I should like to move two amendments to Clause 8—

I would just like to explain the effect of these two amendments. The word “grant” is being replaced in the English text by the word “approval ”. In the Afrikaans text “verlening” is replaced by “goedkeuring ”. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) brought it to my notice last night that the word “grant” has a very poor meaning in that sense, and that he would prefer the word “approval ”. We went into the matter this morning. We consulted the law advisers and they agreed. On the initiative of the hon. member for South Coast we are therefore now moving this amendment. The Afrikaans text is accordingly amended by substituting the word “goedkeuring” for the word “verlening”, I further want to point out that these amendments are being moved to fit in with Clause 5 (1) (b) (ii). Sub-clause 8 (5) is then amended to the effect that the board will be compelled to publish in the Government Gazette only the list of undesirable things. Only what is declared undesirable is published in the Government Gazette. That to some extent meets the objection of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The hon. member said that someone may voluntarily submit a manuscript to the board to get its opinion, and the mere fact that it is published in the Government Gazette already casts a certain amount of suspicion on the bona fides of that person. I feel that I can meet the hon. member’s difficulties to that extent. After considering the matter I have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to leave it like this. If that author’s work is declared to be undesirable, it will however be published.

May I ask a question before the Minister sits down? What about; publications received through the post? I think that is an important point in regard to this clause.

This amendment will cover all cases. If someone submits a publication to the board and the board approves of it, he will receive the publication back together with a letter saying that there is no objection to it. It will then not be published in the Government Gazette that such a person has submitted something to the board. If, however, it should be declared to be undesirable it will be published in the Government Gazette, because the publishers and the printers have to be warned that the work has already been declared by the board to be undesirable.

At last there is some improvement in the clause as a result of the Minister’s amendments, but the amendments do not yet improve the clause as a whole. I want, however, to say that the hon. the Minister has missed the point I made just now. In terms of Clause 8 (1) (c) and (d), which refer obviously to Clause 5, the board has the right of total prohibition in regard to any imported publication. None will come in without a permit; they will have to be approved under the conditions laid down by the board. The point that I want clarity on is to my mind an important one. From evidence it is clear that many thousands of publications come in directly to private persons on subscription. How are these people who receive these through the post, how is the ordinary citizen to know that they are subscribing to a particular periodical in respect of which the board may say “We have not given a permit for the importation thereof ”. Last night I quoted the case of the Daily Mirror. I did not do so for nothing. Many thousands of copies of the weekly Daily Mirror are sent to subscribers. Yet the hon; the Minister knows that in the past particular issues of the Daily Mirror have been banned, but whilst they were banned at the port of entry and were not for general sale, the fact remains that many thousands of copies of the banned issue were circulated because they came through the post, to people who subscribe directly. What is now going to happen if there is a total prohibition by the board prohibiting the entry of a certain publication? Only by way of permit issued by the board can a copy be imported. How is the ordinary citizen who subscribes to the different publications going to know whether he is breaking the law or not? He may subscribe for a publication in respect of which the board has not given a permit. In terms of this Bill, as I understand it, anybody who receives through the mail, by subscription, from abroad, a publication is an importer of a publication, and he falls within the terms of this Bill. My objection to the clause on that basis is this, that it makes a farce of the law, because where the publisher who is dealing in books can only bring imported publications in by way of permit, anybody can get the same publication by way of subscription through the post, without having means of checking whether he is importing one that has been banned or in respect of which the board has refused a permit. I would like the hon. the Minister to make a statement because this affects private citizens, thousands of them, and the Minister should dearly state what his attitude will be in regard to this matter if this Bill becomes law.

I want to reply immediately to the hon. member. I think the hon. member wants more concessions than those I have already made, but these two things are quite different. The concession I made rests on logical grounds. The matter was not thoroughly considered, but what the hon. member raised under (c) and (d) is quite a different principle. That side of the matter was always covered in the past by the Customs Department. Anything entering the country is brought to the notice of the board only if the customs officials bring it to their notice. Only then can the board act. That remains the same. The same principle of the censorship of foreign material is maintained. The hon. member knows that Clause 20 regulates the whole matter, and I cannot agree with him. The position will remain as it is to-day, that people will be able to read something until the board prohibits it. Until such time as the board says that these things will not be allowed to enter further, they will be able to obtain them. If it is then prohibited, the person who has subscribed to it will simply no longer receive it. Then it may no longer enter the country. It is the same as the position is to-day. And if it arrives the customs officials will simply impound it after having referred it to the board. Previously the customs practically did it themselves, and they had to make tests at random, but now the Customs Department will refer more things to the board, and there will be many more readers, a panel of readers, to judge of it—precisely the same procedure we had before except that it is much improved.

I do not think the hon. the Minister expects anyone to be satisfied with the reply he gave me last night on the amendment which I had moved. Perhaps I did not state my case clearly enough. The position is this, Sir, that if you go through the list of books which have been banned and declared to be undesirable by the Censorship Board, or rather by the Minister, it is noticeable that recently more and more books dealing with South African politics and also with African politics have appeared on the banned list. Whether the Minister refuses to regard that as “political censorship” or not, we can leave it at that for the moment. Different people attach different meanings to different words. The fact of the matter is that recently an increasing number of books dealing with South African politics and with developments in Africa has been placed on the banned list. I do not think the Minister will deny that books such as “The Road to Sharpeville” by Bernard Sachs and “Independence for Africa” by Gwendolen Carter are books which do not deal with sex but with politics; those are political works and they have been banned as political books. It has not been possible for me to read anything like all those works and I am not judging all of them but I have read a few of those works before they were banned. “Independence for Africa” is one of them. I say most emphatically to-day that as far as the banned books which I have had the opportunity of reading are concerned, I could not find any good reason why they should have been banned. My honest opinion, based on the reading which I have done myself, is that there are clear signs that the Government is beginning to ban books because they are critical of the political and racial policy of the Government and for no other reason.

Will the hon. member allow me to ask a question? If he thinks that that happened under the present set-up what reason can he advance to show that this so-called political censorship will be more strict or less strict in future? What does the hon. member think; why should it be more strict under this new legislation?

For the simple reason that lately that has been the clear trend.

But we now have a new Bill.

But circumstances and the background remain the same.

Does the hon. member want to tell me that the Minister exercises so much influence over the Censorship Board that he can instruct them what to do and what not to do?

The hon. the Minister is the person who has to sign a banning order. All the Censorship Board does is to submit it to him.

He will no longer sign in future.

The Minister is the only person who, according to his own taste, appoints the control board. The fact of the matter is that there has been an intensification of the banning of books dealing with South African politics. The proof is there. If the hon. the Minister thinks I am wrong, then surely he has nothing to hide and he can accept my amendment, can he not? All I am asking is that this Parliament should have the right to inspect books of a political nature which are banned by compelling the control board which is to be established to send a copy of all political works which are to be banned to the parliamentary library. If the Minister is convinced that this new control board will not manifest the same tendency of intensifying the banning of political works, if he has nothing to fear and nothing to hide, why can he not accept the amendment? The hon. the Minister does have something to hide, or he has not. But even if the Minister does have something to hide I still think it is only right that this Parliament should have the privilege of inspecting those books and of keeping an eye over the activities of this new control board.

A kind of super censorship board?

If other control boards are placed under the supervision of Parliament why not this one?

Surely members of Parliament have the right to obtain those books?

How can they obtain a book which has been banned? Must a member, in the case of every book, first go and plead with the control board and must he then at his own expense go and look for a book which he cannot buy anywhere because it has been banned in order to judge whether a section of the machinery of State is doing its work properly or not? I am dealing with something much more fundamental, namely a right which is due to this Parliament. The hon. the Minister tried to get away from this matter with the excuse that it was difficult to determine which was a political work and which was not. That is a weak argument. Nobody will tell me that the control board will not be able to distinguish between a work dealing with sex and a work dealing with politics. But if that is the Minister’s difficulty, that he does not have a clear idea what a political work is, then we can accommodate each other, then we can come together and try to find a better definition than that contained in the amendment. I also hope that the Minister will not again come with the story that universities can ask for an exemption if they wish to have a banned book on their shelves. That has nothing to do with the amendment, it has nothing to do with the matter. We are dealing with something very simple, namely the right of Parliament to have insight into the workings of the control board and a convenient opportunity for members of this Parliament to keep an eye over the board’s activities and nothing else.

Are you not satisfied with the supervision of the court?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) even advanced another excuse. He said that we could not prescribe to the parliamentary librarian what he should receive. What an argument! According to law every publisher in South Africa must sent a copy to five libraries when he issues a publication and one of them is the parliamentary library and the parliamentary library has to receive it.

Not the parliamentary library.

The principle has already been accepted; but even if that is not the case, surely this Parliament can prescribe to its own library what to do and issue instructions. The hon. the Minister is very fond of praising the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) by saying that she is at least honest in her politics. I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell us honestly whether he wants to give Parliament the right of insight, the right to supervise as asked for in this amendment, or does he not want to give it? That is all I am asking, and that is all the Minister has to reply to.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has either not read the Bill properly or else he is being rather obstinate. What is his argument? His first argument is that the Minister, this Government, is banning works of a political nature to an increasing extent, that this Minister is taking more and more stringent steps against political writers who do not agree with the policy of the Government.

That is my submission.

Under the existing law, the only man who in the last instance can ban a political book is the Minister. But the purpose of this Bill is to take that power out of the hands of the Minister and the Government. One can see how illogical the hon. member is. This Bill provides that the Minister will no longer have that power, but if the board bans a book, then the publisher or the writer or whoever it may be has the right to go to court to appeal against the banning of that book. Surely that gives the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, all the members of this House and the whole of South Africa ample opportunity to peruse any book which is banned? When that case is taken to court the hon. member has a full opportunity to peruse the book. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout thinks that the book should not be banned, he has the fullest right to make out a case and as a political expert he can be called as a witness to tell the court why that book should not be banned. He has every opportunity to peruse that book. Therefore the hon. member is objecting to a Bill which deprives the Minister of the right to ban a political book! Does he want to retain the right which the Minister now has, or does he want the right of appeal to the courts when a book of a political nature is banned?

My amendment deals with Parliament’s right.

As soon as one appeals to the courts, one gives ample opportunity not only to members of Parliament but to everyone in South Africa to peruse the book in question.

Yes, if there is one case in a thousand.

If there is no appeal, it cannot be such a serious case. But I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I have no objection to the parliamentary library obtaining those books. To tell the truth, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) will remember, I suggested to the Select Committee that these banned works, no matter what their nature, should at least be available in university libraries and other large libraries. I said that those institutions should be exempted from the restrictions imposed by this Bill because there should be some place to which banned books on Communism and other subjects can be sent to be studied. On the Select Committee I actually suggested that the university libraries, the libraries in the larger centres—and I also included the library of Parliament—should be exempted from the provisions of this Bill. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) supported me. There was no objection to that proposal, but we were told later on that that requirement was adequately met by the provision that the Minister can grant exemption to certain bodies. So in principle I have no quarrel with the hon. member. It is merely a question of procedure. Surely it is obvious that if any member of Parliament or any other person knows of a banned book, such member of Parliament can ask the librarian whether he has that book in the library? If the librarian says that he does not have it, then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout can ask him to obtain one.

He may say that he is not going to get it because it is a banned book which he is not allowed to buy.

All that he has to do is to ask the Minister for permission to buy that book because the Minister has said that he will grant that permission. All the members of the Select Committee were satisfied with that explanation—that that power which the Minister has will solve this whole problem of banned political books. They will be available in certain libraries for research and study.

I really should like this matter to be finalized now. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is wrong in wanting us to prescribe by law what kind of books there should be in the parliamentary library. I think that is something unheard of. We have a parliamentary library and we have a parliamentary committee to supervise it. The hon. member can go to the librarian and tell him: I want certain of these banned books, particularly those which have a political colour, to be made available and I want you to apply to the Board (not to the Minister, as the hon. member for Vereeniging said) for permission to have these banned books on the shelves of the parliamentary library. That is all that is necessary. Under the new legislation the Minister has no say in respect of any book, whether it is approved of or not, but the law leaves an opening for individuals and libraries, including the parliamentary library, to direct this request to the librarian, and I am sure that if he is told that it is in the interest of members of Parliament to know what is contained in any banned political book, he will acquire it. But we cannot prescribe what type of books should be kept in this library. The hon. member can deal with the matter through the parliamentary committee concerned. The Senate and the House of Assembly are represented on that committee, and the orderly way of doing things is to approach that Committee. Why now insist that we should enforce certain things by legislation?

The hon. the Minister has said that we have a library committee that can handle this. I am a member of the library committee, and I think the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is eminently reasonable and constructive from the point of view of our library committee and the conduct of our library itself. We are here called upon to give South Africa legislation to control undesirable literature. We should like to know as members of Parliament, as members of this Legislature, what progress this Publication Control Board is making and we should like to see every book that they have condemned. If we do not like the way in which they have condemned books, we will introduce amending legislation to give us a better board and a better method of control. It is our duty. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) suggests that this Parliament should not have the power to control a control board, that the Minister should not have the power! The hon. the Minister will appoint a Publications Board which will carry out the functions which were formerly entrusted to him, and if he gives them that power, surely he wishes to know from day to day how that work is being carried out? How is he to know? There is only one way and that is that there should be available to every member of this Parliament the books that are condemned, and I shall certainly press for this in the library committee. By the way, the library committee does not meet frequently, which suggests that we are conducting our work very satisfactorily. But the point is that those books ought to be available for every member here if he wants to read a book that has been banned and wants to see such a book to ascertain the reason why it has been banned. It is our duty. It is not a privilege, I think the hon. member’s amendment is not only reasonable but also constructive. It is in the interest of this committee and this House, and I sincerely trust that the hon. Minister will accept it. There is no risk being run. All books should be available to members of Parliament, and perhaps some of them would do us a lot of good.

This amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has been discussed since yesterday and I think that the position has already been explained ten times. But the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) still cannot understand it. I think this is due to the fact that they asked for Clause 5 to stand over. We have not dealt with Clause 5 yet and I do not think hon. members have read Clause 5 either. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I ask you to ask the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to keep quiet. It is impossible to talk. All he does is to grumble and mutter and it is impossible to continue with that sort of thing going on.

Order!

That is quite unfair, Mr.

Chairman.

He is never quiet; he keeps on talking all the time.

If the hon. member for Turffontein does not stop interjecting I shall have to deal with him.

The hon. member for Kensington has not yet read Clause 5 (5), and with your permission I would like to read it to him—

This means that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout need not even approach the librarian of Parliament. He can write to the board and ask them for copies of all banned books.

Must I buy them myself?

Yes; does he want us to give them to him as a present? I bought all my books myself. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) can apply for and obtain permission to acquire all those books, or else he can approach the University of Cape Town and say, “Please obtain a permit to acquire all these banned books.” The board will grant that concession to the university, provided that it houses and looks after the books properly, and people can then study all that pornography and all those political books to their hearts’ content. They are not restricted in any way. An exception is now being made which has never been made before in any existing law. Under the present law no person may have a banned book in his possession, but under this Bill we have made an exception so that any person or institution can get permission from the board to obtain those books, and if he has that agreement with the University of Cape Town then it will not cost the hon. member a penny.

While the subject of the library of Parliament is undoubtedly interesting, I think it would be of greater value to concentrate on the reading of our population of 16,000.000 rather than on that of 160 members of the population. It seems to me that the emphasis has now shifted to what M.P.s may read, and not what the public may read; and so I am obliged to return to what, in my opinion, is the most important aspect of this clause, which is to inhibit the freedom to read.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) used another one of his specially curious arguments when he referred to Clause 5 (5), which is not under discussion now; but if you read that clause you see immediately that it contains a sort of conditional exemption where concessions may be granted and exemptions granted, and that must of necessity lead to a form of horse-trading which is not desirable. I do not want to pursue that, however.

In regard to the new attitude of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), he said in reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Why do you complain in advance about what the Minister may not allow you to read in the range of political works? He says the object of this Bill is to take the matter out of the hands of the Minister and the Government, and if you want to read a book which has been banned, all the hon. member need do is to go to the Minister and ask for permission to buy it.

I made a mistake. It is the board, not the Minister.

Wait a minute. The hon. member made that mistake twice, and I want to tell him that subconsciously he is well aware that it is the Minister, and not the Board, who will dictate eventually what can or cannot be read. If you still doubt that. Sir, I would remind the committee and the hon. member of the fact that he had hardly sat down when the Minister stood up to pluck this chestnut from the fire.

You are very petty now.

Yes, all the noble spirits sit on the cross-benches. When the Minister rose he said to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: You must apply to the board. He emphasized it twice, in order to dispel the impression which he immediately realized had been created by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

Is the hon. member aware that at the moment the Minister has not that power?

I think in asking the question the hon. member must not put words into my mouth. I am not defending the existing law; I am criticizing the present Bill, and I am not prepared to answer fatuous questions on that basis. I am considering the clause, and the statement deliberately made by the hon. member for Vereeniging which he would now like to eliminate from the record. So I come back to my argument. The hon. member may argue until he is blue in the face that it is not the Minister, but an independent body which decides, and that it is purely fortuitous that a band of independent do-gooders will ban a certain work; and then he asks why we complain about the powers given to the board, because the Minister and the Government have nothing to do with it! But that is completely misleading, and the hon. member with his great experience of political manoeuvring should know it. and that this is Government legislation designed for a purpose with which he agrees, and I oppose. Look at sub-section (1) (d) —it says that the board has power by notice in the Gazette to prohibit the importation of publications or objects which deal with a specified subject except under the authority of a permit issued by the board. The hon. member must realize that by a stroke of the pen an entire category of reading material can quietly be eliminated from the reading matter available in this country. The board decides it, and we must accept its opinion. I would like to give an example. There are people who are spiritualists. That is their business. There is a fair amount of literature obtainable on the subject in the country. Any member of that board who happens on religious grounds to oppose spiritualism can persuade the board to prohibit the importation of anything that has the slightest reference to such a subject. Does the hon. member wish to convince me that that is impossible? The only thing he does is to quibble as to who will be responsible for the decision. I say it is the Minister and the Government, and he says it is this board of altruistic people, and the public of South Africa, in the light of its bitter experience, will have to decide which is the correct picture. In terms of (d) (ii) the board can deal with any object if in the opinion of the board those publications or objects are undesirable or likely to be undesirable. I have some difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words, “or likely to be undesirable”, because we still have to hear a definite definition of what is undesirable. So one asks oneself what the significance is of those words. I do not know, and because of the difficulty I had in getting an answer from the Minister who said in effect that I could draw my own conclusions, I will draw my own conclusions. The addition of those words, “or likely to be undesirable”, seems to be necessary because the board to-day may say that an object or book is not undesirable, but whether it would be “likely to be undesirable” is another matter. In a year from now, because of certain developments and because of the change in ideas, things may have changed. The Minister himself said that we are not standing still. [Time limit.]

The hon. member has placed a completely wrong interpretation on (d) (ii). It deals only with books which are imported and not with books printed locally. The position is that there are certain writers and publishers overseas who write nothing but indecent works or communist propaganda, and that is why the board is being given the power to say: We know that writer A or publisher B only produces either communistic or indecent books and for that reason their publications are probably undesirable and therefore we do not want any more of their books. If the position has so changed after a year that we are just as enlightened as the hon. member, there is nothing to prevent the importer from taking that book to the board once again and saying: “Another year has gone by and you may now appreciate this book.” If that does not work, they can do the same thing the next year, and they can continue to do so until they have “educated” us to such an extent that we will realize that it is a great work. This only affects imported books and writers and publishers who have proved in the past that their work is undesirable and that for that reason their subsequent work will probably also be undesirable.

Last night we discussed sub-sec. (5) and as the result we had some improvement in it by virtue of the amendment moved this afternoon, but I am rather horrified to find that I have been misled by the arguments the Minister gave me just now. I think the superficiality of his arguments on what I raised here is shocking. I want to point out to the Minister that in terms of sub-sec. (5) (1) (c) no publication, whether it is a soft-cover book or a magazine or a periodical, below the retail selling-price of R1 may be imported into the country without a permit from the board.

Make it 50c.

If the Minister reads the Bill he will see the price overseas is 50c, and I refer to the retail price here of R1 and less, because do not forget that we also have a tax on soft-cover books, which makes a difference. The Minister will then agree that the definition of “publication” includes magazines and periodicals. Now in terms of (5) (1) (c), nothing below the retail selling price of R1 may be imported without a permit and sub sec. (2) of this clause makes that quite clear. Now the point is this. We know that as bulk supplies go through the customs they will be checked there and the officials will know whether or not a permit has been issued by the board for the importation of any publication.

But in the case of dumping, they just send it along without a permit.

But no publisher may import without a permit. If the publisher wants to get in 20.000 copies without a permit, that is his loss, and what publisher will want to do that, and import things that nobody wants to read? Will he import 20,000 copies of a magazine when he knows the market for it is only about 10,000?

If the importers can get it at about 2c each, do you think they will not take it?

I can see what is in the Minister’s mind now. He has what is known as “remainders” in the trade completely confused with the whole issue of publications, and the Booksellers’ Association tried to help the Minister right but he refused to see them.

You are riding the same old horse you did last night.

I challenge the Minister to read the correspondence in his file. But what I want to point out is this, and I think it is necessary that the reading public should know it. The evidence is clear from Mr. Hattingh of the Customs Department. He says—

Then he goes on to indicate that the bulk bags are almost immediately sent to the booksellers, but some 500 to 600 bags are also sent to individuals through the post and in each of those bags there are about 200 books. So in Cape Town alone there is something like 15,000 publications coming through the post every month, and these people will now have to get a permit in terms of the Bill. So this clause will make law-breakers of all these thousands of people who subscribe to publications from abroad if they do not obtain permits. We put the case to the Minister last night, but he would not agree with us. In the interim he has consulted his law adviser. I suggest to the Minister that if he does not want to make this Bill entirely ridiculous he should again consult with his law advisers, because from the further evidence of Mr. Hattingh it is clear that about 50 per cent of magazines and soft covers entering the country come through the post. How is the ordinary citizen who subscribes to a well-known publication like Match in France to know that he is not breaking the law if the Control Board has not issued a permit allowing that publication to enter? Let us recognize the position. This includes not only books; it is the entire reading matter imported from abroad. The Bill is clear. The definitions are clear. The definition of “publication” is “any book, periodical, pamphlet, poster or other printed matter”, and Clause 5 (1) (d) says that except under the authority of a permit no publisher will be allowed to import it. So everything is subject to a permit from the Control Board. I say that if the Minister does not want to make this Bill entirely farcical, he should at least allow the reading public who subscribe to periodicals from abroad to know what Government policy will be in this regard.

I replied to that last night more than three times.

I listened carefully to he hon. member for Turffontein and he said a few things which are true. It is true that all printed material including periodicals are affected by the provisions of Clause 5, and it is true that the subscriber who receives a periodical directly is an importer of it, and it is true that subscribers will have to see to it that they obey the laws of this land. But why the hon. member had to make such a long speech to tell us what is contained in the Bill, I do not know. But the question is whether it is justified. Here we again come to the debate which should really have been held on Clause 5, which has been postponed but which has repeatedly been mentioned, and that is that there can be no effective method of control if every cheap bit of imported printed matter is to be judged individually and is to be allowed to enter the country or kept out after having been individually considered. Any system of control over undesirable literature must fall flat in the face of the formidable scope of the task. The hon. member correctly referred to the thousands of postal bags of material arriving in Cape Town every month. We can take it that the postal material going to the other cities will be just as much, and almost twice as much as this arrives as freight which is inspected by the customs. Now I ask how it is humanly possible to read through all that material and only to allow to enter what has been approved of? It is an impossible task. Consequently the standpoint of the United Party amounts to this: They do not want to have the only practical method, and if they do not want that it means that they want no control over undesirable literature.

But I really want to come to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). He said certain things here of which he should be ashamed. The first allegation he made is this. He said that although an independent board exists, it will be the Minister who will influence that board and really give the final decision. Is he not ashamed of making such a statement in public, in view of the fact that the clause dealing with an appeal provides that any importer of goods referred to in Clause 3 of the Customs Act, which comprises all printed material, has an appeal against the decision of the board? How can he tell such an untruth as to say that eventually the Minister will be in a position to influence the board and to force his will down on them, whilst the aggrieved importers are being given a right of appeal here which they never had before? That is the second point in reply to the hon. member’s irresponsible statements. At the moment the law says that if the question arises as to whether certain material is unsuitable, the decision of the Minister is final. Where the decision of the Minister is being replaced by that of the Board of Control and is made subject to an appeal to the courts, that hon. member still has the temerity and the irresponsibility to say here: We cannot trust the law: it is the Minister who will decide. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself.

He started his speech—something which surprised me still more—by saying that he is not much concerned with the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who tries to get banned material made available to Members of Parliament; he said he was not talking on behalf of the 160, but the 16,000,000. Is he not ashamed of not even having a conception of what his own party envisages, and is the United Party not ashamed of that hon. member?

To come then to the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I accept that he moved it in good faith, but, as I have already been shown, the amendment was drafted and moved due to a lack of study of the Bill, because machinery has already been established for what the hon. member seeks to obtain. The hon. member now laughs, but does he want to suggest that it is probable that if the committee controlling the parliamentary library directs a request to the board that the committee should be permitted to import any banned material, that permission will be refused?

Must I infer from that that the Government members on that committee will help us to get that provision accepted?

It is not necessary to get a provision accepted, but the hon. member has my undertaking that I will consider it reasonable that the committee of the parliamentary library should be able to purchase any banned work which they consider it important to have. If the Board of Control should do the incredibly fantastic thing of ever refusing a request made by the parliamentary library, I would support the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I am sure the hon. the Minister would also do so, in telling the Control Board not to act so imprudently.

So much for the arguments we have just heard here, but before concluding I just want to come back to the idea expressed here that a series of publications can be banned; that everything published by one publisher can be banned in future—all future things which in the opinion of the board will probably be undesirable. Do hon. members know that this power already exists to-day? They talk as if it is a brand new power which is being granted here. The Customs Act which is in operation to-day and which is evidently satisfactory to all of us, contains the following specific provision—

In other words, the series of periodicals and newspapers referred to by the hon. member for Turffontein can to-day be banned by the Minister by means of two successive publications in the Government Gazette. There is no appeal to a court; there is no consideration by a board; there is only a Minister who is very busy and who is continually being worried by the customs officials in regard to this publication or that one, and in desperation, or for some other reason, he decides by means of two successive publications in the Government Gazette to prohibit the importation of that periodical. [Time limit.]

I am sad to hear from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that his ideas have changed even between the time that he was on the Select Committee and now. There was a time when the hon. member for Vereeniging was one of the sturdiest defenders of individual freedom in this House. Now I hear this afternoon, if I understood him correctly, that when he was on the Select Committee he was prepared to move that libraries were exempted from the provisions of this particular clause, but since then he has changed his mind. He has realized that it is just as easy or perhaps even simpler to go along to the Minister as he put it—although he must have meant the board—and get an exemption in respect of certain books.

The entire Select Committee was completely satisfied with that.

The hon. member says that the entire Select Committee was completely satisfied although he at first wanted an exemption for libraries, which showed perhaps the last dying spark of his own spirit of individuality. Since then even that has gone. I was interested to hear what the hon. member had to say on the question of censorship and the right of people to read what they like and to see what they like and listen to what they like. Some ten years ago we had a debate in this House on the Interior Vote, and I would like to read to the committee what was said by the hon. member who was then the member for North Rand. Sir, I do not mind people changing their minds, but the hon. member has changed his entire philosophy. And that is a very different thing indeed. There was a discussion about the introduction of a censorship board and the appointment of a commission to go into the whole need for censorship and the censoring of literature in South Africa, and this is what the hon. member said—

He then went on to say this—and this is what I like because it was really the last spark of individual freedom in the hon. member—

Well, the hon. member has changed his mind very much. [Interjection.] The hon. member has changed his mind completely. If people like “Hasie” now they certainly cannot have it, not unless the Minister’s board says that “Hasie” may be distributed, because do not forget that gramophone records are also included in the definition of something that is published, so the hon. member has changed his mind. But it is not only he who has changed his mind; the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has also changed his mind. I should like to read out what the hon. member said in the debate in 1953 on the Interior Vote. I happened to be looking up something else but I came across this, and it is even better than what I was looking for. The hon. member was again giving us his views on Shakespeare, Flaubert and Rousseau; he had a lot to say about all these gentlemen and he went to Russia again in those days as he went last night. This time he was talking about Tolstoy and he said that there were different methods of presenting scenes, as he said again yesterday; that a scene could be presented in a way which was offensive or in an inoffensive way.

He is consistent.

He is consistent in that but in those days he was not at all keen on having a board of censors to decide what was being presented offensively and was not being presented offensively, because in those days this is what he had to say about a board of censors—

Well, the hon. members have both changed their minds a great deal since those days and they have changed their whole philosophy and their whole outlook. The hon. member for Vereeniging is on a slippery path to an even greater extent because he has changed his mind since the sitting of the Select Committee. At one stage he was at least prepared to grant these exemptions; now he says that that is not necessary at all; let us have a blanket plan and let us go cap in hand to the Minister’s board, and if we are good little boys and girls the board will say, “Yes, you may have this book” or “You may read that book”, Sir, this is the new attitude in the whole of South Africa. The hon. Minister last night made a startling statement in connection with Clause 8 (1) (a). This is the clause that allows any person on payment of a prescribed fee to lodge a complaint. Perhaps I have missed it in the Bill although I have examined it pretty closely but there seems to be no clause which lays down this prescribed fee. Or is this simply going to be left to regulation? I presume it is going to be left to regulation. Perhaps the hon. member for Fort Beaufort could tell me. No, the hon. member does not know either. Well, I assume that it still has to be laid down so it could be 50 cents, it could be R1 or R2. Nobody knows exactly how much the prescribed fee is going to be.

It will be laid down by regulation.

The point is that anybody who can get together enough money, be it R1 or R2 or R5, can go along and demand that literature be examined by the board, allowing any old Mother Grundy to decide that she is offended, not by an entire book, but by any part of it, by a sentence in it, by one word in it, by Flaubert, by Shakespeare, even by the Bible.

Don’t drag the Bible into it.

Sir, this is possible. Once the fee has been paid the board will have to examine any book which any person demands should be examined. I have moved an amendment on this clause which I hope will be accepted, although I know that it brings in a sort of pre-publication censorship; we have got that anyway but I am trying to limit the whole thing by stating that the only people who may apply to the board to have books, manuscripts, etc., read shall be people with a direct interest in the subsequent publication, distribution and sale thereof. That is why I have moved to insert after the words “any person” the words “who is the author, printer, publisher, manufacturer, maker or producer of any publication or object or who distributes, displays, exhibits or sells, etc.” may then ask the board to examine the publication or object. This at least limits it to the people who are directly concerned with the publication, printing, etc., of the object. The hon. the Minister likes the idea of allowing anybody to have this right, and that is what worries me. Sir, it is not the ordinary citizen who is going to bother with this sort of thing. If only the Minister would realize that.

Why worry then?

I am worried because it is going to be the cranks who are going to go in for this sort of thing, the old ladies who have nothing better to do but to run around looking for something scandalous in everything in public life.

But they have the right at the present moment to do that.

But there is no Board of Censors at the present moment, until this Bill is passed, to whom they can go.

No, we have a board. They can do it now.

Under what Act can they do it?

Under the old ordinances. I explained it very fully in my second-reading speech.

They have to go through a much more difficult procedure. They have to get the Attorney-General to institute a prosecution. Surely I am right in saying that. It is not a matter of a ready-made board to which any person who decides that somebody has written a book which does not please him or her, or one word in that book, can go. [Time limit.]

I am afraid that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has appeared on the political scene a little bit too late in my life for her to follow my trend of thought and to know how my philosophy has developed; she only entered the scene half-way through. She talks about 1953 when I already had one and a half feet outside the United Party and when she assisted in pushing the other half a foot out as well. In 1953, as in the early ’forties, after I had been a member of the Board of Censors, I wrote articles to show how obsolete, how ineffective that censorship board was and that new legislation was necessary. In 1953 there was talk about legislation, but legislation cast in the same mould as the present Film Censor Board which has no access to the courts and which is a censorship board. I was not in favour of a censorship board. From the very beginning of the early ’forties I was against a censorship board. I am pleased that my hon. friends on the Select Committee assisted me in getting a board of control and not a censorship board. As far back as 1959 already I had submitted a memorandum to the present Minister of Coloured Affairs in which I said that the basic principle should be a board of control with a norm and access to the courts. That has always been my attitude and the hon. member came upon the scene half-way through when I was more than three-quarters out of the United Party and she never took the trouble, or did not want to, of delving a little into the past to find out what motivated me to come to the conclusions to which I have come in these matters. I said at that time that if there were a censorship board which had to function in the same way as the present board it would have required a legion of people in order to do its work. The present Film Censorship Board is expected to read everything which comes in and they cannot do it and that is precisely the reason why certain categories, certain paperbacks under 50 cent are excluded in this Bill. That is done so that it will be possible for the board to read the books which are submitted to them and to judge them properly. That is precisely the reason why this Bill has been drafted in this way, because as far back as 1953 I criticized the idea of a censorship board which is what the present board is.

I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton, and not only her but certain people who write to the newspapers, in all seriousness please to stop dragging in the Bible as an example when they discuss pornographic works. I can only say that to my mind that is as close to blasphemy as it can be and I am sure that I am interpreting the feeling of the greater section of the nation. I want to ask them to refrain from placing God’s word on the same plane as the obscenities which we get from certain writers. I want to ask them with all the seriousness at my command not to drag the Bible into discussions of this nature.

The hon. member accused both myself and the hon. member for Vereeniging for having insisted on the freedom of the human being, on the freedom of speech and on the freedom to write, and that in this Bill, in this clause in particular, the freedom of the human being to read and to write what he wants to is supposed to be placed under complete restraint. The hon. member says I am completely wrong; that nowhere in the world is there a law which can have a similar effect. She says England is the most enlightened country in the world and there you can read and write what you want; they do not have a board or legislation like this which has this effect. I just want to read to her what the position is in England. Here I have an article which appeared in the London Times of Friday, 14 December last year. This newspaper gives a summary of what was said by Mr. Cecil King, chairman of the Daily Mirror Group. One of the hon. members on that side sang a song of praise the other evening to the Daily Mirror and said that we were afraid of the Daily Mirror, they regard it as a very good newspaper. Mr. Cecil King, chairman of the Daily Mirror Group, wrote as follows in his annual report to the General Council of the Press, according to the summary in this newspaper—

His words are—

That is the position in England according to him. The hon. member says that in England you find the greatest freedom in the world. She says that there they are free to read and write what they want. Here the chairman of one of the greatest newspaper groups says that the laws of England are such that if you try to criticize the Government or to get at the truth, to get behind the facade, you will find that the Government has weapons just as effective as the censorship imposed by a totalitarian regime. That is the developed country, Sir, the position there is better than the position which Clause 8 of this Bill will create. I just want to read a few further extracts. He says—

What does that prove?

It proves that it is a gross exaggeration to say that this Bill is a retrogressive step because the position is that even in England they have much stricter legislation than this Bill.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) referred very casually to the 1953 debate on censorship and to the Afrikaans song “Hasie, hoekom is jou stert so kort”. The 1953 incident brought to my mind a very good cartoon which appeared in the Transvaler “Hasie, hoekom is jou stert so kort; V.P. wat het van jou stertjie ge-word?” Mr. Chairman, with this type of debate the tail of the United Party will be cut shorter and shorter.

I have dealt to some extent with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) who, I hope after having taken the necessary succour, is back in our midst. I indicated that the hon. member would have been ashamed of himself had he been capable of it, and I then appealed to his party to be ashamed of him. I think in the circumstances, where the matter at issue was the ignorance of the hon. member—I do not believe that his ignorance is as great as his deliberateness—it is desirable that we bring back the approach to this discussion to the existing basis where only overseas publications are controlled. Section 21 (3) of the Customs Act of 1955 deals mainly with it and I make no apology for the fact that I read the whole section, because I am very sure that the hon. member for Hospital has not read it. For his edification, therefore, although at the cost of boring those who have read it, I shall read the whole section—

and persons are not excluded from any “goods”—

that the Minister can prohibit any material which he finds to be indecent and which is already being published.

As far as this is concerned I just wish to point out how wrong the approach has been in this debate: By appointing a censorship board no new principle is being introduced; by appointing a board to consider matters no new principle is being introduced; the principle is contained in the Customs Act. At the moment the principle is that nothing may be imported unless it is approved by the Minister of the Interior after he has referred the specific matter to the Board of Censors which is appointed under the Entertainments (Censorship) Act. But what is the practical effect of this? The practical effect is this: The goods proposed to be imported must be kept back till the Board of Censors have read them; they then have to advise the Minister and the Minister gives his decision. That is what we are complaining about, what the people of South Africa are complaining about, because there is incomplete control over the material which is imported because it is physically impossible to read everything that is imported. But if the provision of the existing law is applied a most untenable position can be created. Goods that are imported can simply be detained for weeks before they are released for distribution because the hon. the Minister is quite entitled to say: Until such time as the Board of Censors have advised me, I am not giving any decision; you have to wait whether it takes a week, two weeks or a few months. That is the first improvement. Where there can be arbitrary delay at the moment, we are now laying down a procedure which will operate rationally and smoothly. I referred a moment ago to the second improvement and that is that the Minister’s unbridled discretion is replaced by expert consideration and by an appeal to the court. But this section does not only affect imported material; it also affects South African material and in this regard I wish to refer to the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Houghton and which was already expressed yesterday in regard to Clause 8 (a). I think it was the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who made the statement. The objection is that the board can investigate any publication or object at the request of anybody. As a matter of fact the point was already raised in the second reading that this was an invitation to the so-called “snoopers”, people who walk about looking for trouble, who want to instigate a campaign to harm one or other publication. But the board is competent in the first place—the board is not obliged. It has consistently been suggested that as a result of a complaint by any malicious person, the board will be tempted to investigate a publication. That is not the position at all. I think we can safely assume that the board will not allow itself to be tempted by malicious people to institute an investigation unnecessarily.

How will the board know that a book is undesirable or not until such time as the board has read it? How must the board decide which complaints it should accept and which it should refuse?

The hon. member’s point is this that if the board receives a complaint it is not easy for them to decide whether it is a frivolous complaint or not. I think it will judge the complaint according to a few standards. In the first place it will look from whom the complaint comes. There are notorious people in every country who are not in an institution but who should have been there who lodge complaints. That type of complaint will be ignored. In the second place you have the motive which is submitted with the complaint. If anybody sends in a complaint without a motive or a very weak motive the board will apparently be less inclined to investigate the complaint. In the third place you have the probabilities in connection with a complaint. If a complaint is made against a writer it is more probable that the board will, if they had found previously that he wrote undesirable material, investigate such a complaint. We are now discussing the question of whether or not they will decide to investigate. I can well imagine that if an inelegantly worded complaint comes in without a motive against a well-known writer, the board will probably not investigate such a complaint or that it will in any case put it in the file for material to be considered at a later date with which they will never deal in practice. Such a frivolous complaint will in any case not set the machinery of the board in motion.

The point which I want to make is that it is laid down in the law that at the request of any person the board must investigate a matter. Apropos of what will the board institute an investigation in general? Let us assume that we only say “The board is competent to investigate any publication or object”. Delete the first portion about fees, etc. In that case the board will decide to investigate a publication as a result of one or other human communication. Somebody may perhaps say orally to the board: “Did you see what the hon. member for Houghton has written?” My point is this that the objection to these words is not that they will do any harm. At the most they can be described as redundant. I shall tell the hon. member why they are not redundant: Because there is the stipulation in regard to money. [Time limit.]

May I have the privilege of the half-hour, Sir? [Laughter.] What is happening here? The Opposition has collapsed completely. Hon. members must not think they are bluffing us. It is very clear that the only reason why they are no longer taking part in this debate is that they have been completely shattered. They have nothing more to say. The hon. member for Turffontein has been wrong so often that he is even ashamed to take part in the debate. Every time he opens his mouth it becomes clear that he knows nothing about the law. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout who is such a brave member, has been so shattered by the Minister in regard to that ridiculous little amendment of his that he is dead silent now. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that there is an appeal to the court, doesn’t he?

Look at the Order Paper and you will see I have the same amendment there.

To this clause?

No, to a subsequent one.

No, we want it to this clause. I should like to know what the hon. member for East London (City) thinks about this Bill. I should like to know what he thinks of all these wild and woolly stories which come from his side.

May I ask a question? Is the Minister going to speak again in this debate?

Mr. Chairman, what better proof than that do you want, of what I said a moment ago, that if he opened his mouth he made a fool of himself? The hon. member for Houghton thought she had a very strong point when she said that I had said something in 1953 and that I had now changed my opinion. Why should I not change my opinion? [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London (City) says that I change my opinion every week. To how many parties has he already belonged? I think the only party to which he has not yet belonged is the Dominion Party.

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

Mr. Chairman. I shall definitely return to the clause if hon. members would leave me in peace. They interrupt me and then I have to reply. In this case it so happens that I did not change my opinion, as I shall prove in a moment—in the case to which the hon. member for Houghton referred. But what is wrong with changing your opinion? The hon. member is a pretty, attractive and lovely member, but she can improve herself greatly by changing her opinion. I have already changed my opinion and look at the improvement in me. She can undergo a similar change, unlike the hon. member for Turffontein, because he can change his opinion as often as he wants to and he will remain the sort of member he is.

As I have said, in the case to which the hon. member for Houghton has referred, it so happens that I did not change my opinion. She says I have changed my opinion because I moved on the Select Committee that university libraries, State libraries and the parliamentary library should be excluded under this Bill. What actually happened? I moved that, and all the members of the Select Committee supported me. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) supported me. but when we made inquiries from the legal advisers they told us that the board had that power, that the board could make those exceptions. And all the members were satisfied with that explanation. Why did hon. members of the United Party on the Select Committee not move that those libraries should be excluded? The hon. member for Turffontein asked me a question a moment ago but let me ask him a question now: Why was he quite satisfied with that explanation on the Select Committee? Why did he not insist on my motion that those three libraries should be excluded? I am not the one who has changed my opinion but that hon. member. Then the hon. member for Houghton said that I had said in 1953 that there should be light reading material. I have not changed my opinion: of course there must be light reading material. I am fully of that opinion. She said I had said that South Africa compared favourably with the rest of the world as far as undesirable literature was concerned. I am fully of that opinion. South Africa compares brilliantly with the rest of the world. At that time there was a great agitation afoot that there should be a special board of control over local publications. I said that that would be a mistake. I said we could not have two boards, one in respect of overseas publications and one in respect of local publications because in that case local publications would be judged by a different yardstick from overseas publications. I said that it would only create great difficulty and great dissatisfaction.

[Inaudible.]

Of course. This board of control will deal with both local and overseas publications. Then she says I said there should be light music. to-day you like “Hasie hoekom is jou stert so kort” and you develop to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, etc. “Hasie hoekom is jou stert so kort” will be far too heavy for the hon. member for Turffontein. He cannot start with that. He should start with “Bobbejaan klim die berg”, and develop to “Hasie hoekom is jou stert so kort ”.

Hon. members have discussed Clause 5 which is standing over from beginning to end. The most important part of the clause is the part which deals with the 50 cents. I think it is absolutely essential that we explain to the Committee why we have that in the clause. What was the evidence before us? Mr. Erlank said that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the undesirable literature in South Africa came from overseas. So your problem with local publications is a small part of your problem. Then we had the evidence of Mr. Hattingh. He said that 80 per cent of the undesirable literature in South Africa consisted of paperbacks. He quoted the 1956 list of banned publications.

You are not stating the case correctly.

If the hon. member thinks I am not stating the case correctly, I challenge him to get to his feet when I sit down and to state it correctly. He knows that what I am saying is the truth. He must always try to create the impression that what you say is not the truth. He knows that what I am saying is the truth and that is why he is afraid to get up. We on this side of the House are getting very tired of his political stunts but I am afraid we shall have to put up with them for the rest of the five years. [Time limit.]

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is not here. She said she would come back. When I sat down she still interjected that it was not true that there was legislation in England which had a much more drastic effect than Clause 8. She said there was no such legislation. I said clearly that I did not say there was a law in England like this—they do not have such a good law— I said they had legislation, various laws which, taken together, had such an oppressive effect on the expression of free opinion in Great Britain that Mr. King said that if the Government or the Departments were criticized the Government had weapons on which a totalitarian regime could not improve.

I want to quote further legislation which they have in England, Mr. Chairman, which completely overshadows Clause 8. Mr. King goes on and he says this—

That is another law they have there which limits freedom much more than is ever done over here. He says—

I hope hon. members are listening; those hon. members who are continually telling us to what extent freedom of speech and free expression of opinion is allowed in England. I am pleased that the hon. member for Houghton has returned. I am referring to the Scottish Contempt of Court Act and the Official Secrets Act. I just want to read it again for her edification. Mr. King says—

I would still exchange their legislation for ours.

Why do you not go there then? Why do you not go and live in such a free country? Why do you live in one of the backward countries? Why do you not leave for that enlightened country where “British censorship in the shape of Acts is as oppressive as that of any country in the world”? He continues—

They dare not talk. That is the free country, England! He says—

They tell us this clause is political censorship; that we did not want the Government to be criticized. England is free! Here Mr. King says that they are prohibited from saying certain things “because they were embarrassing to the Government”. He goes on to say—

Now we come to another law—the hon. member says there is not any such law. I say there are many and taken together they constitute a most oppressive factor as far as the freedom of the public is concerned. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will have an opportunity of replying. Is it necessary for her to interrupt me in this way? He says—

They say we should consider the intention, although the author’s book clearly indicates that that was not his intention. Here Mr. King says—

There is another law which is used to stand in the way of freedom of speech and the freedom to publish—

In England where everything is so rosy this newspaper owner says: “The slightest technical slip could be used as the basis of an action ”—

I just wish to point out that Clause 8 compares very favourably with what is said here by one of the biggest newspaper owners in England as to what the position is there. Clause 8 is one of the most enlightened clauses which can be inserted in any such legislation. It compares very favourably with sections in the various British laws taken together. [Time limit.]

I want to use this opportunity to deal with the actual merits of this measure, particularly Clause 8 (a) …

That sounds like tedious repetition.

The hon. member can judge later on whether it is tedious or not.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Turffontein entitled to cast a reflection on the Chair? The hon. member says that “it is tedious repetition”, a remark which you as Chairman ought not to allow.

Did the hon. member for Turffontein say that it was “tedious repetition ”?

I said that it sounded like tedious repetition.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

I shall try not to repeat. The actual main criticism of this measure has not yet been replied to. Clause 8 (a) in particular has been criticized. Clause 8 (a) is the only sub-clause of Clause 8 which relates to local publications. And Clause 8 (a) makes provision for the examination of a publication at the request of some person. It affords an opportunity to a complainant to have an investigation instituted and it also affords an opportunity to the writer to have an investigation instituted. The aspect on which I should like to throw some light is the angle of the writer. The writer’s angle has been presented here by a large number of speakers and reference has been made to statements made by Afrikaans writers in the daily Press to the effect that this clause exposes them to attacks by complainants, that it does not give them an adequate opportunity of defending themselves by presenting any particular work for examination. If a writer wants to protect his work then my submission is that 8 (a) gives him the opportunity to submit the work at any stage, from the manuscript stage to the publication stage. The sensible thing to do, of course, would be to submit the work at the manuscript stage. If an unfavourable decision is given under 8 (a), it has to be done in terms of the norms which are laid down in Clause 5 and which we have not yet discussed. I admit that in Clause 5 we have the provision that the board may find a publication to be undesirable if the publication as a whole or a portion of it is indecent. But if such a writer is given an unfavourable decision, he can go on appeal under Clause 14. In that case the conditions laid down in Clause 6 are the only conditions by which the court will have to be guided. There are two provisions by which the court must be guided, in the first place the definition of what is indecent and obscene, and in the second place the provision that in deciding whether it is indecent or obscene, the purpose or object of the document cannot be taken into account. At the important stage where the court itself has to decide, I want to point out in the first place that there is no question of an instruction to the court as to what its finding should be if in the opinion of the court the work, or any portion of it, is offensive. The court has an unfettered discretion in deciding whether in its opinion that work is offensive or not. I want to make these two submissions here: It is an enormous advantage to a writer to have these rights. Where we have experimental writers like Brink and le Roux in Afrikaans prose who sometimes handle risky situations in a bold way, it is a great privilege which is being given to them to be able to get an expression of opinion prior to publication and that opinion, contrary to what has been alleged in this debate and what is often alleged in the Press, cannot be based on a portion of the work in question. The ultimate opinion is the decision of the court which will be based on two things only, or three things really, (1) the definition of what is indecent as laid down in Clause 6; (2) the restriction imposed on the court that it cannot allow itself to be bound by an explanation from the writer as to what his object was and (3) the complete and unbridled discretion of the court, having due regard to the numerous preceding decisions of the court in terms of which an interpretation has already been placed to a certain extent on Clause 6. Far from providing a stick here with which to beat writers of the future, this measure provides an opportunity for them to obtain certainty.

I want to conclude by saying that in any event it is only a small minority of writers who will find it necessary to submit their work for consideration by the Publications Board. Because if our country has reached the stage where our literature and our culture and our civilization and the richness of our spirit have to be built on work which has to be viewed even critically by a Publications Board, then we have reached the stage where we are choosing very dangerous foundation-stones for the constructive work that we expect and that will redound to spiritual greatness.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) up to and including “person” in line 29, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, 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, I. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. I.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. I.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; 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.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes —42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. I. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; 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.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; 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.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Noes—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D. de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Donges, T. E.; du Piessis, 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.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luftig, 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.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; 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.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.: Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That all the words from the commencement of paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) to the end of paragraph (d), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—83: Badenhorst. F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; 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; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; 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.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo. A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.: Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; 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.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—43: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg. A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field. A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.: Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.: Hickman, T.: Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Noes—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; 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.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Labuschag-ne, J. S.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; 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.: Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—85: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; 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.; Keyter. H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé. S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; 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.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—43: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss. U. M.: Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell. Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 9.

I want to move as an amendment—

1. (e) at any place to which admission is obtained by virtue of membership of any association of persons or for any consideration, direct or indirect, or by virtue of any contribution towards any fund, exhibits any film which is indecent or obscene or is offensive or harmful to public morals.

There are three parts to my amendment. The first part is to omit all the words after “public” in line 18 up to and including “fund”. The object of that is that the clause as it stands is very wide indeed in its application and it means that no films of any kind can be shown at any private function or elsewhere if persons are admitted to that function by virtue of their membership. That means that if any association wishes to hold a private film show, no films may be exhibited there which have not first had the approval of the board, and I want to limit the powers as far as possible.

The second part of the amendment arises out of the inclusion in this Clause 9 (1) (iv) of what I consider to be an objectionable phrase, and that is that the board may approve or reject a film unconditionally, or approve it on the condition that it shall be exhibited only to a particular group of persons or only to persons belonging to a particular race or class. I want to delete the words, “persons belonging to a particular race or class ”. I have no objection to children as a class being excluded from being allowed to see certain films. The reason why I include the words “or class” is that I would have stopped at the word “race” if I had not noticed that this is the same wording which is used in the Separate Amenities Act, “race or class”. Therefore it appears to me to have a colour connotation and it is for that reason that I have included the word “class” as well as the word “race”. If the Minister can assure me that by leaving out the word “class” it will simply affect certain age groups, I will change my amendment and leave it up to the word “race”, otherwise I must leave it as it stands. I dislike the inclusion of these words because I know they have a racial connotation and it means that persons belonging to certain races are prohibited from seeing certain films, and I want to point out that no appeal is allowed in this case because this concerns films, so there can be no appeal from this despite the sudden respect that the hon. member for Vereeniging has for the principle of allowing appeals to the courts of law.

You know very well why there is no appeal here.

Yes, the answer is that the film industry does not want an appeal, but my reply is that whether they want it or not an appeal should be allowed. If the particular people running the industry at the moment do not want to make use of it. that is their own business, but I would insert a right of appeal anyway, because it can do no harm and I am going to do that in fact in a later clause. But that is not relevant here, except to point out that where the board lays down that certain races may not see certain films it is not open to any person to appeal to the court and ask why the films should not be shown to the various races, and that is what I object to.

I had an interesting answer from the Minister about films which are banned for certain categories of people, and I have extracted a few of them to show the absurdity of, the way it works and how certain films are allowed to be shown to White children under the age of 14 but cannot be shown to adults who are Black, Coloured or Indian, irrespective of their standard of education. I consider that insulting to the non-Whites of this country, to allow White children of the age of 12 to 14 to see certain films and yet not to allow adult non-Whites to see them, and that is why I move this amendment. I will give some examples. Certain films are banned for Bantu only, certain for Bantu and Coloureds only and certain just for children. Let me give an example. The “American in Paris” is banned for Bantu only. Why I do not know, unless it is the scene in a nightclub in Paris where a Black man perhaps performs before a White audience. “Love is a Many Splendored Thing” is banned for Coloureds and Bantu, but not for children. Children may see this story of a girl who had Coloured blood and falls in love with an American soldier. It is all right for children, but presumably because there is a slight touch of colour it is banned for the Coloureds and the Bantu. “The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone” is banned for Coloureds and Bantu and for children from 4 to 16. One never knows where one is with this board, which has complete and utter powers to ban films for certain races and classes without an appeal. “The Tommy Steele Story” is banned for Bantu only. I have no idea why. “A Kind of Loving” is banned for Coloureds, Bantu and children under the age of 18. Then we have “Lonely are the Brave”, from which Bantu are excluded, and children between 4 and 12 years, but it is apparently all right for Coloureds to see it. “Carry on Cruising” is banned for Bantu only, because I suppose it might give the Bantu some idea of taking over our Navy. “Gone with the Wind” is banned for Bantu only, I suppose because of the Civil War in America. “Phaedra” is banned for Bantu and Coloureds and children between 4 and 18, and incidentally it suffered a substantial cut before it could be shown to anybody. “The Moulin Rouge” is banned for Bantu and children between 4 and 18, but not for Coloureds. “Mutiny on the Bounty” is banned for Bantu and children from 4 to 12. Then, interestingly enough, there is a film about African initiation rites, which is advertised as “It will Shock You!”. This is shown to White and Coloured males over 16 as well as to Bantu, and one wonders why Whites should be allowed to see such a film at all. If it were the other way round, I wonder whether Bantu males would be allowed to see such a film. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for this, and I object strongly to the inclusion of a racial clause in this Bill, and repeat that it is insulting to the non-Whites generally that they should be prohibited from seeing films which White children under the age of 12 can see.

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker)—

1. (8) (a) The Minister may on application exempt from the provisions of this section any bona fide photographic society in respect of films exhibited to members and their friends free of charge.
   1. (b) Such exemption, which may be withdrawn at any time, may be granted indefinitely or for a fixed period or periods.

The amendment I move is of a smaller compass than that of the hon. member for Houghton and appears later on the Order Paper. Clause 9 prohibits the exhibition of cine films which have not been approved. If the Minister accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton to Clause 9 (1) (a), there would of course be no need for my amendment, but lest he does not do that I think it is necessary to proceed with my small amendment which seeks to allow bona fide photographic societies to gain exemption for film shows held by themselves.

I think it is perhaps not surprising that it has not been realized that this particular activity of photographic societies is hit by this provision, because it is one many people will not know of. I certainly did not, and possibly not even the Department of the Interior knew about it. This activity of these societies apparently constitutes at least 75 per cent of their activities, and it is this. They apparently gather from time to time and show films produced by their members, and various other members comment on the films and make suggestions for the improvement of the films. I am informed on the best authority that this sometimes represents the only activity for the evening, but on an average it constitutes 75 per cent of the activities of the societies. A member may perhaps take a film of the House of Assembly and will then show it at a meeting of the society. The more experienced members may then comment and suggest that a shot should have been taken in a different light. As things stand, these productions of members of these societies would require the approval of the board and I do not think that that could have been intended, and I think it is an activity which the Minister would certainly want to be able to exempt. I am informed that this activity, this artistic criticism, represents the lifeblood of these societies and that many of them will close down if it is necessary to comply with the provisions of the Bill. I may say that there are apparently 36 of these societies.

In moving this amendment of hers, the hon. member for Houghton is simply reaffirming her political faith that no distinction should be drawn on the ground of race or colour. She has, of course, been harping on this same string for many years, and the tune is one which does not appeal much to right-thinking people. I do not know what the hon. member wishes to prove with the question that she put to me some time ago and the reply that I gave her. Surely the whole of the film industry imports films with the object of making as much money out of them as possible, and it is in their interests that no restrictions should be placed on any film. With a small population such as we have, it is to the detriment of the industry if restrictions are placed on an imported film, and yet it is remarkable that no appeals are made to the Minister. Surely that is a right which any businessman will use if it is given to him. But the fact that the film industry is prepared to subject itself to the Minister’s decision, proves even more conclusively that the hon. member is on the wrong track. They prefer that this right should remain in the Minister’s hands, because they do not want to go to the courts. Surely there must be good reasons for it, and we who do not share her views—and I do not expect to convince her in the course of this short little speech—know what sort of film it would be to show to a race that has not yet reached the level of civilization that we have reached. We know that things which they cannot understand should not be shown to them and that there are some films which can be exhibited much more safely to a White child of 14 years of age than to an adult Bantu. There must be good reasons why the film industry does not want this right of appeal to the courts. The number of appeals which are made to the Minister is minimal. The film industry and the Board of Censors have met each other on a certain basis throughout the years and certain standards have been built up. Naturally the importers of films try to have their films exhibited as far as possible, and naturally the general tendency nowadays is towards sensation and sex, and if these things are exaggerated or offensive the film industry abides by the board’s decision if the entire film is prohibited or if the most offensive portions are cut out. On the meagre information that she has the hon. member cannot make out a case by simply asking what sort of films have been exhibited to the various colour groups. I would advise the hon. member to make a more thorough study of this and to call in the assistance of the film industry and to ascertain why films may not be exhibited to certain colour groups or to certain age groups. I want to point out that under the old Act many of these provisions were of little use. I sometimes see advertisements in the Press announcing that people in a certain age group will not be allowed to see a certain film but when one visits that cinema one notices that many people falling within that age group are admitted. That is something that does perturb me. I do hope that more stringent steps will be taken against the managers of theatres who allow this sort of thing, although it is very difficult to control.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has moved an amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in connection with these bona fide societies, of which there are about 36, and has asked that they be exempted from the provisions of this legislation. I want to say this to the hon. member: I do not know whether he is aware of it, but I know of one of these so-called societies in Cape Town which exhibited films to their members and that the most serious offences took place there over which there was absolutely no control. These complaints were conveyed to me and I caused investigations to be instituted by the police and the society was brought to book. I do not think that the bona fide society need have any cause for fear or to fear that control of any kind will be exercised over them. I cannot understand how the hon. member can say that if they are subjected to control they will be wiped out, I cannot see why, if this undesirability is checked, those societies cannot continue to exist. I really cannot see how we can make an exception in their case, but I can give the assurance that a good name is worth more than all the gold in the world and that these societies which have a good name need have no cause for fear.

I would like to make as clear as I can the particular difficulties that these photographic societies have; and I am naturally speaking only of those which are concerned with the improvement of the artistic productions of their members. Naturally the hon. the Minister will be able to check whether that appellation applies to such bodies, and naturally he would not make an exception where that is not so. But I think the point is this: I understand that very often a film made by one of the members of these societies is shown perhaps as many as six times to the society. On each occasion comment is made by all the members, criticism and suggestions are put forward and the film apparently then goes off again to the member who produced it. He then apparently shoots further shots. These are then fitted into the film and it is then shown again. I am told that this may happen as many as six times. I am told by the oldest photographic society in the country which is the Cape one, that their activities on an average consist to the extent of 75 per cent of this very activity, namely showing the films of their members, inviting comments and criticism on them, and in this way they then seek to improve the technique of the man behind the camera. I think one appreciates that where that is the case, this main activity of a society might very easily be crippled completely by the provisions of this clause. It is feared that these societies would virtually be put out of existence. It is not so much a question of going broke financially; but the activity which causes them to come together will apparently be killed stone dead. I must say that it was certainly a surprise to me to hear that this was in fact their main activity, but when one thinks of it, it is clearly a most useful artistic activity and it could well form such a high proportion of the activities of the society.

The other point that was worrying the hon. Minister is the fact that there may be some bodies which may claim to be equally bona fide societies which in fact are not bona fide societies. I would have thought the terms of the amendment are sufficiently wide to enable the Minister to feel quite happy that no abuse can creep in. In the first place I understand that there are four large and well-established societies, one in Cape Town, two in Johannesburg and one in Durban. The other 36, which was given to me as the number of the societies, are ranged around the country, and I have no reason to believe that they are not perfectly bona fide. But each and everyone will have to approach the Minister for approval in the way that the amendment contemplates, and I suggest that this amending provision contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that nothing untoward occurs. I may add that this exemption may be withdrawn at any time. In that way I do suggest that the Minister’s fears can be completely met. I say again that I think that this is a very proper artistic activity; just as a painter may perhaps receive suggestions from others as to how to improve his technique, so this is a very valuable way of encouraging members of the photographic societies to improve their technique. It is perhaps like a speakers’ body where you have lectures in public speaking. Somebody stands there and makes comments on the performance of the particular speaker. That is the sort of activity in which this society engages.

Since I have now been able to bring out the essence of the activities of these societies more clearly, I think the hon. the Minister need not fear that there will be any attempt to circumvent the particular provision which he has in the Bill.

I should like to ask whether he is not prepared to give this matter further consideration if he thinks that there is something in my representations. He can then perhaps answer me later. Of course, if he sees his way clear to do it now, that is always more pleasant. I can assure him that the representations that I have had have come from the oldest established photographic society in the country, the society in Cape Town. They feel that they speak for the other bodies, and there is certainly no intention on their part to circumvent the provisions of the Bill.

I did not think it would be necessary for me to go into this section which the hon. member has just explained. I only painted the dark side of the picture. In the first place, as the hon. member knows, appeal to the Minister is only allowed in the new set-up which we are creating here; he cannot grant any exemptions. The board has to grant exemptions. In the second place, it was, always the position under the old Censorship Act that application had to be made by the photographic societies or any group or class of persons who wished to be exempt from this censure. Exactly the same thing will happen in future. These applications have always been considered sympathetically particularly in the case of those societies which the hon. member has mentioned, the society in Cape Town, an old well-known society with a good reputation as well. The only thing that will happen is that these societies will have to make application individually when this Bill comes into operation. The societies cannot apply as a group. The one has its headquarters here and the other one there; they come as individual societies and make application. When such a society is granted such an exemption—the power to grant exemption is given in Clause 9 (2)—the exemption is published in the Government Gazette and as long as the exemption and the consent of the board are in force it is not necessary for the society to make any submissions. I referred, in the first place, only to the necessity for us to have this clause because all the societies are not of high repute and new societies may possibly come into existence who will definitely be set on contravening this section of the law. I think sufficient provision is made in Clause 9 (2) to enable the board at its discretion and subject to conditions which it deems fit and by notice in the Government Gazette, to exempt a specific film or a specific category of films, or a film intended only for exhibition to a specific class of persons or under specific circumstances, from the provisions of sub-section (1) and the board can at any time at its discretion withdraw any exemption granted in terms of this sub-section. As soon as it appears that people are violating this exemption or abusing it it can be withdrawn immediately. I think the dangers which the hon. member envisages are imaginary dangers. He wishes to add a few words in order to ease the position for the societies. I think that is absolutely unnecessary; they all have the necessary protection. I want to promise the hon. member this that if it appears after the measure has been put into operation, that some of these people are unnecessarily penalized, we will amend the law. At the moment, however, it is really not necessary. I think we should rather continue on this basis, without doing any injustice in any way to these people.

I do not want to be difficult but I do want to come back to my plea, and I do so for the reasons that I have advanced. As I understand the position, the present position is that where these associations wish to exhibit a particular film in a place to which the public has access, they do have to go to the board. I understand that this other activity of theirs which I have outlined is still permissible, without the necessity to go to the board. The hon. the Minister feels that possibly these associations will be able to get the necessary permission under Clause 9 (2), but the hon. the Minister will see at once that this sub-section relates to a particular film—and that is precisely their difficulty. Do they have to go to the board with each and everyone of these films which have been produced by their own members and which are still in an incomplete form and which they exhibit to their members …

They can get exemption as a class of persons. The society as a whole can obtain exemption; they will be able to obtain permission to exhibit films which they produce in this way without their being censored.

That is not what I read in Clause 9 (2).

Read it again then.

*Mr. THOMPSON It reads—

Would it be included possibly under “any particular class of cinematograph films?” Then it goes on to say—

It is framed so widely that it covers all of them. If that society obtains exemption it can exhibit its film freely until such time as it contravenes the law.

Yes, but this clause talks about a particular film or any particular class of cinematograph film or any cinematograph film intended for exhibition to any particular class of persons. Can they be regarded as a class of persons for the purposes of this clause? If that is the Minister’s interpretation, it is perfectly in order and then I need not press my amendment further. Is that also the attitude of the Department?

I really do not think that the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has any cause for concern. I think Clause 9 (2) does meet his difficulty. I know that there are many such clubs. They can obtain exemption from the board. He asks whether they will be regarded as “a class of persons.” If a club is formed by any particular class of persons producing films, then they can get exemption. To go further than that would be very difficult because the hon. member probably knows that in Johannesburg in particular tremendous misuse is made of these clubs where no entrance fee is charged. The most terrible films are exhibited there. We cannot go further than this clause goes at the moment otherwise we are going to throw the doors wide open to misuses. I think the hon. member will find that the societies on whose behalf he pleads here will not be hit under this legislation.

When we were dealing with a previous clause, it gave the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) a considerable amount of pleasure to try to prove to me that I had changed my opinion over the past ten years. The fact that she now advocates that Coloureds and Bantu should also have the right to see films which may be exhibited to Whites, shows how she has changed her opinion, because in the days when she was a member of the United Party …

But you must remember that I was a member of the liberal wing.

Even the liberal wing of the United Party was quite satisfied that a distinction should be drawn between films which are exhibited to Whites and those exhibited to non-Whites.

Never.

She has changed her opinion therefore. She now says that she has changed her opinion but that she has not changed her philosophy. That may be so, but in that case she suppressed her philosophy for many years. She must have been the most frustrated woman in the country, and she never gave me the impression of being frustrated. All that happened to her therefore is what happened to me; I changed my opinion. The only difference is that my opinion has changed for the better while hers has deteriorated. That is the only difference. But if I may become serious, I want to put this question in all seriousness to the hon. member for Houghton: Does she realize fully what she is proposing when she says that if a film is made available for exhibition to Whites, it must necessarily also be made available for exhibition to the Bantu?

I do not want obscene films to be shown to anyone.

That is quite correct. She says that any film which may be exhibited only to Whites over 18 years of age, should also be released for exhibition to all Bantu over 18 years of age. If that is what she advocates, then in actual fact she is advocating that the Board of Censors must be very much stricter in censoring films because then they will have to censor films not on the basis that they will be exhibited only to Whites over 18 years of age, but if her proposal is accepted they will have to bear in mind the fact that that film will also be exhibited now to Bantu over the age of 18. The hon. member for Houghton knows as well as I do that 90 per cent of the Bantu over the age of 18 years are still children and primitive people.

But you gave the franchise to eighteen-year-olds.

Mr. Chairman, I think something is going wrong with the hon. member's intelligence. I honestly think that in his own interests he should go and see a psychiatrist. Surely the hon. member for Houghton will admit that 90 per cent of the Bantu over 18 years are still children; they are still primitive people incapable of passing judgment as far as these things are concerned. They are much more susceptible to certain impressions than the Whites are. But now she says, “Yes, but what about a Bantu doctor, a Bantu attorney or a Bantu advocate or a Bantu teacher; why should they be excluded while White children are not excluded?” There are many reasons for that, but there is one very practical reason for it. We can approve of the exhibition of films to certain age groups, but how are we going to approve of a film and say that it may be exhibited only to Bantu above Std. VI or above Std. VII or to Bantu with a degree? Surely that is an altogether impossible position. If she has her way therefore, even with a board appointed by her, she will find that if films are released for exhibition to the Bantu, the board will say, “We have to be extremely careful; this film is quite harmless to Whites but we have to ask ourselves whether it will not be harmful to the Bantu.” Under her proposal therefore the censorship will be a thousand times stricter than it will be under this arrangement whereby the Bantu will be excluded entirely as a group. Let me put this question to the hon. member: She is in favour of the proposition that these films should be released freely for exhibition to all colour groups. I want to ask her whether she has any objection then to mixed audiences at cinemas?

No, of course not. You know that.

What are we arguing about then? I have always been under the impression that even the Progressive Party are in favour of a certain degree of social separation. [Interjections.] It will not avail the hon. member to look so despondent now. She now says that they are against any form of social separation.

I did not say that.

If we were to throw open our cinemas to Whites and to the Bantu, would there be any sphere then which would not be thrown open to both Whites and Bantu? Then surely nothing would be left. The next sphere then would be our restaurants, and the next would be our night clubs and our dance halls. Why does the hon. member not say then that she is entirely against any form of separation? Surely she should say so then. She is a very courageous member and I hope that she will say it. This only shows that the Progressive Party does not have the faintest idea what the people of South Africa want and what is also good for the Bantu.

I do not understand why the hon. member for Vereeniging should think that I get upset or embarrassed at these questions of his. He knows perfectly well what my attitude is. I am against compulsory segregation. I have said it over and over again. I am against it. Why should it shock him? It does not at all upset me if I go to a cinema or a theatre overseas where there is no colour bar and I find myself sitting with non-Whites. I find that they behave themselves very well indeed, a lot better in many oases than White youths who attend cinemas here. So this does not shock or horrify me. The hon. member seems to think that I am frightfully embarrassed by his questions. I am not at all embarrassed. But in point of fact we were discussing whether I really believe that Africans over the age of 18 years should be allowed to see the same films as Whites, and again I say that I do believe this. Sir, you might just as well carry this thing to its ridiculous conclusion and say that you must set aside certain books which only White people may read. After all, every African who is literate is not necessarily a professor. You are literate after you have attended a few standards at school and we have thousands upon thousands of Africans who can read although they are not graduates of universities.

Not everyone of them can read, but everyone of them can see.

But you still have thousands who can read who by the logic of the hon. member for Vereeniging should not be allowed to read the same books as Whites. To me this is quite ridiculous and absurd. I am against this classification on racial grounds. It is no good my arguing with the hon. Minister or with the hon. member for Vereeniging because we differ fundamentally on this question. The hon. the Minister has been Minister of the Interior; that means that he handles group areas, which I disapprove of profoundly; it means that he handles the race classifications, of which I disapprove profoundly; it means that he handles the population Registration Act. I disapprove of all these things. To me they all connote the same thing; they connote differentiation on the grounds of race, and I can tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that I am not at all upset, embarrassed or shocked by the questions he has put to me. I think I have made my case perfectly clear and I stand by the amendment which I move.

I think that what the hon. the Minister has said makes it clear that he did not wish to forbid this particular activity. I am very glad that he takes up that attitude. I think it is an attitude which will have the sympathy of this House. The only thing that worries me though is whether in fact this Clause 9 (2) as drafted does in fact enable the Minister or the Board to exempt this activity, which he and I both gladly would do. I must say that I myself have doubts about it. Clause 9 (2) says—

The Board may exempt any cinematograph film intended for exhibition to any particular class of person. First of all one must note that it may exempt a particular film. It might possibly be able to give a blanket exemption and say “all films which are to be exhibited to a particular class of persons”. I am not certain. It simply says that it may exempt any films. It would seem that it will have to be done one by one. The second point is this, assuming that that first point presents no difficulty: It says that it may be exempted for exhibition to any particular class of persons. Can one say that the members of a photographic society are a class of persons? I have some doubt about that. In view of these two difficulties I think this particular clause does hit this particular activity.

One wonders how one can overcome these difficulties. There is this amendment which I would say is one which does give the authorities a hold over any such type of activity. The hon. the Minister did mention that there is objection to the use of the words “the Minister” in the amendment that I am proposing. Possibly one could substitute the word “Board” so that the responsibility would not be the Minister’s but the Board’s, so that the Board may on application exempt from the provisions of the clause any bona fide photographic society in respect of films exhibited to members and their friends free of charge. If the Minister would accept it in that form it would be very acceptable to us, and I hope it may go through on that basis.

The other point the Minister did mention is that if in fact it caused any difficulty with regard to this type of activity he would be prepared to come with an amendment to put it right. I am grateful that that is his approach. It is that approach which grounded my hope that he may be prepared to accept the amendment as it stands. If the Minister is not able to move an amendment here then perhaps he can do so in the Other Place. But I would be glad if the Minister could clear up the position for us, because at the present moment it does seem to me that this amendment is necessary to avoid the evil that we wish to overcome.

I just want to explain to the hon. member that you do not exempt persons. Perhaps I rather misled him by choosing my words injudiciously. The exemption is granted to a film or a category of films. I should really have put it this way that when these films are made and exhibited by a certain class of persons to a group of enthusiastic bona fide people with a constructive object, that will be a recommendation for the exemption of such films by the board, not only an individual film but a category of films falling in the same category. I am convinced that the acceptance of the hon. member’s amendment would open the door too wide to people over whom one does not have the necessary control. I feel that this clause should rather remain as it is. In the case of bona fide associations which make and exhibit films only for the sake of art or for their own relaxation or further education, I am willing to see to it that they are not hit hard as the result of the action of people who do not give effect to the intention of this measure. It is not the intention of the law-giver to restrict these bona fide associations.

I am very pleased that the Minister is not going to agree to the honeyed appeal from the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) to change this clause. The position has changed a great deal since the passing of the Act of 1931. At that time practically all cinematograph films that were exhibited in South Africa were imported from abroad and they automatically came before the board of censors. Since then more and more films have been produced by private individuals, by societies, etc., quite apart from films produced by public undertakings such as those of Mr. Jamie Uys. It started to become the practice—and it is the practice to-day—for certain clubs to be formed where certain films are made which do not come before the censorship board. Just as in the case of books, we have no control previously over books which are produced locally. Similarly we have no control over films which are produced here. People go along to these clubs and there, as I have said, they exhibit things which are really undesirable. That is why we should also have control over films which are exhibited here. The second objection to an amendment of this clause is that we will simply find, if we exempt all cinematograph societies, that the clubs which exhibit undesirable things will convert themselves into bona fide cinematograph societies and they will then receive the same protection. This evil will therefore continue to exist. The third is that if a film is imported and it is prohibited by the board, it would be possible to exhibit it in one of these clubs. There is no control over them. To-Day they are exhibited only in public halls and they are subject to duty. Members only are admitted to clubs. They would be able to exhibit such a film and the board would be able to do nothing about it. It is absolutely essential therefore that this clause should remain as it is. I agree with the hon. the Minister that if it is found in practice that we are able to grant further relaxation as far as the good societies are concerned, we shall probably be able to do so. At the present time the cinematograph societies which exhibit good films have nothing to fear under this measure. They will be able to continue their good work as in the past.

Let me just say a few words in connection with the censoring of films and the splitting up of the racial groups to whom they may be exhibited or may not be exhibited. Let me give the House practical examples from my own experience. There are certain parts in practically every film in which you will find scenes where White women are scantily clad, etc. The present Censorship Board, however, does not want to be prudish and simply cut out everything. That film can be exhibited to adults and sometimes to young White persons there is no harm in doing so. But we dare not show that same film to a Bantu audience, and I shall tell you why not, Mr. Chairman. For the same reason that it is to the everlasting shame of the City Council of Cape Town that it allows Bantu to stand about at Muizenberg and other swimming places and to stare at young girls wearing bikinis only. We have a law in this country—a very necessary law—which makes the rape of a White woman by a non-White a capital offence. Nobody is going to tell me that if you exhibit pictures of scantily clad White women to a Bantu audience it is not going to incite them to crime, that many of them will not be incited and stimulated to commit that very crime, a crime which we have made a capital offence by legislation. However much we want to gaze at the stars with glazed eyes and walk about with our heads in the clouds, we cannot get away from the realities of the situation in this country. On the Censorship Board we found time and again that there would have been no problem, or a very minor problem, if South Africa had not been a multi-racial country. That is why we cannot exhibit to one race what we exhibit to the other race.

I do not want to go into the question of appeal that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised. We shall deal with that in the next clause. It is true, as the hon. the Minister said, that time and again we have this difficulty that the board stipulates that a certain film may be exhibited only to persons over a certain age and then we find that young children are admitted to the cinema. That is a difficult thing to control and we will simply have to find some sort of answer, but I am afraid there are theatre managers who shelter behind the difficulty of determining a person’s age. But we shall have to act more stringently where we decide that a film may be exhibited only to people over 18 years of age and it is clear that some of the young people who are admitted are 12 years of age, because in that way the Act is being violated altogether. In many cases the film industry itself prefers to have certain parts cut out rather than be subjected to the restriction that the film may only be exhibited to a certain class or a certain age group. Where it has been possible to do so, according to my experience, the board has always met the film industry by saying. “Very well, if you want to exhibit it to both races, then we will have to cut out certain parts.” In most cases the film industry prefers to have these parts cut out so that the film can be exhibited to all racial groups. If it so happens that that cannot be done and the film industry itself agrees that it simply cannot be done, then the board has to impose the restriction that it may only be exhibited to one racial group and not to the other.

I just want to put a question to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in connection with her amendment to the effect that if a film is allowed to be exhibited to Whites, it should also be allowed to be exhibited to the other colour groups and to the Bantu. What is her reply to the argument that that will force the board of control to exercise a much stricter censorship of films?

Only if the board has the same attitude as the hon. member obviously. If I had to have a board at all, it would be a board which would try to exclude obscene pictures altogether and pictures which are harmful to public morals. That is all. A board like that would be just as concerned to exclude White people from seeing such films as it would be to exclude non-White people from seeing those films. It is as easy as that. I do not think the board should act any differently when considering adult people. It should only distinguish between adults and children. That is all as far as I am concerned.

Question put: That all the words after “public” in line 18, up to and including “fund” in line 22, proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, 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.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss. U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

Question put: That the words “or only to persons belonging to a particular race or class” in line 40 and 41, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the committee divided:

Ayes—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, 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.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; 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.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch. J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys. D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C., van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter. M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hen wood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and H. Suzman.

Question accordingly affirmed and the second amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman and the amendment proposed by Mr. Thompson put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I want to move the amendment as printed in my name—

Sir, I do not think I have to talk of it at very great length. I want to make sure that the only films which people are prohibited from seeing are those which are obscene or offensive or harmful to public morals. I want to cut out the very broad definition of what may be considered in the opinion of the board to be prohibited films. I fully realize that the old Act of 1931 contained a clause which is very similar to this. It also mentions all these various factors. Despite the fact that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has said that the position has greatly changed since 1931 there is very little change in what the hon. the Minister is proposing here and what appears in the original Act, with a few exceptions. He deleted a few things, nothing very important, and he added one or two others. He has now left out sub-section (f) which appeared in the old Act which included films purporting to illustrate night life. Apparently we have now moved along the road to modernity to allow films depicting night life to be seen. That is a small mercy for which I am thankful. There is another omission, namely sub-section (h) from the relevant Section of the 1931 Act. That prohibited films representing antagonistic relations between capital and labour. That is now excluded from this clause. I presume that the hon. the Minister is now satisfied that there can never be scenes depicting antagonistic relations between capital and labour. But for the rest everything else is included although he has certain additional sections in the new clause in so far as “propagating or promoting Communism as defined in the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950” is concerned, which was naturally not included in the original 1931 Act. At that stage it was not considered dangerous to show such scenes. Now, Sir, it is. But other than that I notice that in 1931 the board had to take into consideration any scene depicting public characters in offensive ways. I think we have not moved very much forward since that time because it is still considered a bad thing to depict public characters in any offensive way. For the rest there is not much change except that it is now the State President instead of His Majesty. It used to be His Majesty’s armed forces, it is now the Republic’s armed forces. Other than that we have not really moved forward very much at all since 1931. And I think, in terms of modern life, it is ridiculous to have such a definition of what the board of censors, as far as films are concerned, should take into consideration, I think that is rather ludicrous. When one thinks of the films which are banned in this country, the ridiculous lengths to which the board goes in banning films, I do think it should be limited. It should be limited to banning films which are indecent, obscene or offensive to public morals. There are certain films which would obviously be so defined by anybody. But the board has banned films which are shown throughout the world, films which are perfectly respectable, and to which nobody could possibly take any offence. Porgy and Bess, for instance, is banned from this country. Why, goodness only knows. There are many others that could be mentioned. Many of the films are cut to ribbons so that the original ones which one may have seen overseas, are practically unrecognizable in this country. I might just add that these are not just the films to which I objected in the clause before which cannot be shown to the Bantu or which cannot be shown to Coloureds in terms of the Act but films which cannot be shown to White South Africans. We are really getting to the most ridiculous stage in this country where the extent of governmental control over the sort of things which one may do or see or hear is reaching absurdity. Therefore, Sir, I move this amendment in an attempt to try to get the board of censors to think in a broader and less narrow-minded direction and to try to get them to confine their banning to pictures which are indecent, offensive or harmful to public morals.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) admits that we have practically repeated the old section here, but she pleads for a more general yardstick. I now want to show her by means of just one example how a general yardstick cannot be used. Here a film is prohibited if it depicts public figures in an obnoxious way. The hon. member has taken out this provision and has said that it does not belong here. Now take a public figure like Mr. Winston Churchill.

I want to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan)—

In moving this amendment, I feel that this amendment is fundamental to the whole clause. The wording “is calculated to” was incorporated in the 1931 Act. That Act has worked effectively for the last 30 years, and one may well ask why the hon the Minister wishes to change these words to the word “may”, because the words “is calculated to” are definite while the word “may” is indefinite, and in the past a film had to be “calculated” to have an undesirable effect while under the clause as it now stands those words have been changed to “may”. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will appreciate that there is a very different standard between publications and films and public entertainments, and the film industry (I wish to stress that point) is asking for only one norm. I would like to quote from the memorandum submitted by the Distributors and Exhibitors of Cinematograph Films in South Africa to the Select Committee appointed by Parliament. The distributors and exhibitors submitting this memorandum comprised the following: African Consolidated Films Ltd., African Consolidated Theatres, Cinema Holdings, Empire Films, Fox Holdings, United Artists, Warner Bros., Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, Twentieth Century-Fox and Twentieth Century Investments, and they say concerning this particular clause—

I suggest that the word “may” is one of these ambiguities that might provoke litigation or problems. This expression “is calculated” is not only contained in the 1931 Act, but it is also contained in certain other legislation which has been introduced in this House in the past by the governing party, and if we turn to the Concise Oxford Dictionary as to what the definitions of these two words are, we find that “may” is defined as “to express a possibility, to express a permission and to emphasize uncertainty”, whereas the word “calculate” is defined as “to compute, to reckon and to plan deliberately”. I submit that there is a great deal of difference between these two words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that there is a great difference between films and books which the Board of Censors will have to consider, and I consider that one of the main points of difference is that all the films are shown to the film censors before they may be exhibited—that is the entire film is shown to the Board, whereas, I am sure hon. members will agree, that in the case of literary publications which can be published at the risk of the author or the publisher, are not read from cover to cover by the censors and only certain passages from these books are read. A film is seen from beginning to end and examined from beginning to end, and therefore I feel that a film can be judged by the Board before it is presented to the public. May I with due respect remind the hon. Minister of the words he himself used yesterday evening when he said (I wrote it down in my notes) that if one visited a cinema, some of the people who saw the film might think that it was good, but some others might think that it was a weak film. With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this might happen with the board when they are examining a film, and the word “may” in this clause is too vague, it is not clearly expressed, and I ask that the words “is calculated to” should be inserted in the place of the word “may” as it would tie down the censors, so that instead of individual opinions, or one section expressing one opinion and the other section another opinion on this issue of censoring films, which may be expressed by them or anyone, if they “may” reject it, the objective effect of the film is the one that we wish to see as the norm. The insertion of the words “is calculated to” would have this effect, and on behalf of the hon. member for Orange Grove I move the amendment.

I want to start off immediately by telling the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) that the effect of the amendment she has just moved really brings to the fore the intention of the maker of the film. By inserting those words and deleting the word “may” it seeks to bring the intention of the maker of the film to the fore. Now that is something which cannot be measured. No one can ever determine what the maker of a film meant, what he was after when he made the film. Anybody who makes a film is under an obligation to ensure that the film does not have an undesirable effect. That is the obligation resting on him. He must see to it that it does not have the undesirable effect prohibited by Clause 10 from (d) onwards, that it will not have this effect and will not be undesirable. Consideration should not only be given to the intention, but also to negligence. Negligence may constitute a great evil in the making of films. Even if somebody did not deliberately do something, he could still have been negligent, and that could make the film so undesirable that it should never be exhibited. But if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted it means that the censor or the Control Board will have to search for what actually was the intention of the maker of the film. It is therefore impossible to accept it, because that cannot be determined because the matter may be arguable and the man may say he had no such intention. Therefore I emphasize that not only the intention but also the negligence accompanying it counts. It would be emasculating the whole clause and would leave it meaningless, and then we might as well do what the hon. member for Houghton suggested and delete those sub-sections.

Yes.

The hon. member admits that it will have that effect. But the hon. member for Houghton went very far with her amendment to-day. She is even opposed to the Censorship Act of 1931, which has contained all these provisions for all these years. She now wants to delete that and replace it by indefinable words which can be interpreted by her and by me in our own individual ways. If we do that we will not get any further. The film industry was satisfied with the position but she now wants to go even so far as to delete the provision that the Board will not approve of a film which may have the effect of disturbing peace and good order. It makes no difference, it may just disturb the peace and the good order of the country. She cares nothing about that; it makes no difference to her. She wants to combat it with the meaningless words “obnoxious” and “indecent”. She wants to do such things in respect of the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the population of the Republic. We should not have a provision that a film must not be obnoxious to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the population. She does not mind if the deepest feelings of certain sections of the population are hurt. That makes no difference; one can play with those feelings, and it makes no difference what part of the population is affected, whether it is the Afrikaans or the English-speaking people, or the Jews, or the Greeks, or the Chinese in our country. According to the hon. member for Houghton, their feelings can simply be hurt. Nor does she want us to prevent any section of the population of the Republic from being ridiculed. That must also be deleted. All this must be covered by the general terminology, whilst ever since 1931 these provisions have stood the test of time and have not been abused. They have proved to be necessary, but they have never been abused. But the hon. member wants it deleted. The same applies to the further provision. The hon. member does not mind if there is an obnoxious idea conveyed in regard to the State President or the armed forces of the Republic or of a member thereof, etc. It is deplorable, nay shocking, that the hon. member should adopt such a standpoint and that she does so in this House where she could act responsibly. I really think that if she had regard to the whole of the population of South Africa she would realize that she has absolutely condemned herself, so much so that she will never again find a seat in this House. If this were something new and this Government had sinister motives, one could still understand it, but we are simply taking over existing legislation which has stood the test of time and has proved to be necessary. Therefore I can only pity her and hope that she will become converted soon.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is tantamount to proposing an alternative clause to the clause under consideration by the committee and for that reason I cannot accept it. If the clause under consideration is negatived, the hon. member will be allowed to move her amendment.

The hon. the Minister has rightly said that the clause we are now dealing with, the same as Clause 9, has virtually been taken over from the 1931 Act, but the hon. the Minister has himself indicated that the 1931 Act has worked fairly satisfactorily for a number of years. In the 1931 Act the principle of pre-censorship was adopted and it has operated fairly satisfactory. The Minister is quite right when he says that any appeals which were capable of being made against decisions of the Censor Board in regard to the showing of films had in fact been very few and far between. But if the hon. the Minister accepts that these provisions have been taken over from the old legislation, then why does the hon. Minister reject what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has moved, because what she has moved is that the position should be restored exactly to what it was under the 1931 Act. The amendment is to re-instate the situation. The existing legislation said that “the board shall not approve of any film which in its opinion depicts any matter that prejudicially affects the safety of the state, or is calculated to disturb peace and goodwill…” Therefore if the hon. the Minister on the one hand is prepared to admit the effectiveness of the existing legislation and that there was effective control over these undesirable aspects and that the Censor Board had sufficient powers to pass films which were satisfactory for public consumption, why then does the Minister now take exactly the contrary view and why does he say in effect that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) were accepted it would not give the board sufficient powers to act in terms of the injections as laid down further on in the Bill? I regret I cannot follow the hon. Minister’s argument in that regard, and I hope that he will try and clarify the position.

But I want to deal with one other aspect of the matter, namely a statement made by the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member has said that she knows of no other example of the existence of film censor boards in any other country.

I did not say that at all. I spoke of a book censorship board in the English-speaking world. I said nothing about films.

I am glad to hear that. The hon. member therefore admits that what is in this Bill is in fact in line with the position in other Western countries where the principle is accepted of pre-censorship in regard to films, with a direct injuction to the Censor Board as to what may be shown as against what they may not pass for showing. To show how strict it does operate in certain countries as compared to our country, there was recently a film depicting the life of Oscar Wilde. This film dealt largely with the writings of Oscar Wilde, and gave in detail the eventual court case in which Oscar Wilde was tried for homosexuality. Whilst that film was produced in the United States, it was not shown in any state of the United States, because in terms of the law of the United States there was a direct injunction that films of that nature could not be shown; but in our country it was passed in toto with no cuttings, and let me say that it was a first-class film. It was passed by the Censor Board. I cite this as an example to show that in certain countries there are even stricter injunctions to censor boards as to what they may or may not pass.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that he could not follow why the hon. the Minister rejected the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). I can understand why he did not follow it. but more for the sake of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) than for his I again want to summarize what the hon. the Minister said. The Bill before us does not say that the film is one which cannot have a certain effect. It says, to use the precise words, “may have the effect”. That must now be replaced by the words “is calculated to ”. As the hon. the Minister said, the words “may have the effect” constitute an objective test. Quite apart from the intention of the maker, the board must judge whether the film is likely to have a certain effect. If the amendment is to be accepted and the test is to be whether the film is calculated to have an evil effect, then there are two possibilities. The first is that a subjective test has to be applied; the question has to be asked as to what the intention of the maker was; or otherwise an objective test must be applied and one must say, “this film is so obviously and clearly intended to have this evil effect that the inference that it was deliberately made in order to attain that object becomes irresistible”. No adult will accept that the Opposition now intends the Film Censor Board to investigate the subjective intention of the maker. In other words, the hon. members are asking for the yardstick to be that the indecency of the film must be so marked that one cannot fail but conclude that the film was made with the intent of attaining this ignoble object. There would have to be a very high degree of obnoxiousness before the Board could find that it was obnoxious. For the sake of the hon. member for Turffontein, I now want to illustrate this argument by means of an example which he will also be able to understand. When during the war the Germans made a film about President Kruger with the title, I think, of “Oom Kruger”, their subjective intention was not in the least to harm President Kruger. The object was to laud President Kruger, and in addition they had other propagandistic objects. But their intention in regard to President Kruger and the history of the Anglo-Boer War was as correct as it could possibly be. But in making the film there were certain scenes which were filmed in a way that they depicted a public figure in an offensive way. That will explain to the hon. member why we must have this objective yardstick, and not a subjective one.

Let me take this argument a little further and come to the yardstick which is stricter or more lenient than ours in judging whether or not a film is obnoxious, and this also relates to the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. I want to say that the film is one of the art mediums or communication mediums which we can justifiably regard critically. The film is in the first place a medium which is always exhibited to the masses, and secondly it is a medium which is regarded uncritically. One sits there in the dark, with the minimum of mental effort, and one gains an impression. Therefore, because the film is shown to the masses and it is viewed uncritically, there is justification for testing a film very strictly before it is approved. There is a further consideration. The film is not an important factor in the spiritual life of our nation or of any other nation. A film may possibly here and there make a cultural contribution, and it can often be enlightening, but it is not one of the vital factors in the spiritual life of a people. If we now plead that films should be rejected only according to a very strict yardstick, in other words that they should be allowed through easily, I want to point out that the whole of our Western civilization as we know it managed to get to where it was 50 years ago without films. In fact, the only other great development since the film has been the invention of the atom bomb, and the film did not make any appreciable contribution towards that. Why try to protect the film? But it is the major premise of the United Party’s amendment that they want to make it more difficult to keep the bad films out. Their standpoint is that they want to pander to the masses, to the cheap taste of bread and circus, and it must be encouraged because it is contrary to the philosophy of the National Party—the uncritical stimulation of the desires of the masses by simply allowing things which might be harmful, just so long as they are to the taste of the masses. It is a shortcoming of that party that it has no principle which would also together with the Government party make it the guardian of the people whose welfare it should guard. Therefore we wholeheartedly support the Minister in retaining this yardstick. If a film may possibly have a bad effect, it must be kept out of the country, and it should not just be kept out in the way the United Party wants, namely that it should have such an obviously bad effect that one can even deduce an evil intent on the part of the producer of the film.

In this debate, at any rate, the hon. member for Kempton Park never ceases to amaze me. He has just come up with the argument that the Minister is seeking what he calls “an objective standard” in terms of his change of three words by the substitution of one word which completely changes the significance of the clause. Sir, we were told by the Minister just a few days ago —I do not know whether the hon. member for Kempton Park was in the House—that naturally the people who would be appointed to this board, who would sit in judgment on the films that they have to examine and pass, would exercise a subjective standard. He said: Naturally, in the nature of things, each man has his own point of view.

Their judgment will be subjective.

What is the hon. member talking about? A standard of judgment, or a norm, as you call it—he now throws up his hands in horror, Sir; that hon. member makes similarly complicated speeches as it happens, in my constituency of Hospital at the “A.T.K.V.-saal” to the John X. Merriman Branch, and they say “Hoor, hoor!” but here, we are entitled to examine what he says. The point is this, that whereas the Minister has conceded that the members of his board, call it a Censor Board, or a Publications and Control Board, or call it by any name, must necessarily exercise a subjective standard, the hon. member for Kempton Park—in trying to answer the argument which, from my point of view, at any rate, was very lucidly expressed by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) in advancing the case made out by the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove —suddenly turns the coin upside down again, to the obverse side of the coin. Mr. Chairman, after two or three days of debating, this hon. member now says: “We are seeking in this clause an objective standard.” Well, Sir, if ever at any time in the future, he reads his speech, the one he has just made, in relation to the statement on the subject by the hon. the Minister, he will realize why I, for one, reject it as total and utter nonsense. Sir, whether the standard is objective or subjective, the hon. Minister cannot get away from the fact that he has made a change in this particular clause by omitting the words “is calculated to” and substituting for those three words the one word “may”. Repeatedly throughout the debate he has told us in reply to arguments from this side of the House that this Bill, in regard to films particularly, is practically word for word the 1931 Act. Does the hon. member for Kempton Park deny that that has been said over and over again? We have been told that for practical purposes this Bill is no more than the Act of 1931, which that hon. member says I have not read—but I have read it, and I hope I have understood it. Because when you look at Act No. 28 of 1931, what the Minister has done in regard to Section 5 of the existing Act is to juggle around the items which describe what is offensive, etc., by putting them into two different categories and making very little change, except for the substitution for “impersonation of the King”, “impersonation of the State President”, and then the only further significant change is the change of the words “is calculated to” to the word “may”. Why is it, when this Act, as the Minister has said over and over again has stood the country in very good stead for 32 years and is considered to be a model, why is there any need to change those three words into one word? What reason is there, except that there is a new meaning? It is no use the hon. member arguing that it is the same thing, and that it makes the standard more subjective. One can keep on talking like that for hours when all else fails, but the difference is simply this: to come back to the question of “intention”— whether that is a good legal point or not—as far as the creator or the artist, or the producer of a film is concerned, “intention” must be taken into account before you condemn his product. It is not a question of what you say he may have done and what you say the effect may be. I take as one of my authorities the country to which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort keeps on going back—you know it is either Georgia or Ireland.

to-day I referred to Great Britain.

I say that as far as this Bill is concerned, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has two heartlands, Ireland and Georgia.

I quoted England too.

I want to tell the committee something that that hon. member should have done earlier, and that is to explain exactly what happens under the Irish Act. I am referring to this book which has been quoted here by various speakers and by the Cronje Commission, “Obscenity and The Law ”; it says—

Not that it “may be” indecent, but its being indecent—

Now if this Irish Act is a model, as the hon. member believes it is, why, then, this sudden departure from the original Act of 1931 which served South Africa so well? Clearly the reason is that the substitution of the word “may” for the words “is calculated to” will make a completely different impact on the people who shall—not “who may”—do certain things as members of the board. That is putting the board in a very awkward position, because anything “may” happen, and so, for safety’s sake the board says that they will not pass this film because then they would have to explain why they allow a film which may eventually have a certain effect, to be released.

The further point I want to make in regard to this clause is that it still appears necessary to retain all those offensive matters which are in the original Act of 1931, like drunkenness and brawling, which are still regarded as offensive. Under (c) it is stated that if a film depicts “in an offensive manner” drunkenness and brawling, the film must be banned or the scene cut out. I would like to ask in what way the depiction of drunkenness or brawling can be anything but offensive to the ordinary decent man. What is the distinction here between depicting it in an offensive way, or depicting it in the ordinary way? The Minister must make up his mind, whether he stands by the 1931 Act or whether we have gone forward, because this Act is 32 years old. I wonder whether he will consider whether a matter like this should still be contained in this Bill? [Time limit.]

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Weiss put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—70: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; 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.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais. J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—40: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M..; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and H. Suzman.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move the amendment standing in the name of Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker)—

This clause has been taken over from Section 4 of the Entertainments and Censorship Act of 1931, but in taking it over it has been altered quite substantially and has been made much wider in its terms. In particular, the new draft excludes the aggrieved person not only from appealing against a decision of the board or the Minister, but it also deprives him now of having any recourse to the courts by way of review.

He never had it.

The present section gives him a right to appeal to the Minister and then it says that the decision shall be final. But the new clause goes very much further and says that the decision of the Minister, or the person delegated thereto, shall not be subject to appeal or review by any court of law. but shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to be a decision of the board. In particular, it takes away the right of review. Now review proceedings are instituted whenever there is irregularity or when a wrong approach to the matter has been made by the officer or the Minister concerned. This is so great a departure from the original and existing provisions that it is quite obvious that some safeguard has now got to be introduced in sub-section (2), and that is the purpose of my amendment. It is to introduce a safeguard because the responsibility of the Minister to whom the appeal goes is now far greater than it was, and merely to leave in the hands of the officer delegated to undertake the task is not reasonable. The responsibility becomes far greater— the duty of the Minister—and I think it is our responsibility as Parliament to make quite sure that the Minister concerned will undertake the added responsibilities which are now vested in him. I know the Minister will say that he cannot do everything himself and has to delegate powers. There may be practical difficulties, but they must be overcome in the administration of the Act, and it is quite obvious that by a process of delegation the problem that confronts the Minister is narrowed down. The official to whom the delegated powers are given will narrow down the issue and he will arrive at the crucial point on which the decision should be based. So a great deal of the spadework when there is an appeal will devolve upon the official, but the crucial decision as to whether in terms of the new provision the decision of the board should be confirmed, varied or set aside will then be the responsibility of the Minister himself. When rights are taken away from individuals it is the duty of this House to ensure that there is a counter safeguard in the law itself, and that is the reason I move this amendment.

I think any Minister, including myself, is quite willing to take all these great responsibilities on himself if only it is humanly possible to do so. But the hon. member realizes that there may be a situation where the Minister will have to look at films all day. He will have to view himself every film in regard to which there is an appeal, because I, for one, refuse to be a rubber-stamp. As my delegate I usually appoint the chief magistrate of Cape Town because films were censored here in the past. If the Minister was in Pretoria he would need a specially constructed place, and after the chief magistrate of Cape Town has taken a decision the Minister would have to see the film himself in order to decide whether he agreed with that decision or not. That is the first point. How can hon. members opposite expect a Minister to do that? What does delegation mean then?

What does “Minister” mean?

What was the hon. member worth as an official? Did he not exercise delegated powers? Did he not do certain things on behalf of his Minister? I just want to tell him that the executive official who cannot delegate powers is useless, because he can then only overwork himself like a slave and bump his head like a donkey but he will achieve nothing. There are more important things to do than that. But let me say this. The person to whom I delegate the powers is the chief magistrate of Cape Town. That is how I found the position, and I am carrying on with it, and I have full confidence in him. When the chief magistrate himself feels that the position is difficult, he has in the past asked me to view a film personally, and in my period of office I have viewed three films together with the chief magistrate and we discussed the matter. But I trust an intelligent man occupying such an important position as I would trust myself. I do not think we should deviate from this procedure. It has worked well in the past and will continue to do so, and why the hon. member wants something else astounds me. Has the hon. member considered that as a political figure I may be put in an untenable position and be accused of applying political censorship by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout if I do it myself—by that hon. member who is so afraid of political censorship and who is always so suspicious and always says that is what we are doing. There may be a film containing an element of politics, something which is applicable to our circumstances, and then the cry will go up that the Minister has done it. No, let us leave the matter to the officials who can bear that responsibility and who occupy high posts; let us trust them, and I will make use of them as far as possible, and I can give hon. members the assurance that the film industry is quite satisfied with it.

I simply cannot understand how the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) can think that this clause as it is worded now deviates so much from the original section. He said “it deprives him of the right of appeal to the courts, and the right of review”, What is the position? The original provision in the 1931 Act was precisely the same as is contained here, just worded differently. It clearly provides that anyone who feels aggrieved can appeal to the Minister; he can only appeal to the Minister, and he never had the right to appeal to court. The Minister then had the right, to refer it to someone else, such as the Chief Magistrate, and he has the right to do that now also. It is precisely as it was in the past. The hon. member is confused when he says that someone is being deprived here of a right he enjoyed in the past. In addition, I just want to say that this provision has remained as it was. and that there is no appeal to the courts, at the express request of the film industry itself. In their memorandum to the Select Committee they expressly said: “we strongly urge that the right of appeal should be in accordance with the procedure established under the Censorship Act, namely to the Minister of the Interior and not to the Supreme Court.” They themselves asked that the position should remain the same. This provision is the same as it was in terms of the 1931 Act, and where the hon. member gets the idea that anyone is being deprived of a right he enjoyed before I simply do not know.

I move—

It has the effect of introducing a right of appeal. I listened to what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said, that simply because there was no right of appeal to the court of law that position should continue. It might be true to say that those persons interested in the matter have not asked for any change, but they may not be there for ever.

Then they can ask for the law to be changed.

Well, let us change it now. We are now unfortunately in the process of developing a new attitude towards censorship in this country, and while we are about it let us put in the right of appeal. If the existing persons in charge of the film industry do not care to use that right, that is their business, but at least it will be there for those who follow them. I can predict now that the people who follow them might very well want the right of appeal and it will be much more difficult then to persuade the Government to give them the right of appeal, so let us give it now. I ask for it because I have no doubt at all that the new Board will act in an even more ridiculous way than the Board of Censors. Therefore I move that a right of appeal should be given to the film industry, as well as to the importers of literature and the local producers of literature.

*Mr. B. COETZEE; The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is really being childish now. She knows as well as I do that if one could ever find a group of hard-headed business men it would be the film people. Why do they not want an appeal to the court? For the simple reason that if a film is rejected, they have invested a lot of money in it and if the case goes to court it will take months before they can get a decision, and in the meantime the film cannot be exhibited and they lose money. If they ask for it in 15 years’ time the law can be amended.

Does the hon. member not understand that there is a difference? The films exhibited by the private organizations are also included here, and those people might want to appeal.

That is .01 per cent. Here we have a tremendously large film industry, and they say unanimously that they do not want any appeal to the courts, and as a business man it is quite clear to me why they do not want it. They do not want to keep a film for months without being able to exhibit it. They want an appeal to the Minister so that they can have a speedy decision. If the whole of the film industry, Twentieth Century Fox, African Theatres, Schlesinger, Inrybelange and all the rest say they do not want an appeal to the courts, why does the hon. member want it? She is just being a difficult woman. I do not know on whose behalf she is talking. Now she says that she is talking on behalf of the private associations which exhibit 8 mm. and 16 mm. films.

She is talking on behalf of future generations!

Yes, but she does not know whether they will want the right of appeal. If they ask for it I am sure the Minister will consider it, but to-day they do want it. The hon. member is just being obstinate.

I strongly want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I do so because this side of the House, quite independently from her, decided that we would insist that the whole scope of this Bill should be made subject to an appeal to the courts. We on this side cannot advance a single argument without hon. members opposite telling us that there is an appeal to the courts. If they are really serious, we ask that the right of appeal should be granted to everybody. It is not a question of what the present film industry wants or does not want. How do we know that the so-called film industry speaks on behalf of everybody? There are the private exhibitors, and even if they are only 1 per cent of the total or more, we are dealing with principles here. But I want to point out how weak the argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging is. The only reason he gives as to why the film industry does not want a right of appeal is because it will take months to get a judgment. But who says that the industry would not want to make a test case of a particular film once in a while? The Government continually uses the argument in regard to this Bill that the courts will set the norms. If the film industry is not satisfied with the Minister’s actions and his norms, why should we prevent them from making a test case so that norms can also be determined for films? If he says that is the only reason why they do not want a right of appeal, I do not accept it at all. The film industry, as it exists to-day, surely will not be the same to-morrow. Surely changes come about: there may be new people at the head of affairs. But even so, we are dealing here with the matter of principle, and they need not make use of the right of appeal if they do not want to. It is only a right they obtain, not a duty, but it is the duty of this Parliament to make the whole Bill subject to an appeal to the court, and unless the Government is prepared to do so it should stop boasting about the appeal to the court allowed by the Bill.

But the amendment does not ask for it.

That is what the amendment is about, that an appeal to the court should be provided also in the case of films censored by the Board of Control. We fully support this amendment.

I want to point out to the hon. members for Houghton and Bezuidenhout that if we provide here that there will be an appeal to the courts also in the case of films, then the appeal to the Minister falls away, and then the Board will take the decision and from the decision of the Board they will have to go to the Supreme Court. If the film industry itself says they do not wish to go to court, it means that they will have no appeal whatever and will have to abide by the decision of the Board. Those hon. members are therefore trying to deprive the film industry of a right they have to-day, and which they want to retain, to appeal to the Minister against a decision of the Board. If the appeal to the Court—which the film industry does not want—is provided for, their appeal to the Minister will fall away.

Why?

Of course it will fall away. One cannot have an appeal first to the Minister and then from the Minister to the Court. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stated ad nauseum that it should be precisely the same as in the other cases. But in the other cases there is no appeal to the Minister. The appeal goes from the decision of the Board to the court. It is quite clear that in the case of books the appeal against the Board’s decision is to the court. If therefore they want an appeal to the court here then the appeal they have to the Minister must fall away. That is as clear as daylight.

But what I find most peculiar in what hon. members say is (their assertion) that what is wanted by the people interested in the matter makes no difference. It therefore makes no difference that the film industry unanimously asked that there should be no appeal to the courts. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked who these people are who are interested in the matter. Here is the list—

These people represent the whole film industry. Now the position is that the 1961 Bill, which was referred to the Select Committee in 1962, provided in Clause 10 that in the case of films they would also have an appeal from the Board to the courts. In other words, the same position which applied in the case of books was proposed also for films. But what happened then? The film industry then wrote the following to the Select Committee—

That is precisely what they ask for and what the Minister now offers. The memorandum further reads as follows—

This is what the interested parties say further—

Mr. Chairman, if this does not state the position convincingly, how can one put it more clearly to the United Party and to the hon. member for Houghton who wants to anticipate the wishes of future generations?

It is all very nice to hear the hon. member for Fort Beaufort expressing such tremendous concern for the views of industry, but I can remember other occasions in this House when the hon. the Minister of the Interior was in charge of legislation, where complete dismissal of the claims of industry was advocated by both the Minister and the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. I am thinking, for instance, of the occasion when job reservation was introduced under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Neither the Minister, nor the hon. member mentioned then, took the slightest notice of the declarations, demands and pleas of the whole manufacturing industry of South Africa. But now, suddenly, when it happens to agree with their views …

When we do not listen to them, you object; and when we do listen to them, you also object!

But here there is a difference. Here it would not make the slightest difference to this Bill or the Minister’s or anybody else’s attitude if a right of appeal were allowed. How would that affect the Minister’s Bill? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort is quite wrong when he says that if we include a right of appeal to the Minister, we must then leave out an appeal to the Courts, or vice versa. Why can there not be the intermediate stage which would satisfy the desires of the industry for speed and an immediate and quick review of the Board’s decision—in other words, to continue to refer the matter to the Minister—and thereafter to go to the Courts on appeal if they desire to do so? Also, the whole situation, as far as the cinematograph film industry is concerned, will change if and when we get television.

Now, this is something which should be considered. It is very important. At the moment the cinematograph film industry has a complete monopoly of visual entertainment outside the live theatre, which, however, caters for a very small audience only. But the minute that television comes to this country—and, despite the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and his absolutely mediaeval attitude to this modern means of communication, sooner or later television will come to South Africa—the film industry’s monopoly of visual entertainment will be broken. And then attitudes will change. Then it will matter whether half the films they want to show to the public have been censored by the Board of Censors or so drastically cut that it is not worthwhile seeing them anyway.

Therefore, Sir, I say that this—and not for future generations, but for the near future— should be included in the clause. It will not make the slightest difference to the form of the Bill. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Vereeniging have been boasting from the minute the second reading of the Bill commenced, that the right of appeal is being allowed. I cannot understand why they are so adamant in not allowing such a right of appeal to the cinematograph film industry. I repeat: If the film industry of present-day South Africa does not wish to make use of its right of appeal, then they need not do so. Who cares? Let them then continue to go to the Minister. But there is still no reason why the principle of the right of appeal should not be included for this particular part of the visual art.

Whilst I can congratulate the hon. member for Fort Beaufort on his reading, I wish I could say the same about his understanding of what he has read. To tell this House that the provisions of Clause 2 (2) represent just a difference in wording and nothing more, is certainly an amazing statement to make. That the hon. member cannot understand a difference where, as happens here, the law having denied someone a right of appeal, but, having left his right of review, it is then altered to take away this right of recourse to the Courts by way of review, is past my understanding.

Coming to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, I say that it must find as much approval with the Minister as it does with me. The Minister will remember that, during the second-reading debate, he indicated that he had considered very seriously the granting of a right of appeal to the Courts also in cases of this kind. But he chose to shield behind the fact that the industry as such had not asked for it. That is really no answer at all, because if this House considers that there should be such a right of appeal, it should be granted. As other hon. members have already indicated, such a right need not be exercised if the aggrieved person does not want to use it. But it should, nevertheless, be there. If the Minister fulfils what he personally said he would like to see, then here is the opportunity for him to show his appreciation of the situation and to say to the film industry that provision is to be made for an appeal to the Courts, and that it is up to the persons concerned to make use of it or not. But do not simply shield behind the fact that they happened to say that they are not interested in it at the moment.

Sir, the need for such a right of appeal becomes all the more important in view of the attitude of the Minister to the amendment which I moved. In the first place, the Minister has missed the point of my amendment. The point of this amendment is not that the Minister should do the job over again himself, or that he should watch every film himself, but that, having delegated that duty to someone, he should take steps to confirm any decision that is taken.

To be a rubber stamp!

To confirm that decision. If he has trust in the individual to whom he has delegated that power, it will be easy to confirm his decision; if he, on the other hand, does not have complete trust in such a person, then it might not be so easy. This proviso will ensure that the Minister—and not this Minister only, but every Minister—will always see that the person to whom he has delegated his powers, is a man of such calibre that trust can be placed in him. In terms of the provision as it now reads, there is no certainty that a Minister—not this Minister of course—will always appoint the chief magistrate of Cape Town or of Johannesburg! He can appoint anybody! There is no obligation upon him to appoint the first-mentioned persons. The clause leaves the public with a serious misconception when it talks about somebody having a right of appeal to the Minister and when in the very next paragraph reduces the value of that right by saying that the Minister can delegate his powers in that regard to anybody.

I accept that this hon. Minister will continue to use men of the calibre of the chief Magistrate of Johannesburg for instance. That is not good enough, however. The law itself should make provision for the necessary safeguards in that respect. The views of this Minister do not suffice. He cannot speak for his successor! He does not know whether or not his successors will hold the same views as he does and will appoint the same type of person! Therefore, the law itself should make the necessary provision for safeguards …

Well, my predecessors spoke for me!

I have not heard the views of the hon. Minister’s predecessors, so that I cannot tell. I do know this, however, that the law binds no one unless it clearly says that these particular powers should only be delegated to magistrates of a certain experience. If that is done the proviso would have to be worded differently. The attitude the Minister has taken up however—although he missed the real point of my amendment—to my mind emphasizes the importance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite and the attitude they adopt against this clause remind me of a communist agitator who stood on the steps of the Johannesburg City Hall and addressed a gathering. He said, inter alia, how nice it would be if the revolution came. He shouted, “Come the revolution!”. Then he saw somebody pass in a Cadillac and added, “And you will all ride in Cadillacs like that!” Then a woman with a beautiful fur coat walked past and he said, “Come the revolution and you will all wear lovely mink coats like that.” Later he no longer knew what else to say and simply said, “Come the revolution and you will all get strawberries and ice-cream.” A member at the audience then shouted “But I do not like strawberries and ice-cream.” To which he replied, “Come the revolution and you will like strawberries and ice cream!”

Here we now have the position that the film industry said they did not want an appeal to the court, but hon. members opposite say, “Come the United Party and you will have an appeal to the Supreme Court!” What nonsense is that? These people do not want it; they do not ask for it. Therefore why should it be given to them? They do not want it for practical reasons and in their own interests! They therefore do not ask for it, but in spite of that those hon. members want to force it down their throats whether they like it or not. We wanted to give it to them; in fact, it was provided for in the 1961 Bill. Provision was made for an appeal to the courts, but then they sent the memorandum quoted by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort in which they clearly said that they did not want it because of their particular requirements. But hon. members opposite persist in saying that they should have an appeal to the courts. Why? I can only say that they have directed their request to the wrong address.

I want to give hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. members for Houghton, Port Elizabeth (South) and Bezuidenhout, a very good plan. Let them send a deputation to the film industry to try to persuade that industry to apply to have the right to appeal to the courts. When those hon. members have succeeded in persuading those people, let them then direct a request to the Minister. But now they are knocking on the wrong door and they are pleading for something which the people for whom they ask it do not want.

The hon. the Minister in replying to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) omitted one very important point. Nobody can argue that it is never necessary to delegate powers! Everybody has got to do that at some stage or other. In a question like this, however, which can be a question of life or death for a particular firm, a wrong decision might have very serious consequences. Therefore, steps should be taken to ensure that such decision is of the highest order. If it had been laid down in this Bill to whom the Minister would delegate, naming the persons in order of seniority perhaps, it would have been acceptable. But now the position is that a delegation can take place to anybody. It may lead to a similar situation as that in which a Judge leaves the judgment to his clerk!

The point is that the Minister can be attacked in this House for a wrong decision whereas the person to whom powers have been delegated cannot. The Minister, on the other hand, being a member of this House can be attacked directly and all the evidence can be brought to show that there has—to quote an illustration —been favouritism or something of that nature. I do not refer to this hon. Minister personally and I hope he will take my remarks in that spirit. But the fact is that he is a public figure who can be brought to book before the whole country whereas we cannot in decency attack a civil servant because he cannot answer back. I know the Minister can say that he will take full responsibility for any decision. That, however. is not good enough. The man who made the decision should be called to give account. I hope the Minister does not think we are merely talking for the sake of talking. We regard this as an important matter.

I do not wish to make a personal attack on my friend, the hon. member for Green Point. I just wish to remind him, however, that in the course of the years and with one change of Cabinet after another, there may have been great differences in regard to what the actual duties and responsibilities of a Cabinet Minister are. Of course I am not saying that my hon. friend did not have the necessary sense of responsibility in his time. In so far as my conception of the matter is concerned I want to say that I am one of those who will definitely refuse to do anything in my capacity as Minister which smacks of being a rubberstamp. I am not there merely to sign on the dotted line. If I sign a document and accent responsibility for it, I want to be able to say that I have done it on my own and that it is my decision.

On the other hand, the position is that although I give delegated powers to any official, I still remain the responsible person. And surely the hon. member for Green Point knows that. Nevertheless, he says that the trouble is that we cannot attack the official concerned in this House. But that is not necessary. If I have delegated powers to him. I remain the responsible person and I can be attacked. How many powers are not delegated to officials! Sometimes I hear for the first time, e.g. during the Budget debate, of some or other decision given by one of my officials.

In addition, not only am I responsible for the actions of people to whom I have delegated powers, but also for those of my predecessors. I hold a post. In terms of this Bill, I am bound just as much as I would be if the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) was accepted.

Therefore I do not believe there is any mis-conception here In regard to the question of an appeal to the courts, I think one should have a practical approach to the matter. Circumstances differ from industry to industry. The film industry is a costly one. If a film is received it must be exhibited within a certain period. Delays may not matter so much in regard to other things, and people can still afford to wait for the judgment of the court. We know how long it sometimes takes for a case to be heard. Thereafter there may again be an appeal to a higher court and in that way a matter may be delayed for months or even years. The circumstances of the film industry are quite different from those of other industries, with which the film industry cannot be compared. Millions of rand have been invested in such a film and it is therefore necessary that it be distributed as quickly as possible. We have had experience of that. Let me tell hon. members that in regard to the film “King of Kings”, the Censor Board held up this film a little longer than usual. It must be remembered that offering a film to theatres has to be planned months beforehand and therefore they must be assured that a certain film will be exhibited at a certain time. Speedy decisions are therefore essential.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort was himself a member of the Censor Board in the old days and he has told me of the many thousands of feet of film each member had to view in his time. I believe it was seven times more than the normal footage. In any case it was a formidable task. There are thousands of films. I think we should make the hon. member for Green Point a member of the Board. Then he would talk differently, and he would very soon delegate powers. But to return to the film industry, I can understand their attitude. I can understand how they would like to accept what hon. members now want to give them if it were in any way practicable, but they see what difficulties will be involved. And let us not first seek an appeal to the Minister and thereafter to the courts! That is surely not the correct procedure. Are the lawyers opposite able to tell me where a similar position exists? There may be an appeal to the courts against the decision of the Minister, but surely one cannot make a Minister who holds an executive post in the Government a Judge of appeal and then say one will not accept his decision but will take the matter to court! There is no similar procedure in our country—at any rate, not as far as I know. If I am wrong, let hon. members tell me where a similar procedure is applied. For this reason it is impossible for me to accept the proposed amended procedure.

On every amendment proposed by this side of the House and on every clause, the hon. the Minister shifts his grounds. [Interruptions.] It is no use groaning about it. I made an appeal last night to the hon. the Minister in regard to the difficulties which would arise in the case of “live” theatre because of the threat hanging over the head of any promoter or producer or commercial or amateur company. But the hon. the Minister was determined not to reply, and when I made a second attempt to get a reply, he said I must draw my own conclusions from what he said earlier. But to-night the Minister gets up to say that these people in the film industry have certain difficulties because they have to announce the showing of a film months in advance. He asks, therefore, how we can hold this thing over their heads? With all respect to the Minister, I should like to say that he should remember what he said, and he should be consistent enough to make fish of the one and fish of the other and not flesh of the one and “foul” of the other.

In the light of their memorandum, it seems to me that there is a very cosy arrangement here between the board of censors and the so-called film industry. The Minister must remember that this “industry” is not really an industry, because they produce practically none of the products which are sold, and that it should come under the heading of “commerce” rather than of “industry”. As I was saying, there seems to be an arrangement with the board of censors whereby there is a certain “informal procedure” which is followed in the passing of pictures. They say that they do not want the “orthodox” procedure which will apply when one has to go to the courts; but they want the “informal procedure” in terms of which they can go to the board, and the Minister, and talk man to man, as it were. That is very useful as far as the Minister or the board and the distributors are concerned. The only people whose interests are entirely disregarded are those who pay to see the films, because as a result of this very cosy arrangement which the Minister apparently wants to perpetuate, the public of South Africa have to pay top prices to see films which have been mutilated by the board of censors in the most inartistic way. And the Minister knows it. There is the case of the film “South Pacific”, for instance. A film like that is given what is called the “road-show” treatment, and it would then run for three or four months in one of the big cinemas in a city at prices up to R1.50. But what does the public get for that? Not the “South Pacific” which the producers made, or of the stage show! On the contrary, they see a film whereof 40 minutes are completely unintelligible.

The public of South Africa are the sufferers as a result of the treatment to which a film is often subjected in terms of this very cosy set-up between the board of censors and the so-called film industry, because they have to pay top prices for a film which is not the same as the one which was originally created. A film—to be good—has to be an artistic whole, whether as to the scene which were shot, or the synchronization of music and dialogue, etc. As such, it is not meant to be cut or mutilated in any way. But as it is done here, it is sometimes impossible even to understand what type of music is being played in the background, because it jumps from one key to another on account of it having been interfered with by the censors. These things are all very well for the board—but not for the public.

Another aspect of this debate which strikes me is another cosy arrangement which exists between the Minister and the hon. members for Vereeniging and for Fort Beaufort. Throughout the discussions on this Bill, they have given the House a perfect illustration of the eternal triangle! No sooner did the hon. the Minister fail to find an answer, than those hon. members jumped in.

The Minister may refuse an amendment coming from this side of the House; he may refuse to give consideration to any plea, and he may refuse to give answers. The simple fact is, however, that he has not told the House why he refuses to amend sub-section (3) of this clause in the way we have asked him to do. By so doing, he is not taking any rights away, nor is he depriving anybody of anything. His argument that nobody asked for this, is no stronger than my argument that the board would, as far as the book trade is concerned, do a very different thing with a particular book if the representations of the Book Traders’ Association had been given some consideration. It appears that when a trade association which has an interest in this Bill asks for something to be done then the Minister says: “I am not prepared to take any notice of them whatsoever.” But when the film industry comes along and asks for something not to be done, that they should not have the right of appeal to the courts, then the Minister says “That is fine; there will be no appeal to the courts”, He himself has said that in delegating his authority, say, to the chief magistrate of Cape Town, he has from time to time been called upon by that same official to see the film about which that chief magistrate has had doubts. So you have this situation, Sir, that the films which are ultimately banned, as far as the public of South Africa is concerned, are seen in a cosy private view by the hon. the Minister. He then decides on the film, and tells the chief magistrate what his opinion is. Then he says the chief magistrate has the delegated authority and the representations should be made to him. The whole position, apart from any political aspect, is completely indefensible. Even if the hon. the Minister of Information now tries to assist the Minister it will not help; he could not sell his ideas to the Chinese! We cannot take the matter any further than to say to the Minister that as this clause now stands, it cuts across the very argument that has been advanced about the value of the right of appeal to the court. That argument has been advanced by many hon. members. But this clause as it stands makes nonsense of every speech which has been made by the Minister or by his supporters about the value of the right of appeal to the court. It only shows that there is a determination here to free certain sections of traders, and to disregard completely the representations of other sections of commerce, and certainly the interests of the public as a whole.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has really made a Charlie Chaplin speech. He now wants the Control Board—the Censor Board, as he calls it—to be a selection board to judge the quality of the thing. Sir, that is not why this Bill is there. The hon. member does not bear in mind the difference between films and ordinary books. The film people expressly requested that the Bill should be as it is because they realize that one cannot first appeal to the Minister in his executive capacity and thereafter to the Supreme Court. They do not want an appeal only to the Supreme Court because they realize the high costs involved and the loss they will suffer as the result of the delay. Those losses are so huge that the film people prefer not to have an appeal to the court. They expressly requested that there should be an appeal to the Minister only.

There is another point. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) now wants to allege that this Bill is quite different from the 1931 Act. Let us read Section 4 of the 1931 Act. It says—

That is precisely the same as Clause 11 (1). There is no difference at all. Now let me read sub-sec. (2) of Section 4 of the 1931 Act—

In other words, Act No. 28 of 1931 has precisely the same wording as Clause 11 of this Bill. There is no difference at all, except that in Clause 11 we still have sub-sec. (3)—

That is the only thing added here. In other words, Act 28 of 1931, the Act with which the film industry, as well as this whole party and the whole of South Africa has always been satisfied, the Act with which the public who view the films have always been satisfied and the Act which has always rendered the best service as far as practicable, is precisely the same as this Bill. Act 28 of 1931 also provides that the decision of the Minister is final. Clause 11 also provides for that in all three sub-sections. Hon. members now want to put the film industry into the invidious position that in regulating the exhibition of its films and booking the theatres it will land in such a chaotic position that its organization cannot carry on.

Surely they need not appeal unless they want to.

I know they need not, but you want them not to appeal to the Minister.

No.

Now hon. members want them to be able to appeal to both. Surely hon. members know that there is no legislation in terms of which anybody can appeal to a Minister who can give a decision in his executive capacity, and then still appeal to the Supreme Court. What position would we be creating in South Africa if we allowed that? We would have an impossible situation. If this was allowed the Minister simply would not or could not give a decision in any doubtful case. Now I want to know this: Can the Board appeal to the court? They want to land the film industry in an absolutely untenable position. If you allow an appeal to the Minister and thereafter to the Supreme Court, the Minister cannot afford to give a decision in any doubtful case. The result will be that tremendous harm will be done to the whole film industry. It will be placed in such a position that it cannot arrange its programmes; it will not know when the appeal will be finalized, and when that film is exhibited one day it will be so old that it will be useless. I just cannot conceive in whose interest the hon. members asked for this amendment. I cannot for a moment believe that they do so in the interest of the cinema-attending public. If they do so in their interest it can only mean that they want this Board to decide which sensational films are worth seeing. But that is something the public itself decides; the advertisements decide it. It is not the task of this Board. The duty of this Board is clearly defined. The Board must see to it that the public do not see the wrong films, obnoxious films. Its task is not the one for which hon. members want to use it. Hon. members plead for something which nobody wants.

Hon. members should look at the memorandum and the evidence given by the film industry. Ever since 1931 those people have effectively run their business in terms of Act 28. both as regards themselves and the public, and they expressly asked not to be made subject to an appeal to the court. They asked to be left in the position in which they were under the 1931 Act. I really do not know why hon. members are asking for this appeal to the courts.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) is still thinking in terms of the days of Charlie Chaplin. The film industry is busy undergoing a great change. With the advent of television— we are still behind the modern world in this regard, but as soon as we have thrown out the Government television will be introduced into South Africa—the film companies are gradually adopting a new course in regard to films, namely to make one or two big films a year which cost millions of rand and which can be exhibited in the cinema for as long as a year or more. A film like “South Pacific” is for example the type of film which runs in the large cities of the world for a year.

Now the Minister advances an argument which does not follow logically on the argument he used previously when we discussed book censorship. He said that the appeal to the court was a lengthy and expensive process. Of course it is expensive and often a lengthy process. But it concerns an expensive article. As in the case of books there will surely also be test cases in the case of films, which will set the norm. That is the very argument the hon. the Minister used in the case of books, but now he says that it does not apply in the case of expensive items such as films. The Minister is arguing against himself. He is not now adopting the same logical standpoint he adopted in respect of an appeal to the court in the case of books.

There is nothing wrong with the film industry first appealing to the Minister. There is nothing wrong in having a law which provides for that. When the ordinary appeal is noted, it goes from the magistrate’s court to the Provincial Division and eventually to the Appeal Court. There are various steps. What is wrong with having it in this case also? If the film industry is dissatisfied with a decision of the Board of Control, let it go to the Minister if it feels that that will satisfy it. But I do believe that we should give them the right to go to the Appeal Court also, a right which they need not use if they do not wish to.

I want to conclude by putting this question to the Minister: Has he personally any objection in principle, apart from what the film industry says, to the granting of a right of appeal to the Appeal Court in the case of films?

I have no objection in principle.

Well, if the Minister has no real objection and this side of the House insists on it, then he ought to accept the amendment.

I want to show the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) how illogical he is in regard to the whole matter. He says there should be an appeal to the Minister and thereafter to the court. He wants to know what is so funny about that, because he says that if one is dissatisfied with the decision of a magistrate one can appeal to the Supreme Court and later to the Appeal Court. But, Sir, if one appeals to the Supreme Court or to the Appeal Court, both sides may appeal, either the complainant or the defendant. The film industry is quite satisfied with an appeal to the Minister. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that whether they want an appeal to the court or not, we must give them that right. Is he prepared to give the same right of appeal to the Control Board?

Has the Control Board got it in the case of books?

I ask whether he is willing to give the same right of appeal to the Control Board? The Control Board does not need that right of appeal in regard to books, because it simply disapproves of a book, or bans it. That is the injustice which is committed, if it is an injustice. Then it gives the man to whom an injustice has possibly been done the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Now take this case. A film goes to the Board of Control. The Board says they cannot allow it to be exhibited. The film industry then appeals to the Minister. The Minister says: Very well, you may exhibit it. Is the hon. member satisfied that the Board of Control should then be able to note an appeal to the court?

Why must the Board of Control have an appeal to the court?

Why not? It is a statutory body and it has legal status; it is a body which is just as entitled to its opinion as anyone else.

May I put a question? If in the case of a film an appeal is noted, does the hon. member not think that the Board of Control will go to court and put its case?

I just want to illustrate why the film industry does not want to go to court. If the Board of Control disapproves of a film and the industry goes to the Minister and the Minister says that they may exhibit the film, is the hon. member in favour of the Board of Control also having the right to appeal?

It has no interest in it.

Why not? In terms of the duties entrusted to it by the law, it regards a film as undesirable, and unless it has that right of appeal. Sir, there is no meaning at all in this question of an appeal to the court. And if the Board of Control is given that right it can destroy the whole of the film industry. These hon. members now want to push something down the throat of the film industry which it does not want. They now make the point that in regard to books and other periodicals there is an appeal to the court. But when we come to the film industry, as the Minister has said, those people cannot wait for months for a decision. Millions of rand have been invested in the industry and they cannot afford not to exhibit a film in a cinema for three or four days or for two or three weeks. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along with this nonsense that nowadays only one or two big films a year are made. That is pure nonsense. Every week we have ten to fifteen changes of programme in Cape Town.

We have no television.

The hon. member professes to know so much about this matter. He says there is a tendency to make long films, but that is not the practice at all; that is the exception. Here in Cape Town alone films are changed ten to fifteen times a week. Where do they come from? Do they fall out of the air?

Not in countries where they have television.

Even in countries where they have television that is the case. The hon. member should not pretend to be so clever in regard to this sort of thing. The whole argument in this regard is quite wrong. Just let me ask the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who made that interjection, whether he has got anyone to go with him to the cinema since last year?

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—39: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Noes—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Donges, T. E.; Du Piessis, 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.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H.

F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That the word “not” in line 40, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Ddnges, T. E.; du Piessis, 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.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—39: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mrs. Suzman negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L J. Q.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A. Diederichs, N.; Ddnges, 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.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg M. C. G. J.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M. Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H. Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—39: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V. Hen wood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood L. F.

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