Mr. Speaker, I move—

In all the budgets which I have presented to this House, my principal aim has been the promotion of economic growth with stability. Some years ago, when growth was threatening to outrun the resources of our country, the emphasis had to be mainly on the preservation of stability. More recently, the state of our economy has let me to stress the encouragement of growth. In this Budget, the main emphasis will still be on growth, but, as I shall explain, it will be necessary to have an eye also to the stability of the economy.

Since this Budget is being presented late in the year and since the economic events of 1973 have already been discussed at length in this House, I shall devote the first part of my speech principally to an account of the most recent trends in the economy. Earlier developments are described in the Statistical Survey which I shall lay upon the Table.

Domestic Economic Conditions

In a world plagued by grave economic instability the South African economy stands out for its strength and virile growth. The level of activity is very high and is still increasing, though there has understandably been some levelling off in recent months as the utilization of capacity approaches its maximum.

In agriculture, I am thankful to say that, with few exceptions, our farmers have experienced an exceptionally favourable year. Thanks mainly to record summer crops, the volume of agricultural production in 1974 should be about 24% higher than in 1973 and about 7% higher than in the previous record year of 1972. Except in the case of wool, where there has been a decline, producers’ prices have in general shown an upward trend; on the average, these prices increased by 14% over the previous year.

The volume of mining production, other than gold, has continued to increase. Over the first four months of 1974 it was 12,8% higher than in the corresponding period of 1973. Gold production, on the other hand, declined by 9,9% over the same period because of the mining of a higher proportion of lower-grade ore—a practice which lengthens the lives of the mines. With the substantial increase in the price of gold on the private market from an average of R2 098 per kilogram in 1973 to R3 369 for the first half of 1974 (i.e. by 61%), the value of gold production has of course increased considerably; for the first six months of 1974, the value of the net gold output is estimated at R1 245 million, as compared with R1 769 million for the whole of 1973.

After increasing rapidly up to November 1973, the volume of manufacturing production fell slightly, largely in reaction to the oil crisis, but rose again in April and May. Over the 12 months ended May 1974, the increase was no less than 9,4%. Likewise in the building and construction industry a high level of activity was maintained.

Trading conditions have been buoyant and the volume of retail sales during the first five months of the current year was 11% above that for the same months of 1973. Even the sales of motor vehicles, which dropped sharply after the oil crisis last year, have recovered to approximately their previous level.

National accounts statistics are not yet available beyond the first quarter of 1974, and I am consequently unable to give the House recent figures of such important indicators as gross domestic and gross national product, fixed investment and consumption. Very preliminary estimates indicate, however, that the gross domestic product of non-agricultural sectors in real terms, i.e. after correction for price changes, for the 12 months ended June 1974 was over 6% higher than for the preceding 12 months, while the increase in the real gross national product (including agriculture) for the whole economy probably exceeded 9%. It is clear that the economy is growing strongly—so strongly that it is beginning to press upon the available resources.

This is borne out by the statistics of labour, which show a drop in the number of registered unemployed Whites, Coloureds and Asians to a very low level, and a sharp rise in overtime as a percentage of hours worked. The average remuneration of employees in non-agricultural employment rose by 12,4% over the 12 months up to March 1974.

The least satisfactory aspect of the economy has been the trend of prices.

Over the 12 months ended June 1974, the consumer price index was 9,7% higher than the average for the preceding 12 months. There were substantial increases in the prices of petroleum products, clothing, footwear and non-electrical equipment in the first quarter of 1974, while food prices rose sharply in June. The seasonally adjusted index of wholesale prices increased by 18,8% between June 1973 and June 1974; the prices of imported goods rose more rapidly than those of goods produced in South Africa.

Balance of Payments

The strong growth of the economy led to a substantial increase in the value of imports during the first half of 1974. Despite a decline in the prices of some export products, the value of merchandise exports also showed some increase, while the value of the net gold output rose steeply. The net result was a moderate deficit in the current account of the balance of payments—smaller than would normally be expected during a period of rapid growth.

During such a growth phase it is usual for the current account deficit to be partially offset by an appreciable inflow of foreign capital. Mainly because of the much higher level of interest rates abroad, however, there was a net outflow of capital during the second half of 1973, and only a moderate net inflow of capital (principally official capital) during the first half of 1974. The net result was that the total gold and other foreign reserves, after valuation adjustments, declined over the latter period by some R47 million to R929 million.

During July the Reserve Bank’s holdings of gold and other foreign reserves rose by R7,8 million, i.e. from R776,6 million to R784,4 million.

Monetary Situation

The quantity of money and near-money rose by 23% during 1973 and at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 20% during the first half of 1974, though the rate of increase declined somewhat towards the end of the period. These increases were mainly due to increases of 36% and 28% (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in bank credit to the private sector during the two periods mentioned; the actual increase in such bank credit in June 1974 was no less than R229 million.

Since the second half of June, money market conditions have tightened considerably and there has been further upward pressure on interest rates. The maximum lending rate of commercial banks was increased from 9 to 10% on 1 June, and on 19 July the largest banks announced a further increase to 11%. Maximum permissible deposit rates were increased on 1 June in most cases by1½%. Similar upward pressure on rates has been experienced in the long-term capital market.

A substantial increase in share prices and in stock exchange activity during the first four months of 1974 was followed by a decline in later months. Share prices in most countries have, in fact, been depressed. There has also been some decrease since the first quarter in the flow of funds to building societies.

Economic Prospects

The picture of the economy which the available statistics present is one of rapid growth in all sectors of the economy, with demand increasing fast and production rising, though in some sectors at a slightly diminishing tempo.

Recent salary and wage increases in the public and private sectors are likely to maintain consumer demand at a high level. The increasing tightness in the capital and labour markets indicates that this demand may become excessive in relation to available productive resources, and this is clearly a factor which will have to be closely watched. In particular, the increase in the quantity of money in circulation and in the volume of bank credit will require close attention.

An uncertain factor is the present and future course of fixed investment. Although some surplus industrial capacity still appears to be available, it is important that capacity should be increased to cope with the rising demand. In the public sector, a very substantial expansion of fixed investment, mainly for the development of our essential infrastructure, is certainly under way. In the private manufacturing sector this is less certain, though the heavy demand for bank credit and the high level of imports of capital goods may well indicate that such an expansion is taking place.

The prospects for the balance of payments require some further consideration. On the current account the present moderate deficit gives no cause for concern; it is normal during a period of rapid economic growth. The sharp and substantial increase in oil prices has, however, given rise to serious disequilibrium in the balances of payments of many of our trading partners, and has cast a long shadow over the world economy.

Here I should like to mention the work of the Committee of Governors of the International Monetary Fund on the Reform of the International Monetary System, the so-called Committee of Twenty, which reported last June. While the Committee did some useful work, it failed to reach agreement on many fundamental issues. I fear that we cannot expect any rapid solution to the many international monetary problems which beset the world. Unless these problems, and particularly those arising from the oil crisis, can be effectively solved, the economies of many countries may be seriously affected, and this may have its influence, not only on certain sectors of our export trade, but also on the cost of imported goods and on the cost and availability of foreign capital.

Recent authoritative forecasts indicate some improvement in the rate of economic growth in Western Europe towards the end of this year, and so far our exports are holding up well. Moreover, it is still possible that effective methods may be devised and applied to re-cycle the vast flow of funds accruing to the oil exporting countries in such a way as to alleviate the problems of the oil consumers. Thus far, however, it would appear that the oil-exporting countries are investing these funds mainly on very short term.

In any event. South Africa is in the position that economic disturbances abroad are likely to lead to still greater distrust of paper money and to a further increase in the demand for gold on the private market. This market has demonstrated its strength in recent months and the prospective change in the American legislation, whereby United States citizens will again be permitted to own gold, together with the general monetary uncertainty should give it further strength.

One of the points on which the Committee of Twenty was unable to reach agreement was the future monetary role of gold. It is, I think, significant that after nearly two years’ work those who wanted to influence the Committee in the direction of a rapid phasing out of gold from the international monetary system have been able to make so little progress; in fact, the Committee could only propose that the matter be further studied in the International Monetary Fund.

The present position, whereby monetary authorities are not permitted to deal in gold among themselves except at the totally unrealistic official price of $42,22 per fine ounce, makes such dealings impossible and clearly cannot be allowed to continue. Various proposals to solve this problem have been advanced, of which the latest is that agreed upon recently by the ten most important industrial countries, namely, that gold may be used as collateral security for loans between monetary authorities and may for this purpose be valued at a price higher than the official price.

A more straightforward and effective solution, I believe, would be a simple increase in the official gold price to a more realistic level. Whatever solution is adopted—and a solution is now urgently required—I am convinced that monetary authorities, and the world at large, will continue to prize gold as a monetary metal.

On balance, then, I believe that the prospects for the current account of our balance of payments are reasonably favourable, especially as the full benefit of the excellent agricultural season must still be reflected in our export trade in the coming months. In this respect South Africa is in an exceptionally fortunate position compared with many other countries at the present time.

The problem lies rather in the capital account of our balance of payments, where, as I have explained, we have the abnormal situation of a net outflow during a period of rapid economic growth. We may therefore have to consider measures to improve the capital account.

Meanwhile, the rand remains a strong currency in an uncertain world. Its effective exchange rate against all other currencies is now about 3% higher than before the devaluation of sterling in November 1967.

All these factors, both internal and external, have a bearing on the prospects for prices and inflation. It will be more convenient, however, to deal with this subject at a later stage.

Objectives of Economic Policy

My conclusion from this survey of current and prospective economic conditions is that the principal present objectives of our economic policy should be—

1. (1) the maintenance of a satisfactory rate of economic growth, with particular regard to the enlargement of our productive capacity;
2. (2) the preservation of economic stability and the reduction, as far as possible, of the rate of inflation;
3. (3) the long-term strengthening of the current account of the balance of payments, with some shorter-term action to improve the capital account; and
4. (4) the alleviation of the effects of inflation especially on the less fortunate members of the community.

The first objective embraces, in the first instance, the improvement of the productivity of our labour force. Since my last Budget the Inter-departmental Committee under the chairmanship of the late Dr. H. J. van Zyl has submitted its report on the training in White areas of Bantu workers for industrial categories of work duly released for Bantu persons. The Government has accepted this report and certain of its recommendations will be implemented in this Budget. I trust that employers will cooperate to the full in this endeavour to enhance the productivity and welfare of Bantu workers.

Other Budget proposals will have as their aim the encouragement of the training of skilled workers and the modernization and improvement of the country’s industrial plant.

As regards the second objective, the House will be aware that I recently convened a meeting of leading representatives of many sectors of the South African economy to discuss the problem of inflation. I am grateful to those who gave of their time and knowledge to attend and take part in this meeting. The discussion was frank, wide-ranging and objective, and many useful suggestions were made, not only on inflation but also on other aspects of the economy. Some will be implemented in this Budget, others will be dealt with by other authorities while still others require further consideration. I may say, however, that there was little support at this meeting for drastic action such as a comprehensive price and incomes policy or a freezing of prices and wages, nor was there any general feeling in favour of indexation, i.e. the linking of incomes and prices to a price index.

In this connection I must again refer to the great expansion of bank credit to the private sector since the beginning of 1973. In considering the magnitude of this expansion one must of course bear in mind that the rapid growth of the economy, the relatively high rate of inflation, and the considerable building up of inventories since the last quarter of 1973 necessarily called for a greater volume of bank credit. Nevertheless, an unbridled expansion of credit must eventually add to the over-heating of the economy, aggravate the inflationary pressure and lead to a serious deterioration in the balance of payments. Let us not follow the example of the frog in Aesop’s fable, who, in an effort to grow as big as the ox, puffed himself up to such an extent that he exploded.

The whole question of credit policy falls within the purview of the Reserve Bank and will be dealt with by the Governor in his Annual Address later this month. There are, however, a few aspects to which I must now refer.

The strong demand for bank credit arising from the rapid growth of the economy has brought about an upward pressure on interest rates, and despite two previous upward adjustments of the Bank rate and related interest rates earlier this year the pressure is still continuing. It would theoretically be possible to counter this pressure by a relaxation of monetary policy in order to permit a further substantial expansion of the money supply, but in the present state of the economy this would clearly be dangerously inflationary. In the circumstances the Governor of the Reserve Bank, after consultation with the Treasury, yesterday announced an increase in the Bank rate from 7½ to 8%, and also increases of in the Bank’s pattern of interest rates on Government stock. Though our rates are now high by historical standards, they are still appreciably lower than those in many overseas countries. The narrowing of the gap between local and overseas interest rates should, however, help to strengthen the capital account of our balance of payments.

The Reserve Bank has also made a major change in the maximum deposit rates prescribed for banks and building societies, by exempting individual deposits in excess of R250 000 from control. It is considered necessary to make this exemption because the banks and, to some extent, the building societies find it extremely difficult to attract this type of deposit at the present controlled rates. A corresponding exemption will be granted in respect of investments exceeding R250 000 in participation bonds and in debentures issued by institutions for the purpose of granting credit to the public.

While the ordinary man will not receive a higher rate on his deposits with banks and building societies, the maintenance of the present maximum rates on ordinary deposits will, it is hoped, benefit home-owners by helping to keep the interest rate on home mortgage bonds as low as passible.

The increases in the general level of interest rates have narrowed the margin which normally exists between the rates at which deposits are accepted by banking institutions and the maximum rate at which loans may be granted in terms of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act, 1968, to such an extent that some revision of the prescribed maximum rates is unavoidable.

As a result of the changes to which rates of interest are continually subject it is felt that the Act should allow a flexible approach which will permit the prescribing of rates from time to time in line with changing circumstances. I intend, therefore, to introduce amending legislation during the present session to enable maximum rates to be prescribed by regulation from time to time.

Uncertainty can have a harmful effect on the economy if expected changes in interest rates cannot be put into effect immediately. I have therefore decided to invoke the powers granted by the Currency and Exchanges Act, 1933, in terms of which the State President may make regulations which can suspend any statutory provision in regard to monetary and banking matters and provide for new provisions. Regulations will accordingly appear in the Government Gazette today, which will suspend the maximum finance charge of 12% now applicable to money loans and substitute therefor a maximum charge of 14%.

This maximum finance charge will apply to all money loans exceeding R400. The other charges prescribed by the Act, namely, for smaller money loans and for credit transactions remain in force unchanged.

While it would be unsound to allow a further large general expansion of bank credit at this stage through a general relaxation of monetary policy, it has been brought to my notice that the substantial tax and other payments due at the end of this month may create serious liquidity difficulties for the banks. As a temporary bridging measure it has therefore been decided that the Reserve Bank will, from the last week in August, be prepared to grant temporary assistance to individual banks (other than discount houses) which, as a result of the factors which I have mentioned, are under pressure, by extending loan facilities to them on favourable terms. In the case of the discount houses arrangements will be made, if necessary, to deposit Exchequer funds with them temporarily.

I want to emphasize that, while control over the expansion of bank credit is essential, particularly in the light of the very great rise during the past few months, the authorities have no intention of clamping down unreasonably on credit necessary for the growth of the economy. In this respect the banks can assist by channelling the available funds to a larger extent into credit for production and export.

In dealing with the objective of economic stability I should like to urge also the more effective use of the provisions of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, particularly those prohibiting resale price maintenance. Earlier this year the hon. the Prime Minister himself pointed out that illegal price fixing is a serious offence carrying heavy penalties, and requested all parties affected by such practices to report suspected offences of this nature to the Department of Commerce or the Board of Trade and Industries. Only three groups of products, namely, motor-car tyres, petrol, and books, magazines and newspapers are, for good reasons, exempted from the prohibition against price fixing. Dealers who lodge complaints will be protected against possible discriminatory action by suppliers.

An important element in the fight against inflation is the promotion of saving. Hon. members will recall Aesop’s story of the grasshopper who, during a hard winter, asked the ant for some of the grain which the latter had thriftily stored away in the summer, and who was tartly told: “If you sing all summer you can dance all winter”. Aesop lived over 2 500 years ago but he still has many lessons for the modern world.

In this connection I should like to draw attention to the attractive facilities now offered by the Post Office Savings Bank. I have also decided to improve the terms of the tax-free premium bonds offered by the Treasury. The terms of the present series have become out of line with current interest rates and this series will be withdrawn from the end of this month. The new series, which will be called the Second Series Premium Bonds and which will become available from 15 October, will be five-year bonds carrying an interest rate of 6¾% over the first two years and 7½% over the last three, with a premium of 4% payable on maturity. This gives an average yield of 8% per annum. Interest which will be tax-free, will be payable half-yearly and the bonds may be redeemed after one year. The maximum holding will be R20 000, irrespective of holdings in any other tax-free series. I hope that these favourable terms will attract many investors.

Many participants at the recent meeting on inflation acknowledged what I have repeatedly emphasized in the past, namely, that the fight against inflation is not the responsibility of the Government alone. On the contrary, the active co-operation of the private sector is essential. Consumers can assist by buying judiciously, producers and merchants by exercising restraint in price policy, and employees by continuing to adopt a responsible and moderate attitude in wage negotiations. If we all try a little harder to work together in this way, we shall have gone far towards winning the war against inflation.

The third policy objective which I mentioned was the strengthening of the balance of payments. In recent years I have made generous tax concessions available to exporters, and I trust that they will use them to good effect. In my last Budget I also mentioned that the Industrial Development Corporation was considering a scheme to assist industrialists, by means of low-interest loans, in establishing new productive capacity for exports.

This scheme has since been launched and has already proved successful. This year the Government is providing R17 million for this purpose; I believe it will be money well spent.

South Africa’s mineral wealth makes us an important exporter of a wide variety of minerals, but much of the advantage is lost unless the mineral ores can be beneficiated here before export. The Economic Advisory Council appointed a sub-committee under the chairmanship of the Government Mining Engineer, Mr. T. L. Gibbs, to examine ways of encouraging the greater local beneficiation of minerals, and the subcommittee has submitted a useful report which has been adopted by the Council. The Government is still studying the detailed recommendations but has accepted the principle of special encouragement for local beneficiation of minerals. A further announcement will be made at a later stage.

As regards the capital account of the balance of payments, there is no doubt that the net outflow was largely the result of a greater use of local financing by importers and exporters, and that this was one of the reasons for the great expansion of bank credit to which I have already referred. A more controlled growth of bank credit, together with a narrowing of the gap between local and overseas interest rates, should itself help to restore a better balance on capital account.

In present circumstances it is quite appropriate that greater use should be made of foreign loans, both by the private and the public sectors. It was accordingly announced recently that the Reserve Bank would adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards applications from the private sector for permission to borrow abroad.

Up to now it has not been the policy to approve overseas loans for the private sector with a duration of less than one year. Since six-months’ credits are at present much more readily available, it has now been decided to authorize loans for approved purposes with a duration of six months or longer.

The exchange risk is naturally an inhibiting factor in foreign borrowing, especially when exchange rates are in a state of flux. In granting exchange cover, through the Reserve Bank, for current transactions and for public sector borrowing the State already assumes a substantial risk, and it would be difficult to extend this facility to all foreign borrowing. I think that in present circumstances, however, the extension of forward exchange transactions to cover also extended credit granted for the importation of capital goods would be justified. Applications should be directed to the Reserve Bank in the normal way.

My fourth and last policy objective was the alleviation of the effects of inflation particularly on the less privileged members of the community. This will form an important part of my budget proposals.

The Financial Year 1973-’74

I come now to the Government accounts for the financial year ended 31 March 1974.

Expenditure on Revenue Account was very close to the original estimate—R3 482 million as against an estimated R3 486 million. Due to factors which could not have been foreseen at the time, however, revenue exceeded the original estimate of R3 168 million by no less than R576 million. An important factor was the higher gold price, which caused the income tax on gold mining companies to yield R352 million or R133 million more than the original estimate. However, the general growth of the economy also led to a substantial increase in the yields of several other taxes, notably the income tax on non-mining companies (an increase of R122 million) and on persons (R97 million), customs duties (R53 million) and sales duty (R33 million).

Because of the higher revenue collections it was not necessary to make the transfer of R242 million from the Stabilization Account for which I originally budgeted, nor was it necessary to use the surplus of R99 million carried over from the 1972-’73 financial year. The transfer of R56 million from the Tax Reserve Account was, however, made as planned. After making provision for the deficit of R18 million on the South-West Africa Account for the 1972-’73 financial year, and for the payment of R41 million to the Reserve Bank in respect of the Forward Exchange Contracts Contingency Account, we are left with a surplus of R319 million for 1973-’74. Together with the 1972-’73 surplus, the total amount available is R418 million.

Expenditure on Loan Account was also very close to the original estimate—R995 million as against R1 000 million. Substantially higher receipts from internal loans and from the Public Debt Commissioners made it unnecessary to transfer R109 million from the Stabilization Account, and also enabled us to borrow considerably less from overseas than was originally envisaged. At 31 March, the Loan Account showed a deficit of R72 million.

On the South-West Africa Account, the deficit for 1973-’74 is less than originally forecast, namely R10 million instead of R22 million.

In view of the inflationary pressures in the economy, it would be unwise to utilize past Exchequer surpluses for expenditure during the current year. Certain payments which will not have the effect of adding to the money supply in the economy can, however, be justified. Apart from covering the deficits for 1973-’74 on the Loan and South-West Africa Accounts, I therefore propose that an amount of R98 million be paid out of the accumulated surpluses on Revenue Account to the Reserve Bank to cover losses on forward exchange contracts. As I have already mentioned, this is an expensive but necessary service which the State renders to the trading community.

I also propose that an amount of R6 million be transferred to the Loan Fund for Economic Co-operation. The net amount remaining in the Revenue Account will then be R232 million, of which I propose that R200 million be transferred to the Stabilization Account. This will bring the balance in this Account up to R625 million.

Under present circumstances, the fiscal achievement of the past year has indeed been remarkable. Instead of having to transfer substantial amounts from reserve funds to meet budget deficits, we have been able to close the year with a substantial surplus and to build up our reserves by a considerable sum.

The Financial Year 1974-’75

Estimates of Expenditure

Before coming to the expenditure estimates for the current year, I wish to say something about the form in which the Budget Estimates are presented to Parliament.

The present estimates of expenditure, by and large, identify the resources i.e. the items or objects of expenditure, such as salaries, transport, stores, etc., required by the various departments, institutions and other organizational units. For managerial purposes and in order to facilitate planning and the allocation of resources on a priority basis, I believe it would be desirable that the budgetary information available to decision-makers should be expanded to identify also the aims and specific objectives for which funds are requested. The Departments of Health and of Agricultural Technical Services, in collaboration with the Treasury, are at present adapting their financial systems to include budgeting by objectives and, hopefully, the new system will become operative in these two departments with effect from the 1976-’77 financial year. If successful, the system will be gradually introduced in other departments. Similar systems have incidentally already been developed by the Department of Defence for internal use and at intergovernmental level for departments and organizations participating in Bantu administration and development.

It is the intention to give Parliament the benefit of the additional and improved budgetary information, and the proposed changes in the form of the estimates will, as usual, be discussed with the Select Committee on Public Accounts of the House in due course.

A second budgetary reform concerns the consolidation of the Revenue and Loan Accounts. This matter was first raised in the 1954-’55 Budget Speech and eventually culminated in a recommendation by the Franzsen Commission for the replacement of the existing dual budgeting system by an integrated or unitary budget. The Government has accepted this recommendation and it is the intention to introduce legislation to give effect thereto during the 1975 Parliamentary session. A unitary budget will, on present expectations, be introduced for the first time in respect of the 1976-’77 financial year.

Expenditure from Revenue Account

The estimated expenditure on Revenue Account for the current financial year amounts to R4 227 million, which is R804 million or 23% above the revised figure for 1973-’74.

The large increase is due mainly to the following factors:

1. (1) An increase of R230 million in the provision under the Defence Vote.
2. (2) An increase of R152 million in Provincial subsidies, mainly in respect of salaries.
3. (3) A rise of R85 million in the Vote of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.
4. (4) The improvement in the salaries of public servants from 1 July, which are estimated to cost about R67 million.
5. (5) Increases of R28 million and R37 million in the provision under the Votes of the Departments of National Education and of Social Welfare and Pensions, respectively.
6. (6) The general effect of inflation on costs in all departments.

I think that the increase in the Defence Vote, though substantial, will meet with general approval. We should not be like Aesop’s young man who removed the hedges around the vineyard which he had inherited because they bore no grapes, only to find that the unprotected vines were then trampled and destroyed by man and beast. The political situation in other parts of Southern Africa gives no cause for immediate concern, but it is clearly prudent for us to build up our defences against any eventuality. Fortunately our Defence Force is already in an advanced stage of readiness, and with the additional funds requested this year it should be in a strong position to meet any calls upon it.

The increase in the Vote of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, which is mainly for homeland development, reflects the determination of the Government to create viable homelands for the Bantu where they can evolve towards independence.

I am satisfied that all the amounts requested are essential in the national interest.

In addition to the amounts in the printed Estimates I wish to propose the following expenditures.

Pensions

As will be recalled, measures to alleviate the burden of inflation on social pensioners were announced earlier this year. The annual cost of the concessions involved at the time was estimated at R28 million.

No relief was granted to civil pensioners on that occasion. The growing cost of living has, however, affected them no less than any other section of the population. Relief in their case, except in the case of those pensioners of the Government Service Pensions Fund whose claim to a pension from that Fund originated on or after 1 July 1973 and whose benefits were considerably increased last year, would appear to be appropriate at this stage.

I accordingly propose that the pensions payable—

1. (a) to pensioners of the aforementioned fund who, immediately prior to 1 July 1973, were in receipt of a pension out of the one or the other of the funds incorporated in the new consolidated Fund; and
2. (b) to pensioners who immediately prior to 1 October 1974 were pensioners of a pension or provident fund or scheme for employees of the State or whose last day of employment is 30 September 1974,

be increased with effect from 1 October 1974 by 10%. In the case of White pensioners in receipt of a pension not exceeding R250 per month, it is proposed that their pensions be increased by R25 per month instead, whilst the pensions of Coloureds and Indians receiving pensions not exceeding R175 per month and of Bantu in receipt of pensions not exceeding R87,50 per month will be increased by appropriate amounts designed to narrow the gap between the various groups.

It is also proposed that the pensions payable to existing pensioners of Statutory Bodies be increased by 10% with effect from 1 October 1974.

The cost of the concessions proposed in respect of civil pensioners will amount to approximately R12,5 million per annum in a full year and to R6,2 million for the current financial year.

As I have said, social pensioners have already been granted relief this year. Nevertheless this Government has a proud record as far as the care of the aged and destitute is concerned and it gives me great pleasure to announce further benefits in their case with effect from 1 December 1974.

I accordingly propose that all social pensions for Whites, including the allowances payable to settlers and to parents in receipt of maintenance grants be increased by a further R5 per month and that the bonus payable to war pensioners be increased by a further 10%.

It is further proposed that, with effect from the same date, the allowances payable to foster parents and to children’s homes be increased by R3 per child per month and that maintenance grants and family grants be increased by R1 per child per month whilst maintenance grants be further increased by R2 in the case of each scholar in respect of whom a maintenance grant is payable.

Similar but suitably adjusted concessions aimed at narrowing the gap between the various population groups are proposed in the case of Coloureds, Indians, Chinese and the Bantu.

All the concessions for civil and social pensioners will apply in the Republic as well as in South-West Africa.

The concessions now announced in the case of social pensioners raise the total of all the concessions effected from 1 October 1973 to an overall increase of 39%.

The annual cost of the concessions now proposed in respect of social pensioners will amount to an additional expenditure of about R34 million and to R11,3 million for the financial year 1974-’75.

Public Service Bursary Scheme

As an incentive to further training and the improvement of productivity in the Public Service it has been decided to increase substantially the value of the bursaries awarded under the Public Service Bursary Scheme. For full-time university study the bursaries are raised from R800 to R1 000, for part-time university study from R250 to R300, and for full-time study at a College for Advanced Technical Training from R500 to R630. The additional cost will eventually be R406 000 per annum but there will be none in this financial year.

Summary of Expenditure on Revenue Account

Apart from the concessions to pensioners, an amount of approximately R10 million is required as a payment to the Post Office Fund in respect of the balance of inactive Post Office Savings Bank accounts which had previously been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As the House is aware, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications has taken over sole control of the Post Office Savings Bank.

The total amount required on Revenue Account thus amounts to R4 254 million.

Revenue 1974-’75

In a rapidly changing world estimates of revenue are extremely difficult. I have tried to be as realistic as possible but, in view of the fluctuations in the gold price and other factors, there is an appreciable margin of error.

I estimate that Inland Revenue will yield R3 629 million, R778 million more than in 1973-’74. This includes an increase of R248 million in income tax on gold mines, R261 million in tax on non-mining companies and R227 million in personal income tax. Customs, excise and sales duties are estimated to yield R969 million, an increase of R76 million. Total revenue is thus expected to amount to R4 598 million, or R344 million more than the estimated expenditure on Revenue Account.

Lest the expectations of hon. members should rise too high, I shall now deal with the Loan Account.

Loan Account 1974-’75

Expenditure on Loan Account is estimated at R1 246 million, which is R251 million of 25% more than in 1973-’74. This very large increase is, however, principally due to an amount of R130 million requested for the purchase of shares in Iscor. If this item had remained at the level of R20 million, the normal amount provided in recent years, the percentage increase in the estimated expenditure on Loan Account would have been only 14%, which at this time of rapidly rising prices must be considered moderate.

The reason for the substantial share subscription for Iscor is that Iscor’s heavy borrowing programme for its normal expansion as well as for the Sishen-Saldanha scheme is causing the ratio of its borrowed funds to its own resources to become too high. This might affect Iscor’s credit standing in the capital markets and a substantial injection of share capital is considered desirable. Overseas loans which would otherwise have been made available to Iscor may, if necessary, be diverted to the Government to help finance this share purchase.

Other noteworthy expenditure items are the provision of R17 million to the Industrial Development Corporation for the loan scheme for financing export capacity (to which I have already referred), and amounts of R25 million for the purchase of land for the Bantu homelands, R274 million for the Railways and R58 million for telecommunications.

In addition to the estimated expenditure of R1 246 million, amounts of R46 million are required for the repayment of foreign loans and R467 million for the redemption of domestic loans and sundry items—a total of R1 759 million.

To finance this, the following amounts are estimated to be available:

In accordance with the policy of raising more loans abroad, it should be possible to obtain additional foreign credits to an amount of R170 million.

It should also be possible to borrow an additional R100 million locally. The total financing available should therefore amount to R1 519 million, which leaves a shortfall of R240 million. I propose that this should be met from the surplus on Revenue Account.

South-West Africa Account

Revenue on the South-West Africa Account is estimated at R128 million, which is R24 million more than for 1973-’74. The increase is due mainly to substantially higher receipts from income tax on mining companies. Expenditure is estimated to increase by R17 million to R90 million, principally because of substantial additional provisions for the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Water Affairs. The amount to be transferred to the Territorial Fund is estimated at R52 million, leaving a shortfall of R14 million to be covered in next year’s Budget.

Surplus Available on Revenue Account

After providing for the deficit of R240 million on Loan Account, the surplus on Revenue Account will amount to R104 million. I propose that this amount should be applied to the reduction of taxation in accordance with the policy objectives which I enunciated earlier.

It so happens that I have received quite a lot of advice about possible reductions in taxation. Some of it is good advice, but too often I have been reminded of Aesop’s fable of the fox who had lost his tail in a trap, and who then urged all his companions to cut off their tails also; as Aesop drily remarks, “this story is addressed to those who give advice to others not from good will, but from self-interest”.

The tax changes which I shall announce, are by no means the only changes which are desirable. Changes in taxation must, however, be carefully worked out and should never be introduced without thorough preparation. The Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy, for example, is at present engaged in a study of sales duty, undistributed profits tax and certain others taxes, but is not yet in a position to make firm recommendations in this regard. As Aesop’s frog remarked to his companion who was about to jump into a deep well, “look before you leap”. Some of the changes proposed today are, however, based on recommendations of the Commission.

Sales Duty

A large number of reductions in sales duty have been made over the past few years, and the scope for further significant reductions is limited. To assist consumers in meeting the rising cost of living, however, I propose that the sales duty on household articles which are still subject to a duty of 10 or 15%, such as cups, saucers, plates, pots and washing machines, should be reduced to 5%.

In addition a measure of relief in regard to certain other articles is warranted. I propose that the duty on watches should be reduced from 20 to 15%, the duty on pianos and organs from 10 to 5%, and the duty on other musical instruments, ships and boats, and toys and sporting requirements from 15 to 10%.

These reductions will be put into effect by means of a Government Gazette which will be published tomorrow. The loss of revenue is estimated at R8,5 million in a full year and about R5 million in 1974-’75.

As usual, the Government expects that importers and manufacturers will pass on these concessions to the consumer. A survey conducted by the Department of Commerce recently revealed that in most cases this is being done. The Department will continue to keep a watchful eye on trading practices in this respect.

Transfer Duty and Stamp Duties

When fixed property is transferred the following duties are payable:

1. (a) transfer duty on the value of the property;
2. (b) stamp duties on the transfer deed, the deed of sale, the power of attorney granted by the transferor to the conveyancer, and on any guarantee given in respect of the payment of the purchase price; and
3. (c) a fee of R2,50 to the Deeds Office.

In the interests of simplification I propose that all these items be consolidated and that on the transfer of fixed property only transfer duty (payable by the purchaser) should be levied.

The present rate of transfer duty is 3% on the first R10 000 and 4% on the balance above R10 000.

For natural persons acquiring property for dwelling purposes with a value up to R25 000, a concessionary rate applies, which reduces the effective rate of the various duties and fees from, for example, 4,1 to 2,4% on a house costing R20 000.

There are fundamental differences between the acquisition of fixed property by a natural person and by a company: for example, the natural person usually acquires it for dwelling purposes, the company for business or trade purposes; when a natural person resells, the new owner once again pays transfer duty on the gross value of the property; the company property in most cases changes hands by means of transfer of shares and stamp duty is paid at 1% on the net value of the shares.

I think that the transfer duty rate should take account of these differences and I propose, therefore, for companies, a uniform rate of 5%, which for expensive properties represents a relatively small increase.

In spite of the concessionary rates on dwellings the burden of the duty on natural persons is, in my view, still too high and I propose, therefore, that the transfer duty payable by a natural person be reduced to 1% on the first R20 000 and 3 % on the balance above R20 000 of the value of property. This represents a saving of, for example, R278 on a house costing R20 000.

Although the present concessionary rate will disappear, the proposed rate for natural persons will mean substantial further relief to those categories already qualifying for the concessionary rates and will also benefit those not at present enjoying any relief, such as a person buying a house exceeding R25 000 in value, and a father transferring during his lifetime a farm or business premises to a son.

I also wish to propose a general simplification of stamp duties, including the abolition of the duty on affidavits, arbitrations and awards, bills of lading, brokers’ notes, charter parties, notarial acts and instruments and warehouse receipts. In addition, I propose that the present sliding scale in respect of stamp duty on mortgage bonds (which rises to 25c per R100 for bonds exceeding R6 000) should be replaced by a uniform rate of 20c per R100, and that the fee of R2,50 payable to the Deeds Office on registration of a bond be abolished. In the great majority of cases the effect will be a reduction in the bond charges. The effect of all these changes in transfer duty and stamp duties, which will take effect from tomorrow, will be a loss of revenue of R15 million in a full year and R4,6 million in 1974-’75.

I have considered very carefully the representations made to me for a tax concession in respect of the payments on the mortgage bond on a taxpayer’s home. I feel, however, that such a concession would discriminate in favour of one form of consumer expenditure as against others. It would also discriminate against the taxpayer who for one reason or another lives in rented accommodation, or who has already saved sufficient money to pay off his bond; it might in fact discourage saving or induce such persons to raise a bond on their homes and invest the money elsewhere. For these reasons I cannot accept these representations.

This does not mean that the Government is indifferent to the problems of aspiring home-owners of limited means. I believe, however, that this problem is better met by the provision of housing at reasonable rates to the lower income groups through the Department of Community Development and the municipalities, and through the existing subsidies on bond interest on houses. In the latter case the maximum value of a house qualifying for subsidy was recently raised to R18 000, and I am glad to announce a further increase to R20 000. The maximum value of the mortgage bond remains at R15 000. The additional cost in 1974-’75 will be approximately R1,5 million.

While a reasonable standard of housing is essential for a stable and happy community, I feel that we South Africans tend to be over-ambitious in the standard of our homes, certainly in comparison with most other countries, and that a more modest standard would permit faster economic development in other spheres and would ultimately be of great benefit to the whole community, I am reminded of Aesop’s fable of the groom who used to spend many hours grooming his horse, but who regularly sold the horse’s oats to the local innkeeper: As Aesop sagely remarked, “ornament is no substitute for necessities”.

Income Tax

Insurance Policies

My first proposal in respect of income tax is not a concession; it concerns a loophole through which investors are able to avoid tax.

In my 1972 Budget Speech I explained that insurance companies had commenced marketing certain single premium insurance policies on such terms that they were in effect no more than ordinary fixed deposits. The provisions of the Income Tax Act were then being exploited by means of these policies in order to gain tax-free benefits for a small group of wealthy taxpayers. Tax avoidance in this manner was taking place on a growing scale and the Act was amended to plug the loophole. The measures adopted were of necessity somewhat complicated as it was not the intention to discourage people from taking out genuine policies against misfortune or to provide, by means of regular savings, for old age or for a breadwinner’s dependants in the event of his death.

On assurances given to my Department by insurers it was decided that for a trial period single premium endowment policies with benefits payable only after 10 years should not be affected by the avoidance provisions, as it was considered unlikely that policies of the kind then being marketed would find favour if payment of the benefits were to be deferred for such a long period. It has now come to light that although the measures had for a short while the desired effect, ingenious methods for avoiding them have been devised, so much so that single premium endowment policies are now again being actively marketed on a considerable scale.

It seems only right that persons wishing to invest in this way should pay tax on the proceeds of their investments and for that reason amendments will be introduced into the Income Tax Act to bring gains on all single premium endowment policies issued after today into the taxation net. Policies issued on the strength of proposals already made and accepted in writing will not be affected.

Mining taxation

I come now to what Aesop would have called the goose which lays the golden eggs, namely the mining industry. The goose is in very good condition at present and I do not think any general reduction of mining taxation is necessary or justified. There are, however, two concessions I wish to make.

The first concerns the capital allowance of 8% per annum on unredeemed capital expenditure to which new gold mines are entitled, in recognition of the enormous capital expenditure and the risks involved. The rate of 8% is rather low by today’s standards and I propose that it be increased to 10% for gold mines to which a mining lease is granted after today. There will be no loss to the fiscus in the current year.

Since last year, all mines have been allowed to deduct from income all capital expenditure in full in the year in which it is incurred, but unredeemed balances of capital expenditure must be written off over a period of not more than four years in the case of gold mines and over a period of not more than thirty years in the case of other mines. To assist these latter “other” mines to finance expansion I propose that they be allowed to write off such unredeemed balances over a period of not more than five years. The loss of revenue will be about R3,3 million per annum over the next five years, but thereafter the State will recoup the loss.

Non-residents’ Tax on Interest

One of my objectives is the strengthening of the balance of payments, particularly on capital account. It appears, however, that the Non-Residents’ Tax on Interest may impede overseas borrowing. Theoretically, this tax can in many cases be claimed by the lender as a deduction from his tax liability to his country’s tax authority. In practice, however, it appears that this gives rise to difficulties and often the lender simply insists that the borrower bear the tax. It is not possible, at least at this stage, to abolish the tax completely. There is, however, provision in the Act for the Minister to grant exemption from the tax under certain circumstances. Pending further consideration of the basis of the tax, I shall be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to applications for exemption from the tax, where the loan is for a deserving project in connection with long-term industrial or mining development and is made between a lender and a borrower “at arm’s length”. Applications must be submitted before the loan is obtained.

The loss of revenue in this financial year should be negligible.

Allowances in respect of the Training of Labour

In order to counter inflation it is essential that we make adequate provision for the training of labour.

Last year I introduced a concession whereby an industrialist who receives a grant from an industrial training fund in respect of the training of skilled workers, may deduct 50% of the grant from his income for tax purposes. The Committee on the Better Utilization of Manpower and the Economic Advisory Council have both recommended that this exemption be increased to 100%, and in order to give further encouragement to the training of skilled labour, I have accepted this recommendation. The loss of revenue will be about R600 000 in a full year but there will be no loss in 1974-’75.

The Van Zyl Committee recommended that expenditure by an employer on an approved training scheme for Bantu labour in White areas should qualify for a double deduction from income. The Government has accepted this recommendation and has further decided that, where such training takes place in an economic development area, the additional deduction should be not 100% but 125%. Thus an employer who spends R1 000 on an approved training scheme in a White area will be allowed for tax purposes, to deduct R2 000 from income, and in an economic development area, R2 250.

I trust that these very generous concessions will encourage employers to cooperate with the Government in significantly raising the productivity of Bantu workers, in the interest of all sections of the community.

There should be no loss of revenue in the current year, but in later years the loss may increase, as training is extended, to something of the order of R20 million per annum.

Investment and Initial Allowances

I have received many representations to the effect that, in a time of rapid inflation, depreciation allowances on the basis of historical costs do not provide sufficient funds to replace the capital asset at the time when the old asset is worn out, and that depreciation should rather be calculated on replacement costs. There appears to be a division of opinion on the practicability of calculating allowances on this method, and the subject clearly calls for further study.

The investment allowance already, in effect, permits the industrialist to write off 120% of the cost of machinery and 115% of the cost of factory buildings over their lives. In the economic development areas these percentages may be increased to 155 and 140%, respectively.

The initial allowance which is at present fixed at 15% (maximum 30% in the economic development areas) does not affect the total amount which may be written off in respect of industrial machinery but it permits a greater proportion to be written off in the first year; in effect it constitutes an accelerated depreciation allowance.

In line with my objective of encouraging the expansion of productive capacity, I propose that the investment allowance for machinery be increased by 5% in all areas (i.e. to 25% in metropolitan areas and to a maximum of 60% in the economic development areas) and the initial allowance be increased by 10% in all areas (i.e. to 25% in metropolitan areas and to a maximum of 40% in economic development areas). The increased allowances will apply to machinery and equipment brought into use on or after 15 August 1974.

The present investment allowances lapse on 30 June 1977. I propose that they be extended for one year to 30 June 1978.

The new allowances mean that, where machinery is used intensively and is accorded an annual wear and tear allowance of 25%, altogether 69% of the cost may be deducted from taxable income in the first year of use, and in the economic development areas an even higher percentage.

The loss of revenue is estimated at R11,1 million for a full year, but there will be no significant loss in the current year.

Married Women

As a further incentive to productivity, in particular by making it easier for married women in the middle income group to go out to work, I propose that the present allowance of R500 deductible from the earnings of a married woman be increased by 20% to R600.

The cost is estimated at R4 million in a full year and about R1 million in 1974-’75.

Company Income Tax

The level of company income tax in South Africa is low by world standards and, in view of the increase in the initial and investment allowances, I do not think that a substantial reduction is justified. However, in order to assist companies to retain more funds for expansion, I propose that the loan levy on all companies be halved. This means that for diamond mining companies the levy is reduced from 10 to 5% of tax and for all other companies from 5 to 2½% of tax.

Receipts on Loan Account will suffer a loss of approximately R46 million.

Income Tax on Individuals

It has long been my aim to reduce the maximum marginal rate of income tax on individuals. Though not as high as in some other countries, it may nevertheless tend to sap initiative and productivity. I propose, therefore, that the 10% surcharge on personal income tax be reduced to 5%, which will have the effect of reducing the maximum marginal rate from 66 to 63% of income. The reduction since 1972, when the maximum marginal rate of tax and levy was 78%, has been substantial.

The loss of revenue is estimated at R51 million in a full year and R22 million in 1974-’75.

Finally, I believe that a further concession is justified to alleviate the effects of inflation on taxpayers in the lower and middle income groups. I consider that this can best be achieved by a general increase in the tax abatements allowed.

The increases which I propose are as follows:

The primary abatement will be increased from R1 000 to R1 200 for married and from R600 to R700 for unmarried taxpayers.

The children’s abatement will be increased from R450 to R500 for each of the first two children and from R550 to R600 for each subsequent child, with an additional abatement of R200 in the year of birth.

The abatement for dependants will be increased from R80 to R100 where the taxpayer contributes at least R100, and from R200 to R250 where the taxpayer contributes at least R250 towards the maintenance of the dependant.

When introducing the Part Appropriation Bill earlier this year I proposed that the abatements in respect of medical and dental expenditure, insurance premiums and contributions to benefit, provident, unemployment and medical aid funds be consolidated into a single abatement based on actual expenditure on these items up to a maximum of R600 for a married person and R500 for an unmarried person. I now propose that these maximum amounts be raised to R700 and R600, respectively.

In order further to assist our senior citizens, I propose that the supplementary abatement for persons over 60 be increased from R350 to R400, and furthermore that this abatement should, as is the case with other abatements, only begin to taper off after the income exceeds R5 000 per annum (instead of after R1 500 as at present). This means that a married person over 60 without children and without medical or insurance expenditure, will retain some benefit from this supplementary abatement until his income reaches R13 000 per annum. This may therefore serve as an encouragement to elderly persons to continue in employment after the normal retiring age.

The increase in the abatements will cause a loss of revenue of R44 million in a full year and approximately R18 million in 1974-’75.

To illustrate the effect of these somewhat complicated concessions, i.e. the reduction in the surcharge and the increase in the abatements, I may mention that a married man under 60 with two children (not born during the tax year) but with no other dependants, and with expenditure of R150 on medical expenses and insurance premiums, will find that his tax is reduced by 31 % if his income is R3 000 per annum, by 14% if his income is R5 000, by 9% if his income is R10 000 and by 4½% if his income is R20 000.

Conclusion

The tax changes will result in a loss of R54 million for the Revenue Account and R46 million for the Loan Account during the current financial year. Revenue should then still be sufficient to cover the full deficit on Loan Account and to leave a small surplus of R2 million in the Revenue Account.

In accordance with my usual practice, a summary of the State accounts on the conventional and cash basis is subjoined here in the printed version of the Budget Speech.

Mr. Speaker, every Budget is an exercise in the determination of priorities. Because of the many different forces now operating on our economy, it is not easy at this time to decide what our economic priorities should be, and in particular to strike the right balance between growth and stability. Those who would place all the emphasis on the one or the other should remember Aesop’s mule who, when contemplating its ancestry, was forced to admit that there are two sides to every story.

In this Budget I have continued to give the first economic priority to the maintenance of a satisfactory rate of growth. Increasing production and productivity is of the highest economic and social importance and may also contribute significantly to the solution of our problems in respect of inflation and the balance of payments. The Budget therefore contains a number of measures designed to meet this objective. On the expenditure side, there is increased provision for education and training and for expanding the economic infrastructure. On the revenue side, there are the concessions in respect of mining taxation, the increases in the investment and initial allowances for machinery, the concessions in respect of the training of labour, the reduction in the levy on companies, the increased deduction allowed for married women who go out to work, and the reduction in the income tax surcharge on individuals.

It is clear, however, that the combating of inflation must at this time receive a very high priority. It is for this reason that it has been necessary for the Reserve Bank to raise certain interest rates and generally to adopt a conservative monetary policy. For this reason, too, this Budget is generally conservative; for example, I have deemed it prudent to use the Exchequer surplus mainly for building up the reserve in the Stabilization Account rather than for increasing expenditure or reducing taxation.

Equally important, in the Government’s view, is the alleviation of the effects of inflation on the less privileged members of the community. On the revenue side, this Budget provides for some further reduction of sales duty. The rates of this duty have been lowered on a number of occasions during the past few years; all foodstuffs have now been exempted, and on articles in general household use most of the rates are now very low. The Budget also provides for increased abatements on personal income tax, a measure of particular importance to the middle income groups, and for a reduction in transfer duty payable by individuals, which should assist the aspiring house-owner.

On the expenditure side, the Budget makes provision in a number of ways for lightening the burden of inflation. Both social and civil pensions are substantially increased—the maximum old-age pension has now been raised by R16 per month or 39% since last September. Food subsidies now amount to no less than R85 million, which is 20% more than in the previous financial year. The subsidy on the interest on housing mortgage loans has been extended and should be of material assistance to house-owners in the lower income groups.

There are, of course, other priorities, some of them non-economic but nevertheless of the highest importance; the most obvious is the provision for defence, which clearly exerts a considerable influence on our State finances.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this Budget pays due regard to all these priorities, that it preserves a proper balance between growth and stability, and that it lays the foundation for another year of progress and prosperity in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from:
   1. (a) the Revenue Account [R.P. 2-’74];
   2. (b) the Loan Account [R.P. 3—’74]; and
   3. (c) the South-West Africa Account [R.P. 4—’74];
2. (2) Estimate of Revenue for the financial year ending 31 March 1975 [R.P. 5—’74];
3. (3) Statistical Survey [W.P. B—’74];
4. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1973-’74 and 1974-’75; and
5. (5) Taxation proposals.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion upon which I participate in a Budget debate. If one can believe the Press one has to be careful about some of the reports but I am told that this might well be the last occasion upon which the hon. Minister presents a Budget in this House. I do not want to express an opinion upon that matter today, except that I want to say, and I think the hon. the Minister knows that I mean it sincerely if I say it publicly, that I personally wish him extremely well. He knows I have a very high regard for him and whatever course of life lies ahead for him, I hope that he and his good wife will be blessed with the things which we wish them here today. I wish them well and I wish the hon. the Minister well both in this House and in any job that may lie ahead of him in the future.

I would like to mention that I follow on this side of the House in the footsteps of a man that I regard as a distinguished predecessor ... [Interjections.] ... and I would not like this opportunity to pass without paying tribute to him and going one further, perhaps, against the laughter and the scorn of ill-informed members on the other side of the House and say that I believe that there is a place in the public life of South Africa for Sonny Emdin which I believe he will take once again.

Mr. Speaker, one does not want to paint too bright a picture of the hon. the Minister on an occasion such as this. Perhaps, Sir, that might not be more inappropriate when we speak of the dangers that actually beset both our country and the economies of the West, which in fact are not in perhaps quite as healthy a state as the hon. the Minister painted them today and the consequences of which for us might be perhaps a little bit more serious. Sir, it is perhaps not insignificant that when the hon. the Minister started his address and told us about the wealth of South Africa, we found that the lights were bright in this Chamber, but as his speech went on they tended to dim a little, and perhaps that was not inappropriate to some of the things which were said, because when he described the strenth of the South African economy and described what in fact nature and the Almighty had endowed us with, we had a magnificent picture; we had a magnificent picture of a country which has tremendous resources, a country which has been blessed with substantial agricultural crops, when in fact many parts of the world are in a state of starvation. I venture to say, Sir, that with that background there must be dozens of Ministers of Finance in this world who envy the job of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the ease with which he can deal with the fundamental problems which beset South Africa.

But, Sir, may I just say these few last words. As you know, the hon. the Minister quoted Aesop. May I remind him of some other fables of Aesop, the fable of the mountain in labour, the fable of the mountain that suddenly gave rise to a tremendous hole, a tremendous chasm, and out walked a little mouse.

Harry.

A man in a Turkish fez.

Sir, I want to draw the attention of those somewhat ignorant members of the House to the fact that it was the Minister who walked out, not a man in a Turkish fez.

There is another one of Aesop’s fables that we should perhaps remember, and that is the one of the lion and the lion’s share. Aesop there said that the lion’s view was that you may share the labours of the great, but you may not possibly be able to share the spoils of the great. I believe that the South African public is entitled to share, not the spoils but the benefits and the realities and all that South Africa can offer to all of us. I say, Sir, that whereas this Budget has presented to us some concessions, I leave the hon. the Minister and my colleagues with the thought on this occasion: Has in fact the hon. the Minister presented a Budget which really and courageously gets to grips with the two fundamental problems in South Africa, the inflationary dangers which beset us and the need to have a strong, growing economy which is able to meet the demands of South Africa at this moment, demands in which employment opportunities must be available to all races and where in fact we must seek to close not merely wage gaps but gaps in the living standards of all the people of South Africa?

Sir, in order that we may have further time to consider these implications, and in accordance with tradition, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening I was saying that as a non-member of the commission which sat in connection with this legislation I had a problem, and I just want to repeat what I said, i.e. that I regard it as the State’s duty to guard the morale of the weaker elements and also the sound morals and moral order of the people it governs. In speaking of the morale of the weaker elements, Sir, I believe that at times this also includes the morale of the United Party, because if we had listened in the past to the advice of the United Party I believe we would have landed ourselves in a labyrinth.

Now, Sir, I want to cross over to the idea of control as applied in this Bill, and I want to point out that in his speech the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mentioned that the United Party supported the principle of control. Sir, that may be a good aim, but I think we have the right to ask if this is really true. We are entitled to question the credibility of the United Party in this connection. Let me point out that in past years, on every occasion when publications legislation, or legislation of this nature, has come up for discussion in this House, a veritable furore has been unleashed, and the United Party has always been at the forefront of the shouting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that I remember from the year 1971, when we passed the last legislation in this connection, how the hon. member for Durban Point came along to Parliament with a train-load of petitions, and how the Press photographed him. He was loaded with objections to the legislation that was then envisaged. In 1971 the then hon. member for Orange Grove, Mr. Etienne Malan, spoke of the (translation) “miserable, verkrampte and short-sighted measure” we were busy with. The hon. member for Green Point spoke of “the bigotry of a prude” and said this side of the House was prudish and narrow-minded. “Back to the stone age” was their reference at the time to the amendments we were trying to introduce. Mr. Speaker, we did not return to the “stone age” but, as was subsequently proved, they were right to a certain extent after all. We did return to the nudes and streakers. That is where we landed up. If the present position is reviewed, the pattern is seen to be exactly the same, and one only has to listen to the speeches made by that side of the House.

I am referring to comments by the hon. member for Von Brandis, when he spoke of a “bureaucratic monster” when he said, in a flippant and arrogant way: “Sex was not invented after 1963.” I refer to the comments of the hon. member for Durban Central when he spoke of the granting of “autocratic and bureaucratic power”. He also arrogantly referred to the super-snoopers which would be nominated and appointed in terms of this legislation. I refer to the comments of the hon. member for Durban North when he said: “We wish to make up our own minds about what we would like to read” and also: “It is inability on the part of the Government to cope with the world, and in the end amounts to brain-washing.” We are entitled to ask whether these comments, these allegations, indeed reflect the conduct of people who allege that they are in favour of control. United Party logic is really something from another world, and I refer you here. Mr. Speaker, to the United Party’s main theme.

I refer, in particular, to the unanimous cry from that side of the House in connection with the abolition of appeals and the establishment of this Appeal Board. It has been said that in this connection the courts should be retained. That was indeed the main theme, the point of attack, of the Opposition party, and I ask the following question: Why was that the main theme of the Opposition’s attack? The answer is obvious. They rightly allege that our judges are objective and just people who are extremely competent to try cases. But that is not being disputed by this side of the House. We are quite willing to accept that this is in fact the case. That is what they say but in the same breath it is that side of the House which condemns the judges who passed judgment in court on this specific matter. They say they cannot regard themselves as being bound by that. Let me refer to the comments by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In this connection he said the following yesterday in his speech—

Here indeed we have a paradox expressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That then is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. I again briefly want to refer to the court decisions in this connection. The decision of the present Chief Justice Rumpff, previously Appeal Judge, in the case Publications Control Board v. Williams Heinemann Ltd., contains inter alia the following—

Here we have the Chief Justice of South Africa declaring in unequivocal terms that such directives and work, which the Supreme Court is expected to do, is indeed foreign to the duties of the Supreme Court. In the same case Appeal Judge Williamson endorsed that and termed it a procedure “of a somewhat extraordinary nature”. In conclusion he said—

Judge Snyman’s words in this connection were also quoted, in fact by hon. members on this side of the House. There is also a decision in this connection, in the case of Lindberg v. Publications Control Board, 1968, by Judge Ludorf in which he also endorsed this—

In conclusion one has the comments and evidence of Judge Kobie Marais, who gave evidence before the commission on behalf of the South African Association of Arts and said he was in favour of the abolition of appeal to the courts and that he was in favour of the creation of an appeal board. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and other hon. members on that side of the House, now have the temerity to say that it is not a matter of a judge’s opinion. As you know they are the people who advocate access to the courts; they are the people who ask for the decisions of the judges. Here, Sir, you now have the decision of five judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice. But now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that what they do or do not want to do does not concern him. Each of these five judges independently formulated a decision according to the legal rules, according to the legislation applicable in the Republic; and here the hon. member for Bezuidenhout comes along and tells us and the South African judiciary in this presumptuous, arrogant way: “What you want to do does not concern me; you will do what I tell you to do.” I think it is a truly scandalous reflection on the South African judiciary by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That is why I say this measure also has a sound judicial basis.

In this connection I also want to question the evidence furnished to the commission by the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa, i.e. the standpoint that they cannot concede that there is any case for which the Supreme Court cannot be the appropriate forum. I think I can add that that is not the point, that that is not the final answer to this matter. I respectfully want to term it a somewhat “sweeping statement”. What is being done here is being done in consequence of and in the light of those dicta, those decisions by so many judges, in which they virtually ask us to handle this matter in this way. Since we are doing this, I do not think the evidence of the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa indicates that their standpoint in this connection is a correct one.

But, Sir, this idea if a quasi-legal body in South African law and administration is not completely new. Not in the least. There are so many other examples of comparable boards and appeal boards that already exist. For example, I want to refer to the existence of an appeal board which is now being introduced in terms of the new licensing legislation. In terms of that an appeal board is also being instituted which is comparable to what we are envisaging here. I therefore do not believe that this should now be regarded as an isolated example. There are numerous other comparable appeal boards in our statutory framework which are used in that connection.

The further argument that other bodies, for example those that I have just mentioned, cannot be compared with this because that embraces the granting of a right, while here it is a matter of a right being withheld, I do not believe to be a completely relevant argument. On the one hand I do not regard this as an absolute truth in that connection; and on the other hand I consider it as being of a merely academic nature without any practical value. The final question is: To what extent is the administration of justice, “the rule of law”, being prejudiced in South Africa? My answer is not at all. On the contrary. In the light of the arguments quoted, and from what I have already said, I believe that it is judicially not only acceptable, but also good legislation. I therefore say that this legislation is desirable with a view to better and more thorough administration. I believe it to be desirable because it makes provision for greater, more efficient and more adequate specialization and diversification. I also believe it is desirable to exempt the courts of this country, also because this is the desire of the whole of South Africa, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo, who has just sat down, has endeavoured to simplify this whole question of censorship and control of what is undesirable in our entertainment and film world. He has endeavoured to simplify it simply because he has localized his entire argument on two or three obiter dicta from judges who possibly at that time had some problems with regard to the essence of the particular matter. Possibly these judges were a little irritated by the fact that certain administrative aspects had been dealt with by the then existing boards and then gave vent to the thought that they did not want to employ the time of the court in an administrative capacity. However, the history of the legislation over the last ten years was indicative of the fact that the courts played a very important part in protecting and ensuring the interest of the public in so far as the public’s culture and knowledge was concerned. This is clear from the fact that most of the appeals to the courts were successful. I say quite frankly that the hon. the Minister has brought in an appeal board simply because he has found himself considerably embarrassed not only by the reversal of the decision of the board, but more particularly by the exposition to the public of the arbitrary manner in which these decisions were made, i.e. in an arbitrary manner because they had no foundation whatsoever and, apart from that, were not even sufficiently reasonable for a court of law to accept that there was sufficient, reasonable or sound motivation for the decisions of those boards. If you go into the whole history of this particular law you will find that for years it was the subject of considerable concern both to Parliament and to the public. In 1963 when the present principal Act was piloted through this House, the then hon. Minister of the Interior—a gentleman who has played a very distinguished part in the parliamentary life of this country and who still does so—gave a very interesting history of the development of this particular subject. He then made it clear to us what had taken place. He told us the story of the Cronjé Commission of 1954 when it took more than three years to bring out a report and tabled a “most comprehensive report after a most exhaustive inquiry”. He said so because he himself knew that, judging from the history of censorship in the world, it was a problem with which many countries have wrested in the past and have found great difficulty to legislate upon. The report that was presented by the Cronjé Commission included a proposed Bill. As the hon. the Minister at that time stated frankly the Bill was neither acceptable to the Government, nor to the Opposition, nor to the public, nor to the community, as he put it. It was not acceptable because of its drastic provisions. Those were the words he used. In 1960 the Government presented a less drastic Bill which was objected to on two main grounds. The first was that there was no appeal to the courts on the question of what was undesirable in regard to testing the application of the law in these matters. Secondly, there was an objection to the principle of consultation which was intended to exempt persons from prosecution and from unnecessary expense. This was called a pre-censorship clause in terms of which people were enabled to present their matter to the board for consideration before it was distributed. That Bill was also rejected. In 1961 a new Bill was introduced. It was based on an article by the very Justice Marais of whom people are talking. This Bill was then sent to a select committee and was eventually introduced into this House in 1963. It was then acclaimed by the Minister presenting the Bill. He gave two most vital and important assurances. The first was that it did not involve a question of censorship, but a question of control; secondly that there was a right of appeal to the highest court of the land. In fact, he prided himself on the fact that this had overcome all the problems and difficulties that had been envisaged over the years in which this matter had been investigated.

Over the last few years both the present Minister of the Interior and his predecessor made statements to the effect that they thought recourse to appeal courts should go and that any objection to the decisions of the Publications Board should be sent to an appeal board established by this House and not to the courts. This measure is now the culmination of the objections which have existed for some years because of the embarrassment of which I have spoken. If you examine this Bill and its machinery, you will find that what the hon. the Minister has presented to us with this Bill is this: In order to meet the very severe criticism of the conduct of the existing board, he is establishing a new system consisting of a directorate, deputy director and a number of committees so that the work can be handled more expeditiously. There is a larger field of employment for people who can deal with this. Then he has provided that any objection or appeal against their decisions should go to an appeal board. Not only that, he has even provided that if the directorate were dissatisfied with the decision of a committee, the directorate itself could initiate the appeal. Also the hon. the Minister, if he were dissatisfied with a decision, could himself initiate an appeal. In other words, he has taken every possible step to ensure that his particular view of the norms will be the views that should be maintained if possible as long as there is the opportunity to continue to appeal. Consequently, everyone will have had the chance to appeal, both the person affected and the directorate which dealt with the matter and the Minister himself. In order to cover every possible loophole and to satisfy every sectional interest which may appeal to the Minister himself, he has even gone as far as ensuring that he too should be able to initiate an appeal against the decisions of those committees.

What is wrong with that?

There is a great deal wrong with that. After all, we are living in a world where our objective is to encourage the expression of culture by the human being. This has been man’s objective over the centuries. Everything for which we can be grateful today in the world of culture and achievement has been due to the initiative of the human mind, the human soul and the human spirit. If we had inhibited that over the centuries, we would have been much poorer than we are today. Consequently, in dealing with norms, a body should be set up which would be completely independent of the peers of the artist, a body which could assess the proper interpretation of the norms which a civilized society wishes to establish with regard to the expressions of culture, entertainment and other forms of expression by one’s fellowmen. Therefore, the appeal to the courts is a most vital factor here and purely objectively. In addition, however, it is important because it is part and parcel of our democratic system whereby we have established the courts of law as the one impartial body which can objectively and unemotionally, in a balanced manner, project its thinking on to the subject with which it has to deal. It has been said already, and it is worth-while repeating, that judges are appointed by the hon. the Minister of Justice who then has no further authority to deal with them in relation to their emoluments, their terms of office or anything else. Parliament deals with these matters. Parliament deals with their emoluments, their pensions and so forth, and only Parliament can deal with the term of office of a judge. However, this board of appeal to be established will be peopled by persons who will be appointed by the hon. the Minister for periods of time and at emoluments that will be laid down by him and which can be changed from time to time. The members of those boards will find themselves in difficulty—and it is a natural thing to expect—if they are faced with a considerable number of appeals. If the hon. the Minister presents them with these appeals because he is not satisfied with the decisions of the various committees, subconsciously they may feel that they should side with the hon. the Minister. I do not say that they will do so but it is a natural human instinct to protect what you are doing, the job that you are doing and the work you are pursuing. That is a perfectly natural thing and happens in any society. This is something that it is completely absent from a court of law. This is the difficulty which this board may experience. We think that it is obnoxious to have to send appeals to an appeal board of this nature. We are not dealing with the personnel of that particular board. There are methods by which this sort of thing can be avoided. We have, for example, the income tax court to which judges are assigned from time to time by the Judge-President of the division concerned, and this judge then sits with two assessors to hear an appeal in connection with income tax. There is no reason why this position should not obtain in regard to the appeal board as well. There is no reason why a judge should not be appointed or assigned to handle a particular matter with his assessors. Those assessors can be drawn by the judge from the society concerned, the society which is itself concerned with these expressions of opinion, of culture, of thought and of art. This is the correct way in which this appeal board should operate. These matters should not be assigned to a body which without wishing in any way to diminish the value of its purpose will find that by virtue of the circumstances surrounding it, will be prone to this difficulty. As I said earlier, this is something which we find obnoxious.

We say further that the question of norms is a very important one. Through its statutes, Parliament lays down certain norms which are the same norms which we find existing virtually right throughout our legislation as we have it on the Statute Book at the moment. These are norms which are generally applied. There is the question of being offensive to the public, of outraging the public and of obscenity. These are not new norms that are seeking to be applied. These are the norms that we have heard about in the historical process that has been discussed by hon. members on both sides of this House but more particularly on this side. These norms have always existed. It is simply a question of their application in society at the particular stage when society deals with them. The norms of 2 000 years ago, the norms of 1 000 years ago or the norms of 500 years ago do not apply today, because today society looks at life in an entirely different light. The fact that there are some people who want to maintain the sort of society that existed 50 or 100 years ago is no reason for penalizing society as we have it today in the 20th century, and that is why it is important that people of experience, people such as judges, people who deal with the frailties of human nature from day to day in assessing rights and wrongs should be able to assess these norms and to interpret them in the light of the thinking of our present-day society without being influenced by people drawn from a particular section of the community, people who may not be fully representative of the thinking of the community and who may not represent a broad cross-section of the thinking of the community. Sir, we maintain that the machinery which the hon. the Minister proposes to establish here is not satisfactory to deal with this problem. Leaving the appeal board aside for the moment, why has the hon. the Minister made provision for the establishment of such a variety of bodies, for such numerous committees and a directorate? He has done so, firstly, because there has been a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs. That is recognized by all sides. Members on the Government side of the House have admitted that that is one of the reasons for this change. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, it has been impossible to deal with the tremendous amount of work which this board is compelled to deal with because of the way in which the law is worded at the moment. Sir, the hon. member for Green Point did not at any time say that he preferred the Act as it stands today. He said that if we had to choose between the Act as it stands now and the present Bill, he would prefer the Act as it stands now because it makes provision for the right of appeal to the courts. Sir, I cannot see what could have changed the attitude of the Government between the year 1963 and the year 1974. We have conceded, as we do in the minority report, which is perhaps one of the most excellent reports on this subject, that there is a necessity to tighten up control. [Laughter.] Sir, it is all very well for hon. members on that side to snigger. I have read the minority report thoroughly. It is an outstanding report. There is sufficient evidence there to show that we concede that there is a necessity to tighten up control. We have suggested what sort of machinery should be set up to achieve this end. We have suggested practical machinery for this purpose. Our suggestion that there should be a registrar of publications is not just a gimmick. After all, we have a Registrar of Financial Institutions, and where in the world of finance would you find a smarter man for exercising control over our financial institutions than our Registrar of Financial Institutions? The Registrar of Financial Institutions is there to protect the public against many evils and difficulties, and he performs his task very successfully; he is able to deal with new problems and new aspects that arise from time to time.

Is he a judge?

No, we have not dealt with that yet. We are dealing now with the question of setting up a publications advisory board as opposed to a directorate as proposed by the Minister; we are dealing with the question of self-regulatory committees responsible to a publications advisory board instead of to the Minister’s proposed directorate. Anybody who feels aggrieved at the decision of the publications advisory board would then have the right to appeal to the courts. We have suggested this machinery because we are concerned over the fact that in the last 10 or 15 years there has been perhaps a greater spate of permissiveness than ever before in the world. It is not something that we agree with. We have not suggested an acceptance of salacious literature in this country. We have not departed from the norms which we have always observed in this country. All we are concerned with is that when the norms laid down are applied, it should be subject to the surveillance of a person with an unemotional approach such as a practising member of the Bench. That is what we ask for. And it was in fact suggested, I think by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, or implied by what he said, that even assuming you did appoint a judge as the head of the appeal board ... the hon. member for Bellville asked who could stop the hon. the Minister from appointing a judge, but the Bill does not say so. The Bill talks about people with 10 years’ legal knowledge, and not about the appointment of a judge. That has a significance of its own, because of the fact that a judge lives in an atmosphere and holds a post where there can be no question of any outside pressure or any influences, which the hon. the Minister, in one particular clause of his Bill, is himself trying to avoid in regard to his directorate, by providing that no one shall influence the committee. But who is going to stop anybody from influencing the appeal board, because after all these are public servants appointed under the Act for a period of office, and if someone is unhappy with them, the Minister can at the end of the period of office of an encumbent not renew the term of office of that encumbent, and he does not have to give reasons. The man is appointed for five years, and after the period of five years he ceases to hold this particular post. There is nothing here to say that the Minister cannot act in any way in which he wishes to act, and our greatest fear is this. We do know that there are certain pressures on the hon. the Minister from certain sections of the community in this country. We know that many sections of our community have different points of view in regard to norms. It does not only apply to the particular domestic community in which the hon. the Minister finds himself; it applies to the domestic community of many other peoples in South Africa. We are a country of communities with different religious views. We are a country of communities with different philosophic outlooks and we all suffer from the same peculiar problem of influences which in some cases are perhaps archaic, influences which are not modern influences but which may still remain attached to values of the past. We know that, but we cannot subject society to those pressures because they will not comply with the definition of the word “norm”, which is the average test to apply to the life of a people. I have here a definition of the word “norm” which talks of a “standard, model or pattern; general level or average”. This comes from the Random House Dictionary of the English language published in 1967. That is exactly what the word “norm” means. It is the application to the average member of society, and that is what it is our duty to protect. We do not want to bring about a state of affairs in our country where writers find themselves inhibited in what they want to express, where playwrights find themselves inhibited in writing what they want to express, where artists find themselves inhibited in what they want to express. What is the history of the playwright, what is the history of art, what is the history of self-expression but a reflection of society? The most successful bestsellers in the world are the books, the paintings and plays which reflect society as it is. It is not the play which reflects salacious matters, because, quite frankly, unless the hon. the Minister is part of the Mother Grundy Institution, salaciousness and sex become boring. It is not a particularly entertaining matter. [Interjections.] I say that quite sincerely, yes. It may be sensational for the moment; it may be something new to some people, but quite frankly, to talk from the average point of view, and from the norm which applies, it is quite a boring subject. We know what nature is; the whole world knows what nature is and children know what nature is. But I do not want to go into a philosophical exposition of this particular subject. However, I wish to say quite frankly that we must try to protect our society so that we have the opportunity, in the era in which we live, of giving vent to the best in us, whether it be through writings or through public entertainment, whether it be through art or anything which helps to uplift and promote the culture of the community; and this, Sir, is a right not reserved to any section of the community but to the entire South African community. I should like to say further that notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Ermelo has said that there are other examples of such boards, there are no examples of such boards which apply on the national scale in our country. Every matter of this nature in our country can be referred to the courts.

Play has been made of the review procedure, and some hon. members have tried to insinuate, if I may say so—I think quite innocently, because they have tried to persuade us—that review virtually is the right of going to the courts. I am sure that even the hon. the Minister does not accept that. I am sure he knows himself that although he has made provision for this, mala fides is something which is difficult, if not almost impossible, to establish in any court of law. A mala fides attitude or action is extremely difficult to establish in a court of law. I can recall many cases which were taken as far as the Appeal Court with regard to other well-known authorities in this country on the grounds of mala fides, but which failed. In those cases everything pointed to the possibility of mala fides, but it was impossible to prove it. How then is one going to prove it on a review? It is the most difficult thing in the world. The hon. the Minister had the temerity to suggest that if, on review, a decision was upset on the grounds of mala fides, then the court could deal with it as a court of appeal in that it could deal with the merits of the case. In other words, what he is saying is: Of course the courts can deal with the merits of the case, provided that mala fides is shown. However, I know that it is almost impossible and therefore the whole question of appeal is gone. Review is something which is an inherent right of the courts. It has been established, as the hon. the Minister knows, for over a century and it is part and parcel of the procedure in our Supreme Court. He is now introducing some qualification of this right of review by giving the courts the right to deal with the actual merits of a case if mala fides is proved, something which, as I have said, is most difficult, if not impossible, to prove in any court of law. Therefore I say, on this question of review, that there is no doubt whatsoever that what the hon. the Minister has done is to cut the ground from under the feet of the public. He has been warned, and I should like to repeat the warning, that he is stultifying thinking in this country. We have many playwrights in this country. I think that at the moment nearly 30 films are in the process of being made by South African producers, playwrights and technicians. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of that. There may be even more but those are the ones I know of. The hon. the Minister knows that not long ago a film that was produced in this country was banned for a while. These things will inhibit our aspirant artists and in our country they will inhibit what I would call the flower of our own culture. I say that that is something against which we must protest very strongly and that is why we have moved that this Bill be read this day six months. We cannot go along with this Bill under any circumstances at all.

I think the hon. the Minister should read the Hansard of 1963. It would do him a lot of good. The then Minister said that he was proud of the fact that such a matter should go to the highest court of the land. He said that it was essential in order to satisfy the public. He also pointed out that a court would not be able to leave matters in the air once there had been an appeal to it. He said that the court had to have guidance from the legislator to be able to determine whether a case fell more or less in the category it had in mind. This is what the then Minister had to say (Hansard, Vol. 5, col. 398)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe dealt with quite a number of subjects and I shall deal with some of them during the course of my speech. However, I only want to refer him at this stage to what was said by the hon. member for Vereeniging about the testimony given by Advocate Mostert before the commission in connection with cases he appeared in in appeals against decisions by the Publications Control Board. He stated that in all those instances he would have succeeded equally on review.

*I also want to point out to the hon. member for Jeppe that various speakers on that side of the House have mentioned the fact that the Industrial Conciliation Act is such a good Act and that, in fact, it was originally initiated by the United Party. I want to refer him to the Industrial Tribunal. There is no right of appeal against a decision given by the Industrial Tribunal. The chairman is not necessarily a person with an intimate knowledge of legal matters. And yet the United Party accepts the principle of an industrial tritunal.

The hon. member for Jeppe also referred to a report submitted by Judge Marais before the previous Act came up for discussion. Perhaps he did not have for perusal the evidence which Judge Marais gave before the commission investigating this matter. I want to quote to him the exact words Judge Marais used (translation)—

Where can one now find this expressed in stronger terms than it is expressed here? Hon. members on that side of the House insist that the Bar Councils, the Law Society and various bodies endorse their standpoint, i.e. that the right of appeal to the courts should remain. On the one hand one has the opinions of the advocates and on the other hand one has the unanimous opinion of very well-known and very celebrated judges. Which opinion must this House endorse?

When one listens to the arguments of hon. members on the other side of the House, one is again astounded by the fact that the United Party is completely out of touch with the feelings of the people. Strangely enough they have the feeling that it should be controlled. However, as soon as they have accepted that there should be control, they recoil at the steps that must be taken to make that control effective. As soon as there is no doubt that there should be control, this must be implemented in all its logical consequences. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said the United Party would even co-operate in overhauling existing legislation and giving it more teeth, but he recoils when it comes to giving teeth to this legislation before us. Sir, if one has gauged the feeling of one’s voters, one would know that they welcome this legislation. The hon. the Minister mentioned having received representations from all levels of the population, from Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking bodies and cultural organizations. I think and hope that in his reply the hon. the Minister will elaborate further on these representations and pleas that have come to him from several quarters.

While the United Party, now reluctant and true to its tradition, was blowing hot and cold on this subject, it mentioned four lines of defence. I want to make a few remarks about these four lines of defence. In the first instance they say that the task is entrusted to the family, the Church and the school. We agree with this. That is a praiseworthy statement. But in a cosmopolitan society, such as we in South Africa have, it is surely impossible to expect that there will be a homogeneous approach in respect of these norms. A norm which is of great significance to one family need have no fundamental significance for another family. But however correctly these bodies may act, the fact remains—and this was also acknowledged by the hon. member for Green Point, who quoted the decision of Appeal Judge Rumpff—that there is a constant tendency to abuse the freedom of speech and the freedom to publish. Therefore it is necessary to have control.

In its minority report the United Party raises a second line of defence. It says that the writers themselves must form a control body. The majority report—a brilliant report—refers very comprehensively, on pages 31 and 32, to this argument in the minority report. One would have had a measure of sympathy with that proposal if there were any signs of co-operation on the part of the writers, poets and publishers, and if real and purposeful attempts had been made in that direction. What is more, the vast majority of this morally corrupting material comes from abroad. In what respect will such a local control body be better equipped to help combat this evil? On this aspect the minority report has very little substance. The said report itself acknowledges that the majority of the indecent and pernicious material which is objectionable to the public finds its market through channels that are very little affected by the formal prohibitions of the Publications Board. How would this control body be able to put a damper on such publications at all? I ask also whether the communist, the anarchist and the distorted mind of the usurer in permissiveness and promiscuity can freely and sincerely participate in the establishment and effective functioning of such a body. That is surely unthinkable.

The United Party mentions a third line. The minority report considers that the existing legislation deals with the situation satisfactorily. Here too the majority report adequately replies to the arguments on page 29. This legislation does not handle the problem with as much co-ordination and scope as the Bill envisages either.

The fourth line raised by the minority report is the question of the protection which the courts could furnish in this connection. According to the evidence of the various bodies it appears that since 1963 there have been only 16 appeals to the Supreme Court, while virtually 7 000 publications have been banned. The referral to the Supreme Court is called an “appeal” for lack of a better term. Sir, it is no appeal; it is merely an administrative judicial function which the court is exercising here. It is strange and indeed significant that in the minority report contained in the Fourth Interim Report of the Schlebusch Commission, the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations, the following appears on page 519—

Of what members must it consist?

It consists of a judge, but the principle is the same. It is a body which implements the law administratively. It is an administrative-judicial body and is called a tribunal. It is good enough to be put into operation in matters affecting state security. The tribunal regulates its own rules of procedure in exactly the same way as this appeal body. There is no appeal against the decisions of the tribunal, again exactly as in the case of this appeal board. The tribunal is simply an administrative body.

That is your proposal, Vause.

That is the proposal of the United Party contained in the report tabled yesterday. When it concerns all the matters mentioned in clause 47(2) of this Bill, ...

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is his Government prepared to accept exactly the same body as that proposed in the fourth report?

That is not the matter under discussion here. The matter under discussion here is why an administrative-judicial body, from which there is no appeal, is good enough in matters affecting the security of the country, but not in matters of the spirit, i.e. those relating to this Bill. That is the point.

It is not the same as what we are requesting there.

I want to go further. That is known law and a normal function of the court in this connection, to test the actions of a body which exercises administrative-judicial functions. I am thinking here of the Liquor Licensing Board and of the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies. According to this Bill the court retains that function. I listened attentively to the very clear explanation which the hon. member for Wynberg gave yesterday of the approach of the courts when acting as courts of review as against their approach when acting as courts of appeal. Yesterday evening I again took a look at the decision in the case of Publications Control Board v. Williams Heinemann. I think it would be a very good thing if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and other hon. members who are not present at the moment, but who spoke about this matter, were to go and read up that case again.

That was even before the rinderpest.

No, it was not before the rinderpest; it was nine years ago.

It was when you were ill. [Interjections.]

That was said in the highest court in the country. Does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who is now being so vociferous, realize that the Supreme Court is competent to reject as totally inadmissible evidence the evidence of experts on matters which are morally corrupting and subversive. How does the reasonable man in the street comprehend such a decision? And yet it is perfect and correct law. The hon. member for Vereeniging said it detracts from the status of the court ...

That can easily be changed.

Yesterday, by way of an interjection, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the words quoted by the hon. member for Vereeniging, the words used by Judge Rumpff, were not part of one of his decisions. That is why I want to ask him to go and read it up again.

I did not say that.

*Yes, you did.

I said it was an obiter dictum.

I accept it as an obiter dictum, but in his speech the hon. member said that these words were used in 1965, i.e. nine years ago, and that they have not since been reconfirmed. Judge Williamson reconfirmed that same opinion in stronger terms immediately after Judge Rumpff had expressed it. What is more, the words of Judge Williamson have been quoted with approval, in decisions up to 1968, by Judge Snyman, Judge Ludorf and others.

To come along here and say that the committee will not be able to bring about uniformity throughout the country, as the hon. member for Green Point has said, is completely wrong. It is equally wrong to say that a bureaucratic monster is being created here, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has said. All these decisions are channelled to the central body, i.e. the directorate, and from there, if necessary, to the appeal board. That is surely the very same procedure that is adopted in our legal system in South Africa. A magistrate has to give a decision in a libel case in Messina, and one who has to give a decision in a libel case in Cape Town must apply exactly the same principles. This does not cause a labyrinth of decisions from which it cannot be determined what the right decision is. Everything is channelled to the higher courts and to the Appeal Court, just as it is to be done by this appeal board.

As far as the appeal board itself is concerned, there are certain things which do need re-emphasis. I am thinking, for example, that the speed with which it can perform its functions will be infinitely more effective. It would be infinitely more effective to refer these matters to the appeal board than it would be to refer them to the court.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout commented that a biassed legal man could possibly be designated as chairman of this board. Has he forgotten about the appointment of Judge Lesley Blackwell? Where has one had a more consummate politician than Judge Lesley Blackwell who was taken from the ranks of this House and appointed to the Bench?

There was also Tielman Roos.

Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout want to say that the decisions of people like Judge Blackwell and Judge Tielman Roos had any kind of party-political flavour, or that they were influenced by party-politics?

Not after they reached the Bench.

But that is just the point.

But surely your board is not a judiciary.

What else is it then? The chairman of this appeal board will be a person with ten years of legal experience. He will already have made his mark in his chosen profession. It therefore goes without saying that he will be a person correctly attuned to what is right and wrong.

Particularly in politics.

I want the hon. member to listen. When each case is heard there will be the same judicial official who will apply the same criteria, which he has previously laid down, to testing the next case. We shall not have the situation we have at present in our courts. I say this with the utmost respect to our courts. Appeal Judge Williamson made the same statement, and it has been quoted with approval in subsequent decisions, that various judges have various approaches to such norms as these. Now there will be only one man interpreting those norms all the time.

If he is a failure, then we have a permanent failure.

He has the norms or the principles to work with, norms which have already been laid down in various decisions. He is a person well-grounded in the administration of justice. It goes without saying that he will also take note of the continuing legal norms which the judges have thusfar laid down in the 16 cases. In addition the Bill makes no provision for the fact that the party which loses the case must pay the costs. That is a very important principle which cannot be sufficiently underlined. The directorate and the appeal board are therefore accessible to John Citizen, which is not necessarily always the case as far as the courts are concerned.

In conclusion I just want to say a few words about the term “arbitrary”. This word appears in the minority report of the United Party. It has been used here by the hon. member for Durban North and by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think they must again read the hon. member for Wynberg’s speech. On the political level he has, it is true, obtained nought out of 24, but I want to tell him that on the judicial level he has obtained 24 out of 24 for his explanation of the legal position. I want to recommend that those hon. members go and ask him what would happen if the appeal board were to take an arbitrary decision in a case before it. I can give them the assurance that if the appeal board were to do so in a case appearing before it, this would be subject to the testing right of the courts. I heartily want to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing the hon. member for Brakpan speak, I want to say that he has a silver tongue. With all due respect, he has simply repeated the arguments that we have had so often from hon. members on that side in relation to the position of the Appeal Board to be established under this Bill. The arguments which he advanced again served to highlight the absolute intolerance that side of the House has in respect of any criticism or any advice that may emanate from this side of the House. We have had a number of erudite speeches from hon. members on this side and it is obvious that little or no notice has been taken of them by hon. members opposite. The speeches that have been made on this side have been made in a spirit of strength and of tolerance. We on this side are tolerant because we realize that we in South Africa are not a homogeneous group. We are a multi-national, a multi-racial assembly within the Republic of South Africa. Even in this House we are not all of one faith, we are not of one denomination. Hon. members opposite may well boast that they are of one denomination but we on this side boast that we are of many denominations and of many faiths. Where sits a man of the Jewish faith in the benches opposite? There is not one. Where sits a man of the Roman Catholic faith on the benches opposite? There is not one. If there is, let him stand up and be counted. Is there an Anglican or a Methodist on that side? This is the factor which has influenced our approach to this Bill under discussion. Our attitude is one of tolerance. In contrast to this, the speeches from the Government benches have shown that they have arrogated to themselves a complete intolerance of other people. As long as they can put everybody else into separate boxes, Afrikaners, super-Afrikaners, English people, Germans and so forth, they are happy. When the chips are down, however, they expect everyone to run to their assistance. They have demonstrated a rigid attitude reeking of intolerance which bodes ill for the future of South Africa.

One wonders, in spite of the overwhelming majority that they now have, why they should still have so little confidence in themselves, and not only in themselves but in other people as well. They have no confidence in people being able to form their own opinions. Why is this so? Do they feel that everything must be controlled chapter and verse by the law? Surely there is freedom of conscience?

No, not on that side.

We have had a number of lawyers on that side who have participated in this debate. We have had several ex-ministers of the Church address us as well. As Christians, which they claim to be, they should realize that their daily actions should always be for the glory of God. I accept that in all humility. Why remind ourselves, as is done in the opening clause of this Bill—

Everything we do, Mr. Speaker, should be done in that spirit. Why for the first time, or for a long time, should this be put in the preamble of a Bill?

It is not a preamble; it is a clause.

The fact that that is stated in a clause of this Bill immediately makes me suspicious that there is something behind this. I would like to know why they do not put this in every Bill. Why make an exception in the case of this Bill? I would like to hear from more ministers of the Church and more lawyers on that side why this was done.

Are you going to propose that it be deleted?

It should be in your apartheid legislation; that is where you should put it.

The fact that this was included here makes one suspicious of their motives.

We would be suspicious in any event.

I would like to remind hon. members opposite that to perform a Christian act in an un-Christian manner does not measure up to the teachings of Our Lord. I do not want to be drawn into a theological polemic because I am not a theologian; I was an ordinary policeman who was faced with the facts of life. Sir, ever since I have been in this House I have been saddened by the overweening lust for power as shown by hon. members opposite, a lust to rule and a refusal to brook any interference. They have shown an absolute intolerance. But to come back to the Bill, Sir, very few members have spoken about clause 80 which deals with the production, distribution, importation or possession of certain publications or objects prohibited. Clause 8(1 )(a) reads—

Paragraph (c) goes on to say that no person shall—

Mr. Speaker, people travel a lot nowadays, as you are no doubt aware, and as hon. members opposite are also no doubt aware, and in the course of their travels they buy books and works of art. How are they to know, when they come back to South Africa, that they are in possession of something which has been prohibited? I ask you, Sir, how many people read the Gazette? How many people are in possession of a Gazette? We know that before these prohibited articles are gazetted a certain procedure will be followed. They will be submitted first to committees which will pronounce them as unfit and offensive, and provision is then made for the right of appeal that we have heard so much about. The results of each of these appeals are to be gazetted.

Sir, how many people now this? It is all very well for hon. members opposite to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I would like to know how many people do know the law. How many people do read the law, and how many people do read the Gazette? Very few indeed. Even judges have said that that precept today is ridiculous; one cannot be expected to keep up with the flood of legislation and the regulations, and make no mistake, this Government is very fond of ruling by regulations. Thus we find ourselves caught in a web of legislation.

I now want to deal with clause 17. Very few people have spoken about this, the powers of entry, examination and seizure. To my mind, this is an iniquitous clause. It is an iniquitous proposal because it infringes the freedom of the subject in each and every way. It far outstrips the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No. 56 of 1955, in regard to the powers of search and entry, where even a member of the S.A. Police Force cannot go and search willy-nilly. He first has to obtain a search warrant which can only be given by a judge, magistrate or a justice of the peace on a complaint made on oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on a person or on premises or in any receptacle of whatever nature in his jurisdiction stolen property, etc. and he may issue a warrant directly to any policeman named therein. Here clause 17(1) provides—

I would like the hon. the Minister to be more specific about this. Who are the people who are going to be either generally or specifically authorized? We know that the Police Force is under-manned and overworked and underpaid, so we cannot put this work on to them. They have serious crime to attend to. They cannot go nosing and fiddling around in people’s homes. And that person who has this general authority from the Minister may enter upon any place in or upon which it is upon reasonable grounds suspected—mark you, suspected—any undesirable publication or object is being printed or reproduced. What does the Criminal Procedure Act say?

I may consider appointing you.

That will be very welcome. There are no safeguards here whatsoever, as in the Criminal Procedure Act. Those people can come into a house by day or by night, whereas the Criminal Procedure Act lays down that a search must be by day, including Sundays, and only in the case of very urgent matters, like matters of security, can the Police search at night. But normally it is done by day and under due process, and if the search is done without a warrant the Police have to account for their actions. But no provision has been made here for the accountability of these people—I call them snoopers—as to entering a man’s house and searching willy-nilly and ad lib. The Criminal Procedure Act also makes provision for penalties for wrongful search. Do we find a similar provision in this Bill? No, nothing has been said about that. All that is provided is—

What about the man who comes in without due authority but finds nothing and only embarrasses the householder? I should like to hear more from the hon. the Minister on this when he gets up to reply. Why does he provide for these wide and Draconian powers in this Bill? I should like to point out that the safeguards in the Criminal Procedure Act are in respect of men who are trained. Moreover the powers of search under that Act are invariably carried out by detectives and uniform policemen with vast experience which has been gained over years of service. With no stretch of the imagination can one expect to have that type of person to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that he is embarking on a very dangerous course when he allows people to enter private homes, because what is going to happen? We are going to get enthusiastic amateurs and we are even going to get snooping by children. We are going to get people who are fanatical about this sort of thing. I am not painting a torrid picture about this; it can happen. Are we to have public burning of books as happened in Nazi Germany before the war? In those days people said that the law was not strong enough and therefore they burnt the books. [Interjections.]

Talking of Germany, I want to point out that I was a company commander in a combatant regiment in Germany during the war. I take full responsibility for my actions and I am not ashamed to refer to the death and destruction that one met in one’s path. I was also in the area where the notorious Belsen camp was. There I saw the degradation of people, too terrible to contemplate. I did not see only the degradation of the inmates but also the dead bodies that were lying around. This was done by a nation which once regarded itself as being sophisticated, intelligent and educated and as being one of the leading nations in the world. However, this nation had degraded to that extent by allowing itself to have a Government which took onto itself such Draconian powers. Not very far from the Belsen camp, which was situated in the middle of a wood, was a little township called Bergen. I am convinced to this day that the citizens of Bergen knew nothing about what went on there. The Government of the day was strong and had forbidden them to speak. It followed a closed-shop policy which closed the minds of the people concerned. Everything was close to the man in the street. It was not only a sin, but also a crime against the State to think freely.

A measure such as this is causing us to tumble down a slope with ever increasing speed; it is leading us into an intellectual and moral desert—all in the name of Christianity. In the circumstances, I support the amendment moved by this side.

Mr. Speaker, my friend, the hon. member for Umlazi, addressed an invitation to us on this side of the House to explain why clause 1 of the Bill, viz. the clause dealing with our Christian view of life, is contained in this Bill. I am certain the hon. member will not expect a newcomer to answer this question to his satisfaction, although I shall attempt in my speech to refer mainly to this clause.

Mr. Speaker, this is already the third occasion on which I am rising to make a maiden speech. I did so years ago in the provincial council; I did so subsequently in the Senate, and I am doing so here today. I cannot imagine that, on these previous occasions, I was quite as nervous as I am today.

But this is the most important place.

I have been practising to say “Mr. Speaker” for many years. Now that I may address you as such today, I want to tell you that it is an overwhelming experience for me. I know that the awareness of this moment will always remain fresh and green in my memory.

I am grateful to be here; I am very grateful particularly because I have the same status as a member of this House as hon. members with overwhelming majorities. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana would best understand my feelings in this regard.

I want to confine myself briefly to the great principle contained in this opening clause. The hon. the Minister called this clause the “foundation stone” of this Bill, and rightly so. There is an interaction of conditions and objectives, of causes and effect. The Christian view of life is on the one hand a condition for elevating and constructive art and culture, and on the other hand the purpose of our art and culture and of our publications and entertainment is the promotion of the Christian view of life. Because we cannot, in the shattered reality of this world, achieve this ideal situation, control is necessary. Control measures as contained in this Bill cannot improve morals, but lack of effective control can destroy good morals. The preamble to this Bill refers to the constant endeavour of the population of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian view of life.

On this, my début in this House, I want to affirm in humble dependence upon the Almighty that this is also my political creed. I have made this also my constant endeavour. I have no higher endeavour, and that is to be at all times and above all else a Christian. If I should in future make many mistakes in politics, and as I know myself I will make mistakes, then I should like to attribute them to human limitations and shortcomings, and I shall try to improve. But if, in politics, I were untrue to this constant endeavour, then I would carry about with me the reproach that I had been untrue to my deepest convictions.

This is not merely one among many constant endeavours; it is not only our most important endeavour—it is our whole endeavour, and not only is every other endeavour subordinate to it, but these should deliberately and purposefully be used to promote this predominating endeavour. More than all the learned words of the great philosophers, more than all the moral lessons of the moralists, more than all the statutory powers at our disposal, it is this constant endeavour which gives sense and direction to our lives, and keeps us on the right path. There are people who have dipped their pens in the blackest ink, in the filthiest filth.

What we read and what we see is often calculated to corrupt the very best in us. If we wish to counteract this tidal wave of subversive forces which is bearing down so ominously on the decency, the integrity, the most precious institutions of our people, we need control measures, and even more important than control measures, we need a rule to live by, as contained in this opening clause. Sir, I am not going to make a habit of rising time and again in this House to thank the Minister—the other people ridicule us for doing this, and we are afraid of ridicule—but I think it is fitting on this occasion to thank the hon. the Minister for the innovation in our legislation with this opening clause. It is good and fitting that we should affirm our Christian view of life in the preamble to this Bill. There is nothing which characterizes this nation better; there is nothing that forms a more integral part of the essential nature of our population than its Christian view of life. There are people in the world who owe much to Christendom. Our nation owes its entire origin to the Christian religion. When Jan Van Riebeeck stood at the gateway to Africa at the dawn of our nationhood he began this new settlement with a prayer. Many of our ancestors came to this country for the sake of their religious convictions. If we read the letters of our forefathers, including the manifesto of Piet Retief and other writings, we find long quotations from the Bible. Their lives were steeped in the eternal principles of the immortal Word. Sir, this applies to both language groups of the White population, something which is symbolized so strikingly by the Bible which the settler Thompson presented to the settler Uys. The taveller and historian, Lichtenstein, relates how he visited our people on their farmsteads in those early years, and how the only book he found in those homes was the Bible. They were people of sterling character because they were people who lived by one Book. In times of stress and strain in the history of our people, when the pressures of life on this horizontal plane threatened to overwhelm them, the Book told them that the vertical path was open to them, and that their salvation lay there.

This Christian view of life has become an integral part of our present-day functions of state. That is why we affirm in our Constitution Act—

That is why the daily proceedings in this House commence with a Christian prayer. That is why we sing, in the words of our National Anthem—

It has been said in this debate that the provision in the preamble to this Bill is mere lipservice. I am not, on this occasion, going to debate the merits of that statement, but I just want to say that if it is not mere lipservice, if it is a conviction which stems from the hearts of our people, if we are truly in earnest about this from experience, if it has become a rule of life to us, then it is the greatest strength a people can have.

We want publications and entertainments which will ennoble, uplift and refine. The inferior, the offensive and the banal is not acceptable to us. Only the best is good enough for South Africa, and the best is the fruits of the rule of life contained in this preamble.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this has happened too often in the past but I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Port Natal on his maiden speech in this House. I can only hope that I shall accomplish the same task as well as he has.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the possible effect of this Bill as it is now drafted upon any collector of art in South Africa. I am thinking particularly of those people who collect paintings and sculptures. I think there would be a general consensus of opinion that this is a practice which should be encouraged as it will in time add to the cultural wealth of this or any other country. It is also, I think, fair to say that the most successful collectors elsewhere in the world, both now and in the past, have been those who recognized the opportunity and its moment together. By that I mean that the famous collections which are now enjoyed by many overseas countries—for instance in France and the United States of America—were accumulated at a time when the artist or sculptor was either comparatively unknown or indeed was the subject of controversy. This House will no doubt recall the circumstances relating to the work of Toulouse-Lautrec, Van Gogh, Whistler and the French Impressionists, not to mention Irma Stern, whose first exhibition in this city in 1920 resulted in the police being called. This is of course not surprising since it is the essence of the artist or the sculptor to comment on life as he sees it or to anticipate the future. Neither is likely to be popular immediately with his contemporaries if the works are going to withstand the test of time. Great talent does of course survive such initial controversies or onslaughts upon it, because there will always be some who recognize it. For artists to be creative they must have the courage to explore and to be in one sense in advance of their time. There are few cases in history in the field of art and sculpture where censorship which was once imposed was not subsequently repealed by the succeeding society.

It is against that background that I would with the greatest respect, like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this Bill. This Bill as it now stands, in terms of clauses 8(l)(d) and 9(3), empowers the committee to deem a painting or a sculpture undesirable. If it is deemed by that body to be so it can be prohibited from being in the possession of an individual. I know that the hon. the Minister has said in this debate that that power will be sparingly and judiciously used and that the committee will prohibit only what is grossly undesirable, but even so I would like to suggest with respect that practical difficulties will occur. Though the Bill does not say so, I also assume that the provision for review after a lapse of two years is an attempt at a partial solution. However, I am concerned to know whether consideration has been given to how this legislation will work in practice. For example, if an individual buys such a work of art in good faith which, because of controversy or for some other reason, falls within such a category that I have drawn attention to, may I respectfully ask what will happen to it? Is it to be destroyed, is it to be stored and if so, by whom? The question of course is in fact a general one. The Bill sheds no light on it. I am thinking specifically of paintings and sculptures. If the answer is “yes”, what happens if under a subsequent review, the prohibition on such a painting or sculpture is lifted? What happens in the way of compensation to be given to any owner if in fact the work of art has been destroyed? It may well be that in those circumstances the Bill might result in the destruction of works of art which at a later stage might be considered part of the cultural wealth of South Africa, or possibly, as an interim measure, their removal to some other country. In either of those events, I suggest it may be substantially to the detriment not only of the artist or the collector, but to South Africans in general since it will inevitably result in discouraging the creation and purchase of such works. I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether he could not give us some indication of the approach that will be adopted with regard to the potential problems which I have described.

Mr. Speaker ...

Another maiden speech?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Johannesburg North on his first speech in this House. I call to mind that I saw him for the first time in 1962. He looked very different then—he was wearing a red jersey. It was on our rugby fields that I saw him. The hon. member will find out very soon that things are not always as calm and peaceful as they have been this afternoon. I think he will find out very soon that there are far more Mannetjies Roux’s in this House than he encountered in his days on the rugby field. In any event, we want to offer him our sincere congratulations on his speech. We want to wish him the best of luck in his political career. May he continue to be able to make positive contributions and may he also make those contributions in South Africa, his new country.

Things have been relatively quiet during the past two speeches. I think we should now start to stir things up a little. When I stood up, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who has such a lot to say in this House, said: “Another maiden speech?”. I want to tell him that I do not talk as much as he does, but when I do, I have something meaningful to say.

When one reads the report of the commission of inquiry, one is immediately impressed by the thoroughness with which that commission performed its task. However, I regret to say that there is very little of substance in the minority report. When one reads the minority report, one finds nothing in it. All it really is is a flutter in the dovecote. Hence the half-hearted defence of that report from that side of the House. It was a defence which has convinced no one up to now, least of all the voters. It was not a defence which improved the image of the United Party in any way. I believe that a lot more than that will be required to improve that image, if it is at all capable of improvement.

There is an important question which the members who submitted the minority report will have to answer. In paragraph 2.1.2 of the minority report they say—

I should very much like to know from those members which specific group is being mentioned here. Is it a religious group in our country? Reference has already been made by that side of the House to the fact that we only belong to one religious denomination. Are they referring in that report to this specific religious denomination? Or to a specific language group? Or to a political group or a specific cultural group? What do the hon. members who submitted the minority report imply with these words? We should like to have a reply from them on that score.

A great deal of emphasis is placed on the freedom of the individual. This is something about which a great deal has already been said. Reference is made, inter alia, to the banner of the freedom of the individual. All of us respect the freedom of the individual; not one of us would try to interfere with it in an irresponsible way, but—and to me this is very important—there a balance must be struck between this freedom of the individual and the interests of the community. This balance must be maintained. I do not believe that anyone is so free that he can harm the community to his heart’s content. Society is not at the mercy of the whims of the freedom of the individual. Should society, then, be sacrificed for material gain if the individual is set on it? If he wants to make money out of a transaction, should society then be sacrificed for the whim of such an individual?

Every year millions of rand are spent in South Africa to build a society, to establish a happy community. However, it is not only money that is being expended. Much time and energy are also being expended on it. This is being done not only by Afrikaans-speaking people, but by English-speaking people as well. We are allies in this battle. It is being done by the Government and by religious denominations, and not only the Dutch Reformed Church, but by all denominations in this country. It is also being done by numerous charitable organizations, organizations to which not only Afrikaners, but also English-speaking people belong. We can call to mind the security of our country, our education, the tremendous task that is being performed by religious denominations to make people spiritually strong, to benefit people morally and spiritually. We find, however, that vicious attacks are being made on the human spirit. This is a formidable undermining process which is taking place. Up to now there has not been a single hon. member on that side of the House who has stated the position in those terms and condemned this undermining process. The extent of this undermining process can never be determined. I want to ask: Are these attacks not at the root of the freedom of the individual? Must the individual, any person in South Africa, be so free that he can do this work of destruction? Must democracy be stretched so far as to include this work of destruction as well? Should we close our eyes to it and simply let things take their course? No, Sir. The Government has a task in this regard and it must perform that task. This is not only a matter of military preparedness; it is not only a matter of protecting our borders. This is important, too, but hand in hand with that goes the protection of our moral values. It embraces the whole individual. It is a total action that has to be waged. That is why the legislation before us is an honest and a sincere attempt to cope with these evils.

It was stated very clearly by the hon. the Minister that the panel which will be named and from which the committees will be constituted will, far as is practicable, be representative of all facets of national life. This then answers the objection raised by the members who drew up the minority report. They said that there are many creeds, cultures and customs in South Africa. But there will not be only one particular group which will have representation on these committees. The entire community will be involved. One is grateful for a particular norm and—as an hon. member put it here this afternoon—for the fact that in this legislation we have a foundation stone, namely the constant endeavour of the South African population to uphold a Christian view of life. I read something in the minority report which tells me that those hon. members do not agree with this. Paragraph 2(1)(1) reads—

Sir, I must challenge this statement this afternoon. It is a statement that hangs in the air. South Africa is a religious country. Religion plays a vital role in respect of both language groups in this country, and in respect of our non-White peoples, too, religion plays a very important role. Sir, this statement which I find in this minority report confirms my belief that the United Party has not only lost political contact with the people of South Africa, they have also lost contact with the religious disposition of the people in South Africa; or, Sir, is it only a movement to the left on that side to regain lost ground? A part which acts in that way, which reasons like that, which makes statements like that, is doomed to extinction and has no right to exist in South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point, who is unfortunately not present at the moment, referred to this side of the House as a party and a Government which was continually saying, “Thou shalt not”. Sir, this statement is devoid of all truth. This side has created opportunities in the past and is still creating opportunities for all the inhabitants of South Africa, but, Sir, they are sound opportunities for the body and the spirit of the people. The greatest service performed by the National Party is that in the 26 years it has been in office, it has established an ordered society, a society of order and a society of discipline, and this side of the House will not allow that work to be undone. We shall fight pollution of the human spirit with all our might. Hon. members opposite can talk about “kragdadigheid”. If a party and a government are “kragdadig” here, the path that lies ahead of it will be a very prosperous one. Sir, it is not verkramptheid, as that side of the House alleges; it is duty, it is good government which is doing these things and which causes such outstanding legislation to be brought before this House.

Sir, the minority report also claims that the new system will cost too much in money and manpower, and anticipates that there will be no assurance that the new system will in fact eliminate the harm caused by undesirable publications and entertainments. I am very grateful for this admission, namely that harm is being caused. What is this harm, Sir? It is moral and spiritual harm to the people of South Africa; it is harm to our youth and to our young people. In my previous occupation I came across these people. I do not know whether hon. members opposite have ever had to deal with broken lives and have had to hold out a helping hand to people. But that is the harm, Sir, and it is irreparable harm which is caused to these people. I want to state this afternoon that one can never expend enough money and enough manpower to counteract this harm. The hon. member for Green Point proposed that this Bill be read this day six months; he wants to postpone it. Sir, it is owing to postponement that the United Party looks like it does.

What does it look like?

It looks very bad and it is going to look even worse in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. I am very sorry to see the name of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout appended to the minority report. I think that as a senior member of that party he should have provided better guidance and not indulged in political subterfuges. A man who offers himself as leader of his party ought to know that such subterfuges will not pay dividends. I want to make an appeal to all right-minded people in South Africa this afternoon for us to make a joint attempt—and hon. members are sincerely welcome to co-operate in this attempt—to halt and to destroy the filth entering the country and the filth, too, which is being dished up here in South Africa. The people of South Africa must know and they will know after this week’s discussions, that the National Party is not a killjoy, but that it is a guardian of our moral life.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after I had made my appearance in the House I called on the new Speaker, and I want to thank him sincerely for the friendly way in which he welcomed me to this House. I should also like to address a word of thanks to my colleagues in this House for their advice and counsel in connection with the business of the House and the manner in which I am to conduct myself at all times. I must mention that some of the advice that was given to me was, from the nature of the case, mischievous, and I have already incurred a considerable number of problems by following that advice. I shall always endeavour to carry out my duties here in a conscientious manner and to serve the interests of South Africa, as well as those of my constituency, to the best of my ability. Every member tries, of course, to act objectively, but we all realize that we as fallible people will not always succeed in doing that.

With regard to a matter such as the one currently before the House, it is difficult to make a maiden speech which will not be contentious, but I shall try to adhere to that tradition. In the light of the legislation now before the House, I should like to refer to violence. It is a fact that there is a marked rise in both the degree and the incidence of violence as it is depicted in films and as it appears in various publications. It is also a fact that while investigating these matters, the commission expressed its concern in this regard. Furthermore it is true that parents throughout South Africa are concerned today about the fact that violence is, to an ever-increasing extent, becoming the theme of what their children see and read. The members of this House who were members of the various provincial councils and attended the meetings of parent-teacher associations, of school boards and similar organizations, will be able to bear witness to the fact that this topic often came up for discussion. This topic causes great concern among parents, teachers, religious and other community leaders, and this concern is on the increase. It is true that children today have virtually free access to publications depicting violence. This is a consequence of the present socio-economic conditions in South Africa which result in many mothers finding that they have to go out to work in order to supplement the family income. Consequently the children are left at home, unattended, and by exchanging books with their friends and by walking to the nearest café—I will not say what kind of café—they can obtain books in which acts of violence are described.

Of course, many people argue that this does not have an effect on children. I should, however, like to make the statement that precisely because a child is susceptible to this type of thing, owing to the fact that he is very impressionable during his formative years, it is dangerous and harmful for a child to come into contact with this type of thing during those years. In South Africa, of course, there is legislation combating this sort of thing. The Customs and Excise Act of 1964 relates to books, films, etc., of this kind which are imported, but it does not relate to what is published and made in South Africa. In these books and films the degree of violence which occurs is on the increase. This, of course, is the case because authors realize that violence, like sex, is a theme which will always find a very wide reading public. They know that the greater the scope of the violence, the more gruesome, cruel and ugly it is, the more people will read it and the wider the reading public will be. The techniques which are set out in these books and films are so sophisticated today that they have a bad effect on people. Certain persons have testified in court that their actions were prompted by what they saw on the screen or read in books. There is a similarity between the techniques which are employed in practice in the commission of modern crimes and the techniques which, in theory, are described in these books or depicted in these films.

It has been stated that excessive attention is given to the portrayal of sex and sex-related matters, something which is concerned with the physical expression of love, and that the people responsible for censorship are far too tolerant when it comes to the portrayal of violence. Violence is, after all, the physical expression of hate, something which does nothing but harm, makes life unhappy and wreaks havoc in the lives of people. I feel that there are loopholes. That is quite clear, and therefore action must be taken. The minority report also calls for action to be taken. Paragraph 2.2.5 on page 52 of the report of the commission of inquiry gives expression to the views in the minority report and reads as follows—

It is because to date no research has been undertaken in this connection—if research has indeed been undertaken, it is far from adequate—that there is insufficient evidence for one to be able to judge what the connection is between the portrayal of violence on the one hand and crime based on violence on the other. In other words, at this stage it is something which is based on theory since it has not yet been proven as such. For that reason we have here a very good opportunity, a fruitful field for research. We can therefore call on universities in South Africa to set aside time and funds for reserach in this connection. Perhaps the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who spoke earlier in this debate, will pave the way for research in this connection at the university with which he was formerly associated. This is a field which has not yet been explored thoroughly and in which research can profitably be done.

I want to conclude by saying that whereas the debates on this Bill have up to now dealt mainly with all those matters relating to sex and very little attention has been given to matters relating to violence, the latter aspect should not be lost sight of. I want to make the statement that it is in fact those aspects which are far more injurious to the community than are the aspects which were mentioned earlier. I should therefore like to make an appeal to those persons who will be concerned with this matter to give attention to these aspects as well, in their deliberations, in the steps being considered and in the work which may be done in this connection in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Bryanston, who has just resumed his seat, on this maiden speech of his. He delivered a constructive speech. I am under the impression that his colleagues on that side share this view, and I trust that in the future he will make speeches of a similar standard here.

In the preamble to the Constitution of our country mention is made of our humble submission to Almighty God, who controls the destinies of South Africa and its people. This is a theme on which a colleague, my bench-mate, expatiated very fully. As a result of this Constitution it was in fact possible for us to provide that the instruction offered at schools was to have a Christian character. For that reason one is very pleased that the endeavour of the population of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian view of life will be recognized in the application of the Bill under discussion.

Over the past years in particular a stream of periodicals, films and other media have been pouring into South Africa. Some of these are aimed at undermining the morals and customs of the people. These media are not only being imported; to an increasing extent they are being created, written and produced in South Africa. Never before in history was the problem of undesirable, repulsive or pornographic publications as topical as it is at this very moment. Modern society has made technical media available for producing and distributing pornography on a gigantic scale. An unparalleled potential has been discovered, namely the commercializing of sex. The exploitation of this potential is being facilitated by the permissive spirit of the times in which we are living. Existing norms, customs and conventions are being disparaged. A new view of life has arisen, a view in which a revolutionary subculture has been created. Ostensibly the individual is now to be freed completely from the bonds of oppression of the existing convensions which are tying him down. There is no doubt about the harmful effects which pornography has on the community. It is a well-known fact that pornography has a very adverse effect on individual and communal conduct. It gives rise to anti-social patterns of conduct, deviate sexual practices and spiritual and moral blunting. One could argue, as some members opposite have been doing, and this was mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown, that the adult individual can assert his personal taste and that no institution need decide for him. But the adults do not live alone. Nor do they only live with other mature and sensible people. How many of the millions in our country can decide for themselves in this regard? Just think of the children who could enter the nearest café, a point that was made here before, or bookshop and would be able to buy any book they wished if there were no control in South Africa. Just as it is the duty of the State to care for the physical welfare of its people, so it is also its duty to care for the spiritual welfare of the people. It is the duty of the authorities to protect, even by power of compulsion, the morals of the people, which constitute the soul of the people and their subjects, just as it is their duty to protect, also by power of compulsion, the lives and the property of the inhabitants of the State and to care for the security of the people.

Although the Bill makes provision for a statutory body, the hon. member for Durban North is labouring under the misapprehension that the Government is allegedly trying to control people’s trends of thought, as though the object of the Bill is to protect the Government’s direct interests. His remark on the book-burning bonfires in the days of Nazi Germany, I reject with the contempt it deserves. For want of arguments the hon. member sometimes tries to be silly. This Bill does not protect the Government but in fact the State. That is to say, the inhabitants of the State are protected. That brings me to the point where I want to mention that it is not only the turning away of pornography that is involved, but also the prevention of the distribution of publications dangerous to the State, including communistic literature, of which wagon-loads are being deposited in Africa every day. When I say that the inhabitants of the State are being protected, it does not mean that only the Afrikaner people or the English-speaking are being protected; it also means that the Brown people and the Black people are being protected. Not only the Protestants are being protected, but also the Roman Catholics and the Jews. While this Bill is positive, it also possesses this fine, inherent balance, namely that the State is doing its duty to its people and that the community itself is a co-protector of its morals and customs.

The hon. member for Durban Central says that the public are being eliminated when norms are laid down. Sir, Parliament consists of representatives of the people. In this Bill, which will then be passed by this Parliament, the basic norms are laid down, and this is done in two ways: Firstly, by the provision that the Christian endeavour of the South African people shall be recognized in the application of the Bill, and, secondly, in the definition of the concept “undesirable”, which also contains guide-lines. It is not possible to formulate a comprehensive norm as each publication differs from the next and each of them has to be judged separately. That is nothing strange in our system of law. Our courts work with the concept of “a reasonable man” every day. If it has to be determined in the case of a motor car accident—to mention a practical example—whether or not a person is guilty, the question asked is what a reasonable man would do in these circumstances; but nowhere does one find a comprehensive set of rules on how a reasonable man would react in every conceivable circumstance, although a body examples has been built up over the years. In the application of the Bill the committees should in fact be seen as representatives of the public who will determined from case to case what is undesirable and what is not. The one fundamental difference between the arguments of this side and those of that side of the House is that we want the control to be aimed in the first instance at prevention and only in the second instance at prosecution in respect of offences. In the structure proposed by hon. members opposite very few traces, if any, of this element of prevention on the part of the State will be present. In this proposed structure of the United Party the emphasis is rather on the imposition of punishment. Let us take another practical example. Suppose a periodical with a circulation of 6 000 and an effective reader-ship of 1 50 000 were to publish material which corrupts the morals and is radically undesirable. Under the National Party’s approach, which is orientated to prevention, it would be possible to stop the article complained of before it is read by 1 50 000 people. Under the United Party’s approach the publishers of the periodical would only be called to account long after the harm had been done. It is as simple as that. This is a cardinal difference. This simple example also serves to expose the hypocrisy of the United Party. The United Party says it is in favour of control, but that is nothing but lip-service.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Control which is not effective is pointless. The United Party wants to escape from that by voting against this legislation, but by that very attitude they are consenting to a door being opened through which a stream of dubious literature will pour in. That is precisely what this legislation seeks to prevent. The United Party’s statement that the various professions and groups of artists should apply self-regulating prevention is very naïve. Let us take a look at what happened in Cape Town recently. We have Capab, which is a non-profit-making organization. Last year they produced a play by the name of Die Arme Moordenaar, and although the standard of acting ranked among the best our country could produce, I was disappointed in that I had also taken my twelve-year-old son along with me. It is the most vulgar production I have ever seen in my life. I was ashamed because this, of all things, was being presented in the Nico Malan Theatre here in Cape Town. If this is the course that can be adopted by a non-profit-making organization, what will happen in the case of a theatre group which is in fact out for making profits? What would they not do? That is what we do not want. I have every confidence that the system, as we want to introduce it now, will combat this phenomenon effectively.

The United Party should give this new dispensation of control a chance. The hon. members on that side of the House should not again advance the arguments they advanced in this House on so many previous occasions. Amongst other things they, more specifically the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, threw suspicion on persons who are yet to be appointed under this new dispensation. They want to kill the baby before it is born. I want to ask those people who are distributing in South Africa the literature to which I referred and those who are sending publications out into the country and who, in doing so, only succeed in be-devilling relations among peoples, to stop doing so. They are playing with fire and do not know what they are doing. What kind of legacy do we—and this is also directed at the United Party and the other opposition on that side—want to leave our children? I want to put this question to those people to whom I have referred, those who are acting that way for the sake of profit-making and for dark purposes: Do you not have children, too?

Sir, the hon. member for De Aar has come here this afternoon with so many contradictions that I find it difficult to know where to begin to reply. He starts off by referring to clause 1 of this Bill, a clause which we on the commission opposed. We tried to prevail upon the other members of the commission, the majority of the commission, to leave it out because it had no place in this Bill. I want to ask the hon. member for De Aar whether he would support us when we move an amendment to clause 1. We will move an amendment to add the following words: “with due observance of an individual’s freedom of conscience and religion”. I want him to tell me now whether he accepts that.

*If the hon. member wants me to repeat it in Afrikaans ...

I understand English.

Are you prepared to accept it and will you support us?

†There is the test, Sir, of the attitude of this Government when they put a clause like this into the Bill. As soon as we ask them to accept the freedom of the individual and his choice of religion they run away from it.

It is contained in the Constitution.

They cannot ask us to accept such a clause. The hon. member talks about our children who can go to any corner café and find pornography displayed for them to which they have free access.

I said “if there is no control”.

No, Sir.

Yes, I did.

You said “if there is no control”, but there is already control under this Nationalist Government today. And what do we get today, Mr. Speaker?

Why did you not lodge a complaint about it?

It is under State control.

†Mr. Speaker we had a report in the Sunday Times last Sunday on the shocking comics which have come into the country. I had the experience of seeing one some time ago that I would put into the same category as these. They are here now, under State control. In these comics we find weird, eerie, witches’ tales, tales from the tomb, tales of voodooism and I believe that they depict the most savage bloodletting, maiming, deformed human beings and half-naked women being ripped to pieces. All these things are being sold to our children.

That is why we want to change the Act.

This is happening under this Nationalist Government. [Interjections.] What is the position as far as control is concerned? There is an hon. member of the commission over there who is making a noise at the moment; he knows and heard the evidence which was given to the commission by reputable book importers’ firms and publishers who said that they would like the power to control this and the majority would not give it to them.

May I ask a question?

No, Sir, I have only half an hour and I have much still to say.

You know, after all that a complaint must be lodged under the present system, but no complaint has been lodged.

This is all very well. The hon. member states that a complaint has not been made. This is correct, but does the present Bill not also provide for complaints to be made? Does the present Bill provide for the examination of every publication? No, every publication will not be examined. It is exactly the same thing, except for the corps of “super snoopers” which they are going to introduce. Except for this there is no difference, because there must still be complaints and requests for something to be examined. The other difference is that he now allows his left and his right hand, the members of the directorate, to take the initiative, which they have not been allowed to take up till now.

Are we going to have the directorate, four or five people, running around into all the corner cafés and looking for these things as well? No, Sir, I am afraid that that will not happen. I want to say here and now that I stand fully behind the minority report which I signed. If that minority report had been adopted, what has now taken place in the Republic would never have happened. We have had these terrible and shocking publications imported from the United States of America and this would not have happened if we had had a body, a voluntary body of the importers and distributors of books, controlling their own industry. This then would not have happened.

I want to go further. The hon. member for De Aar refers to the test which is applied when matters come before the court and which must be applied by the committees and by the board in terms of this Bill. This is the test of a reasonable man. I want to say that this is exactly the norm that we have applied. We are at least ad idem on this point and that is that we apply the norm of the average man, a reasonable man. I was horrified to hear that hon. member telling me that he was shocked by the play Die Arme Moordenaar. This is the whole crux of our opposition to this Bill which is at present before this House. If the norm of that hon. member is going to be applied, we will not even be able to see Die Arme Moordenaar. We will not even see that.

Did you (“jy”) see it?

Yes, I saw it and I enjoyed it, too.

Order! Hon. members must not use the forms of address “jy” and “jou” across the floor of the House.

I was not shocked at that play, Sir; I thought it was very, very good. This is the whole crux of our opposition to this Bill. We are going to have this hon. Minister appointing people to committees and upon the decision of those people will rest what we will be able to read, what we will be able to see and what we will be able to enjoy. If we have people with the norms of the hon. member for De Aar on that committee—and I believe that the hon. the Minister is fully capable of appointing those kind of people, people with those norms—then this is where we are going to end up. If one looks at clause 4 of the Bill one finds that our whole future, the whole future of what we will see, what we will be able to read and what we will enjoy in this country will depend on the decision of two people.

We are going to have a committee appointed from a panel of names compiled by the hon. the Minister, and that committee will comprise not less than three people. Therefore, when the hon. the Minister talks about 50 or 60 committees throughout the Republic I just wonder whether he will be able to find enough people with that sort of attitude to man those 50 or 60 committees. A majority decision of those three people will be sufficient to decide whether we may read a book, whether we will be allowed to look at a reproduction of Michelangelo’s statue of David or whether we can enjoy a good play or a film. This will depend on the whims of two people only. That is what the test is going to be—the opinion of two people, two people who have virtually no guide-lines. No guide-lines have been laid down. No norms have been set. That is what this hon. Minister is asking us to subject ourselves to in terms of this Bill before us today.

Let us go further. There is not even any guarantee in this Bill that those two people who are going to decide our future for us in this regard are going to be representative, fully representative of all the communities, all the viewpoints, the attitudes of the people of South Africa. There is no guarantee at all. The hon. member for De Aar suggested that they should be representative of all the people and he mentioned Protestants and Catholics, Christians and Jews. Why did he not mention Whites and non-Whites? What about the Coloured people? What about the Indian people? What about the African people? There is no provision here for them to be represented on those committees. There is the following provision that appears in the majority report: If the committee feels that there is something which should be considered in the light of the attitude of certain of the non-White people, they can call in an expert.

I ask the hon. the Minister: How is his majority of two going to decide when they look at a book whether it is going to be read by Black people or by Indians or by Coloureds, and how does that committee of three decide whether or not the publication or object is undesirable? They might regard as desirable what we consider to be undesirable. I would like the hon. the Minister to give some thought to this point and I would like a reply from him when he replies to this debate. Has the hon. the Minister given consideration to the thought that these committees, or at least the panel of these committees, should be multi-racial? Because, Sir, we are now deciding for all the people of South Africa. These committees are not only going to decide for the Whites; they are going to decide for all the people.

The hon. the Minister has accepted a recommendation of the majority of the members of the commission that an advisory committee of Indians should be established in one case, and an advisory committee of Coloureds in another case to advise the committees regarding films. Why the limitation to films? Surely, Sir, these people should have a say in the application of the whole of this measure and not only with regard to films. I want to put it to him, too, Sir, that I do not believe that they should act only in an advisory capacity. Sir, we will move amendments to rectify these matters during the Committee Stage. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give due consideration to these amendments, that he will realize the fairness of what we are moving and that he will accept them.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that clause 8 of the Bill contains one of the most iniquitous provisions in what is a very, very wicked Bill.

Are you serious?

I am deadly serious. The hon. member for Piketberg must know this. I am wondering whether he has read the Bill and, if he has read the Bill, whether he has understood its full implications, particularly the implications of the provisions of clause 8. I want today, Sir, to take this House on a journey which I believe our Minister could be subjected to if this Bill is passed in its present form—an experience he will have to undergo. I believe that a little while ago he participated in and contributed towards a documentary entitled Land Apart.

I did not take part in it.

The hon. the Minister contributed towards it?

No.

Then, Sir, I am afraid I have been ill-informed, but let us assume for the sake of argument that the hon. the Minister had contributed to the making of this documentary, Land Apart. After it had been made it was declared undesirable by the present board. In terms of the Bill all the decisions of the present board are now carried forward, although I must admit that in terms of the new provisions they are subject to review after two years. That documentary having been declared undesirable, the hon. the Minister would then be liable to prosecution in terms of clause 8(l)(a), which provides that no person shall produce an undesirable publication or object. If he had contributed, he would have been part of the production of that documentary, and he would then become subject to criminal sanctions because clause 8(5) reads—

Sir, in exactly the same way as the artist who tomorrow paints a picture of a nude or any other thing, which a majority of two on a committee may decide is undesirable, will lay himself open to prosecution, so would the hon. the Minister, if he had contributed to this documentary. What does this mean? It means that today every artist, every author, every publisher, produces at his peril because he does not know what decision will be made by those two people on the committee, and when the decision is made he is subject to criminal sanctions and a maximum fine, for a first offence, of R500 or imprisonment for six months. This applies to every artist, every author and every publisher in this country, so it is a case today of “publish at your peril”; two people will decide whether or not you have committed an offence.

But let us look further into this clause. Then the hon. member for Piketberg will know why I say this is a wicked Bill. There is a provision in it to the effect that once that committee has made a decision, the mere production of a certificate to the effect that the committee has decided that it is undesirable shall be accepted by the court in the case of a prosecution as prima facie proof that the thing in fact is undesirable. The accused has no defence, Sir. The hon. the Minister, if he had made that contribution, would have no defence at all, because two people would already have decided his fate. He would be found guilty.

Now, let us hear some more about this wicked Bill which was introduced by this Minister with such sanctimonious platitudes and in such a way as to say that all he is interested in is the welfare of the people of South Africa. And then this is what he produces! Let us go back to the position of the artist who produces a painting which this committee with a majority of two decides is undesirable. That artist says he does not agree. Well, let us go back further; let us go back to the decision by the committee. When the artist finds out that his painting has been submitted to the committee for consideration, that artist is precluded from making any representations to the committee. He cannot go to the committee and say: This is a work of art and for this or that reason I believe it is not undesirable. Similarly, the author of a book has no right to go to the committee and to make representations. I know the hon. the Minister is going to say, yes, but he has the right of appeal. He has the right of appeal, but it is the right to appeal to an appeal board, a board established by that hon. Minister, every member of whom is dependent upon that Minister’s favour for his continuation in that particular job. Let us see what will happen when the artist goes before that appeal board. You know, Sir, he can make written representations but that is all. He can be present and his legal representative can be present, but they may not adduce any evidence at all. What sort of appeal board is this, before which a case cannot even be argued, and yet we have all those lawyers opposite and all those ex-dominees defending this body! And then the hon. member for Piketberg asked me why I called it a wicked Bill! Sir, this is the position. Does the hon. the Minister disagree with my interpretation?

Of course I disagree. They can hand in as much written evidence as they like.

Yes, exactly, printed evidence. What is the good of printed evidence?

What happens in the Appeal Court?

Is this a court where there can be no oral evidence and no cross-examination of a witness, and where there can be no presentation of witnesses to express themselves? What sort of appeal is this? What sort of court is it that has this sort of thing? No, I am sorry.

It is a Connie court.

What has happened to the rule of audi alteram partem? What has the Minister done with that? That is a well-established rule of law.

But it goes further than this. I have only dealt with the question of a publication or a work of art or something like that, but what about a play, a production? If you look at clause 31, Sir, you will find that if a Committee has prohibited the giving of any public entertainment or has imposed any condition in respect of it, only the person who is in charge of that entertainment may lodge an appeal. Why does the Minister limit it to the person who is in charge? What about the playwright or the producer? In fact, I want to ask the Minister how he decides who is in charge of it. What exactly does he mean by the person in charge? I believe it is absolutely ridiculous to go about it that way.

I want to come to another aspect. I want to come back to clause 8 of the Bill wherein provision is made that exemption may be given to people, on application, from all the provisions or certain provisions of the Bill. We in this House are being asked to give certain powers to certain people who will constitute a directorate, committees and an appeal board. When this Bill is passed, it will create the directorate, the committees and the appeal board and we will lose control over what is happening. We will no longer have control over the workings, the machinations of these particular bodies, but at least we will be able to tackle the hon. the Minister during the discussion of his Vote and to ask him questions, as always happens. However, it is going to be very difficult for us to do that, because we, as members of Parliament, we in this highest body of authority in the Republic of South Africa, will not have any idea what these people are doing because even we are prohibited from seeing the works which have been banned, which have been declared undesirable and which have possibly been hidden away in some dark corner as a result of the decision of a committee and the appeal board.

A blank cheque.

We are, in fact, being asked to give to these people a blank cheque. I believe it is in the interest of Parliament, in the interest of members of this House on all sides, that we should have access to the committees, the directorate and the appeal board and that we should be advised and be able to ascertain exactly what they are doing, what decisions they have taken, for what reasons and on what grounds. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously an amendment somewhere, possibly in clause 8, to provide that copies of banned objects and publications that are declared undesirable should be made available to members here in this place. I submit that they could be made available to the library where they could be kept under certain controls, but at least members of this House who are interested in the workings of this organization should be able to decide for themselves whether or not the intention of Parliament is, in fact, being carried out.

While I am talking about exemptions, I also believe that the hon. the Minister should consider the granting of a specific blanket exemption to the libraries of our universities. During the hearings of the commission we had evidence to the effect that many of the degrees which students in South Africa were obtaining were getting to the stage where overseas universities were considering them only of second-class value. This happened because our students obtained their degrees with only having had access to and only having had the opportunity of studying half of the literature which was available and half of the technical, scientific or professional material which was available in the rest of the world because of the provisions we have here. I know that there is provision for the granting of exemption in this regard.

You should know better than that.

I know that there is provision that the library of a university can apply for an exemption, but such a library has to apply for an exemption in respect of each book or publication. The hon. the Minister nods his head and therefore my interpretation in this case is correct. In every instance a library of a university must make an application if they want a particular book. I do not believe that it is beyond the wits of us here in this House to devise an amendment to this Bill to make adequate provision in this regard. Let me put it this way to the hon. the Minister: Would it be unreasonable to allow the directorate to grant to a university library a blanket exemption to possess books of technical, scientific or professional nature? I am not interested in the banned pornography. We do not want that in the libraries and I do not think the university libraries want them there either. I believe that books of a scientific nature could be present in those libraries under control. If necessary, let us make it subject to a decision by the Committee of University Principals. That is a statutory body established by the Government.

What kind of books do you have in mind?

Let me quote to the hon. the Minister from page 67 of the commission’s report. Para. 11.3 of the minority report, I think, epitomizes what I am trying to say to the hon. the Minister:

Included in that list, of course, are also the writings of banned persons. At this stage I would be out of order if I were to plead for the derestriction of the people who have been restricted, but I want to put it this way to the hon. the Minister: I believe there are some of those writings which are totally innocuous, but our students in this country are not allowed access to them simply because those people have been banned and not because there is anything wrong with their writings. That is why I believe that this hon. Minister should consider what I have just put to him. Is it unreasonable to expect that the directorate should be able to allow a university library, under the control of the Committee of University Principals, to have books of a scientific, technical and a professional nature? As I have said, I do not want pornography in those libraries, not for one moment. I want to say that there is already a precedent for this in clause 8(2)(b)(iii) of the Bill where the Minister does allow this provided these articles are published in books of a technical nature.

I think we are coming to the end of this debate. It is not quite the end as we still have a few more cards up our sleeves and we are not going to let the Minister off the hook quite so soon. But I think he has heard enough in the last three days to realize that we are implacably opposed to this system which he is trying to introduce. We made it clear in our minority report, and speakers on this side of the House have done the same, that we are not in favour of the free distribution of pornographic, seditious or damaging material in any way. But we believe that this monster which the hon. the Minister is now creating is not going to work. The way it is designed to work in this Bill is going to be harmful to the people of South Africa and it is for that reason that I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who has just sat down gives me the impression of someone who has not really applied his mind to this Bill in putting his case here. He tried to paint weird pictures of what the intention of this Bill is. He spoke about weird comics, but his speech is rather weird. I am rather sorry that the hon. member got away with accusing the hon. the Minister of being sanctimonious in introducing this Bill, because the hon. member should know that that is unparliamentary.

Why did you not object?

I did. One of the first matters he objected to was the very first clause of the Bill, the clause which states that in the application of this Act the constant endeavour of the population of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian view of life shall be recognized. Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to say so, sanctimoniously he says that they will introduce an amendment to allow for the freedom of conscience of individuals. That proposed amendment would be absolutely meaningless, because this Bill does not clamp down on anybody’s thoughts. It acts as a sieve to keep out the worst material, undesirable material from this country. He should know that there is no religion in this country which, in its positive aspects, seeks to undermine another religion. If he knows this, how can he believe that this clause is contrary to people’s freedom of conscience? Whether a person is a Hindu, Mohammedan, Jew, Christian, Protestant or Catholic, the provisions of this Bill do not undermine his freedom of conscience.

Will you accept my amendment?

This amendment is completely superfluous; it is meaningless; in fact, if it were introduced it would be nothing but sanctimonious drivel.

So the freedom of the individual is sanctimonious drivel?

It is not that the freedom of the individual is sanctimonious drivel, but trying to introduce such an amendment to this clause is a red herring and as such is sanctimonious drivel. This clause does not and cannot under any circumstances impinge upon people’s freedom of conscience. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South should be fully aware of this fact. To salve the conscience of those who are pretty pink I would like to quote from the Longford’s report ...

Whom are you referring to?

I did not refer to any individual.

Order! Did the hon. member refer to any members in this House?

No, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote, on this question of the Christian attitude, from the Longford report, from a contribution by a person who is rather well known in South Africa, the Rt. Rev. Trevor Huddleston. On the dignity of man he says the following—