This is the clause which empowers the hon. the Minister to appoint a publications control board consisting of not less than nine members. It gives the hon. the Minister the absolute right and discretion to appoint whom he may deem fit, except in regard to one particular category, that category being limited by the fact that the Minister must appoint at least three persons on the board having a special knowledge, of art, language and literature or the administration of justice. This provision, with this exception in sub-section (2) has ben taken more or less completely from the Act of 1931. I want to make immediate reference to that provision, Sir, because I do not want the hon. the Minister in his reply to say: What is your objection to this clause because it is exactly the same as the Act of 1931? I mention this right at the beginning because it must be appreciated that we are providing this board with powers of censorship far in excess of the powers held by the Board of 1931. I therefore want to move as an amendment—

1. (2) The board shall consist of not less than nine members, of whom—
   1. (a) one shall be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, who shall be chairman of the board;
   2. (b) two shall be persons nominated by the Book Trade Association of Southern Africa in the prescribed manner, subject to the approval of the Minister;
   3. (c) one shall be a person nominated by the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa in the prescribed manner, subject to the approval of the Minister;
   4. (d) one shall be an advocate of not less than 15 years standing; and
   5. (e) not less than three shall be persons having special knowledge of art, language and literature or the administration of justice.;
      in lines 66 and 67, to omit “to be the chairman and another of such members ”; and in line 12, page 4, to omit “One-third of the members of the board” and to substitute “Five members, of whom at least one shall be a person referred to in paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) ”.

The amendment details who the members of the Board should be, that one shall be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, who shall be chairman of the Board. I think that is necessary when you have a board with such far-reaching powers; you should have a man with experience and trust because the board has to take important decisions in respect of matters of this kind. Then two shall be members nominated by the Book Traders Association of Southern Africa, in the manner to be prescribed by the Minister and subject to the approval of the Minister. In other words, “subject to the approval of the Minister” would indicate that the Minister would not be bound to accept any two nominees that he may receive from the Book Trade Association, but that they can submit a panel of names from whom he can appoint two. It is right that people who are concerned primarily in the distribution of publications, of literature of all kinds, who have an outstanding record of maintaining decent and moral standards in the dissemination and distribution of literature and publications in our country for many, many years, should be appointed in view of their experience. Then one shall be a person nominated by the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa in the prescribed manner, subject to the approval of the Minister. The hon. Minister refused to accept an earlier amendment that exemption should be given to the publishers of magazines and periodicals in our country, and as this Board will have control, can ban and can prosecute and express opinions in respect of what is published internally, I think it is only right that a body such as the Newspaper Press Union, whom the Minister himself admitted is prepared to accept a high code of conduct in their publishing activities, should be represented on a board of this nature. Then, Sir, the amendment says that one should be an advocate of not less than 15 years standing. I do not think the hon. the Minister will take any exception to that, because that includes the same provision that he has here that one of the persons must be a person having knowledge of the administration of justice. Then it says that not less than three shall be persons having special knowledge of art, language and literature or the administration of justice. That is exactly what the Select Committee has asked, because the Select Committee felt strongly that on a board of this nature there should be people with such special knowledge.

Then I come to the appointment of the Vice-Chairman of this board. Other than being a person of legal knowledge, as an ex-Judge, the vice-chairman at least should be a person having specialized knowledge. And then I also suggest that the quorum of the board should be at least five members, one of whom should at least have a special knowledge of the arts, language and literature. Now if the hon. the Minister will have a look at his own clause, he will find that it is possible for this board of censors that he contemplated, appointed by himself, who will be able to sit in judgment on anything that is read by the public of South Africa or seen on the screen by the public of South Africa, that it is possible that these can be three persons taking decisions where they have no knowledge whatsoever of art, literature or language. Because if the hon. the Minister will look at the wording of the clause before the House, he would see that there is no compulsion that the quorum of the Board that he suggests should at least contain one person who has a knowledge of arts, language and literature. My amendment makes it quite clear that in the quorum at least one of those persons must have special knowledge. If that is not done, it makes a mockery of including the provision that the Minister suggests in his clause that there should be persons nominated to this board of control who have a knowledge of literature, language and art.

My amendment is virtually a test of the bona fides, let me say, of the Government in respect of this measure, because there is no limitation on the Minister as the amendment says “not less than nine members ”. We asked that at least other authorities, other bodies, ether responsible opinions should have the right to at least suggest nominees to the Minister in making the appointments. As the clause stands now the Minister will have an unequivocal right to appoint any persons whom he considers are fit to sit on this board, and I would therefore say that if this is not to be a board of ministerial stooges charged with the task of brainwashing the reading public of South Africa, then the Minister must accept this amendment, because this board as it now stands with the powers that this Bill gives it, will be nothing but a board of thought inquisitors, as I have already said, a board charged with brainwashing the reading public of our country, a board directing in the channels that it may approve, political, social or moral, the views of this Government and this Minister. The suggestions contained in my amendment dispel that fear, because then at least people will know that there are other bodies, responsible bodies, who will suggest nominations to the hon. the Minister from whom he can select, and the charge could never then be levelled that this will be a board of ministerial stooges.

I want to reply to the amendment immediately. What appears very peculiar in the first place is that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who has now had so much to say and whose party was well represented on the Select Committee, now suddenly adopts this attitude. I read in the minutes of the Select Committee that Clauses 2 to 4 were put and agreed to and that the members of the United Party on the Select Committee voted with the Government members for the clauses as drafted. No division was asked for on the basis of principle, no amendments were put, and I now want to tell the whole country that the hon. member for Turffontein is turning the Select Committee into a farce, because such irresponsibility I have never seen before. If the hon. member had had all the arguments he advanced here to-day, he should have voiced them in the Select Committee. He should have moved the necessary amendments there. Then he would have been quite justified in adopting the attitude he adopted to-day. He was a member of that Select Committee.

In the second place the hon. member comes here with an amendment which, I want to tell him immediately, I will accept as a direction in which to think when these people are appointed, but certainly not on the arguments he advanced here. Many other such panels may be proposed. There may be hon. members opposite who do not agree with the hon. member for Turffontein and who may think it will be a good thing to appoint this or that type of person, and who want to make such a submission to the Minister. The hon. member makes the bald statement here that unless I accept it he will state that the people appointed will be Ministerial stooges. What irresponsibility! The hon. member has not even considered the consequences of that argument, because nine members must be appointed, of which, according to his suggestion, only two will come from the panel. I have a free choice to appoint any retired Chief Justice. If I do not appoint the retired Chief Justice he has in mind, he will be a Government stooge. In regard to the Book Trade Association, I do not have a free choice, but I do have a free choice to appoint any advocate who has practised for at least 15 years. Therefore, I already have two stooges. Then I may appoint another three persons who have a particular knowledge of language, literature and the administration of justice, so that the Government stooges, according to the hon. member, will be in the majority. How can I accept that amendment of his, and how can I convince this Committee that according to his formula it will be an acceptable board?

But the second thing the hon. member did not consider either is this. We must have a board for publications. I think all hon. members opposite will agree with me that we want a good board consisting of experts. I want to ask the hon. member: If he binds me in this legislation so that I must appoint a retired Chief Justice, how can he be sure that there will be a Chief Justice who is really interested in this matter? Supposing I cannot find such a man then I must come back to Parliament and ask for someone else.

Let me give another example. Supposing I can find a very good practising advocate, if his amendment is accepted, but the man has only 14 years’ experience, then I may not appoint him because he must have 15 years’ experience. Why not 12 years’ or ten years’ experience? Why not a young advocate? I must say this is an ill-considered argument which has been dragged in here to give the public the idea that this Minister will only appoint his own people. And with what object will the Minister appoint his own people? Just with the one object the Opposition has in mind, namely political censorship—not for the ordinary morals or for indecency or obnoxiousness, but just as long as they can have the assurance that political censorship will not be applied to them.

In regard to the last part of the amendment, in connection with the quorum, I explained very clearly in the second reading that the members of this Board will often be absent and will be busy with investigations where they will act as the chairman, and that in practice it will not be a good thing to increase the quorum in this way because it will hamper the work. But what is more, why do they fear that a small quorum will take a decision seeing that it is clearly stated that all banned works will have to be published in the Government Gazette? The hon. members will be able to say: Just look at the sort of quorum you had there, all people of the same kind; they could not adjudge the matter. And the hon. member forgets about the rest of the Bill which provides for a panel of experts, so that an authoritative book will have to be adjudged by experts. The matter is left in the hands of that panel of experts. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) asked me to appoint these experts on the present Board, with their qualifications. I think that when she sees the names she will be very satisfied because these are well-known people in our country who are recognized as being the right critics. How can hon. members think for a moment that they will not be responsible people? Therefore I welcome any suggestions. It may all lead to the appointment of a very good board, but we are not interested in the ulterior motives which hon. members suspect: we are interested in an expert board which will be able to exercise a sound judgment, and a good chairman will see to it that the correct decision is arrived at, knowing that what they do is exposed to the public eye. But it is impossible to bind myself to the sort of provisions the hon. member wants, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.

The Minister said that he could find a Government stooge in every walk of life and there I agree with him. Secondly, he has provided me with a very good argument for what I wanted to say anyway, and that is that it is obviously not possible to set up a board which will be able to function as an expert in all the particular criteria which they will have to decide upon as far as what is desirable for the reading public of South Africa. It is quite obvious that you can appoint an expert in the arts who knows nothing about religion. You can appoint a man who knows something about religion, but he may not know anything about languages. You can appoint a language expert who cannot distinguish between ridicule and humour, and so on. So the Minister will find it very difficult to find this so-called panel cf experts, and that will also be the position in terms of the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, although that is an improvement on what the Minister intends doing. Therefore I come back to the argument I raised last night as to whether it should be a board of censors or a publications board or a board of review, and I say that there should not be a board at all. Therefore I will vote against this clause. I will vote against the setting up of a board at all. I do not believe it is necessary in this day and age to set up a board which will censor the reading of South Africa. In every other modern country the tendency towards liberalizing what people may read, to have an exchange of ideas and to get away from narrow restrictions. In this country we have not had such a board before, but the Government is now setting one up and I am against that. I believe we have enough in our common law to restrain people from publishing or distributing indecent matter.

I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to ask for your guidance, Sir. The principle has been accepted at the second reading. Is it in order for the hon. member now to argue that there should be no board at all?

The hon. member just mentioned it. She may continue.

As I said before, in hardly any of the English-speaking countries do such boards exist. They rely on prosecutions under the common law and I believe that we should do exactly the same in this country. I believe that objections were raised when this matter was discussed before the Cronje Commission, objections about leaving such matters to the courts rather than to the board, and various arguments were used in regard to the ability of a court to give an expert judgment. Now we have just had arguments as to what would constitute a board of experts and there is a big difference here between the hon. member for Turffontein and the Minister. That is my point, too, and that is why I would rather leave it to the court. It is said that the courts do not consist of experts, but may I point out that every day the courts are called upon to make decisions on matters in which they are not experts per se, but they are able to call in experts to give them advice by way of evidence and then the courts are able to come to a decision. I believe it would be far better to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the courts and not to set up a board which will go in for this widespread type of censorship. In view of the wide criteria it will be impossible to make any such decisions. It is hard enough for the court to do it, but at least the court can call in expert witnesses.

The other objection raised by the Cronje Commission was in regard to the question of uniformity, that there would be lack of uniformity in decisions if it was left to the court to decide. But surely the actual decisions arrived at by the courts will in time set up precedents and establish a norm. I want to put it to the Minister that he should think twice before putting South Africa in the category of the more backward countries by establishing a board, when in other countries boards do not exist and the tendency is to get away from censorship and not to extend Governmental control over the reading and thinking of the people.

In reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), I just want to point out that she is far off the mark when she says that there are only boards in backward countries to watch over their literature and to approve or disapprove of it.

In that case Israel is very backward.

Yes, and in that case West Germany and Ireland are also very backward, and the State of Georgia as well.

Of course it is.

In that case Israel is also one of the backward countries. [Interjections.] She admits that Israel may also be one of the backward countries. I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I want to point out that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Houghton amounts to this: that we should not have a board here. But this House accepted the principle in the second reading.

The hon. member must not take that point further. I only gave the hon. member for Houghton an opportunity of stating her case, but it need not be replied to.

May I, in reply to the hon. member, just say that if this board is not appointed, this legislation is useless, and we may just as well withdraw it.

Does the hon. member not know that there is a “Pre-Publication Act” in England without a board? That is why we can have this legislation without a board.

When the appropriate stage is reached, I shall read to the hon. member what one of the biggest Press magnates in England recently said constituted the indirect censorship which was retraining the Press, and then she will realize how backward England is according to her.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned, I wish to add this to what the Minister has already said, and that is, that not one of them moved an amendment in the Select Committee. They accepted these clauses unanimously. The hon. member was a member of the Select Committee. [Interjections.] In the first place he wants a retired Judge as chairman. It is quite clear that a retired Judge is a man of over 70 years of age, but they are the people who say that the board will consist of a number of old women. Must you appoint old, decrepit people of over 70 to a board such as this, a board which has a gigantic task to perform, a board which calls for qualifications in the spheres of literature, art, religion, the law and all the other spheres? We have to appoint a retired Judge of 70 to put the machinery which we are creating here in motion. Sir, I think we should not begrudge the retired Judges their well-earned rest once they have reached the age of 70. In addition there has to be an advocate who has practised for at least 15 years. If an advocate has practised successfully for 15 years, he will be one of two things. He will either be a Judge or will become one shortly or he will have such a big practice that he will not allow himself to be persuaded to serve full-time on this board. What is wrong with a magistrate of a regional court, a magistrate who probably knows more about the administration of justice than some advocates? Why should the Minister be limited to an advocate, and why should it only be a former chief justice?

I now want to deal with the representatives of the book trade associations and of the Press. The book trade associations consist of printers and publishers and distributors of books, people who fall into the very category who will be the biggest culprits under this law. The hon. member now wants us to appoint to the board representatives of those people who will commit the offence so that they can sit in judgment, not only over their own colleagues, but perhaps over themselves. The person’s own firm may, perhaps, be the offender, but he has to judge the case. The same applies to the Press Union. It may be their own periodical which has committed an offence, but their own representatives should be there to sit in judgment over their colleagues or over themselves. It is the most half-baked idea which we have ever had from the most half-baked brain in this House. I only want to say this: that when we discussed this matter these hon. members were the very people who objected to there being too large a number of well-qualified people on the board. I thought, and I still think so, that every member of this board should be a well-qualified person, but they were the people who said no, we should also have the lay-brain; we should not only have professional people, but we should have people with sound judgment. That happened in the Select Committee, but now we hear a different story from them daily; now they advance this half-baked argument that the people who commit the offence must sit in judgment over themselves and their colleagues. I cannot support the Minister stronger than I do that he should not be tempted to accept this amendment, and that he should not even be guided by this amendment when he makes the appointments.

In deference to your ruling, I shall accept that the principle of this Bill was accepted at the second reading. I am not very much impressed by what the hon. the Minister has said about the proceedings in the Select Committee. We have all had experience of Select Committees. I sat on a Select Committee last year when a control board had to be appointed, and we, on this side, proposed 29 amendments, some major and some minor, but not one was accepted. We are all familiar with the procedure on a Select Committee, when the Government members go to and from the Minister’s office in order to get fresh inspiration before every meeting. Nothing is done independently. Therefore, when the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is criticized because he did not mention his proposal in the Select Committee, I feel the whole statement is irrelevant, and has no bearing whatever on what we are discussing now. I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, but not because I regard it as an ideal amendment. I was disappointed in the reaction of the Minister. I should think that the Minister in his position, having to appoint a control board to carry out this exceedingly difficult task, so difficult that provision is made for an appeal to the courts, would have welcomed nominations from representative institutions. The institutions to be chosen is a matter he could suggest himself But, as an alternative to what was said by the hon. member for Turffontein, I think he could have given us other proposals. I like the idea of these nominated members, nominated by representative bodies. Whatever appointments the Minister makes, he will be subject to criticism. It will be impossible for any individual to choose the ideal board and, therefore, the Minister should accept the principle of representation by institutions.

There is another point which arises out of this clause. There has been much discussion in our Press on the nature of the board and whether a board is necessary. The English-language Press and the Afrikaans-language Press have both said that this Bill is not necessary, and that there are better ways. Eventually there was a controversy which developed between the Cape Times and the Burger. I mention it because it is representative of two points of view. We are not a homogeneous community in South Africa. We are English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people, of different traditions, different standards of conduct, different churches and with a different outlook on life. It is our task to find a way to work together. The Burger, in discussing this matter, made this statement: “Die sensuur van Afrikaanse boeke kan aan Afrikaners oor gelaat word.” The Cape Times criticized it, and the Burger came back with this statement. It recommended that—

May I ask a question?

Just let me round off my point. I accept wholeheartedly what the Burger said. But I also ask that what is suitable for the English-speaking reader should be left to the English-speaking people to decide. We have heard in this debate that 90 per cent of the books imported, and which will be censored or controlled, will be in the English language. Therefore, I want to see a considerable majority of English-speaking representatives on this board. I think it is essential. I would suggest to the Minister, as a way out, to have two boards operating. They can sit together, but on English-language literature I should like to have the recommendations of English-speaking people.

South Africans.

Yes, I quite agree, but we are not South Africans cast in the same mould. That is the richness and the variety of our south African life. We are more alike than an Irishman and an Englishman, I agree. Now the hon. member may ask his question.

I wanted to ask the hon. member whether he read from a leading article in the Burger, or from the readers’ correspondence?

I am quoting from a leader headed “Buitensporigheid ”. I should like the Minister to consider an amendment on the same lines as that proposed by the hon. member for Turffontein. I do not say his amendment is perfect. I do not know as much about it as he does, and the hon. members for Fort Beaufort, Vereeniging and Port Elizabeth 'South'), who were on the Select Committee, but I do think that a board can be constituted much more satisfactorily than in the way proposed here.

I wish to point out in the first instance that whether it will be Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking people who will serve on this board that has nothing to do with this amendment because the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein does not refer anywhere to an Afrikaans-speaking Judge or an English-speaking Judge or to persons nominated from the Afrikaans-speaking section or from the English-speaking section. I cannot understand how the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) can drag that aspect into this amendment. What is worse, the hon. member argues like that because he has never yet become a South African and because he should like the two national groups in this country to remain divided. That is the only reason why he argues like that. He would like to see it laid down in law that there is not one common nation with a common love for literature, culture and morals. And then they are the people who are continually talking about national unity but that is the way in which they want to sow dissension.

I want to go further. The hon. member read from an article in the Burger, but how did he read it? It clearly says—

In other words, they say in this article that they had doubts but that they no longer have them, because it is in the past tense. Why was this article written in the past tense? No, the hon. member should not try to juggle with words in that way. It is written in the past tense. In other words, the Burger did harbour those doubts but it no longer does so. No, the hon. member must not read an article in that way. The hon. member says that they moved 29 amendments in the Select Committee and that not one was accepted. That only proves how bad their amendments were. Had the Select Committee members who represented the United Party thought beforehand that the Select Committee was prejudiced or that it was committed, as the hon. member suggested a moment ago, and that the Government members of the Select Committee went there with preconceived ideas and that they would not take the evidence into consideration, why did they not object on the Select Committee on any occasion to the prejudiced state of mind of the chairman? On the contrary, these members of the United Party who sat on the Select Committee accepted it at every meeting that the Select Committee had given a fair hearing to all the evidence and that it had acted to the best of its ability. Not once did they make any objection and not once did they make this sort of accusation. When you serve on a Select Committee, Sir, and when you think, as the hon. member suggested a moment ago, that that Select Committee is an adamant committee which has decided beforehand what it will do. why do you serve on such a Select Committee? In that case you should say right at the outset: No, it will serve no purpose to serve on this committee; I would rather leave. But after they had moved 29 amendments which were unacceptable and which were not accepted they tell us that it was not a fair Select Committee, that it was not a Select Committee which had judged according to the evidence and according to the documents before it; that the Select Committee was prejudiced. No, they should not put the position like that.

In conclusion I want to support the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), the chairman of the Select Committee. There has been repeated reference in the malicious Press and by members of the United Party to this Control Board as though it will consist of a number of old women who cannot come to a decision, as though it will consist of a number of people who no longer have any ideal in life, decrepit people who live in the past and can in consequence not judge or decide. That is how they have continually painted this Control Board and that is the way they talk about the existing Censor Board. Where the Minister now wants to appoint a Control Board of virile people, people sound of mind and judgment, people who are still in the prime of life and who will be able to do the work properly, they again try to drag in the age factor in at least two of the clauses. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has said but I agree with him that if you give the book trade associations an opportunity of nominating the members who should comprise this board, you immediately place those people who will serve on this Control Board in this unenviable and impossible position that in order to be renominated they will have to close their eyes to the sins of the book traders and publishers. In other words, it will be a useless Control Board and that is why I also cannot agree to the acceptance of that part of the amendment.

The hon. member who has just sat down is rather trifling with Select Committee procedure when he suggests that because in the Select Committee no amendment is moved to a clause, it signifies that there should never be an amendment to it. After all, the procedure of a Select Committee is to present a Bill to this Parliament not for acceptance but for discussion and for improvement if need be.

But you voted against the other clauses in the ordinary way.

Exactly.

Why not against this clause?

If that is what the

Government is going to recognize as the procedure in Select Committees then in future you just have to vote against every clause otherwise you cannot come before this House and deal with the matter in Committee in any other way than by being obstructive. I am amazed at the hon. the Minister trifling with the procedure of Select Committees. I say that particularly because last session we also had a Bill which passed through a Select Committee and the Minister will remember that he himself had a considerable number of amendments to that Bill; he had second thoughts and he was entitled to them.

Order! The hon. member should not take that argument too far.

I am not taking it too far; I am just taking it as far as the Minister’s own action last year. Surely that is a significant fact which substantiates what I say, that a Bill comes before this House for consideration, not for acceptance, and I can only say that to me it is a completely puerile argument. We all know that in a Select Committee, having tried to amend a provision, we never come back to it and that is why it comes to this House in Committee. That is your opportunity to raise the matter again.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned, the hon. the Minister impliedly admitted that there was an improvement in various suggestions of his.

I never admitted that.

I say that the Minister impliedly admitted that there was an improvement in some of the hon. member’s suggestions. It is true that the Minister criticized the detail.

You had no objection to the principle.

The suggestion, for instance, that a retired Judge should be used, is a good suggestion. The Minister’s only difficulty was to find somebody to appoint. It could be improved upon by saying that if a Judge cannot be found, somebody with legal experience should be appointed.

As far as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is concerned, he rather indicated that people from the Book Trade Association, the Newspaper Press Association, would really be judges in their own cause if they were appointed to the board. But that is not why you appoint members to a board. You appoint them because they have knowledge and experience, and that is the suggestion. that you want people with specific knowledge and experience. One accepts that if a member of that calibre sits on a board of this nature and a matter in which he has an interest comes before it he would recuse himself. So that is no argument against the appointment of people who have knowledge and experience. I would therefore ask the hon. the Minister, if he did not think that the hon. member’s amendment was an improvement to think again, and I think he will find that there is a considerable improvement in many of his suggestions which are included in the hon. member’s amendment.

I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister should ridicule the suggestion of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that certain members of this board should have special qualifications. It might be that the Minister does not agree with the particular qualifications suggested by the hon. member for Turffontein, but the basic principle of laying down in an Act that members should have special qualifications is not at all strange to this House, neither is it so strange to the hon. the Minister himself because, when he presented his first Bill on this subject to this House in 1960 it provided for a Publications Appeal Board and on that particular Appeal Board provision was made for a Judge of the Supreme Court. My hon. friend is asking for a retired Judge; the hon. the Minister asked for a Judge. In that same Bill it was asked that there should be an advocate of ten years’ standing on that board; my hon. friend is asking for an advocate of 15 years’ standing. There is no reason at all why the Minister should ridicule this provision.

The fact that it has been laid down that three of these members should be experts in the field of language, arts and letters and should have a knowledge of law is really meaningless if you look at the full provisions of Clause 2. The total number of members of the board is to be nine or more; a quorum is to be three. In other words, if the three members specially selected by the hon. the Minister for their special knowledge in these different categories are absent, then you can have a board of censors consisting of only three people, not one of whom might have the necessary qualifications. That is one of the dangers of having a small quorum of three, for with a quorum of three for a board consisting of nine members, a majority of two can make a decision which would be of the greatest importance to the whole of South Africa.

There is always an appeal to the courts.

But why start wrong; why not start right? Why start wrong and then wait for the court to put the matter right? As far as the existing censor board is concerned, I believe that the quorum laid down in the 1931 Act is four out of seven members. That is a much better principle, the principle that at least the majority of the board shall form a quorum. Sir, if I may quote the words of Lord Hewart, who said—

And if two inexperienced people are going to give an important judgment on a certain publication or an object then I do say that it is a hole-and-corner judgment. Sir, there have been demands from important bodies in South Africa that special qualifications should be laid down for members appointed to the board; these demands have gone to the Minister and they went to the Select Committee. Let me mention one: The Suid-Afrikaanse

Akademie says—

Here I have a memorandum with which I am almost 90 per cent in disagreement but which says—

In other words, they should be experts. The memorandum goes on to say—

This is a memorandum submitted by the Federale Raad of the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. Are they being ridiculous too? Sir, I can mention many other instances. The P.E.N. Association says this—

Another very important body vitally affected by the decisions of this particular board has asked that the members should have special qualifications—the film industry in South Africa. They said in their memorandum—

For instance, in the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 in the United Kingdom, expert opinion in the field of literature, art, science or learning and objects of general is considered relevant. Surely an important body such as the whole of the film industry cannot be stupid. Surely they cannot be made the subject of ridicule as the hon. the Minister is trying to ridicule the proposal that certain qualifications should be laid down for members of the board. Would he regard as ridiculous the view of a prominent person such as Professor Rob Antonissen, professor of Afrikaans and Netherlands, who asked this—

That is born of ignorance.

If a doctor of literature, like Professor Rob Antonissen, a professor of Afrikaans and Netherlands knows less than the hon. the Minister about the qualifications necessary to judge a work of literature, then it is indeed a sad day for South Africa.

He has not studied the Bill.

After all, the hon. the Minister is also the Minister of Education and of Arts and of Science. Would he say the same of another important writer, Mr. Etienne le Roux, who said—

Obviously unless you appoint people with special qualifications, people who have a knowledge of art and a knowledge of literature they will be making mistakes over and over again. Look at the stupid and ridiculous mistakes that have already been made by people appointed in South Africa on our Censor Board. Look at the banning of Sagan’s “Bonjour Tristesse”; look at the banning of dozens of other important works. These mistakes were made because there were not sufficient people on these boards with the full knowledge of what is literature, of what is art and of what is science. Look at the stupid mistakes made by the customs in regard to books—good books which have so often been held back. Sir, here the hon. Minister has a chance to bring about an improvement in this particular Bill and I appeal to him to allow certain definite qualifications and safeguard to be laid down in this particular clause dealing with the composition of the board.

I am surprised at the hullabaloo which is made here this afternoon over this clause when you think of it, Sir, that hon. members of the United Party who served on the Select Committee not only did not come forward with counter-suggestions but that they were satisfied with these provisions. I think, for example, of this question of the quorum. Without mentioning any names, I am afraid that some members opposite who now have such a great deal to say on this matter were of this opinion: “I find it quite reasonable to have three.” That is why I find it strange that all this hullabaloo is made to-day over this matter. The hon. member for Turffontein now wants the retired ludge who must serve as chairman to have been an advocate with 15 years’ experience and in terms of (e) of his amendment there should also be somebody with a knowledge of the administration of justice. Apart from what the Minister has already told us as to how difficult it might be to find a legally trained man to serve on the board, it seems to me that we will have an unnecessary number of legally trained men on. this board—at least three in terms of this amendment. It seems absolutely unnecessary to me to have three legally trained men on this board.

The other aspect is the question of group representation on this board. To me that seems an impossible task. I simply cannot see how we can expect groups or bodies to have representation on this board. Where will it end? There are numbers of bodies or groups who are concerned with the decisions of this board—I admit that—but there will be an equally difference of opinion as to who must be represented on it. I can well imagine that the provinces will feel that they should have a say on the board. The same applies to the churches and the Department of Education. Everyone will want to be represented and who will decide who should be represented? I think we can safely leave the matter in competent hands and that we should regard it as an impossible task to give every organization which is interested in this matter representation on this board.

The hon. the Minister has indicated to this Committee his unwillingness to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The Minister may have good reasons for not accepting the amendment in its entirety, but I am sure that it is the wish of the hon. the Minister to establish a Control Board, if one has to be established in terms of this Bill, which will carry the confidence and the respect of the citizens of South Africa. In furtherance of that conclusion I would like to draw attention to the fact that on the Minister’s own proposals as set out in Clause 2 he has already indicated that certain persons appointed by him to the Board shall have certain qualifications. In other words, at least three shall have a special knowledge of art, language and literature or the administration of justice. I think it was a reasonable approach on the part of the Minister to ensure that the Board shall consist of certain people who have these qualifications. I am sure it is the wish of the Minister, as it is the wish of everyone in this House, that if a Board is to be appointed it should be so constituted as to carry the respect and the confidence of the people of this country.

That only refers to qualifications.

I am talking about the qualifications. I am not talking necessarily in support of this amendment; I am trying to put a constructive suggestion to the Minister for his favourable consideration, bearing in mind that it is common cause that we would all like a Board to be appointed which will carry the confidence and respect of our citizens. I say that the Minister has indicated that that is his desire by indicating that it is his intention to appoint certain people who must have the qualifications which I have just mentioned. In passing I also want to deal with this point: The Minister also mentioned that there was always the right of appeal against any decision of the Board. I think that that is a wrong approach and I say this with respect because if any appeal against the decision of the Board succeeds, it lowers the status of the Board in the eyes of our citizens and it lowers the respect that our citizens will have for any of the decisions of the Board. Let us, while we are constituting a Board, try to apply our minds to see whether we cannot constitute a Board which can avoid any stigma being attached to them and which can avoid appeals against their decisions. I think that on the Minister’s own approach to this matter, the situation can be rectified by two simple amendments. In terms of this clause as it is now suggested by the Minister, the Board will consist of nine people of whom not less than three shall have the special qualifications to which I have just referred and in terms of sub-clause (7) of this clause one-third of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum. That clearly indicates to my mind that that quorum could in certain circumstances consist of people who have not got the special qualifications which the Minister envisages that certain members should have. In fact I may go even further. It may consist of a committee of three made up of the chairman who had these special qualifications and two who have not got these special qualifications; the other two could outvote the chairman with the result that their decision would stand. The way in which I suggest the hon. the Minister can avoid such an absurd situation— because I am sure it is a situation which the Minister himself would not wish to see—is by increasing the number of people having this special qualification from three to six. It is a simple amendment. My suggestion is that the Minister should amend sub-clause (2) by saying that the Board shall consist of not less than nine members, of whom not less than six shall be persons having a special knowledge of art, language and literature or the administration of justice. Then I suggest a further amendment in sub-clause (7) to provide that a quorum shall be four members of the Board. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to give favourable consideration to these proposals he would eliminate a great deal of the uneasiness that exists in the minds of certain members that the destiny of our citizens may be controlled by people who are not qualified. If the Minister adopts these suggestions of mine, he will avoid the ridiculous situation where the chairman with qualifications may be outvoted by two members who have not got the necessary qualifications. I would strongly urge the Minister to give favourable consideration to this matter, and he will then eliminate the uneasiness which exists in the minds of many members here to-day.

I cannot understand the argument which the hon. member has just used. He says that if the decisions of this Board are reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court, it will lower the prestige of this board. Why? Does it lower the prestige of our magistrates’ courts if their judgments are reversed?

Yes.

Yes, if it is a very ridiculous judgment it does lower the prestige of a particular magistrate but the public has the highest regard for our magistrates’ courts. But I go further: does it lower the prestige of the Supreme Court of the Cape Province if its judgment is reversed on appeal? It does not. There is absolutely nothing in the argument, therefore, that if this board comes to a decision in all good faith and the Supreme Court upsets it, that that will lower its prestige.

Then I come to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein. Mr. Chairman, where do you end if you argue along these lines? Paragraph (e) is in conformity with the existing clause. One advocate must be appointed. Why not a teacher; why not a clergyman, why not a land surveyor? And if you appoint a clergyman, for example, why cannot every Church nominate a representative?

But has the Minister not the right to appoint those people?

Of course he has the right but that is precisely the difference between that hon. member’s attitude and ours. Our attitude is that the Minister has the right to appoint those people but the hon. member wants to force the Minister to appoint certain people. He wants to force the Minister to appoint an advocate. Does the hon. member not think that there are teachers, for example, or school inspectors or farmers who are equally qualified to serve on this Board as an advocate? There is no merit whatsoever, therefore, in the appointment of an advocate, just as little as there will be any merit in a provision which forces the Minister to appoint a farmer or a teacher or a parson. As the clause reads at the moment at least three of them must have a sound knowledge of the administration of justice. Why is he so anxious to have an advocate? His case would have been stronger had he asked for a teacher or somebody like that. I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has disposed very well of the other two which the member for Turffontein has asked for. When cases are heard by this Board the people concerned will be members of the book traders associations and of the S.A. Press Union. I think there is great merit in what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has said that these people will then be their own judges. Mr. Chairman, the mistake hon. members make is to want to force the Minister to appoint a certain type of board and not to attach any value to the fundamental idea contained in this Bill, namely the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. Once the Court has set aside four or five decisions this board will have a lead. How will the Supreme Court decide? They will decide whether an appeal is to be successful or not by calling experts on both sides to come to give evidence. The Court will call the best possible expert evidence in the country. The Court will give judgment on the basis of that evidence. After four or five judgments the Board will have a lead to guide it. That is why this Board will function. I am not saying that the Board will not make mistakes at the beginning. Of course it will make mistakes. If everyone on such a board is an expert what guarantee has the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that they will not make mistakes?

They will make fewer mistakes.

Why will it make fewer mistakes? It may come to decisions which are wrong in the opinion of certain people but which are right in the opinion of others. What hon. members refuse to take into consideration and what they do not want to admit is that this Board will have to base its decisions on Supreme Court judgments after the latter has heard the best possible expert witnesses from all over the country. I think it will be very unwise to limit the Minister to certain people only when it comes to appointing this Board.

I should like to support the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). Before I come to that, however, I just want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. We are dealing here with the nature and the composition of the board. In terms of this clause it must consist of at least nine members. These nine persons will then have control over what 15,000,000 people may read and write. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is any specific merit in this figure of nine. Is his choice of nine based on any definite experience?

What do you suggest?

The Minister drafted the Bill. I want to know whether there was any specific reason why he chose at least nine. Then I also want to ask him whether he intends to keep it at nine. According to the clause a few of the members must have a knowledge of art, language and literature and the administration of justice. Now, Sir, ours is a country with many languages. In one part of it Xhosa will shortly also become an official language. I want to ask the Minister what he has in mind as far as the increasing quantity of material which is to-day published in the Bantu languages, is concerned. Moreover, we have 500,000 South Africans of Indian descent. The main language they speak is Tamil but I understand that those people of Indian descent in Natal speak 19 Indian languages. South West Africa included there are 23,000 people in South Africa who speak German. All these people import publications from overseas in their own language. How does the Minister intend to cover this mass of material? Does he intend making any provision in regard to the reading requirements of the Bantu and the Indians?

What about the Chinese?

Chinese publications are also imported; as well as a fair amount in Greek, but I am only taking the larger language groups.

I also want to ask the Minister whether he intends appointing any party politicians to the board? It is general talk in the Lobby that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort will be appointed as chairman of this board. I do not want to comment on that at this stage. We shall see how the hon. member for Fort Beaufort shapes during the course of this debate and judge whether or not he is suitable. We also know that new pastures are being sought for an editor of one of the Government’s newspapers. For this reason I want to know from the Minister whether he intends appointing any party politicians. The clause leaves the field very wide and I think it will assist all of us if the Minister would indicate what he has in mind in connection with the composition of the board.

Then I come to the aspect raised by the hon. member for Kensington and as an Afrikaans-speaking person I want to support what he has said. It is correct, we are South Africans in this country but we nevertheless have two cultures amongst the Whites. I think the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) will have to agree that there are two cultures amongst the Whites—that we are English-and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. As an Afrikaans-speaking person I am anxious to see justice done to the English-speaking people. The fact of the matter is that this board which the Minister will appoint, will handle material which will predominantly be in the English language—between the 90 per cent and the 100 per cent mark. All the control boards in South Africa are predominantly Afrikaans-speaking. As far as I know they all have Afrikaans-speaking chairmen. I feel that something should be done some time or other to restore the balance and if there is one board which ought to have an English-speaking chairman. or which ought to be predominantly English-speaking, it is this board. This is a golden opportunity for the Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner who is in power to show that he wishes to see justice done towards the English-speaking section in this country. The English-speaking South Africans are very sensitive to the control which this legislation will exercise over literature. Read, for example, what the Cape Times wrote on this subject in a leading article on 4 May 1962—

I think that is a justifiable objection on the part of the English-speaking people. That is why I want to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kensington and inquire whether the Minister does not think that this opportunity should be used to allay the fears of the English-speaking South Africans, and if he cannot find an English-speaking chairman, whether he will at least appoint a majority of English-speaking South Africans to this board.

When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) posed all those questions, I could not help but think of the wisest man the world has ever known, Solomon. Solomon said in his Book of Proverbs that one fool could ask more questions than could be answered by ten wise men. I am afraid I have to agree with Solomon here. When the hon. member spoke about all the languages and all the dialects he already replied to the question; if he had to appoint a board like this it would not consist of nine members but of 9.000. I really cannot help the hon. member with his problem. I want to tell him that he is living after his time; he is a very narrow-minded person. He is very much behind the times; he does not progress with the times. Just imagine, Sir, in this age in which we live the hon. member pleads for the name and surname of a person. I want to tell the hon. member that South Africa has made so much progress that I know people called Pretorius who cannot speak Afrikaans. I also know MacDonalds who speak only Afrikaans. The hon. member is behind the times. What he tried to do was to foster racial hatred. Is it not deplorable that an Afrikaans-speaking person should lend himself to that? Is it not surprising that he should be used for such a task—and I am sure not at his request, but as a hero who has now become the champion of the English-speaking people. I would rather leave the matter there because it has very little to do with this whole clause.

Every person appointed to this Board will be completely bilingual. I can give that assurance to hon. members. The members of the Board will not only be able to understand or read the two official languages of the country, but they will also be able to appreciate it and adjudge it properly. The hon. member therefore need not concern himself about that. That will be done.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). The Select Committee handed the Bill to me in this form. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and his fellow-members who sat on the Select Committee with him voted for it. I do not think the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is correct. He should have read the report of the Select Committee. When there was a basic objection to Clause 6 the Select Committee divided on it without an amendment. That is correct; we know that they are opposed to it in principle. But when it came to Clauses 2,3 and 4 they did not divide. In other words, they were in favour of the principle. I obtained the Bill in this form and accepted it as such. I want to tell the hon. member for Peninsula that I am accepting his amendment. If he wants there to be six people who are properly qualified in regard to language and literature and the arts and the administration of justice, we can make it six. I accept that. And if the quorum has to be increased from three to four, I will accept that also. If that does not satisfy the Opposition they are looking for something which as far as I am concerned they would never have found, because that was never the intention. I should have said all nine, but I am just afraid that we will discover later that a person has a qualification which does not exactly comply with this requirement. I have not the least intention of appointing people to this Board of Control who are not properly qualified. They must be experts and that is why I accept the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula in this regard if he moves it.

I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the representations which I have made. If we have to have a board I think it will be better constituted in this way and I accordingly move—

Throughout this debate, starting with the second reading, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has insisted on “Marching Through Georgia.” Every time we raise a clause, he talks about Georgia. The point is that he persists in identifying Georgia with the United States of America. When he tries to persuade the House about the merits of this Bill, he keeps on citing Georgia. Now let me tell the House something about Georgia. Outside the State of Georgia, the other 185,000,000 American people have no great respect for the cultural knowledge or special intelligence of the State of Georgia. If anything—and I do not say this in disparagement of Georgia—they say about Georgia what we say in South Africa about the “gramadoelas ”.

Where are the “gramadoelas”?

In the United States, that is Georgia. Aoart from the fact that it has a newspaper called the “Atlanta Constitution”, there is nothing the hon. member can cite about the state of Georgia that can reasonably convince us that we must follow their example.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. member also deal with West Germany. I did not only mention Georgia; I mentioned Israel and West Germany and others.

Before the hon. member takes me on a world tour, I would like to finish with the United States. One of the books which I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort should make an acquaintance with, is a book called “The Facts of American Life I know he knows all the other facts of life. If he reads this book he will find that as far as films are concerned, “the Federal Government does not censor any films shown in the United States ”. So much for films. If he goes through this book, he will find chapter and verse about the so-called censorship in any particular state or city. It is almost invariably a local body set up on a voluntary basis, with not one of the rights which this control board of ours will have if we pass this Bill. I hope the hon. member will get up and controvert what I have said—if he can.

Come back to the clause.

What right has the hon. member for Vereeniging to say that I am not discussing this clause? I am dealing with the analogy made by the one member who has had something to do with this clause, as chairman of the Select Committee on the Publications and Entertainments Bill. He has played a great part in this matter and I am surely entitled to controvert what he says if what he says may influence the Committee to accept his views on the matter. I will not pursue it any further, except to say that there is no censorship of any books, magazines or newspapers whatsoever in the United States. There is no censorship, and I say that categorically.

Another example to which we are constantly being dragged back is Ireland. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort, for whose views I must have some regard—as chairman of the Select Committee—keeps on telling us that this particular clause is on all fours with what happened in Ireland.

Which Ireland?

That is an interesting point. During the second reading I tried to give the hon. member some information contained in a very short book called “Banned Books”. To satisfy his curiosity as to what goes on in Ireland, or what went on in Ireland, I want to read this statement which appears on the very first page—

That is the example of the Ireland of the last century or two that we must follow! Must we ban a book such as “Gulliver’s Travels ”? Then. Sir, we will be on the right road to a proper appreciation of literature, of art and culture—of anything that makes up the core and the heart of a nation! With due respect, to the hon. member, I think Clause 2 is a bad clause. The Minister by saying that “the board shall consist of not less than nine members of whom not less than three shall be persons having special knowledge of art, etc.,” has in fact said by inference that all the other members of this board need not have any special knowledge of the very subject with which they are expected to deal. Surely, Sir, the converse must be true if you read this particular clause. He opens himself deliberately to the kind of canvassing that will go on for appointment to this board by persons who have not a vestige of the qualifications to sit in judgment on a work of art, on a literary work or a film, or anything connected with artistic life. And I am afraid, Sir, that the hon. the Minister is well aware of it. He has said repeatedly that he wants to leave the position as fluid as possible so that he cannot be told afterwards: “You told us that you would in fact appoint a board constituted in such a way, a board consisting of persons with such and such qualifications. and see what you have done ”. He insists on retaining a free hand as regards the remaining members of the board. Surely, Mr. Chairman, there can be no logic in that. The hon. the Minister has at times argued about the logic of the situation; when he seeks to appoint a board which will deal with a certain specialized subject, the Minister should be required to appoint people who by common consent, certainly to the knowledge of the Minister, are specialists in that particular subject. Can the hon. the Minister honestly say that that is wrong? What is wrong with that argument? If so, I will sit down and I shall forego the remaining three minutes left to me. If there is nothing wrong with this argument, Sir, we can only turn to that other board, the National Advisory Education Council, where he was heard to say: “I assure you that I will appoint a board of experts ”.

And they were appointed.

I have not finished, Sir. As far as one can make out in regard to educational background it might be fair to say. regardless of such matters as language qualification, that the Minister did in fact set out to do something and that he achieved it. It might be fair to say so; I am not prepared at this stage to say that he has not done so. But here, exactly the opposite will be the position, because he insists on his freedom to appoint people who, he says, need now know anything about the subject. I seem to remember. Sir, that in the past there was a Prime Minister of South Africa who appointed his housekeeper to a certain board. I want the Minister to listen to this.

Carry on; we are listening.

When I say I want the Minister to listen, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) says “carry on; we are listening ”. The Royal “we ”. He is now the Minister of both portfolios combined! But I want this hon. Minister to listen. At a time within living memory, a Prime Minister of this country appointed his housekeeper to a certain board—and for no better reason than that she was his housekeeper! She had no other qualifications. One does not want to suggest that that is what the Minister has in mind; but one is entitled to say that unless he gives us the assurance that he is going to restrict himself, when making these appointments, to people who will in fact have a special knowledge of a very intricate and specialized subject, he lays himself open to the gravest and the grossest suspicion from this side of the House. It is no use the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) saying, “why this suspicion”? Why, when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) says we should have an Afrikaans-speaking board and an English-speaking board or we should have Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people on that board, does that member say: “Why, we are now one nation ”? But the Minister knows better than I do that despite that point of view, wherever there is a Chamber of Commerce, there is an Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut; wherever there is a Chamber of Industries, there is an Afrikaanse Sakekamer; wherever there is a Rotary Club, there is a Rapportryersklub.

I say to the Minister, in all sincerity, that if this Bill is intended to reassure those people who, on good grounds, have certain fears about the inhibition of free thought and freedom of expression in artistic matters, a very good way of giving them that reassurance or assurance will be to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein. [Time limit.]

When the Opposition throws the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) into a debate we know that the United Party has nothing more to say and they want to find somebody to say it. They have nothing more to say, but want to keep the debate going for some reason or other, and I cannot but infer that they are protracting this debate because they want to get away from the debate in regard to the Transkei. [Laughter.] Everything possible has already been said about this clause, but they keep on talking about it. That lets one think that the Opposition cannot agree as to what they want to say in regard to the Transkei Bill.

The Minister has just intimated that he intends accepting an amendment that six out of the nine members of the Board controlling publications should have a particular knowledge of literature and art. They will be people specially selected for this purpose, six out of the nine, but still the hon. member for Hospital complains. It seems as if six out of the nine are too few for him. He wants more. But I want to appeal to the Minister not to agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein and not even to consider it when he suggests that two persons to be appointed should be members of the Book Trade Association of South Africa, because we would be defeating the object of the Bill if such people were appointed to the Board.

What is wrong with them?

They are only interested in profits and do not mind to what extent literature and culture are commercialized as long as they can just make money. I ask the Minister not even to consider it, because if we allow art to become commercialized, as they would do, the standard of art will be lowered. They will lower it by wanting to make it popular amongst the masses, so as to be able to sell as much as possible of it to the masses, and that is when we get this literature which undermines morals with which the market has been flooded ever since the Second World War.

We are not going to oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), because by accepting that amendment, the hon. Minister has gone part of the way to meet one of our objections. The same principle is contained in the amendment I have moved, because one of the points I made and to which the hon. the Minister did not reply was the fact that in any quorum of the board as the clause now stands, one of those persons having a special knowledge of arts or literature will not necessarily be included, but under the amendment that the hon. the Minister has now accepted there is a greater guarantee that at least one of those persons with a special knowledge will be one of the persons forming the quorum. But what worries me now is this talk we are getting from the hon. Minister and other hon. members on the Government benches that this board must necessarily be a board of experts. That was never suggested by us. Are we now to have a board of experts to determine what is indecent, obscene, offensive or harmful to public morals? Is that now necessary in our country to have a ministerially appointed board to determine what is obscenity and that the members of the board must be experts in the field to so determine, or experts in the field to say what is offensive or harmful to public morals? I hope we will get away from that idea, because the suggestion contained in the amendment that I have moved is that at least there should be representation on that board of a wider field, in principle. I think under the amendment the latitude will be sufficient for the hon. Minister to make such appointments to the board.

But what I cannot understand is the atmosphere of prejudice that the hon. Minister seems to retain and the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) and Boksburg (Mr. G. H. L. van Niekerk) against the Booksellers Association. The hon. Minister attacked them in regard to certain correspondence in his second-reading speech, and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort does not want to know of any representation of such an important body on a board of this nature. Who would be in a better position to advise the Board of Control, as it is now, than people who have spent their entire life in maintaining certain standards and who have the greatest and deepest knowledge in regard to the distribution of any publication, and books in particular? If the hon. member for Vereeniging, who had a great deal to say about this, is prepared to accept what the hon. the Minister has introduced, namely that an exemption can be granted to one certain section of the Press, because they are prepared to maintain a code of conduct for themselves, and they recognize that code of conduct, what then is wrong in the Minister saying “I am prepared to accept a representative of the Newspaper Press Union who has laid down a high code of conduct, to sit on this Board ”? What is wrong with that?

The only objection is that he would sit in his own judgment.

Where would he sit in his own judgment? He is not sitting alone by himself as a law to himself; he is sitting in company with a number of other persons, but there he can be an advocate for what he will recognize as a standard to be maintained in the distribution of material. You see, Mr. Chairman, the more one discusses the constitution of a board of this nature, the more one comes to the conclusion that in fact it is the desire of the hon. the Minister and members on the Government benches that there must be constituted a body which will be the predetermining factor as to what shall be read, and that this body in fact is going to go much further. Then the hon. the Minister takes the argument that because we in the Select Committee did not vote against these particular clauses, how now can we come and move an amendment of this nature? But let me remind the hon. member for Fort Beaufort of the true facts. He is well aware than when this second Select Committee started its discussions, it based its discussions on the Bill that was introduced by the Minister at the beginning of that session and circulated to all the people who had given evidence on the former Bill, and that in not one single instance was there any one piece of evidence before the Select Committee to show acceptance of a board of control as constituted in the original Bill. But the Bill upon which the Select Committee deliberated and upon which we voted in respect of Clause 2 was the principle of the board that was constituted in the 1931 Act. So I cannot see the objections or the arguments or the indignation expressed by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort this afternoon.

What you say is not correct.

Of course it is correct, and obviously if you are in Select Committee and you vote for Clause 2. for the constitution of a board on the principle of the 1931 Act, it is clear from the amendments moved by our side in the Select Committee that the whole design of the amendment was to constitute a board as it was contained in the Bill that came before the Select Committee in the first instance which established no board of control but which sought to maintain a board like the 1931 board. Let me read Clause 1—

That is as far as we were prepared to agree, and no further. So it is a completely fallacious argument for the hon. the Minister to come and say: How can the Opposition come along and present the argument they have presented this afternoon, in view of the fact that they voted for this clause in the Select Committee?

I say that the Minister’s argument is completely fallacious on the basis of the facts, and certainly we are entitled to vote in accordance with our stand and in the light of the amendments that we subsequently moved. I repeat that I cannot understand why there is this sort of campaign against the Booksellers Association. Is that the only reason why the Minister rejects the amendment? The Minister attacked them quite unjustifiably here in the second-reading debate. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Vereeniging objected this afternoon against the amendment I have moved, and I repeat that the failure of the hon. Minister to accept the amendment that we have moved, with the true objective to give at least an air of impartiality to the deliberations of this board and to give it the appearance that there is impartiality at least, entitles us to look upon the board that will be established by the Minister with the greatest suspicion because we have had no indication whatsoever from him as to where and how and from what he will make appointments to the board.

In the first place I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). It has always been my attitude that it should be laid down that a greater number of members must have such special knowledge. The complaint of the hon. member for Hospital that there are only three, or at least three, who must have these qualifications, is something that he must settle with his own party. The opposition to my original motion that there should be more properly qualified persons, came from the members of the United Party; they did not want it, and now they come along and say that there must be more.

But there is one thing which I cannot allow to pass even at this late stage, and that is what the hon. member for Turffontein said in respect of the fact that they voted unanimously for Clause 2 in the Select Committee. He now alleges that Clause 2 for which they voted in the Select Committee was not this clause but one which was contained in the Bill of 1961. That is absolutely wrong and completely untrue. What he told the House here was wrong. The Bill which contains the Clause 2 for which they voted unanimously, is this Bill which is now before the House. It is the last Bill that I submitted at the meeting of the Select Committee on 18 April. On that last sitting day I submitted to the Select Committee the Bill as we then had it and as it had been reported to the Minister, and they voted on the Bill which was the one which is now before us. I accuse the hon. member for Turffontein of having misled this House in his ignorance. He is completely ignorant as far as the work of the Select Committee is concerned, even though he was a member of the Select Committee. It was on 18 April, the last sitting day, that I submitted to the Select Committee the Bill that we had drafted, as it had been reported to the Minister, and the members of the United Party on the Select Committee unanimously voted for Clauses 2,3 and 4. The picture which he painted here is an entirely false one therefore and I take it that the hon. member did so in his ignorance.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is correct in saying that in the United States there is not a federal film censorship board. There are various censoring boards— quite a few of them. Every state has its own censorship board and in many cases smaller bodies also have their own censorship boards, and the only difference between theirs and our present Censorship Board is that generally speaking they are stricter than the board in South Africa. In the years during which I was on the Film Censorship Board we dealt mainly with problems arising from the fact that we are a multi-racial country, because many cinemas in South Africa are mixed cinemas in which the non-Whites sit upstairs in the gallery and the Whites in the stalls. The board’s main task was to see whether the film was suitable for exhibition to various racial groups in this country. The only difference is that the censorship boards in America are stricter in many respects than we are in this country. The hon. member is entirely wrong therefore. The hon. member wanted to talk just about Georgia. Well, I shall leave him to the mercy of Georgia; the next time he arrives there on one of his world tours, the people of Georgia will deal with him for having compared them with the “gramadoelas” (backveld). I asked him why he did not also mention the others. West Germany has a selection board which has the power to prohibit books. As far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned the hon. member says that there was something like that there two centuries ago. No. Mr. Chairman. the Act in Ireland was passed in 1929. About Israel the hon. member does not want to talk of course. But we differ from Ireland in that Ireland has a censorship board from which there is an appeal only to an appeal board, while we have a Board of Control. We do not want to accept the horrible appellation that he wants to give us and call our board a censorship board. Ireland has a censorship board, and it has acquired an unsavoury meaning in the world. There is only an appeal there to an appeal board and not to the courts. That is the difference between us and Ireland. But what about West Germany which is a highly civilized country, one of the most highly civilized countries in the world to-day? She has a selection board with a right of appeal to the courts. These are things which they suppress, so I have to emphasize them continually.

I do not want to delay the Committee, but I just want to reply to the statement made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that I have misled the House in regard to the deliberations in the Select Committee. The hon. member alleges that I have stated that the Bill upon which we voted in the Select Committee was not at issue. Of course it was. Let me explain again that when we voted in Select Committee on Clause 2, it was on the principle of the board of censors as established in the 1931 Act, and as contained in a Bill which was first submitted to the Select Committee.

No.

The hon. member will surely not deny that the Bill which first came before the Select Committee suggested a board like the board of censors in the 1931 Act.

Here is the report, read it!

If the hon. member knew what he was doing in the Select Committee as chairman, he will also know that the effect of the amendments that we moved subsequently on the Bill now before the House was to give it the same effect as the 1931 Act. If the hon. member was honourable he would admit it.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to insinuate that I am not “honourable ”?

Does the hon. member say that he is not honourable? If I insinuated that the hon. gentleman is not honourable, I withdraw that.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—85: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.: Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Donges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.: Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert. D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F. Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A, L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J.

H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van dei Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niexerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bow-ker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H., Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of sub-section (2), up to and including “than” in line 61, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—84: Badenhorst. F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha. L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee. P. J.; Cruywagen. W. A.; de Villiers. J. D.; de Wet. C.; Diederichs, N.; Donges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling. J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze. S. F.; le Roux. P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree. W. A.; Martins. H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Ser-fontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N.F.; van der Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. FL; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Rock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Mollman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Russell. J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman. H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Durrant dropped.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Bloomberg put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Donges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouch6, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grey-ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek. J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw. E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van der Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Noes—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.: Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan. E. G.; Miller. H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I would like to move the amendment printed in my name—

1. (2) Before the board conducts any examination or inquiry under paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-section (1), it shall give not less than seven days notice to persons directly interested inviting them to attend and make representations to it.

The effect of it will be as follows. As you will observe, at present in the Bill the board is empowered to examine any publication or object or film submitted to it, and secondly it is also empowered to make such inquiries as it may consider necessary in regard to any public entertainment. Now, we should like to have a proviso added to that to read as follows and to be added as a sub-clause, namely that before the board conducts any inquiry or examination under paragraphs (a) or (b) of sub-section (1) it shall give not less than seven days’ notice to persons directly interested, inviting them to attend and to make representations to it. I believe that this is one of the more important amendments that we are placing before the House and I trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to accepting it.

If this clause were passed in its un amended form, it could be that some snooper could bring a charge against a certain publication or object before the board while the person who manufactured that object, or the writer who wrote the book, knows nothing about the charge being laid against him. We must remember that the board will be sitting in secret and that it is not compelled to give any reasons for its decisions. One can imagine the state of affairs of a writer or sculptor or artist unwittingly producing something while a snooper or Mother Grundy lays a charge and his book or work of art has to be investigated by the board. As the Bill reads at present, the board need not even consider the intrinsic merit of such a book or work of art. It need not call expert witnesses. In fact, I do not think it will, in most cases. There will be a panel with one or two experts on it, but there is no definite provision for the calling of expert witnesses. It is a secret as any Inquisition—not as bad but as secret as the Inquisition. After all, this board’s function will be partly that of holding almost a sort of preparatory examination, should the matter go to court. Preparatory examinations are held in public and I cannot see why these examinations should not also be held in public. It is extremely important, therefore, that artists whose objects or authors whose publications are brought before the board should have full and sufficient warning that they are being charged under this Act and that they should be given notice, and we suggest at least seven days’ notice, to appear before the board and to give expert evidence in regard to their own work. You will observe, Sir, that we say only people directly interested, so it will not be giving the opportunity to a vast number of witnesses to come along, but it will give the opportunity to the people directly interested. In the case of a novel it will be the writer himself, if he is available, or the publisher, or the distributor, or the printer. No more than these are usually directly interested. We must consider the plight of people who may be charged without even knowing that their case is being heard by the board and without being given the opportunity of even stating their defence. I presume that the snooper will have his affidavit before the board and the person charged will not have the opportunity to put his counter-affidavit. Take the case of a newspaper editor, a newspaper not belonging to the Press Union. He might unwittingly be publishing his paper whilst there is a charge against him for publishing an undesirable article. Take the case of a well-known novelist, an Afrikaans writer. He does not know that his work is before the board. He does not realize that maybe he will not be able to write the second volume of his work because the first part was before the board. Take the case of an artist whose work might be displayed in an art gallery. At the same time he might be charged before the board without his knowledge, and without him being given the opportunity to defend himself and to tell the board how that piece of art came about and what was actually in his mind when he did that painting. He should be heard. The publisher should be heard. A publisher might unwittingly have decided that within the following week he was going to order another 10,000 copies of a particular book, while at the same time, unbeknown to him, there was a secret charge being laid against him before the board. Surely it would be normal justice to inform the publisher that there was a charge against him, so that he, knowing that the charge might succeed, may cancel the order and save himself a large sum of money. The same applies to an advertiser. He might be planning an advertising campaign and spending a lot of money, whilst a secret charge against him was being discussed by the board. Take the case of an entertainer, the producer of a show in a theatre. He might be planning weeks ahead to put his show on the road to tour other towns in the country and may be making his plans and spending money on posters and advertising whilst there is this secret charge against him. Surely it is only fair that this person should have the opportunity to appear before the board, too. Take the case of a manufacturer of gramophone records. He does not know that a charge has been laid against him and unwittingly he continues cutting thousands of discs not knowing that some busybody has decided that there was something wrong on them and had complained to the board. We should consider these cases. It may lead to real hardship and it goes against the basic principles of our law. After all, we say that the other side should be heard; we say audi alteram partem, and why cannot that principle apply in this case also, where a person can be charged with a serious offence before the board? All we ask is that he should be given a warning and the right to be heard.

I have on another occasion quoted from a memorandum by Mr. Justice Marais. In quoting the next paragraph, I want to say quite clearly that this memorandum was submitted in 1960, when there was still no appeal to the courts in the Bill then before us, but I feel that the remarks made by Mr. Justice Marais still fully apply to-day, although he might no longer agree with them. This is what he said—

The Minister will probably tell me this artist or writer can indeed go to court and if the Publications Board wants to lay a charge against him it will have to make known its reasons, but why wait until that stage? Why not give the artist or the writer or the sculptor the opportunity before that time to appear before the board and to state his case? [Time limit.]

1 am opposed to this clause for the same reasons that I am opposed to Clauses 1 and 2, because I do not want any board at all to tell citizens of this country what they should read or should not read.

Order! Is the hon. member moving her amendment?

Yes, but I cannot move the amendment which is simply to negative this clause and therefore I am explaining why I am going to vote against it. Clause 3 deals with the functions of the board and Clause 5 with some of the more specific functions. I intend moving an amendment which will go very far if accepted, although my feminine intuition tells me it will not be accepted, but I shall move it anyway, and it is likely severely to curtail the functions of this board. I want to say, on Clause 3, that the most this board should be allowed to do, now that it has been set up in terms of Clause 2, is to recommend that a prosecution be instituted. It should not be allowed to decide itself what is undesirable in terms of the very wide definition of “undesirability” which comes later in this Bill. I think the most this board should be allowed to do is to examine the publications and make inquiries and to advise the Minister and later, if it so decides, to recommend that a prosecution be instituted. So I shall move, not the amendment which is on the Order Paper, but another amendment—

the following new paragraph:

1. (d) where it so decides, recommend that a prosecution be instituted.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) seeks, by means of his amendment, to make the task of the Board much more complicated and difficult than it is already. The hon. member’s amendment asks for two things. In the first place the Board has to give a person who is directly interested in a certain publication, etc., seven days’ prior notice and ask him to be present if he wishes to make representations. To make such an arrangement would be confusing in the first place, because how is the Board going to know the address of such a person in all cases? The Board has to give him notice and the onus is on the Board to do so. What guarantee can the hon. member give us that the Board will always be aware of such a person’s address? Would they have to appoint a large number of detectives and policemen to trace such a person so that they can determine his address and serve the necessary notice on him? I can imagine that many of these persons may be overseas and that the Board will not know where they are. The result is that we are going to have this position that a notice is going to be addressed to a certain person or company who does not receive it and then the onus rests on the Board to prove that the notice was in fact sent and that the person concerned received it. It would complicate the matter very much. I feel therefore that that portion of his amendment is foolish.

But take the second portion. After the interested party has been given notice, he has to be asked to be present and to make representations to the Board, and he then appears before the Board to make representations. In what form must he submit his representations? In the first place, he can of course appoint a legal representative, a clever attorney or advocate, to appear on his behalf, because one cannot deny such a person legal representations. The advocate then comes along and makes representations. In what way can one make successful representation to such a Board? The advocate is going to try to persuade the Board that the publication or the film is permissible. In order to be able to do so and in order to make his representations perfectly reasonable and understandable to the Board and to persuade the Board to allow the publication, he will have to be able to call evidence. He will have to be allowed to call as many witnesses as he may have to prove his standpoint. I can well imagine that when such a person calls something like 50 or 100 persons to come and give evidence, such a case may be delayed and protracted considerably, with resultant unneccesary costs. I repeat therefore that the acceptance of the hon. member’s amendment will only make the task of the Board much more complicated and difficult.

I hope the hon. the

Minister will give favourable consideration to and will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). This addition to the clause will make it a better clause and it is a valuable addition for the very reason which the hon. member who has just sat down has indicated. He has rather indicated that it will complicate the issue but it is precisely because it is going to be a complicated inquiry anyway that a provision of this nature is necessary, because it will now help the Board to direct its mind to the appropriate inquiry that has to be made. I am sure that the Board itself would like to do so and that the Minister would like it to follow a procedure such as that set out in the proposed amendment, because if a board is going to hold an inquiry it must have information on which to base its finding. This is the appropriate method by which information will reach it which can be of value and should be of value to the Board in coming to a decision. It is a fundamental principle not only of our system of law but it is the fundamental of natural justice that you must hear the other side, and I say to the hon. the Minister therefore that this amendment is a valuable addition. It directs the Board as to how it should set about commencing its inquiry. It might have difficulty in finding out who is directly interested but it is important that it should find out who is directly interested in the inquiry. The amendment is a reasonable one in that it places upon the board the responsibility of giving notice, a reasonable amount of notice, and I am sure that the Minister will agree that in circumstances such as those, you can leave it to the common sense of the board itself and of the persons or bodies directly interested or concerned to put forward the information in as clear and as helpful a manner as they possibly can. I can see some of the difficulties that the hon. member for Middellang (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) put forward. There are practical difficulties but this would help to meet the practical difficulties and to overcome them, and I would urge the hon. Minister therefore to accept the amendment.

I have listened with interest to the exposition of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and I am very glad that the hon. member for Middelland has already pointed out one great problem. I should, however, like to point to another problem. I wonder whether the hon. member has thought of it. This amendment will in fact result in the Board of Control being a board or commission of inquiry which must follow the whole procedure of a commission by giving the interested parties notice, giving them the opportunity of appearing before them, and of defending their case. Whether one likes it or not, in any system of control this will lead to a protraction of the whole procedural process and a waste of time, because in fact these people have the right to appeal to court. If they are not satisfied with the decision of the Control Board they can go to court. Has the hon. member considered the possibility that malicious people could to a large extent protract the inquiry? The hon. member only thought of people of goodwill. These things are done in camera and all that the person concerned is told is that the book may not be published or that the painting etc. may not be exhibited. But has the hon. member thought of malicious persons simply swamping this Board with work and so protracting the inquiry that the Board will simply not be able to function? It may happen as a result of this amendment being accepted that the Board’s investigation may become infinitely protracted. The great function of the Board is to institute an investigation, but now the hon. member wants to provide such a method of procedure that the Board will not be able to do its work. It must give these people notice that within seven days it will do this or that, so that these people can appear before it and give evidence. Can one imagine a Board like this being influenced by that? The Board is not interested in why the person wrote or published the book. It is not interested in his defence. I said from the beginning that the judgment of any person will to a large extent be subjective; I admitted that. The person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board views the matter from another angle and there is only one solution— there is no second solution—and that is to go to a higher authority to get a decision either that the man who produced the product is correct or that the Board which decided that his product is not good was correct. That is why we provide for an appeal to the court. The acceptance of this amendment can only lead to unnecessary delays which can be of no benefit at all either for the producer of the work or for the Board which has to judge of it, and it is for that reason that it is simply impossible to accept the amendment.

I must say that I have a lot of difficulty with the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I cannot see what she wishes to achieve by that amendment, and if she will be more specific—it appears to me to be a sudden inspiration on her part and that she depended on her feminine intuition— I can listen to her again, but my advisers and I find ourselves in the difficulty of not knowing precisely what the hon. member envisages and what the object is.

I would like to have the opportunity to make myself a little more explicit. The idea is simply to curtail the powers of the board in such a way that all it can do is to advise that a prosecution should be instituted; that is all. I do not want it to have any of the other powers. If this were acceptable to the hon. the Minister I would have to move a whole lot of deletions in subsequent clauses to curtail the powers given to the board under this measure.

I think it is really an evil and sad day for South Africa if members of this House can come along and offer the time factor, the question of a certain amount of trouble, as an excuse as to why justice should not be done. The member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) has come along with the excuse that justice—because this is a matter of justice—need not be done because it is going to be difficult in many cases to trace the person concerned. Surely that difficulty is also experienced when a case is instituted in a court of law; after all, the person who is charged also has to be traced. Is the fact that a person cannot be traced in a civil matter any reason why we should close our courts or why magistrates should decide cases in secret? Surely it is a fantastic argument to say that simply because a person cannot be traced, or can only be traced with difficulty, notice should not be given to him to appear before such a Publications Board. But is it really going to be so difficult to trace persons who are directly concerned with a certain complaint submitted to the Publications Board? Not only am I sure that we shall be able to trace most of the writers of South Africa, but the bookseller who sold the book will also be charged, and surely it is not difficult to find out who he is. The name of the printer appears in the book. It would not be difficult therefore to let both the printer and the publisher know that a charge has been laid against them with the Publications Board. Take the case of a painting. After all, that painting hangs somewhere in an art gallery or it is exhibited in a shop for sale. It is quite a simple matter to trace the artist. Does the hon. member want to tell me that it is not possible, for example, to trace the producer of a drama when it is produced in the Labia Theatre or elsewhere? To my mind it is absolutely ridiculous to use that as an excuse for not doing justice to an artist whose works are being attacked.

The hon. the Minister’s argument that my amendment will protract things and take up time is in the same category. Let us assume that we advanced that argument in the case of civil matters; let us assume that we said that it will take time to hear evidence and therefore evidence cannot be heard. Just imagine how subversive that would be of our whole system of law. To refuse to allow persons to come and give evidence with regard to their own works would also be subversive of the justice which one hopes the hon. the Minister seeks, in this Bill, and most certainly the justice to which the artist and the writer and the sculptor are entitled. Greater rights are being given here to the complainant than to the person who is charged. The complainant will have to state his case before the Board by way of affidavit. That is the normal procedure. The miserable writer, the author, does not even know that a complaint has been submitted against him to the Board; he has no chance to defend himself.

The hon. the Minister says that he is afraid that malicious persons will inundate the Board with cases of that nature, with witnesses who have to be called. That is not the position. Our amendment merely asks that only persons who are directly concerned with the matter should be given this opportunity, and I have already mentioned the names of the people who will be directly concerned with a particular publication or a particular object. In the case of a book it is the publisher, the bookseller and the author. I do not know of more than three persons who are concerned in the matter. I do not suppose that anyone of them would have to be examined for longer than 20 minutes or half-an-hour, and in addition to that we must remember that mischief-makers and malicious persons are restricted in their activities by the provision that a special fee is payable. The hon. the Minister can be assured that under our common law persons will not be allowed to undermine the work of such a Board by deliberately trying to inundate it with unnecessary work. That is by no means the object of my amendment. My amendment is intended to give the writer, the artist, the sculptor, the producer and the newspaperman an opportunity to state their case before this great stigma is placed upon them—because it is a stigma to be found guilty by the Publications Board of having distributed an undesirable object. It is a stigma that is placed on these people, and it is placed on them before the matter goes to court. They practically go to court with the knowledge that the case has already been decided against them by the Publications Board. If a case is decided against any person by the Publications Board, that person is going to be bound when he goes to court; he goes to court with a heavy burden on his shoulders, with a millstone around his neck, because a decision has already been taken against him, and that decision itself is going to be regarded as strong and valuable evidence against him—and that miserable artist will have had no opportunity beforehand to appear before the Board to state his own case there. What I am pleading for is ordinary fairness and justice for the artists, the writers, and the sculptors of South Africa.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is now making the position so complicated that he has fallen into the trap himself. He hardly knows what he is saying any more. He mentions persons who have a direct interest and who have to be given notice. He mentions the writer, the bookseller and the publisher but I want to ask the hon. member how many booksellers there are who are going to sell this book eventually? Does the hon. member want all the booksellers in South Africa who are going to put that book on their shelves for sale to be given notice? Does the hon. member for Orange Grove know that there will be approximately 200 or 300 of them and that when all those persons eventually turn up at the board with their legal advisers there will be a host of people making representations to the Board?

But take this further argument: The hon. member insists that the parties concerned should be given notice that they can submit representations. I told the hon. member a moment ago that there may be cases where it is impossible to trace such persons. They have simply disappeared. According to the hon. member’s amendment the onus rests on the board to give such a person notice and to see that he receives the notice. In other words, such a person will have a defence if he is able to prove that the board’s notice did not reach him. The board will not be able to put up the defence that it was not able to trace him. It will have to prove that notice was given to him and that he received the notice. But what may happen is this; Such a writer may disappear altogether; nobody knows where he is, and the onus will still rest on the board to give him notice before banning his book. They will have to give him notice that he can submit representations within seven days. In other words, if such a writer or such a printer disappears from the face of the earth or flees South Africa, it will mean that the board will never be able to prohibit the book of such a writer. It will not be able to do so because it has not been able to trace that person to give him notice that he is entitled to submit representations. Such a book may even have been published under a non-de-plume. In other words, the object of this board will simply be defeated. I think with this amendment of his and with the arguments advanced by him the hon. member has shown how essential it is that this clause should be accepted as it stands so that when a publication or a film or something of that kind is submitted to the board for its consideration it will be able to come to its decision by following a procedure which is quick and fair.

No, now I really do not understand the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe). It seems to me that his arguments are becoming wilder and wilder. We are now told about writers who are going to disappear entirely, who are going to flee this country, and whom it will never be possible to trace.

There are many of them already.

What does the hon. member think of the profession of journalism and of writers and of authors here in South Africa?

What do you know about it?

Surely the answer is perfectly clear. When a person is charged before a court, for example, there are certain methods by which notice is given to him, and he is asked to present himself within a stipulated time. If he does not present himself, the case continues. The hon. the Minister may be able to devise better methods—for example a notice in the Government Gazette; I do not say that I recommend it—by which a person can be asked to appear before the Publications Board within seven days, and if he does not appear within, say 21 or 14 or 10 days, or whatever the period may be, the board will go on with its investigation into the matter. After all, that is a simple procedure which is followed in many other cases in our administration of justice.

The hon. member says that a host of booksellers will have to appear before the board. If a host of booksellers does appear before the board, then it means that the person who lays the charge has to report the names of each of those booksellers to the board, whereas, to make things easy for him, he would report first one particular bookseller to the board. He would say that he bought the book from a particular bookseller in a particular street, a book published by such and such a person and written by such and such a person. He would lay a charge against the one bookseller: he would be a fool if he laid a charge against 300 booksellers because surely he knows that his case would then drag on a very long time. To me the argument mat we have heard here about writers fleeing this country and disappearing, sounds ridiculous. The answer is that notice can be given in some way or another to persons who have a direct interest in this particular matter. In practically 90 per cent of the cases it will be possible to trace the person concerned.

It is obvious that in some cases there might be difficulties but that applies to all proceedings before the courts in inquiries of this nature, and it would be quite easy for the hon. the Minister to deal with that. Sir, I want to deal with the principle of the hon. member’s amendment. It is a very important principle. It is a well-recognized principle of our law; it comes from the old Roman Law. I refer to the old rule of audi alteram partem, that the other party must be given the right to be heard. If the hon. the Minister would follow me I think that he will agree that it is right that something should be done in that regard. There may be very big financial interests involved in certain cases, and it is only right that the aggrieved person should be given the right to be heard. I do hope that the Minister will agree in principle to accept this amendment even if he asks that the clause stands over so that he can examine any difficulties that there may be and then come forward himself with an amendment in the appropriate form. At the present time, as this Bill stands, no person who is vitally interested has the right to make representations to the board before a decision is given. I put this point of view to the hon. the Minister because the appeal under Clause 14 to which hon. members have referred is of a very limited nature. Appeals from decisions of the board under Clause 14 are covered by these rules—

It is a very limited right indeed, and it is quite clear, as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has said, that persons may have very considerable interests at stake. They will have no idea that a particular publications is being examined; they have not opportunity of making representations and putting their submissions before the board, and finally it seems clear to me that in very many cases an appeal will not lie to the courts under the provisions of Clause 14 of this Bill as it now reads. I do hope that the Minister will be prepared to concede that it would be wrong to depart from the time-honoured rule that the other party has the right to be heard. He should find ways and means, which I believe can be found, to give effect in principle to the amendment for which the hon. member for Orange Grove is pleading. I realize that there are certain difficulties hut I believe that we have a duty to protect the rights of the interests concerned, and I can think of nothing more reasonable than to give interested parties the right to be heard before a decision is taken by the board. Even if it means that this clause should stand over, I hope that the Minister would take that course.

It seems to me that there is still going to be a good deal of discussion on this clause and I want to move at this stage—

Agreed to.