When this clause was last discussed here, I moved certain amendments, in response to which the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that whilst he was prepared to accept the principle of part of my amendment he could not agree with it in its entirety. He himself proposed an amendment, which I have since had time to study. As far as this amendment is concerned, we on this side accept it and accordingly I shall at the appropriate time withdraw the first and third parts of my amendment. However, we feel that the Deputy Minister’s amendment still does not go far enough. We have to accept that the principle of censorship of films in South Africa has been accepted and that we are now confined to debating the question with that in mind, i.e. that censorship of time is a fait accompli. Keeping this in mind, I want to submit that censorship must be applied at all times to all people to an equal degree. The intention of the second leg of my amendment is to ensure that that is done. We have the position that a film is made overseas in a 35 mm. or 70 mm. gauge and that the person who imports that film into South Africa does so with the intention of showing it publicly. Consequently he has to submit that film to the board in which case the film may be cut or banned entirely. However, the same film can be introduced into the country— in most cases in a 16 mm. gauge, sometimes under the same title and sometimes under another title—while the person in control of that film says it is not his intention to show that film publicly. It may be for his private collection or for a private film library. The intention with the film is to hire it out for private showings. In these circumstances that film is not censored and can be shown freely in the Republic in its uncut form. That is why I say that we must apply the principle of censorship equally to all at all times. This is not happening at the moment. If my proposed amendment—that the intention shall be tied to the maker or to the producer of the film—is accepted this situation can be overcome. Then, even if the film is introduced under a different name, even if it is introduced in a different gauge, it will still be subject to the same cuts as the film introduced for public showing. Let us take the film “Oh Calcutta!”, or a film that is presently being shown in Cape Town, “Women in Love”. When this film was introduced I believe two cuts were made. Yet in any private home, during any night here in Cape Town you see the entire film without any cuts whatsoever— sound effects and all. And the hon. Deputy Minister knows it. However, I do believe the hon the Deputy Minister at some time made a statement to the effect that these 16 mm. film libraries were being controlled. He told this House, either during the Second Reading or during the Committee Stage so far, that he did have control. I had another look at section 9 of the Act but failed to find a provision in terms of which he could exercise this control. And yet, as I have pointed out, I know that these films are being shown. If it is indeed the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to control those films by means of this amendment, he is making the task of the Police or of the inspectors he intends appointing absolutely impossible— unless he accepts my amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister reacted to my amendment when we discussed this matter last time by saying—

But this is exactly what is happening and it can happen as a result of this gap in the legislation. Because, as I have said, these 16 mm. films are not, I believe, controlled and, what is more, the hon. the Deputy Minister has not been able to control them. He went further and said—

Accepting the principle, he is dead right —he must catch them. But unless he accepts my amendment he will not be in the position to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister went further and said—

I shall deal with the question of intention a little later—

Here I think the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that he agrees with me that a private individual can buy a banned film. In fact, in terms of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said here, the individual can buy that particular film which was banned, not a sixteen mm. copy of it necessarily, but the 35 mm. or 70 mm. copy. He can buy that and show it privately, but he cannot do it in public.

He can do it now.

Granted, he can do it now; that is what I am saying. But is it not the intention of the Minister to prohibit that? Sir, for once I ask the hon. Deputy Minister to accept that I am trying to help him to do his job better. If you accept censorship it must be equal censorship for everybody. You cannot apply this to one group of people and not to other groups.

Sir, with regard to the whole question of intention, the tenor of my amendment is to tie the intention to the maker or to the producer of the film, in order to make the hon. the Deputy Minister’s job easier. The hon. the Deputy Minister really made a peculiar statement when he said that the intention is not established until such time as the person in control decides to show it. When I moved this amendment I put the case to him of a person who arrives at Jan Smuts airport with a 70 mm. or a 35 mm. film; all he says to the customs’ people is that this is intended for private showing. Sir, it makes the task of the people who have to enforce this legislation absolutely impossible, and I would appeal again to the hon. the Deputy Minister—as I say I will withdraw the first and the third legs of my amendment—to reconsider the matter and to accept the proposal that we tie the intention in the case of a film to the maker or the producer thereof, not merely to the person who actually has the control of the film in this country.

Sir, my colleague who has just spoken wants to make it easier for the Minister but I am afraid I want to make it more difficult for him. I want to deal also with the question of 16 mm. films but from a different angle. I accept what has been said, i.e. that it is ridiculous to have a position where a film which has been censored can be shown as is, in a different frame size. But I hope that in dealing with this problem the Deputy Minister will not take a sledge hammer to kill a gnat, and I spell it g-n-a-t, so that there will be no misunderstanding, whether it be by the control board or not.

Sir, I want to deal with the problem of the lending libraries which cater to a large extent for children’s parties, home movies and that sort of entertainment, and who hire out cartoons and shorts—many of which are television shorts taken from television shows, travelogues and that type of film. There are numbers of these libraries which cater for this sort of entertainment. If in dealing with the problem of censored films—normal films in a different width of 16 mm. instead of 35 mm. or 70 mm.—a blanket prohibition was placed on all 16 mm. films, then immediately these libraries distributing 16 mm. films will have to close down. One of them has calculated that the viewing time, taken on the basis of an eight hour working day, would be very nearly five years if it had to show all its films at present available for hire, to the Censor Board. It is obviously impracticable for all those films to be submitted to the board and for each of them to be approved, and I am sure that it is not the intention of the hon. the Minister to put this type of entertainment out of business and to bankrupt the firms who engage in it. This is a service and these 16 mm. films, particularly the shorts, are much in demand and do no harm at all. Without cutting across what my colleague the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has said and without taking away from the need for the control of pornography or the necessity to censor films, I do feel that in taking action to deal with the problem we should not slaughter the ordinary harmless entertainment film which is designed for showing in the private home.

I do not believe that it is desirable and neither is it, I hope, the wish of the Government to interfere in a private home except where pornography or subversion is involved. I am sure it will be possible to work out a formula whereby approval could be given to those films which are unexceptionable. I hope the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity now in this Committee Stage to tell us how he intends to deal with this and to give an assurance that it is not his intention to prevent the private showing in homes, at parties, etc., of films which are not in any way covered by the definition in the amending clause. This definition refers specifically to exhibiting 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 fund.

The existing clause?

Yes, I submit that in considering the words “any cinematograph film intended to be exhibited” and paragraph (b) viz., “publish any such cinematograph film which has not been so approved”, the publishing is the wider concept. I therefore hope that this clause and these amendments will not affect the group to which I have referred.

I cannot quite understand what the problem of the hon. member for Durban Point is. The hon. member knows that we have had the Publications and Entertainments Act on the Statute Book for more than seven years and that section 9 (2) has been on the Statute Book for more than seven years, a section which now remains unchanged and which reads as follows:

The board has a built-in power in the Act to grant certain bodies and organizations exemption from the requirement of applying for the approval of each film. These bodies which will apply for approval include not only libraries, etc., which the hon. member mentioned, but also other bodies such as education departments producing certain audio-visual films and exhibiting them in schools and so forth. Therefore the hon. member for Durban Point need not be concerned in any way about the point which he mentioned.

I want to refer to an aspect of the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point when we last discussed this matter in Committee. At that time he referred to the new provision to the effect that no person shall exhibit a film intended to be exhibited in public. He then raised the problem and said that this section was applicable to a film, but apparently not applicable to a copy of that film. Then he tried to raise a scare with the story that every person who has a copy of a film was not subject to the provisions of this section in this legislation, and that such a person could do as he pleased with that copy, even if the copy had not been submitted to the board for approval. He could show the copy to whom he pleased. But the argument of the hon. member for Green Point is entirely unfounded. A film remains a film, and what applies to a film most certainly applies to every copy of that film. In this connection we need only look at one aspect of the argument which was in fact mentioned—and here I also want to refer to the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister—and that is that this section relates only to a film intended for public exhibition. With reference to what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member who moved the amendment, I want to say that it is very clear that if certain cuts have been made in a film and if any boy or person were to exhibit that film without those cuts, that body or person would be guilty of an offence. There is no doubt at all about that.

And if a person exhibits it in his own home?

If cuts have been ordered, a film may only be exhibited in its cut form. Surely this is quite clear. The only problem which I do see in this particular clause is that, when a film is completely rejected for public exhibition, that film can no longer be intended for public exhibition. Then this section in the legislation can no longer be applicable to that film either. As I see it, it unfortunately means that the film may indeed be exhibited to anyone in its uncut form. This means that the so-called exhibitions of rejected films, which have previously taken place in South Africa, will be able to continue after the film has been rejected entirely. I think the problem which exists in this connection can be solved if the hon. the Minister will consider making this section in the legislation applicable not only to films at present intended for public exhibition, but also to those which were intended for public exhibition.

The other side of the argument is, of course, that it should be possible for the work of the board to be judged by the public. If a film is entirely rejected, persons must be able to express an opinion as to whether the rejection was right or not. My personal opinion is that when a film has been entirely rejected by the board and when the appeal to the Minister by the owner of that film has been rejected, that film must be completely banned in South Africa. If a film has been entirely rejected in South Africa by the board and by the Minister, that film must be eliminated completely. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider making this clause stricter, and also applying it to films intended for public exhibition in the past.

We are indebted to the hon. member for Pretoria Central because his speech has again highlighted the shallowness of the forethought which went into the preparation of this legislation, before it was brought before this House. First of all the hon. member has raised one point with the hon. the Deputy Minister and, in reply to my interjection to him, he agreed that in his view once a film has been cut or censored, that film should not be available for showing under any circumstances, whether privately or to a club, in the Republic. That is not the view of the hon. the Deputy Minister. His view is entirely different. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that showing is only restricted when it is done in the circumstances as are set out in this particular clause, namely in public, and not when it is used in a private home where under the pretext of privacy the guests pay R3 for a cup of tea to the hostess and see the film as private guests of the house. The hon. the Minister nods his head. What is the Government and what are the Government members in favour of? The hon. member for Pretoria Central holds an entirely different view with which we on this side of the House agree. That is, apparently, not the view of the hon. the Minister.

Then we come to the second point. The hon. the Minister refers and keeps on referring to “ ’n rolprent wat bestem is om in die openbaar of op ’n plek waartoe toe-gang verkry word … vertoon te word”. I want to ask the hon the Minister “intended by whom”? Does it refer to the person who has come into possession of a copy of the film or to the maker or producer? When the hon member for Pietermaritzburg District moved his amendment, the hon. the Deputy Minister pushed it aside. Where is the intention? Surely, this matter needs deeper consideration than it has enjoyed so far from the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department.

But let me go on to another aspect of this lengthy clause. I have dealt already with the hon. the Minister’s proposed substitution for subsection (4A). I think I have dealt with the fallacious concept that the hon. the Deputy Minister has suggested, namely that a board receiving representations in prescribed form, should be likened unto a court of law and treated in accordance with the sub judice rule and what not. I have made that point already and I do not want to continue on that line.

I should like to deal with certain amendments of which I have given notice. They appear on the Order Paper as one amendment, but I should like to submit them as two amendments. Firstly, I should like to move to omit paragraph (c). That is portion of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposed amendments, but the hon. the Deputy Minister has coupled with his amendment the substitution of a new subsection (4A). We do not want to have any truck either with the original subsection (4A) or the new subsection (4A). For that reason I wish to move the deletion of paragraph (c) as an amendment on its own. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister, having made that one attempt at an amendment, will no doubt accept my view that paragraph (c) should be omitted.

Secondly, I want to deal with another aspect of the problem which arises from the legislation before the House. That is the problem which arises under paragraph (b). The new subsection (4) provides that the board may approve or reject a cinematograph film unconditionally, or approve of it subject to a condition that such film shall be exhibited to a group of persons specified by the board or only after any specified portion or portions have been excised. One of the problems with which the board has had to grapple in dealing with this activity of either approving or disapproving or cutting a film, has been that there is uncertainty as to when the board is in fact functus officio, in other words, whether the board can take into review its own decisions. I mentioned last week in this House that we have had an instance where a film which had been banned before, namely “Lilies of the Field”, has now been passed by the board. It was dealt with at some length in the Byyoegsel of Die Burger over the weekend, giving an indication as to the nature of this film and the reasons why it should be shown. That film was originally banned entirely. However, it has now been passed by the board. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would concede that it is desirable that the board should have an opportunity of reviewing its own decisions under different circumstances or after the passage of time. In fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in moving this new subsection (4A), has suggested that there is no reason why the board’s decision should not be open to comment, once a decision has been made.

I should also like to come back to the point which I raised in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, namely that it is essential that the intention mentioned in line 7 of subsection (1) (a), proposed in clause 4 (a), should be attached to some person or persons. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that the “intention” should be that of the maker or producer.

There is another interesting point in this clause and that is the deletion of the right of the board to restrict a showing to persons belonging to a particular race. The hon. the Minister has explained to us why this is so in so far as this Bill concerns South-West Africa where there is no such thing as race classification. He has also explained that the power to restrict the film to a certain race is no longer to be applicable and the specific powers which the board will enjoy are to restrict a film to a group. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, and I think he will agree with me, that the board from henceforth will not be entitled to restrict the showing of a film to a particular race group based on any race classification under the Population Registration Act, because that power is now removed and in future the board will only be able to deal with a group of persons and not a racial group. Well, if that is so, I want to say that we on this side of the House welcome this change, this move on the part of the Government. We trust it was not unintentional, but intentional and that it was not an accidental provision, having regard only to the Government’s intention of applying this legislation to South-West Africa. I believe it is an enlightened view.

Then I want to refer to the second amendment which I have on the Order Paper, and that is to move the addition of a new subparagraph (b) to subsection (4) and that is to empower the board, mero motu at any time to take into consideration or reconsideration its decisions regarding cinematograph films which have been before it for determination under this legislation.

Sir, I move as an amendment—

1. (b)

   1. (i) The board may, mero motu, at any time, and shall, after the expiration of a period of five years from the date on which it rejected or is deemed to have rejected or approved or is deemed to have approved a cinematograph film conditionally or otherwise as contemplated in paragraph (a), on the application in writing of any person affected by its decision, reconsider and confirm, vary or set aside its previous decision, or give any other decision it may consider just.
   2. (ii) If the board on reconsideration under subparagraph (i), varies or sets aside its previous decision, or gives any other decision, it shall make such decision known as prescribed in subsection (3), whereupon the certificate previously given by it under the said subsection shall be deemed to have been cancelled.
   3. (iii) The provisions of section 11 shall mutatis mutandis apply to any decision of the board under this subsection.

; and to omit paragraph (c).

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order and in so doing I should like to query the amendment which the hon. member for Green Point has just moved. One assumes that when an amending Bill is under consideration, the amendments must be relevant to those we have before us. The hon. member for Green Point has in fact come forward with a completely new principle here and has in fact moved an amendment to the original Act. The amendment of the hon. member for Green Point is not at all relevant to that part of the legislation we have before us. The part we have before us, provides that the Board is to determine to whom the film is to be exhibited. The small part which is being deleted relates to persons of a particular race or class. In other words, in my humble opinion the only amendment which may be allowed, is an amendment which deals with this particular concept with which we are concerned. Now the hon. member for Green Point has come forward and seeks in his wisdom and amendment to a completely new aspect of the legislation, if I may put it like that. The amendment which the hon. member for Green Point now seeks amounts to a kind of appeal, a reopening of the matter which is not at all relevant in this Committee. Under those circumstances, my submission is that it is out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point which has been raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The position before us at the present moment is that the powers to approve or to reject are being amended to fall within particular provisions. In other words, the powers to approve or to reject are now no longer to be applied to a particular group of persons, or may no longer be applied only to persons who belong to a particular race or class. Those powers must now be exercised in regard to a group of persons as specified by the board. In other words, the powers of approval or rejection are now being brought within the limit of application to groups which are specified by the board. In those circumstances I believe that it is correct and that one can say that if one wants a new principle of approval or rejection introduced, as is being done by this amendment, it should be permissible to go further and to say that those decisions can be reviewed from time to time by the board. It is an extension of the powers of approval or rejection. In these circumstances I submit that the amendment is in order.

Order! I have now considered the amendment in detail. As the hon. member himself has said, it is an extension. I am accordingly unable to accept the proposed paragraph (b) moved by the hon. member as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time. The omission of paragraph (c), as proposed by the hon. member’s amendment, is in order.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the new subsection (4A). There is so much that is obscure in the new subsection (4A) that I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a few questions about that. This subsection relates to a person or a firm that has a cinematograph film “intended” to be exhibited in public. This person or firm may not “do anything” calculated to “influence” the Minister or the board in their decision about a cinematograph film. The first question I should like a reply to is from what moment would it be illegal to do anything to influence the Minister or the board. Supposing, for example, a man imports a number of cinematograph films and is not yet certain at that stage what will ultimately be done with them. Some he wants to sell privately and others he wants to use for public exhibition, but he has not decided yet. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly during the Second Reading debate, a person can keep any quantity of cinematograph films, write about them, discuss them and advertise them for private sale if he so wishes, as long as he has not yet decided that these cinematograph films are intended to be exhibited in public. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it would be a reasonable conclusion to say that a cinematograph film can only truly be regarded as intended for public exhibition at the moment when the owner or the possessor submits it to the Publications Board for approval or rejection. I think it would be altogether impossible to prove what a film is going to be used for before it is formally submitted to the board for approval in respect of public exhibition. If my assumption is correct that the intention, or the proof that a cinematograph film is intended for public exhibition, only applies when it is submitted to the Publications Board, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if I am also correct in stating that before that moment a person may, in fact, have such a cinematograph film in his possession; may keep it in his possession for as long as he wishes; may write about it and in reality, to use the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, may incite the public; may conduct newspaper interviews about it and therefore indirectly influence the Minister and the board in respect of that film, as long as he has not yet decided that that cinematograph film is really intended to be exhibited in public. That decision is then only really operative the moment the cinematograph film is submitted to obtain approval for its exhibition in public. I cannot see how any court could prove that a man intended to have a cinematograph film exhibited in public before he has submitted it to the board. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister these questions merely to obtain clarity about the matter. If I am wrong, I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would enlighten me.

There is a further question that follows from this. During the Second Reading debate we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us what the term “do anything” means. I can honestly not see how any court can take any notice of such a vague concept. It is not stated here that a person is not allowed to “influence” the board “adversely”; it is merely stated here that he may not do anything calculated to “influence” the board or the Minister. How must an ordinary citizen interpret the concept “do anything”? How wide are the implications of the concept? The only answer the hon. the Minister gave to the question we asked in the Second Reading debate was that the person may not do anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister. But, Sir, this is already stated in the clause. It still does not solve our problem in connection with how he must interpret the concept “do anything”. How must “do anything” be interpreted?

“Do anything” means doing anything, but with a specific object.

Of course. That is stated in the clause. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister is what interpretation an ordinary citizen must give to the concept “do anything”? I now want to give him a practical example. He may then reply and explain to us what he means by way of practical examples. The legislature must surely be accurate. How must the ordinary citizen comprehend a law if the law is not clear? I want to ask him: May a person who is in control of a cinematograph film, for example the producer of a film, tell the Press beforehand what that film is about? We have a young, up-and-coming film industry and we are anxious to encourage it. May the person in control of the making of a cinematograph film, for example, say in interviews with the Press who the actors in the film are? May the actors taking part say what the film is about? May the person in possession of the film say who it was who wrote the scenario? May the scenarist divulge what the scenario is about? May a producer, for example, say what the theme of the film is? May he publish the scenario beforehand? I know of several films, for example, such as the well-known “Judgment at Nuremberg”, where the entire scenario was published in book form. I want to ask whether any of these activities —in other words, the publication of the contents, the theme, the nature of the film and everything that happens in it—come under the heading of “anything that may not be done? If that is so, I can think of nothing that can do greater damage to our young film industry. I think the hon. the Minister should give us a definite reply so that we can know what the legislature’s intention is in this case.

Together with that, however, I want a further explanation! What kind of thing is calculated to influence the Minister and the board? What does the term “influence” mean? How must an ordinary person know what things will influence the board or the Minister? Must a person in control of a cinematograph film assume that the Minister and the board read everything published in connection with films in the country? My difficulty with this subsection is that it is actually implying that the Minister and the board are people who cannot think and act objectively enough. They allow themselves to be put off by the political protests of the Press. This is what is actually implied here. They can be influenced.

I want to know what the word “influence” embraces. I can already foresee that many strange court cases are going to result from this clause. Members of the board and the Minister will be called up to give evidence in court about whether they were influenced and how this took place. By implication they will then have to admit that as a result of a little publicity or anything that happened they are not able to pass judgment objectively. That is how I read it. What Minister, what member of the Publications Board, is going to be so stupid as to admit in court that he was influenced by a little pre-publicity or by public opinion? Surely he is then admitting that he is not an objective person; that he cannot pass judgment objectively. He would thereby only be acknowledging himself that he is not competent for the position of critic. But what I can least understand is this. You see, the board and the Minister must act according to a particular provision. When they must judge a cinematograph film, the Act prescribes to them how this must be done. How can a little pre-publicity, or even the “whipping up” of public opinion—if I may use the Minister’s phrase—influence them so strongly that they will deviate from those provisions? In the circumstances I regret to say that the proposed section 9 (4A) is, in my opinion, ill-considered and altogether unsatisfactory. In any case, it is so vague that I do not see how it can have much force in our legal system.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a man with a fruitful imagination. This leads him to see spectres where there are none. The hon. member apparently does not know that the sub judice rule that is being introduced here is identical to the sub judice rule that is applicable in court cases; it goes no further. It is because the hon. member cannot realize this that he comes along here with such ridiculous arguments. Let me state how I view his argument. On occasion the hon. the Deputy Minister will, of course, react to this with greater competence. His first question was about the moment at which the determination of the intention takes effect. That moment is obviously the moment at which the cinematograph film is completed.

But the Deputy Minister said it was not.

The hon. the Deputy Minister did not say so. The intention with respect to a cinematograph film is determined at the moment when that film is completed, because only at that moment are we dealing with a cinematograph film. The next question is “Whose intention?” The answer to this is a very simple one— the intention of the person who can lawfully determine the film’s use. That person can be the authorized agent, or it can be the owner. Whatever the case may be, the person who is lawfully competent to determine what the film is to be used for is the person who can do it. But he cannot determine a film’s use before there is a film. Therefore a cinematograph film must first exist, and this is the case when it is completed. But now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that he cannot see how it can be determined in a court of law what a cinematograph film would be used for. But in my opinion it is the easiest thing in the world. It depends on circumstantial evidence. If a person goes to the length of manufacturing a R2 million, R1 million or R500 000 cinematograph film, the court shall, with a view to the circumstances of that film’s manufacture, accept that the film maker intended it for public exhibition. In other words, we are dealing here with a question of two plus two equalling four—with logic, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout will concede me this point. We are dealing here with facts that one cannot argue away. The hon. member’s next problem is that he does not know what the words “do anything” means. My reply to that is that the words “do anything” simply mean “do anything”. That is crystal clear. But there is a qualification involved, and it is necessary for the hon. member to understand this qualification, which he does not at present. That is why he does not understand the words “do anything”. The qualification is “with a particular, specified intention”, the intention being to influence either the Minister or the board. It is the person’s intention that counts. It does not matter what he does—whether he issues a particular document, sends circulars to members of Parliament, grants interviews to the Press or invites people to previews. It does not matter what he does. The criterion is the intention behind his actions, and that intention must be to influence either the Minister or the board. Another question the hon. member asked is, briefly stated, whether a person could continue with his propaganda campaign, whether a person could still advertise his cinematograph film, make known who the scenarist is, who the main actors are, and so on. The logical reply to that question is “yes”. He cannot, for example, make known who the main actors in the film are with a view to influencing the Minister or the board. It is ridiculous to want to make such a claim. Let us take a look at a court case. A newspaper may report everything in relation to that court case—for example who the prosecutor is, who the complainant is, what the evidence against the complainant is, what cross-examination took place, and so on. It may do all these things. It may not, however, publish comments with the purpose of influencing the court. The words that are presenting difficulties for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout are words that have already been interpreted by the Appeal Court. Here I have in mind a case such as Mbeke vs. Afrikaanse Pers. There the Appeal Court had no problem in interpreting the meaning of these words. Precisely the same thing will happen here because this provision is couched in the terms of the definition of the sub judice rule as it is applied in the courts today. The hon. member also asked what sort of thing is calculated to exert an influence. But this depends on the facts of the case and is therefore not a matter about which he or I could now give a decision. We as a legislative body cannot make provision for variations in the facts. All we do is to lay down broad principles, to establish a framework for the courts. The courts apply those principles, as this House has formulated those principles in legislation. The hon. member also came along with the ridiculous idea that members of the board or the Minister will have to give evidence about the fact that they were indeed influenced. What a ridiculous idea! The Bill does not state that it is illegal to have influenced the Minister in respect of the facts, it states that it is illegal to do anything calculated to influence the Minister. [Interjections.] It is therefore not necessary that there must be a factual result, a real influencing. Can the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tell me of a single court case involving persons charged with contravention of the sub judice rule where the judge or magistrate had to come to court and say that he was influenced? What an absolutely ridiculous argument on the part of the hon. member. He is surely completely off the mark; he does not understand what this matter is about. It is not a matter of the actual influencing of the Minister. Neither the Minister nor members of the board will ever have to come and say that they were influenced. The task of the courts will be to determine whether, in a particular case, there was action calculated to influence the Minister or members of the board. The result of that action has nothing to do with the outcome.

I think I have said enough for the present.

Order! A lot of repetition is taking place and unless new arguments are raised I am going to put the question.

Sir, there may very well be a lot of repetition in the discussion of this clause; I may say that there is also a great deal of confusion, and every time hon. members on the other side get up to speak it seems to me that the clause becomes less clear and the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment becomes less clear. I would suggest that he really ought to withdraw this amendment and reconsider this clause, because despite what the hon. member for Pretoria Central says, I do not believe that the courts are going to have such an easy time at all in interpreting this clause. I do not think that they are going to find that two and two make four just as easily as he does. First of all, Sir, he insists on confusing this board with an ordinary court of law. As has been pointed out before there is no similarity. This board is not exercising a judicial function, and therefore the normal sub judice rule that applies to a court of law cannot be held to apply in this simple way to the Censorship Board. I therefore disregarded his argument completely as far as that is concerned. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister in explaining the new section 9 (1) [a) last week—I was not here but I was supplied with a copy of his speech—apparently informed the Committee that it was not his intention to stop the private showing of films; in other words, that the various societies and so on that were showing films privately could continue to do so without running into the danger of incurring any penalties under the law.

It has gone out now.

The hon. member over there says that it has gone out now, but the hon. the Deputy Minister said the other day that private showings were not affected. I have interpreted subsection (1)

(a) in precisely the same way as the hon. member for Prinshof, but according to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation of this clause this is not so. As I understood his argument this afternoon, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was trying to assist the hon. the Minister in curtailing the private showing of these films. But, Sir, of course, I do not want to assist the Deputy Minister at all in this regard. I do not want to assist him in so far as prohibiting the showing of films outside of the documentaries referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned. I am against the whole idea of censorship as it is being carried out today and if there is any way in which I can get it limited, so much the better as far as I am concerned. I said in the Second Reading debate that I did not agree with the official Opposition and that these are not blue films which are being shown; they are perfectly good, first class films which are being cut by this little board of Mother Grundies, and if some people are lucky enough to see the films, good luck to them. But the Opposition is taking a different view; they say that if some cannot see a film, then none shall see it. I say I am glad that some will be able to see it and I wish all could see it. However, there is a difference of opinion and a difference of approach in this matter. What I would like to know, Sir, before we come to vote on this clause is exactly what the Deputy Minister’s intention is because there are several different interpretations. We have the interpretation of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District; then there is the hon. member for Prinshof who interprets it in the way I did originally. Then there is the hon. the Deputy Minister who interprets it quite differently, and then there is the interpretation of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain in words of one syllable, exactly what this subsection (1) (a) is intended to mean. It would be very helpful indeed to the Committee to know.

You are asking too much.

Well, I am still prepared to ask; one never knows: one sometimes gets more than one asks for or more than one expects in this House. One sometimes gets a good deal more than one asks for and, in fact, than one deserves. But let us leave that to one side. One has to put up with the vicissitudes of grumpy old Ministers and one cannot help that. But to get back to the Bill, I wonder whether the interpretation of the hon. member for Green Point about clause 4 (b) is correct, where the words “persons belonging to a particular race or class” are taken out. I wonder whether his interpretation is correct. I think it is simply done as window-dressing for the South-West African position. But I do not think it will mean that in future the board is not going to prohibit certain racial groups in South Africa, outside of South-West Africa, from seeing those films. I think here, too, the hon. the Minister ought to make this very clear. I hope the hon. member for Green Point is not wrong in his interpretation, because I agree with him entirely that this will be an improvement on the existing position, if from now on, when a film is censored, it is censored for members of all groups and not only for members of particular racial groups. I consider it an insult to the adult African population especially because it is usually applied to adult Africans, to have them classed with White children under the age of 12 or Coloured or Indian children under the age of 12. We have today a very sophisticated class of urbanized African and I think it is an insult to the adult African to be told that he can only see the sort of film that White children under the age of 12 can see. And this is not my opinion. I am not taking it upon myself to say whether or not adult Africans are insulted, but I have here a cutting where the Urban Bantu Council of Johannesburg has called for drastic changes in the whole attitude on censorship, and it goes on to say that there should be an end to the practice of classifying adult Bantu people with children of other racial groups under 12. They say that the average African adult is perfectly well aware of the various crimes, etc., which are committed in so-called civilized society, and they see no reason whatever why they should be differentiated against in so far as seeing films is concerned.

Now I do not believe that this interpretation is correct. I think that in future we will still have the position where the Board of Censors will classify a film not only according to the age groups of the population, but also according to the racial groups, with the exception of course of South-West Africa. I shall be glad to have the hon. the Minister’s explanation on this. I think this whole clause is a mess. I think it was a mess when it was first introduced and I think it has remained a mess after the amendments which the hon. the Minister has introduced. I do not really think we should be wasting our time debating it.

One cannot but gain the impression that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, a few other hon. members and to a certain extent the hon. member for Houghton as well, were chiefly moved in the discussion of this section to present the members of the board and the hon. the Deputy Minister as ridiculous in the eyes of the public.

But are they not, though?

That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along here and asks whether an actor is entitled to say that he starred in such and such a film, and whether the scenarist is entitled to say that he wrote the scenario, giving details of the story. But surely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is an intelligent man. After all, the section states very clearly—

The actor does not intend to exhibit it, neither does the scenarist; that person or body making the film intends to do so. Why do members ask such questions? They ask such questions in order to drag in a little cheap politics, to create a sense of the ridiculous. That is why the questions are asked. But do they think they are impressing anyone?

But what does it mean?

You are surely not creating any impression. There was a question about how a person would know whether his actions were a contravention of the Act. I have never come across a thief who stole but did not know he was stealing, except in cases where the thief was mad or was a small child. Here we are dealing with adults who are making cinematograph films. They know that the Act states that they may not do anything calculated to exert an influence. If he, as a responsible person, has any doubts about his actions, there are quite sufficient sources from which he may obtain advice to lay down certain norms for him or to decide whether he is travelling a safe road or not. I therefore honestly think that hon. members opposite are wasting the House’s time by asking such question. I say this with all due respect. The hon. member, for example, asked a question which the hon. member for Pretoria Central has already replied to, about whether the members of the board or the hon. the Minister would have to appear in court to admit that they were influenced and that they were not able to make a sound judgment. Why is this question asked? The purpose for this question is surely just the same, while in the clause the hon. member can see very clearly that no one may do anything calculated to influence the board or the Minister. The clause does not say that the Minister or the board must be influenced. What is relevant is the person himself doing something with a view to exerting influence. Surely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout could have seen this in the Bill? He could surely understand it. I therefore think that from this side of the House we should rather ask the hon. member and his party, and the hon. member for Houghton, to stop trying to make the hon. the Minister and the Publications Board appear ridiculous in the eyes of the public as far as this legislation is concerned.

I am very sorry, but it is clear that there is a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Pretoria Central and the hon. the Minister. They are arguing amongst themselves, but we are busy with the hon. the Minister. In his Second Reading speech, and also subsequently, he very clearly stated that the object of the amendment of subsection (4A) is to prevent publication agitation, and that information about a cinematograph film is distributed with a view to arousing people in favour of a cinematograph film before the board has had an opportunity of judging it.

Public agitation against the board and the hon. the Minister!

But what is public agitation? That is my question. It has a direct bearing on the hon. the Minister’s statement. If everything is permissible, if the scenario can be published, if the actors can divulge everything and if they can publish photographs about what takes place in the film, one can ask oneself how the Minister is going to achieve his object. I think that my questions were very reasonable ones. The reaction of the hon. member over there indicates to me that they cannot reply to this. Because there is another point that I want to raise, I just want to tell the hon. member for Pretoria Central in passing that he must excuse me, but at this stage I would not yet employ him as my legal adviser, if I should ever need one. He ought to know as well as anyone that the Publications Board cannot be compared with a court. As a legal man he ought to know that the Publications Board continually appears in court. That was my point. If I, for example, was accused of having adversely influenced the Minister or the board by something I had done, I would most certainly call upon either the Minister or the board to testify that they had, in fact, been influenced, just as the board is brought to court time and time again to explain their intention. I really cannot see any of those people there standing up and admitting that the little publicity there was influenced them to such an extent that they could not judge objectively according to the provisions of the Act. That is why I say that this clause is unnecessary, and this is why we are going to vote against it. The Act clearly prescribes what the board and the Minister must do. They are surely people with an objective view of things, people capable of judging objectively, or they are not. The implication here is that they are not objective, because they allow themselves to be jostled about by a little publicity or by the agitation of public opinion.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister about the proposed new section 9 (4). I would be glad if he would tell me what the intention is in that respect. This relates to what the hon. member for Green Point touched upon. If he reads the clause carefully he will observe that the legislation draws a distinction between three concepts. There is the concept of a group of persons or—and the word “or” is important—a particular race, or a particular class. We are entitled to ask questions in order to obtain clarity about this matter. My contention is that the initial legislature would not have mentioned all three classes if, for example, race or class could be brought home under the concept of a “group of persons”. The clause states—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the meaning of the word “group” of persons. I would say that a “particular race” indicates a population group, and that a “particular class” indicates an age group. But the meaning of the term “group of persons” is, in my opinion, indicative of a group of individuals. We are quite satisfied with the deletion of the concept “race”. I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that if it were possible to lay down a condition whereby a certain race can be excluded under the concept “group of persons”, the original legislation would never have mentioned all three groups. That is my interpretation. Then the original legislation would merely have provided for a condition to be laid down whereby a “group of persons” may not view a particular cinematograph film. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain this to us. The reason why I am asking this is because the term “race” is now being eliminated by this amendment which provides that, neither in respect of the Republic or in respect of South-West Africa may the board now provide that a certain “race” may not see it. But what troubles me is whether, in terms of “group of persons”, the board will be empowered to provide that a particular age group should still be excluded? I hope I am stating the matter clearly enough. If this is not the case, I should like to discuss it with the hon. the Deputy Minister again.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer again to the almost theoretical argument of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in connection with “intention”. It was once said by a very famous judge that “intention is a fact as much as a person’s digestion is a fact. It is proved by a series of facts and conclusions to be drawn from facts.” Therefore “intention” is no abstract concept. A man cannot go to court and say that he had no intention whatsoever. If there are facts indicating that it was his intention to influence the board the court will tell him that in spite of what he is saying to the court it is obvious that he had such an intention. The hon. member now wants an example. Let me give him one. A person who wants to distribute a cinematograph film would very much like to influence the board. He now gets hold of a certain group of people who liaise with that board or who are known to that board. Now those people are invited to a private preview of that film before it is submitted to the board. The film is exhibited to this specific group and immediately afterwards they are asked for their opinions about the film. They may say that there is nothing in the film. But the intention is obviously that those friends must go along and tell the members of the board or the Minister that there is nothing in the film, and that the film should be released.

Anyone can say something if he wants to.

No, the board will be influenced in its work. It is the task of that board to view the film completely at its leisure and form an opinion of it according to the provisions of the Act and not according to the provisions of its friends, not according to the provisions of the art critics. They must look at that film with the thought that section 10 of the Act, for example, prescribes that certain provisions must be taken into account. The film is then weighed up against those provisions. When the board has done this, it must give a decision. That is its task. A film exhibitor cannot be allowed to exhibit a cinematograph film to a group of people and then tell them: “Look how nice my film is. The naughty parts ought not to be excised” so that those people can influence the board. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to put a stop to with this provision. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout must not be naive. He surely knows that this has happened in the past. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is surely aware of the fact that this is the kind of thing that is going on. We must put a stop to it. The board has a certain duty and it does not matter if the board must act like a court. The court must weigh certain facts up against a certain Act. This board does not find itself in vacuo to give purely its own opinion. It must look at the Act. It must determine whether the cinematograph film contravenes some provision or other of the Act. It must determine, for example, whether the cinematograph film is such that it could cause people to be hurt as far as their religion is concerned. The man serving on the board may be a person who is not very religious, but it is his task to see to it that that cinematograph film does not cause people to be hurt who are, in fact, religious. The board is bound by an Act, not by its own opinions. All that a board member has to do, and that is what he is appointed for, is to apply that Act. There is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing that cannot be understood, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows this.

In respect of the hon. member for Houghton I should just like to make sure that she knows what my standpoint is. I am now referring to this clause to which the hon. member …

Subsection (1) (a) which is being inserted by clause 4 (a).

Is that the one which reads as follows—

Yes.

As far as I can see it, I do not think it excludes people who want to show a film for private entertainment. It is only when some sort of monetary compensation is attached to it that it is thrown out. If the hon. member for Houghton gets hold of a film and wants to show it to her friends purely and simply on a friendship basis, there is nothing against it. However, the moment she starts a club where people have to pay say R2 for a cup of tea or any such silly thing, in other words, the moment she starts making a business out of it, it has got to go to the Publications Board first.

*This provision is obviously intended to protect the public. The reason why we have a board is because we do not want to allow the public exhibition of undesirable films to the public. I realize that hon. members opposite will never accept our standpoint because they are given over heart and soul to the idea of a totally permissive community. That is their problem.

Mr. Chairman, in one respect I would like to get the record straight. There was some reaction to the arguments I raised during the Second Reading of this Bill. My argument was that there is a similarity between this board and a court of law. The hon. members on the other side argue that there is no such similarity. When I said that there was a similarity between this board and the functions performed by it and a court of law and the functions performed by it, I did not say that there was no difference whatsoever between this board and a court of law. In all respect, I must say that I did not say that this board was exactly the same as a court of law.

In no respect whatever?

I will refer to that argument in a moment. There is one basic difference in approach between that side of the House and this side of the House. The different in approach can be summarized as follows. It all comes back to the sub judice rule which we have here at the moment. This side of the House wants all cinematograph films and publications to be adjudicated upon by a properly constituted board which will be bound to judge all matters which are referred to him on the law of the country. The law of the country in this case is the Publications and Entertainments Act. This is the approach of this side of the House. However, the approach on that side of the House is different. They want these matters to be judged in the columns of the newspapers. They want what is called by the Americans a trial by newspaper. They do not want a body to judge on these things unfettered. The similarity between this board and a court of law is of such a nature that as it is imperative for a court of law to be protected by a sub judice rule, it is just as imperative for this board to be protected in a similar way.

*Now I want to deal with the real similarity between these two bodies. On the one hand there is the board and, on the other hand, there is a court of law.

Order! The hon. member has already advanced that argument.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely that this is not the case. Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Green Point said that there was no similarity whatsoever, and I feel that at this stage I should make that aspect clear. If hon. members opposite find it at all possible to judge this matter objectively, I want to mention to them that the similarity is that just as a court of law does not have discretionary powers to do as it pleases or to do as it deems right or wrong, this board also has no discretionary powers of any kind. A court of law is obliged to apply the facts of a case to the law of the country. This board is obliged to apply the facts of the case, i.e. the publication or film, to the law of the country, i.e. this Publications and Entertainments Act. This board has no discretionary powers of any kind. It has no freedom to do what it deems right or wrong, but only has to decide whether that film or that publication constitutes a contravention of the Act. That is the similarity. Just as a court must have the protection of the sub judice rule, this board must, therefore, also have the protection of the sub judice rule. When hon. members opposite say that the differences between a court of law and this board are such and such, it does not mean a thing. I know what the differences are, and they are only too clear. By pointing out the differences between this board and a court of law, hon. members opposite are not replying to my argument. The hon. members for Houghton and Green Point did not reply to my argument, and I submit that they left the crux of my argument unanswered.

Mr. Chairman, I think that at this stage the arguments advanced have virtually been exhausted. In the first place, I should like to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Green Point at the beginning of the debate on this clause. The hon. member for Green Point said that the board would be “unfettered and uninfluenced by any consideration other than their own restricted and narrow approach”. Apparently it has never entered the hon. member’s mind—and I am referring now to the arguments he advanced last week—that these people have to act in terms of legal norms. The Act, the sections and subsections in terms of which they are to act, have been defined very clearly. The hon. member also held forth on the fact that we were drawing no distinction between a court of law and this board. I feel that I should first of all tell the hon. member what the board is doing at the moment in order that he may see in this some comparison with what is done by a court of law. It is the practice of this board, for the Act does not prohibit this, to listen to representations and to make suggestions to those people who submit films. The board also permits those who submit films to make their own cuts prior to submitting such films and, in this manner, to cleanse those films in order that they may be accepted more easily. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the board is making every possible concession to help those who submit films in a country in which we are most sympathetic towards the film industry, because we have an entertainment-starved country. In other words, to a large extent the board is already acting as one can expect from a board which is sympathetic towards those bodies which submit to it a matter on which it has to decide. But I should like to go into this question—since it was raised by quite a number of speakers—of the sub judice rule that the board may not be influenced. If an Act imposes a duty upon or confers a power on a person or body, that person, body or organization must carry out that duty or exercise that power with due regard to the provisions of the relevant Act; in other words, the requirements or the instructions of the legislation. Under the present Act the Publications Control Board has such duties and powers. This legal principle applies in respect of every organization authorized by law, i.e. also to the Publications Control Board. They must refer to specific sections of the law whenever they give decisions.

If the board has done that, why have there been so many cases won against them?

According to law they must disclose their reasons whenever appeals take place. At this stage they indicate beforehand in what respect the persons concerned may put matters right. If an authorized court of law should allow itself to be influenced by other factors, its treatment of the relevant case would be legally null and void. On page 208 of the third edition, Mr. Chief Justice Steyn said the following in his “Uitleg van Wette” (translation)—

Now, this appears to be quite logical to me. If it is required that the authorized agent may not allow himself to be influenced in exercising his powers, those people who are trying to influence him should also be prohibited by the legislature from doing so. As far as I am concerned, the latter prohibition is merely a logical consequence of the requirement that there should be no influencing. Now the board is the “particular authorized agent”. To many people, the less informed and especially the completely uninformed, this board is the bogey. In practice we have repeatedly found evidence of this board being constantly subjected to influencing of the grossest nature. In my Second Reading speech I pointed this out to hon. members. I am not going to repeat it.

Do they fall for it?

The point is not whether they fall for it. The point is whether there are people abusing these particular circumstances in an attempt to influence it. That is what is of importance here. [Interjection.] Not the consequences of that—the consequences will be catastrophic. Of all the bodies authorized by law, of which there are a very large number, I want to say that there is no other body which is subject to such pressure and influencing by all sorts of persons. And then these are mostly persons who only have their own interests in mind. They employ all sorts of methods in their attempt to induce the board to approve a particular film. I believe that the board has often found itself in a very difficult position to decide objectively on a film. If 1 000 people attend a preview of a film and the whole country is full of people all of whom are giving their opinions, it amounts to definite, deliberate influencing of people who have to decide objectively in terms of legal norms. This must have been extremely difficult for the board. The question that has now occurred to me is whether the legislature should stand by and see persons influencing the board or even trying to intimidate it. Hon. members must bear in mind that the point at issue here is not merely the protection of the board against criticism; the point at issue is the influencing of the board, pro or contra. Hon. members are only thinking of the contra. They are only thinking of the people who want to make the board ridiculous or take steps against the board because it makes certain cuts. There are people who are against the board because in their opinion it is making too few cuts. The point at issue here is not protection against criticism, but the influencing of the board, pro or contra, in exercising its powers and duties.

Then I just want to explain something further. Hon. members wanted to know what the meaning was of “do anything”. “Do anything” means to perform a calculated act, and that can only be done by the person who has control over the film. Intention has to be proved; intention has to be proved by the State. This board, which is a quasi-judicial body, is a public institution and as such it is totally unprotected against slander. What do hon. members think of a newspaper heading such as “Paranoid Censors”? I regard it as a slanderous allegation, and a slanderous allegation usually has an intention—to present a person in a ridiculous light, in his decisions as well. I have been told that in other Western countries slandering such as this has in fact been made a punishable offence. For instance, I have been told that in section 137 of the Dutch criminal law it has been made a punishable offence to pass an intentional public insult upon a public body or institution. This applies to the German criminal law as well.

But that has nothing to do with this Bill.

Order!

As regards the function of the board in comparison with that of a court of law, the position is that this board, just as is the case with a court of law, has to give a decision in cases where the rights of people are concerned—therefore, a quasi-judicial function. I have already indicated what practices are being followed. Just as it is in the case of a court of law, fixed rules also apply in respect of the board. The similarity which exists between this board and the courts of law, lies in the nature of the functions they perform and not in the way they were constituted or in the way each of them performs his task. Nobody on this side of the House has ever suggested that this board is exactly the same institution as a court of law is. So much for the sub judice rule.

Now I want to reply to a few points that were raised here by hon. members. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said that he accepted my amendment, but he also said that it did not go far enough. He also said that they now accepted censorship, the form of control we have here.

I did not say so.

Well, let us then differ as far as that is concerned. Furthermore, he said that censorship had to be applied to everything, also to films exhibited in private. I do not think we can permit the sale of material or films which are so undesirable that the Police have to stop them in terms of the Act. We do not want to intrude into the private rights of people in this respect. The hon. member misinterpreted my words. What I had in mind, was those people who exhibit films for a consideration. We have in mind the person who brings a film into this country and who by selling or hiring it out, makes money out of it. This is the type of pirate we should like to catch. However, at this stage there is no way in which we can catch them without entering private homes and interfering in the private rights of people. In other words, no matter how sorry we are for or how sympathetic we are towards the film industry, if it can be proved that such a person—and hon. members must remember that he is acting unlawfully— causes that film to be circulated from person to person for an indirect consideration, he is punishable under the Act.

The Act is there, but it is difficult to catch these people. We cannot, because of abuses that exist, interfere with the private rights of a person, and I want the hon. member to understand this. In that respect hon. members opposite must take my word. We cannot obtain total control over private films. If a film is not pornographic, we can in actual fact do nothing. What I had in mind, was what the hon. member for Prinshof had in mind, i.e. these people who charge R3 for a cup of tea and then exhibit a film which in our opinion is undesirable and should not be exhibited here. If a film has been banned, it is possible for a person to buy it and exhibit it privately in his home, but the moment he starts hiring out that film or either directly or indirectly turns it over to another person, he contravenes the law of the country. The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to catch him, but we do have measures in terms of which he can be caught.

Sir, I also want to reply to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member said that it was ridiculous to permit a censored film to be exhibited privately. I want to give him the same answer: This is not something on which this board is keen; this is not something on which this side of the House is keen. It is something which is punishable under the Act, if it can be proved that such a person received payment or if the film is exhibited at a place to which access is obtained on the grounds of membership of a society, or if it is exhibited in public. But at this stage we do not have any control over those people, although I agree with the hon. member.

Then the hon. member was concerned about the fact that film libraries would have to close down if all of them had to submit films to the board. But I think the hon. member should take another look at section 9 (2) of the Act. Section 9 (2) provides that such bodies may obtain and use films as classes of films which need not then be submitted to the board.

And they may hire them out?

Of course, the moment one starts hiring out a film, it is a different matter; then it is done for a consideration but if that class of film has been exempted, the film can be hired out, i.e. if that class has been exempted under section 9 (2). I have the same problem and all of us have the same problem which the hon. member for Pretoria Central has; in that respect we do not disagree. Unfortunately we cannot interfere with the private rights of people. The hon. member also raised that point, and I thought I should at least mention his name. I have taken due cognizance of that. What I repeated now, has already been said by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. that we may not infringe upon the private right of persons. He was concerned about the meaning of the word “intended”.

No, who must “intend”?

The person in whose control the film is or who is the owner of the film at that particular stage and who wants to submit the film. He “intends” …

When?

At the moment when the person finally decides that he has to submit the film to the board. Now the film is rounded off; it has been finished …

Before the time?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: No, he cannot do so before the time. His film is not ready. He may not exhibit privately a film to which he has already rounded off without first submitting it to the board, for then the object of the Act would be defeated completely. Once he has “intended” that film for public exhibition, he will already have made a decision, and his decision will be proved by his acts. He cannot go along and say: “This film has been rounded off; come and see it.” It is the judicial impact of that film which eventually counts; it is not the stories written about the film in the newspapers.

The hon. member for Maitland knows that very well; he need not pretend to be so stupid.

The hon. member referred to the functus officio rule. I do not wish to go into that now, for I think that is an aspect of the hon. member’s amendment which has not really been discussed as yet. The functus officio rule provides that once the board has made a decision, it cannot change that decision.

That is out of order.

In any case, I just want to mention it, even if it is out of order. I do not really want to discuss it now, but I may perhaps say what I would have said if it had been permissible. (Interjection.] Then everything is in order. I just want to explain to the hon. member what our problem is. For instance, if at this stage one were to exhibit a film in which liquor is sold to the Bantu, it would be in order since our laws make provision for it. But 10 years ago something of that nature could have been offensive. Then, as regards the plea he made or would have made if it had been permitted, I want to say that, after all, we cannot allow a statutory body to change its decisions at will. In that respect I think he will honestly agree with me.

Then I just want to reply briefly to some of the other hon. members as well. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was concerned about the meaning of “do anything”. Now, “do anything” was explained so well by the other hon. members on this side of the House that I think he will understand it by this time. “Do anything” is when a person calculatedly, intentionally, tries to influence the board or the Minister through his actions, and that can be either direct or indirect. For instance, if he were to go ahead and allow 1 000 people to attend a preview of a film and they were to write in all the papers that certain portions should not be excised, etc., or if, through his proven legal representative, he were to write a letter to the Minister and ask the Minister to see that film for himself, since he cannot understand why the board banned this film, it would be a calculated act.

The State will have to prove that it is a calculated act. I want to repeat that the actions of a person, once he has rounded off a film, will determine whether there was anything in his actions calculated to influence the Minister; and I think I have furnished a sound explanation as to why we should not permit such influencing. The hon. member mentioned the ordinary citizen and wanted to know how the ordinary citizen would know what to do, but, surely, we are not dealing here with the ordinary citizen to whom the hon. member has referred. After all, we are dealing here with a film-maker.

He is an ordinary citizen, too.

Yes, and you are also an ordinary citizen. You are a quite ordinary citizen, but there is the ordinary citizen who, in a particular sense, knows what he is doing, and the person who submits the film knows what he is doing. He usually knows what his intention is; he usually has his intentions and they become apparent in the way he does it. A year ago, or a little more than a year ago, a number of members of the House of Assembly were taken to see a film and to obtain their views. That was not illegal; it was a private exhibition, but they were taken there for the purpose of obtaining their views and publishing their views in the Press. The Press said, “M.P.’s pass banned film”. This statutory body have now made its decision, and now it is being held against it. We do not think this is right or fair. I want to tell you this, Sir.

I think that if this board is allowed to do its work objectively and without interference, we shall have less trouble, for this board will find itself under the sword of Damocles in that a decision it has already made, will be criticized more vehemently because the people will want to do nothing while the board is deliberating on that film. It will still have a greater sense of responsibility than it has now, for what is happening at the moment? While they are deciding, they are constantly being irritated, and these people are also only human. They are constantly being irritated by people who are trying to influence them unfairly. I honestly think that the decisions of the board will be influenced by public opinion, and they will be much more discerning in their decisions and take public opinion into consideration. The hon. member was concerned about what could be made known. I can tell the hon. member that I think I can reply in the affirmative to almost all of his questions. He can, so to speak, make all sorts of propaganda as far as information is concerned, and in regard to influencing I have already told him what our views are and how we interpret it. I do not want to give further examples of influencing.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton briefly that we do not prohibit a film exhibiting privately by a person who does not have the intention of making money with it. We cannot do that at this stage. Our sympathies are with the legitimate film industry. However, there are obstacles which cannot be surmounted. It is only the person who has in his possession a film intended to be exhibited in public, who may not, prior to its having been approved by the board, exhibit that film privately during that time. I know that the hon. member is against the whole idea of censorship. From time to time I have learned with satisfaction that hon. members on the other side of the House are not against the idea of control. I think that I have more or less replied now to all the matters that were raised.

What about the question of race?

Oh, yes, race or class. I did not mention it because to a certain extent I have already replied to it. Let us be very honest now. The race legislation is not applicable in South-West Africa. But that is not the main reason. Our finding is that the use of the word “group” already gives one a comprehensive concept. “Group” as such is a comprehensive concept. It can define age or it can define race or class as it does in broad terms throughout the area controlled by the …

So it can refer to racial groups.

Yes, various population groups can be included under “group”. It is a good thing that hon. members know this. There is no need for us to write race or class into that measure. If there are other points to which I have not replied. I would be pleased if hon. members would point them out to me. I do not think there is any more to be said at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, firstly, to formally withdraw the amendments that I have moved in lines 6 and 17.

Why do you not withdraw yourself?

It is all very well for that hon. member to say that but I do perform a useful function in this House. I am sure if that hon. member was also to perform some function in this Committee he might serve some purpose here. The hon. the Deputy Minister will notice that I have not withdrawn the amendment to introduce in line 7 the words “by the maker or producer of” after the word “intended”. This question of intention has taken up a lot of the time of this Committee. It is not my intention to take up very much more of this Committee’s time. Before I come to that I want to make one point clear with regard to the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. When he says that I implied that this side of the House now accepts censorship, or as he likes to put it, accepts the control of publications and entertainment, he is completely wrong. I do not know whether he did not understand what I had to say. What I did say was that at this stage we are compelled to debate the Committee Stage having accepted the principle as adopted at Second Reading.

Did you not accept the principle?

No, we did not accept the principle. We have made this quite clear. We voted against it at Second Reading. We are now compelled to debate it in the light of that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said quite rightly that it is not his intention or my intention to make this provision applicable to private films in a private collection. But the one we are after is the one the hon. the Deputy Minister calls the “rower” and who I call the “pirate”. It is the person who, as so aptly but by the hon. the Minister, is making a profit out of the showing of these films even if it is being shown in private. These films are leased out by the so-called pirates at fees amounting to as much as R150 per night. These are the films which I want to see the hon. the Deputy Minister control.

We now come to the question of intention. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept my amendment, we will have tied the whole question of control to the intention of the maker of the film. Which is the film that is being let out for R150 per night? It is the film which has been banned by the Censorship Board or has been so cut as to have taken what a lot of people consider to be the best part or the spicy parts out of them. That is the film which is being let out for R150 per night. There are people in this country who are making a fortune from the letting out of such films, in 16 mm. gauge particularly. Concerning the question of intention, the hon. member for Pretoria Central said that the intention was established when the film was completed. I want to go further than that hon. member did. I want to say that the intention of the maker was established when he set out to make the film. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister understands the financing of the film industry today. When a company in this country purchases or hires a film that is made overseas, he does not pay anything like the value of that film when he does so. It is virtually a down payment. The conditions are such that the maker and the actors and actresses and the producer all get a cut from the gate or the takings in this country. That is the so-called box office. The hon. the Deputy Minister must be aware of the fact that in many cases in this country 80 per cent of the box office goes overseas to the maker, the producer and to the various actors and actresses who have taken part in the making of this film.

They are not subject to our laws.

Whether they are subject to our laws or not, I am not interested in them. This is the set-up. So, the intention of the maker, when he made the film, is easily established, because he is prepared to let that film go to a distributor in this country for a nominal amount subject to a percentage of the box office in this country. Those are the films I want protected. Those are the films I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister wants protected. He says that the only way in which he can control this is by going into private houses. That is the last thing we on this side of the House want. We do not want the hon. the Deputy Minister or the snoopers which he will appoint a little later, or the Police going into every person’s home and inquiring into every person’s private film library. But these people, whom I call the pirates, are known to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to his department. It is a simple matter to ascertain which films have been censored and which have not been censored, which are controlled and which are not controlled. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in terms of the Act, as it is today, when a person shows a film, he must show the certificate from the board. He knows that. It is a simple matter to have that attached to every 16 mm. copy as well. I want to stress that I am not after the private film library, but it is the pirates who must be controlled.

Amendments in lines 6 and 17, proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber, with leave, withdrawn.

The hon. the Deputy Minister replied to some of the points which have been raised. I only want to deal with one or two of his answers, which concern us even more than the views we held originally. First of all, in regard to the question of whether “group” includes race or can be defined as race, the hon. the Deputy Minister seems to be trying to ride two horses at the same time. He told us that race must not be introduced because there is no race classification in South-West Africa and this Bill is to be applied to South-West Africa. At the same time he says that “group” implies race. So, in fact, he is leaving the provision of racial restriction on a film by merely changing the words. Who is he going to bluff with that? Either there must be no race classification so far as this legislation in South Africa is concerned, or there must be. He cannot have it both ways. I think one is disappointed that the hon. the Deputy Minister has given that explanation.

I want to go further and say that I cannot for the life of me conceive why this Minister wishes this board to operate in a vacuum, protected from criticism and from any type of influence whatsoever. The hon. the Deputy Minister says it is a board which is charged with discharging obligations under the law. This board is something more than that. I would like to remind him of what Mr. Justice Diemont said.

Who?

Mr. Justice Diemont. He said—

The extent to which this board is applying the law can be no better judged than by the number of cases where its decisions have been upset by the courts of law. When it has been applying the law, in other words, the courts have found that it is not in effect applying the law. The board’s whole approach is one of opinion. If one reads section 10 in regard to films, one sees that “the board shall not approve any cinematograph film which in its opinion may have the effect of” being offensive to decency, and so forth. It is a question of opinion entirely. Further mention is made in section 10 of films which in the opinion of the board depict certain stated matters in an offensive manner. Why should this board not be subjected to judgment by public opinion? Why should it not be made aware of public opinion, especially when the hon. the Deputy Minister goes further and says that once the board has made up its mind, it should not chop and change, it should not have a right to review its own decisions? Is this reasonable legislation that we have in the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has placed before us? The hon. the Deputy Minister takes exception, because the board has been subjected to criticism in its opinions by the general public. But it is not the general public only. Judges of the Supreme Court have also applied their minds to the way in which this board has been operating. Let me read a short extract from the judgment of Mr. Justice Fannin—

This shows what the courts have felt in regard to the restricted attitude, if I might put it as bluntly as I can, of the board in expressing opinions which it is bound to do under the law. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will not proceed with this proposed substituted subsection. I should like to see that there is the maximum of publicity given to the decisions of the board. One has the frightening position suggested by the hon. member for Prinshof that there should be nothing mentioned about a film before it has reached the hands of the board, has been viewed by the board and has been determined upon by the board. The hon. member for Potchefstroom, I believe, is a little more reasonable in reading the law as meaning that there is nothing to restrict the publication of the details of the script of that film and even the publication of stills from that film, provided it is not done by the person who is applying for the censorship. Those two views of two legal members on the other side of this House show what confusion there is in the ranks of the Government in regard to what is intended and what is required. There is complete disagreement between them. There is also disagreement between the hon. member for Bloemfontein East and the hon. the Deputy Minister. I again want to ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill, look at it again and then bring it back to us for further discussion at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Deputy Minister has replied reasonably fully to various questions. However, there are two questions in regard to which he did not satisfy me. I should like to refer to these again.

The one was the question of the moment of intention. My impression was that the hon. the Deputy Minister actually contradicted himself there. I wanted to know from him specifically at what juncture a picture is “intended” to be exhibited in public. The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that it was intended to be exhibited in public at the moment when it was submitted to the Board.

That is usually the case, but not always.

My question was when the demonstrable intention occurs. [Interjections.] Shortly afterwards the hon. the Minister said something which in my opinion contradicted that. He said then that he did not want thousands of people to be invited to come and see a picture. Now, however, I want to mention a practical example to the hon. the Minister, and then I want to ask him what his reply to that is. Suppose I am the producer of a film and am therefore also in control of the film, but I am uncertain whether it is a good one. I want to invite all my friends, or I want to invite a thousand people, for example all the M.P.s, to come and see it. I do not yet have the honest intention of releasing it to be exhibited in public because I am uncertain whether it will be a success and whether the public will like it. The fact that I want to invite a thousand people, is precisely what the Minister wants to avoid. If I invite them now to come along and see whether the film is suitable to be exhibited in public, I cannot afterwards be responsible for what happens if, for example, an M.P. goes to the Press and gives his opinion on it. I think it is very important that the Minister tells us clearly what the position is. We are precisely where we were before. Those thousand people can help me to decide that the film is suitable for public exhibition, and then I could submit it to the Publications Board because I would then think that it was suitable to be exhibited in public. I am convinced that this clause is going to prove to be a complete wash-out, and I just want to have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the moment of demonstrable intention takes effect only when I apply to the Board for the right to exhibit it in public.

There is one last point in respect of which I want to put a question to him. At first the hon. the Deputy Minister did not want to reply to the question of race or class. Let us differ on this score, but I want a categorical assurance from the hon. the Minister that the change which he wants to effect in subsection (4) by means of clause 4 (b) does not mean, in respect of South-West Africa, that conditions can be imposed to the effect that a film may not be exhibited to a specified race.

South-West Africa has population groups.

But now I want to know for certain, because the hon. the Minister said so in his Second Reading speech. He then told us that we may as well forget about the Republic because this can be done under the concept “a group of persons”. Do I now have his categorical assurance that as far as South-West Africa is concerned, if a cinematograph film is approved, there will be no race discrimination, and that everyone will be able to see it? Is that correct?

No reference can be made to race. There is no such act.

The hon. the Deputy Minister probably means that there is no such act in South-West Africa. Very well then. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is certain about that. Now I just want to ask whether the film will be classified in such a way that the Coloureds, for example, may not see it in the Republic? That will then mean that the Bastards and the Coloureds in South-West Africa may see it. Is that the position?

(Inaudible.]

How is the producer supposed to know now? Suppose the Board issued a certificate, which it must in fact do, will that certificate indicate that the film is only intended for Whites but in South-West Africa is intended for everyone? Will that be indicated on this certificate, yes or no?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply in brief to these arguments. First I want to reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He referred to the possibility of proving intention. From the moment that that film maker or distributor has decided to use the film for public exhibition he may not exhibit the film to the various types of people as laid down in the legislation. He may not do that. That particular film may not be exhibited. This then is when it has intention. It may be even prior to its having been submitted to the board and it may also happen all at the same time. The idea here is that his actions will show whether or not he intended it to be exhibited in public.

The second problem was the question of race and whether a film will now be marked as being intended for exhibition in South-West Africa or in the Republic. Normally films come to South Africa, are submitted to the board here, and go from here to South-West Africa. This is the procedure laid down in the present Act, and as far as I know we have never experienced any problem in this regard. In very exceptional cases a film may enter South-West Africa first. It may happen that one single subsection of the Act is not applied there. Subsequently, when that film comes to the Republic, someone notices that the provisions of that particular subsection, one of about 60, have not been complied with. Such a person may then complain to the board, of course, because the circumstances here are different. However, hon. members on the opposite side are meeting troubles halfway. We have been co-operating with South-West Africa for many years. As a matter of fact, the South-West Africa Ordinance concerned provides that a film approved in the Republic by the Publications Control Board may be deemed to have been approved in South-West Africa as well. This has been the existing position for a very long time. Therefore, hon. members on the opposite side should not come forward here with hypothetic cases, cases which may not even crop up in the distant future. They should try to be practical.

†Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any confusion as regards the various provisions of this measure in the mind of the Government. There is, however, a lot of confusion in the minds of the Opposition as I could see from what was said by them this afternoon. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was worried about “intention”. One ought to be able to change one’s intention. An intention cannot be for ever. If a maker decides on his intention with a film and he is, for example, in Austria, must it mean that that intention can never be changed? And that the film can then never be shown as a private film? I have told the hon. member that we do not want to make inroads on the private rights of people. At times it may be desirable to make a film, although it is banned, available to a private person. I am therefore sorry that I cannot accept that part of the hon. member’s amendment.

The hon. member for Green Point talked about the matter of race. In the first instance, I want to point out that races are not defined as regards South-West Africa. I have repeated this from time to time. He then talked about the decisions of the board and used words like “narrow” and “restricted”. I want to repeat that their decisions are according to the law. The hon. member might regard them as being subjective or arbitrary, but the board has to look at the various provisions of law before it can make its decision. They have to submit their decision to a higher court in the case of an appeal. We are not going to operate in a vacuum. We are not only dealing with matters concerning sex and violence, but also with matters which may undermine the safety of the State. The board has to decide in this regard as well. They also have to look out for things like drug addiction. There has been a number of films dealing with this. There are, in fact, quite a number of other categories of films to keep in mind, films where it may be desirable to prevent the board from being influenced.

Would it not be better to allow public opinion to decide?

Public opinion and criticism are quite in order in terms of this new amendment. The board is not shielded from that. It is only when there is a calculated action on the part of the person, when submitting a film for approval, that unfair criticism by him is disallowed. It is then and then only that someone ought to be prohibited from doing this because it may hamper the board in its attempt to make an objective decision. I have nothing more to say in this regard.

Amendment in line 7, proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber, put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Proviso to the new subsection (1), proposed by the Deputy Minister of the Interior, put and agreed to.

Question put: That all the words from “(c)” in line 27, up to and including “subsection” in line 28, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens. J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter. J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster. L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived.

Omission of the proposed subsection (4A) inserted by paragraph (c) put and agreed to.

Substitution of the new subsection (4A) in paragraph (c), proposed by the Deputy Minister of the Interior, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee. B.; Coetzee. S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger. J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel. J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster. B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn. S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Van Eck. H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Substitution of new subsection accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J, C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J C.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W. Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—43: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6:

I would like at the outset to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for an explanation. If he will refer to section 9 (4) of the principal Act, which we have just amended under clause 4 of this Bill, he will find that in relation to a cinematograph film the board may approve or reject a film unconditionally or subject to a condition that such film shall be exhibited only to a group of persons specified by the board or only after any specified portion or portions have been excised. In other words, the board must positively approve of the film for exhibition to a group of persons as specified by the board. Sir, when it comes to live shows, which are dealt with under clause 6 of the Bill before us, I want to draw attention to the wording of the new subsection (1A), line 22, which reads—

In other words, the approach is entirely the reverse, to that applying to a film when one permits the exhibition to a certain class. Here is now a provision that there shall be determined a class of persons or group of persons to whom a play shall not be exhibited, and added to that there is second point. Not only is it the prohibited class or group which must be determined, but the board will also be able to restrict the place or places where such a performance may be staged. Now this raises all sorts of problems. Is the board now, having regard to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has read into its powers, namely that the group includes a race, in a position to override or to have prior say in respect of a determination, for instance, by the Department of Community Development as to occupation under the Group Areas Act. For instance, if the board were to say that a certain stage show can be exhibited at Theatre A and that is one which requires a permit, is this board now to be linked up with the Department of Community Development to make certain that it does not transgress any laws as administered by the Department of Community Development in terms of the Group Areas Act? I mention this because again one finds the same position that there is an indication that these proposed amendments to the Bill have not been thought right through in regard to their effects when it comes to their practical application. Will the board be able to restrict a certain public entertainment to certain theatres? Can it, for instance say that a certain entertainment may now only be shown in, for instance, theatres that are controlled by CAPAB or by PACT in the Transvaal? Is that to be a power which this board is to have? Will it be able to say that a certain stage show shall only be performed in halls or theatres under the control of a local authority or under the control and on a certain circuit, of an entertainment company? It seems that the wording which has been introduced, whilst it has the advantage that the whole stage show does not have to be cancelled or banned because of one item which is regarded as being objectionable by the Control Board, it seems to me that there is an introduction of a vast array of powers into the hands of the Control Board, which may have a serious effect on live theatre in this country. It now becomes possible, as I see it—and I shall be grateful if the Deputy Minister would point it out if I am incorrect—that the board can now restrict age admission to the live theatre, it can fix the place or places where the performances can be held, and it can determine the racial group or groups that may see this show—because, if the Minister is correct, “group” includes race. It may have consequences conflicting with other laws which are applicable if the locale, the theatre or place where the performance can be staged, is left in the hands of the board and not in the hands of the ordinary law of the country. I will be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could reply on those matters. There are other aspects which I will deal with at a later stage. I should first like to have clarity as to what is contained in this clause.

Clause 6 is one of the clauses which we unfortunately cannot accept at all. I should like to give the reasons for this. I am sorry the hon. the Minister did not avail himself of this opportunity to rectify a fundamental objection to the existing situation.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister reads the clause properly, he will find that the board now has the power to prohibit part of a performance if that part “may”—not “will”—have the effect of giving offence to the religious convictions or feelings of any section—a small section—of the inhabitants. Something like this renders the work of a board such as the Publications Board absolutely impossible. In every country in the world, as well as in South Africa, there is a difference of opinion among people in regard to religion. Some people believe that Saturday is Sunday while others believe that Sunday is Saturday. Therefore it goes without saying that if one were to satisfy the Saturday people, the Sunday people would be dissatisfied, and if one were to satisfy the Sunday people the Saturday people would be dissatisfied. This is a completely intolerable situation. If the hon. the Minister had amended the section in such a way that if a part did in fact offend and there was proof that a substantial section of the population would be offended by a particular performance being staged, it would not have been unreasonable. In that case I do not think we would have had a case to oppose such a provision. But now the board is being forced into this position that after it has seen such a performance and is of the opinion that it contains something which possibly “may offend” a small section of the population, for example the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is obliged, because of the strictness of the Act, to take action and to tear that stage play into shreds. This is part of the difficulties we have with the board of censors today and this is why we have been saying to the hon. the Minister right from the beginning that the legislation is of such a nature that it ought to be revised. During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister mentioned that he had received 30 telegrams. But my goodness, there are 20 million people in South Africa! We all know there are sects. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke of the English-speaking people. There are English-speaking sects as well, and I do not want to say anything to the detriment of any religious group, no matter how large or small it is, but there is always a group of people who are professional complainers. They organize the submission of complaints. Then the board has to act without taking into account whether it is at least a substantial section of the people who are in fact offended. The persons who complain are usually those who never attend a performance. They do not even set foot there. They have simply read about it in the newspaper and complain on the basis of that. This is a position we cannot accept.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the show “Eight Beasts”. What has really happened in this case? Day after day this show has attracted full houses in Cape Town. Therefore one has to pay a lot in order to see the show. For 14 days, or sometimes even longer, one could not obtain any seats. It was so popular among the public of Cape Town that the run of the show was subsequently extended for a month, and again for several weeks subsequent to that. Nobody need attend such a show. As it is, one has to pay a lot to see it. Surely, people will not pay to see a show if it offends them. The show contained a parody about which a report appeared in the press. Consequently it would seem to me as though people who had not seen the show were not satisfied with it. They could not have been offended because they did not see it. There were packed houses and those who attended, were satisfied. But in terms of the existing Act, the board had to act. It was not merely the parody to which the Minister referred, but they also poked fun at every population group in South Africa. They poked fun at the English-speaking people, the Afrikaners and the Jews, and made them appear slightly ridiculous. What sort of people are we if nothing satirical may be performed at all? If something like this merely contains the possibility that it may offend some or other little group of Mother Grundies in the country, the board will have to act if this clause is applied strictly enough. We cannot accept something like this. That is one of the main reasons. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not seriously consider using this opportunity of making the clause more practicable and also to strengthen the hand of the board, so that it must at least be a fact that a substantial group of people really were offended. Surely cuts cannot be made because it is imagined that someone may be offended, while nobody is in fact offended. It is merely the idea of the board that someone will or can be offended. I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously whether he cannot abandon that idea and effect an amendment in terms of which it must actually happen that people are in fact offended before the board will act. I want to give him a practical example.

Just look what happened in the case of a publication such as Sax Appeal. The moment it appeared, there was a spontaneous objection to it. The public are reasonably fair and they reacted fairly quickly and made it clear that they did not like it. When the Control Board acted and banned it, there was a minimum of objection to it. In other words, there was in fact a practical and reasonably comprehensive objection. In a case like that, nobody blames the Control Board. But here we have the untenable position that if they merely think that someone might be offended, they must make cuts. I think this is a hopeless position and on these grounds, we are completely opposed to it.

I really did not think the hon. members of the Opposition would object to this clause. I think it is a very good improvement on the old section. I thought the hon. members of the Opposition should have praised these amendments, because in the past the position was that in terms of that particular provision, the board had the power to—and I quote—

(bb) bringing any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt; or

(ii) is contrary to the public interest or is indecent or obscene or offensive or harmful to public morals.

The board had the power to intervene in the case of live shows.

Even if nobody objected?

Sometimes it is possible that the offence is fairly limited. The board may now use the power it did not have in the past, to tell the person giving the performance that if he omitted the specific part concerned from his performance, he may continue. If we did not have this amendment, the board would have been obliged to prohibit that entire performance.

No, they would have let it through in its entirety.

No, they would not have let it through; they would have had to prohibit the entire performance. If the performance was such that it offended in terms of section 12 (1) (a) of the principal Act, or if it had been contrary to public morals, the board would have had to prohibit it. The amendment now gives the board the opportunity of saying that they are prohibiting just a very small, specific part of the scene which gives offence. But what is more, in the past a performance might have been perfectly acceptable for adults, for example, but could definitely not have been exhibited to children of a certain age group. In the past the board did not have the right to prohibit such a performance for children in the age group of, for example, two to sixteen years. If the board considered the performance offensive for children in that age group, it had to prohibit the entire performance. Now it can use its discretion and make certain age restrictions applicable to it.

But I can go even further. The hon. member said he regarded it as wrong that the board should have the power to determine the place where such a performance may be held. I want to give an example. There may be a scene in which White girls undress to a large extent, which may be acceptable for a White audience according to certain standards, but not before a non-White audience. For example, we cannot allow a group of White girls to give a performance in Orlando or Soweto or some place in which they would be stripping off most of their clothes. It may be acceptable before a White audience in Sea Point or in Houghton. For that reason, the board is now being given the power to restrict such a performance to, for example, a White area where White people will attend the performance. Therefore I think this is in fact an extension. The same powers which the board has in respect of restrictions it may impose on a film, are now being transferred virtually automatically to live shows. Until the present stage, live shows were in fact not on the same footing as films. Films could be exhibited with certain cuts. But as soon as the board came to the conclusion that a live show should not be exhibited to certain groups, it had to be summarily banned. Now a show may be exhibited to a certain group. It may be exhibited at certain places and certain parts in it may be prohibited. I really cannot see how hon. members opposite can object to these extensions. These proposed amendments should only benefit the theatre.

Mr. Chairman, the argument has been advanced by speakers on the other side and, I confess, very persuasively by the hon. member for Parow that, if the board is authorized to cut out only small portions of a play, it will make a general improvement to the legislation in that, by being allowed to make only small cuts in a play, the board would be in the happy position of being able to pass plays which it might otherwise have been obliged to ban in their entirety. This is, as I say, on the face of it, a persuasive argument. However, there is a counter argument which, I think, is even more important.

The position is that when one looks at a play, when one looks at a work of art, it is necessary to examine that play or that work of art in its entirety. It is not possible to judge the merits of a play or the moral message contained in that play merely by looking at a particular set of words. A particular set of words may be extremely offensive; may be obscene in one context but entirely acceptable in another context. One thinks, for example, of a play like Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion”, which was eventually turned into a musical, namely “My Fair Lady”. When this play first appeared it contained the word “bloody” which shocked audiences at that time and even tempted some people to demand that the play should be withdrawn. If it had been withdrawn, this play, which is acknowledged to be an excellent play, might never have seen the light of day. If this amended clause is accepted, I am concerned about the fact that the board might not only be tempted to take out certain portions of plays, but might in fact be under pressure to do so. I am particularly concerned about this in relation to two phrases which appear in the new subsection (1) (a) and (b) as inserted by clause 6 (a). Firstly there is a reference to bringing any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt. “Ridicule” is a word which can be interpreted in various ways. If one were to take the view …

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that that principle is contained in the principal Act and that it is not being amended.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand that. My attitude is that if a play were to be looked at as a whole, there may be some small phrase in the play which might perhaps be regarded as ridiculing people and which would have been allowed, because in order to eliminate that small phrase, it would have been necessary to ban the entire play. My argument is that it is now possible to eliminate that phrase while the play is allowed to stand. This makes the task of the censor and the task of the board easier in the sense that they can remove a section which I contend might well have been allowed to stand. I am the more concerned when we come to the reference to “contrary to the public interest”. The phrase “contrary to the public interest” can be interpreted in various ways. It is for example the duty of the Government to rule in the country’s interest. The Government may well take the view that in pursuing particular policies, let us say for example, the homeland policy, it is ruling in the public interest. Other people may take a different view, but if the feeling of the Government in favour of a specific policy is very strong, the board might feel this pressure bearing on it. Where it has this new power to eliminate only portions of plays, it might be obliged the more easily to eliminate phrases which would bring such policies into ridicule or which would controvert such policies. While it can be argued, as the hon. member for Parow has done, that the board now has the power to save plays from extinction by merely taking out small sections, the converse is also true. It is now easier for the board to eliminate sections from plays while leaving the plays in existence. This is easier to do and it is a more facile thing to do. I feel that the temptation or the pressure might be such that we would see a large number of such mutilations where in fact the context of a play, when taken as a whole, would not have justified such elimination. This is my argument.

Mr. Chairman, I must agree with the hon. member for Parow where he said that he did not understand why the hon. Opposition were opposing this clause. He referred especially to the arguments presented by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in respect of paragraph (a). I must say it is sometimes difficult to understand the hon. member. I heard him speaking for the first time at a Sabra Congress in the years 1957-’58. After that I have regularly listened to the hon. member’s arguments and to his philosophies on life and the world. I am very surprised that he, who is very sensitive when it comes to race, colour, etc., could have objected to this clause. He objected to the word “may”. The new subsection (1) (a) (i), as inserted by clause 6 (a), provides that, and I quote—

I have been trained as a clergyman. I have never been permanently attached to a congregation, but I have had a lot to do with theology, religious thought, etc. It happens that one studies religion in a particular ecclesiastical connection and that one adopts an attitude towards it. It has always been my opinion that even in church circles, one should put one’s arguments in respect of another church or religious conviction in such a way that it does not give offence. This is in regard to church circles. Since many entertainers actually take pleasure in ridiculing and deriding a particular group of people and their religious convictions, I think all of us should really welcome this clause.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that I allowed the hon. member for Bezuidenhout considerable latitude in the discussion of the clause, but this principle is in fact already contained in the principal Act. Therefore the hon. member may not take his criticism too far, and I cannot allow any further discussion on this point either.

I merely wanted to mention this point to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In regard to my second point, I think I will again be ruled out of order, but I nevertheless want to refer to it for a moment. It concerns the words “bringing any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt”. You and I are both Van der Merwes …

Yes, but the hon. member may not discuss that now.

I just want to mention that at gatherings people often talk about us Van der Merwes. They make jokes about us but we do not object to it. However, I think if they were to bring us into ridicule, all the Van der Merwes would have to adopt a standpoint against it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply briefly to what the hon. member for Green Point said. He was concerned that there would be a lack of co-ordination between departments if this Board were to make a prohibition in regard to a place or make a concession. Is the opinion of the Department of Community Development taken into account, for example? In regard to age, dialogue and certain groups of persons, the board will be able to specify, and open air performances, for example on a beach, and a theatre are being borne in mind. In respect of these, the board may prohibit such exhibitions as well. When the question of permits for certain population groups comes up, the matter will have to be referred to the Department of Community Development as well. This board is not empowered to exercise control over the powers of another department. In respect of the board, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also spoke about “may” or “may not”. This is already provided for in the existing Act and I do not want to reply to it now. It is a question of “may”, and not of “shall”. In terms of the existing section, the board is in fact being granted a measure of flexibility. The members of the board are people with experience. When I see what the board has already passed as a result of this flexibility, even I sometimes differ from their decisions myself. There is nothing altogether strange about saying that. We are entitled to differ, but these people have a responsibility which is perhaps greater than mine.

†The hon. member referred to the play “Eight Beasts” in particular. This play is a satire, with a varied context. One portion of it may therefore give offence. I pointed this out during the Second Reading debate. In this instance it did. In the parody on the Lord’s Prayer certain words and letters were construed in a way which gave offence. Under the provisions of the Act the board could have prohibited the whole show. It did not, however, which shows that in regard to certain matters the board is very “verlig” as far as these satires are concerned.

*This is what hon. members always have against this board. However, hon. members must bear in mind that the board need not look at only one less important aspect of something and prohibit the whole performance on that basis. The board must be convinced that something like this is wrong, that it is unsuitable and that it gives offence. I want to appeal to the hon. member not to belittle by implication the institutions and the persons who advocate stronger control over some matters we have to put up with in this country today. I should like to ask the hon. member whether he wants to regard the whole youth organization of the N.G. Kerk, of which he is a member, in this way or disparage them as being prudes. Does he regard countless English church guilds as being prudish? Does he regard the Pope, who supports this sort of action unconditionally, as a prude? The hon. member should be very careful. [Interjection.] No, a general principle is at issue here. It is not always the prudes. By implication the hon. member has now condemned the president of a United Party youth front and the persons who serve under him in the Peninsula as well. The hon. member should please not belittle people; he will be belittling himself in the end. It is not a question of my wanting to argue with the hon. member about that; I merely want to ask him that we should preferably not descend to that personal level.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to the fact that we should see a performance as a whole. This is of course more applicable to a publication, for example a book. But it can be applicable to a play as well, for example “King Lear”. In that respect the board allows itself to be guided by its overall impression. If something appears in the piece which, although it could give some offence, is nevertheless essential to the continuity of the whole because it fits in naturally, the board will definitely not be so unwise as to exclude it. Nevertheless, we find only too often, especially in public performances— the hon. member will concede that one finds this in books as well—that from time to time paragraphs are written for the sale and specific purpose of stimulating, and for no other reason. In that case we feel it is banal and vulgar, and should not be there. In cases like these, one of course feels that the board should have the right, in respect of a public performance, to exclude it. I think I have explained the view of this side of this House in regard to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the hon. the Deputy Minister added to the weakness of his own case when he used those arguments against the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. We on this side of the House have said quite clearly that we are in favour of legislation that can reasonably be applied to control undesirable literature, films and plays. We made that quite clear.

But what we are looking at, is the question of the desirability and the practicability of the Bill. Let us be quite realistic. First of all, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the board are worrying themselves about applying age limits for theatre shows. Sir, youngsters do not flock to theatres. They go to cinemas, I agree. There is a necessity for age limits there. But what child of two years’ old is going to be taken to a theatre by his parents to see something undesirable. It was the hon. member for Parow, I think, who suggested that the board should be able to fix a limit, for instance, of 2 to 16 as regards the theatre. This is nonsense. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that these conditions can apply to age groups for live shows.

It can.

Now, Sir, let us be practical. If the Deputy Minister came here with something practical that can be used to deal with undesirable scenes or performances, I would say that we would support him. Take for instance this musical ensemble, the Suck Band. There is a scene in the show in which the players displayed their bare bottoms in some theatre. Now should the board order that that scene must be cut. What is to prevent any other equally obscene demonstration in the following show which does not entail exhibiting their bare bottoms? That is the difficulty which I have with the Deputy Minister, who is suggesting that we should now give powers to this board to cut bits and pieces out of a show. The present law stipulates that a show can be cut entirely or not at all.

No.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “no”. As the law stands at the present moment there must be a complete banning or nothing.

That is right.

The suggestion now is that under this amending Bill the board should have an opportunity of cutting bits and pieces. I do not believe that this is going to help at all. Sir, the present requirement of the law is “all or nothing”, and I believe that that requirement has a most exemplary, proper and desirable effect on the board to exercise restraint, to be hesitant about taking action against public entertainment. But the power is there to be taken as and when such action must be taken because of the whole production being undesirable. But, Sir, what is going to happen now? I can see a group of scissor-happy censors—and I say this with the greatest respect to the members of the board, having read the strictures on the board in matters which have gone to the courts—waiting to snip out bits here and there of every theatrical performance or variety show that is put on in Cape Town. Sir, it will happen, and that temptation will be there if they are able to cut out bits and pieces. We will end up with most of these variety shows being like a pancake without any spice. Some of us need spice on the pancake and others do not. The explanation which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given only strengthens us in our view on this side of the House that it is far better to have the all-or-nothing rule which applies now than to enable the board under this provision to snip and cuts bits and pieces out of live shows that are performed in South Africa.

Sir, I rise to object to the impression created here by the Deputy Minister. None of us on this side objected to the attitude of the Church Youth Association or to the attitude of the Church on censorship. We support them one hundred per cent, but they all dealt with the principle. None of the organizations knows exactly what stands in this legislation; that is our task. These people make representations on matters of broad principle. I can support the representations he received from the D. R. Church leaders one hundred per cent; I support them, but they deal with the broad principle of censorship. We do not want pornography and that type of thing in this country; that is not the point. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister was very unfair in creating the impression here that I regard those people as Mother Grundies. But will he admit that there are small groups of people who make a profession of complaining? Just ask the Minister of Defence; he has the same difficulty. We do not want our literature to be placed under a yoke. In the case of Afrikaans in particular, we have a young literature, and we must encourage our people to write, and sometimes to write a little daringly; that is how a language develops. Our objection is that too much attention is given, and that attention is too easily given, to small groups of Mother Grundies, who can then hide behind the Act, as the board will be virtually obliged to make cuts if it so much as suspects that anything may give offence, without in fact having received any proof that it does give offence.

Sir, I will come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister in a moment. I want to refer to the hon. member for Parow who spoke a little while ago and suggested to us that we should accept this as an improvement on the old measure. The thought went through my mind while he was speaking that it was quite apparent that he and the two other hon. members on that side who have spoken and the hon. the Deputy Minister have dealt with this whole question and continue to deal with it from the point of view of the board, which is now being appointed and which has appointed itself the defender of the morals of the country; I think it is better to put it that way. Sir, we on the other hand are looking at this from a completely different point of view, from the point of view of the public, and I wonder if it is possible to bring these two thoughts together. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the review “Eight Beasts”. He pointed out, I think quite rightly, that a certain section of that review did offend a certain section of the public. But did he receive complaints about that particular section? If he did receive complaints, were they large-scale or were they, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has put it. from a narrow group of Mother Grundies? Sir, the hon. member for Green Point mentioned Sax Appeal, where there was this spontaneous public outcry against it. It has now been banned and everybody accepts it, but was there that same spontaneous outcry against “Eight Beasts”?

You first want 40 000 copies to be circulated.

No, Sir, there is no

question of first wanting 40 000 copies to be circulated. Virtually the first half a dozen that were circulated proved offensive and the outcry came almost immediately. But there is another aspect to this, Sir. While we are dealing with “Eight Beasts”, let me put this to the hon. the Deputy Minister; I see that the chairman of the board is sitting near him and he can advise him. I want to say that I did not approve wholly of the particular section to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. But there were far worse things in that show which I do not believe he or any other member on that side knew anything about. I happened to pick them up because I happened to be a Zulu linguist. How does the hon. the Deputy Minister decide …

Order! Is the hon. member talking in favour of this clause?

No, not particularly in favour of it, but does it matter whether I speak in favour of it or against it? I am speaking on the clause, Sir, with respect.

What has that to do with this clause?

With respect, Sir, it has to do with whether or not a show should be cut or not, whether it offends or not; that is the point I am making. The most atrocious things were said but they did not offend. Is that not pertinent to this particular clause? The most atrocious things were said during that review, but they did not happen to be said in English or Afrikaans.

As the hon. member for Green Point has said how does the board decide? Surely the board must be guided by public opinion. In the case of Sax Appeal, public opinion told the board right away that they must do something about it. In the case of “Eight Beasts” there has not been that same outcry from the public. But the hon. the Deputy Minister is now taking the power in this clause to cut those pieces out without first hearing what public opinion is. As I pointed out in my second-reading speech, there are times when the public outside believe that this particular board is out of touch with public opinion. If we accept these amendments a very real fear remains in the minds not only of members of the Opposition but of the public generally that here the board is going to have a wonderful excuse to interfere further in live shows, whether they are reviews or whether they are plays which are being enacted on the stage. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to one of Shakespeare’s plays. A little later he referred to certain vulgarities in certain of these plays and shows which should not be there; those were the words he used. Sir, are we going to cut those vulgarities out of Shakespeare today? This board is taking the power to cut those lines out of some of the most famous plays that this world has ever known. If it does cut out those lines, not only is it going to spoil the whole play completely, but we are going to make this country the laughing stock of the world if we cut sections out of plays written by people of the calibre of Shakespeare. I am afraid I must agree with the hon. member for Green Point that it is not going to be possible and that we are entirely opposed to giving these additional powers to the hon. the Minister, especially when you consider the type of audience who will attend a live show. Sir, this is a limited audience and it is a sophisticated audience. I really cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to be able to limit the showing of live shows to certain people because it is limited already; it is naturally limited to a sophisticated audience who do not need the protection of this board.

But there is another aspect on which perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us more detail. In line 20 he now takes the power for the Board, if it deems it to be in the public interest, to impose “conditions” subject to which such public entertainment may be given. Sir, the new subsection (1A) gives us a clue with regard to some of the conditions which might be imposed, but what other “conditions” does he imply, because subsection (1A) does not limit the “conditions” to those provisions. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us what other “conditions” he has in mind when he asks for this power.

Clause put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Sir, I voiced the word “Objection” twice. The earlier one I do not think you heard; otherwise you would not have said that the clause was accepted.

I will put clause 6 again.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 7:

As far as this clause is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper. I do not know whether he intends moving it. It is customary for him to move his amendments and therefore I should like to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to move his amendment.

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

I should like to motivate this as follows. The proposed insertion of this new section 13A provides that any member of the board or any person authorized thereto in writing by the board may enter upon any place in or upon which it is upon reasonable grounds suspected that any undesirable publication or object is printed, published, manufactured, made or produced or is offered or kept for sale and may examine and remove any such publication or object. Section 5 (1) of the Act already places a prohibition, the non-compliance with which is punishable, on the production and the distribution of publications or objects of this kind. Now, as we know, the Department of Customs and Excise are at present doing this work in respect of imported goods. This is being done in terms of the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act of 1964, but I think consideration will in due course have to be given to appointing inspectors who can assist in investigating indecent material in respect of which there have been complaints. We have received countless complaints from all over the country about this type of stuff, but the Police do not have the time, and sometimes the people do not have the training, to determine whether it is offensive. These objects must now be submitted to the board.

Can you explain the type of complaint?

Well, sometimes we get books, and sometimes publications or pictures that are regarded as being pornographic and then these must be submitted as a whole. They must submit the entire publication. The public must therefore go and buy it. If a member of the board goes along and sees that something is quite undesirable and he sees it in a bookshop or some other place, then he must go and buy it and it must first be submitted to the board. There must first be a complaint. Now I want to emphasize that it is not the intention merely to appoint any kind of untrained person for this purpose, because it can be argued, and it has been argued in the discussion of this legislation, after it was published, that if the board makes a mistake in this respect, it cannot be called to account in Parliament. As a result of this I have decided to amend this clause and to word the amendment in such a way that the Minister has to appoint the persons in question. I think it is important that I should just add this.

†The purpose of clause 7 is to enable the proper application of this Act. There is a precedent for this. Powers of this nature have been conferred before; powers to inspect have been conferred before in Acts of Parliament. We have section 28 of the Drugs Control Act of 1965, which confers similar powers on the Minister of Health to appoint inspectors. We also have the Abattoir Commission Act of 1970, section 85 of the Marketing Act and section 55 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In all these instances we have inspectors being appointed to help with the work and to investigate matters. As I said, these people will not just be anybody taken from the street. They will be people who know their job. They will be trained and they might aid the board in arriving at a conclusion.

We can see no justification for this clause at all, whether the inspectors are appointed by the board or by the Minister. There must be considerable pressure from outside against this particular provision, because of the fact that it is being altered at this stage after publication from appointment by the board to appointment by the Minister. I can see no justification, either from what the Deputy Minister said in the Second Reading or from what he has said today, for us to change our view. As to the need for this inspectorate, or corps of “super snoopers”. When one comes to dealing with matters which are of a pornographic or undesirable nature, we have had evidence in South Africa that the Vice Squad of the S.A. Police who are highly trained and highly informed and are a highly efficient body, able to deal with that aspect of the matter far more effectively than a corps of inspectors that might be appointed. If that police squad is able to deal with drugs as they do, then they can deal with pornography. One only has to examine the number of cases which have come before the courts in regard to the position of films and photos to see they are doing a very good job. One also knows that a great deal of that success is because there are people who can inform the police about the existence of these undesirable objects and the police are then able to act and to act promptly. Why should the board undertake this work, either itself or through its inspectorate? It certainly cannot deal with the more serious offences. What it will result in is that every individual who feels he has a grievance or a grouse about any show or any film, or any piece of statuary or any picture exhibited in any art gallery, will write to the board and the board will have to send an inspector out to look at it. I can see that if this inspectorate is created, it will grow into a vast body of persons going round checking on claims that certain exhibitions or pictures or paintings or statues are of an undesirable or obscene nature. Surely the board itself is able to deal with these matters. It receives complaints and if it appears that somebody has in his possession some article which offends against the Act, then the board is empowered to ask the police to investigate. We can see no reason for extending these powers of the board to include its own inspectorate. Without having an inspectorate the board has a very impressive tally of books read and banned and films seen, cut and banned. It has a really impressive tally and we must remind ourselves that to do the work it is doing at the present moment without an inspectorate is costing the taxpayer by way of salaries alone something to the tune of R79 000, as it did last year. That is R79 000 in salaries to the board alone. If there is to be an inspectorate body that is going to gather more material and more articles to be submitted to the board, then I can see it becoming necessary to double the size of the board and the amount of the expenditure which is to be incurred. I believe this to be a totally undesirable and unnecessary step, one to which we on this side of the House are opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am quite convinced that the time will arrive when he will be very sorry that the powers of the board have been expanded in this way. The hon. the Deputy Minister can tell me whether I am wrong. If a person prints or publishes something which is illegal there is suitable machinery to take action against that. Anyone can lay a complaint at a police station, although he will not do so lightly. He must do it in such a way that it is known that he is laying a complaint against someone. The existing machinery is good enough. There is machinery by means of which infringements of any law can be dealt with properly by the police of South Africa. But what is now happening here? Here we now have a situation where the Publications Control Board is being placed in the position of a new police category. During the Second Reading I referred to them as “cultural police”. The reason why this is specially offensive is because we know that there are always people who are suspicious. All we are doing here is to encourage people to gossip and to complain and to write letters. This later becomes an ugly character trait among one’s people. There is so much legislation in terms of which a person can merely submit a piece of gossip and steps are taken against people. This is something we should really try to avoid. But here it is now going to happen. If a person only has a suspicion now that someone else has a little statue, a book or something of a dubious nature in his possession, letters are written to the Censor Board, which then must act as a kind of policeman in South Africa. I think this is a most unfortunate and totally unnecessary development. Nor are we in any way satisfied that it should merely be any person. Why should Parliament accept that the Minister will send a suitable person? There is nothing in the Act which makes it clear that this has to be a person who is competent or who is deemed to be competent. The hon. the Minister can appoint just “any person”. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister at this stage is that we will discuss this matter again in due course because the time will arrive when he will be sorry about this unnecessary expansion of the powers of the Censor Board. As a politician I can tell him even now that the Censor Board as it at present exists has become the best recruiting agent of the Opposition. By expanding its powers, it will become an even better recruiting agent. This the hon. the Minister will see in the days which lie ahead.

If the Publications Board, as the hon. member claims, is their best recruiting agent, he ought to welcome this clause. I say that the hon. member should welcome it if it is as he as a political forecaster sees it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, whom I always deal with first because he speaks last, said that I would still be sorry about this expansion of the powers which the Publications Control Board already has. There is no expansion of powers. We have already determined in an Act and defined what is undesirable and ought not to be in the country. Up to the present a member of the public, if he felt that something was totally undesirable, had to buy such an object or publication and bring it to the board so that these people could do their work well. All it amounts to now is that a person can lay a complaint. But after that, someone must make an inspection in order to determine whether there is any basis for the complaint. The board knows that there are prudes, as the hon. member has just stated. There are a percentage of people on both sides, the permissive and the completely anti-everything people whom the board very soon gets to know about. Perhaps they know them better than I know the hon. member. The Act has already been made, and it has been specified there what must be regarded as being undesirable. When complaints come in from the public it is the duty of the Government to facilitate the implementation of the Act by appointing inspectors. I can assure the hon. member that many of the complaints come from people who are not prudes. I want to explain that the appointment of inspectors does not create any precedents. It is something which is very necessary in any case, as is the case in other laws as well. If an inspector can be appointed for drugs or for the abuse of any medicine, then it can most certainly be demanded that an inspector be appointed for the abuse of the kind of medicine which affects the mind. The hon. member for Green Point referred time and again to the work being done by the police today. I just want to say that, when the police take steps, they do so in the first place to trace blatant pornography, blue films and that type of thing. That they do under another Act, i.e. the Immorality Act. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the complaints which are made in regard to a few thousand rand which is being spent on the prevention of the corruption of morals, the subversion of the State or racial friction in this country. I do not think that that is in any way relative here. I should like to inform hon. members that, as far as I am concerned, the amount of money which we have spent up to now is minimal if one takes into account the objectives which have to be achieved with that money.

If the Publications Board concerned itself only with matters which were undermining the spiritual welfare of the country or the safety of the State, we would have no objections or complaints about its activities. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not by implication say that, when we oppose the establishment of this inspectorate, we are not prepared to spend money to protect the spiritual welfare of our people and the security of the State. He has done that by inference. It is an old political stunt when one has not got an argument, to say that persons on the opposite side are unpatriotic and do not care about the spiritual welfare of the people. That one does not wash. As I have said, the Police are able to deal with undesirable, pornographic publications, and similarly they deal with matters which are a threat to the security of the State, whether these are in published form, in unpublished form or actions of individuals. The Police are there to do that. The trouble is that what the Publications Board is doing is not concerned with matters of that nature, matters which threaten the security of the State, but to send out its tentacles in more and more directions to deal with complaints, mainly stupid ones, of persons who have no knowledge of the arts of the world. We only have to look at the statues, the works of masters, which have been condemned in South Africa. In fact, some of them have even been banned. We only have to look at the reproductions of the most famous paintings of the world that have been condemned as being objectionable to see to what limit those people who are seeking something evil to report to the board can go. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not again attempt to suggest that our opposition to this clause arises from our unwillingness to spend money on what is necessary for the spiritual welfare of our people and safety or our country. That is not at issue; the issue is that we regard it as a waste of money to appoint this inspectorate to perform the functions which are already being performed efficiently by the South African Police.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal first with the amendment proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to say that this amendment in practice, of course, makes no difference to the clause as printed, because the hon. the Deputy Minister will not pretend to this House or to any one else that he will sit down and personally select the snoopers or inspectors or whatever one wishes to call the people who are to be appointed. He will obviously accept the names which are given to him by the board. There is no other section, no other person in his Department, who will advise him and nominate people as inspectors except the board itself. Therefore, in practice, it will be the board which will submit the names. The Minister will simply appoint them. All the amendment does, as the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly says, is that it makes the appointment subject to Parliament by using the term “Minister”. Technically, it becomes subject to Parliamentary debate when the Vote comes before the House. But in practice it will be the board who will appoint the inspectors. If the Minister has the confidence in the board which he must have, seeing that he appoints the board, he must accept the recommendations put before him. Similarly, to take it to its logical conclusion, the board will appoint inspectors in whom it has confidence. Therefore it will appoint people with the same approach to censorship as the members of the board themselves. It will appoint people who take the same narrow view towards what the people of South Africa should be allowed to see or read as the board itself takes. We know in advance, because of the machinery, exactly what attitude will be taken by these persons who are to be appointed in terms of this clause. We know also that these are not likely to be impartial persons. They will be people who will already be committed in their attitude and their approach, because if they did not think as narrowly as the board thought, they would be unlikely to be recommended to do inspections.

Let us take it further. Let us take for instance “Republikeinse Pers”. Are we going to have a full-time person appointed to live at “Republikeinse Pers”, because it will be necessary judging by the number of court cases there have been in regard to the publications of that company? When the board has a feud with a particular publisher, there is nothing to prevent the board from having a person virtually living at the premises of such a company, walking in and out all day. “Republikeinse Pers” does not only publish Scope. It publishes other magazines. It publishes photo strips. They have lots of models there who are being photographed day in and day out, week in and week out. Then it decides what it will publish.

You are just wasting the Committee’s time.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. (Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, may I take a point of order and ask whether that is not a reflection on the Chair?

The hon. member may proceed. I will take the necessary steps. The hon. member for Potchefstroom must not make interjections such as these.

Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to appoint people with wide powers, the power of entry, the power of inspection and the power of confiscation. Does the hon. member for Potchefstroom for a moment suggest that where the board is having constant disputes with a particular publisher, it will not take some steps to try to get its views imposed upon the publications of that printer and publisher? Obviously, it will do that. It is only human nature. Because I am putting it in this blatant form, the hon. member objects to the line I am taking. [Interjections.] I did not want to say that I am putting it in its naked form, but perhaps the board will not censor me if I put it in its naked form.

Put it in a plastic cover.

I will cover it in plastic and then it will be permissible.

Mr. Chairman, this does not only deal with objects and publications offered for sale or sold; it deals with the publication thereof. It deals with printing, manufacturing, making or producing. In other words, the board can now start banning before an item is offered for sale, because it can send an inspector to a publishing house and say: “We want to see what you are printing”. Then it can confiscate it, it can stop production of a book or a magazine or whatever it may be, because it has confiscated what is being produced, what is being manufactured or published. So it can stop something even before it reaches its final form. I just want to take the case which was raised just now by way of interjection. If it went to the printer who printed the covers for a certain type of pantihose, it could stop that publication because at that stage, when it has been published, it was not yet covered in plastic. It is only after it is printed and after it goes to the manufacturer and after it is filled with the goods that the plastic covering is put over it. So you have here the possibility that an inspector could go and prevent something from happening which the board itself has approved. This can happen after the board itself has approved of the final object. Previously, the board banned the object before it reached its final plastic covered form. So the inspector, who goes into the printing works, would be bound by the decision of the board to ban as “obscene and objectionable” the cover for a pair of pantihose. However, after that obscene and objectionable publication had left the printer and had been sent to the factories to be packed, it was acceptable. This clause entitles the board to appoint its own inspectors to go and examine what is happening in the factory or the printing works. So, I say firstly that this does not change the situation, because it is the board which will be appointing its creatures to carry out its will. That is what we are being asked to approve of. We are, therefore, being asked to approve of the creatures of the board being appointed by formal appointment under the name of the Minister, and we are asked to give to them wide powers which we believe are unnecessary and undesirable. This we believe will only further restrict the rights of the people of the country to look at things which are not pornographic, which are not subversive, but which offend against the feelings of those who may have narrow minds which think that way.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister gave a reply a few moments ago to what had been raised here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, i.e. that a time would come when the hon. the Minister and the Government would realize that an error had been made in the introduction of this specific clause, the hon. the Minister tried to imply that that did not really matter. I may tell the hon. the Minister that the introduction of this clause introduces a completely subjective judgment—particularly when we take cognizance of the new section 13A (1) (c), inserted by clause 7, which states that the inspector may seize any publication or object appearing to afford evidence of a contravention of any provision of this Act. At the moment this is absent from the performance of the functions of the Publications Board. Here we have the case of an inspector having to pass judgment only for himself, and this is much more subjective than when a decision is taken in that regard by the Publications Board as a group of people. When one has a group of people who have to pass judgment, one does have a degree of objectivity, but when one has one person who takes a decision on what appears to him to be of that nature, that is a completely subjective principle. This as regards the point of which I say that the hon. the Minister will come to regret this specific clause. What is doing the Publications Board most harm at the present moment? What is doing it most harm is when it can be proved that it has passed a wrong judgment. Now the position is going to arise where the chances will be that more accusing fingers will be pointed at censorship in this country in that so many more people are going to act as individuals and as such are going to remove objects from a subjective point of view. The effect of that will be that there will be more opportunity to err and that there will be more examples which may be used as criticism by the enemies of censorship. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should give very serious consideration to this aspect, especially where this implicates the decision of one person. Under the present system it is also possible to say that a person can also act subjectively by buying a publication and sending it to the board. At present one can say that this, too, constitutes a subjective judgment, but the fact remains that it is the action of a person who is not associated with the Publications Board itself. When an error is made, no one can say that it was the decision of one crusty old fellow. The moment a subjective error is made by one person, who is an appointee of the board, fingers will be pointed at the board itself and at everything for which it stands. This is a matter which has to be given serious consideration before we can accept this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need reply to the arguments of all the hon. members. Some made deductions and elaborated on matters which are really not relevant here. The only thing we are concerned with here is the appointment of inspectors who have to carry out investigations and inform the Board. When they do use their powers of confiscation, it still is for the Board to give the final decision. After the Board has given its final decision a person still has the right to go to a higher court. This is what we have to keep in mind. The hon. member for Green Point spoke of the Police doing wonderful work. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Police have their hands full and are not trained for this particular work. Now I am not speaking of pornography. The hon. member must keep that in mind. As regards this matter he is all of a sudden very satisfied with their work, but in connection with other matters, he is full of complaints about the way in which they are doing their work.

The hon. member for Durban Point has a special ability of making a great fuss with little substance. I can tell the hon. member that I never feel inclined to apply censorship whenever I listen to a performance of his. To me it is always very entertaining. He said the Minister would be responsible. But that will not alter the case. The only thing this means is that it may be discussed in this Parliament. This is the one major change which is relevant here and it places a responsibility on the Minister. However, the hon. member anticipated the views of certain people. He anticipated the views of not only the inspectors but also the Board. He also anticipated the actions of the Board. He visualized in his own mind how the Board would allegedly act against companies, such as Republikeinse Uitgewers, etc. Are these not simply things which exist in the mind of the hon. member?

Here we are dealing with responsible people whose actions are under the searchlight of public opinion and in the public eye. It is not at all so easy for the Board to act against people such as Republikeinse Uitgewers in a persecuting fashion simply because those people have won a few court cases. These cases simply illustrate how well this procedure is working. I do not want hon. members to anticipate the attitude of the Board. I think this is something which should be given the opportunity of being carried into effect. Consequently this clause gives hon. members the right to complain in the event of their not liking something. Since the hon. member elaborated so fully on the terrible things which these inspectors were allegedly going to do, I just want to tell him to go to the trouble of reading the Act, and especially section 5 (1), which gives a fine description of undesirable articles—of all other aspects thereof. Finally, the hon. member should remember that if an inspector finds certain articles to be undesirable, it still is for the Board to take a decision. Subsequent to that, if exception is taken to the decision of the Board, the court has to decide. I think I have explained this matter adequately now.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, when he moved his amendment, referred to certain other legislation where provision is made for inspectors. I grant that fully. In those cases, however, these inspectors have not been given the wide powers and the wide discretion which the hon. the Deputy Minister gives them in this clause. There is yet a further point, in that in every one of those cases the inspector is provided with a certificate. It is specified that he must produce that certificate before he does anything in any particular place.

We have not made regulations yet.

All right, I accept that. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has not indicated that this is to be the case. There is a further provision with regard to people who impersonate these inspectors. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister has looked into that matter, too. I do hope so. Now let us deal with these particular inspectors, what powers they will have and what they are going to do. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he is going to train these people. I wonder if he could indicate further what sort of training they are going to receive and how far they are going to go with this training —that is, after he has found the people; because at the moment we are finding it extremely difficult to find anybody to fill any additional post. Here the hon. the Deputy Minister is, however, creating further employment opportunities for people who do not exist.

During the Second Reading-debate the hon. member for Pretoria Central actually took me to task for what I had said about these very inspectors. Dealing with the question of the “reasonable grounds” upon which the inspectors may enter any place, I asked him who would decide the reasonable grounds. The hon. member replied that the court would decide in the event of a dispute.

When there are reasonable grounds for a dispute, of course.

That is fine, in the event of a dispute. But what is going to happen is that people will not complain, because that is the attitude of people in this country today. Inspectors are coming in and they are intimidated. They are afraid to complain and to go any further with these matters. Does the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he requires these powers because the public does not complain, not bear out my argument? But there is another reason why the public is not complaining. They are not complaining because they are not offended. If they were sufficiently offended, as they were in the case of Sax Appeal, they would complain. Then, I submit, is the time for the hon. the Deputy Minister, the board or the Police to take the necessary steps. It has been pointed out that cases of pornography, blue films and subversion are all taken care of by other Acts. We really cannot see that the hon. the Deputy Minister requires these additional inspectors.

Now, having ascertained the reasonable grounds on which the inspectors enter the premises, what will the position be then? This inspector, acting on his own initiative, has these very wide powers referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point. He may examine any publication or object suspected on reasonable grounds. Here the point is that this is a discretionary power placed fully in the hands of the inspector.

It is not the final decision.

It might not be a final decision, but it is a decision which is going to affect the lives of every single one of us in the Republic today.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense.

He is taking one book from the shelf.

Yes, but why is he taking that one book from a shelf? It is one book which is lying on a shelf and is doing no harm whatsoever to anybody.

How do you know?

Because it is lying on the shelf. How is it harming anybody? What offence is being created when it lies on somebody’s shelf.

And if it is for

sale?

Who says it is for sale? If it is in a private home it is not for sale. This does not say that an inspector may only go into a place of business; he can go into a private home; he can go into the home of any one of us at any time and inspect our libraries, our private film libraries, our books, our periodicals which are lying around, our works of art and our pictures. And, Sir, it goes further. Just imagine what would happen if the hon. member for Sunny-side were to be the inspector. He would go and remove all the mini skirts of my daughters and my wife because in his opinion they offend. The discretion is placed entirely in the hands of the inspector. The hon. the Deputy Minister is giving him the power not only to inspect and examine these but to seize and to remove them, and not only publications but objects as well. Can one imagine what is going to happen to the print that I have of Michelangelo’s David when this inspector arrives there and has a look at it?

You would have to cover it in cellophane.

I would have to cover it with cellophane and I do not think that even that would satisfy him, not when we take in consideration what has happened before.

That is perfectly ridiculous.

No, this is not ridiculous at all. This is true. This is what can happen, and this is why we are opposed to this clause. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister just take anybody and educate him, let alone train him, to accept these works of art? You would need a world expert to determine these factors. I really do not believe that these powers are necessary. If I happen to have in my home a picture which offends, it does no harm to anybody; why should I have a super-snooper coming into my house and removing my picture because it offends him? It does not offend me; it does not offend my people; otherwise I would not have it in my home. But because it offends that inspector he is given the power to remove it.

Sir, I did not reply to the hon. member a short while ago, as I had given so many replies to the previous clause. However, I want to tell the hon. member that at a later stage it will be prescribed by regulation how these people are to act. The details of how they are going to act are executive aspects which we need not discuss here and which cannot be discussed fruitfully here.

Then, of course, there is the problem of people who sometimes impersonate policemen or ministers of religion or medical practitioners or whomsoever. This is happening throughout the country, and unfortunately laws can do nothing about that. It is, of course, an unlawful action and it is for the Police to take action in that regard. As regards the problem of the hon. member concerning members of the public who do not come forward to complain, I want to tell him that they do not come forward to complain because of the fact that they first have to buy and submit the article. This is something which we want to eliminate now. If the inspector were to receive a complaint now, he would conduct an investigation but his decision would not be final. The Board itself gives the final decision. I should like the hon. member to look at section 5 (1). The mere possession of any undesirable article, publication or object does not constitute a crime. A member of the public has every right to have it in his possession; only, he may not publish it, sell it, etc. Sir, I think I have now replied to the main arguments of the hon. member, and I leave the matter at that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—84: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11:

During the Second Reading already, and also when clause I was being dealt with, we gave our main reasons for opposing the application of the principal Act to South-West Africa. We obviously do not want to repeat all the arguments now. We had a thorough debate, particularly on clause 1. I only hope that we are not again going to have the childish attitude of saying that this is a delicate issue and that we should not discuss the matter of South-West Africa at all. We all know that the court-case which is in progress is about South Africa’s right to control that territory, and not about a few words we have to delete from an Act. It is about much more important matters, and the Government is far too keen to hide behind the fact that there is a case in progress about South-West Africa.

In the course of the debate harsh words have been uttered against the Publications Board and the way in which it applies the Act. The board probably deserved some of them, but I am prepared to concede that the board does not deserve all the criticism levelled at it, for the simple reason that the legislation is too strict. The strictness of the legislation is to blame for a great deal of the unpleasantness in the country today. I can quite see that if a new board were appointed and were given this Act and told to study it as it stands and to apply it literally, that board would be in trouble. It is because the legislation is so strict that we felt it should be revised before being made applicable to South-West Africa, because there you are faced with an additional problem: you have an additional population group. We saw, when we had the debate a little earlier on about the extremely wide terms of reference being given to the board, that if the board as much as suspects that a small group of people may take offence, it is expected to take action. Now, we have no objection to strict action being taken against obviously pornographic or communistic material and things which are obviously morally subversive. Nobody objects to that. There we have no objection that they are too strict. But as the Act stands, it is too strict in fields where we consider that it should not be. The Act has been on the Statute Book for eight years now and no one will deny that it has given rise to very great dissatisfaction in the country. I think the Government should have considered revising it before making it applicable to South-West Africa. This was our chief objection, and we stand by it. Consequently we must oppose the clause.

But there is another angle from which we must object, and this is the particularly odd aspect that an exception is now being made here, because in the case of South-West Africa section 10 (c) (xiv) is being deleted and scenes depicting intermingling of Whites and non-Whites may now be exhibited there, but not here. We have no objection to its being deleted from legislation applicable to South-West, but we very strongly object to the fact that a double standard is now being applied and that the section is not deleted here in the Republic as well; because you know, Sir, what kind of scenes we have in mind here. I have seen, for instance, the kind of scene that has been banned under this section. In a very well-known musical comedy—I think it was Sweet Charity—there was a scene in which a White and a non-White have a conversation over the same telephone, and this was considered unsuitable for South African susceptibilities. This sort of thing is absolutely ridiculous. It becomes very ridiculous if South-West may see such a scene, but the Republic may not. Consider, for example, the excuse offered by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he spoke during the Second Reading. What were his reasons for saying that this subsection should remain as far as the Republic is concerned, but was being deleted for South-West? These were his words and I quote him from Hansard—

But does the Minister want to tell me that he or the Government is now prepared to allow scenes disturbing the harmonious coexistence of the peoples in South-West? Surely this is too ridiculous to believe, and this is what he is submitting to this House in all seriousness, namely that he cannot allow scenes to be exhibited which would disturb the harmonious co-existence here, but he is prepared to do so in South-West. We are not at all prepared to accept this and I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we strongly object to the fact that this section is not being amended in this way for the Republic as well. It will only attract attention, and I want to tell the Minister that unfortunately there are people who make a study of exactly how the administration is applied in South-West. A very close watch will be kept to see whether this section is just a bluff or whether it is actually applied. He should have known this, and I think it would be much wiser of the Government to apply the deletion to the Republic as well.

A further anomaly arises from this. A few minutes ago we passed clause 5 just as it was. Now, I do not want to discuss that, but may I just refer to it in this sense? Looking at clause 5 one finds that the words “involving white and non-white persons” as regards scenes of violence are deleted. In other words, you now have this curious position. We know that violence is not interpreted so widely as to prevent us from seeing a fight. After all, we see quite a lot of films in which there is fighting. In other words, we may now watch Whites and Blacks fighting each other on the screen, but we may not see scenes in which Whites and Blacks associate peacefully. Under section 10 (c) (xiv) this is prohibited in the Republic. Have you ever in your life seen such an anomaly? [Interjections.] Yes, you must not be too friendly. If White and Black are too friendly, the Act now says it must be prohibited, but scenes depicting fights between Whites and Blacks are allowed. Surely this is too ridiculous for words, and I seriously appeal to the Deputy Minister to revise this matter. This is one of the principal reasons why we feel we cannot support this section at all.

I feel it is a most unfortunate time for the hon. the Minister to introduce into the Bill this clause making this Act applicable to South-West Africa. Not only has he himself said that this is a delicate time in regard to matters which are not before us at the present time, but secondly, I believe it is an. unfortunate time when the censor board itself has had an unsuccessful run of six lost appeals in the last few months. It is a record which causes some apprehension when it comes to South-West Africa. The application of this Act also at this stage raises a question which the hon. the Minister has not yet dealt with, and that is the reason for this Act having to be applied to South-West Africa. We have dealt before with the definition which provides that “Republic” includes South-West Africa, but we now come to the specific application of this Act, with one exclusion, to the territory of South-West Africa. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister again to give us such instances as there are—I do not believe there are any—which necessitate this law being applied to South-West Africa for the benefit of censorship and for the benefit of control, if I may put it that way rather.

The Deputy Minister has referred to administrative acts. I can see no administrative advantage myself in this being applied to South-West Africa. I also want, if I may, at this stage to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in regard to this ridiculous situation which has now arisen as regards section 10 (c) (xiv) not being applied to South-West Africa. It is a coincidence that a film which obviously was banned in South Africa because of this particular clause some years ago, in 1963, Lilies of The Field, because in that film an important part is portrayed by a Negro actor of some standing, has now been passed. That film was not allowed because it showed too close and too friendly intermingling between Whites and non-Whites. But now that film has been released for showing in South Africa. What are the changed circumstances? Is it the new approach that in fact this subsection is not going to be applied so stringently as it has been applied in the past? Or is it coincidence that the release of this film should take place at a time when the hon. the Minister has decided that this particular subsection in the principal Act is not to apply in South-West Africa? I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government did not adopt the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout during the Second Reading, namely that this legislation should have been considered by a select committee before it was made applicable to South-West Africa. It would have dealt with local and administrative problems and would have ironed out a lot of difficulties and would have eliminated a lot of the contradictory situations in which we now find ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, surely there is none so blind as those who will not see, or none so deaf as those who will not hear. I have repeatedly given the reasons why this Act must be applied to South-West Africa. There is an Act of this Parliament providing that the listed matters, including the Publications and Entertainments Act, shall be applied to South-West Africa. We have for some considerable time continued to govern South-West Africa in the spirit of the previous mandate as an integral part of our country where our legislation is also applied, with local adjustments where necessary. Why must I continue furnishing hon. members with these reasons? There have been quite a number of amending Acts recently in which wordings were changed, specifically with this delicate aspect in mind. But I know that nothing is delicate to the Opposition.

Those were not controversial Acts.

Whether something is controversial or not is not the point. The point is that we are taking into consideration what is applicable there. When something is controversial one expects a responsible attitude to be adopted by everyone sitting here as a patriot.

And by the Government as well.

A number of Acts have already been made applicable to South-West Africa this year. There was no objection to that. What was the reason? They were not controversial. In the case of controversial Acts one always has the opportunity of deriving political gain. I do not want us to argue about this any further. Let us leave it at that. I think we understand one another. Hon. members should have spoken out then if they had any objection to the application of Acts to South-West Africa.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into this matter any further. The reason is that it is a listed matter and there is an Act in terms of which we have to apply this legislation. That Act was passed by this House. The decision on section 10 (c) (xiv) was taken in accordance with the Government’s policy not to disturb the social set-up. The non-application of section 10 (c) (xiv) is consistent with Government policy. I now understand that hon. members are opposed to it on that score. It is internal Government policy with which they do not agree.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—79: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.

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

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title:

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

These amendments are consequential amendments arising from the amendments made to clauses 4 and 7, respectively, which were fully discussed and agreed to by the Committee. As hon. members know, the long title usually gives a description of the object and aims of the Bill. The object of the Bill is, inter alia, to amend the provisions of the Publications and Entertainments Act, 1963. In broad outline the amendments embrace, and I am simply mentioning this again, a prohibition on the exhibition of films intended to be exhibited in public unless it has been approved by the Board; secondly, a prohibition on influencing the Board or the Minister in its or his decision in respect of a film submitted for examination; thirdly, the provision that the board may impose conditions in respect of the giving of any public entertainment, and, fourthly, the provision that members of the Board or persons authorized thereto in writing by the Minister may seize certain objects and publications.

Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with the long title of the Bill and the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved, the aim of which is to incorporate the effect of the new subsection (4A) namely “to provide for the unfettered performance of functions by the board and the Minister”.

I believe that when we come to consider this long title, when we see the provisions which are contained in this Bill and the necessity, at this stage, for amending the long title, we are entitled to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister certain explanations in regard to what has taken place in connection with this Bill.

This Bill before us has had an unfortunate passage. It is a Bill which has been subject to widespread public comment. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself told us that he has received numerous objections and representations as to the terms of this Bill. He gave somewhat evasive and unsatisfactory replies when asked where this Bill originated and whether it has been in the hands of the Publications Control Board before it was published. Now we have before us, at this stage, a proposed amendment in the title of the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister owes it to the House and to the public to explain why this Bill should have appeared at all in the form in which it appeared, particularly so, in regard to the most offensive aspects of this Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister himself moved should be deleted from the Bill, namely the original subsection (4A).

It is unfortunate that such an experience should have been had in this House in dealing with this Bill, because this experience will not assist in creating the one essential element in this country to make censorship work properly, namely the confidence of the public in the way in which the Publications Board exercises its powers. One finds for instance, that the public has submitted complaints to the board during the last year. Our information is that 109 submissions were made to the board of which only 35 were upheld by the board and 74 were rejected by the board. This indicates that the letters which have been received by the board and possibly by the Minister, are not representative of the true feeling and the true approach of the public, because the board itself has found it necessary to reject 66 per cent of the submissions which have been made by the general public. We know that unfortunately there are persons in this world who find some joy in looking for reasons to lodge complaints with the authorities. The Publications Board is not an exception so far as it concerns the receipt of complaints of that kind. It is for that reason that we feel that the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister makes it difficult for us to support the passage of this Bill. It is difficult for us to do so when it is suggested that the Bill should provide for unfettered functions for the board and the Minister. The board has power to perform certain functions and the Minister has certain power to review the decisions of the board. Those powers must be fettered, and I believe they should be fettered in the one way to which I have already referred, namely by the opinion of the public of South Africa, people who do not want to advocate or allow subversive activities and who are not looking for undesirable and spiritually destructive literature and entertainment. They are the ordinary citizens of South Africa. They are entitled to a degree of freedom which they are not enjoying under the present legislation which will be enforced when the amendment to this Bill goes through. It is for those reasons that we cannot support this measure and it is also for those reasons that we shall vote against the long title of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I can only react by saying to the hon. member for Green Point that this Bill and its application will be discussed in the Third Reading debate. We shall then have ample time for that. Only two small amendments have been passed. To a large extent the deductions which have appeared in newspapers and the reactions of the public, according to the hon. member, mostly after the Bill had been published, were wrong in most cases, as I have already shown. As far as the actions of the Publications Board are concerned, they can be more appropriately discussed under the Vote. I do not think this is the proper time to discuss that. We have discussed these amendments at length and I am not going to elaborate on the reasons for the amendments any more. I am going to leave it at that.

Finally I just want to say that public polemic will not be restricted in any way as the legislation stands at the moment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Martins, H. E.; McLach-lan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prins-loo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.

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

Noes—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Title of the Bill, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned we were dealing with clause 2 of the Bill, to which the hon. member for Transkei had moved an amendment and to which the hon. member for Houghton had also moved an amendment. Clause 2 is the most important clause of the Bill, because provision is made here for the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, to declare any area outside the Bantu homelands to be a Bantu Affairs Administration area. It provides, further, that those areas shall include the area or any portion of an area under the jurisdiction of an urban local authority as well as rural areas. As we have indicated earlier in this debate, our objection is primarily to the fact that the urban area of local authorities can be included without the consent of the urban authorities concerned, in other words that the urban local authorities can be compelled by the hon. the Minister to accept this. During the Second Reading debate and earlier in this debate mention was made of section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act of 1945.

It has been suggested to the hon. the Deputy Minister that, in fact, he does not need this Bill at all and that he can cope quite fully with one or two minor amendments to section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas. With that he could achieve everything he is trying to do in terms of this Bill.

I want to refer particularly to section 40 of the Act and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider an amendment to subsection (2) (1) (b), in some way to protect the urban authorities from the rigours of this particular provision. As I have said, our objection is that he can compel the local authorities. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister indicates that he can compel them and that that is his intention. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we add at the end of subsection (2) (1) (b) a provision that, if after consultation with these authorities—that is consultation by himself and his department—the authorities or local government bodies concerned in the area, fail or neglect to co-operate in terms of the provisions of section 40 of the Bantu Urban areas Act, he can go ahead and establish these controlled areas as he plans. I think I should perhaps explain that section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act allows that any local authority may cooperate with four other bodies, namely any other urban authority, a local government body, the Department of Bantu Administration (which takes care of problems with regard to the administration of the other Acts) or with an officer thereof (which also takes care of the Deputy Minister’s problems with regard to the administration of those acts where the Bantu Affairs Commissioner is the officer concerned, or where he takes over as the local authority). I realize, however, that section 40 is subject to the Minister’s approval and that of the Administrator. These bodies can get together in carrying out or complying with all or any of the provisions of the Bantu Urban Areas Act or the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that the prime object here is to allow for this co-operation, particularly in regard to the administration of those two Acts, As has been suggested earlier, a simple amendment can apply these provisions to the other circumstances which the hon. the Deputy Minister also wishes to cover by this particular Bill.

The objection of the hon. the Deputy Minister was primarily to allow for greater mobility of Bantu labour. I think he has justified all the powers which he wishes to take in terms of this Bill on that one particular point, namely greater mobility of labour. Section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act can allow for that. If there is cooperation between the local authorities, they can use this co-operation in carrying out or complying with all or any of the provisions of this Bill which will allow for that greater mobility without introducing all the other aspects to which we on this side of the House have taken exception.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.