Mr. Speaker, I am the bearer of a Message from the State President.

The Prime Minister thereupon approached the Table and handed the Message to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker read the Message, as follows:

Message from the State President to both

Houses of Parliament.

C. R. Swart,

State President.

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I wish to make a statement in regard to the message of the State President which has just been conveyed to this House convening a Joint Sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly for Monday the 25th instant. The proposed Joint Sitting is in connection with the proposed Bill to grant a certain form of self-government to the Bantu of the Transkei.

I wish to make known that I intend to introduce a Bill on the occasion of the Joint Sitting to amend Section 108 of the constitution by adding a further sub-section, namely a sub-section (3) after the existing sub-section (2) to the following effect, viz.—

1. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) an Act of Parliament whereby a Bantu area is declared to be a self-governing area in accordance with the provisions of that Act, may provide for the recognition of one or more Bantu languages for any or all of the following purposes, namely—
   1. (a) as an additional official language or as additional official languages of that area;
   2. (b) for use in that area for official purposes prescribed by or under that Act; or
   3. (c) for sole use in that area in such circumstances and for such limited purposes as may be so prescribed,
      and may contain provisions authorizing the use of any such Bantu language outside the said area for such purposes connected with the affairs of that area and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under that Act.

I deem it advisable to give these particulars concerning the proposed Joint Sitting at this stage so that it will be clear that the Government does not intend to pander to the desire of certain critics that the Transkei Constitution Bill should be submitted to a Joint Sitting of the Senate and the House of Assembly, but that the Government will follow the course indicated above.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

In the absence of the hon. the Minister I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with the matter and I move the amendment standing in my name—

Clause 12 has been taken over from Section 9 of The Entertainment (Censorship) Act, No. 28 of 1931. Changes have been brought into the substance of the provision. Firstly, it has been drafted in the positive instead of in the negative form as it appears in the 1931 Act. That, of course, is a possible advantage. But there are other material changes in this clause. The word “calculated” is being replaced by the words “may have the effect What was implied by that change in the wording was argued, and I think ably argued from this side, under Clause 10. Because the committee has decided upon that particular issue I do not therefore move again that the word “calculated” be inserted in place of the words “may have the effect ”. But it is a very substantial change because the word “calculated” can and would be argued as being calculated by the person who produces the matter—the film or the picture—whereas there is an extreme limitation on the interpretation of this section if the words are “may have the effect of offending other persons”, As I say, Sir, this is a material change. It is even made more material because of the provisions of Clause 6. Clause 6 was also argued as showing that it in effect changes the principle of our law as far as the onus of proof is concerned. When you read Clause 12 with Clause 6 then the true extent of this change is to be seen. It is in my view a very substantial change and it has therefore brought a big change to the original provisions as they are contained in the existing Act which we are purporting to be taking over but which in fact are being changed. The purpose of my amendment is therefore to get rid of words and to make it perfectly clear that as far as this side of the House is concerned, we stand by the provision that any matter which may be indecent or obscene or harmful to public morals should be in the power of this board to prohibit. But we are opposed to this addition of words as set out in the clause because of the change which the provisions of the Bill bring about.

I also wish to move the amendment standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan)—

This is a new provision and there is in effect really no need for it. No need for it was felt in the past. Since 1931 when the existing Act was passed no need has arisen at all and the Minister has not indicated why a provision of this nature should be incorporated in the present legislation. It is obviously an unnecessary invasion into privacy, because as it reads it will extend the prohibitions to a club or an association of persons who, merely because they are associated with such a club or some other body and have to pay, either directly or indirectly, subscriptions to this association or club, will have their privacy invaded by this provision. They will be subject to the provision of the clause itself. That, as I say, is an unnecessary invasion into the privacy of people and I move that it be deleted.

There are very good reasons why this clause has been drafted in this way. It clarifies Section 1 (a) (i) (ii) and (b). In the memoranda which were submitted to the Select Committee it was very expressly asked that those particular aspects should be covered. To replace it now by a general clause which deals only with certain matters which are indecent or obscene and harmful to public morals, does not at all cover the field which we have been asked to cover. I just want to refer to the memorandum which was submitted by the African Jewish Board of Deputies. They clearly stated, inter alia—

They went on to say—

You see, therefore, Sir, that here they specifically asked that we should not only prohibit things which are indecent or obscene but certain things which are calculated to incite ill-will between certain racial groups, to bring certain racial groups into contempt. The Jewish Board said further—

They say the following in paragraph 3—

You will notice that they do not say things which are intended to stir up such feelings. They clearly say things which are calculated or intended to stir up ill-feelings between various racial groups. That is why we say here that anything which may have the effect, that is calculated or intended, of

1. (i) giving offence to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic; or
2. (ii) bringing any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt.

This clause has been taken over practically word for word from the 1931 Act where the same applies in respect of films. There are very good reasons, therefore, why we should state clearly that it is not only anything which is obscene, but anything which is calculated or intended to bring any section of the population into contempt or to incite ill-will between various sections of the population. I wish to add that the Jewish Board of Deputies is perhaps the body in our country which have for years and years exerted themselves to have legislation in South Africa against giving offence to the feelings of a section of the population. For example, if somebody were to say that the Jews were crooks or offensive any Jew should have the right to institute a prosecution. If somebody were to say that the Afrikaners were backward and contemptible, as is sometimes said, any Afrikaner should have the right to institute a prosecution. That has always been the contention of the Jewish Board of Deputies. In view of that we cannot do otherwise than to lay down a minimum as provided for in this clause, namely that any person or any group of persons who writes anything or says anything to place a section of the population into contempt or to sow hatred between the sections of the population ought to be liable to prosecution. That is a very sound rule. That is a rule which we ought to have in South Africa. To replace that with a general formula which will only guard against anything indecent and obscene will not cover the objects of this Bill at all. That is why I think we are bound, Mr. Chairman, to give effect to this memorandum which was submitted to us—and there were others as well which insisted on the same thing— and to state specifically in the law that these things should be regulated.

I shall not talk long on this clause because the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is very similar to the one which appears in my name on the Order Paper. I just want to say a word or two about the statement which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has just made. It is quite true that the Jewish Board of Deputies put in a memorandum asking that anybody who is aggrieved by the decision of the board or who considers a decision of the board’s to be inimicable to the community can in fact appeal. But I think the hon. member might also have told this committee that that memorandum also stated quite unequivocally that the definition clause was far too wide, both the one applying to Clause 5, which was the one to which the hon. member was largely addressing his remarks …

It has nothing to do with this clause.

The hon. member says it has nothing to do with this clause but his speech concerned this particular clause. In fact, as far as Clause 12 is concerned, it does of course apply to this clause in a limited way in so far as it defines what sort of public entertainment might be considered offensive. To that extent the memorandum also applies to this, but it is obviously largely aimed at publications or documents and therefore not public entertainment per se. I think the hon. member should have told the committee that in the same memorandum criticism was in fact levelled against the definition clauses in both Clause 5 and this clause by the Jewish Board of Deputies, which, in fact, asked for very much more limiting phraseology to be used. They said—

They say—

They asked for a narrower definition altogether. They were referring to undesirable publications but it does, of course, apply here because the definition of “offensive to a section of the inhabitants of the Republic” comes into this clause as well. That is all I wish to say about that aspect.

There is a considerable query in the minds of many people as to the right of appeal in this case. I know Clause 14 is actually the appeal clause but I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he can, to clear up this difficulty here. If there is indeed an appeal in Clause 14 as far as public entertainment is concerned, as well as for the rest of this Bill, then I want to introduce the second part of my amendment, which has the effect that while an appeal is pending, people shall not be subject to the very heavy penalties which are prescribed in this Bill. That is why I have added a clause at the end of sub-section (2) to read

In other words, Sir, pending an appeal, if anybody does defy the board’s edict that such public entertainment falls within this very wide definition of what could be offensive, will that person still be subject to penalties or will such penalties only apply if an appeal, if allowed, is set aside in terms of Clause 147 I move—

Clause 12 is a considerable improvement on the old Section 9 of the Censorship Act. Firstly, as far as this clause is concerned, the improvement lies in this that it gives a wider definition of the norm in order to bring it in conformity with the norms laid down in the rest of the Bill. Another very important improvement contained in this clause is the procedure which is laid down when anybody wishes to lodge an objection in regard to an undesirable entertainment. Let me just remind the committee how the present Act functions and then we will be able to appreciate the improvement in this clause all the more. As the law stands at the moment anybody who wishes to lodge an objection to a performance or film which he regards as undesirable can approach the Minister in that connection. The Minister can then order that performance to stop. As a second step the Minister then refers the matter to the Censorship Board to investigate that performance which has been stopped and to give an opinion. If the board does regard that performance or film to be obscene the promoters have the right to appeal to the Minister again. Whereas he initiated the inquiry in the first instance they can now again appeal to him. If the Minister then gives his decision there is no further appeal from the Minister’s decision to higher quarters; that is. nobody can appeal to the courts. It is suggested in this clause that the Minister be deprived of that power. The Minister can no longer put an end to such a performance. What he can do is to refer it to the board and the board must first investigate it before it can be stopped. It is clearly stated here “if the board is satisfied; the board must be satisfied that the public entertainment suffers from these defects. Then they can stop it. In other words, we cannot stop a performance immediately. That performance must first of all be thoroughly investigated by the board and the board has to decide whether it falls within (a) or (b) of this clause. If the board finds that that performance is obscene in terms of the provisions of this clause and they prohibit its continuance the promoters now indeed have the opportunity of going to court. That is a very important improvement in this clause. That is why I am sorry that I cannot accept one of the amendments of the Opposition in this connection.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) wants to limit the definition. he actually wants to limit it in such a way that it will not be in conformity with the rest of the Bill. In this regard we have the Censorship Act of 1931 and that Act after all has stood the test of time sufficiently long for us not to limit it but rather to make it wider.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is concerned about the appeal to the courts. Fortunately her concern is unfounded. As I said a moment ago, this matter can indeed be referred to the court if the promoters of such a performance are not satisfied with the decision of the board. I hope that will reassure the hon. member.

Then I wish to refer to something which was also raised by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) during the second reading. The hon. member, who I do not notice here, had a great deal to say about this clause. He expressed the fear that it would do harm to the live theatre. Actually, as this clause stands at the moment, it will promote the live theatre more than the old clause because as I have explained in regard to the procedure, such a performance in the live theatre cannot be stopped arbitrarily. It has to be subjected to a very thorough investigation by the board and thereafter the promoters can lodge an appeal if they are not satisfied with the decision of the board. Consequently this clause affords greater protection to the live theatre than that provided for in the existing Act. Perhaps I should just explain why the protection is greater. The board will in this case, as in all other cases, continually be conscious of the fact that its decision is subject to a court decision. I think that thought will cause the board to act very carefully in this case, as also in all other cases, before judging a performance harshly.

Lastly I wish to refer to the powers which are sought in sub-section (3). In terms of this sub-section the board will in future be empowered to prohibit stripteasers. If the board feels that it is obscene they will have the right to prohibit it. We do not make any apology for this because our attitude in this country has always been to place the woman on a high pedestal. I also think it is the duty of the Government and of the state to do everything in their power to maintain the woman in that high regard. If there are people who feel that this will deprive them of their livelihood, I can only say to them that there is enough work in this country for them to do if they wish to earn their daily bread in a more decent way than that. In the light of these considerations I cannot accept the amendments of the Opposition. I hope that like us they will regard this clause as a great improvement on the old Section 9.

I read a letter in the Burner only this morning in which two South African writers, Miss Freda Linde and Mr. W. A. de Klerk, allege that if they write anything in a book which may offend one of the hundreds of religious societies in South Africa, they will be committing an offence.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear ”. He has, of course, read this Bill as little as these two writers have who wrote about it. They do not read it properly and then they think they are so very clever. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is already in the Transkei. She must be careful that Drakensberg does not also fall into the hands of other people … [Interjections.] Drakensberg will fall into the hands of the Nationalist Party at the following election. Mr. Chairman, hon. members are trying to distract my attention but it is very easy to reply to their stupid interjections.

I just want to point out to the lady and gentleman who have expressed that assumption in the Burger that it says clearly in Clause 5 (4) (b) (iv) that “any matter in any publication of a bona fide religious character” is excluded from the provisions of this Act. It does not say any publication. It does not mean, therefore, that it must be a book or a tract which deals solely with religion but any matter in a publication. Any portion, therefore, of a publication which is bona fide of a religious nature does not fall under this legislation. I want to give you an example, Mr. Chairman, of what can indeed fall under this legislation and which I think should fall under it. I had the opportunity the other day of referring to it. I want to do so again in some greater detail. It has become customary for certain newspaper reporters or people who write to the newspapers—even members of the United Party and of the Progressive Party— when they talk about offensive material or pornography or anything obscene, to drag in the Bible and to say that in that event certain sections of the Bible should be banned. I made an appeal that we should please refrain from doing that, that we should not place God’s word on the same plane as the indecencies and obscenities with which we are dealing here. If anybody should write and try to place the Bible on an equal footing with what is intended here with “obscene” and “offensive” he would be offending against the religious convictions of a large number of people, not only of one denomination but of many denominations and I should say the feelings of all Calvinists and even more than the Calvinists. I should say. without trying to prescribe to the board what they should do. that they must be on a strict look-out for that sort of thing because by doing that the religious feelings of a very large section of our population will be offended. That is the sort of thing which we have in mind here, but where the matter is bona fide of a religious nature or where religious matters are dealt with in a section of a book, but in a bona fide way, that is specifically excluded in this legislation.

Question put: That paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—81: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Faurie. W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Key-ter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux. P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—47; Barnett. C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Brinkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin. S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel. A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood. B. H.; Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland. M. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman. J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross. D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman. H.; Taurog. L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and negatived.

Question put: That sub-section (3), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—82: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.: Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay. -L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller. H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield. G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

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

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—82: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.: de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis. H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. L; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move as an amendment—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11, any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the board on any matter in respect of which it is empowered by this Act to make a decision, may within 30 days after the decision of the board was given, appeal against that decision by way of application on notice of motion to any provincial or local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa.

The object of this amendment is to make it clear that an aggrieved person shall have the right of appeal to the courts in respect of matters which have been dealt with in terms of the provisions of the Bill which is before us, and the whole object to substitute the provision which I propose for the existing subsection (1) is to widen the class of persons who may appeal, in order to make it perfectly clear that a person who is aggrieved by a decision under the Act, may by giving notice of motion appeal to the Supreme Court.

Sir, if you look at the provisions of Section 14 as it stands, it is clear that only those who fall within the provisions of sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) have a right of appeal, and my object is to extend the right to other persons who are interested. I can give one simple example which will show how necessary it is that the Bill should be amended in this way. It is clear that an importer may have imported goods into the country in respect of which a decision is taken that they fall within the provisions of goods objectionable under this Act, and the distribution is prohibited. That importer is the only person who has a right of appeal, and yet he may have disposed of the whole of the consignment which he has acquired from overseas and which may be in the hands of an innocent third party, and that person would have no remedy before the courts whatsoever—only the original importer has the right of appeal and he would not be interested in the matter because he has already disposed of the consignment. I do submit to the hon. the Minister also that there are other cases, but I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree, and I hope it is his intention, that there should in all circumstances as set out in this clause be a right of appeal to the courts. If that is so. it is very difficult to see what the reason was for confining the class of persons who can appeal. It is quite clear that it is only those who fall within sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), who are aggrieved by a decision of the Board, who have the right of appeal. It seems so obvious that any person who has a real interest and who is aggrieved should have the right of appeal to the courts. The Minister may tell me that it is intended to prevent frivolous appeals, but I would draw his attention to the fact that this is not an appeal in the ordinary sense. It is an appeal by way of application on notice of motion and the remedy would lie in the hands of the courts if any person is acting irresponsibly. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment which I believe will improve the Bill. Certainly it will ensure that there would not be circumstances in which through a technicality an aggrieved party is prevented from taking his case to court.

Throughout the discussion of this measure we have had from the Minister and hon. members opposite the statement that the acid test of the bona fides of the Government is that there is the right of appeal against a decision of the board, but I submit to the Minister that his acceptance or his rejection of this amendment will be the test of his bona fides, and I will tell him why. Sub-section (1) (c) makes the position clear. Sub-section (1) (b) gives the right of appeal to the importer of the goods. Anyone who imports a publication which the board finds undesirable clearly in terms of this provision has the right of appeal to the courts. In respect of (1) (c) as read with Clause 8 (3) there is also clearly a right of appeal in respect of a person who has submitted a manuscript for the decision of the board and who feels aggrieved by the decision. Therefore there is clearly a right of appeal in this clause in the case of printers and publishers of books and newspapers. In terms of Clause 7, which we have already passed, a prosecution can be instituted against any printer or publisher and he has the right of appeal against any decision given by the court. But this is the point, that the court would not be bound, in giving any decision on appeal, by any decisions of the board as to whether the matter is undesirable. In other words, the court has a free right to decide on the merits of the case and to give a ruling as to whether the board gave a wise decision as to whether the matter was undesirable or not. But the court will decide that issue for itself, and after all, that is the kernel of the Bill. But when one looks at the wording of Clause 8, special powers are given to the board in respect of the granting of licences and the issue of permits, and what is more, in the imposition of a prohibition in regard to the importation of certain publications, and it would appear to me from the wording of this clause that that is not subject to appeal.

Then there is another matter which is not subject to appeal. It does not appear clearly from the wording of this provision that, for instance, when the board at the request of some person investigates his work, e.g. where the writer submits his work to the board for an opinion, if the board had to rule that the manuscript was undesirable he has no right of appeal against that decision.

Where do you get that from?

Read the Bill. The only time that the writer has a right of appeal is if he, ignoring the decision of the board, publishes the work and is prosecuted. Then he has a right of appeal against such a conviction. If this is not going to be pre-censorship, if this intimidation is not going to exist, there must at the same time be a feeling as far as the board is concerned that it cannot act haphazardly and that its actions will be subject to appeal to the courts. I do not want to cover the whole terrain again, but I would say to the Minister that this amendment is the test of the bona fides of the Government as to whether or not pre-publication censorship will be applied, because I think it is quite clear from the wording of the provision that it is not intended that there shall be a right of appeal to the courts on all aspects of the Bill, and this amendment places it beyond all doubt that any action of the board can be challenged in the courts. I hope the Minister will accept it.

I differ completely from the hon. member for Germiston (District) when he says that only the importer has the right of appeal in terms of 14 (b). If he reads the Bill properly he will see that clause (c) provides that anybody who, in terms of subsection (3) of Section 8, submits a specific issue of a publication or object to the board, also has the right of appeal. In other words, any distributor of this publication or publisher has the right of appeal in terms of 14 (c). It is not only the importer, but those people as well. I differ completely from him in this respect. Where he says that the publisher will not have the right of appeal and the importer will already have disposed of his imported goods to the publisher and because of that it will not pay the importer to appeal because he no longer has the goods on hand to sell— 14 (c) also makes provision for those publishers who still have the banned goods on hand to appeal.

I want to point out something else. If we accept the amendment I want to ask the hon. member for Germiston (District), when he thinks of the second-reading speech of the hon. member for Middelland in which he referred to Graaff’s Pool as being indecent, whether the young ladies who stand on chairs with binoculars to their eyes will also have the right to appeal if the men are prohibited at Graaff’s Pool? Is that what the hon. member wishes to achieve with this amendment?

The hon. member for Turffontein comes along and says that Clause 8 makes provision for pre-censorship, as he calls it. In other words, according to him we will have the position under Clause 8 that a person whose manuscript has been banned will not have the right of appeal until such time as he has taken that manuscript to a publisher, it has been published and he has been prosecuted. But that is not the position. It states clearly that an appeal can be lodged against any decision of this board.

Show me where.

Read Clause 8 (1) again. That is why I cannot see why hon. members try to maintain that by accepting this amendment the bona fides of the Government and of the Minister will be recognized. That is not necessary because provision is specifically made for an appeal against any decision of the board.

I wish to move an amendment which does not appear on the Order Paper. It covers the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) completely but goes one step further and that is to grant the right of appeal also in respect of works which appear on the existing banning list. I think that is a reasonable request. As the hon. the Minister knows since 1956 about 7,500 books have been banned. Considerable criticism has been voiced in regard to the banning of a number of those and if the Government is really anxious for people who feel aggrieved to have the right of appeal it ought to accept the amendment. It reads exactly the same as that of the hon. member for Germiston (District) except for this additional provision that after the passing of the law people will have 90 days within which to lodge an appeal in respect of works which were banned by the Minister before the law came into operation. I move it as follows—

1. (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 11, any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the board on any matter in respect of which it is empowered by this Act to make a decision, and any person who was the importer of goods referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Customs Act, 1955 (Act No. 55 of 1955), before the amendment of that sub-section by this Act, and who is aggrieved by a decision of the Minister under that sub-section in respect of any printed, engraved, lithographic or photographic matter, may within 30 days after the decision of the board was given (in the case of a decision of the board) and within 90 days after the commencement of this Act (in the case of a decision of the Minister) appeal against that decision by way of application on notice of motion to any provincial or local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa;

I am unable to accept the amendment as it seeks to extend the provisions of the Bill to a group of importers not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time.

I might perhaps have thought that the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) was an innocuous one if the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) had not also started talking on it. but now I am becoming suspicious. The hon. member for Turffontein said that the author of a book would not have a right of appeal if he had submitted his manuscript to the board and the board had disapproved of it and he had then gone ahead and published it. But that is quite wrong. In that case he has no right of appeal. In such a case the board will probably go to the Attorney-General with a request that he be prosecuted and then he will appear before the court. The hon. member confuses the prosecution against the author with the appeal of the author. Who has the right of appeal to the court? It is clearly provided in Clause 14 that any person who feels aggrieved by a decision of the board in terms of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Clause 8 may appeal within 30 days. Just look at Clause 8 (1) (a), which is referred to. It clearly provides that the board has the power, at the request of any person and against payment of the prescribed fee, to investigate any publication or object and to declare whether it is in the opinion of the board undesirable or not. Therefore the position is that the author writes a book. He does not submit it to the board for approval but publishes it and anyone who notices anything undesirable in it can go to the board, and on payment of a fee say that it is undesirable. Then the board has the power to go into the matter and if it finds it undesirable the book can be banned, and then the author can appeal in terms of Clause 14. It therefore seems to me—and the hon. member for Germiston (District) agreed with the hon. member for Turffontein—that this whole amendment is based on a misconception. The case for which they are pleading is fully covered in the Bill. Therefore whilst I first thought that there was some substance in the amendment, the hon. member for Turffontein has now pulled the dressing off it so that it looks just like Graaff’s Pool.

I feel the same way as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker), that it is wider than simply (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 14 (1), but this is definitely a very ambiguous clause and I have heard different expert legal opinions on it. For that reason I think that any clarification of this right of appeal would be welcomed, although we all agree on the principle. The right of appeal should be allowed not only in the case of a person in charge of a public entertainment and not only in the case of the importer of goods and not only in terms of Clause 14 (1) (c), but in every case where a writer’s books have been declared undesirable. I can see no harm in adopting a clearer version of this clause and I do not think the personal dislike of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort for the hon. member for Turffontein should be allowed to interfere with the impartial decision of this committee. Therefore I support the amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) simply because I believe it will clarify the whole issue.

But I have another difficulty in regard to this clause, other than this difficulty as to whether the appeal is limited in the way the hon. member for Germiston (District) thinks it is, or is not limited, as was stated by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. My difficulty is this. If the case goes to appeal, is it a proper appeal or just a review? In other words, is the Appeal Court entitled to call for evidence as to the reasons for undesirability? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort says yes, but one of the foremost legal authorities in the country, the Professor of Roman Law at the Cape Town University, has expressed exactly the opposite opinion.

I can show you ten mistakes he made in his article.

I would rather take his advice than that of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, even though he was chairman of the Select Committee. I was wondering whether the Minister would consider an amendment to clarify the matter. It is not on the Order Paper but I move now—

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. The intention in the clause is clear, viz. that if anyone applies for a permit to import a book, if the board refuses the application, the prospective importer has the right of appeal. We need have no doubt about that. That is the considered opinion of the law advisers. It is clearly provided in the Bill that the court will investigate the matter thoroughly. Let me read the English version—

1. (2) The Division of the Supreme Court to which appeal is made shall inquire into and consider the matter and may confirm, vary or set aside the decision of the board, or give such other decision as in its opinion the board ought to have given.

In other words, that leaves the court of appeal a very wide sphere in which to exercise its discretion. It is not simply compelled to support the decision of the board; it can vary it, and it has the right thoroughly to investigate the circumstances and the nature of the matter. I therefore feel that the further definition proposed is really unnecessary.

The hon. the Minister has not answered the substance of the case I put to him. In any normal statute the provision relating to appeal is a very simple one. It provides for an appeal, whatever the circumstances may be, arising from the provisions of the statute. But what I cannot find out here is why the Minister and his advisers are not prepared to make it abundantly clear that there is an appeal in all circumstances. It provides that any person who falls within one of three categories is in charge of a public entertainment or intended entertainment, or is the importer of goods referred to in Section 21 (3) of the Customs Act, or thirdly, as in terms of Clause 8 (3), submitted a specified edition of a publication or object to the board—any one of that very limited class of persons who is aggrieved by a decision of the board has the right of appeal, and then it goes on to introduce a fourth category, those mentioned in Clause 8 (1) (a). Now Clause 8 (1) (a) is itself very limited. It says—

Again it is limited. There are four categories of persons who have the right of appeal and any person who does not fall four-square within one or other of those four heads will have no right of appeal, however serious the decision taken in regard to him may be. I find it very difficult to understand why the Minister, who claims that this wording covers everybody who could possibly have an interest, cannot accept the amendment, which merely makes it clear that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the board may appeal. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that this is on notice of motion to the court. I have no doubt that the court would grant costs against such a person in an appropriate case and there is therefore no risk of frivolous appeals being taken to court. I say to the Minister that the Bill needs qualification as it stands, and that has not been disproved yet. There are classes of persons who may have a very real interest and who do not fall within the four limited categories set out in this clause and they will not be able to take the matter to court.

What classes have you got in mind?

I have mentioned the case, for example, of the importer who has the right of appeal but the importer may have disposed of all the goods; they may be in the hands of a third party; they may have an enormous consignment of goods from overseas. They are the persons really interested in whether those goods can be distributed or not.

The importer remains responsible for the importation.

No, he is not the importer; the importer has disposed of the goods; they have been sold; they are in the hands of a third party and that third party has no right whatsoever to take that case to court. I think an author may be covered, but what I cannot understand is why, when the accepted way of preparing an appeal clause is to make it clear that the aggrieved parties have a right of appeal, is it necessary in these circumstances to say that A, B and C shall have the right of appeal and to leave out the other cases? We do not know what is going to happen in the administration of this measure, but I do submit that it is much more likely that justice will be done if the provisions providing for an appeal make it clear that any person who has a real right can appeal, and not only persons within the limited classes which are set out in this measure. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to consider this matter seriously and to consider amending this Bill. I believe that if the hon. the Minister will go to the root of the matter and find out from those who are responsible for the drafting of the Bill why they drafted it in this way, he will find out that it was because they did not feel that in certain circumstances there should be a right of appeal. I believe that the acceptance of the amendment can only improve this Bill. It certainly cannot in any way weaken the provisions of the Bill because it gives the right of appeal to the courts and the courts would see that justice is done.

I want to make it clear that the intention of this Bill is that we are dealing with the importer. He is the person with whom we are dealing, and the third party to whom the hon. member referred has a right of appeal through the importer. If he wants to appeal he will have to do so through the importer. The importer must act with so much discretion and judgment that he will not import things which will land third parties in unnecessary financial and other difficulties.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is not here because he took me to task a minute ago for my submission that if manuscripts are submitted by authors for a decision by the board before publication that such authors have in fact no right of appeal. The hon. member referred me to Section 8 (1) (a) but Clause 8 (1) (a) is quite clear; it refers to publications. Then one has to look at the definition, and the definition makes it quite clear that “publications” refer only to matters which are distributed. For example, it refers to manuscripts and typed scripts: “Publication or object is any writing or typed script which has in any manner been duplicated or made available to the public or any section of the public”, so an opinion can only be obtained from the board in respect of the manuscript that has already been made available to the public. We have heard from the Minister throughout all these discussions that nobody need be afraid: that the standards are going to be upheld; that authors and writers will be able to submit these matters to the board for an opinion. But if that is so, which we accept, then as the provision now stands, without the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), the position is that where an author has submitted a manuscript to the board and the board regards it as undesirable, he has in fact no appeal against the board’s decision unless he has first published it and been prosecuted. In fact, under other provisions of the Bill prosecution can be instituted on the recommendation of the board, but prosecutions may not be instituted if the board has once said that a manuscript is desirable. Even though a complaint may be lodged, once the board has expressed the opinion that a manuscript is in fact not undesirable no prosecution can be instituted against that person; that is correct; that is what the Bill provides for in the clauses which we have already passed. Surely then there should be a right of appeal on the part of the author who has pre-submitted his publication to the board, -if the board says that in its opinion the publication is undesirable surely that author or artist should have the right to appeal to the court and to contest the findings of the board so that he will not run the risk of prosecution. I have put the position as clearly as I can and I can assure the hon. the Minister that this is the opinion of very learned counsel in respect of the provisions that I am dealing with here.

Then there is the other aspect which the Minister has not dealt with and that is the question of the right of appeal in respect of the powers of the board in regard to prohibitions, the issue of permits, the distribution of publications under licence. There is a great doubt here and I will explain to the hon. the Minister why I say that. As the clause now stands, it is stated in (1) (b) that any person who is the importer of goods referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Customs Act, shall have the right of appeal. Now, who is that person? In terms of the Customs Act he cannot be an importer of goods if the board has once prohibited the importation of the goods. If the board has examined publication × and decided that it is undesirable, then he cannot be an importer; he has no right of appeal. He first has to import the publication against the ruling of the board before he can go to the courts and then the court may find him guilty and he may be prosecuted, he first has to be prosecuted. The position is perfectly clear. A publisher has no right of appeal unless he has first imported the publication against the ruling of the board. It is perfectly clear that in terms of Clause 8 the board has these wide powers of prohibition in respect of paperbacks which constitute 90 per cent of the imported publications. No paperback can be imported without a permit from the board. In other words, the board first has to rule, by licence, that that particular publication is not undesirable. The moment the board has issued that permit or licence, then only the publisher may import; he becomes an importer and then he has the right of appeal in terms of this clause, but there is no right of appeal against any general prohibition of any publication which the board has declared in the Gazette to be a prohibited publication. The board’s decision cannot be disputed. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister to consult his law advisers again, because if as has been stated by the Deputy Minister and by other hon. members on the Government benches, there is no intention here of pre-publication censorship, that the courts are available freely, then what are my hon. friends screaming and shouting about? Let us then have an open appeal to the courts on all aspects of this matter; then there can be no doubt whatsoever. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter because on the advice of outstanding counsel as far as these two aspects are concerned there is certainly very grave doubts as to whether the right of appeal in fact exists.

I have tried to consider this clause carefully, and the first point I want to make is that there are not three categories who lodge an appeal but in fact four categories. The Bill was simply drafted rather strangely. It refers in the first place to any person in charge of any public entertainment, in the second place to importers and in the third place to persons who in terms of subsection (3) have submitted a manuscript beforehand. and then reference is made to the fourth category in Clause 8 (1) (a). As far as the various examples which have been mentioned here are concerned, I just want to say that in the case of a South African manuscript I have no doubt in my own mind that there are two stages of appeal; the one is that the manuscript may be submitted under Clause 8 (3), and if it is rejected there is a right of appeal; or after it has been published somebody may come along and complain about that publication under 8 (1) (a), and at that stage the board may find that the publication is undesirable and then it is perfectly clear that there is a right of appeal. Any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the board in terms of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, has that right of appeal. In other words, any South African publication is very clearly covered in both respects, either prior to publication if it has been submitted to the board in manuscript form by the writer or publisher, in which event they can appeal against the decision, or under Clause 8 (1) (a) there can be an appeal after publication. As far as 8 (1) (a) is concerned I want to show how wide this right of appeal is. It is perhaps too wide. It reads—

It does not limit the right of appeal only to a writer or a publisher or a person with a financial interest. I submit that this is an enormously wide description. Let me put it this way: If, for example, in a competition writers are to submit novels and a certain person acts as judge in that competition and the winning novel is later on prohibited under 8 (1) (a), then I should say that such a judge may feel aggrieved in that having praised the novel publicly by recommending the award of a prize, he will now be confronted with the fact that the novel has been banned. It is an absolutely wide appeal therefore. Now we come to imported goods. Here we have a certain degree of uncertainty, although I do not want to hold myself out as an expert on this matter. The Bill provides that “importer” has the meaning assigned to that word in the Customs Act and the definition, a negative definition, is “*importer’ shall not include a person outside the Union, If we go according to the definition, which has to be interpreted here, then I think the terra “importer” has been defined here as widely as it possibly can, and on the example given by the hon. member for Germiston (District), I think that a person who has acquired an imported article will possibly be able to represent himself as the importer and as such he will have the right of appeal. But we come back again to this important Section 8 (1) (a). He will most certainly have a right of appeal under 8 (1) (a) because here we are dealing with an article or object which has already been imported. The original importer has sold it to second and third parties who might have re-sold it. If a certain work is declared to be improper, then under 8 (1) (a) the then owner may feel aggrieved and he may have an appeal under 8 (1) (a). The only way in which the board would be able to avoid an appeal under 8 (1) (a) would be to state specifically that the board condemns this work on its own accord and not at the request of any outsider. This is a trick which the board might be able to employ to avoid an appeal, but I cannot imagine that the board would avoid an appeal on such a pretext, with the result that the only person who would not have an appeal—and there the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) was correct towards the end of his speech—would be the overseas publisher whose work is prohibited en bloc: he would not have the right of appeal. I do not agree, however, with the hon. member’s interpretation on the question of importation; I do not agree with his statement that a person who has ordered a publication from abroad and who applies here for a permit, would not have the status of an importer. I think that is a fatuous, theoretical argument. The hon. member for Turffontein argues that a prospective importer cannot fall under the definition of “importer” until such time as his goods have in fact been allowed to enter the country; that up to that stage he would simply be a prospective importer. There I have no doubt that he would be an importer in terms of the Customs Act if he has imported the goods, up to the stage where they can be considered. He would therefore have a right of appeal. The only person who would not have a right of appeal would be the overseas publisher whose goods are prohibited en bloc. That person would have no right of appeal. He would have to get a South African prospective buyer who can act as importer, and that prospective buyer would have a right of appeal. If I am correct in this approach of mine—and I think hon. members will concede that I am at least very close to the truth except that possibly there may be some doubt as to the question of importation—then I think the hon. member for Germiston (District) will have to concede immediately that his amendment is hopelessly too wide. “A person who feels aggrieved” may be a person who may feel ideologically aggrieved by the prohibition placed on a certain book. On that subjective test practically any person can go to court and lodge an appeal provided he simply tells the court that he feels aggrieved. The hon. member for Germiston (District) argues that people would not appeal recklessly because they might tie mulcted in costs if their appeal is unsuccessful, but that would not be the position as the amendment reads at the moment. If we accepted this amendment, the court would not be able to award costs against a person who comes to court in response to this invitation, because this measure specifically gives the right to any person who feels subjectively aggrieved to go to court. In any event this amendment is framed far too widely. If we wanted to provide for a wide right of appeal, we would have to define some interest or other that the appellant must have in the matter. The appellant will feel aggrieved, but he must have a financial or material interest in the matter in regard to which he appeals either as a writer or as a publisher or as a distributor, or something of that kind. His interest in the matter must not be too slight either, otherwise we may find, for example, that a communistic work is prohibited and that a person who alleges that he imported and bought two copies of the book, may say that he has a financial interest and he would be able to take the matter to court. I think therefore that amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District), viewed in the most favourable light, has in any event been formulated in a completely unacceptable way. Even if we should wish to achieve his object, we could still not accept his amendment. But I support the hon. the Minister unreservedly that this right of appeal has been framed widely enough. If further attention is going to be given to this matter, however, then I too would like this important provision in respect of paragraph 8 (a) (i) to be tabulated in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) dealing with appeals from decisions of the board, because up to this stage the South African Press and the general public have lost sight of the fact that any person who is aggrieved by a decision under 8 (1) (a) has the right to appeal. [Interjection.] The case which the hon. member for Turffontein mentioned, where publication has not yet taken place, is covered by 8 (3). The document can be submitted before publication under 8 (3); there he has a right of appeal.

But then he has no right of appeal.

No, he has the right to do so. The right of appeal is specifically given under 14 (1) (c).

But do you agree that he has not got the right to do so under (3)?

If a person submits any work under 8 (3), then he has a right of appeal in terms of the provisions of Clause 14 (1) (c). If he publishes that work without making use of the opportunity of submitting it beforehand then he has the right of appeal under 8 (1) (a) if the board subsequently turns it down. [Time limit.]

I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to listen to a well-reasoned objective argument on a point of law argued from this side of the House and I appreciate very much indeed the spirit in which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. F. Steyn) dealt with the matter. It has been an exception which it has been a pleasure to listen to. The hon. member concedes that this right of appeal is a circumscribed right of appeal. I accept his argument that the form of the amendment which I have moved is very wide indeed. It was moved in that form because here we are dealing with a piece of legislation which can easily harm the name of this country, and I believe it is a good thing that in those circumstances we should make it perfectly clear that anyone who has a genuine interest should be able to appeal. The court is there to protect the State against any abuse and I believe that it is wise that the appeal should be in that form. If, of course, the Minister says that it should be limited to any person who has a direct interest of some sort, I would not raise the slightest objection, but it is quite clear that there are circumstances in which there will be no right of appeal whatsoever, and the hon. Minister cannot get away from that. I would draw his attention to the fact that when in a statute of this nature there is a departure from the normal, the court always looks for a reason. If there is a right of appeal given to all interested parties, well and good, but I believe that it is common cause—and I think the hon. member for Kempton Park will agree; he was fair enough to say so— that this is a most unusual form to use in an appeal clause. The court would undoubtedly place a restrictive interpretation upon “classes of persons” who fall within these categories. I am certain that there are many persons who would have a direct interest in the matter who would have no right of appeal whatsoever. There is, for example, a case of a person who may be the author of a book which has been banned. If he is outside the country he appears to have no right of appeal whatsoever. That seems to us to be quite unjust and I do hope that the hon. the Minister, if this amendment is voted down, will refer this matter back to his legal advisers in order that a suitable appeal clause can be inserted. I am certain that under this appeal clause a very grave injustice can be done to persons who are interested. I am sure that that is not the Minister’s intention and I hope that he will agree to widen the appeal clause to put it beyond any doubt that anybody who has a real interest in the matter will have the right of access to the court.

This question of appeal is of great interest and it is as well to argue it thoroughly because it is a matter to which we on this side attach great value. It may be argued that the wording is perhaps different from what hon. members opposite would have desired, but the intention and the wording of 8 (1) are very clear, namely that if the board in terms of 8 (1) regards a publication as undesirable then it should be regarded as undesirable until such time as the court decides differently. If the court does not regard it as undesirable the board is obliged to issue a permit. Therefore there is the right of appeal which hon. members want.

The other matter in regard to which the hon. member for Germiston (District) also has strong feelings is the total ban in terms of Clause 8 (1) (d). It is true that there is no appeal in respect of the whole series. Supposing it is a green series of books which is prohibited. It is true that there is no right of appeal in respect of that whole series, but what is much more practical is that there is in fact a right of appeal in respect of a particular book or books in that series. If an importer feels that in respect of any of those books in that series he wants an import permit, he can lodge appeal in respect of that book in terms of 8 (3) and 14 (1) (c). Therefore whilst they have no right of appeal in respect of the whole series, there is in fact a right of appeal in respect of a particular book, and I think that ought to satisfy hon. members.

Question put: That sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—78: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, I. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, I. I. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labusohagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mosteri, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. D.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. j.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cad-man, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Tucker dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. E.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; 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, 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.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnioht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, F. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—45: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cad-man, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. G.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on this amendment; it is self-explanatory. The idea is to return the discretion of imposing sentences to the courts and to remove the minimum which is laid down in the Bill in Clause 15. A further intention of this amendment is to reduce the maximum to what it was in the original Bill, because I believe that these penalties are far too high. Particularly do I believe this because the criteria which have to be examined by the board in deciding what is undesirable, are so very wide that it will be possible for the board to rule an object, in terms of the definition of this Bill, as undesirable which most modern countries will not consider undesirable. So I think the penalties are far too high. I am against the principle of limiting the discretion of the court by imposing minimum fines and I therefore move the amendment as it stands.

As the hon. the Minister knows this side of the House always objects to minimum penalties. We believe that it is utterly wrong that the discretion of the court should be limited in this way.

The particular matter which may be the subject of a prosecution may not merit a sentence nearly as severe as that which is provided here and the court will have no discretion whatsoever. The amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper is designed in the first place to remove the provision for minimum penalties but that has already been moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I would say, Sir, that in relation to the proposed amendment to Clause 15 (1) (c) something has gone wrong with the amendment as printed because it does not make clear exactly what was intended. As the whole of this question will be tested on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, I do not propose to move the amendment standing in my name.

I rise to record once again, Sir, the opposition of this side of the House and also the protest of this side of the House against this further inroad in the rights of our judiciary. I have the fullest confidence in our magistrates and in our judiciary and I believe it will be a happy day for this country when all minimum sentences which have been placed on the Statute Book have been swept into oblivion.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in the last part of his speech created the impression that what is being done here is in fact something new. The hon. member will agree with me that it is a common practice in our legal system that where statutory offences are created, provision is made for penalties, and an indication as to how serious the offence is given by laying down either a minimum penalty or a maximum penalty. In numerous cases provision is made for a minimum penalty to indicate that this is a serious offence. If the suggestion of hon. members is accepted and minimum penalties are to be omitted, there is no indication that it is a serious offence. I therefore feel, Sir, that in view of the fact that all these contraventions are not only serious but contraventions in connection with which large amounts of money may be involved, it is essential also to provide minimum penalties. If it is provided that the court cannot impose more than a specified amount in fines, it means that the court may impose anything below that, even a ridiculous amount. I have as much confidence in our courts as the hon. member for Germiston (District), but I feel that this indication should be there, that this is a serious contravention. There is only one way of doing it and that is by laying down a minimum. If this amendment were to be accepted, this whole idea would be removed from this clause.

The proposed amendment of the hon. member for Germiston (District) deals only with minimum fines, but the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) deals not only with the minimum but also with the maximum which may be provided. The hon. member now tries in her amendment to reduce these minimum amounts. I feel that in these circumstances, as I said a moment ago, such large sums of money may be involved that it is quite justifiable to apply heavy fines.

May I point out to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) that he is destroying his own argument. The court will know if large amounts are involved and the court will decide what is a reasonable penalty. But what is involved here is of a very minor nature and the court has no discretion to impose anything other than a very heavy sentence.

I just want to reply to one point, which was also dealt with by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller), namely the allegation that the court is left without any discretion where a minimum penalty is prescribed. The court of course always has the discretion to suspend any portion of the sentence. The court can suspend any portion of the minimum sentence. I hope hon. members do not doubt this. I can just refer to the numerous decisions in the Transvaal given at the time the Game Ordinance provided minimum sentences. You must remember, Sir, that the court in any case has that discretion. The court may suspend the whole or part of the fine. We must view the importance of the heavy penalty, a portion of which may be suspended, in relation to this crime. When there are so many moral offences—I do not now necessarily want to compare the publishers of obnoxious material with other moral misdeeds—one finds a repetitive trend. The man who has once kept an immoral house does so again; the person who has once tried to make money out of unsavoury matter does it again later. There it is very desirable to have a heavy minimum penalty which may be suspended wholly or in part. For the rest, I cannot really add anything to the sound argument of the hon. member for Ceres, except for this point. May I ask the Opposition how they suggest that legislation should give an indication to the court of when an offence is regarded as serious, except by imposing a minimum penalty?

By their maximum penalty.

The maximum is not always sufficient indication. I concede that there are decisions where the maximum penalty was accepted as an indication that the legislator wanted to impose a heavy penalty, but there is no pertinent expression of the will of the legislator. When we as legislators entrust the judiciary with the very difficult task of punishing an offence, is it not our duty to give an indication here to the judiciary of what we think the penalties should be? In regard to these minimum penalties, as the hon. member for Ceres has indicated, this is the class of offence where unsavoury material is published in order to make money. Only by making uneconomic the transactions of a man who wants to exchange obnoxious material for money, will one discourage him from doing it. I support this provision.

This plea for the abolition of a minimum penalty almost stirs one, but if one thinks of the scope of this obnoxious material and the eagerness of all of us to restrict it, it really appears to be the only deterrent. Experience has shown that if the deterrent is not strong enough or the fine is too small it is regarded by many of those people as a good advertisement for that product and as part of overhead costs, with the result that the fines really have the opposite effect. Hence the minimum and maximum fines provided for here. I therefore think that in those circumstances, and taking into consideration the right which the court still has, as the hon. member for Kempton Park indicated, to suspend the sentence, the clause should remain unchanged.

Question put: That the words “not less than three hundred rand and” in lines 36 and 37, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—78: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; 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.; Pot-gieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusoh, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A;; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radord, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and H. Suzman.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—78: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; 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.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Van Nie-kerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 15,

I want to move—

1. 16.
   1. (1) The board shall, on or before the thirty-first day of March in each year, furnish the Minister with a report on its activities during the past year and this report shall contain, inter alia, particulars of every matter which has been submitted to it for decision, including reasons for such decision.
   2. (2) Every report furnished under subsection (1) shall be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament by the Minister within seven days after it has been received by him if Parliament is in session, or if Parliament is not in session, within seven days after the commencement of its next ensuing session.

As it stands it is clear enough in its meaning and quite straightforward in its purpose. If this proposed new clause is adopted, the Board of Publications will be required to furnish the Minister, and through the Minister Parliament, with an annual report on its activities. Such a report will have to include particulars of the matters submitted to the board for decision, and a summary of the decisions given and of the reasons for such decisions. The purpose of the amendment is simply to provide Parliament with a means of supervision, which is not only a reasonable request, but a very necessary one. We are dealing here with a board which deliberates in secret and which, when announcing a decision in the Government Gazette, will give no indication to the public whatsoever of the reasons for such decision. Parliament, which should be the watchdog of the public in all matters affecting the administration of the state, will have no means of determining the measure of responsibility or the lack of responsibility with which this board is performing its duties towards the public. True enough, an appeal to the courts has been provided for. Unfortunately, only a limited right of appeal as far as the Act as a whole goes; because, for the millions of people who attend cinema performances (I think I am right if I say that many millions more go to the cinema than read books) everything will be clouded in secrecy. The film industry will naturally be reluctant to offend the Minister in respect of any of his decisions. What he decides, will in any case be final; and because in terms of this law the matter can never go further in the case of films than the Minister, public opinion will never be able to make itself manifest and apply suitable pressure where necessary. Because of this state of affairs alone, in respect of the film industry. Parliament should insist on a form of supervision.

As far as publications are concerned, from time to time a list of books will be published in the Government Gazette giving the names of the titles banned by the board, but when giving the list of titles banned, there will be no indication at all of the reasons for classing them as undesirable. Time will show what use publishers and writers are going to make of their right of appeal to the courts. It is a good thing that it is available; but we shall have to wait and see whether writers and publishers will use this right of appeal as often as necessary. My own opinion is that publishers who normally sell from a few hundred to a thousand volumes in South Africa of a book, on which the profits are normally small, would prefer not to enter into an expensive court case, but rather use the privilege of selling many thousands more overseas by announcing on the jacket that the book had been banned in South Africa. In fact, I am inclined to think that local writers and publishers who can contrive to get a work banished in South Africa, will for that reason alone find publishers overseas, whereas otherwise they may never have succeeded. So, the right of appeal to the courts in respect of books is a necessary thing, but I am afraid that that will play a very limited part in the effect of this Act. But quite apart from the argument that the right of appeal is available to aggrieved persons, what I am asking in this amendment is quite simple, namely for the board of publications to report to Parliament annually: to present the Minister, and through him to Parliament, an annual report of activities; and I do think that it would be most undemocratic of the Minister and the Government to use its political majority to deprive Parliament of a right to which it is entitled as a Parliament.

Little more than a year ago, the hon. the Minister of the Interior addressed the Congress of the Association of Civil Servants in Pretoria, and in his address he severely criticized the exaggerated secrecy which exists in the administrative affairs of the State, and this is what he said according to a report which appeared in the Burger on 26 October 1961. It is relevant to what I am proposing—

This speech impressed me, and it was warmly welcomed by the public, and I am now asking the hon. the Minister that there should be a limitation to the secrecy of a public body such as the publications board, and that Parliament should have a right to know. The Minister has an opportunity here to start with his own Department and to practise what he was preaching; and if he does not see his way clear to accept what I regard as a very reasonable amendment, then I am afraid that his speech to the Association of Civil Servants will be without meaning whatsoever. I ask that the Parliament should have the right to receive a report annually of the activities of the board and to know what is going on.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR; I am afraid that this proposed new clause of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. I. D. du P. Basson) is not only unpractical but is also useless, and therefore it cannot be accepted. It is useless because if effect is given to it, it will really mean that Parliament will receive the report a year after the events happened. It means that things that happened in say the year ending March 1962 will only be submitted to Parliament in March 1963. I also fear that the hon. member is in the dark if he thinks that there is any idea of secrecy. In the first place, the reason why it is useless and impracticable is because the announcements in regard to banned books must continually be published in the Government Gazette in terms of a clause we have already adopted.

Without giving reasons.

Yes, but are we to give a series of reasons in regard to every book we ban? Surely it is a ridiculous suggestion to publish in the Government Gazette the reasons in respect of every passage or page or expression or quotation. That is quite impracticable. It is stated in the Government Gazette what books have been banned, and that becomes known to everybody, and that is exactly one of the methods used to make the public understand what the standard and the level are and what the norm is for judging whether books should be allowed or not. But if the hon. member is so interested in the activities of this board, he is at liberty to ask questions in this House. It is not a matter for secrecy. The hon. member may put questions here, and with reference to the replies he gets he can voice criticism in this House under the Vote concerned.

The Minister need not reply to the questions.

There is no question of secrecy, but now the hon. member wants the Minister after a year to submit a report in connection with such a case. The submission of reports in connection with films is also impracticable, because then the hon. member might just as well ask us to table the decisions taken by heads of Departments and their recommendations to Ministers, and that these should be reported to Parliament also; and then he might as well ask us to table the decisions of magistrates from time to time in this House. The hon. member’s suggestion is impracticable and therefore cannot be accepted.

I think that this suggested new clause is one of the most important to be incorporated in the Bill, and I regret that the hon. the Minister has cast aside the whole suggestion with such very scant courtesy. The Minister seemed to be listening with some impatience to what the hon. member who was moving the amendment had to say. I do not think it is impracticable at all. We have in a number of measures that come before Parliament a precisely similar clause providing for the laying on the Table of a report by the body concerned, so that Parliament should be kept informed, and amongst these matters which are designed to be controlled by Parliament there are few which have greater importance than this measure. I think it will be a most valuable report, and that it is absolutely necessary if Parliament is to do its job properly and perform its duty, that should get such a report. To my mind there could be nothing more wholesome than to have a report of this kind laid before members of Parliament so that the work of this board can be seen and we have a chance of debating anything that in the opinion of members may call for debate and which may call for publicity. The idea that a body of this kind can in effect only have its work brought to the notice of the public if there is an appeal to the law courts, to my mind is absolutely wrong. Because that is what it virtually amounts to at the present time. There is virtually no other means of bringing to the attention of the public and of Parliament what is happening, unless some firm or person or group of people is prepared to take the case to the law court.

I want to emphasize one point that was made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and that is that as things are standing at the present time, it is abundantly clear that a book banned here in South Africa is going to be given almost world-wide publicity and a vast market that the author or the publisher could never have dreamt of.

Surely the least that can be expected is that a report in connection with such works should be laid before us in Parliament by the board, so that we shall know precisely what actuated them in coming to the decision that they did. If they then submit reason which will stand the test of public scrutiny, they have got nothing to worry about. Surely there is nothing impracticable about it. If this particular new clause is accepted, then in fact it will be shown that there is nothing impracticable about it. The report will be prepared every year, and will be laid before us here in Parliament. And so it should be! If we are to keep in line with the assurances that we have repeatedly received from the hon. Minister of the Interior, this should be done. I have no doubt that the hon. Deputy Minister has discussed the matter with the Minister before the Minister left us—I am saying nothing about his absence, because I happen to know that there is good cause for his absence to-day, and we quite understand the circumstances of his being away—but surely the hon. Deputy Minister must have discussed this new clause fully with the Minister before he left, and now he seems to be taking up a stubborn attitude, and he is not going to listen to arguments from this side of the House.

What other board can you mention that has to submit a report to Parliament?

Time after time annual reports of boards are laid upon the Table, day after day. But the point is this that in a measure of this kind in my opinion the greatest possible measure of information should be available to this Parliament, and the broad light of day should shine on the decisions that are made by this board. I hope that the Minister even now is going to have second thoughts in regard to this matter, and if he cannot give us a promise that he will accept this, I hope he will give us an assurance that he will reconsider the matter and see whether he cannot change it in Another Place.

If there is one thing I admire about that hon. member it is his ability to talk with apparently deep concern and a measure of annoyance whilst having his tongue in his cheek.

On a point of order, that expression has repeatedly been ruled out of order.

I only said that the hon. member spoke with his tongue in his cheek.

*The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Faurie): The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

Then I withdraw it and say that the hon. member has the ability to play his political role in this House with great seriousness. This role he is playing in the first place concerns books which may be prohibited, and they are books which can be prohibited in terms of the Customs Act which for more than 30 years already has made it possible to do so in the unfettered discretion of the Minister of the Interior. In the 1930’s when the United Party was in power the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was not concerned about the lack of parliamentary control, and in the forties, up to 1948, he gave no thought to this urgent requirement that Parliament should know what obnoxious imported publications should be prohibited. Then everything was in order. And during the years of National Party regime, the past 15 years, when the Customs Act was being amended, this point was not raised either. But now it is suddenly raised as a weighty political principle which is at stake. That is the first aspect of the approach of the United Party. Secondly, what is it really all about? It concerns the prohibition of publications which will generally be regarded as improper. There are certain sub-categories which may possibly be regarded as constituting a danger to the State and in regard to which an argument could be advanced for the submissions of the reasons for such prohibition. But the hon. member says that it would be a very wholesome, a very sound step if Parliament could read every year the report in regard to the books which have been banned. Now, if a report has to be submitted giving reasons for the steps taken, then at least an indication will have to be given of the nature of the obnoxious material and its scope which led to the banning of the book. It will now be a wholesome duty for this highest council in the land to have a re-hash of the extracts of obnoxious material which came to the notice of the Board of Control. How that can be advocated seriously I just cannot understand. The point was put that if the Board bans a book written in South Africa, it will afford an enormous amount of favourable publicity for such a book overseas, and that this may be an additional motive for receiving such a report and reading it here. But if this amendment is accepted, take the position of an author whose book has not only been banned but has been discussed in this Parliament. Just imagine what publicity it will receive then. Is the whole matter not based on a misconception, that this is an administrative activity in regard to which a report must be submitted to Parliament? Where does the practice emanate from of certain administrative functions being given to the executive authority without a specific report being submitted to Parliament, but not in the case of others? There are two classes of executive functions which are generally made subject to a report to submit it to Parliament. The one is an executive function where a substantive economic activity is entrusted to the executive arm, as e.g. in the case of a marketing board. That activity is excised from the body of parliamentary administration and entrusted to that other body, and it must report regularly. The second category where one expects a report from the executive arm is usually where the executive arm acts as a semi-legislative body, in which case Parliament wants to know how they have used their powers. But here we are establishing a body which at the most can be described as a quasi-judicial body, because in view of the appeal provided for against all its decisions, it is not even a quasi-judicial body; it is merely a board of control and its decisions can be appealed against, but apart from that its decisions are not secret. If there is an aggrieved importer who wants to import a book and he is prohibited from doing so, surely that person can convey his complaints to any member of Parliament and we can have a debate about it under the Minister’s Vote just as well as we can debate a detailed report which is submitted.

But has the mover of the amendment considered what such a report comprises? The Board must submit a report of its activities to the Minister. I take it this will be a general report. But then the report must contain, inter alia, details in regard to every matter submitted to the Board for a decision, as well as the reasons for such decision. In other words, it is necessary to give details of the matters submitted to the Board for a decision. I think this report will in many cases have to contain the whole manuscript or a description of the whole article concerned, because the matter submitted for a decision is surely the whole of a book or the whole of a film, and details must be given as well as the reasons for such a decision.

The first thing that strikes me here is that this amendment does not even accept the matters which have in the meantime been decided by the court and in regard to which a report need not be submitted again. No, the United Party is so concerned with advancing superfluous amendments and the accusation that the Minister is too impatient to listen to their arguments that they have not even thought of excluding these things which during the course of the year were decided by the Board and then went to the court on appeal, which gave a decision. Details of these matters must also be given, as well as the motives of the Board. But let us leave this superfluity there for the moment and let us accept that the report will deal with all the details of those matters which were not heard by the court. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kemp-ton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has spoken about the records that the court will provide. I sincerely hope there will not be many appeals to the courts. It is a clumsy manner of carrying out the work of this Board. We do not wish to have appeals and I hope they will not be necessary.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout moved an amendment the other day in which he asked that Parliament should be informed of what the Board was doing and be suggested— a very wise suggestion—that a record of all banned books should be kept here, the actual books themselves, so that hon. members could read the books and see how the work of the Board was carried out. What is he asking now? Simply that there should be a report to this House. The Deputy Minister has said that we can ask questions in the House, but we cannot. The hon. member for Vereeniging and Fort Beaufort have been telling us now for days that the Minister is handing over his authority to the Board, and we shall be placed in the same predicament in which we are to-day with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. When we ask him a question about the S.A.B.C., he thinks of the three monkeys: He sees no evil, he hears no evil, and he thinks no evil. He refers us to the Act, and that is exactly what will happen here. The Minister will say: I have no authority over this Board; I appointed them and I can ask them questions but I cannot reply to questions in the House. I can imagine the kind of report we will receive. This Board will report to the House annually on modern tendencies in literature, the type of book against which they have had to take action. They will be able to give us information, because this Board is a new creation and surely it is the duty of this House to keep its finger on the pulse of this Board’s activities and to know what they are doing. I think the amendment is a very reasonable one and the Deputy Minister should accept it. Perhaps he has been instructed to refuse all amendments, but if that is so I suggest that he accept the suggestion of the hon. member for South Coast: to think it over and perhaps to readjust it in Another Place. It is a simple request and I think we are justified in making it.

I want to say that in no similar circumstances are such reports submitted to Parliament, and for various reasons. Firstly, as the Minister has indicated, everything which is disapproved of by the Board is advertised in the Government Gazette. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout then interjected and said that that is all well and good, but that does not give the reasons and he wants the reasons. But is it not the most ridiculous thing in the world to ask that the reasons for the rejection of everything which is obnoxious should be set out and published to the world? [Interjections.] The hon. member expressly asks in his amendment for a report on the activities of the Board which must, inter alia, contain details in connection with all the books submitted to the Board and the reasons for their decisions. The hon. member wants the reasons why a book was not approved of. The net result will be that an explanation will have to be given as to why the book was banned. The hon. member wants an extract of everything which we cannot expose to the public.

But there is another reason as to why this report is quite unacceptable and unnecessary in practice. It will in any case be an unwieldy report and I am afraid none of the hon. members opposite would read it. The other reason is that there is a right of appeal to the court. It will have the result that a standard will in the course of time be laid down by the court, and hon. members at least have those court reports available. Everybody can go and listen and the court reports are published, and that will give the Board a norm. If a magistrate gives a decision which is appealed against and the magistrate’s decision is not upheld by the Supreme Court, then he will know that next time he must not give the same decision in similar circumstances, because the Supreme Court has given an indication. In those circumstances, seeing that the Supreme Court will lay down the norm, not only the Board but also the public will know what that norm is, and this House will also know. Therefore I feel that a report like the one asked for is not only undesirable but unnecessary. This Board only has power of control. It has no legislative or semi-legislative powers granted to it by this House. And those powers of control are not unlimited. Some guidance is given to it in the Bill itself, and the powers are not unlimited because they are subject to appeal to the court, and a norm will be found and every hon. member will know what the norm is. Therefore I regard it as unnecessary.

The hon. members for Ceres and Kempton Park have a very strange approach to the work of this Board, and they give me the impression that they have a poorer concept of the Board and its work than anyone on this side. The Deputy Minister commenced by saying that this suggested amendment was useless and impracticable, and I regret that he did so. On the contrary, I find it a very commendable addition to the Bill before us. It is the usual practice of Parliament to include a provision of this nature whenever a statutory board or body is set up by Act of Parliament to carry out certain executive functions of Government. It is the normal procedure. The hon. member for Ceres talks glibly about wanting another example, but he gives none himself, whereas on this side of the House many instances were quoted.

But they are not comparable.

Whenever Parliament creates a body such as this it has a duty to see that its functions are carried out. Otherwise it simply creates a body, the creature of statute, and leave it the master of the situation. Surely Parliament must be master of the situation in a case such as this where it creates a body to carry out certain functions. The normally accepted method is that such a body of persons presents a report to Parliament annually, which gives Parliament the opportunity, firstly, of seeing that the functions of the Board are properly carried out. but more important, it secondly enables Parliament to question the responsible Minister. During the debate on one of the clauses in which the delegation of powers was discussed the point was made that a delegation of that nature leaves the House without any remedy, and the Minister’s reply was that he of course remains responsible. Now here is an instance where unless you have information before you that aspect of the matter is lost to Parliament, because Parliament is entitled to have before it annually a summary of what has taken place in carrying out the functions bestowed on a body like this. Let us have no doubt about it. The powers which are being conferred upon this body are extremely wide and important and should constantly see the light of day; it should not be left to the privacy of the boardroom. Hon. members opposite make great play of the right of appeal to the court. I have asked repeatedly at whose cost is this to take place? Who pays for all this? But I have not had a reply yet.

Would you rather not have it?

That is not the way to legislate, to leave the burden with the court; you must ease the burden of the court by saying precisely what the law is. You are placing a burden on the business community of going to court. Every time one voices criticism, hon. members say: The courts will put that right. Let us accept that that is so. Then surely the board should work to some set principles. The hon. member for Ceres says the courts will lay down standards. Therefore the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout becomes very important, because it is the duty of Parliament to know that those standards are being adhered to by the board. One does not expect all the “smerigheid” to be published. Surely the board works on principles and accepts the standards laid down by the court. The nature of the report, I would have thought, would be extremely helpful both to the board and to Parliament. One of the objections is that the matter will already have been published in the Gazette. Surely that is a fact which helps the board to carry out the provisions of this amendment. But the principles on which the board operates are not set out in the Gazette. It is just a statement Chat they are undesirable. This report will give the opportunity of setting out the principles on which the board acted and enumerate the type of thing which falls within those principles. I started by saying that the amendment seemed to me a very commendable provision to add to the Bill, and I conclude by commending it to this honourable House.

If this Committee accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. it will amount to this Committee wanting to ensure that annually we will get the most pornographic publication imaginable at State expense. [Laughter.] The hon. member says in his motion that in this report details must be given in regard to every matter submitted to the board for its decision, as well as the reasons for such decision. Now I want to ask whether it will satisfy hon. members if in that report it is simply stated every year that this number of books, of which notice has already been given in the Government Gazette, have been prohibited because they contain obnoxious material? [Interjections.] No, according to the hon. member’s amendment, reasons must be given. We shall have to quote those passages containing the offensive passages from book after book. It will have to mention the parts dealing with sexual activities which constitute the real reason for the book having been banned. All that will have to be contained in the report, because these are the reasons that have to be given to convince Parliament that these books were properly considered. Therefore I am afraid that if we accede to this request we will be responsible for publishing a bestseller, and the only question will be whether the same board will not have to ban that also! The more I think about it, the more impracticable the suggestion appears to me, because if the intention is, as was stated by the hon. member for Kensington, that the report must indicate the tendency in literature, I credit everyone with enough intelligence to infer from the Government Gazette what the tendency is in literature. I have here lists of titles of books which have been banned and which can indicate to anyone with a little intelligence what the tendency is amongst the authors of these yellow books, and a study of the Government Gazette will also indicate what that tendency is. It is not necessary for the State at its own cost to publish the greatest pornography of all.

Last week we heard some exceedingly feeble answers from the Minister in reply to some of the questions put to him —that is, when he answered at all. It is therefore fitting that the Deputy Minister, who is below the Minister, gives the kind of answers which fall even below the level of the Minister’s answers. One of the reasons he gave for not agreeing on the need to publish the report as such is that such a report is useless because it comes after the event. Now, I have asked someone here to go and fetch me three reports, at random, of various boards, control boards—because this is a control board—and I got information that the Clerk of the Papers could not part with them, but that I could see them in his office. I refer to the Mealie Control Board, the Chicory Control Board and the report of the Cape Town Milk Board, and when I have finished, I hope the Minister will say the same about these three reports as he said about the proposed report of the publications Control Board. Here is a report of the Mealie Control Board, for the year 30 June 1962, the latest one available. The Minister may say it is at least nine months old and therefore of no use. In the case of the Chicory Control Board the latest report is for 1961, so it is 2j years old, and it gives statistics about the dried chicory root handled by the board for that year and the preceding 20 years. According to the Deputy Minister, that is very valuable information, and it is proper that that board shall report to Parliament! In the case of the Cape Town Milk Board, the annual report was tabled in the House on 6 February, 12 days ago. It is brand new, but it deals with the year ended 31 December 1960. Surely no responsible person can say: The report you asked for will be useless because it will deal with something after the event. The Deputy Minister knows better than I do that almost every member of the public over the age of nine is likely to have attended a cinema during the year, but who knows or cares about the use of dried chicory root? Therefore I say—with respect— that his first answer is completely unacceptable. In his second answer he said that this report will be the most pornographic publication, and the board might have to ban it—but look at the situation in practice. I said last week that apparently it did happen from time to time when the Chief Magistrate of Cape Town had the delegated powers from the Minister and could not make up his mind about a film, he asked the Minister to see the film. And that was not denied because the Minister told us that that did happen to him from time to time; he had to see such a film. It is a remarkable thing, Sir, that in the Sunday Times of yesterday there is a report under the heading, “De Klerk will vet * immoral ’ Italian film this report deals with a film to which I referred last week in the course of my discussion of the matter, a film called “Boccaccio ’70” which has been banned by the board. Here in a public document, a newspaper, the reasons are given as to why this film has been banned and why the importers have seen fit to appeal to the Minister as they are entitled to do. It is “offensive to decency ”. That is clearly a reason given by the board. Does that make the Sunday Times pornographic, or, at least, more pornographic than it was? It has also been banned because of “its passionate love scenes and loose morals.” Does that make this newspaper any more immoral than it was, simply because it refers to such reasons? But what also comes out of it is this: that the importers of this film, not being satisfied with the decision of the present board that—according to the board—it was offensive to decency, that it contained passionate love scenes and scenes of loose morals, they appealed to the Minister, and—lo and behold—the Minister now has to go and view this film in order to decide whether the ban imposed on it should be retained or lifted.

To decide whether the scenes are passionate or not.

I want to put it to the Deputy Minister of the Interior that if he is afraid that the public of South Africa may be exposed to pornography and for that reason it requires the activities of a film censorship board, then clearly he is not going to find very much sympathy amongst those people who want to view films in their original form, and as they were imported. But the moment he says that a report that has been asked for in the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout is going to be a pornographic document, and that he wants to protect us, the members of this House, from the influences of pornography, then he should remember that his own Minister, perhaps this very afternoon has been victimized—according to him —and subjected to the same pornography which occurs allegedly in this film “Boccaccio ’70”, that the poor Minister has to sit there and watch all these things which are offensive to decency.

May I ask you a question?

The hon. member wishes to put a question to the hon. member.

Who, Sir? That “gentleman ”!? I was about to say that our Minister of the Interior, who is a member of the Upper House, is this very afternoon, I understand, being subjected to the pornography contained in scenes which are offensive to decency and in scenes which according to the newspaper, quoting the decision of the board, are passionate love scenes showing loose morals. I want to say with great respect to the staying power of the Minister of the Interior, that if he can take it, so can we! In other words—not that I am looking for an invitation to see this film—it may be very nice to be able to go off in the afternoon and see a film which is offensive to decency and so on; but if the Deputy Minister does not see anything wrong in the Minister of the Interior being called upon to view such a film, then certainly, Sir, you must agree that there would be nothing wrong in a report submitted by the board saying that “Boccaccio ’70” was rejected, and that a certificate was refused because it contained scenes which were offensive to decency, because it contained passionate love scenes which were offensive, etc., etc. That is all that they would have to say. They are not required to give an expose of the entire film. I want to say this if there were a proviso under which the board would have to report, quite apart from the fact that it has much greater public importance than a report of the Chicory Control Board, then in banning a film like “Inherit the Wind”, to which I referred last week, the board would be obliged to say that since it has no love scenes, since it cannot be offensive to decency, since it has nothing to do with loose morals, “we banned this film because it was anti-fundamentalist that it did not condemn the film because of “loose morals” etc., but because it refused to allow anybody in South Africa the right to believe in the Darwinian theory! Then the public of South Africa would know where we stand in relation to this Government, and in regard to this board. [Time limit.]

I do not want to come back again to the argument that it is quite impracticable to give the reasons why a book has been banned. I think that hon. members on this side have made it quite clear why one cannot in a report give those reasons clearly to the public and also to this House. Therefore we need no longer argue about that.

But I want to raise a different matter, namely that I think that this will make the work of the board impossible. This board will have to give their findings in regard to thousands of books throughout the years, and those findings may be used against the board in any future litigation. In other words, when the board publicly gives reasons for having banned a certain work, those reasons which it has put into writing may be used in any future court case. Therefore I think it will make the work of the board impossible. I want to go further and say that public opinion is continually changing. I have here, for example a book named “The Banned Books of England ”. From that it can be seen that books which were at first banned were later accepted as classics. Things which were banned previously are not regarded to-day as things which should be banned. The fact that a new Act has been placed on the Statute Book in England shows how public opinion has changed. If one makes the public acquainted with the findings of the board and the grounds on which it arrived at its decisions, it means that one is really creating a position to which public opinion cannot adapt itself. Therefore I think it is impracticable to expect this board, which has to give decisions in regard to thousands of books and films, to reduce those decisions to writing so that in future they may be quoted against the board. I say that it will obstruct the functioning of the board instead of the board adapting its functions to the form and the development of public opinion as it has progressed through the years. I therefore think that it is simply impossible to accede to it. The question is whether people will make use of the right of appeal to the courts. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said that people would not go to court. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) also said he hoped they would never go to court. But if one takes the position in England, one finds that certain cases there lasted for years; that a battle was waged for years to have the banning of a book rescinded. In other words, even in England people go to court to appeal against the decision to ban a book. I am quite convinced that the correct course is to take the decision out of the hands of the Minister and to place it in the hands of the court, and that one would be applying the rule of law here. In that way the political influence, which hon. members opposite do not want to have, will be removed entirely.

Listening to the arguments of hon. members opposite, one is led to believe that this Bill before us only deals with pornographic literature and with indecent objects. My reading of this Bill is very much wider, so much wider that in point of fact I think the activities of the board in so far as indecent objects are concerned, are going to constitute an infinitesimal portion of the work that the board is going to have to do. Sir. if you look at Clause 5 of the Bill …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 16.

I am dealing with the amendment that the board shall report. Sir, if you look at Clause 5 you will see that no person is allowed to import any publication or object with a soft cover selling at a price of less than 50c. When one realizes the implications of that clause, one sees how essential it is that Parliament should be advised what the activities of the board has been. There is a complete misunderstanding here of the activities of this board, and I believe that until we get a report of the board in this House of Parliament, we and the public will not know what the ramifications or the functions of this board are. In terms of this measure nobody can, for example, import any periodical because every periodical will be sold at less than 50c.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am speaking on the amendment which provides that the board shall report to the House, and I am trying to point out that the ramifications of this Bill are so wide, much wider than the question of pornography and indecency, that it is going to be very important in the implementation of this measure that the House should know what is going on. Sir, I can point out a hundred things that nobody can import in terms of this Bill, and we want to know from the board what is going on, otherwise this thing is going to become farcical. There is no periodical that can be imported unless a permit is applied for and the House will want to know what is happening as far as applications for permits are concerned. Sir, the commercial industry in this country imports millions of pamphlets per annum, and in terms of this Bill not a single pamphlet can be imported. It has a soft cover; it costs under 50c and nobody can import a pamphlet. The Minister or the Department has no right in terms of this Bill to exclude, by advertisement in the Gazette, any particular item that falls within the category of pamphlets. We feel that it is only right that the Minister and the board should come to Parliament and tell us what is going on. If somebody wants to import a prohibited soft-cover book costing under 50c. I would like as a member of Parliament to be told by the board in a report how it is going to be done, because you are not allowed to import a soft-cover book unless you have a permit from the board. How do you get a permit from the board? You have not got the book, so you cannot go to the board and say, “Please give me a permit to import this book,” because if I am in possession of the book and I have not obtained a permit I have committed an offence if it is a soft-cover book costing under 50c. How do you go about getting a permit to import a soft-cover book? These are the things which are underlined in this particular Bill and which hon. members opposite seem to have forgotten about altogether. We are not dealing with pornography or with indecency. We are dealing with tens of thousands of items which fall under the category of soft-covers under 50c which come into this country day after day and month after month. Sir, when the ramifications of this Bill are felt and known, it becomes as clear as daylight that not only we on this side, but hon. members opposite will want to know how this Bill is working, because it is so all-embracing, it is so wide, it gives so much power because it is in the negative sense. Nothing can be done except by means of application for a permit. There are going to be hundreds and hundreds of organizations, institutions, businesses and persons applying to the hon. the Minister for permits. I have to apply to the Minister for permission to import this pamphlet which I have before me; every single motor firm in this country that issues a brochure on its motor car will have to apply to the Minister for permission to import. We will have to pay a fee and will have to apply on the prescribed form. I repeat that the Minister cannot alleviate the position because he has no right to do so under this clause, which is so far-reaching that we want the Minister and the board to report to this House.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) has raised certain points which have to be replied to. His point was really this, that this measure may have such wide ramifications, in terms of the provisions of Clause 5, that it would be desirable to submit a report to Parliament in connection with those wide ramifications. In the first place I just want to show that the hon. member’s premises were completely wrong. The hon. member makes the submission that the Minister cannot allow the importation of broad categories except upon specific application. But Clause 8 (1) (c) clearly provides that the board shall have power “subject to the provision of sub-section (2) to approve of the importation by any person during any specified period, of any publication or object referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 5, which (l) is published by a specified publisher; or (ii) falls within a particular class of publication published by a special publisher; or (iii) deals with any specified object, if in the opinion of the board that publication or object is not likely to be undesirable and at any time in its discretion to withdraw any approval granted under this paragraph ”. Under 8 (1) (c) these categories dealing with any specified subject or falling within a particular class of publication or are published by a specified publisher may be given a blank permit or a blanket exemption from the restrictions laid down in Clause 5 (c). It is perfectly clear that advertising material in the motor industry, for example, can be described as a category; that would dispose of the matter then; that category would be exempted. My contention is that Clause 8 gives the Publications Board permission, where goods have been excluded generally under the 50c prohibition, to allow any defined category of those goods to enter the country without a permit; that the board has the power to define a category of goods.

Where is the word

“category” used? It does not appear in the Bill.

The hon. member will find it in Clause 8 (1) (c) (ii) in the Afrikaans text: “Binne ’n besondere kategorie van publikasies val …” The English text reads: “Falls within a particular class of publication published by a specified publisher,” and (iii) is much wider: “deals with any specified subject ”. A “specified subject” may be advertising material in respect of motor vehicles or advertising material in respect of any other specific commercial article. The hon. member is harbouring imaginary fears. The board has the power to exempt these broad categories which the hon. member mentioned. The hon. member also raised the question of magazines and said that everybody who wished to import a magazine would have to obtain a permit. The board is being authorized here in very specific terms to authorize the importation of a series of magazines which may be published in the future under a particular title by a particular publisher, and that disposed of the matter. So much with regard to the factual basis on which the hon. member based his speech. The hon. member misconstrued the way in which this Act will work and the concessions which may be granted under the Act. In the second place he stated that unless the amendment was accepted we in Parliament would not be able to get information as to how these far-reaching powers are used, and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) made a similar statement. Mr. Chairman. I want to suggest that these hon. members are entirely wrong. The Minister will be fully responsible for all questions which may be put to him as Minister arising from this matter. Clause 16 (1) gives the Minister the power to promulgate regulations with regard to the conditions of office, inter alia, under which the members of the Control Board will serve. These regulations can legitimately include the instruction that the members must furnish information to the Minister on any matter about which the Minister asks for information. I cannot speak here on behalf of the Minister and say that he will exercise that right, but since the Minister has the right to prescribe the conditions of office of members of the board, the Minister can never come before this Parliament and say that he is unable to obtain this, that or the other information. The practical position therefore will be, as far as this en bloc prohibition of articles costing 50c or less is concerned, that the board will have the necessary power to grant concessions, but if the board does not grant those concessions, then there are two remedies. In the first place the prospective importer of the article costing less than 50c can, in terms of Clause 14 (1) (b), take the matter to court on appeal where he has applied for permission to import and that application has been refused. His second remedy is this: If he does not want to take the matter on appeal to court, he can write to his Member of Parliament and say, “I have been unable to obtain permission to import these particular articles costing less than 50c; please ask the Minister what the reasons are and take the Minister to task ”. The Minister, without the slightest doubt, would have to reply to this question. The hon. member for Kensington has suggested here that information may be refused just as in the case of the Broadcasting Corporation which is an independent body. In making that statement he sought to bring the Broadcasting Corporation under fire once again but that statement is obviously not in accordance with the facts of this Act. The Minister is fully responsible for the administration of this measure by the Publications Board.

Finally I do want to ask hon. members on the other side what they seek to achieve with their amendment. When we on this side suggested that in terms of the amendment the board would be required to motivate its decision to reject certain works, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout shook his head and said, “no. it is only the article ”. I take it that in saying that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout indicated that in using the words “the reasons for such decisions” he simply meant that the board will have to say: “I found under

Clause 10 (c) (iv) that it depicts human figures in an offensive manner ”. The mover of the amendment which emanates from the United Party has therefore helped us now by saying that as far as the reasons for the decisions are concerned, he virtually wants a reference by the board to the section of the Act under which it gave its decision. [Time limit.]

I am very loth to cross swords with the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) when it comes to a legal matter and I certainly respect his legal knowledge but I would like to draw his attention to Clause 8 (2) which he read in reference to his remark under Clause 8 (1) (c). The position appears to me to be that the board can give relief in respect of specified publications, specified subjects or a specified publisher, but it is governed by (2), and that is why we come back to the point that we want the board to report to Parliament so that we will know what is going on. In terms of Clause 8 (2) application has to be made for a permit. Somebody will apply and will be granted a permit for a particular reason but there will be no general publication so the world at large and Parliament in particular will have no knowledge of what is going on. As I have said before, the field is a very wide one, and I want to ask the hon. member for Kempton Park whether he agrees with me that you cannot import a notebook. Let us hear from the hon. member what he thinks of Clause 8 (2).

Order! Clause 8 (2) is not under discussion now.

In that case I am not allowed to discuss it.

I must say that the measure of the sincerity of hon. members on the Government benches is evidenced by the replies which they gave to points raised by hon. members on this side in the opening stages of the debate on this clause. For some weeks now we have been listening to the efforts of the hon. the Minister in charge of the debate …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I am talking about the approach of hon. members on the Government side to this Bill.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I will deal with the actual clause itself. An appeal has been made to the hon. the Deputy Minister representing the Minister to accept an improvement in this Bill which will enable us to put to the test the sincerity of the Government in the justification it has put forward for many of the clauses of this Bill. The first reply which the Deputy Minister gave indicated a lack of tolerance on his part. He seemed most impatient with the reasoning which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout presented to this committee in justification of this amendment. The Deputy Minister was followed by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) who made some rather sneering references to the viewpoint of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

Order! The hon. member is now recapitulating arguments which have already been advanced. He must confine himself to the clause.

This attitude on the part of hon. members opposite indicates clearly what their attitude is towards constructive criticism from this side of the House.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause or resume his seat.

The reasons given by hon. members on that side as to why this amendment was not an acceptable one were as follows: Firstly, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) said: “Dit sal die werk van die raad heeltemal onmoontlik maak.” The hon. the Minister talked about pornographic documents.

Order! I have warned the hon. member that if he continues to repeat arguments which have already been advanced I would have to ask him to resume his seat. The hon. member persists in doing so, so I must ask him to resume his seat.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister. I am sure he has had some time to reflect. I do believe that this Bill can only be improved by accepting the amendment now before this Chamber. The hon. the Minister and others on the Government side have advanced arguments of inconvenience—I cannot put it higher than that—why the proposed new section moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) should not be accepted. Here is a provision where power is being vested in a non-judicial body subject to appeal which will not cover all circumstances I do hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment which will ensure that where action is taken under this clause Parliament will be informed. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and others have raised questions as to the efficacy of this provision. That may be so. It may be that there is not an adequate opportunity for debating some of these matters but that is a matter for Parliament to deal with at the proper time.

We have one piece of legislation after another in this country in terms of which it is necessary for reports to be submitted to Parliament. I submit that that is an adequate safeguard. Especially in a case such as this where very wide powers are being given to a board notwithstanding that there is a limited right of appeal and notwithstanding that it is a requirement that the board shall make its decisions known in the Gazette, I do submit to the hon. the Minister that a case has been made out for the acceptance of this amendment. The hon. Minister says it will serve no purpose. At least, Sir, it will be on record I believe that it will serve a purpose in two respects: Firstly, it will be possible, not only for the Government but for this House, to see how the board is discharging its functions. Secondly, I believe that a provision of that sort will give great satisfaction both inside this country and outside this country as to the fact that there is a check on arbitrary action under this provision. I do hope that having come back from his dinner this evening the hon. the Minister will be prepared to reconsider his earlier decision and to accept this amendment.

I should like to point out that every prohibition that is placed by this Control Board on any publication or on any form of public entertainment, is publicized in any event in the Government Gazette. In other words, whatever action is taken by this Control Board becomes public knowledge; it is publicized in the Government Gazette.

Order! That argument has been advanced time and again.

I want to enlarge upon it. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has tried to make out a case in support of his proposition that the hon. the Minister should Table an annual report from this board. The point I want to make is that that report would simply consist of the series of Government Gazettes published over the whole of this period. I want to go further and say. Mr. Chairman, that when a prohibition is advertised in the Government Gazette, every member is at liberty to put the necessary questions to the hon. the Minister here in the House of Assembly.

That has been said time and again.

When we go into Committee of Supply every member is at liberty, not only in pursuance of replies that he receives to his questions but also in the debate to discuss the actions of this Board of Control …

The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

Finally I want to point out, because there is no other argument except this one, that any person who feels aggrieved as a result of the decision of this Control Board has the right to appeal and since the board’s decision also becomes public knowledge, it is not necessary to Table any of the board’s reasons in this House.

I must say that I am more suspicious now than I was, after the rejection by the Government of the principle of supervision by Parliament. This is the second time during this debate that the Government has rejected the principle of the supervision of Parliament. What strengthens my suspicions are the feeble reasons given by the Government for its refusal. The only counter-argument advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister is that the report to be submitted to Parliament will itself be a bit of pornography. In effect, the Cronje Report was a report submitted to Parliament in regard to undesirable literature. Did that turn this report into a bit of pornography?

The hon. member should not discuss the Cronje Report now. *

No, Sir. I am just submitting that here we had a report dealing with undesirable literature which was submitted to Parliament and which was not a bit of pornography for that reason. The argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister is superficial. Furthermore, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). This Bill specifically provides for what reasons the Control Board may ban books, and all that this amendment now asks is that in terms of the same Bill the Control Board should give the reasons for its decisions. I ask nothing more of the Control Board than that it should say: This series of books, or this particular book, was banned “because it was offensive to public morals” or “because it is blasphemous”, or “because it will disturb the relations between the population groups”, so that Parliament may judge in what category of prohibition a particular banned work falls. It need not be a voluminous report. In fact the Control Board has the advantage of itself deciding how to frame its report. The hon. member objected to the word “details ”. He asked how I defined it. It is easy enough for the board to report that it received a complaint in regard to publication “×”, that it was considered and that it was banned, e.g. because it was offensive to public morals. If the Deputy Minister objects to the wording of the amendment we can change it; but we ask that that side of the House should be willing to accept the principle. But what is happening in fact is that they do not want to reject the wording only, but the whole idea of any supervision by Parliament over the activities of the board.

It is a pity that there are such suspicious members in this House who suspect everything. The only danger is that before long the hon. member’s party may become suspicious of him, but I leave it at that. I am always perfectly willing to consider amendments, particularly from the Opposition, because I remember that there was a time when we too were in the Opposition, and it is a good thing if an Opposition can be consulted, but in that event the Opposition must make out a case in support of its proposition. And I say with all due deference that no case has been made out here to-day for this amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. A hullabaloo has simply been raised here. After all, it is nonsensical to say that this provision as it stands here means that we are maintaining secrecy, that Parliament is not being kept informed and that the public is not being kept informed. These publications which are prohibited are publicized in the Government Gazette, and all the hon. member has to do is simply to keep a record of the names and to tabulate them and he will then have a clear indication as to what has been prohibited. He will not have much trouble in determining what kind of books have been banned. If he is still not satisfied with that, then the hon. member is at liberty to put questions in this House. Under the Interior Vote he can then react to the replies to his questions and criticize this board, and the responsible Minister will have to answer that criticism. There is no question of secrecy therefore. The point has also been raised that the banning of a book will serve as an advertisement for the book overseas. If that is so I am surprised that the Opposition now discovers for the first time after 50 years that it will be an advertisement, because this has been the position since 1913. The 1931 legislation is based on the 1913 legislation; the two measures are parallel. This provision has been known since that time and I am surprised that the Rip van Winkles are discovering it now for the first time. All that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has to do, with his customary diligence, is to make a study of the Government Gazette, and then I think the reason for his suspicion will disappear.

The Minister has, on two occasions I think, sought to prove that this amendment was unnecessary, and one of his reasons, supported by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) was that it was open to a member of the House to put a question to the Minister about such matters as we say the board should submit in its report to Parliament. Sir, it is therefore relevant to explain to the hon. the Deputy Minister something which he should know, and that is what happens in the case of a question which the Minister cannot or will not answer? With your permission, Sir, I want to cite one example in my experience. In regard to the establishment of a medical school for non-Whites, I have directed four questions to the Minister of Health and on Friday, in replying to those questions, he said, “No, No, etc., etc.” When I put a supplementary question, he told me to put that on the Order Paper.

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause under discussion.

I merely want to say, Sir, that having taken the advice of the hon. Minister—I think this is relevant—I immediately approached the Assistant Secretary of the House to put that question on the Order Paper and, of course, I was told that it could not be put on the Order Paper. The Rules of the House make it impossible sometimes to elicit the answer which this side of the House wants, by way of a question.

I want to come back to the suggested procedure in regard to films, particularly that which is envisaged in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). On a previous occasion this afternoon I tried to indicate what was happening at the moment, under the existing legislation, and therefore what must happen in terms of the Bill before the House in terms of the particular clause we are discussing; and how this situation could be improved considerably if the Deputy Minister accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. As I said, I dealt with a film which, according to a reply given to me by the Minister last week, had been banned. It should be borne in mind that over the last five years the number of films banned annually by the Board of Censors has been between 20 and 30—an average of 21 per annum. This film which I cited last week and which is germane to the discussion now, “Boccaccio ’70” is the last on the list for 1962. Therefore, presumably, that was the last film to be banned, because these names do not appear in alphabetical order. That happened sometime last year but right now, possibly at this very moment, the Minister having been asked by the Chief Magistrate to view …

That matter has been raised and discussed from time to time. The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I am dealing with the amendment, Sir, in order to try to indicate what the function of this board should be …

The function of the board is not under discussion now.

May I discuss the value of such a board?

No, the hon. member may discuss the amendment.

May I for the last time. Sir, ask whether I can discuss the need for the board to submit a report to Parliament in terms of the amendment? Is it in order for me to do that, Sir?

Yes.

The need arises, as I tried to indicate, very clearly in this one case, where the certain members of the board having banned a film …

The hon. member already raised that before the dinner adjournment.

No, Sir, this is a new point. I did not refer to how this was done. After it had been banned by certain members of the board, it was referred on appeal to the full board. I have not said that before. Sir. After the full board had turned it down, the importers of the film approached the Minister.

The hon. member is now dealing with the functions of the board. That should have been raised under Clause 3.

May I then in regard to the need for a report to Parliament say this …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is not the need for such a report under discussion now?

No.

May I ask with respect what is under discussion?

The question of furnishing the Minister with a report and laying it on the Table of the House.

That is the point I am making, Sir. We are surely entitled to discuss the need for a report to be submitted to Parliament, and that is what the hon. member is doing.

Yes, but not the details. The hon. member cannot discuss the reasons for a report.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, we cannot discuss the clause unless we give reasons why we want it introduced into the Bill.

The whole difficulty lies in this that hon. members are raising points which have been dealt with in previous clauses. These matters cannot be raised again under this clause.

May I address you on that point, Sir? Is it not correct to say that this particular clause was not before the House until it had been moved? It is a new clause which could not be discussed while other clauses were under discussion, because it had not been moved.

Hon. members cannot discuss points under this particular clause which have been agreed to in previous clauses. The hon. member for Hospital may proceed.

Paragraph 1 of the amendment refers to a report on the board’s activities to be submitted to the Minister, and this report shall contain, inter alia, particulars of every matter that has been submitted to the board. May I say that that means, in effect, that the particulars to which I am now trying to draw your attention will in normal circumstances, in terms of the legislation asked for in this amendment, be reported to this House? Whether after the event or not is beside the point. It is on that ground alone, Sir, that I want to make a brief submission.

That should have been discussed under Clause 3, which deals with the functions of the board.

You win, Sir.

The hon. member must advance new arguments now. *

New arguments. Sir? That is precisely why I rise to speak. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has come along with a new illustration as to what His interpretation is of the details and the reasons which have to be submitted to the House of Assembly in terms of his proposal. The hon. member has now told us for the first time precisely what he seeks to achieve with this amendment. I just want to say to the hon. member that Clause 8 (5) where provision is made for publication in the Government Gazette would have been the proper place to achieve his purpose. The hon. member failed to avail himself of that opportunity. It would have been a very simple matter to have moved that if the rejection of any work is advertised in the Government Gazette, reference must at the same time be made to the section of the Act under which the work in question was found to be improper. Now that the hon. member has drawn attention to this I want to say that I am sorry, really, that he did not move that. It would have been desirable in the public interest perhaps if together with the original announcement of rejection, reference was made to the relevant section of the Act. The only good reason that I can advance as to why provision was not made for it is that to a certain extent it was done for the protection of the writer. A rejection under certain provisions of the Act may be regarded as carrying with it a special odium which one would want to spare a writer or a publisher. But the real point that I want to put to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that he did not consult with his own party members as to what they seek to achieve with this amendment. He has now given his own version as to what it seeks to achieve. We have now had three other points of view. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has intimated that he views the report to this House as a general report which will more or less offer comments, on a group basis, on the nature of the works submitted to the board, on the tendencies revealed in them —as he put it, a general, somewhat educational report in the nature of a summary, which would have been just as interesting to me as to him. That was the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Kensington.

But the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) held a different view. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth stated in reply to the argument that the judgments given by the court would in due course give a lead to the Publications Board that the purpose of the report should be to enable Parliament to test the decisions of the Publications Board in the light of court decisions given in the past. These decisions of the court, in the nature of things, would be public property.

The hon. member is now repeating an argument which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) advanced.

I mention it merely to bring out the difference of opinion within the same party on the same matter. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin), on the other hand, sought the motivation for this amendment in the commercial interest in certain under 50c articles which may be prohibited. Collectively I come to the conclusion then that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout failed to consult his own party sufficiently so that we could get to know what that party contemplates with this amendment. The hon. member has now finally come along and said that if the hon. the Minister accepts the principle we can deal with the wording later on. My reply to that statement is simply that we do not know which principle to accept so as to be able to adapt the wording to it. Must we accept his principle or that of the other three members? That in itself is an adequate and final reason as to why this amendment cannot be accepted.

The last point with which I want to deal is the argument advanced by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that what is being asked for here is the customary type of report to Parliament. At a very early stage of the discussion on this clause the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) asked the movers of this amendment to give us examples of comparable reports which are submitted to Parliament. Although very many general observations were made, the comparison which was nearest to the mark was made by a member who might perhaps link up his name with this commodity, who referred us to the report of the Chicory Board. If anybody thinks that the Report of the Chicory Board, which deals with a section of our economic life, is comparable with this sort of report, then he is thinking in terms of chicory.

May I put a question? Is the hon. member for Kempton Park not aware of the fact that I only cited those reports because they had expired as to time in regard to the Deputy Minister’s argument? Why does he couple me with chicory?

I should like to reply to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Germiston (District). The function of the Publications Board can really be compared with that of a certain type of licensing board. It is a board which allows or refuses an activity which has an economic implication. I would say that it is not unfair to compare it with the Liquor Licensing Board, or to compare its function with that of the Road Transportation Boards in this country.

The hon. member is again discussing the function of the board which is not relevant here. It should have been discussed under Clause 3.

I mention the functions of the board because the argument was advanced in support of this amendment that boards of this nature have to submit reports to this Parliament. It is in this context that I want to reply to this argument to show that comparable boards do not report to this Parliament. But I gladly bow to your ruling.

I just want to ask the hon. member whether he does not believe in breaking new ground. Does he not believe in anything new?

I do believe in covering a new field in legislation and also in administrative practices but the motivation advanced for this particular amendment by the other side is not that this is a new pattern of State administration that we must accept because it is an acceptable new field, but the motivation advanced is that it falls into line with what has already been done so often in the past. All I want to indicate is that we are not dealing here with one of the maize or chicory lands which are already known to us. If we seek a parallel, that parallel will be found more readily in the case of boards which grant concessions, boards such as the-Road Transportation Board and the Liquor Licensing Board, for example, where it is not customary to submit a report to this House on every application and the reason for granting or refusing it. Since that has been our administrative practice, my submission is that no substantial reason has been advanced here as to why an exception should be made in this case. [Time limit.]

Following on the lengthy address to which we have just listened, I would like to draw the attention of this Committee to the second paragraph of the amendment. In terms of that second paragraph the mover of the amendment calls for a report to be submitted and to be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within seven days or if Parliament is not in Session, within seven days after the commencement of the next session. All we have been trying to do for the last couple of hours has been to impress upon the Minister the importance of not hiding the facts in this most important Bill. The Minister has for days been most careful to assure us that there was no necessity to be concerned as to any difficulties which might be contained in this Bill, that it was in fact nothing different from the other Bills which it attempted by and large to consolidate. The objective here is to enable Parliament to scrutinize what this board is doing and if necessary to raise issues with the Minister in the House on the report to enable the House to get information. That is not an unusual procedure in this House where numerous reports are Tabled every Session. They are laid on the Table of the House and they can be dealt with by members in the form of questions or they can be discussed in relevant debates. There seems to be some peculiar reason why the hon. the Minister and his supporters are doing everything in their power to evade the normal, reasonable suggestion that the report of a statutory body should be Tabled in this House.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has not yet given a clear satisfactory answer as to why he is not prepared to accept an amendment of this nature. He talks about pornographic documents which are completely irrelevant to the amendment. The Minister himself has introduced irrelevancies all the way in the replies which he has given to various hon. members on this side of the House; he has evaded the issues which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has brought to his attention and he was supported by gentlemen who themselves have tried to draw red herrings across the particular resolution with which we are dealing.

The CHAIRMAN; Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Sir, what we would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister is some sound constructive reason why he is afraid to accept an amendment of this nature which will enable Parliament and the country to know how this Act is being administered and that nothing is done which will preclude the country from keeping abreast with modern-day knowledge, whether it be on the screen or through publication. That, Sir, is the reason why the hon. the Deputy Minister talks all the time of suspicion on this side of the House. There would be no such thought in his mind if he would tell us frankly why he is not prepared to receive a report and lay it on the Table of the House.

Proposed new Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—41: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Noes—67: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. R.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J. Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P.O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F., van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van* der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Proposed new Clause accordingly negatived.

On Clause 16,

On behalf of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) I beg to move the amendment standing in her name—

In doing so, it would appear that the clause as it stands now would in any case include “period” as a condition of service. It states in sub-section (1) (e) “the conditions of office, remuneration and allowances of members of the board …”, but in an earlier clause, Clause 2, sub-section (4) the words used are “the period and conditions of office, remuneration and allowances of members of the board ”. It is my contention that this phrase “condition of office” does not include the period of office, and if we insert “period” here it would bring it into line with the previous clause. It is quite obvious that it has been omitted for some special reason. I do not think it is an omission which was not intended, and I think the feeling on this side of the House is that the Minister has decided that he cannot fix the period of office of any of the people that he appoints either to the board, or any of its committees. It is an important matter. It is important firstly for the Minister himself to know who his panel is going to be. He can always call on this panel either for the board or for one of the committees, and then it is also important because he can get continuity of service from a group of people who know how long they are going to serve. The members who are going to be appointed will have some security of position. They will have more interest in their work if they know for how long they are going to be appointed. With their stay on the committee or the board they would gradually get more knowledge of the work of the board and be far more useful than if there is no fixed period of service. I feel that this board and its committees are going to be a very important group of people, and they should be treated as such, and therefore they should know whether they are going to be appointed for one meeting or for a period of the life of the board. It is very important for this person who is appointed on the board or one of; the committees to know that his services are required not in a temporary capacity, but as far as possible that they will be required for as long as possible. If this omission, that we find here, has been done intentionally, it would mean that this deliberate omission makes us again suspicious of the whole Bill.

Why?

I’ll tell the hon. member, because people will be taken onto this board and they will remain on the board as long as they are a mirror of the Minister; as long as they reflect the Minister’s opinions, they will remain on the board, and I feel that this omission has been deliberate, so that if any person does not toe the line, if he does not measure up to the standards expected by the Minister, he will not be re-appointed. If that is not the case, then it is for the hon. Deputy Minister here this evening to say that the omission has not been deliberate and that he will be prepared to accept the amendment as it stands and to add “period”, to make sure that we on this side of the House have got suspicions which are not well-founded.

This is a textual amendment to bring it in accordance with Clause 2 (4) and this amendment constitutes a definite improvement on the clause. Consequently I am glad to accept it, although I cannot share all the fears and suspicions of the hon. member.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 23 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—66: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, I. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Piessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K..; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Nie-kerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vors-ter, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—40: Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H, G. O.; Ptewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Stretcher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 5 standing over.

On Clause 5,

This is the most important clause in the entire Bill; it is the definition clause, it is the clause that determines the prohibition of, and the production and dissemination of certain publications and objects. A great deal of discussion has already taken place in this committee on definitions on various other clauses, and a good deal of the arguments which one would use against the widening of the definition in this clause have of course already been advanced. But I wish to move the amendments standing in my name—

I am afraid they are rather complicated amendments. I have put them all together and I propose to explain each part of the amendment one by one. Now as I propose to amend the clause, it will read as follows: (a) and (b) would go altogether, and then it would read—

Now although that is rather complicated, the object of this amendment is very simple. It is in effect simply to leave the decision as to undesirability to the courts so far as everything is concerned, in other words, not only as far as printing, publishing and manufacturing, etc., are concerned, but also as far as distributing, displaying, exhibiting or selling are concerned.

That was decided at the second reading.

I do not know whether this is a particular principle that both the publishing and printing and the actual distribution should fall under the same test of undesirability. The question is here whether the final test of undesirability shall be left to the courts, or whether simply the gazetting by the board is sufficient in one case but not in the other. Because as it stands at the moment there is a most extraordinary position: In the case of a printer, publisher or author of an article, the court alone, and then only after a prosecution has been brought, shall decide whether the article is undesirable, and the court in this particular case is not bound by any decision of the board. The court itself can make the finding as to undesirability. But as far as the person who distributes the object is concerned, or exhibits, or sells the same, simply the gazetting as “undesirable” by the board means that the person is bound by that decision; in other words, the board’s gazetting as “undesirable” is sufficient, whereas in the case of the man who actually writes the book, it is only after prosecution and where the courts have actually found that such an object is undesirable that indeed it is so. This is a most extraordinary position, because it provides a certain licence for the man who writes the book, but it does not provide the same licence for the man who distributes the book. In other words, anybody can write the book and keep it at home, and apparently this is all right until a prosecution is instituted against such a person. But where somebody is distributing an object, then as long as the board has gazetted the object as “undesirable”, anybody who distributes that object is in fact committing an offence. I think this is an anomalous position, and it certainly does not help the writer of an article or the painter of a picture, because after all unless one is producing entirely for arts’ sake, one produces to sell also. Most artists I presume produce books in order to have them printed and distributed and most painters paint pictures not only for the joy the painting actually gives, but also to exhibit those pictures and to have them sold. I propose therefore to bring both the printer, who is in fact the writer, or the painter and the person who distributes the article under the same test of “undesirability ”.

The second part of the amendment, Sir, to omit sub-section (c), is of course a matter which we have argued ad nauseam in the Committee, and I do not want to go over all the arguments again. Very briefly, this is again that section that bans all paper-backs with the exception of those which are allowed in under certain exemptions. I object to this very strenuously, for the same reason I have advanced on other clauses when this particular subject was under discussion. In other words, it is absurd to ban all paper-backs; we all know how many excellent books come in in the form of paper-back books; we know that universities require these as text books for their students, and so on, and it is no answer to me, any way, for the hon. Deputy Minister to tell us that these good classics and text books will be allowed to come in under permit. I do not consider that that is the way democracy should function that the people’s reading matter should only be allowed in under special permit from the Minister’s board. What are we trying to produce in this country, Sir? A nation of people who cannot read, cannot afford to read, illiterates? Why? Because people who read can be dangerous? As far as I am concerned this is a far-reaching and absurd provision and should most certainly be removed from this Bill.

The latter part of my amendment deals with a change in the actual definition of what is to be considered undesirable, and here I want to move a small addition to my amendment which is not printed on the Order Paper.

I want to delete “or any part of it” in line 79. I move—

The reason for this is also something that we have discussed before, namely that it is absurd to allow boards to deem an object undesirable because of “any part of it ”. A book should be read as a whole, and unless it is read as a whole it is quite impossible for anybody to judge that book on its merits. To allow the extraction of offensive passages in a book and then to say that because the book contains these passages the book as a whole is undesirable, as far as I am concerned, is the very worse type of narrow-mindedness. For that reason I want to omit those words.

The rest of the amendment is printed, and of course it means that I want to omit all the sub-sections from (b) to (f), all those sub-sections which deal with blasphemy, or offensiveness to the religious convictions, etc., of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic. I think that is a dangerously wide definition. Neither do I like the sub-section which speaks about bringing any section of the population into ridicule or contempt, because that also is dangerously wide and the same also applies to sub-section (d) which speaks of “being harmful to the relations between sections in the Republic This sub-section about ridicule I believe is particularly dangerous. Are we to stop laughing at ourselves in this country. Sir? Are we going to be deprived of cartoons of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development decked out in his karosses? Are we going to be deprived of the high fidelity tower worn by the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? And are we going to be deprived of the high-hat worn by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs? These things might be said to bring ridicule on inhabitants of the Republic, and I think the country is getting to a sorry state indeed if we are getting to the stage where we have to define what is “offensive” or “intolerable” in terms of ridicule. I would say that one of the hall-marks of a sophisticated nation is its ability to laugh at itself.

You very seldom laugh!

I laugh all the time at the hon. member. It is not so much that I find him funny, but I find him ridiculous. [Time limit.]

This clause actually brings us to the main provision of the Bill. It forbids the printing, publication and distribution of publications which are unstable, indecent or obscene. It lays down the norm as to what is undesirable and indecent and obscene. Take this clause out of the Bill and we take away its heart. Water this clause down and we make a farce of all control. The amendment of the hon. member for Houghton is aimed at doing precisely that —at watering down this clause. It is a roundabout sort of way of striking at the heart of the clause. I know that she does this in the name of—as she calls it—the freedom of the individual, but in my view she does it in the name of her distorted idea of the freedom of the individual. It becomes clearer day by day that the Liberals in our country—it makes no difference on whose side they are, whether they belong to the United Party or are members of the Progressive Party—can no longer distinguish between freedom and licentiousness. Every law imposes some restriction: every law contains a suppressive element: “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, “Thou shalt not kill ”—all these laws contain restrictive and suppressive elements. But on the other hand they do hold a guarantee for the freedom of the community as a whole, the protection of the individual and property of all sections of society. I am convinced of the fact that the hon. member for Houghton will agree that this must be done. I think she will agree that no person should be allowed to be poisoned. And whether that poison is physical poison or whether it is spiritual poison, I take it that she will agree that we must prevent that poison being administered, not only the poisoning of the body of an individual but the poisoning of the public mind. And that is what we envisage with this clause which institutes this control. Does she not want us to stop this process of infection? This clause is the heart of the Bill. We are banning those morally undermining publications. In his monumental work “Der Untergang des Abendlandes” (The Decline of the West) Oswald Spengler comes to the conclusion that the West will be ruined not as the result of destruction on the battlefield, but as the result of moral collapse, moral degradation and inner decay. We are seeking to halt this process by means of this clause and we want to prevent it from happening in our country. We realize only too well that the true strength of our nation lies not in its military power but in its inner moral strength. It is this inner moral strength which has always carried our nation through every crisis. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not my intention to hold a conversation with the hon. member for Turffontein. He is always trying to hold a conversation with me and he cannot do so because he does not know what it is all about when I talk about an inner moral strength. I say that all literature which undermines that inner moral strength must be combated with all our might, and, if necessary, by means of legislation, which we are doing here now. I know it will be argued that one cannot change a man’s heart by legislation, but people who argue in this way do not know how that inner moral law develops. An inner moral law develops in this way: First of all, a law is imposed from outside by an external authority. That is followed by reflection and meditation and then one finds that people become reconciled to it once they are satisfied that that law is in the interests of society as a whole and therefore of themselves too. The same thing will occur with this Bill. It will be obeyed first of all because of fear of the penalty which may be imposed by an external authority and afterwards we will obey it because we will believe that it is in the best interests of our society as a whole, and therefore of ourselves as well: in other words, it becomes an inner, self-imposed law. That is why I support this clause wholeheartedly and I want to give this House the assurance that the public will be grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Government once this clause is on the Statute Book. As a former secretary of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings I can say that the whole nation is grateful to the hon. the Minister for this Bill and for this clause and that this is what they have always wanted. I know about the representations which were made to the F.A.K. for control to be instituted and I repeat that I am sure that the people of South Africa will be sincerely grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Government for this Bill which guards against any threat to our inner moral strength.

I am astonished at the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). The hon. member indicated that this nation simply cannot exist unless this clause is passed. If that is so, then tire hon. member has been a member of a party and of a Government in South Africa for 15 years, which has been neglecting his duty very seriously indeed. I am not prepared to accept that sort of argument. If the hon. member felt that it was his duty during the last 13 years to force the Government to take such action, he should have done so, therefore I am not prepared to reply to the arguments of hon. members opposite. I cannot accept that this hon. member really feels quite as deeply as he would have me believe. If I am wrong, I think he should do the right thing and announce his resignation from the Government Party.

But I wish to come back to the Bill and I propose to move the amendment standing in my name of the Order Paper, to omit paragraphs (b) to (f) of sub-section (2).

Order! That amendment has already been moved.

If it has already been moved, I would like to support the deletion of these provisions from the clause. In the Select Committee I moved the deletion of the same sub-section. It is my belief that the clause as it stands is long and involved and would be immensely improved if there were a simple provision dealing with what is undesirable and if those particular provisions were omitted from the Bill, sub-section (2) will read—

I believe that if that provision only were enacted it would adequately deal with the position and would enable the board to see to it that only desirable publications can be distributed in this country. Everything which is undesirable would be fully covered if we have this simple definition. Especially when you have a board such as this board, I believe that it is most important to have a simple and clear provision on which to judge the matter which comes before it. It is my submission that if the remaining provisions are deleted and we have this simple provision which I have read out, the interests of the country will toe fully protected. I hope that the Minister, who I hope is going to be reasonable to-night, will accept it. *

I think that if the Weather Bureau were to frame a weather report on the atmosphere created by the Opposition in this debate, it would probably read as follows: Atmosphere misty to cloudy and cold; wind light and variable in all directions, except along the South Coast where there is a gale warning!

[Inaudible.]

I welcome the interjection made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). She will have to account for her support of this amendment. Never before have the United Party exposed themselves as much as they have with their opposition to Clause 5, and I want to prove it.

They want to omit paragraphs (b) to (f). Let us consider the implications of this amendment. Paragraph (to) mentions something which is blasphemous or is offensive to the religious convictions or feelings of any section of the inhabitants of the Republic.

That is already covered by the previous provisions.

The hon. member stood up to oppose it. Why does he want to leave the way clear for blasphemous things to be said?

That will not be so.

What proof has the hon. member that that will not be so?

If the hon. member will sit down I will reply to him.

1 only have ten minutes and the hon. member will have another opportunity to speak. Why does he want to permit blasphemous things to be said? That is what it amounts to. [Interjection.] And if the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) knew the people of South Africa better and did not only move in Houghton circles, she would never have made the speech which she made here this evening. But she does not know the people of South Africa. Paragraph (c) says, “Brings any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule or contempt ”. Why does the hon. member for Germiston (District) want to make it possible for a section of the people of South Africa to be ridiculed, and what section does he want ridiculed? The hon. member must tell us. Paragraph (d) says, “Is harmful to the relations between any sections of the inhabitants of the Republic. Does the hon. member for Germiston (District) not want peace amongst the various sections of the population? They are opposing these provisions and they cannot take it amiss of me if I accuse them of seeking to create racial friction. Paragraph (e) states, “Is prejudicial to the safety of the State, the general welfare or the peace and good order ”. Why do they want to make it possible for us to experience unrest and disorder in South Africa? Why do they refuse to close the loopholes? By opposing this Bill they are trying to make a monstrosity of this Bill, a measure full of loopholes. They want to leave loopholes by means of which the enemies of South Africa will have the opportunity of undermining public morality, peace and harmonious relations. That is the only reason why the hon. member is opposing this clause. Let us look at paragraph (f): “Discloses, with reference to any judicial proceedings any matter which is indecent or obscene or is offensive or harmful to public morals … I need take only this one sentence. The hon. member is a lawyer. Does he want to tell me that it is in the interests of the people of South Africa to publish everything that takes place in court? Does he want to tell me that that will redound to the benefit of public morals? The Opposition, by opposing this clause, cannot take it amiss if I accuse them of wishing to undermine the foundations of South Africa.

This is my country.

I have heard that sort of thing said often: “This is my country; I love my country; I am just as much a South African as you think you are.”

No, that is not so. I am a far better South African than the hon. member is.

I am surprised that the hon. member whom I consider to be a conservative member of the Party on the other side adopts this attitude. He is talking against his better judgment, but he has been taken in tow by the liberal section of his party. I thought that he was a much stronger man who can take his stand and put his foot down. If there are two members of the Opposition whom I thought would support this clause they are the hon. member and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I know that he feels in his heart that this is the correct thing and that is why he is not participating in the debate. These are the two conservative members on that side whom I thought would support this Bill. But they have allowed themselves to be taken in tow. The one has said nothing and the other has been compelled to participate in the debate and in doing so he has exposed the United Party. But I will tell you why he has participated in the debate. His party compelled him to do so that the hon. member for Houghton would not steal all their thunder. They always watch the hon. member for Houghton to see what she is going to do and once she has taken her stand they try to get in ahead of her instead of putting their foot down and following the dictates of their conscience. I want to warn the hon. member for Drakensberg who has lent her support to the opposition to this clause. She will have to account for her actions in her constituency and it will cost her her seat. [Interjections.] The hon. member can do what she likes but she is opposing this clause and she is doing so because she is afraid of the hon. member for Houghton.

Before asking the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) to move his amendment, I wish to point out that the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) should have read as one amendment, to omit paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) and also sub-section (3). It is therefore different from the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) and I wish to give the hon. member an opportunity of moving his amendment.

Then I formally move my amendment—

I do not propose to reply to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter). He has come here with an extremely bitter speech. He knows that there is no foundation for what he says and I treat his speech with the contempt it deserves.

I intend to move the amendment standing in my name “To omit paragaph (c) of sub-section (1).” Before I come to that I would like to say a word to the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter). We have been given a discourse on morality by the hon. member, and one of the allegations he made was that by our opposition to this clause we were undermining the morality of the people. But may I remind the hon. member for Vryheid that he sat on the Government benches during the earlier discussion of this Bill, when in the definition we moved to include the words “morally objectionable” to cover issues of this very nature, he voted against it. [Interjections.] It is no use the hon. member for Mossel Bay making these insane observations, because he does not know what we are talking about. Let me come to an issue a little bit further than the morality referred to by the hon. member for Vryheid. This sub-section which I want to delete now states that no one may import any publication written in any language if its retail price is below R1.

Order! I cannot accept that amendment because it has already been moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Then I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. The effect of this clause as it stands is that everything, no matter what language it is printed in, if it comes from abroad and whether it is in French or in English, will not be permitted to enter the country without a permit from the Board, and that covers magazines, periodicals and everything. Publications printed in the Republic are not subject to the same provisions. No permit will be required for printing any publication in paperback form. The hon. member says that because of our opposition to this clause we are seeking to admit into the country reading matter of a most undesirable nature. I wonder whether the hon. member for Vryheid realizes that the majority of paperbacks circulating in the Republic and printed here is of a most undesirable nature, printed in Afrikaans? Then he talks about morality. I have a publication in my hand—I have quite a number of them— which I would be ashamed to read out to this House. I would like to send it to the hon. member and hear whether he considers it to be moral.

Does this Bill stop such publications?

Of course not, but in Afrikaans anything can be published in paperback form, but when it comes to English literature nothing can enter without a permit from the Board.

Nonsense! You do not know the Bill.

Hon. members do not know what is in the Bill.

Order!

There is a whole range of this type of literature, but because we are now told that there is literature of this type which is immoral and undesirable, everything printed in the English language can come in only by way of permit, but this kind of thing can only be stopped by a prosecution being instituted and a declaration from the Board after examination and after it has been distributed, and there has never been any prosecution of that nature. I hope that when this Bill becomes law the hon. member for Vryheid will draw the attention of the Board to this type of publication, and then we will hear whether the hon. member for Vereeniging and other hon. members opposite will defend it. I am tired of these protestations of morality.

Do you suggest that the hon. member for Vereeniging is publishing and distributing such literature?

I am not suggesting; I am saying where it comes from. I may tell the hon. member that this is published by a firm called Pronk Boeke, which is owned by a firm called Goeie Hoop Uitgewers, and I suggest to the hon. member for Vryheid that he examine the directorate of Goeie Hoop Uitgewers. Then perhaps he will apologize for the accusations he has made against the Opposition.

But there is another undesirable aspect of this matter that through a system of licences and permits monopolies can be established for certain publishers and distributors, because these powers are so wide that the Board will be able to say that × series of publications is generally satisfactory and they will give a blanket permit for that, but the Y series, which is of an undesirable character, cannot come in without a special permit and examination. We had that evidence before the Select Committee, and I do not want to mention the names of those firms, because they have had enough undesirable publicity already. Accusations were made which were entirely unfounded in many cases. But what I cannot understand is that when a reputable body such as the Booksellers’ Association without fear is prepared to publish to the world at large the circumstances surrounding the conditions and the effect of this provision and what it will do to the bulk of the reading matter in South Africa—the bulk of it is in English and none of it can come in without a permit because none of it is printed here—the Afrikaans publications are in such a privileged position. It can be published and it does not need a permit. It does not have to get the approval of the Board. The effect of this provision will indeed be profound, because I repeat that you will have a Board appointed by the Minister which will be the sole determining factor as to what may be read in any language medium if it is imported into the Republic, and in fact 90 per cent of the reading matter will be subject to a permit in terms of this clause. I do not know whether the Deputy Minister has been given strict instructions by the Minister as to what he may or may not accept. I am surprised, knowing the Deputy Minister as a man of strong character, that he has permitted himself to be placed in this position where he has to act without being able to use his own discretion in accepting amendments, because that is the impression I have gained. When we come to discuss an important matter of this nature which is fundamental to the whole freedom of thought and expression in this country, the Minister cannot even consider accepting any amendment. I think that is disgraceful.

I just want to assist the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. the Minister did not ask me to reject all the amendments which would be moved, neither did he ask me to listen to arguments which were not well-founded. Before I reply to some of the misrepresentations of which the hon. member for Turffontein was guilty, I would like to move two amendments, one of which already appears on the Order Paper—

This is a textual amendment. It is only designed to bring the English text into line with the Afrikaans text. The second amendment reads—

The first amendment merely ensures that a statement under paragraph (b) of sub-section fl) of Clause 8 will only be for the information of the person investigating an offence under this Bill or of the Customs Act, and will have no effect upon the publication concerned. Only after the court has found a person guilty under Clause 5 (1) can that publication be further distributed. The crux of this matter is that it is intended that if a person investigates an offence, his investigation will merely serve as an opinion and as advice to the Board and his investigation and advice will not mean that the work which he is investigating will immediately be banned. This is a concession.

I fear that as far as the other amendments which have been moved here are concerned, I can unfortunately not accept them and this is so not because I am under any instruction, but because they really do not improve the measure. The hon. member for Houghton raised a few matters to which I want to refer. The first point that she raised was that the purpose should be to leave the decision regarding undesirability to the court, and, as it were, to leave the Board out of the picture. I am afraid that I cannot accept that amendment because the principle contained in this clause and in previous clauses as well was adopted at the second reading.

I would like to say something about the further amendment of the hon. member which is to omit the words “or any part of it” in line 79. An argument which one hears from time to time is that a book should be judged as a whole; that one should not concentrate upon certain passages from the book and because of those passages ban the entire book. At first glance there appears to be some substance in an argument of this nature, but one has the position where a banned book has paragraphs in it which are so smutty that they really spoil the nature of the whole book. It has been my task to do that work over these past months and it has been really shocking to see the filth which appears in certain books, and sometimes in many good books such as the book which the Opposition have already mentioned, “Uhuru”, which deals with the freedom movement of the Black people of Africa. It is a good book but contains so many unwholesome references to sex that it makes the whole book unfit for circulation. If the publisher had left out those sections, it could have been published in our country with its mixed population. The point is, therefore, that we are compelled to ban a book merely as a result of certain passages in it because it is those parts which actually form a canker which can infect the whole body. That is why we will have to bear this fact in mind at all times, although another norm may perhaps be fixed in the future if cases are taken to court. Then the Board will have to be guided by those cases. If the court decides that a book must be considered as a whole, that will be a different matter, but at the moment the position is as I have described it and I can only say from experience that there are very good reasons for banning a book because of certain undesirable passages in it.

The hon. member also referred to the aspect that certain sections of the population should not be ridiculed, and the question was asked whether we were so naive that we could not laugh at ourselves. I think that we in this country, Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, have reached a stage of maturity where we can laugh at ourselves, and I want to mention just one example in this regard. Those who have seen the film “Lord Oom Piet” will realize how we can laugh at one another’s idiosyncracies. We are sufficiently adult to be able to do so, but that does not mean that one should allow groups of the population to be exposed to deliberate ridicule. One has always to maintain a balance, and unfortunately it is the task of the Government and the court and the Board to maintain that balance. Amendments have also been moved advocating a lifting of the ban on books imported into this country at 50 cents each. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein, who is a very hard worker, has now resorted to this cheap type of propaganda of trying to play off English against Afrikaans. It does not behove a responsible member of this House to do that sort of thing. It is true that this ban deals with imports and I want to repeat why the ban has been imposed. It is quite unfair to give a wrong interpretation of the position by saying that the Government is taking action against the English-speaking people while the Afrikaans-speaking people are allowed to read any rubbish at all. The Afrikaans books do not come from abroad, that is true, but in the future the books which are printed locally will, as everyone knows, be subject to the provisions of Clause 5. Anybody who wishes to draw attention to any obscenities which are published, is aware of the machinery which can be put into operation to combat this sort of thing. Actually it is this measure which enables us for the first time to apply internal control—or “censorship” to use the Opposition’s word, a word of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is so fond—in order to prevent filth which can be detrimental to the whole of our society being published locally. I take it amiss of the hon. member for Turffontein for trying to make out that any trash can be published in Afrikaans; that that is all well and good, but that the poor English-speaking people, as he tries to make out, cannot read that kind of filth. I deprecate that approach on the part of the hon. member. But I want to go further. It may perhaps appear that our prohibition of books costing less than 50 cents—they will be sold at higher prices on the local market, perhaps even at 70 cents each—is unfair. But the members who served on the Select Committee—the hon. member for Turffontein was one of them—are aware of the fact that a very strong case was made out in evidence before the Committee in favour of such a ban. The Select Corrimittee was told by Customs’ officials that the volume of literature coming through the customs was so great that Customs’ officials could not sift it properly. It was also put to the Committee that this work of the Customs’ officials, namely to screen this type of book, is actually a task which goes beyond their primary function. They actually do this over and above their normal work. The Select Committee was also told that as a result of the volume of work which the Customs’ officials have to do, they are forced to make use of the services of junior officials to look through the books which come into the country. There are simply not enough senior officials to do this work. Now, because of the fact that junior officials have to be used to do this work we have various standards being applied in judging such a book. For example, a junior official in Cape Town may consider a specific book to be most indecent and therefore reject it, while a junior official in Durban may regard the same book as being a suitable book and accordingly let it through.

The question which Parliament now has to ask itself is whether we are really in earnest in wanting to combat this inflow of filth. Indeed, this principle was agreed to when the Bill was read a Second Time. Moreover, the Select Committee on which members of the Opposition also served, decided that it was necessary for legislation to be adopted in this connection. Two methods were suggested to combat the inflow of this indecent literature.

It was contended that 90 per cent of the undesirable literature entering the country was made up of paperback fiction. This is a disturbing fact. Another aspect which had become known over the years is that there are certain publishers overseas—it is not necessary for me to mention their countries; in any case, this information appears in the reports concerned— which concentrates upon the publishing of this undesirable literature, whether by way of sex fiction or material for the promotion of Communism. The Customs’ officials feel that there are two methods by means of which one combat this influx of undesirable literature and at the same time limit the work which they have to do because they maintain that it is an impossible task for them to control the influx of all this undesirable literature.

The one way which they suggested was that books costing less than 50c should be prevented from coming into the country because 90 per cent of them contained undesirable material; the other way was that those publishers who had a reputation for publishing poor material should be placed on the list under this clause. The evidence of the officials to the effect that it was an impossible task for them to stop this stream of indecent literature is evidence which hon. members have before them. It has also been their task up to the present to intercept the works which have been regarded as obscene. Only works in regard to which doubt arises are referred to the Board of Censors. They cannot however refer all this literature to the Board of Censors because they will then swamp the Board. This is the undesirable state of affairs which exist at present and which the Opposition, by way of their amendments, seek to perpetuate. It is a pity that an Opposition which ought to be just as anxious to maintain file moral standard of our people should make our task here more difficult when we seek to take action to protect that moral standard. They also come forward with the story that we also want to keep the classics appearing in these series out of the country. That is a stupid and nonsensical reaction.

I admit that there are some good works amongst the series which will be banned, but I can give you the assurance that we will always have those good works on our bookshelves. If the publishers of a banned series wish to publish a good work, I take it that the importers in this country will inform the exporters in England or America or whatever the country may be, in good time in regard to the new provisions holding sway here. Those publishers can then send a copy of that good work to the Board of Control in South Africa and in that way the Board can obtain a permit to bring that book into the country. In that way a good book falling into the yellow or green category and which can be banned in terms of the provisions of this clause, can still find its way on to our bookshelves.

If it appears that the proposed new Control Board is so unreasonable as to ban a good work, then the importer has the right to go to court to have the matter settled. We often hear the argument in this connection that litigation is expensive. I agree with that statement. Therefore, cases will not be taken to court that often but on the other hand I want to say this: If the decision of this Control Board is taken to court on one or more occasions and the court rules against the Board, that will certainly have the affect of establishing another norm on which the Board can operate. Indeed, that is the way in which a norm should actually be determined.

Perhaps we will have another Control Board?

Yes, the disaster may still befall us that that hon. member may become Prime Minister! Then we will have many more boards in this country! As long as this Government is in power, however, it is determined to fulfil its responsibilities. That is why I want in conclusion to express the hope that if the Opposition wants to oppose this matter any further, they will do so in such a way that they do not create racial friction between the Afrikaans-and English-speaking section of the people. We are not dealing here with English or Afrikaans sentiment but with the morals of our South African nation. The aim of this measure is to protect our public morals.

It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to protest too much, but let me once more bring to the attention of the House the provisions of Clause 5 (2), namely—

1. (c) brings any section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule….

Here this Bill contains a definite prohibition. Ridicule can, to my mind, be an extremely healthy thing in many cases. There is “ridicule” and “ridicule”. It must not be offensive—with that I agree. Particularly am I against any ridicule which has as its object to hurt the feelings of an individual or of a section or of a religious group. Everybody is against this type of ridicule and we are, therefore, entirely with the Government as far as this is concerned. On the other hand, however, ridicule in the ordinary sense can be a healthy political weapon. The hon. the Deputy Minister said just now that he thought we were capable of laughing at ourselves. But are we? That is the trouble. In many cases ridicule is the only weapon to deal with a bumptious individual or a hyprocritical section of the people.

Before the Second World War there was a movement in England by Mosley called the Black Shirts. He once had a huge meeting in the Albert Hall where all his Black Shirts were lined up round the stage. He himself came in his black shirt and with the spotlight shining on him he walked down the stage and put up his hand in deadly silence and shouted “Heil”. Then a Cockney voice from the gallery remarked “It is all right. You can leave the room!” The result was laughter and the entire show was killed by ridicule. But under this Bill that Cockney would have been guilty of ridiculing a particular section of the population. The only way, Sir, in which to deal with unctuous rectitude and the sanctimonious utterings of the hyprocrite, is by means of ridicule. Most often you find that the section which talks the most about patriotism, is the first to let the country down. The only way to deal with this sanctimonious talk, is by way of ridicule.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to the argument of his Minister, namely that 90 per cent of the cheap paperbacks imported into this country contains pornographic material. It is, however, outrageous to stop, because of that, the importation of the good books issued in paperback form. We make ourselves ridiculous if we say to the world that no book which costs under 50c can be imported without a permit. As I said before when we were discussing another clause, it is perhaps true that 90 per cent of pornographic material comes in cheap paperback form but against that it must be remembered that 95 per cent of all sound, technical, cultural, classical, etc. books also appear at some stage or another in paperback form. The only chance the poor man has of having access to these books, is to buy the cheap editions. In America you will find that people rise to the highest executive positions in the financial and executive world who had risen from nothing. But if the youngster is willing to learn and to save a few shillings, he has available to him cheap editions of works in the English language. English is a world language and every book which is worth anything and which appears in another country, is at some stage or another translated into that language. In that way the youngster I am talking about is able to educate himself. Because most books are available in cheap editions, he has all the necessary literature available to him, and in that way he can educate himself and rise to the highest positions.

But for us to tell the world that we are going to lay down that a permit must be obtained by anybody wanting to import a paperback valued at under 50c is entirely wrong. I am having the prestige of this country in mind. I look upon ourselves as a highly civilized people and as such we should not do silly things like this which will cause the rest of the world to laugh at us. But yet we stipulate here that any classic, for instance, coming into this country in paperback form, cannot be bought unless the publisher or the private importer of one copy first produces a licence for its import. And the position is that this licence can be refused. The Minister of course says that it will not be refused, but why then give somebody the right to refuse it? Surely, that is not necessary….

But surely there will be very good reasons for a refusal!

Please do not provoke me to wander from this clause. I should perhaps just say that time after time we see things being done by the other side of the House, things which we thought would be utterly unreasonable! I am not prepared to give the Government power such as that asked for in this clause.

Another point is this: A classical or cultural book, is usually very expensive when it is first published. So the individual who wants to read it, has to get it from the library. He then reads it and hands it back. But he would very much like to have one for his own library. Yet he cannot afford to go and buy these expensive books at from R3 to R5 a piece? So he waits for a cheap edition and procures one for his own use and future reference. But now the Government is proposing to step in and say that he is not allowed to buy that book unless it is valued at over 50c or an import permit was granted in respect of it. That, Sir, makes us ridiculous in the eyes of the world. It is no use arguing that the Board will not do this or that. We should never have a clause of this nature in this Bill. Surely, it ought to be quite easy to keep out the pornographic dirt without such a clause.

Accordingly I suggest that this is not a clause which should be passed by this House. I repeat what I said earlier, namely that 90 per cent of youngsters not having the means to afford an expensive education, have risen to the top because of the fact that they wanted to learn and were able to lay their hands on cheap editions of classical and technical works necessary for their education. It is, therefore, entirely wrong to take this chance away from them.

The hon. member for Green Point gives us to understand that this proposed Board will ban any book in which there is any hint of ridicule, satire or humour!

I have read the clause!

No, that is what the hon. member wants to make out. I want to tell the hon. member the difference between good fun, satire and humour. For example: The hon. member has never taken it amiss of anyone who has referred to him as the “little goat farmer of Green Point”. On the contrary, he likes it. He also likes the cartoons of himself which appear in the Burger. Indeed, I think that he buys all the originals! Any other member will also act in the same way because that is the nature of the people of South Africa. But if the hon. member for Green Point were to come along and say—as he did during the war years—that Dr. Malan made a special trip to Pretoria so that he and the other Afrikaners could hand South Africa to Hitler on a plate, then that would be offensive; then it would no longer be fun, satire or humour but then he would be ridiculing a part of the nation of South Africa. If the hon. member wants details, I need merely refer him to his speech at Eshowe.

Did the hon. member not ask Hitler for a republic?

There you are, Mr. Chairman; because I illustrate to the hon. member the difference between fun, satire and humour, he becomes annoyed! When I said that he did not mind us calling him the simple little goat farmer of Green Point, he laughed. I know that he likes that. Indeed, I know him as a person with a keen sense of humour, but because I illustrate to him the difference between good fun, humour and satire and the ridiculing of a section of the population, he becomes annoyed!

No, Mr. Chairman, the Afrikaans people have a keen sense of humour. We can poke fun at one another and be most sarcastic, both written and oral, about one another. And we are not annoyed about it but we prefer to laugh about it. Let me mention another example in this connection. When the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was recently caricatured, in a newspaper which is opposed to this party, seated on an ox and swathed in a kaross, the hon. the Minister acquired the original. He laughed about it and he enjoyed it! The Opposition are really not trying to paint a true picture of the position because they seek to make out that anything which can be regarded as light and good fun and satire will be rejected by the control board and that we are indeed a surly nation who cannot tolerate anything of that nature. But nothing of that nature exists at all!

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point is merely trying to create a smokescreen. I want to ask him to stop that sort of thing. They must stop making the members of the control board suspect in advance amongst the public. These people will be people with a sound common sense. It is even possible that the hon. member for Green Point may himself serve on that Board! Why not? And I do not think that he will ban good fun and satire from the country. He has too keen a sense of humour for that.

The hon. member for Vryheid has serious objections to our amendment to delete certain paragraphs of sub-section (2). In fact, he discussed each paragraph seriatim in an effort to show us that we should not delete them. But our objection to them is that they are really unnecessary. Sub-section (2) (a), in our opinion, covers everything. We do not need the other definitions of what is undesirable. Let me give the House an example. The hon. member has referred to sub-section (2)(c)—

But to our way of thinking this Bill is bringing this Parliament into ridicule. I certainly think that this clause is doing that. There is no country in the world which would tolerate a clause such as this one … no civilized country would do so. Has anybody ever heard of a country which judges the value of a book by its colour and its price?

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the Customs’ officials find it to be an impossible task to carry out their instructions in this regard. I agree that they are not. So, it was suggested to them in the Select Committee that we should exclude all books at a price under 25c. Asked whether that would help them, they said it would because it would take away a great deal of their work. Then someone on the Select Committee suggested that we increase the price to 50c. That would still be better they said because it would reduce the volume of work still further. But one may go on like this until a point is reached where you say that no book may come into the country!

The fact is that it is quite absurd to exclude books solely on the ground of their colour or price. The sooner we realize that and delete (1) (c), the better it will be.

The hon. the Deputy Minister got quite emotional in saying that we had passed the stage of immaturity. We do not have the Nationalist Party in Opposition and a daily argument about language as a result! Those were the days! The extraordinary aspect about sub-section (1) (c) is that only English-language books will be excluded, whilst all Afrikaans books will be accepted. [Interjections.] Let us look at the wording of this sub-section (1) (c). It says—

And not—

If it did say this, we would be dealing with that type of undesirable literature which the hon member for Turffontein spoke about.

But we have control over internal publications and you know that.

But the paragraph says “import” and 99 per cent of the books imported are books in the English language. I submit that of those imported a very small percentage is undesirable. Now, who is going to read these books? Not the Afrikaans-speaking child but the English-speaking child. So, if we are going to have a publications board, I suggest to the Minister that we should have two: one for English-language books and one for Afrikaans.

We legislate for South Africa and not for sections.

But we are not now discussing our prejudices in South Africa, but censoring books in two languages.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should discuss the matter with his Minister overnight and delete Clause (1) (c). Then we would be able to make some progress and discuss the rest of the clause. To the hon. member for Vryheid I want to say that we object to Clause (2) (c), etc., on account of the fact that it is prolix, superfluous—unnecessary. Once having described what is undesirable, all this, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) has told us, is unnecessary. That is why we are objecting. We see the things which members of the other side do. Why do you try to tell the Judges and the courts what is undesirable? Judges have been interpreting the word in terms of this subsection. So why have all these words? And when the hon. member for Vryheid comes here and says that we want blasphemous literature, it is quite beside the point.

We have spent quite a considerable amount of time on this and I think when the hon. the Deputy Minister reconsiders this he will delete Clause (1) (c). If he will accept what the hon. member for Turffontein has suggested, then we will make some progress. *

It is strange that the Opposition should reason in this way and argue in favour of amendments which they actually do not want themselves. They do not want these amendments themselves because it is clear that they do not want the clause which they are trying to amend. Indeed, it has already become clear that they do not want the Bill at all. Nevertheless, with tears in their eyes they can argue in favour of amendments which they do not want! The best proof of this is that when earlier this evening a division was called on Clause 23, namely, the clause making provision for the coming into operation of the Bill, they voted against the clause. Therefore they do not want this measure to become law. Why then move amendment after amendment if they are not in earnest in what they are doing?

I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the proposed omission of paragraphs (b), (c), (d) (e) and (f). On a previous occasion the principle was accepted that these provisions should be maintained and it is therefore a waste of time to elaborate any further in this regard. Because amendments have however been moved to this clause by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Germiston (District), it will be worthwhile for us to examine each of these paragraphs. We think it is shocking that the Opposition do not want action to be taken against blasphemy, whether in writing, in a painting or in any other form. In this connection one thinks—and one is hesitant to say it—of a painting which was made public recently, a painting of the crucified Christ with the following heading: “Forgive Christ, for He knows not what He does.” It is terrible to think that we as an Afrikaner nation cannot be moved by something of this nature to say that there should be control over this sort of thing.

As regards the ridiculing of persons, for example, the cartoon of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I can say that it gave me so much enjoyment that I want this sort of innocent thing to stay. In the first place, it illustrates a complete lack of imagination on the part of the persons who try to make our Ministers look ridiculous in this way, and on the other hand, it is a good thing that they make space available in their newspapers for something of this nature because if we prevent it, they will use the space to libel South Africa and slander her name abroad. (Laughter.] So we have no objection to these cartoons. Let them continue with them. Moreover, the fact is that the Ministers concerned are also amused by them.

In regard to paragraph (d) I want to say that I feel that its provisions are aimed, amongst other things, at the Suppression of Communism Act and nothing else.

At 10.25 p.m. the Temporary Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.