirts. One can think of old-fashioned bathing costumes which covered the body from neck to knee. Today there are bikinis which are generally accepted by the public. Which norm must the board apply? The public opinion of today. This board appears to be completely out of touch.

Let us look at the field of advertising today. We had the pantihose fiasco, but perhaps the board was justified in at least querying it at that stage. After consultation, and I want to come back to this point later, and representations by the manufacturers, the board decided to accept that illustration. But we have still another classic example, not only of what sort of norm should be applied, but how this board does not always apply the same norm. Yesterday the hon. member for Green Point showed this House the inside of the cover of the January issue of Bantu which showed two bare breasted Bantu beauties. He also informed this House of the answer of the board when he submitted this to them to ask if they approved of it. Without giving any reasons the board approved it. Then we have the example of the magazine Drum which intends to publish the magazine tomorrow with a front cover showing a buxom Bantu belle in a bikini. The photograph was taken from above …

Very nice.

It is a very nice picture. I have seen it. This picture was submitted to the board who warned the be publishers that this picture could possibly be objectionable. The editor of that periodical went to the chairman of the board and discussed the matter with him. The Press reported what the chairman had said at that interview: “Mr. Kruger said that the picture suggested that the bosoms were out of the bikini”. What difference does it make whether they are in the bikini or out of it especially in the light of the decision that was given in reply to the hon. member for Green Point’s query? In that case there was complete unashamed nudity, but yet it was completely acceptable. Here, however, where there is a doubt whether there is nudity or not, it is unacceptable. How can we accept the decisions of this board when this is the sort of thing which is happening? Can anyone then wonder that there is this criticism and suspicion in regard to the decisions of the board? The picture in Bantu was all right, but the one in Drum was objectionable because there was doubt. There is another aspect which arises from the report of this interview with the chairman of the board by the editor of Drum. This refers to the Minister’s amendment to the new section 4A and to the Long Title. When he announced that, the Deputy Minister said that this was designed to prevent the makers of films from influencing the board or the Minister. Why does he want to place such restrictions on the makers of films? Why does he not also place such a restriction on publishers of magazines?

It has nothing to do with this Bill.

I hope the hon. member does not leave the Chamber, because I am coming to him in a few minutes. I have not finished with him. I hope he will stay. The report on Drum goes on:

Surely, Sir, Mr. Kruger would be pleased if he was approached by people in connection with films. I accept that this amendment does not preclude the maker from approaching the board and making representations when he wishes to have his films approved. But this may be done in the prescribed form only, and it is only the maker of the film that is allowed to do so. What is the position with imported films? What is the position of an agent in this country who imports a film, or of a distributor who purchases a film outside this country and then brings it in and wishes to have it disseminated in South Africa? The position is that, unless he goes overseas and sees that film first, if he purchases it by mail and receives it here in this country, he will now have to submit it to the board without having seen it.

Why?

Because he is not the maker. That is why.

He has not decided what to do with it.

Who has not decided what to do with it?

He cannot decide on it unless he has seen it.

The importer cannot decide?

Yes.

Of course he cannot. That is the whole point. The importer will bring this film in here, sealed in a casette. He must then submit it to the board, the board will give a decision. If the board decides to cut or to ban, he must then, still without having seen that film, decide whether to take it on appeal. This is the effect of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has written down.

No, that is nonsense.

It is no good him saying “No, that is nonsense”—this is a fact. The amendment of section 9 in clause 4 lays down quite clearly:

What is wrong with that?

This is the point. Only the maker is allowed to see it. If an importer brings a film into the country, he cannot employ a projectionist to project that film on to a screen for him to see it. He cannot take it to his legal adviser and ask his advice as to whether he should take it on appeal or not.

Why not?

Because he is not allowed to. I quote from the proposed new 9 (1) (a), line 10:

Until it is approved by the board, he dare not show it to his legal advisers. He commits an offence if he does. The projectionist dare not show it, because he will be committing an offence. This is how the hon. the Deputy Minister after all this time still comes with a half-baked measure, He does not know what he is legislating for.

I want to come back to the point that I was making. Surely the board would welcome the representations and the opinion of the public as to what they consider to be pornographic. Or one is in favour of the dissemination of pornography. We have made that quite clear from this side of the House. We are in favour of some degree of control, but let us have a realistic control based on the norms of modern society, not out of some antiquated period.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Algoa. The hon. member last night accused us of trying to make politics out of this measure.

That is so.

Just wait. I want to say to all these hon. members who say “dit is so”, that if the protection of the public or of public opinion is politics, we accept that we are playing politics. The hon. member for Algoa last night went through the whole gamut. He went through the whole thing, from politics through Sweden, to the Christian Society, non-White groups, oversexed people, and he ended up where he always ends up—with communists. This hon. member sees a communist behind every bush, and every clause, every Bill that is introduced into this House, is designed with one object only and that is to defeat Communism. That is the only thing he has in his mind.

He is obsessed with Communism.

Sir, the hon. member for Bellville made the point that we must accept the control of pornography. We do; we accept that control. We accept control over pornography, over obscenity and blasphemy. Sir, we do not criticize the Act today; we are criticizing its application. The hon. member for Algoa said that there was a great difference between the people of Sweden and those of South Africa. He said that in Sweden they have a homogeneous society and that ours is multi-racial. Sir, I want to say that nobody on this side of the House has defended the attitude of Sweden. Nobody in this House has pleaded that we should have the same laws here as they have in Sweden. I do not know where he got that from.

But you are on your way.

No, we are not. Sir, I want to say this regarding our South African society; people will argue that this country needs strict censorship because of the multi-racial nature of its population, but I want to say that this is a fallacious argument. It is suggested that modern plays, with their sexual emphasis, might inspire the Bantu particularly to lust. I want to say that the answer is that the Bantu do not see those plays anyway. It is suggested also that the intimate scenes which are shown in many of our films would lead the Bantu in particular to commit sexual offences. There again I want to say that the answer is that the Bantu do not very often see these films. Very few of them do. It is suggested that magazines with semi-nude pictures might fall into the hands of the Bantu and might excite them to interfere with White women. I want to say that here the answer is “racial balderdash!”; that nothing of this sort will happen. The bogey of the lascivious Black man is no longer acceptable to the people of South Africa, and this is one of the points which must be brought home to the board. We no longer accept that. Those of us who are in daily contact with the Bantu people know them as a law-abiding people and we know that, if anything, they are more sinned against than sinning themselves, and nudity in any event, as I pointed out just now, is something which is not a problem for them; it is a problem for us Whites, not for them. It is the Whites who are making the fuss about nudity; not the Bantu, and the simple truth of the matter is that strict censorship is mistakenly trying to save the White man from himself. It is not a case of trying to save the non-White, as has so often been said here. Sir, frankness in the modern world is replacing repression; communication is replacing inhibition, always, of course, with the exception that we are against the dissemination of pornography and the publication of any matter which is indecent, obscene or blasphemous.

Then I want to come back to the hon. member for Parow for a moment. He led the debate from the other side. He attempted to justify clause 7 of this Bill which has been called the “super-snooper clause”. It provides for an inspectorate which will be able to delve into people’s private homes, into shops and offices and seek out these matters which offend public morals. The hon. member for Parow suggests that the justification for this is that the board is dependent at the moment upon the public for complaints and then he goes on to say that the public does not complain.

They are reluctant.

Is this not the test, Sir? If the public does not complain, then surely they accept the position. If they felt strongly about this and if they did not accept it they would complain. I want to say that as far as blue films and pornography are concerned, these are covered by the Immorality Act, the Suppression of Communism Act or some other Act. Subversive matter is covered by the Suppression of Communism Act, and the police have the power to act anyway. The Minister does not need this sort of power for which he is asking here.

Do you prefer the Police?

No, I do not necessarily prefer the Police, but I prefer that the public should be able to decide for themselves what they want, with the exceptions that we have mentioned before. I believe it is not right that anybody, neither the Deputy Minister nor anybody else, should have the right to send people willy-nilly into one’s home to investigate these matters. Sir, on this question of public opinion I want to quote the decision of Mr. Justice Henning in a recent appeal on this very matter, where he said that he had to have regard, in forming a judgment on the desirability or otherwise of a magazine article, to contemporary standards of conduct or morality, current thought and prevailing attitudes of mind. That, in essence, is the prerequisite for any decision that the Publications Board must make. Sir, I repeat, for the information of the hon. member for Parow, that if members of the public do not complain, they surely must accept the position.

I want to go a little bit further into clause 7 and discuss this new principle which is added here by the Deputy Minister. He is now going to appoint certain inspectors who are going to have the power to enter any place where the inspector suspects that any undesirable publication is being printed, published, manufactured, made or produced, or if he suspects that any publication or object referred to in section 5—that is to say, an objectionable object—is displayed, exhibited, sold or offered for sale. This inspector may examine any publication or object suspected on reasonable grounds of being a publication or object referred to in paragraph (a); he may seize any publication or object appearing to afford evidence of a contravention of any provision of this Act. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has already raised the question of the qualifications of these inspectors. Are they going to be specially trained Sir? How will they decide? I think it was the hon. member for Primrose who argued that there was a general provision at the beginning that an inspector may enter upon any place upon which he suspects on reasonable grounds that there is a general provision at the beginning that an inspector may enter upon any place upon which he suspects on reasonable grounds that there is objectionable matter. Sir, that is fine with regard to the entry. The inspector must have grounds for suspicion and he must suspect on reasonable grounds that an offence is being committed. But once he has entered—and this is the crux of the matter of which I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to take cognizance particularly—he relies solely on his own judgment; it all depends on his opinion. He has sole discretionary power to decide whether on reasonable grounds the object is objectionable. He decides arbitrarily, on his own, whether he must seize such object as in his opinion appears to afford evidence of a contravention. Sir, as I have said, are these people going to be qualified? How are they going to be qualified? What norms are they going to apply?

Send the member for Sunnyside.

Can you imagine what will happen, Sir, if the hon. member for Sunnyside was appointed as an inspector and sent to my house? He would confiscate all the mini-skirts. I am serious about this. Can you imagine it! Is it the accepted norm of the public of South Africa that mini-skirts are undesirable? I do not believe they are but in the mind of that hon. member they are, and if he were an inspector he would seize them. I feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister owes this House a statement in this regard.

Clause 6 of this Bill is also most disquieting. Clause 6 now applies the same type of censorship to live shows in the Republic as has been applied to film shows in the past. In terms of the amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister the board may now prohibit a play, either in its entirety or in part, the relative part thereof, or, of course, it may impose conditions regarding the classification of people who will be permitted to see it. Up to now the position has been with live shows that either the whole show has to be banned or it has to be left alone. The Chairman of the Board has issued repeated warnings to producers of live shows asking them to apply some sort of brake. I think the term he used was not to exceed what the Board regards as passable. Now, there is no definition of what is passable. I agree that there should be a degree of auto-censorship—I think this is the right word —and that the producers must apply a degree of censorship themselves; they must exercise control and see that nothing pornographic and nothing that can hurt or offend people should be produced on the stage. But what disturbs me is that where we have had little interference up to now in live shows, this will now be construed as open season on live productions in this country and we will have more and more of these shows cut and more of them will be ruined or mutilated so that they will lose their impact entirely through these added powers of the Board. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to advise me in his reply whether my interpretation is correct that this is the position now. I know it will also be a comfort to the producers of live shows in the country to know that these powers are not going to be used too widely, because I want to put this point to the Deputy Minister. Although it is public opinion which must be taken into consideration, the public who attend live shows belong to sophisticated society. They are people who would apply different norms from the general public that one would find on taking a stroll through one of the main streets of our cities today. This is a sophisticated society and surely the same norms need not be applied to them and to the live shows produced in this country as to films.

In conclusion, I want briefly again to outline the attitude of this side of the House towards censorship. We feel that the censorship laws should be amended to provide criminal sanctions for the publication of any matter which is indecent, obscene or blasphemous. [Time expired.]

I have actually been placed in a very fortunate position in having to reply to what one may term the stories of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who has just sat down. For lack of arguments, he chopped and changed to such an extent that one can hardly pin him down. If there are perhaps publications which have Nationalist capital behind them or which are being published on the Nationalist side and which are spreading this pornography, etc., is this an argument for their not having to be controlled? Surely then it is all the more essential that there should be control. A great deal has been said here about public opinion. What is public opinion really? What does it in fact have to do with public opinion if the maxi is accepted at a certain time and the mini at some other time? It is a whim of fashion and it is has absolutely nothing to do with this matter before us. But if publications appear which are deliberately intended to be offensive, and if a photograph is taken with the object of being offensive, as the hon. member said, surely this is in fact a reason why there should be control. I must say I am rather amazed at the kind of periodical which that hon. member reads. It appears to me as if he enjoys those periodicals a great deal. He spoke about live shows here. If it is necessary to cut so much out of those shows that they lose their character, if it is desirable to do so, it must be done. If certain parts have to be cut out of the so-called live shows and they then lose their nature and their character, it surely is no reason why they should not be cut. The question before us is whether we want control or not. Speakers on this side of the House have already pointed out the profound differences in principle existing between this side and that side of the House.

In my speech I actually want to deal with another aspect, and I shall leave the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the questions which were specifically mentioned for his attention.

I want to start off by saying that the whole concept of control, is nothing new at all. It is a matter which we settled here when the principal Act was discussed I do not want to go into that aspect, but I want to point out that it is historically true that a measure of control and censorship existed Under the old Gape Parliament, and that later Parliaments continued with it. It is therefore nothing new, and what we have here today is again only an honest attempt at remedying any defects that existed.

Another, aspect with which I want to deal here, is the question of who constitute this Board against which so many objections are now being raised here. It seems to me if hon. members opposite have a great deal to say and profess to be in favour of control, but have a great dislike for this board which was established to implement, this Act. The question which we now have to answer for ourselves is: Who are in fact the members of this board? Are they not honourable members of our society to whom we can look up? As I know them, the members of this board are persons who are experts in the field of literature; they are persons who are leading figures in our society, persons who move with us in every sphere of society, and who are able to arrive at a very good idea of what public opinion is. I think it is a disgrace to try to run down these people now. This Publications Board is continually called to account for its actions, and it must therefore act responsibly. This Publications Board must have the support of every one of us and they must be supported by us in carrying out the extremely difficult task which they have. We have no right to run down this board as is being done here. We must support and assist them. After all, this board is the friend of the morals and customs of the people of South Africa, and not our enemy, as is being suggested here. And even if this board sometimes makes mistakes, as it probably has done and will do again in future, this still is no reason why we should disparage and ridicule their work and hold them up to the people as wanting to destroy everything we love and cherish. On the contrary, we should have the necessary respect for these people so that the public outside may also pay them the necessary respect. But if we run them down, what will remain of the purpose for which they were appointed?

I want to point out another aspect, one which has not really been discussed in this debate, and that is one of the background factors which have contributed to giving us this Bill. I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that serious malpractices have arisen particularly in the film industry, in recent years. These malpractices have arisen in the distribution, sale and exhibition of films. These malpractices are aimed at circumventing the Publications and Entertainments Act. The work of the board has been ridiculed and hampered as a result of the fact that illegal practices have developed in the trade in films. These undesirable practices concern the so-called piracy of films. They concern the sale distribution and exhibition of films which have been banned or parts of which have been cut by the board. These malpractices resulted from a loophole in section 9 of the Act, which does not prohibit the exhibition free of charge of such films in public. Consequently any person could, without any fear or punishment, exhibit a banned film, as long as it is not done in public on payment of an admission fee. Consequently a film such as “Bonnie and Clyde”, which was banned, was seen by thousands of people, both adults and children. This in turn has given rise to a lucrative trade for the film industry in these films which have been banned and on which restriction have been placed. As a result the legitimate film industry did not get a share in this trade They have been trying to comply with the Act in the spirit and in the letter. The film industry of South Africa has suffered heavy losses as a result of this practice. Certain bodies obtain these films in various ways. They sell, lease and distribute there films on a large scale, to be exhibited throughout the length and breadth of our country. Became of the peculiarity of human nature, an insatiable demand has developed for these films which have been banned or on which restrictions have been placed. The trade in these films has already assumed gigantic proportions. People go out of their way and spare no cost to obtain this kind of film. It is therefore in the public interest and in the interests of the morals and customs of our people that the policy of the country should be carried out. I have here a letter from the United Artists Corporation of South Africa (Pty.) Ltd., in which it is stated that they, as a law-abiding business organization, carry out the policy of our country and comply with the decisions of the board, but that this may lead to heavy financial losses, and that they are made to look ridiculous as a result of the Act and the decisions of the board being disregarded. It says here that there malpractices have not only manifested them elves in connection with 16 mm. films, but have also spread to 35 mm. films and others. These malpractices are described, and in this regard I can make various quotations from the English newspapers, which indicate to us what these malpractices have actually caused. I do not want to spend much time on this. I just want to point out that it was stated, for example, in The Star of 4th April—

Where do these films come from? This newspaper report tells us:

The report goes on to indicate how these films are often smuggled from the ships. In our harbours copies are made of them. I have been told that they make a copy in the same time it takes to show a film. Then those films are made freely available throughout the length and breadth of the country. The Sunday Express reported as follows on 5th April.

A whole series of other films is mentioned with which I do not want to take up time by reading them out. The fact of the matter is that these films are endangering the entire industry and that people who try to conform to the customs of our country, have to see how their money is being taken out of their pockets in this way. Consequently our country is suffering very heavy losses as a result of this. There are tens of thousands of South Africans—both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking—who appreciate the work of the Publications Board and who are concerned about the morals of our people. This mass propaganda which is being made against censorship and against the Publications Control Board fits in very well with the objects of Communism, which is bent on breaking down the moral norms by propagating obscenity and promiscuity and degeneration and representing it as something normal and healthy.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly.

I shall proceed to point put that the moral norms which we as a Christian people would like to see maintained are in fact going to be protected by this Bill. I should therefore very much like to support this Bill. Accordingly it is our desire that we, as a Christian people, should prohibit these blasphemous and immoral films, publications and plays which will harm the Christian character of our people. A Christian State must control this stream of undesirable, unchristian books, periodicals and films entering the country and undermining our morals and our religion. This Bill has the support of the majority of our population. When that side of the House realizes and accepts its responsibility, we shall get somewhere.

I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they do not also have children and young people whom they are concerned about. Are they not parents too? Do they not have a Christian character too? Why do they not support this Bill then? Why do they not strengthen our cause? Why is the necessity or control not endorsed and actively supported by them as well? The State must see to the protection of our property, but the State must also protect its citizens against the consequences of lawlessness. The State also has a duty to protect the morals of the people. The people of South Africa, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, demand this from the Government and the Government has this responsibility. The biggest threat to our people in these times is to become spiritually blunted and what is morally corrupt. The best guarantee for the survival of the Republic of South Africa is not only economic strength. It is not only military strength. Our survival is tied up with who we are and where we come from. It is also tied up with our Christianity, with our respect for our morals and customs. It lies in our spiritual viability. It lies in the youth we produce. This is our duty, but it is also our calling.

However, we do not only have a duty and a calling towards the Whites, but we also have a bounden duty towards the Bantu and the other non-Whites in our country. We have to do here with very delicate relationships politics. We must also protect the impressionable minds of the non-Whites against the influences to which they are subjected in these modern times. In our time the Bantu are exposed, inter alia, to Western civilization. In their own tribal context the Bantu are very strict and uphold their customs and their morals very strictly. But under the influence of Western civilization they have to make enormous adjustments. Accordingly, one of the greatest responsibilities of this Publications Board is to guard and to see to it that the right things are presented to the non-Whites.

This is therefore a sincere attempt at warding off from society, with the assistance of society itself, that which is undesirable. The basic principle of this Bill is to prevent and to combat the publication of filth, pornography, blasphemy and everything that goes with it. That is what this entire Bill is aimed against.

Order! That point has also been made repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that anyone not guilty of these things has nothing to fear. I am glad to be a member of a party which wants to place this Bill on the Statute Book. I am proud of being a member of a party which is trying to continue with this at all costs. The National Party will place this legislation on the Statute Book. In doing so we shall protect the children of the United Party supporters as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kempton Park is obviously a man with some problems, judging by the number of questions he asked. Some of his questions were rhetorical and others not. His main problem seems to be to establish what public opinion is. Public opinion is a very material thing when we discuss this Bill and I want to suggest to him that public opinion is something that is very often very strong and very tangible. If he has any doubts about that, I can only suggest that he has a word with his colleagues from Springs, Boksburg, Brakpan, Randburg, Germiston District, Benoni and a few others to find out what a potent force public opinion can be. Seeing that we are dealing with publications, and a certain publication, namely the Sunday Times, has been mentioned a few times in this debate, I might also tell him that it is public opinion that makes the Sunday Times the most popular newspaper in this country.

He did make one point that I thought came quite close to the truth when he said that to be successful, the Publications Board must have the support of each one of us. It must have our support in carrying out its work. I have no quarrel with that except that I want to say one thing. It is that the Publications Board, to carry out its work successfully, should earn the support of each and every one of us. There is only one way of doing that. That is by being in harmony with public opinion and modern thought in this country. I think it can safely be said that the Publications Board in South Africa at the moment is in harmony with neither of these two things.

We have heard from eight speakers on the Government side in this debate, and we are still waiting for replies to the very cogent points that have been raised from this side. I might say that we are still waiting for the person who should probably be the star turn in this debate, the Minister of the Interior, who said last night that he would be speaking on this Bill. Seeing that we are dealing with the principle of the Bill at the Second Reading, it is only fair to expect the hon. the Minister still to enter this debate before the hon. the Deputy Minister replies.

The fairest description that I can apply to this Bill before the House today is that it is probably the most colossal shambles that this Government has achieved for some considerable time. I find it hard indeed to think of anything produced by this Government by way of draft legislation in the immediate past that has been quite so bad. What we are being asked to do is to give more powers and more protection to the Publications Board. This is a board that has, through its unpredictable, often irrational and, more often, autocratic actions through the years, but more than ever through the last two years, introduced its own special brand of pollution to our cultural environment. This pollution comes from stagnation of thought that arises from creating an atmosphere of intellectual intolerance. That stagnation has put our country out of step with enlightened public opinion abroad and the board and the Government with that opinion within our country, and it has put all of us out of step with the evolution of the arts in the world outside. This has also made South Africa the laughing stock of even our closest friends abroad. In what other climate could we have such shabby happenings as the seizure of the poster of Michaelangelo’s ‘"David”, presumably on the grounds that this renowned work of art, which has been cherished through the centuries as one of the artistic achievements of all time, might corrupt our people? In what other climate indeed could we have had the type of ruling that forces people who want to advertise a film, in this case “The King and I”, by way of posters to paint out the picture of the king just because he had a dark skin, being Siamese? In fact this was so ridiculous that this film “The King and I” became known, after the king had been painted out in posters, as “The Blob and I”. Now we have an attempt to impose our method of censorship on South-West Africa, a territory in which until now some close links with contemporary European culture have been maintained but which will now fall prey to the whims and idiosyncracies of our chief censor, his colleagues and his minions in the Publications Board.

We of the official Opposition have already made it quite clear that we do believe that a measure of censorship is necessary. What we also believe is that censorship should be applied only where it is necessary. That does not seem to be the attitude either of this Government or of the Publications Board, the agency that has to carry out Government policy. Our attitude in the United Party, to sum up very briefly, is that censorship is necessary in matters that concern the corruption of public morals. I think that it was quite unnecessary for some of the backbench members on the Government side to suggest that this is not so. We also believe that it is necessary in matters concerning the subversion of the State. Here we do not mean opposition to the Nationalist Party, of course. Thirdly, our view is that it might be necessary to impose censorship in the case of blasphemy although we also hold the view that blasphemy is already the subject of other legislation which, properly applied, need not be bolstered by the activities of the Publications Board. We believe in applying censorship in such a manner that the safety of the State will not be undermined and that our people will not be exposed to material that can be calculated or is calculated to corrupt them. What a far cry from the attitude of this Government which, through the machinations of the Publications Board and through its hostility to people, films and publications catering for inquiring minds whose only transgression has been to step outside the narrow confines of what the board thinks the public should see and read, sets out to place our country in an intellectual strait-jacket and to turn us all into pliant cultural morons.

Order! This point has been made on several occasions.

Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me for a moment, I am using this to go on to another point which I shall be coming to very soon. That is why we say that this Government has stepped far outside the original intention of the legislation we are now being called upon to amend. We have already been reminded, and here I am afraid I must just touch on this briefly, that the then Minister of the Interior, Senator De Klerk, told Parliament in 1963 that it would be the reading, seeing and listening public who would be the actual judges in regard to whether matter should be published or not, that it would be the public who would set the yardstick and that it would be the public whose discrimination would be observed by the Publications Board. What is the position today? The Government, through this hon. Deputy Minister, and, it seems, with the tacit connivance of the Publications Board, has repudiated Senator De Klerk and has gone back on his solemn word. That alone, I suggest, should induce a sense of shame into hon. gentlemen opposite. The time has surely come when even the members on the Government side must be asking themselves: at whose instance is all of this being done? The hon. member for Green Point posed that question when he spoke earlier in the debate. He asked: who was behind the bringing of this legislation, which will impose the “bigotry of prudes”, to use that expression again—it seems to hurt—on the nation’s reading and the films the people will see? He asked, particularly, who was responsible for the drafting of the unbelievably stupid provisions of the original clause 4 (a) in the Bill we have before us? Now we all know—it is on the Order Paper today—that the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes in effect to withdraw the provisions of this original clause 4 (a) and substitute other provisions. But we are entitled to know more about how these provisions ever came to appear in a Bill that was brought before us. The hon. member for Orange Grove asked the same question, as well as the hon. member for Houghton.

Will the hon. member now come to his point?

I am coming to my point now, Sir.

Well, he is taking a long time to do so.

I am doing so now, Sir. The hon. member for Houghton also asked a bit about the paternity of this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already told us that the amendment contained in the Bill did not originate with the Publications Board itself. That we accept. At first I found it difficult to believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself had something to do with originating it. Today, for reasons that I shall give in a moment, I am not so sure. I should be surprised, just before we go any further, to hear that the hon. the Minister of the Interior even knew of its contents before it came before this House at the First Reading.

There are quite a number of clever people here—we know many things.

This hon. Minister has already told us that he is entering this debate. When he does, which we are waiting for, I trust that he will enlighten us on this point. We need not all be clever —I think all we need here are facts. Irrespective of whether that hon. Minister knew what the contents of this Bill were, he is the Minister who is going to have to bear ultimate responsibility for it.

I have got the Bill now.

The hon. the Minister says he has got the Bill now—in other words, he does not bear responsibility for the original clause 4 (a). That is interesting. I might say also that some hon. members on the other side—this is a point over which they might ponder—have all tended to talk past the contents of the original clause 4 (a). I want to tell them that the amendments to clause 4 (a) until last night were nothing more than a gleam in the eye of the hon. the Deputy Minister. They only appeared on the Order Paper today. It is still the original clause 4 (a) on which we shall be voting, as a matter of principle, at the end of this debate. Some aspects of this Bill in its original form and indeed some of the things that have been said in this particular debate by speakers on the Government side, have had a familiar ring to me. I have had the feeling all along that somewhere at some time I have heard it all before. I have now been able to trace this Bill back to what I believe are its very beginnings. This agitation for a tougher line on films and everything to do with films first arose in this very House during a debate on the Interior Vote on June the 4th, 1969. On that day we heard utterances from the Nationalist benches that spelt the start of this new era of darkness in our cultural life, for in congratulating the new chairman of the Publications Board on his appointment, Nationalist speakers expressed their dissatisfaction with the level of censorship up to that time, particularly film censorship, and asked for things to be tightened up. Sir, this is the sort of thing that we heard, and the reason why it sounded familiar to me was that I happened to be in this House in another capacity and we found it all rather intriguing. This was the sort of thing we heard, and I trust we are going to hear “hoor, hoors” at the appropriate time—

This came at a time, I might add, when there was a tremendous furore over whether the film Katrina should be banned or whether it should not be banned. I go on—

That same hon. member had this to say, after congratulating the new chairman of the Publications Board on his appointment—

The same speaker also predicted this—

I notice that there has been a marked absence of “hear, hears” on the other side, because I think by now they must realize that the speaker in this instance was the then member for Innesdal, Mr. Jaap Marais.

With whom you played “boetie-boetie” in the election.

Sir, I think in examing the origins of this Bill we should perhaps look more broadly at what went on in this debate because I do believe that in what was said in this debate, we have the very beginnings of this legislation before us today.

We must give credit where credit is due.

As my colleague says, we must give credit where credit is due. Mr. Jaap Marais was not the only person who entered the debate on the Government side. We had another Marais, a Mr. Willie Marais, of Wonderboom …

Another verkrampte.

… Who pointed out that it was the Government’s duty to build ramparts to repel any possible attacks from within or without. He was dealing, of course, with films and the Publications Board. He expressed the hope that the “Publications Board would function in such a way that the spiritual values of our country would be preserved and not assailed by the various spiritual diseases which germinate in the world from time to time”.

How sanctimonious.

He was not the only one either. It was not just the two of them. We also had the then member for Worcester, in the same debate, following in succession …

Put in by the Whips.

… who also spoke on the Publications Board and in this case homed it all on Katrina. He said that this film was the subject of intense debate and he seemed to be a little bit apprehensive about what would happen. Sir, to be quite fair to hon. gentlemen opposite, at the time all these members were also members of the caucus of the Nationalist Party.

And your comrades in the election.

What we can say, Sir, is that Mr. Jaap Marais, who took the initiative, had grouped around him not only Mr. Willie Marais and Mr. Stofberg, but some others who are still with us today. Who are they? They also spoke in the debate. The hon. member for Carletonville was one. I am surprised that we have not heard from him. The hon. member for Algoa was another. [Interjections.]

Do not make insinuations.

The hon. the Minister can read these speeches; it is all there and it is very interesting. The hon. member for Rissik was one.

And the hon. member for Piketberg.

Sir, I want to say one thing: There is only one man who was the father of this legislation and that is Mr. Jaap Marais, and if Bills could speak and if this Bill were to see Mr. Jaap Marais, it would say “daddy”.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

Come back to “daddy”.

Sir, coming back to the Bill I want to say that this Bill in its detail and in its outline generally was hatched quite clearly by Mr. Jaap Marais at that time—the very basis of this Bill. It was hatched by Mr. Jaap Marais …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill, or he must resume his seat.

And this Deputy Minister in bringing forward this Bill is merely acting as a sort of midwife and friend of the family. Sir, I think we have managed to trace this legislation from its very beginnings and I want to say that continuity has not been lost.

Order! I think the hon. member is disregarding my ruling and he must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to have had such a sequel to the alliance which prevailed during the election to try to embarrass the Government. But let us leave it at that. Sir, the Publications and Entertainments Act of 1963 laid down certain principles. This House reached a decision on it at the time. Those principles were decided on in substance, and the Opposition was opposed to them, as they are still opposed to them today. Of course, we have heard again that they are opposed to the method and not to the principle. But that is a story we know very well. When hon. members begin talking on the opposite side, the spirit of what they are saying emanates only too clearly from them, and that is that they are opposed to it in principle. As far as this amendment Bill is concerned I want to say that this side of the House, the Government, are not spoil-sports and that we do not want to be spoil-sports. But the State, just as it has a task of maintaining order and protecting its people, just as it has a task of guarding against subversion, and in South Africa in particular of guarding against the occurrence of racial friction, so the State also has a task of guarding against the undermining of morals.

But this is not only a law to guard against moral subversion. It is a law, and this I want to emphasize, which must guard against the subversion of order in the State and the harmonious co-existence of our races; and if it becomes apparent in the course of years that there are deficiencies in such legislation, then it is the duty of the State to recognize and to remedy those deficiencies from time to time as far as it is in its power to do so. That is the duty of the Government, and that is the object of this Bill.

We have heard a great deal here today about pornography and sex, the corruption of morals and permissiveness, etc. Perhaps we heard a little less about the other very important task which the Publications Control Board has. This is the control over subversive reading matter, the subversion of the State which exists if racial friction arises and if one does not have harmonious co-existence among your people. I am mentioning this in passing. The discussion was also characterized by an over-emphasis of the opposition to censorship as such. Now I just want to repeat that we do not have censorship in this country. The hon. member for Green Point tried to indicate that with this Bill we were now applying censorship. Censorship is final. With censorship one draws a line through it and there is no appeal, and there is no process in terms of which one can appeal to higher authority. In our case we have this. With regard to publications and objects, one can appeal to the Supreme Court. There is another appeal to the Court in Bloemfontein, and the same applies in the case of public entertainments.

It is ridiculous.

What ridiculous remark did the hon. member make there? As far as cinematograph films are concerned, there is an appeal to the Minister against the decision of the Board, and the Minister has methods to convince himself to the best of his ability that he is able to pass an objective judgment. Different Ministers use different methods. The hon. member for Houghton said that she wondered whether this Deputy Minister had upheld any appeals. I want to say for the information of the hon. member that there have been approximately 10 appeals to me during the time I have held this office. In three cases I upheld the appeal completely or partially, and in seven cases I rejected the appeal. I am mentioning these things simply to give hon. members a clear picture of what it is all about. The discussion eventually ended up in a general discussion based for the most part, as far as I could make out, on an ignorant interpretation of the law. This emerged in the speeches of some speakers; I was amazed to hear this interpretation from some of our legal experts on the Opposite side, particularly during the initial controversy which was unleashed after the Bill was published. I shall subsequently have more to say about the reasons which gave rise to this Bill. I first want to reply to some of the allegations made by the Opposition, but there are perhaps one or two points which we should settle right at the outset.

†There is a slight difference between myself and the hon. member for Green Point. I was supposed to have given him some information about the proposed amendments. I was asked by the Leader of the House and I gave it to him last Friday. I made it clear that it was confidential and not for outside consumption, and it was given to him so that the speakers on his side could prepare themselves and modify their speeches accordingly. If the hon. member had listened to me intelligently then …

I am prepared to accept that there was some misunderstanding.

If the hon. member can honestly say that he misunderstood me then he was unbelievably naïve. [Interjections.] I might in future regard the hon. member for Houghton as the official Opposition, because she has no one else whom she can leave in the lurch. I think the hon. member for Green Point left his partners in the lurch in this case and I have nothing more to say about this. If I am to look upon the hon. member for Houghton as the Opposition in future, I do not think I owe her an apology! The other thing is this. Hon. members opposite want to know who initiated this Bill. I am not prepared to give them the answer if they want a specific person’s name because the Government is, as always, responsible for this Bill. They would like to know but I cannot tell them whether it is Tom, Dick or Harry who initiated this.

Or Jaap.

It was initiated by the Government as such and we accept responsibility for this Bill and also for the amendments. Now I think they have their answer.

*I think there is so much ignorance in regard to this particular Bill that I ought once again to elucidate very clearly certain of the clauses to the hon. members Opposite so that they can understand them once and for all now. I shall try to give them the well-considered legal opinions on the various clauses, and particularly the clauses in regard to which there are differences of opinion. The one problem was that in paragraph (a) of clause 4 an amendment to section 9 of the Publications and Entertainment Act is being envisaged. If this section is amended as is being envisaged, it will provide that no persons shall exhibit—I am coming specifically to these clauses now because these are the clauses around which the great controversy is being waged—to any person, except to a person concerned in the making thereof, any cinematograph film intended to be 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, unless such cinematograph film has been approved by the Board. Now hon. members will note that the clause is not applicable to all cinematograph films, but only to those intended for exhibition in public or at any place referred to in section 9. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to this further as a cinematograph film intended for public exhibit. I should now like to explain this to hon. members. The question is: When can it be said of a cinematograph film that it is intended to be exhibited in public? The corresponding words in the English text are “intended for exhibition in public at any place”. In the first instance the meaning of the word “bestem”—in English “intended”—must be established. In the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal the meaning of “bestem” as a verb is given with the words “aanwys, bepaal of vasstel”. For example, you have a piece of land which is “bestem” (intended) for a vegetable garden. We intend land to be used for a vegetable garden. According to the Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal, “bestem” means “aanwys of bepaal”. In this way a building can be intended for public worship. Then there is of course still the Dutch meanings which amount to the same thing. In English dictionaries the meaning of “bestem” is given by “intended: it is proposed, designed or meant”. From the foregoing it appears that the word “bestem” refers to the intention, the object or the design of a person in respect of a specific subject. Now, if one talks about a cinematograph film in regard to exhibition in public, then you are talking about the intention of a specific person.

Which person?

The hon. member will hear if he would only listen more and talk less. This type of legislation which we are now dealing with is difficult legislation. One must be intelligent and listen more and speak less. From the foregoing it appears that the word “bestem” refers to the intention, object or the design of a person in respect of a specific object. Where mention is made of a cinematograph film intended to be exhibited in public, mention is made of the intention of a specific person in respect of that film. The purport of the intention is to use or to allow the use of that cinematograph film for public exhibition. The person whose intention is of importance here, must necessarily be the person who is competent by law to realize his intention in respect of the cinematograph film in question. The person must consequently have the proprietary rights or the rights of use of that film. In other words, the person who has the cinematograph film, can see the film. There is a difference between exhibiting something and seeing something. Subsequently, he decides. And if it is in his possession, he decides at a certain stage that the cinematograph film is intended to be exhibited.

I shall try to explain certain other aspects, which were also not clear, a little better to hon. members. There was another aspect in regard to which there was a lack of clarity, which I shall also explain. I am referring now to the envisaged section 9 (4A). This subsection relates to a cinematograph film which is intended to be exhibited in public or at any place referred to in subsection (1). We are therefore dealing here with the same cinematograph film as previously described. It has been repeatedly alleged by the Opposition—apart from the fact that it has been pointed out to them that this is an incorrect inference— that this clause also refers to cinematograph films in overseas countries. Quite a number of inferences have been made to indicate the absurdity and impracticability of this clause. In this regard the newspapers co-operated enthusiastically. However, this is rubbish. It has to do with the original Act as embodied in the Bill before the House. It has to do with the Act which hon. members maintain is totally unenforceable.

Parliament is a sovereign legislature. Parliament may perhaps have the right to make extra-territorial laws for its subjects if it wanted to. I think one can reasonably assume—I shall produce the evidence to this effect—that Parliament in fact only makes legislation for the peace, the order and the good government of the Republic, and not for the territories beyond our borders or for other countries. If a law is therefore made for the peace, the order and the good government of the Republic, then such a law is within the legislative power of Parliament, even if the law were applicable beyond the national borders, if the Government should specifically so decide. But there is a part of our law which makes provision for the interpretation of laws and there is a presumption that a law does not have extra-territorial effect. I shall put it differently: A law is only applicable to persons, matters and actions within the Republic. Maxwell writes in his book, Interpretation of Statutes, on pages 138 and 139—

He is writing of course with reference to the United Kingdom. I read further—

This extract has with permission been quoted in quite a number of Supreme Court cases, as in the case of Bishop and Others v. Conrad and Another in 1947 in The South African Law Reports. It has been quoted in a number of other law reports as well, which I need not mention here.

In the proposed clause 4(a) there is in regard to cinematograph films no express statement or an unambiguous, clear statutory provision to be found that this is applicable outside the Republic. That is why the clause has no bearing on cinematograph films which are made in another country. It does not even have any bearing on cinematograph films which are in another country, even though the owner of the cinematograph films is in this country. If the cinematograph film is intended for public exhibition in this country and the person in question is in another country, then he cannot commit an offence. If a person is in this country and a cinematograph film is still overseas, then he cannot commit an offence either.

If both are here?

If both are here, then the case is as I already explained a moment ago to the hon. member. At a certain stage the destination of the cinematograph film is indicated by the person who has the right to use that film. Surely I cannot offer any further explanation than that. The clause has no bearing on cinematograph films which are in the Republic but which are intended only for exhibit abroad and not for exhibit in the Republic. That is the other aspect. The public exhibition which is being envisaged here, obviously relates to any place in public in the Republic of South Africa. If this clause 4(a) is amended, as is being envisaged in the amendment, then it is aimed at prohibiting the Board or the Minister from being influenced in their decisions in respect of a cinematograph film. This clause relates to any influence.

Now we come to the aspect of the Minister or the Board being influenced. Members had quite a lot to say here about the fact that the Minister or the Board should not be protected when they have to execute a task in accordance with stipulated statutory norms in terms of an Act. In such a case subjective decisions will enter the picture in any case. Subjective decisions sometimes apply in more than one respect in almost all cases and sometimes even in a court of law. The fact that it is subjective or arbitrary cannot therefore be put forward. The fact remains that these people have quasi-judical functions. They have to carry them out in terms of stipulated statutory norms. Through this provision an attempt is being made to guard against the building up of strong public opinion in respect of a cinematograph film. Usually it is in favour of a cinematograph film. This applies, however, to pro and to contra. There are also people who are never satisfied that the Board has made enough excisions. The Board must always excise everything and prohibit everything. Then, on the other hand, there are people who want to allow everything. Here the Board must now move between Scylla and Charybdis. The Board must move between these two opposing fires. This Board has an unenviable task. Regardless of how some hon. members on that side describe this Board as allegedly being unsuited to its task, as allegedly being incompetent, we must be aware of the fact that the Board has a difficult task. An hon. member remarked yesterday, probably in a very unguarded moment, that not one of the members of the Board was qualified for their work. I am very sorry that remark was made, because each one of the members of this Board can, as far as their qualifications and their record are concerned, at any time be compared favourably with any hon. member sitting on the opposite side of this House or even on this side of the House.

†A member has referred in a derogatory sense to members of the Publications Control Board. I take the strongest exception to that.

*We are now dealing with the point of the insertion of an amended sub judice rule. I said that the idea is that the building up of strong public opinion in respect of a cinematograph film, usually in favour of a cinematograph film, and an attempt to exercise influence, must be guarded against. When I talk about an attempt to exercise influence, then I mean that it may sometimes border on intimidation.

For what reason do advocates appear before a court other than to influence it? They may not even appear before this board.

Mr. Speaker, advocates appear before a court to present a case to the judge on behalf of a particular person. Surely the hon. member knows that. We are not dealing with that now. We are now dealing with people who act as judges and not as advocates. Must I now set the poor hon. member straight in regard to this matter as well?

A court of law, such as that to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred, is also protected in respect of a pending case by the sub judice rules. The fundamental idea of the sub judice rule is that the court must not be influenced in respect of a possible judgment other than by way of facts presented to the court in a proper manner. The rationalization of the rule is stated as follows in Rex v. Park, 1903—

Just like a court of law, the Board and the Minister must also give a decision affecting the rights of individuals.

There is no extraneous evidence. All the evidence is contained in the books themselves.

I am busy making my speech now. The hon. member for Orange Grove can listen carefully and discuss it with me afterwards. He has had his chance. Now he must listen. He will need all his common sense to understand this matter. In any case the Board or the Minister must, every time they decide on a cinematograph film—now the hon. member must please listen because he is one of those who spoke in such a way about the Publications Board that I felt ashamed to think that a member of the House could sink to such depths in debating a matter— make a decision in regard to the security of the State, which I have already mentioned, in regard to the good order, in regard to the general welfare, in regard to propriety, in regard to religious convictions and the relationships between population groups. They must take all this into account and view it in an objective light. They must not only take into account the rights of specific parties. If the influencing of a court has to be guarded against, surely there is reason to guard against the influencing of the Board or the Minister who on various levels have extremely important work to do. They do not have any work to do on the levels which the hon. members are thinking about, not only the level of pornography and so on, not only on the level of writings and cinematograph films, but there is a broad level on which they have to act. Those hon. members, as a rule, think only in one direction and do not think of the broad level on which the Board and the Minister have to act. For those reasons the proposed provisions are aimed against the Board or the Minister being influenced until a final decision has been made in favour of a cinematograph film. Once a final decision has been made in regard to a cinematograph film, the critics are welcome to take action. Then they can carry on and criticize as much as they want to, because public opinion must be ascertained. They can give free rein to their talents. That is what they are doing at present.

Now I want to express another idea. It is permitted to level motivated, bona fide criticism at the judgment of a court, but defamation of the court is not allowed. Any person who slanders the court and its officials or who commits contempt of court, is liable to punishment. Now it is unfortunately the case that the Board, which after all is not in any position to defend itself, has been made the object of unfair, unfounded and excessive criticism. I am referring to such criticism as the following. This comes from the Cape Times of a few weeks ago. I quote—

Hear, hear!

I am going to read some more for the hon. members, for some more “hear, hears”. Then I will become more and more convinced of what lies deep in their hearts, the longing of those hon. members for permissive Europe, I quote further—

Have you been there yet?

Perhaps even before the hon. member heard that there was such a place, or is the hon. member not that naughty. I quote further—

Why the word “English”? Why not “Afrikaans”? Why not just “sonnet”. I quote further—

Why does he not simply say “citizens”? Why “English-speaking citizens”? There is very little doubt in my mind that such comment as this in respect of a court would be regarded as contempt of court, and I am certain that it would be punished. As the clause stands at present, it still does not protect the Board against remarks of this nature. I may perhaps return to this point later.

I should like to reply to a few minor matters which have been raised by hon. members. I shall deal subsequently with the reasons which gave rise to this Bill which has unleashed this terrible storm, because I think I owe it to the House. The hon. member for Green Point made the allegation that all publicity, reviews and advertising in regard to all cinematograph films are prohibited by the proposed subsection (4A). I think I have already furnished a good enough reply to the hon. member in this connection. In the first place, however, I just want to tell him that this is not the case. Only completed cinematograph films in the Republic which are intended to be exhibited in public, and I have explained the description “intended” very well to the hon. member, will be affected. That is to say those cinematograph films which have to be submitted to the Board for approval in any case.

I also want to reply to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, though I know that the hon. member does not regard me as being competent to deal with this Bill.

There are those in that party who are less competent.

Before the next election the hon. member would do well to learn a little courtesy in this House. As was correctly pointed out by the hon. member for Parow, this legislation only deals with cinematograph films which are here. Only if a person knowingly does anything in regard to rejected cinematograph films, as is also intended in the original Bill, shall such a person be liable to punishment. If a person has commented, in good faith, even in terms of the original clause, on a cinematograph film which he knows was intended for South Africa, he will not be guilty of an offence. As it stands there, the subsection is therefore not a monstrous thing. These references of hon. members on the opposite side to a “monumentally inept” subsection, are absolutely wrong and completely off the point.

In addition the hon. member mentioned that the intention with subsection (4A) was secrecy. During my Second Reading speech I explained that the main object of this was not secrecy. We are dealing with legislation and principles which have to be carried into effect through this legislation. I stated very clearly in my speech that this was not the case, and that public opinion has to be ascertained. That has always been the idea. One states a case which has to be drawn up in legal language and when this is done, one is confronted with technical problems which sometimes necessitate changes. One must sometimes make changes, because a provision can have a wider effect than was originally contemplated. I repeat that the intention with this subsection was to prevent the Board being influenced in respect of the particular motion picture it was engaged in considering and to prevent what was found to be undesirable, such as naked pictures presented in a suggestive manner, being published by means of another medium. If it were possible to do this, it would defeat the object of the legislation. Because the subsection as it is now worded can nevertheless have the effect of curbing criticism to a certain degree, as is provided in paragraph (b) and (c) of subsection (4A), I have already indicated that I will propose that it be amended. I shall go on to prove further to the hon. member for Orange Grove that he is completely wrong when he says that the article as envisaged is more restrictive.

The hon. member for Green Point asked why provision now had to be made in clause 7 for the appointment of inspectors. I shall produce further proof for hon. members. Hon. members on the opposite side had a great deal to say, and they will not be spared from listening to me. [Interjections.] I am very grateful for the friendly smiles I am receiving from the opposite side of the House. Previously a member of the public had to purchase a publication he felt was undesirable before he could submit it to the Board. Numerous complaints are being received from the public in this respect. These I shall still show to hon. members. But the Board cannot make inquiries itself.

In addition to that the hon. member for Durban Central also said that they would now be ferreting about in private homes. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about an eminent person who had a banned publication in his possession. The possession of a banned publication is not illegal. The prohibitive provisions in this connection are already contained in section 5 of the Act. I want to mention these to hon. members. Reference is made there to undesirable publications and objects which can be printed, manufactured, published, produced, etc. The new clause relates to this section and not to private possession and private homes as such. As is clearly stated in the section, there must be reasonable grounds when such an appointed person, appointed by the Minister, suspects that the Act is being contravened. Then he can investigate. The mere fact that the Minister appoints this person, ensures that it will be a responsible person and a person who is trained to do his work. [Interjections.] I think hon. members are just trying to put me off my stroke now. I have very little time left. I must still try to get a few ideas across to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. It is an uphill struggle, Sir.

The hon. members for Orange Grove and Durban Central also had something to say about Mr. Jans Rautenbach. I shall have more to say about him later, but he need have no fear that he will not be able to advertise as was previously the case. He can do anything to advertise his products. When the cinematograph film has been completed, and it is intended to be exhibited in public, he must simply submit it immediately to the Board before it is exhibited. It is true that he can no longer get a lot of people to go and see it and then to give him advice, but people who are concerned in the making thereof, may in fact do so. If he wants to appoint a person to give him advice, as an art expert or as a member of a particular race group as to whether or not he is being offensive, he can do so because that man is then involved in the making thereof.

May I ask something? May he, from the time when the film has been completed until the time it is submitted to the Board, make propaganda for his film which also indicates that he thinks it is a desirable film and not an undesirable one?

Sir, it is accepted that from the moment it is a cinematograph film, as explained by the legal advisers—in other words, when it has been completed and what is intended for it has been finally determined; this will be determined by the way in which he advertises it and notifies the public that he is going to exhibit it—it can no longer be advertised in this manner. He can place photographs of his experts, his actors and the place where they are shooting the film as well as the entire plot and background. He can publish everything and make all kinds of propaganda, but the moment his film has been completed and he has intended it to be exhibited in public, either for a consideration or at any place where people obtain admission by virtue of membership of any association, then he must submit it to the Board before he is able to exhibit it in the prescribed way. Then he may, during that time, not make any propaganda. The period extends from a few days to 30 days.

Is it true that a member of the public can make propaganda while the maker may not do so?

It seems to me as if the hon. member has for a change read the amendment reasonably well since yesterday, because the reply to that is “yes”. If a member of the public has no association with the maker of the film and if it cannot be proved that there is any association or that he was instigated or initiated thereto by the filmmaker himself so that he did it in a roundabout way, in other words, if he did so bona fides, as a result of the fact that he wanted to comment, then he may do so.

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