Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was busy quoting from the Longford Report from a contribution by the well-known arch apostle of Liberalism, the Rt. Rev. Trevor Huddleston and what he had said about pornography and the way it affected the dignity of man. I was quoting when the House adjourned and I shall continue the quote. He said—

Here he has a lesson for those who are as liberally inclined as he is. He continued—

He describes pornography as the “trivialization, commercialization or exploitation of human sexuality”. It is not only the Rt. Rev. Trevor Huddleston who had a contribution to make on this. The question has been posed by the Opposition whether it can be regarded as advisable to include this first clause, on the Christian way of life, as the foundation in this Bill. I wish to quote from another person who contributed to the Longford Report on the Christian aspect. He said “while Britain is not a Christian country in the sense that the majority of the population are practising Christians, it has not yet adopted any other system of morals in place of Christianity. The only other philosophy in this country with a substantial following and claiming a comprehensive way of life is Marxism” (that is in Britain). “Communists are so far a smaller minority than Christians.” If we take note of this as a possible argument in our instance, it is true that not all the peoples of South Africa are Christians.

But we as legislators have accepted the Christian foundation to be the way of life in South Africa. We as legislators have a task to fulfil in this respect and that is to give a Christian foundation to such legislation which deals with the moral norms of the country or the control of that, which goes beyond what we regard as, acceptable moral norms. We must give this legislation a foundation based on general Christian norms and principles. It is therefore important to note that this is not an imposition of the Christian way of life on everyone but that it lays the foundation for a way of life for the people of South Africa. I wish to repeat that this does not in any way interfere with the religious views or the freedom of conscience of any other group of people in this country. I wish to quote from clause 47(2)(b) which deals with this specific issue in so far as it affects adherence to other religions—

In other words, there is no need whatever, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South indicated, to try to create the impression that clause 1 impinges upon the freedom of thought or the freedom of religion of any other group of people who might not call themselves Christians. Sir, this clause 47(2)(b) provides completely for any possible hurt ...

Why do you need clause 1 then?

We want clause 1, but the Opposition feel that it is not necessary. They feel that it may offend against their religious views.

Sir, I think it was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, as well as other hon. members of the Opposition, who said that this Bill was iniquitous; that this Bill was uncalled for. To say the very least, their attitude is iniquitous. They are trying to create the impression that this Government seeks to place the arts, literature, etc., in a straitjacket of monotony.

The only clause that is necessary is clause 52.

They try to create the impression that there is to be a suppression of freedom of thought or, worse still, that the heritage of the Énglish-speaking person, his thoughts and his cultural activities are being rigorously suppressed.

Nobody said that. That is your own thought.

Sir, I quote from the Hansard report of what the hon. member for Durban North said; these are the very words he used. And then, Sir, he had the temerity to say—I quote again—

Mr. Speaker, this book was never banned, and I challenge the hon. member for Durban North, or the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, or any other member of the Opposition, to bring evidence that this book “Black Beauty” was ever banned. I think what might have happened is this; I think this is probably a classical joke which is published in the Press in an effort to denigrate the Publications Control Board. What might have happened is that at the customs office, where only the titles of the books are perused in the first instance, a provisional embargo might have been placed on this book as something to be looked into afterwards. But there is no question that that book was ever banned. For the hon. member for Durban North to try to create the impression that it is the intention of this side of the House, the Government, to try to put the thoughts of the English-speaking section in this country in a straitjacket, comes very close to an infringement of clause 47(2)(c), because in doing so the hon. member is trying to bring a section of the inhabitants of the Republic into ridicule and contempt.

Mr. Speaker, this sort of argument comes from people who have no argument, from people who have such weak and illogical arguments that they must try to create the impression that this Government is trying to interfere with the way of life and to suppress the thoughts of English-speaking people. Sir, this kind of attitude adopted by the Opposition is an inescapable indication that rigor mortis has set in amongst the former trend-setters of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, in the minority report, at page 61, in section 4(4), the minority says—

In other words, they agree that there is an increase in the entry into this country of pernicious material and that it should be combated, but what is their attitude? Instead of accepting responsibility as colegislators and doing what they feel is necessary, they shrug off all responsibility.

That is not true. Read the rest of the paragraph.

They say: “It is not for us to take any control measures.” They are like people who would say that smallpox is a pernicious disease but that vaccination is not the answer; that you must define the exact symptoms and if they should occur, you should let the doctors—or in this case, the courts—prescribe the correct treatment. In other words, they do not want preventive steps to be taken in the initial stages. They say: “Let the crime be committed first,” or else they say: “Let there be voluntary control by the various organizations.”

Why do you not read the rest of the paragraph? You have not got the courage to read it.

Sir, I have explained what their attitude is; I will now continue to read from the minority report.

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South must withdraw the words, “You have not got the courage”.

I withdraw them. Will he now continue to read the paragraph?

Sir, they continue to say that their second line of defence “relies on our conviction that the great majority of artists, authors, producers, publishers and distributors are eager to maintain proper ethical standards and wish to do so within the law”. That is their conviction.

Do you not agree with that?

I agree with that wholeheartedly. In fact, I would say that all members of this House agree with that wholeheartedly. But, Sir, if this were to be our attitude in all respects, then it would virtually not be necessary to introduce any type of control in any legislation whatsoever, because most people in all walks of life in everything in respect of which legislation is passed in this Parliament, are eager to maintain proper, ethical, decent, human standards. Sir, if that were correct as the basis for the action of legislators, it would mean that it would be superfluous for the United States to adopt legislation to make race discrimination illegal, because if all the people or the vast majority of people regarded race discrimination as evil they would not practise race discrimination. All legislation, all control, that is instituted anywhere is always instituted to control the minority who are not prepared voluntarily to heed pleas for logicality and co-operation. Hon. members opposite who represented the United Party on the commission should know very well that evidence was led to the effect that in the United States attempts were made to bring about voluntary control in the film industry on ethical standards and that the majority of the producers voluntarily accepted these standards and abided by them but the minority refused to accept them. This revealed the flaw in the whole system of voluntary control. Sir, hon. members opposite say that they want voluntary control. If they instituted voluntary control and then tried to bring the minority to heel to accept control imposed by the majority, then they would require exactly the same sort of legislation, which would be there to control the minority, to control those who do not want to co-operate voluntarily, so the argument on the desirability of voluntary control is absolutely without foundation. This type of attitude on the part of the Opposition, saying that they realize that there is a need for control but that the method of control should be voluntary, is nothing but a further example of their abdication of all responsibility. They are not willing to give offence to anyone, especially not to the vocal minority, by saying that they are prepared to lay down certain ethical standards and certain norms by which they will abide.

In this Bill there are three fundamental changes to the previous Bill. The first is that the whole structure of control is being revised and improved. The hon. member for Green Point said that the existing Act was preferable to these measures. Sir, obviously he was not on the commission, nor did he study the report of the majority or of the minority.

I read every word of it.

Then the hon. member must have read it with closed eyes because the very weakness of the previous system was inherent in the system as such, where committees had to do the work and make a report to the control board, which then had to take a decision without itself necessarily having made a detailed study of the films that were viewed or the books that were read. Therein lay the very weakness of the system. By the system proposed in this Bill those people who view the films in the first instance, or read the books or who are burdened with the task of viewing a particular production, of whatever kind, are the people who have to take the first decision.

What is more important, and this was not in the previous legislation, when the committee now takes a decision it must state its full reasons for taking it. Previously a decision was given without reasons being given. If the person affected thereby, if his magazine was banned or his film was ordered to be cut or banned, wanted information he could not just go and get it. Now, for every decision taken, there must be a full and detailed exposition of the reasons for the decision.

The second aspect is that we have separated the administrative control from the function of decision-taking, and the appeal board which has been set up constitutes the third aspect of the change. Another aspect of the complete change is in dealing with the film industry, with the cinema, films imported into this country or produced here. On the aspect relating to appeals, I think it is necessary once again just to quote what one of the judges said in his evidence.

*I quote from the evidence of Mr. Justice J. F. Marais. He said (translation)—

He did not talk about a judge (translation)—

This was the suggestion of Mr. Justice Marais, and he was not speaking there as a judge only; he was a witness on behalf of the S.A. Association of Arts. In other words, he was someone whose direct interests were in the arts in South Africa. He made exactly the same suggestion as that which was later accepted by the commission, namely that a senior advocate or even a magistrate should act as chairman. Such a person, then, would also be able to act independently. Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked who was to appoint him. This hon. member felt that such a person should not be appointed by the Government. The judge then said (translation)—

This body of appeal, for which provision is being made in the Bill, is just as independent as was suggested here by Mr. Justice Marais. A senior jurist with at least ten years’ experience is appointed as permanent chairman. Another senior jurist, also with the same experience, is appointed as vice-chairman so that he may act as chairman when the chairman is not present. The chairman is appointed for a fixed period of five years, which gives him every guarantee for independent action. Then assessors are appointed, and this, too, is in complete agreement with the very suggestion of Mr. Justice Marais. These assessors, who will be experts in the field of art or literature, can then also be of assistance in this regard.

What is important is that this legislation is not a watertight measure with which to apply control. It is not a measure that will please everyone in every aspect. Obviously we are living in a time of changing norms. There were times, years ago, as the hon. member for Yeoville said on another occasion, when our forefathers crawled around in skins. What the norms were at that time I do not know, but obviously we accept the norms change from time to time. Therefore, there cannot be a static legal provision that certain things should not be accepted. (Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of following the hon. member in the highly personal points he was making across the floor of this House. I have listened with some interest to the hon. member for Klip River and to other hon. members on the other side of the House. There has been a lot of rhetoric and there have been many generalitites, but somehow or other there has been a lack of real cogent argument. It is almost as if, by accident or by design, hon. members on the other side of the House are missing or evading the key point in this debate. The hon. member who has just sat down was involved in a philosophical discourse. We enjoyed a homily on Liberalism. We had attacks on the Opposition. He came a little bit closer to the point when he and other members asserted that this legislation was an attempt to lay down standards. But this is the one thing that it is not. No standards are being laid down. What this Bill does do is to determine areas in which standards may be laid down, but it does not lay down the standards. It is on this cardinal issue as to who is going to lay down the standards—whether it is going to be an independent court of South Africa or whether it is going to be an appointee of the Minister—that the essence of this debate hinges.

But who appoints the judges?

I think the hon. member is fully aware of the procedure which is involved and I will deal with it in due course, viz. the vulnerability of the chairman of the appeal board to political pressures as opposed to the independent situation in which judges find themselves.

One has heard much in this debate, which has now run for some time, about the determination of members on the other side of the House to protect the morals of South Africans from corruption, but one has heard very little why the detailed procedures, even laid down under the existing legislation, are inadequate to achieve this. One has heard a great deal about the increase of pornography and obscenity in places like Denmark and Holland, but one has not really heard substantial evidence of existing legislation not being able to deal with any increased volume of pornography and obscenity in South Africa. There have been allegations of a fundamental difference of approach between hon. members on that side of the House and hon. members in these benches. Of course there is no fundamental difference in approach in attidues towards pornography, obscenity or subversion. No one in this House and no responsible person outside this House would have suggested that South Africa should be subjected to a deluge of these three things either from outside or developing within South Africa. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the hon. the Minister and his colleagues on that side of the House and those of us who are in these benches. It does not lie with the question of pornography, obscenity or subversion as such, but lies in the manner in which one should deal with these issues. It lies in the role of the Government in this whole matter and in the style of government which is being followed in South Africa. We in these benches believe that social and moral dangers, of whatever kind they may be, are best combated by strengthening the moral fibre of the whole community. We believe that we should strengthen the society’s belief in social norms but these dangers are not best combated by increasing the authority of the State. In fact, I believe that this Bill if put into effect will tend to weaken rather than strengthen moral and social norms in South Africa. It will try to regulate society not by strengthening an inner core of morality, but by merely limiting society by an outer ring of arbitrary restrictions. I believe that this, when applied, will tend to weaken self-discipline, because it will remove the need for voluntary restraint as it will not require individuals to assess their behaviour against the moral code. Indeed, behaviour will tend to degenerate away from a commitment to a moral code to a very simple, almost base assessment of, is this within the law? That will become the test of morals, not morality as such, but it is within the law. To an increasing extent citizens are not going to use their own judgment as to what is moral or immoral. They will merely rely on the formal dictates of the Government. Then society’s code of behaviour will to an increasing extent merely become a set of rigid prescribed rules interpreted for the individual in society by a small coterie of political appointees, acting outside the jurisdiction of the courts, and imposed on society by a vast army of snoopers and bureaucrats. This is the sum total of the effects of the change which is to take place.

The second fundamental difference is that of the role of the Government. We on these benches believe that there should be the minimum amount of direct Government control, consistent with the welfare of the society as a whole. This approach we believe is even more important when we start intruding into a very delicate, but very important fundamental field of human freedom, viz. the freedom of expression. Because we are acting, in terms of this legislation, not only to control a situation which exists, but we are trying to interfere with the whole dynamic of a changing society. Sir, this measure clearly goes far beyond dealing with pornography and obscenity. The definition of “undesirable” is so wide that it will give to a small coterie of political appointees, acting as I have indicated, beyond the control of the courts but under the direction of the Minister, the power not only to control pornography, obscenity and subversion, but also to control ideas, thought and even political expression. Government members will say that this mechanism will be in the hands of responsible people, but one only has to look around this House to realize how different is the individual assessment of people towards responsibility. Each of us has different attitudes in this connection. One only has to realize how rapidly one changes one’s assessment of other people’s responsibility. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister of the Interior only a few years ago would have thought of a former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Albert Hertzog, as a man who was the epitome of responsibility. I am quite sure that when he was charged with that office, this was the view. What is the view of the then hon. Minister now? The point is that the assessment of other people’s sense of responsibility changes. It is for these reasons that I do not believe that this House should hand over the control of freedom of expression in South Africa to any individual or to any group of people, no matter how responsible, who can act arbitrarily, secretly and outside of the surveillance of the court. I believe this is fundamental to good government in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the third area of fundamental difference between those of us on these benches and the members on the other side is just in the whole style of government. I do not know what it is about this Government. Indeed, I do not know what it is about the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether it reflects a basic insecurity on his part, or whether it gives him a sense of satisfaction to wield power. This Government never appears to be satisfied unless its decisions are bolstered by an army of bureaucrats and restrictive laws. It is always an over-government; it is always an over-play of the hand. It is never a balanced assessment between the under-play and the over-play. This is also the nature of this legislation, to create this new vast army of bureaucrats and to leave the door wide open for the abuse of executive power.

I suspect that hon. members on the other side of the House have been tending to evade the real issue, the real reason why this Bill is being introduced. I believe it is plainly and simply because the hon. the Minister and his Government want to get rid of the jurisdiction of the courts, of the independent, impartial judiciary in matters of censorship. This is a major feature of the changes proposed in this Bill. I grant that there are also changes in administrative procedures, but the crux of this Bill, compared with the old Act, is that the old one operated under the surveillance of the courts, whereas this one stands outside of it. In general, this Government has been showing a most disturbing impatience with the courts of South Africa in recent years. The hon. the Minister appears to be petulant and angry every time the courts of South Africa have upset a subjective decision of his Publications Control Board. There appears on the part of this Government to be a consistent attempt—it is like a thread running through their administration—to try to intrude on the area of authority of the courts of South Africa. If ever there was an area where the courts would especially be suited to play a critical role, then it is in an area like this which, as I say, is sensitive and delicate and yet basic. It is the area of interference with or the limitation of freedom of expression. This is the area in which we are moving and which we are debating. Because of this there is always a very necessary balance—on the one hand there is the need to protect society from the onslaughts on its moral standards and the threat to its security, and on the other hand, to protect individual citizens against the invasion of their privacy and their freedom by agents of the State. This is the essential balance within society; this is the difference between a good and a bad Government in any country, and this is where the courts have traditionally played and should always play a very critical role. As I have said, we are dealing with this delicate subject of the invasion of the ordinary freedom of expression, and any Government should be concerned when it moves into this field. Not only that, we are also dealing with another very delicate balance, i.e. the need for a careful interpretation of social and moral norms. This is not an interpretation given under political influence, under political pressure or under the pressure of the Executive but a decision made by impartial people against the background of the whole of society with its norms, its attitudes and its diversity. I believe that this Bill is in effect a direct attack on the authority of the courts of South Africa. I believe that it will be seen as a classic example of the Executive invading a field which should be that of the judiciary.

I do not believe that this Bill is going to iron out or eliminate any of the administrative problems which, as have been indicated, exist under the present set up. I suggest that if the hon. the Minister is still in office in five years’ time he will come back to this House for further and further amendments in order to make this measure work more effectively from his point of view but more restrictively from the point of view of the people of South Africa.

It will probably come next year.

Yes. Long before there was talk of increased pornography in South Africa there was every evidence that what irked this Government was that the courts of South Africa, playing a traditional judicial independent role, fell foul of this Government because it did not like an impartial point of view or an impartial attitude towards the issue of censorship and public morality. We can go right back to 1969 when Mr. S. L. Muller—now the Minister of Transport, then the Minister of the Interior—referring to the successful appeal by the publishers of “The Book of Life” against the banning of a magazine series by the Publications Board, said on 4 September 1969:

In 1972, when another case was lost we had the hon. the Minister saying:

“Dit het ontevredenheid geskep”, because there was a court supervising. Is indeed the case that whenever this Government loses a case it suggests its “ontevredenheid” and suggests that the court has no role to play? Time and time again if you go through the statements made by the hon. the Minister you will find that it was in fact that because the courts played their correct role in interpreting the existing Act. For this reason this Government has decided that it would have to get rid of the courts as a factor. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that what has happened under this Bill is that the courts will effectively be eliminated in terms of their supervisory role and of their role of interpreting the norms against the background of the whole of society. The hon. the Minister is now introducing the appeal board. I want to chat to the hon. the Minister about this because I think he will agree that the appeal board now occupies a key position in the whole operation of this Bill. In spite of the changes, I am going to assume that the hon. the Minister still wants justice to be done. Am I correct? I believe that he would want justice to be done even under the provisions of this Bill. In these circumstances, perhaps the hon. the Minister will agree that the appeal board, especially its chairman, should be men who will adopt a judicial approach. I think there is a reference to a judicial appointment or judicial training. I put it to the hon. the Minister: Does he wish the board to adopt a judicial approach or not?

Yes, of course.

He says “Yes, of course”. All I can refer him to is the statement he made only three or four months ago. Speaking at a political meeting he said the Government had decided to introduce new legislation to control the Publications Control Board in such a way that people who were best equipped to judge moral issues, would have the last say in judging them. The hon. the Minister went on to say:

If this is so wrong ...

That is why we have assessors on this board as well. Do you not know that?

If this is so wrong and if this is the reason why the Act has to be changed, why then does the hon. the Minister introduce judicial training as one of the qualifications required by the chairman of this board?

You have no argument.

I contend that this appeal board, whatever it may be—as the executive arm for government or as a rubberstamp for the Minister—it is no substitute for an independent court of law.

Let us look at the composition of this board. Will the people involved in this board have the necessary training? Do they have the necessary experience? Do they have the qualifications comparable with the courts? The answer is “no” on each count. The chairman must have some legal knowledge, but there is a difference between legal knowledge and the ability to apply ones mind in a judicial way. Not only need the chairman not have any judicial training, but the members of his board need only have educational qualifications. In addition, if he does not like anyone of the five members on the panel appointed by the State President, he can go outside of that and appoint anyone he deems fit to occupy this office. In this way one could have a board of people with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever other than that the chairman likes them and feels that they will be fit members for the board.

Secondly, who appoints the judges? The hon. member for Turffontein raised this point. The important thing about a judge in exercising a detached, dispassionate approach to his office, is that he has security of tenure of office. He is not subject to the ordinary pressures to which a member of this appeal board will be subject. The hon. the Minister will appoint a member to the appeal board and, after five years, it will be his prerogative to appoint that man again. Not only that, but it is his prerogative as Minister also to draw up regulations detailing the terms of service of each of the members of the appeal board. In other words, the members of the appeal board will have absolutely no independent stature. They will be committed. They can be sacked or removed by the hon. the Minister.

Thirdly, even under the present court system, decisions from a magistrate’s court are subject to review by the Supreme Court, and decisions by the Supreme Court are subject to review by the Appeal Court. It is this whole system of checks and balances, of reviewing and reviewing again and having the right of appeal, which has a very important bearing on the decisions and the attitudes of the people in the lower courts. However, there is going to be no appeal and no effective review of the substance of the decision taken by the appeal board.

Fourthly, courts function most effectively and justly when they function openly—that is to say, when they are open courts to which the Press and the public are admitted. Why do we have open courts in our legal system? Because it is the public gaze, the exposure to the public press, the attendance by the public which is an important facet of seeing that one gets an impartial judgment. In addition, our courts have developed special procedures. It is not accidental that there is a procedure for courts of law. In the case of this appeal board there will be no special procedure. They can decide upon their own procedures; they can do what they wish. What is important is that people, who feel aggrieved and have applied for their case to be reviewed, will not be allowed to cross-examine; they will not be allowed to lead evidence, nor will there be provision for assessors. Therefore the procedure which is an essential part of our courts of justice, will not apply in the case of the appeal board. Finally, the courts of South Africa are bound not only by Statute law but also by a whole established set of precedents. Precedents of case law make up the essential law in South Africa. Here will be no case history. There will be no precedent. The appeal board is not bound by the decisions of a previous appeal board and the public of South Africa have no substantial knowledge of what is in fact the appropriate definition of “desirable” or “undesirable”. For this reason these appeal boards are going to be hopelessly inadequate if they are to replace the courts of law in South Africa. It is not surprising that Die Burger of 13 August this year, this month, in dealing with the new appeal board, had this to say—

Here Die Burger is asking how anyone can have confidence in this court which only has the attribute of a court and when in fact the Government is consistently attacking the validity of the judgments of the court itself. It is not a question of whether there should be pornography, obscenity or submersion or not, not whether the administrative procedures should be changed but whether the courts of South Africa are the bodies which are going to interpret the rather loose phraseology of the hon the Minister’s Bill. This is the nub of this debate and this is the reason why this amending legislation has been introduced. I believe that the hon. member for Parktown was quite correct. This Bill in its essence does not merely control pornography. It does not merely set out to protect social morals. I believe it is an attempt to control thought processes. It is an attempt by the Government to control thought processes. It is an attempt by the Government to control thought processes and to limit freedom of expression in South Africa.

When you say things like that, do you know what you are doing to the image of South Africa?

What we should be concerned about in this House is the substance and not the image, because the image is merely a reflection of the substance. I say that the hon. the Minister is introducing legislation which will allow an executive-arm of the Government operating outside the surveillance of the courts, to control the thought processes of and freedom of expression in South Africa. That is a fact. The hon. the Minister will say that they will not do it but all I say is that we should be jealous of our freedoms in this matter and we should not hand them over to a system which can be abused by weak people or people operating under pressure.

I believe that this Bill could well lead to this society of ours becoming a society of political robots, artistic eunuchs, dull conformists. Sterile monotony, Sir, I believe can be the overall effect of this legislation whereas in fact our very varied and dynamic diversity is the real wealth of our society. It is for these reasons that we have no reservations at all in rejecting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to take part in this debate. White listening to the speeches by hon. members opposite, particularly to that of the hon. member for Sea Point, I was reminded of the English clergyman who made a small note in the margin of his sermon. He wrote: “Yell—argument very weak.” Actually, he used a word which rhymes with “yell”.

Having listened to the arguments raised in connection with the so-called disappearance of the courts’ say in the question of the determination of what is undesirable in literature, publications and films in South Africa, I became more and more convinced that there was very little body to the arguments of that side of the House as a whole—both the United Party and the Progressive Party—and that they were skating on very thin ice specifically in regard to the main argument they raised here. The main argument is that we are abolishing the appeal to the courts. According to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that was the true reason why they broke away from the commission and drew up a minority report. I say that the longer I listened to these arguments, the more convinced I became that these people were skating on extremely thin ice and had no case whatsoever. I shall mention three reasons for this. I am not a lawyer, but I did try to use some common sense while listening to these arguments. I do at least have enough common sense to listen to arguments and pleas made before the commission by people who know what they are talking about. The first point is that we were discouraged by several lawyers from going ahead with the present system, namely that of allowing appeal to the courts. Sir, we quoted the evidence of one judge after the other. Is it really necessary to quote once again, for the benefit of hon. members, what Mr. Justice Marais said before the commission? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout ran like the wind to get around this evidence by Mr. Justice Kobie Marais. Mr. Justice Marais said—

Here we have it in the evidence, and the hon. member himself served on the commission. Mr. Justice Marais stated that the appeal to the Supreme Court should be abolished. This was not said by a politician, nor was it said by a Nationalist polician; it was said by an authority of the Bench. He went on to say—

In other words, this was not a voice calling in the judicial desert; it was a representative voice from the sphere of the administration of justice. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quote any more excerpts from the evidence of the judges; it is stated here in this report for everyone to read. We had evidence from various judges—four or five at least—and one of them said he was speaking on behalf of all his colleagues in Pretoria in saying that it should not go to the Supreme Court. Sir, from the point of view of the evidence of the judges, hon. members on that side of the House do not have a leg to stand on—not a verligte leg, not a verkrampte leg, nor even an artificial leg; they have nothing to stand on. Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went on to argue that it did not matter whether the judges said they wanted to do it or did not want to do it; this Parliament says that they must do it. Can you imagine, Sir, what kind of absolutism the hon. member for Bezuidenhout now wants to associate with this Parliament by saying to a body, some very important spokesmen of which have said “we do not consider ourselves competent to give proper judgment in respect of an ethical or aesthetic matter and for that reason we feel that it should not be referred to us”, that “whether you consider yourselves competent or not, you must do it”! Sir, what kind of parliamentary absolutism is this? Is this not an offence against the rights of the law society, who have a specific function in the community, i.e. to tell them, “You do not have the freedom to do what you want; you do not have the freedom to tell us what you are or are not competent to do; you just do it—and that is the end of the matter.”?

May I put a question?

No, I am busy with an argument now. The hon. member is one of those people who would do well to listen to what Mr. Justice Kobie Marais had to say. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member has a very thin skin for a person who talks about other people’s skins.

Mr. Speaker, the second argument that stands out as an indisputable fact is this: The judges will tell you, “By referring this kind of case to us and asking us to express an opinion on a matter, whereby we will not really give a juridical judgment but will in fact act in the place of the Board of Censors or the Publications Board, we make our function a controversial one, we land ourselves in a controversy and in the polemics of public opinion; we do not want that; we want the Bench to be above polemics of that sort”. Sir, this is also the opinion of the people in general, and I am now speaking on behalf of the voters who returned me to this House. They do not want one’s Bench to be placed in a controversial situation. I am speaking on their behalf.

Who is speaking on behalf of the HNP?

You are speaking on behalf of the Young Turks.

Sir, I repeat this point: You should not place those people in a controversial position. Already there is the danger that certain verdicts which have been returned in regard to cases which do not have a purely juridical impact, are being discussed in public and not always in friendly terms, and we want to safeguard our courts against that.

The third point is that if hon. members opposite had studied any philosophy at all, had had any idea whatever of the philosophy of the concept of law, they would know that total reality is not subject only to a law of the State, to a law in the parliamentary Statute Book; total reality is subject to a multiplicity of laws or legalities which differ from one another. Thus one has the law of number. One has the law of religion. One has the juridical aspect of reality. All of these are different facets or aspects of reality. It is not just the juridical aspect which dominates total reality. There is an aesthetic law; there is the ethical law and there is the law of religion. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout himself referred to court cases, church cases which came before the Supreme Court. That is true, but what was remarkable about those cases, was that the court was in a quandary in respect of an ecclesiastical matter which was debated dogmatically and according to ecclesiastical law before the judge and in which the judge stated that it did not come within his area of competence to pass judgment on the matter. In other words, in that verdict by the judge, in the exercising of his juridical capacity, he acknowledged that he was not competent to pass judgment on an internal, ecclesiastical and religious matter. Sir, that applies in this context too. It is not the National Party that is saying this now; it is the judges who are telling you this now. This is what the judge is saying: Our area of competence is restricted to the juridical, but when it comes to a verdict concerning the question whether a book is undesirable, whether it is undesirable from an ethical or an aesthetic point of view, we do not want to pass judgment, because then we are placing ourselves in the position of a publications board. But now, as an admission to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Justice Marais did say that a judge could judge correctly or that he could judge incorrectly, but it was not his function per se to pass judgment on the ethical norms of a country. Sir, it is for that very reason that we have now gone further and that we specifically want to involve the administration of justice as well; because if the hon. members want to learn a little philosophy too, the juridical aspect of life and the ethical aspect and the aesthetic aspect are not so much separate entities standing together. They are woven into the same reality, without one’s wanting to make one aspect of reality generally applicable to the whole area. And thus one’s juridical aspect is involved in passing judgment on a case, but there is also the ethical and the aesthetic aspects; and now, Sir, it is in recognition of the very fact that there are people who are better able to pass judgment on the aesthetic level and the ethical level than the man who is trained in the administration of justice that one wants a combination of those functions and of people who are competent to pass judgment in those spheres. It is for that reason that the whole argument which has been built up, i.e. that we now want to force, officially as it were, from the top, through Parliament, all the opinions of our people into a political groove, is the biggest nonsense because it is through this very intention of the Bill, through the submissions made from public life by practically all organizations or bodies which consider themselves to be concerned with the judging of the morals and norms in the country, that we ask that submissions be made of the names of people who can serve in the group from which the Minister constitutes the panel, from which the various committees are then constituted. Sir, the hon. members talk about democracy. What is closer to democracy than that? Do they want a court autocracy over the morals and the aesthetic judgment of people as well? That is the biggest lot of nonsense. Sir, they do not have a leg to stand on; they do not even have an artificial leg to stand on, because they have no argument.

You want a politocracy.

Sir, may I reply immediately to that hon. member? It is this political party which creates the machinery in terms of which we will not have a politocracy, but in terms of which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. members for Houghton, for Sea Point or for any other constituency will be able to make submissions and proposals for people to serve in this panel which the hon. the Minister will compile. What more do they want? This brings us back to an age-old principle in democracy, and that is that the community, in its various interest groupings, and so on, sends its representatives, its mouthpieces, and says: “These people can speak on our behalf.” I did not intend to drag Calvin’s name into this, but he referred to the “lesser magistrates”, the mouthpieces of the community, who interpreted the thoughts of the people and submitted them to higher authority. Sir, what is more democratic than this? These committees which will pass judgment will be a sounding board for the opinions of the whole community, which they will then express and apply. Sir, that is the first point. I say that those people do not even have an artificial leg to stand on.

In the second place I want to say that what the hon. members for Sea Point and Parktown said is true; a fundamental difference in approach is involved here. In his speech the hon. member for Parktown gave a fairly clear rendering of what I want to call the antithesis of the standpoint of this side of the House. Sir, with your permission I want to quote a few excerpts to show how hon. members opposite think, and then point out why we are unable to agree with them. In the first place, the hon. member said the following—

Sir, that is surely not the point. I want to put it like this: If a community wants to show that it has real spiritual strength, then it does not put up with those things in a community which tend to undermine its moral fibre. If one is weak, then one puts up with evil, and one’s attitude is one of “let things slide; let matters take their course”. But if one is strong, one does two things. In the first place, one builds up what the hon. member mentioned—I admit that—namely the moral strength of one’s people in opposition to what is wrong and evil. In the second place, one abjures those things which seek to undermine this very spiritual strength. Then one initiates attempts and machinery to fulfil that function for one. In other words, Sir, if there is a law against theft, that is surely no reflection on the honesty of one’s people. It is there for the very purpose of protecting honest people against the dishonest.

Sir, I should like to make another quotation to indicate the kind of argument we are dealing with in this House. There is talk here about “the dangerous whittling away of democratic rights”. Sir, we hear such a lot about democratic rights. It reminds me of the American student who did not wash for months. When he appeared in class, the professor chased him out because he was too dirty. Then he said: “I have the fundamental democratic right not to wash.” The professor replied: “That may be so, but you have no fundamental democratic right to pollute the air in this class.”

I now come to another quotation. Now, Prof. Leon Hugo was quoted and this was said: “Censorship does not put an end to things; it simply drives them underground.” Sir, this is really a silly argument. Does this mean that if one takes action against theft and murder, one will only drive it underground, and that one had better stop taking action against it? Surely this is a very silly kind of argument.

I should like to quote another extract from the hon. member’s speech. He said—

But where are we doing that? Have the hon. members had a look at the definitions and at the definition of “undesirable” in the Bill? Sir, nowhere is there an indication that we quite specifically want to prescribe to people exactly how they should act. In the words of Mr. Justice Kobie Marais—one cannot, after all, determine by Statute how long a mini-skirt should be, how many inches it should be above the knee, and surely that is not what this Bill is doing. The objection of the hon. member for Green Point was that we were using the term “undesirable”, but not “offensive” or “aanstootlik”; he had better go and read the definitions again. The explanation of the word is there. Everything is set out there, neatly and in detail.

The following, too, is typical of the difference in approach between this side and that side of the House. He said: “We simply do not believe that if people are free and are left free to read what they want and see what they wish to see, that they will automatically or inevitably descend into the pit of abasement.” Of course that is correct. If someone unloaded a heap of compost at your front door, would you necessarily be contaminated by it? No, one could not be contaminated by it, nor would one become a compost eater as a result, but one would ensure that it was removed and buried as soon as possible. If a sewer were to burst and the contents were to flow out into the street, we would not all develop dirty minds as a result, but we would cover it up as soon as possible. Now, what kind of argument is this; how is it that this can be used against this Bill?

Another comment, typical of the approach of the hon. members opposite, is the following: “We believe that the vast majority of people do in the end tend to reject that which is shoddy and will choose the good.” That is optimistic, Mr. Speaker, but let us say for argument’s sake that it is true that most people will in the end recognize the good and adhere to it—I do not know whether we will see that day before the end of this dispensation, but let us say for argument’s sake that it is the case—then one still has to deal with those who do not recognize good, nor wish to do good. We who served on the commission and had access to the kind of material which is being distributed, which people pay rands and rands to see, know that one is not dealing with good people only. One is also dealing with people who have degenerated as regards their sense of values; people who have not only degenerated, but who are out to contaminate and drag down the rest of the community. From this contaminated process of thinking springs the undermining of a national will. If one has an undermined national will and one’s young people are no longer idealistic—young people who are no longer able to idealize the finer things in life, then one has a young generation in whose shoes a people is dying instead of marching into the future. It is these things which flow from that kind of view of life.

The hon. member says: “Where this does not happen and where the pedlar in filth and pornography persists in exploiting human weaknesses and frailties”—and I wonder how one determines whether he has persisted long enough in this peddling in filth and pornography. Should a man first be given the opportunity of exposing it, so that one may realize how distasteful it is, before action is taken? The approach of this side of the House is that we want to prevent those things. We do not want to allow people to be given as much as the opportunity of contaminating the community with publications and films, and so on. That is our approach. I shall refer to an example, Mr. Speaker. We discussed the staging of Three Months Gone. There were 30 performances before it was stopped. Someone had to object before the Publications Board could act. We all felt that it should have been possible to act sooner. One should not wait until 30 performances have taken place before a prohibition is imposed. It would be far more effective if a restriction were imposed at the start of such a production. That is in the interests of society. How many opportunities should one give a man? How many books should an author be allowed to publish, while one knows that the first one was already impermissible or undesirable, before one tells him: “No, now you have been playing at this game too long; now we are going to deal with you.” The approach on this side of the House is that one should be in a position to take effective steps as soon as possible.

Sir, I want to point out the difference between this side of the House and that side with the help of certain comments made by that side of the House. Mention is made here of the “control mechanism”—

Sir, all this sounds very well. It places a very high premium on the judgment of the individual. But in this country and in the world today we are dealing with two great opposing spiritual trends. One of them is this kind of individualistic liberalism, which places the greatest emphasis on the free choice of the individual, and the rest of the community has to exercise the greatest patience in order to give this individual the opportunity of reading what he wants, of being allowed to read what he has to offer, and so on. I think that I am voicing the thoughts of everyone when I say that no one wants to restrict the freedom of the individual to do what is right and good. But an individual does not have the right to delight in unsavoury things at the cost of the community and still to be allowed his freedom. Sir, may I read from the report of the Cronje Commission, in which this matter was put as follows—

And then follows the important part—

This opposes individualism, the overemphasis of the human right of the individual to do what he wants, to read what he wants and to publish and to produce what he wants. We cannot allow such an individualistic freedom in an orderly community. The individual does of course make his contribution to the welfare of the community. But whoever loses sight of the community as a corporate body, with corporate rights and interests, is out of touch with reality, and is out of touch with that reality in South Africa too.

Sir, may I point out that what we are doing here in South Africa, we are not doing against the stream of all the people of our time. There are people and bodies in the world that look to South Africa and expect leadership from this country, small as we are. That may sound strange to the hon. gentlemen, but I should like to quote what the great philosopher, Arnold Toynbee, said on one occasion. He said—

This is a man who looks at us in South Africa and says: “You in South Africa have the hard but honourable mission of being spiritual pioneers.” But I also want to refer to another person who came to South Africa, studied our way of life and wrote a book about this Republic of ours, namely The New Republic. His name is Anthony Hurrigan. He refers here to sound government, against which hon. members opposite have so much to say to us on this side of the House, as if to say that we are engaged in unjust government in South Africa. He states—

I do not hear the hon. members shouting “hear, hear”—

I think they know what is coming—

We agree.

The hon. members on that side of the House are also opposed to subversion, but do they recognize the methods of subversion? And then one is not only dealing with blatant displays of it, but also with the subtle onslaught on the spirit of one’s people. On the occasion of a congress of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie, Dr. T. E. Dӧnges said (translation)—

Today, however, the most dangerous war for the West is the psychological war, the struggle to poison the essence of Western civilization by the subtle and sly contamination of its source. The method is to quietly soften up not people but the spirit of people who are adherents of Western civilization for the coming triumph of communism throughout the world.

I want to repeat what I said to the hon. member for Sea Point, namely that if a nation weakens in its moral strength, then it also weakens in its will to resist the obscenity and the filth which is spread through his country. That is the effort aimed against us. On the same occasion Dr. Dӧnges quoted Lenin, who said in respect of the United States: “We will not have to attack, it will fall like an overripe fruit into our hands.” The will to resist and to take a stand against the powers that creep through darkness, is unobtrusively being undermined. He says that this occurs on a large scale and yet in a subtle form, in the form of brainwashing of the individual. It is so much more convenient than the direct frontal attack. Spiritual emasculation requires less blood than conquest by force. Disarmament by stratagem is easier than conquest by force. What this Government wants to do is to indicate by means of its legislation the course to be followed by the population of this country and to tell them that this is what the Government considers to be a honourable public life. This, then, is how we find it in the legislation which we adopt for the country. In that way we awaken in the organic sections of the people that which is good and that which conforms to noble norms. The Government itself sets an example by more or less laying this down in legislation and by calling on the people to stand together in judging and in fighting for the preservation of that which is fine and noble in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we have now almost reached the end of this debate. I think the differences among the various parties in this House have now been stated very clearly. I am using the word “parties” since it is very clear that the standpoint of the Nationalist Party, the standpoint of the HNP, the standpoint of the Progressive Party and the standpoint of the United Party have all been put in the course of this debate. I think it is very clear that there are members on that side of the House who feel very unhappy about the fact that they are still members of the Nationalist Party. On an occasion such as this, it is very clear that the verkramptheid—existing in the Nationalist Party is proved ...

You are fishing on dry land.

Yes, and I am catching you. It is very easy to catch you. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I mean the hon. member. I think it is very clear ... [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, now they are speaking about skins; I think they are obsessed with skins. All they can think of is skins, be they white skins or black skins; be they Schwarz skins or Volker skins. I want to say that I went to my office while the hon. member for Klip River was speaking. I want to have a chance to put questions to him. At some later stage I shall have the opportunity of putting questions to him in connection with the statements he made about skins. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we should trust the Nationalist Party with the appointment of persons for the performance of certain duties. There can be no better proof of the fact that we cannot trust them than the fact that they appointed a person like the hon. member for Klip River as a candidate. It cannot be expected of us to have confidence in a party which makes such a choice and which appoints such a man. [Interjections.]

I should now like to return to the debate for just a moment—and this is important; hon. members should not try to side-track me. It has been said ...

What about Anna Scheepers?

I have nothing against Anna Scheepers. She is a good U.P. supporter and a good South African. [Interjections.] She is a U.P. woman, a U.P. Senator.

For how long has she been a U.P. supporter?

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me Anna Scheepers is a very important person in this debate, and I accept it.

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind it. I like it.

You are easily led astray.

Be careful if you do not want to be led astray; for I am still going to lead you astray. The statement that our party is against any form of control, is, of course, erroneous and is in actual fact untrue. I think the differences which have now become apparent between my party, the United Party, and the Nationalist Party ...

Your party?

The difference between my party and the Nationalist Party concerns the method of control and the norms which have to be applied. I want to ask the hon. the Minister at once whether, in his opinion, there is one community, or more than one community in South Africa. What does the hon. the Minister say? I see him shrugging his shoulders. He does not know. He is a Minister in the Cabinet but he does not know whether there is more than one community.

Make your own speech.

Mr. Speaker, it is something very serious that has happened. The hon. the Minister is no longer able to speak. The hon. the Minister has lost his voice. I think it is Nationalist Party policy, even if the hon. the Minister of the Interior no longer knows it, that there is more than one community in South Africa. It bears noticing that this legislation in actual fact says that there is but one community and that it is that very community which is going to make decisions on behalf of the whole of South Africa. That is the dilemma in which the hon. the Minister finds himself. That is why he does not want to reply to a question. That is why he has now lost his voice. What is his problem? I can refer him to another hon. member, the hon. member for Johannesburg West. That hon. member said in the House that they had a certain view of life. That is what he said when he stood up. He said that that was the view of life they would like to see embodied in the legislation. But what is the view of life which is now going to be carried into effect in terms of this legislation? Is it the view of life of the Nationalist Party, of the HNP, or of South Africa as a whole?

As I see it, it is the view of life of South Africa as a whole, of the entire South Africa. I want to say that it is beyond my comprehension that when a man loses an election, he loses not only the right to make political decisions but also, according to certain hon. members on that side of the House, the chance of seeing his own view of life being carried into effect in South Africa. That is the problem. Our view of life on this side of the House, is the view of life of a South African, not a political view of life, not the view of life of a small verkrampte group within a political party which at present controls that political party. The report itself mentions the “behoudende karakter” of the South African community. When it was translated into English it became “the conservative attitude of the people”. The word “konserwatief”, which is not an Anglicism, is not used in the report. There must be some reason for that. I should like to know—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will again lose his voice in this connection—what the word “konserwatief” actually means. What, in actual fact, is left and right in South Africa?

You are leftist.

Oh, I am leftist. According to the hon. the Minister Rapport is leftist. In other words, according to the hon. the Minister Rapport and I are the same. What in South Africa is conservative and what is left and what is right and what is liberal? According to hon. members of the Progressive Party I am conservative. [Interjections.] Yes. According to certain members of Nusas I am far more than conservative.

They have never said that.

Who has never said that? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister’s problem is that according to him everyone who does not agree with him, is leftist. If this is the kind of view of life which is going to be carried into effect no one can blame us for becoming concerned about it.

I should now like to furnish further proof of the hon. the Minister’s attitude. When the hon. the Minister was elected as leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal—and I congratulate him on his election, I should not like to be the leader of that party in that province—the previous leader, Mr. Schoeman, said the following. I am reading from Die Vaderland of 13 September 1972 (translation)—

According to Mr. Schoeman, he is the man who should do it. I quote from the report (translation)—

Some of them have already returned. They are already sitting here. Why was the hon. the Minister chosen for this task? Because he, in fact, has the same view of life as those people sitting in the HNP. He has the same view of life they have. [Interjections.] He is still here. He knows why he is still here. I am not going to say it. It is expected of us here to sit back and to accept the fact that the norms which are going to be applied, are not the norms of a South Africa but the norms of a Minister who is a verkrampte Minister and who is a member of a party which is at present being controlled by the verkramptes in that party.

Something else was mentioned today.

The skins? [Interjections.]

If you would only listen to what I am going to say now, you would see why that remark might be important. The example was given of what was happening in Europe. It was said that there was absolute permissiveness in Europe—in England, Holland, Germany, France, wherever one looked—but, Sir, all the members who spoke on that side have already been overseas; they all have personal experience of conditions over there. Sir, I often go overseas; it used to be part of my duty, but I do not have that kind of experience. I do not know what happened to those hon. members over there. What happens is that they arrive in London and the only place they know of is Soho, so they go there along with all the other tourists; and when they go to Amsterdam, there is a certain small section of Amsterdam which they like and about which they tell stories on their return.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member allowed to say that when hon. members on this side of the House go overseas, they spend their time only in Soho?

It is quite wrong to say that it is only Soho; it is the Reperbahn as well. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put it to you that the hon. member is making an attack on the character and morality of hon. members on this side of the House. I do not think he is entitled to do that.

Mr. Speaker, what is troubling me is this, and I should like to put it very clearly: It is wrong to besmirch the peoples of Europe in this way. The ordinary man, the ordinary German, the ordinary Hollander, the ordinary Frenchman, the ordinary person in England, is as good a person as the ordinary person in the rest of the world, and I think it is wrong to condemn a country on the strength of what occurs in a small section of that country.

†Sir, let me put it quite clearly so that there will be no misunderstanding. I do not believe that Western Europe is in the process of being destroyed by this kind of activity. There are things going on there of which I disapprove and of which hon. members on the other side of the House disapprove.

Where do you hear that?

I hear it from hon. members on that side who spoke here and they are experts. The hon. member for Johannesburg West is an expert; he elaborated on that. The hon. member for Waterberg is an expert and he elaborated on that.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Does he doubt that pornography has increased throughout the rest of the world; that it is proved by statistics, by the sales of pornographic material, magazines, etc.?

Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to answer the hon. member. I do not dispute that there is pornography. I do not dispute that it is increasing; I do not dispute that it should be controlled. What I object to is the view which is expressed by certain members of this House and which tends to convey the impression that the German people are in a state of decay and that the rest of Western Europe is in a state of decay, merely because of certain things that happen in the case of a limited section of people; that is the point I am making.

*I want to put it very clearly. I cannot accept that the West is heading for its downfall. I think that is erroneous; it is wrong.

It is only the Young Turks who are heading for theirs.

Sir, when hon. members on that side are in trouble, they always come along with this story of the Young Turks. I think it is proof of their weakness.

†But, Sir, let me deal with some other matters which arise. There is a basic argument which was put forward from this side of the House, that you should in fact get people in a trade to exercise a degree of control in respect of that trade itself. Sir, people in the trades were again humiliated by the attacks made by members of the Nationalist Party, because they said tradespeople are not like professional people; they are not like doctors; they are not like lawyers or pharmacists, and you cannot allow people who are merely businessmen, or who are merely in business as such, to do these things. But, you know, Sir, if you go back in history lawyers were not always as respectable as they are today. Lawyers were not always in the position of controlling their own affairs. I can also tell tall stories about doctors in days gone by, when they were not regarded as belonging to a profession, and the pharmacy profession is in fact a relatively new one. This is how matters grow. Let us talk about the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industry. Is it not in fact an insult to people who are not professional people to say to them that they can exercise no degree of control in respect of their own affairs and in respect of their own ethics? [Interjection.] The Jockey Club is another one which can exercise control. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would rather see that you encourage people to form associations for self-control, that you encourage people to apply ethical standards in the particular activities in which they are involved, and that you do not speak in a humiliating or derogatory fashion about people who are not in fact in the professions, because I believe that they have ethical standards as well. We are not entitled to talk in such derogatory terms about that portion of our community.

But the question that was put—and the argument was used again and again—is that the public has lost confidence in the system and that therefore we now have to have a new law. But what is interesting is that there were very few members on that side of the House who endeavoured to tell us why the public has lost confidence in the system. And that is really the question. Was there dissatisfaction on the part of the public as a whole with the courts, or was there dissatisfaction on the part of a small minority with the decisions of the courts? That is really the test, and I would venture to say that if there is argument and dissatisfaction about a decision, the answer is not to abolish the courts, but rather to reform the boards and to have superimposed upon the boards a body which could act as a safeguard for the community. And here may I say that it is not correct argument, as the hon. member for Waterberg suggested, that people in a community should be forced to do something they say they are not able to do or do not wish to do. I believe that if he applied that ethical principle, which he suggested, to his other political points of view, he would no longer be in that party, because in that party they seek to force many people to do things which they do not consider they should be doing. I think this is a somewhat new principle for his party which has been suggested by the hon. member for Waterberg in this particular context.

But let me deal with what the attitude is—and I do not run away from the fact that it is clear that judges have said that they are asked to do these administrative jobs and exercise administrative functions. I can well understand the judge who would prefer not to be doing this kind of job. But what is important in our community is that the public has great confidence in the judiciary, and rather than that hon. members opposite should seek to condemn that attitude, they should applaud it because it says a lot for South Africa and for South Africa’s judicial system, that that degree of confidence is shown by the public in our judicial system. It is the public who, I believe, would like to see the exercise of this degree of control by the judges of South Africa, irrespective of whether the judges would prefer to do that particular job or not. I would prefer not to do it. I would prefer not to have to be involved in wading through masses of books, etc., seeing films and making these decisions. Maybe the hon. member for Waterberg enjoys watching all these films. I do not, I am sorry. I have no such inclination. I can well understand that the judges do not want to do it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to refer to the hon. member for Waterberg as being a person who supposedly enjoyed watching films of that kind? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the age-old argument relating to the exercise of administrative function and the exercise of judicial function. With great respect, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a number of questions in this regard, to which I hope he will reply. The argument was advanced that the appeal board has all the attributes of a court. May I list for the hon. gentleman what I think are attributes which are not the attributes of a court, and ask him to deal with them in turn? Firstly, it is not required that the appeal board’s chairman should be a judge. Secondly, as regards removal, the provisions which apply in respect of the removal of judges do not apply in respect of the appeal board. Thirdly, the number of assessors may in fact vary in terms of this legislation. The number is not fixed. Fourthly, the appeal board may consult outsiders. This is something which I find quite foreign when one bears in mind what a court may do in particular circumstances. Fifthly, the appellant has a right of appeal and the right to appear, but as I read the Bill, the respondent has no right to appear. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will consider whether that is equitable, and take the matter further during the Committee Stage, because surely both parties should have the right to appear before such a body. Then there is the argument regarding the procedure relating to the giving of evidence, which quite clearly is different in the case of the committees and the appeal board on the one hand and the courts on the other. Evidence cannot even be led before a committee. The next point is that the hearings are not open to the public. Again that is a difference when one compares this with the position in the courts. The last point is that even the review proceedings have been changed.

There are therefore nine differences between the position under this Bill and the position as it relates to the courts. I should like to put to the hon. the Minister a very simple test regarding his approach to this matter. He can in fact silence a lot of the criticism if in his reply he gets up and tells us: “I will appoint an ex-judge as chairman of this tribunal.” If he does that and agrees to apply that principle whenever somebody of this type is available, I think we will have gone very far in this debate, and the hon. the Minister will have made a gesture which, even though it may not meet all that we require will do much to restore confidence in the system he is proposing to create.

Mr. Speaker, there are many other matters in respect of which we cannot agree with the hon. the Minister. My colleagues on this side have put these forward in most eloquent and clear terms and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. I want to make just one last point, if I may. This point relates to clause 17. This provision, which is not entirely new, deals with the appointment of persons who will be empowered to enter places in order to seize material and act as a form of moral police. I feel that we need further assurances in this regard. These powers could be abused considerably. If the hon. the Minister would in his reply tell us that this power will in fact only be exercised by the Police and not by a collection of Mother Grundies, I think we will have done much to reassure people on this side of the House who are concerned about the effects of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall, in the course of my speech, reply to various points raised by hon. members of the Opposition, and at the outset I just want to say a few words to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. His contribution to the debate failed on all points to maintain the standard we asked should be maintained. On the contrary. The initial part of his speech was in fact a lowering of the debate to a level which no one in this House expected. I want to give the hon. member some good advice, as an older parliamentarian to a young man. The hon. member came here with a very big reputation. Everyone, all over the country, thought that this was the miracle, the new star on the United Party horizon. I want to give him the assurance, however, that if he continues in this vein, he has no political future in South Africa. On the contrary. I want to tell the hon. member that the standard in this debate was high until he entered it. Let me tell him in addition that he should not be so sensitive about interjections. In politics here it will be the death of him. He need not react to every interjection as if he had to react to it. That is not necessary in politics here. He may ignore the interjections. [Interjections.] If everyone shouts at the same time ...

He is not at school now.

He is still at school at the moment because he is still a child in politics. He is attending the political school, and that is why I must teach him. Before I reply to the few minor points raised by the hon. member, I just want to tell him that if he wants a major political career he will have to learn to debate in a manner different to that used in the provincial council. He will have to learn that one does not react to every interjection. It diverts one completely from one’s speech, and it makes one’s speech hesitant and disjointed, without any point to it.

What has that to do with you?

It has everything to do with me. The great problem is that the hon. Chief Whip did not teach the hon. member; now I have to do so.

I want to reply to the few little questions the hon. member put to me in regard to this matter. I shall reply to the others in the course of my speech. In the first place the hon. member discussed the differences between the appeal board and a court. I want to concede at once to the hon. member that this board is in all respects not a court. The problem was in fact that a court, owing to its juridical composition and the functions for which it had been established, was unable to comply with the requirements being laid down here. There is an administrative function to fulfil here, and the court was unable to do it. That is why this board differs from a court, and there is no doubt about this. The fact that the person who is appointed chairman of this board shall have had not less than 10 years’ juristic experience, and that he shall be a man who is held in high esteem, is important. Let me say at once that as the responsible Minister I accept that the success or failure of this legislation will lie in the qualities of the persons I shall appoint to this position, or whom in this specific case, the State President shall appoint. This is in spite of the fact that hon. members want to nullify this legislation even before it has come into operation. In spite of the fact that they do not want to give it a chance, I am aware of the responsibility which rests on the Government to appoint the right people, people who will be held in the necessary high esteem. We shall, to the best of our ability, appoint the right people.

Why do you say it will be a former judge?

I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member at once that we will consider the position. My assurance to the hon. member in this connection will avail him nothing, for a subsequent Minister may appoint another person. Does the hon. member allow himself to be caught by something like that? Therefore I want to make it very clear to the hon. member that we shall give this board the status which we are able to give it. With this I want to leave this aspect.

We have reached the end of a very long debate. Naturally I cannot reply to all the details now, although I shall deal with quite a number of them during the course of my speech. The Committee Stage lends itself pre-eminently to discussing the details of the debate. Quite a number of maiden speeches were made during this debate. I am pleased that this was possible. Naturally they were of high standard on both sides, as the speeches could not be controversial. There were, it is true, a few examples of pettiness here and there. But let us, now, consider the facts as they are. I am a practical, realistic person, who has to deal with this matter. What is the question confronting all of us in South Africa—not only the Nationalist Party, but all of us? In the first place, pornography is being produced overseas—no one can deny this—in the form of publications, films and public entertainments. Dirty reading matter, blue films and dirty theatrical productions are being produced and initiated overseas. In the second place, this kind of thing is being produced in South Africa itself, and for commercial purposes, to make big profits by way of good circulation. These aspects deal with pornography. In the third place, things are being written overseas by people hostile to South Africa which threaten the security of our country. Things are being written and planned to turn South Africa, if it is possible, into a blood-bath; to undermine South Africa as a whole and all its inhabitants—things which encourage violence and revolution. Instructions are being given us to the procedure to adopt to achieve this object, strategically vulnerable areas are being indicated, as well as where the problems lie and how South Africa may be paralysed. These things are being smuggled into the country to endanger State security. In addition, plans for the overthrow of South Africa are being made within South Africa by enemies of the State.

With these simple facts concerning pornography and the threat to State security before us, the question is: What standpoint are the various political parties now adopting in this regard? I want to begin with the Progressive Party. That party participated in the debate through three of its members. One was a maiden speech. The leader of the party spoke this afternoon and in substance emphasized certain points made yesterday by the hon. member for Park-town. What is the standpoint of the Progressive Party, as stated by the hon. member for Parktown, whose Hansard I have here? In the first place they say that no legislation is necessary. No action should be taken. The freedom of the individual is unassailable. [Interjections.] I quote his Hansard—

Therefore, no legislation. He went on to say—

No action is therefore deemed necessary. Our memories are not that short. Sometime ago, as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, I dealt with an Act on drugs here, in respect of which that party, through the hon. member for Houghton, adopted precisely the same standpoint. No legislation was deemed necessary. She opposed the legislation in all its stages, and opposed every clause. She condemned the entire measure.

(Inaudible).

My memory is long enough to remember that. She opposed everything. Her party is adopting precisely the same standpoint now: No legislation is necessary; let the people control and discipline themselves. I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that this little party came down to earth from the Utopia in which they picture themselves to be living. What they regard as an ideal can be found only in a world in which faultless and sinless people are living. There one need have no laws, for there every individual will discipline himself. But here, on this side of the grave, on this earth, there are people with faults, and they have to be controlled by laws. The legislation on drugs was opposed in every respect. The hon. member told us that no legislation was needed.

Just to prove to the hon. member how wrong she and her party were, as wrong as they are now, I went to make inquiries into what the effect of one single aspect of that Bill, viz. the dagga aspect, had been. I want to refer to that just for the sake of interest, as an example. I am furnishing these figures for the sake of interest, because I think it is good to know this. In 1969-’70 there were 37 500 cases before the courts. In 1970-’71 there were 41 000 cases. Then the Act came into operation, on 6 December 1971, and the number of cases dropped to 36 900 in 1971-’72, and to 28 500 in 1972-’73. Just to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Act, I want to refer to the destruction of dagga. In 1969-’70 233 892 kg were destroyed. In 1970-’71 more than four million kilograms were destroyed. Then the Act came into operation in 1971. In the following year two million kilograms were destroyed, and in 1972-’73 only 290 000 kg.

What has this got to do with censorship?

It is precisely the same thing. As dagga poisons your body, pornography poisons your spirit. Therein lies the similarity. Then the hon. member advocated—and I think it is time we laid this at her door again—that we legalize dagga in South Africa for domestic use. She admitted in this House that she was in favour of its being legalized. Does her party agree with that? Does her leader agree with that? The hon. Leader of the Progressive Party must not look away now, he must look me in the eye. Does the hon. member agree with that?

With what?

That we should legalize dagga for domestic use.

Get on to the Bill which is before you.

Hon. members can see now that the hon. leader of the Progressive Party knows that he cannot repudiate her. What is more, he knows that he will lose votes if he accepts it.

Get on with your Bill.

Yes, Of course, it is rather difficult for the hon. members if I stand here and look them in the eyes on this matter. Let me give the hon. members the facts. We had an Act here, an Act which was called a “Draconian Act” by the hon. member for Houghton, an Act with which a prohibition was placed on the distribution of drugs, and in which heavy penalties as well as minimum penalties were laid down—all these things were unacceptable to the hon. member’s sense of freedom and justice—which had the effect of reducing the number of court cases for such offences by 31%, and the quantity of dagga destroyed since the Act came into operation by 88%. This is a practical demonstration of the unacceptability of the hon. member’s standpoint that there should be no legislation, and yet this is what her party as a whole still maintains today.

There was already a law against that, or have you forgotten?

Let me make something very clear to the hon. member. The hon. member for Sea Point attacked me a moment ago and said that we are appointing a political board which will be a rubber stamp of the Minister. He referred to the committees and to the appeal board as “rubber stamps of the Minister”. Did the hon. member not read the legislation? I refer him to clause 42 of this legislation. It is stated very clearly there, and I quote—

This is therefore a general exclusion, the Minister included—

1. (1) No person shall do anything calculated to influence a committee, the directorate or the appeal board in its decision in relation to any matter which has been or is to be submitted by such person under this Act to that committee ...

No person may do so, not the Minister either. Anything of this nature is punishable by the court. Now what more does the hon. member want? I am the Minister who is responsible for this and who has to account for this every year before the House. He may attack me across the floor of the House if I do not do so. Now the hon. member expects these people who will be appointed, people held in high esteem, and I to play a crooked game and to influence one another on findings while this is expressly prohibited by the legislation. What does the hon. member think of our jurists? What is his standard?

Jurists?

Yes, a person who has gained experience of the law, in whatever form, for a period of ten years is a man who knows the law. That is the standard of these people. I ask the hon. member, in all fondness ...

Are there going to be judges?

I want to inform the hon. member at once that their standpoint that no legislation is necessary, that the present legislation is sufficient and that matters should simply continue as they must ...

What about special legislation?

There is no country in the entire Western world, except Denmark, which does not have legislation in this connection. Britain, the United States—they all have legislation. Now the hon. member is advocating the opposite point of view. They are living in a dream world from which they would do well to return.

We come now to the official Opposition. Once again we have here the position which we encounter so frequently from the official Opposition, and by way of illustration I want to quote three passages from speeches made by hon. members opposite—

After those three sentences the little word “but” occurs in each members’s speech. They are the “but” party (“maar”-party). As they as party are carrying on, they are liberally wasting away, and are becoming emaciated (maer) as a result of this attitude. There is always a “but”; there is always an excuse and always a reason for their not wanting to do something. They must always give way, first to this side then to that side. They want to keep in with both sides. Have they never learned that this is something one cannot do? They always say: “We want this prohibited by means of a law if it is in any way possible, but ...” There is always a “but”. I have never once seen the United Party adopting an unambiguous standpoint and saying: “We stand firmly on this; this is the standpoint we adopt as a principle.” This “but” has not only cost them votes; it has also reduced their standing in this House to a point where we no longer attach any value to their standpoints. They have no effectiveness left as Opposition in South Africa. Now the hon. member for Green Point, their mouthpiece here, tells me that there are differences of approach between us and them. Thank Heaven for those different approaches! He says the differences is that their approach is positive, and that ours is negative. He says the people should control themselves. I want to point out to the hon. member that the person producing or publishing some or other form of dirty reading matter, does so to make money. For what other reason would he produce anything like that? Does the hon. member now want to tell me that those people will voluntarily curb or limit something from which they are able to make money? Surely it is the absurdest thing in the world to expect that. It is unbelievable that anyone can entertain such an expectation. The hon. member maintained that the spirit in which we had drawn up this entire measure was that this may not be done, and that that may not be done, etc. His argument was that our standpoint is: “Thou shalt not!” Mr. Speaker, said in all piety, we find ourselves in good company when we say: “Thou shalt not!”, for that is what the Law of God states. There are ten things one may clearly not do; they are expressly forbidden. When the law in South Africa reads like that, we are bringing our law into line with that law.

I want to tell the hon. member at once what the Government’s standpoint is. What is the Government’s standpoint? These evils exist. We are realistic enough to know that they exist. The people have certain moral and ethical standards. These are standards in which they believe. These standards are typically South African, in other words, our approach is different to that of other peoples because we are an individual people, with a distinctive character. We are, from the nature of our composition, different to the rest of the world. We are out of step with the rest of the world in certain of these spheres, and I am grateful that this is the case. The Government has received a mandate from the people to govern, and not to concede to every pressure from every side or to run away from every attack made on us. The people expect the Government to take action. The people expect the Government to watch over the preservation of their norms. The Government has the task of governing effectively and of carrying out its mandate.

Let us analyse this legislation. What I regard to be the foundation stone of this entire Bill I can sum up in a single sentence, viz. a population controls its own publications and entertainments within the framework of the Christian view of life which is recognized and applied in the Constitution Act and also in this Bill. That is the foundation on which this entire Bill rests, and that is the spirit in which every clause should be interpreted.

Let us now come to the practical application. In the consideration of publications there are three functions which have to be carried out. In the first place there is the decision-taking function—someone has to decide whether or not a specific publication, or whatever it may be, is desirable. In the second place, there is the administrative function, and in the third, the appeal function. These various functions have to be carried out in respect of publications, films and public entertainments. I come now to the present position: Why have these amendments been effected? The present board has nine members. It is physically impossible to scrutinize everything themselves. Nevertheless they are, in terms of the present Act, the only persons who can decide whether a publication or object is desirable or undesirable. It is impossible for them to see all the films themselves, and it is impossible for them to read all the books which come before them themselves. Yet the present Act states that only they may judge them. Consequently, how is the system working at present? For practical reasons certain steps were taken. Part-time panel members are appointed who, for example, view films. After having done so their written report is transmitted to the board by one board member who was present. On the evidence of this one person who viewed the film, the board has to judge whether the film is admissible or not. That is the present position. In the case of a book, panel members of a committee have to read it and submit a report. On the basis of this report the board eventually has to pass judgment on the book. I want to say at once that this is an undesirable situation. It is a situation which we should like to rectify, and there is no other way in which we are able to do this but the way we are proposing here.

How many readers are needed?

I come now to the committee system. Apparently the hon. member does not understand how the committee system works, but I am coming to that in a moment. Let me proceed. The board decides on the evidence of persons who have first-hand knowledge and information. The second item of criticism against the board which I want to reject because it is without foundation is that because the persons on the board only have a single task, they have lost contact with public opinion and have not kept abreast of the developments in normal life amongst people. They have become hidebound in their thinking and in their views because they have been geared to the one task only. I want to say at once that I want to pay tribute to this board, which had an unenviable task to fulfil and had to endure great abuse and much criticism. I want to pay tribute to them for the fact that, in spite of the low salary, and in spite of the abuse they tried to maintain the set standards. There are few people who would have been prepared to endure so much criticism and so much abuse as they have in fact had to endure in recent times. For that reason I want to pay tribute to them. How do we want to resolve the matter now? There is the recommendation that committees be appointed. Let me now explain how the committee system will operate, how it has been stated in the Bill and what I intend doing in order to implement these provisions.

We shall extend a free, open invitation to all interested parties—political parties, if they wish, churches, language groups, cultural organizations, universities and individuals. Any person, of any race group, may make recommendations and suggest the names of people who are competent and who are expert enough to be able to form an opinion on publications, entertainments, films, etc. It will be an open invitation to the whole of South Africa. Subsequently, so I assume, there will be a reaction. I hope hon. members opposite will inspire their supporters as well to react in this regard. I hope that we will receive names from the various sectors of the population throughout the country. As soon as those names have been submitted the Minister in question will constitute a panel—the Bill in no way binds the Minister as to the size of the panel—consisting of a certain number of people. At present I have in mind a panel of between 80 and 100 people. They will be distributed throughout the whole of South Africa. In every large centre there will have to be a panel of committee members, of competent, expert people who in the opinion of John Citizen, the public, are able to decide on such matters. The whole idea is that this panel should form a cross-section of the general public. There is no provision in this Bill which prohibits me from appointing non-Whites to that panel. If there are competent people from among their number who are proposed, we will consider appointing them to form an opinion on certain things in regard to which they are experts. There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit this. Such panels will therefore be appointed throughout South Africa in every major centre.

Will those panels in the major centres be more or less ten?

Will they be paid?

In the major cities, yes, more or less. The hon. member has asked whether they are going to be paid. The panel members are paid only per sitting day. In other words, if they are called upon to consider a specific matter, then they are paid per day. The hon. member has now brought me to the point where I want to be. These people can remain in their existing professions. They can remain in the heat of the fray, remain part of the cut and thrust of life, together with their fellow-colleagues of the professorates, together with the public, together with the ordinary man in the street. They can form part of that life, for that is where their full-time duties will be. They are then taken from those duties for a day to form an opinion on a certain matter, but the next day they return to normal life again. The charge cannot therefore be levelled that these people become isolated and cannot keep pace with world opinion. This is the first argument I want to raise. The second point is that the directorate will in every case constitute a committee of not less than three members from the panel members to examine a specific matter which has come to their attention. Let us take an example. Suppose it is a stage production in Johannesburg in regard to which misgivings exist, in regard to which there is concern. The directorate immediately appoints a committee of three of the panel members who are authorities in that particular sphere to attend the first performance of that specific play. Once they have seen it, they deliberate and reach a decision and furnish reasons for that decision. This decision will come into operation immediately. Should the work be deemed desirable, it continues without any interruption. Should it be deemed undesirable, it will be banned immediately after the first performance. I do not want any illusions about this; it will be banned immediately. In this way we will not again find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves with the performance of Three Months Gone, which had to go through 30 performances before official complaints were lodged and the last three performances prohibited by the Publications board. An appeal against this decision may be made, and that appeal goes to the appeal board, to which I shall come in a moment. After the appeal board has heard the various items of evidence and submissions, the board decides whether the original decision was correct or incorrect, and its decision is final. Therefore people who have themselves seen the performance take a decision, unlike the present case where a committee views a film performance and the board takes a decision according to the evidence of one man from the committee. The people who have themselves seen a performance now reach a decision on it. Who are these people? They are people who will have been recommended by the population of South Africa and whom the Minister has appointed to a panel. These people represent a cross-section of the population and represent public opinion as widely as it is practicable.

Would the hon. the Minister explain why it is necessary that the director has a right to appeal against the approval by the committee?

The hon. member wants to know why the director has the right, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the committee, to bring it before the appeal board.

Where it has been approved.

I want to inform the hon. member at once that the committees are located throughout the entire country, and the director will therefore have to ensure a measure of uniformity of standard. If the committee were to pass something and the director deemed that it should not have been passed—he himself has no right to reject it or to refuse since he only has to convey the decision—he can bring the matter before the appeal board. The appeal board reaches a decision on it, not the director. He must, under all circumstances take the initiative, because he is the responsible official. Of course it is also in the hands of the Minister to refer the matter to the appeal board, as you can yourself see from the Bill. The Minister, on the other hand, is the sounding board of the people. The letters reach the Minister and he must eventually judge whether it is necessary to refer a matter back to the appeal board. That is how the system is now going to work, how we want to cause it to work in this situation. At I have said, people from all walks of life will serve on these committees. Artists who, as was said here, could be detrimentally affected, may also be members of this panel. Why not? The professors who feel aggrieved, or anything of that nature, may also be members of this panel. All I am asking is a little bit of confidence; that is all we are asking, just a little bit of confidence. Just give the system a chance to prove itself. The committee therefore has to furnish reasons for its refusal or approval, and these reasons are available upon request. At the moment this is not available. In other words, we are throwing this matter open here. This is in reality a concession to the general public.

I come now to the administrative function, and I do not have much to say about that. We have already analysed the directorate from every aspect. It shall have its headquarters in Cape Town, and it is in charge of the administrative side of the entire matter, i.e. the administration of the committees and the appeal board on behalf of the public. I do not want to discuss the appointment of the appeal board, as it is very clear from the Bill. However, a few general objections were made. Firstly, objections concerning the committees and the uniformity of standards. I was told that a comittee in Pietermaritzburg may reach a decision different to that of a committee in Potchefstroom. [Interjection.] Very well then. I want to inform the hon. member that he did not read the Bill correctly. Such a work is not submitted in every town in which it is performed. It is submitted in the first town in which it is performed. That is where a committee is constituted, and that committee forms an opinion of it.

A similar work may in fact be performed elsewhere.

“Similar” is difficult to define. Nothing in the world is identical. It depends on the presentation itself, and upon quite a number of aspects; surely the hon. member realizes that. The board, i.e. the appeal board in this case, and the directorate maintain uniformity and ensure that a standard is maintained. In other words, if a committee passes a work which, in the opinion of the directorate, should not have been passed—that is for example a deviation from the standard laid down—the director lodges an appeal with the appeal board. And if the director lodges an appeal, the appeal board has to consider it. Therefore the directorate and the appeal board will in the end by the norm-determining bodies which determine more or less what the norm should be. The second point is that the committee will not be able to do everything itself. The hon. member asked me how many readers there are now going to be in the new system. I mentioned to him that there would be more or less a hundred committee members throughout South Africa. The vast majority of overseas publications enter this country through the harbours. The Customs and Excise Act is applicable here, and we will therefore have a permanent committee in Cape Town to deal with all those publications. It will be a permanent committee which will be engaged in this work on a full-time and permanent basis. For the rest we will have committees all over the country. If a book appears in Johannesburg and comes off the presses there, the Johannesburg committee will have to form an opinion of it, and if it is published in Cape Town, the Cape Town committee will do so. [Interjection.] No, they need not read every book. This is the other mistake which the hon. members made in their argument. Why should every book be scrutinized? If a book by a writer like C. M. van den Heever, or D. F. Malherbe is published, surely no person is going to call it in question. Why should they scrutinize it? After all, we know our authors. [Interjections.] If it is a book written by me, it will probably be called in question because I will have too much politics in it, but in any case it is not necessary to scrutinize every book. One discovers very quickly who the people are whose works one should examine, and whose not, and what publications are acceptable and what not. As far as films are concerned, at present these are all being viewed in any case. Therefore there is no change here. A permanent committee or two will simply have to convene to view films. It is their task, their work. It is being done at the moment. It is no use shaking one’s head now. It has to be done. Then, the other argument was that too many powers are being granted because only two people can decide. That is what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said—only two people can decide over what you and I may do or read. There may be an appeal against the decision to the appeal board, but two people will be able to decide. i.e. two as a majority of three. But those people will be representative of the people of South Africa.

And the man who loses does not even have a say in the hearing.

I am coming to the appeal, and I shall deal with this fully. The hon. member is as usual making a mistake on that point as well. Reasons have to be furnished, and then it comes to the directorate. According to hon. members opposite the directorate has too much power. But, Sir, someone must be able to initiate; someone must be able to watch and initiate the judge when a matter should be submitted to a committee. When the directorate sees some publication or other somewhere which is not receiving attention from a committee, then the directorate must have the right to refer the matter to a committee for its opinion.

Then we come to the matter of the appeal, which I should much like to deal with in full, because the entire attack of the Opposition in detail was in fact levelled at this. The appeal to the courts is being abolished, and another body is being put in their place. I would be grateful if those hon. members who placed such strong emphasis on this matter in this debate, would now give me a few moments of their attention. In the first place I want to have recourse to the standpoint which I have already quoted in my Second Reading speech, the standpoint of the judge of appeal who is now our Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Rumpff. This was included in the report, but for record purposes I want to refer to it again. Then I want to refer to the following. In the decision of Mr. Justice Snyman in the case of S.A. Magazine Company v. Publications Control Board, 1966, Mr. Justice Snyman said the following, and he is very candid in this standpoint. He goes into all the details, and analyses precisely at the arguments of the Opposition. I quote—

He was referring to Mr. Justice Rumpff—

The hon. member for Durban North raised this aspect, and I think he ought to listen now. This is what the judge said—

Where could one hope to find a clearer, more honest standpoint, from a man who says that he is a judge and that he is being called upon to give a decision, but does not have all the knowledge at his disposal to be able to do so. He said that he was convinced that the members of the Publications Board were experts and knew more about it than he did. However, the Act states that he has to give the decision; he is sorry but he will simply have to give it. That is the purport of what is being said here.

He can be provided with assessors.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is making an interjection now, and I should like to come to grips with him over his questioning of Mr. Justice Kowie Marais. Parts of that discussion have already been quoted, but I want to do so in full because it is necessary for the record and in order to see how matters actually develop. Mr. Justice Marais said (translation)—

That is what Mr. Justice Marais said on page 95 of the evidence—

He did not say “judges”—

This is the idea of an assessor, which the hon. member for Sea Point quoted out of context. The judge continued—

He continues on page 97—

On page 105 the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked the judge what he meant by “an appeal body outside the Supreme Court”.

He also submitted a memorandum, along with others.

This is what the hon. member asked on pages 105 and 106 (translation)—

The judge never said this, but he was trying to put words in his mouth. He was trying to trip up the judge by saying: ... you feel nevertheless that in order to retain the confidence of the public an appeal to the Supreme Court should remain?” Immediately the reply came from the judge (translation)—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout then said (translation)—

The reply—

The chairman of the Commission then went on to ask (translation)—

To this Mr. Justice Marais replied (translation)—

Then on page 106—

That is the basic problem. One cannot define this problem precisely in exact scientific terms so that the court knows precisely what it has to do. Mr. Justice Marais continues—

Is the hon. the Minister aware that Mr. Justice Marais submitted a memorandum at a theatrical committee meeting of the Transvaal Performing Arts Board in which he requested that the abolition of the appeal to the Supreme Court should not take place?

I am not aware of the contents of that memorandum. However, I am reading this oral evidence of the judge before the Committee. The entire question of the abolition of the appeal to the courts has been dealt with so thoroughly on our side by the hon. members for Vereeniging, Bellville and Ermelo that I do not think it is necessary to add anything further. The simple fact remains that here, in our opinion, is an administrative function which ought to be carried out administratively and which has been indicated by the judges to be an executive function of the executive authority. They have asked that it be taken away from the courts; they did not want it. We considered that we can in this way effect an improvement to our system, and to the legal system as well, by channelling an administrative right into another direction here by taking it away from the courts. This is not negative and destructive but positively constructive in a healthy direction.

We differ on that score.

Yes, the hon. member differs with me, and I have no objection.

But let us consider another matter. Let me mention another example. Hon. members may say it is an inapplicable example. We have in South Africa a Bureau of Standards. There the material commodities of the people are submitted to a bureau of experts so that they can judge whether these are desirable and up to standard. Equipment, machinery, suitcases, or whatever it may be, are submitted to that Bureau where they are subjected to certain tests. Eventually they decide that the standard is high enough and affix the stamp of the Bureau of Standards to such an article, or they say that it is not good enough and reject it. The manufacturer simply has to go back and effect improvements to try to achieve the stamp of the Bureau of Standards. Experts form an opinion on what material commodities are up to standard, and there is no appeal to any court of law against the decision of the experts of the Bureau of Standards. If they say that something is not up to standard, there is no appeal whatsoever. That article is rejected for good unless the manufacturer effects improvements.

There they have an absolute test.

I agree with her that there is an absolute test by experts, but in addition, there is no appeal, I am now asking in all sincerity that if this is applicable able in respect of material commodities it should also be made applicable to the spiritual and moral values of the people. Let experts pass judgment, and if there is an appeal, let it be heard by a person who has a knowledge of legal procedure and who will ensure that the law is being applied. Let him have assessors who are experts in the sphere of the arts so that that decision will be accepted as the final decision of that body which has been established by us to determine and lay down the norms.

These are really two incomparable situations.

That is the opinion of the hon. member. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South put questions to me, but has left the Chamber and I am therefore unable to reply to him. His question dealt with the matter of evidence which may be submitted to this appeal board. At present the Bill provides that written evidence may be submitted and that this may subsequently be discussed. Once it has been discussed, judgment may be passed. This is precisely the same procedure the Supreme Court adopts at the moment. It is also precisely the same procedure being adopted by the Supreme Court here in Cape Town in regard to the work which is at present sub judice and under consideration by them. This is written evidence which is argued by legal representatives of both sides before a judge. No evidence is led. This measure is even better because it makes practical adjustments.

The hon. member states that at present it is written evidence, but if the appeal board feels it is necessary for evidence to be led, it is free to have this done. In other words, we have here a practical approach to the problems of the present situation. In other words, we are making practical adjustments to the circumstances as they present themselves. Because this Board must inevitably acquire the status of being the authority which has to decide on the moral norms and standards of the people, it is being provided in clause 37 that this Board may not be held in contempt. We are doing this because we wish to afford it a status we feel is worthy of the moral standards of the people.

So I cannot call him “Nanny Kruger” any more?

The hon. member might grow up a little now. She is not with her Nanny now. I am not referring to the Publications Board; I am referring to the appeal board which will sit with a jurist as chairman.

He therefore enjoys more protection than a court.

The same provisions in respect of contempt which apply to the courts shall apply to this body. Then there is the right of appeal. What hon. members were trying to imply throughout the debate was that the courts are now being eliminated completely in respect of every provision in the Bill. They alleged that the courts never come into it. The impression which any innocent spectator in the Gallery listening to the arguments here would have gained would have been that we are dealing here with an authoritarian body which may take decision arbitrarily, mete out punishment and carry on regardless without any control. The appeal to the court has only fallen away in respect of the merits as to whether a publication or whatever it may be, is desirable or undesirable.

That is all that counts.

But hon. members deliberately omitted to mention the fact that all other offences are still being dealt with by the courts. I refer, for example, to clause 43 of the Bill. In terms of that clause any person who is found guilty of a contravention of a provision of sections 8, 9, 27(l)(a)(i), (b), (c) or (f) or 34(1) is punishable by the courts.

In addition, any person who is found guilty of a contravention of a provision of sections 17(5), 18(3), 24(9), 27(l)(a)(ii), (d) or (e), 28(7), 29(7), 36(9), 37(2), 41(2) or 42(2) is punishable in court. If one had been listening to these hon. members one would have said that we are now going to this matter arbitrarily and bureaucratically. The “bureaucratic monster”, as the hon. member for Von Brandis called it, is going to control all facets, and the court has been eliminated entirely. We have deprived the court of a single aspect, and for very good reasons, as we indicated here.

I must dwell for a moment on the question of entry upon premises. The impression was created here by hon. members that a person will be able, at any time of the day or night, to walk into anyone’s home and search it. I challenge anyone on the opposite side of the House to show me where this is contained anywhere in the Bill. It is only when specific persons have reason to believe that a publication is being printed or reproduced in a specific place, that they have the right to enter those premises. For the rest, such a person may only enter such premises if it is a place where the publications, etc., are being displayed, exhibited, sold or hired out, or are being offered or kept for sale or rental. Why mislead the people outside by implying that we are creating a number of super-policemen here, who are able at any time simply to enter upon any private property? It was the hon. member for Umlazi who made such a great fuss about this. He is a former police officer who did not read the Bill. He tells me, with the utmost importance, that a policeman must have special authorization to be able to enter premises. On this point he did not read the Bill. He made a great fuss. His entire speech consisted only of that. I come now to the other argument concerning the persons who are appointed with the right to enter premises, for example, to enter a café and remove certain items from it. Those hon. members spoke of the “thousand supermen” ... [Interjections.]

Yes, I do not want to use that term, because I do not want to degrade these people in that way. At present the members of the Board and all the members of the committees may do this. It is my intention once again to appoint these people who are panel members with the right to do this. It should be made possible for a person to go to a café and to remove, or note down, what is required in order to submit it to the committee. How else would it be possible to initiate this? As to the story that an inspector would have to be appointed for every café, I want to say that hon. members should really not become quite ridiculous now. The administration of the Act is, after all, not in the hands of people who do not know what they want to do.

I want to discuss the question of possession. It is an offence to possess certain undesirable material. I know that this is an addition, and that it is an aggravation of the entire position, but allow me, to mention an example now. It is at present an offence, according to the provisions of the Suppression of Communism Act, to possess certain communist publications. At present it is an offence in terms of the provisions of the Pornographic Material Act to possess certain pornographic photographs, etc., but written pornography can sometimes be worse than photographic pornography. Certain descriptions endanger the security of the State, and could be more dangerous than communist publications.

Let me mention an example to hon. members. If a book appears—and there are such books—in which a detailed description is given of how to paralyse a certain region of South Africa, or South Africa in its entirety, a publication in which the situation of the power stations are described which, according to them, should be blown up, a publication in which the position of the water reservoirs are indicated, a publication in which descriptions are given of how bombs should be made, and the procedure to be adopted, and so on, is it in the interests of anyone in South Africa that this publication should be made available to any person?

I am putting this question in all honesty to patriotic South Africans on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] Precisely, it is in such a case that we say that the possession of such a publication shall be an offence. It shall be an offence, for why does any person possess such a publication? What does he want to do with it? That is why I say—and hon. members should take cognizance of this—that it is only the possession of such works of which special notices have been published in the Government Gazette after the appeal board has approved such publication, which shall be an offence.

I know South Africa, and I know the freedom of our Press. The moment we mention three or four works and say that the possession of such works shall be an offence, the South African Press will ensure that great publicity is given to this, and that the whole of South Africa will know that those works are not available and may not be in the possession of any person. It is almost impossible that these could go unnoticed. Therefore I say that there are certain provisions which are essential, and for that reason we will retain this provision here, in spite of criticism. We shall retain it in the legislation for the sake of South Africa, and we shall not abuse it.

I want to raise another point. I am sorry that I am taking up the time of this House, but I must reply to the points raised in this debate over a period of three days. The hon. member for Durban North, in particular, said that we are producing this legislation for a section of a section of a section of the population, or rather, a very small part of the population.

I did not use those words.

No, that is not precisely what the hon. member said, but he did say that it was for a very small part of the population. I want to say at once that I have 300 000 signatures in my office of people who have asked me for such a law. Hon. members may tell me it was organized. Very well, it may have been organized, but from whom did it come and from whence? They came from churches, from church councils in South Africa, from youth organizations, from high school pupils—where a number of pupils, for example, wrote me a letter telling me that they, as young people, dissociated themselves from pornography and asked me to take action in this regard—from students and from thinking people in the country.

Everyone is in favour of our taking action against pornography.

Yes, the hon. members are also in favour of it, “but” ... The “but” is always added. Since this Bill was first mooted, I have received literally hundreds of letters and telegrams from all parts of the country. It was clear to me that this had not been organized. All of them testified to support for this specific Bill. I cannot even thank all of them or react to them because there are too many. I want, by way of the standpoint which I am adopting in this House, to tell them that I thank them for their standpoint and for their support. These letters came from people from all language groups and from people of all political parties, cutting right across the language and political boundaries. I brought along a few examples from the scores I received, which I want to quote.

Are you going to read them all?

No, I am not going to read them all. I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to them. I am going to mention the names of English-speaking people who are in favour of this legislation. I am not even going to mention the Afrikaans community, for that is generally accepted. I want to use only English examples.

But why read out only the English examples?

Because the hon. member for Durban North said that the legislation met with approval of only a very small section, the Afrikaners. Hon. members need not think that they can trip me up in this way. That is the suggestion which the hon. member made here. Let me give a few examples. Firstly, I have a letter from the Stellenberg Chapel, Pine-lands Assembly. The hon. member for Pinelands might take note of this. They say—

That is a petition consisting of seven or eight pages of signatures—

I also have a long letter from the Assembly of God of East London, supporting us. Then there is a comprehensive letter, in all respects, from the Baptist Church, Rosettenville, in which they say—

Again a petition with a number of signatures—I have not counted how many there are—

“Christian ethics” is included in the Bill. Then there is a letter from the Baptist Union of South Africa, from their Johannesburg headquarters in which they write—

I also have a letter from the rector of the St. John’s Presbyterian Church, Boksburg, in regard to this matter. Then there is one from the Wesleyan Church, and another from the head office of the Young Women’s Christian Association in Johannesburg. Listen to the wording of this letter—

In other words, for this legislation, as it stands—

Do hon. members want more specific support for this Bill?

How did they know what the Bill contained?

The fact remains that they accept the Bill.

Our commission had many more memorandums in regard to it.

This Bill was introduced in January of this year, and the hon. member knows this very well. He knows it just as well as I know it. The Bill has been available to the public as from January. [Interjections.] I want to proceed. I want to quote from a letter which I received from Umkomaas in Natal. This is a personal letter, and for that reason I shall not mention the writer’s name here. The letter comes from an individual. In the letter he states—

[Interjections.] I received this after the hon. member’s speech. The following little letter comes from Walmer in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. It states—

They never saw the Bill.

Then there are the kind of letters which one can see come from the heart of the father or mother—

Oh, my!...

This is a perfectly innocent little letter. The hon. member may scoff at religion if it suits her purpose.

Oh, come off it.

Yes, please. [Interjections.] I can continue in this way. I have one from Greytown in Natal. I want to read this one, and then one last one. This letter reads—

I want to proceed. The following letter appeared in the Eastern Province Herald. I can give you the writer’s name—the letter was signed by a Mr. Gordon Miller of Port Elizabeth. He writes as follows—

I shall skip a passage—

Then follows this very important paragraph—

These are the supporters of hon. members opposite who agree with them on racial matters, but who, in this connection, support us. He continues—

I have quoted only a few examples of hundreds in my office.

Let us see clearly what the principles are which our Party has in mind here. Our premise is that the Government has the duty to govern. In this connection it may receive praise or criticism for its actions, but it is its directive and its calling to govern. That is the basic duty of a government. I want to repeat for translation purposes that the expression “dit is die plig van ’n Regering om te regeer”, should be translated “it is the duty of a Government to govern”. I do not want my words to be distorted again as happened on previous occasions in the translation of those words by a newspaper.

Let us exchange a few ideas in regard to the freedom of the individual and licentiousness. This side of the House rejects the totalitarian concept of the communist state in which the individual has no rights and in which the state has the sole right, the only right and where the individual as such is swallowed up in the masses and becomes a mere number. We reject this in its entirety. We reject with as much conviction the permissiveness prevailing in some countries where individual freedom is taken to such extremes that the individual can do anything under the sun and no one lay a finger on him. That is not freedom; that is reckless licence which ought not to be there. This, too, we reject. The solution, therefore, lies somewhere between these two extremes, and therefore we believe in freedom for the individual within the limits of the law. The highest freedom lies within the law, and not outside the law. Let me use an image to demonstrate this. We as a Government believe that the individual is as free as a fish in the water. He is free to swim upstream or downstream, to swim to the left bank or to the right bank, at will. It is free as long as it remains in the water. The moment it moves out of the water, it is no longer free and comes into conflict with the law of nature. In South Africa we believe that the authorities which have been established by the voters of South Africa are there to establish the framework of law and order. Within the framework every individual is free to do whatever he or she wishes. This he may do within the framework of law and order as laid down by the bodies elected for that purpose in a democratic way. The moment he breaks out of that framework, in whichever direction it may be, owing to his individual impulses or tendencies or thoughts which compel him to do so, then we do not ask who he is; we do not ask what his language or his colour, or his origins, or his sex, or his age is. He is then breaking the law of the country and this Government will know its duty and take action against him. Let there be no illusions about that. [Interjections.] Yes, but the Act is being made by this Parliament, which carries out the wishes of the voters, and this is my other argument in regard to this entire matter. What is being done here, is not to force the will of Parliament upon the people; what we are doing here is to crystallize in this Bill the request of the people. It is the wish and the desire of the people which we are in this way giving shape to in its practical implementation. This is what we are doing, and nothing else. Mr. Speaker, we believe in the freedom of the individual, but we also believe that the freedom of the individual should be weighed up against, and related to, the interests of the community. We do not believe, as in some Western countries, that an individual is free to demonstrate at a football field; that he is free to run around and demonstrate and bring play to a halt. The freedom and the right of individual action by those people is respected, but the freedom of the thousands who want to see that match, is being encroached upon. They do not have the right and freedom to watch that game and enjoy it. No, the freedom of that small group of agitators is respected, but the masses who want to watch the match and who also have freedom, have to remain silent; they must simply allow the small group of agitators to disrupt the entire game. Sir, the Government in South Africa still has the courage to govern, and if demonstrators were to attempt to disrupt football matches here, you would soon see how the South African people deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. We can discuss the details of the Bill fully during the Committee Stage. I just want to say this in conclusion. I am the first person to realize that we are dealing here with a very difficult question. I have no doubt that it is necessary for something to be done. That we differ on the methods of doing this I understand very well. What I reject is the attitude of that party, which states that nothing need be done.

We can take action under the ordinary laws.

In other words, do nothing. Mr. Speaker, I am the first person to admit that this Bill, from the nature of the case, cannot be perfect; that no Act is perfect and that such a measure must in fact be improved from time to time in order to eliminate loopholes, and for that reason I want to say in anticipation at this stage already that amendments will have to be effected to this measure because it is not perfect. We shall apply it in practice and I want to give hon. members the assurance that if it does not work, we shall amend it until it does work. For all that I know amending legislation may perhaps be introduced next year already, but the fact remains that we are going to try to apply this Act to the best of our ability.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make just one last appeal. I know the Opposition rejects this Bill. They are trying to cast suspicion on the appeal board; they are trying to dismiss it as the Government’s parrot; they have all kinds of misgivings about the people who are going to be appointed. Sir, the Opposition and we are dealing here with a difficult problem. I want to make an appeal to the hon. members on the other side of the House to give this measure a good chance. If it does not work, we shall amend it together with that side of the House. But let us give this measure a reasonable chance to work, and see whether there is not a way in which we could perhaps find a solution to this problem, a method by means of which we could protect our country from the filth entering it. In this spirit I should like to conclude the debate, Sir, and thank you for this opportunity.

Question put: That the word “Now” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

A yes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha. G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, J. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, S. F. Kotzé, J. E. Potgieter and N. F. Treurnicht.

Noes—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

For a country such as the Republic of South Africa it is always important to organize its Defence Force in such a way that it may render a real contribution in discouraging military attacks against us. This ability to discourage attacks must, in so far as it is in our power, be made credible. If such attacks nevertheless take place, we must command an effective defensive power for repulsing them. This is only possible when we have a large measure of readiness and mobility or flexibility in our Defence Force.

The modern kind of war, whether it is of low intensity or in a more intense conventional form, is no longer being declared. It starts with insurgence and assumes greater proportions as it is supported by proxy by greater powers or as the enemy has better weapons at its disposal, as we see happening around us all the time. We can no longer have any doubts that the terrorism which is being experienced in Southern Africa and is also aimed against the R.S.A. will not make any significant progress if it is not effectively incited and encouraged from Moscow and Peking and by the actions of their satellites. The country that has to defend itself is often involved in a lengthy drawn-out struggle which varies in intensity. Consequently mobilization is not always justified and sometimes it is also detrimental to the economy of the country. Mobilization also requires such a great deal of exertion that it cannot be repeated at short intervals. This would therefore be employed as a last resort by a country whose economy must for the most part rely on the same manpower as does its Defence Force.

The most important provisions in the Bill which is before the House at the moment do not really contain many, if any, new principles. Most of them are contained, in some form or other, in the existing Defence Act. I now want to deal with a few provisions as they affect various facets of the Defence Force.

Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 contain proposals in terms of which larger numbers of members of the Citizen Force, Commandos and Reserves can be used for performing service for longer periods. This can be done without proclaiming a state of emergency and mobilizing. This can also be done in order to ensure the success of a particular operation.

In the case of members of the Citizen Force and Commandos the extra period of four months in the aggregate in their entire period of service of 10 years is being extended to as many periods not exceeding six months as circumstances may require. When members of the Defence Force, Commandos or Reserves are called out for such service, the Minister must report to Parliament on that matter at the first opportunity.

Then I should like to come back to clause 1. Clause 1 deals with an evil which started rearing its head recently, namely the fact that some employers are getting unwilling to employ young men who are still liable to military service. This is an objectionable attitude. Fortunately there are numerous praiseworthy instances of employers who, acting in an exemplary manner, are encouraging their employees to meet their military commitments. But I am of the opinion that the provisions of clause 1 have become essential, because there are some employers who apparently do not wish to act in the spirit of the Defence Act.

As far as clause 7 is concerned, the amendments it contains are particularly necessary after the recent floods in areas adjoining the Orange River when, without delay, units of the Defence Force had to render assistance in the form of civil defence. They will now be able to render such assistance during the first 24 hours without waiting for a request for assistance from the South African Police. If this is necessary for a longer period, the Minister or the State President will have to grant that right in terms of existing provision in the preceding subsections. During the first 24 hours they will therefore be able to render assistance on their own initiative, but after that the consent of the Minister or the State President, as the legislation provides, will have to be obtained.

The provisions of clause 9 lay down a process facilitating the modus operandi of the exemption board in respect of occupiers of key posts. This has become necessary in view of the fact that the manpower board recently recommended to the Minister of Labour that certain industries be declared to be key industries. In order to safeguard the exemption board against a repetitive process which is time consuming, this clause is therefore being proposed.

I should like to deal with clause 10 at somewhat greater length. In this regard I notice that extra-parliamentary action has already been taken by members of Parliament who have not yet delivered their maiden speeches in this House. I hope we shall be able to obtain the benefit of their wisdom in the course of this very debate. The proposals contained in clause 10 are already embodied as a principle in section 121 of the Defence Act. It is therefore no new principle which we are introducing here.

In regard to the proposed amendment of this clause I want to point out, in the first place, that notwithstanding opposition which the Republic is experiencing from all quarters, we are nevertheless occupying a strong position in relation to the outside world, which, especially in recent times, has experienced so many fluctuations. To a large extent this can be attributed to the solidarity found amongst our people as well as the stability of our country in other spheres. Unfortunately one finds that certain tendencies have now begun to arise among certain groups and organizations in our country, tendencies which cannot be viewed in any light other than being attempts at undermining this very stability and the Defence Force as an instrument of our security. The South African Defence Force is not only a symbol of our nationhood, but also a guarantee that our rights as South Africans to differ on our own problems is upheld without interference from outside. We may not allow our military defensibility to be undermined.

In this regard I want to refer specifically to the motion which was introduced by the South African Council of Churches at their latest session and in which citzens of our country were advised to refuse to do or to avoid their compulsory military service in the S.A. Defence Force. The reaction called forth everywhere against this motion was extremely encouraging and once again constituted proof of the firm intention on the part of the majority of the citizens of the Republic to place the security of our country before all other things. In spite of this an organization such as Nusas has also turned against the Republic of South Africa’s military preparedness in an outrageous manner, and this has happened on quite a number of occasions, both abroad and here in our country. Legal advice taken on the motion by the S.A. Council of Churches has brought to light that existing legislation, as contained in section 121, is inadequate for taking effective action against persons and organizations indulging in this reprehensible conduct. This section is very old and was added to the Act in a period when the methods of people still differed considerably from the methods we have to deal with today. The proposed amendment of section 121 is intended to supply this deficiency and to insert a provision in terms of which the undermining of our Defence Force may be warded off effectively. The heavy penalty coupled with the offence created in this clause reflects the gravity with which we as the Government approach this matter.

At this point it is perhaps fitting that I quote a very interesting excerpt from an article worded in most effective terms in the French publication Le Figaro by an acknowledged European statesman who was at one time Prime Minister of France and was also their Minister of Defence and still plays a major role in that country’s political life today, i.e. Mr. Michel de Bré. Mr. de Bré said the following—

Here. I think, Mr. de Bré laid his finger on the root of the evil experienced by the Western world today, for these doctrines are not tolerated behind the Iron Curtain. Behind the Iron Curtain nodoby will be allowed to undermine the defence force of China, Russia or of Czechoslavakia, but in the Western world there are enough lackeys of the communistic doctrines who are engaged in this kind of undermining while wrapping themselves in a cloak of sanctimoniousness. Mr. de Bré said—

We in South Africa have achieved solidarity, we have built up stability and brought security not only to the White section of South Africa, but also to the other population groups with other pasts and other ideals. It is time that, for the sake of all of us, we ensured that stability through keeping this symbol alive, the great symbol of our stability and security. I want to add that with the amendment of section 121 of the principal Act by this clause, the provisions of sections 67(3) and 126 of that Act are by no means being dispensed with. I see that in the endeavours of the extra-parliamentary action group concern is suddenly being expressed about people who have legitimate conscientious objections in regard to their compulsory military service. Those sections are still on the Statute Book. They are not being changed. If any person has real conscientious objections, for instance, if a person is a member of a recognized church of which the official standpoint is non-participation in violence, such a person can serve in the Defence Force in a non-combatant capacity. We make provision for that. He can do service in the hospital as a medical orderly, he can serve in an administrative capacity or he can serve in some auxiliary service or other. There is ample opportunity for a person who has real conscientious objections to do his duty towards his country. Our legislation makes provision for that. Should that person therefore refuse to do his duty in whatever capacity, he is going to sit for twelve months where he belongs, namely in the detention barracks.

Hear, hear!

Up to now this has worked very well, but section 121 of the principal Act and the amendment thereof have nothing to do with that provision. I just want to say that we must keep these two matters separate. We are after the blood of those persons who, wrapped in a cloak of sanctimoniousness, are trying to prejudice the security of South Africa. I think I have now set out this matter very clearly.

I want to express my personal thanks to the large number of chaplains in the South African Defence Force—this includes the chaplains of the Afrikaans churches, the chaplains of the Pentecostal churches and all the chaplains of all the English churches—who unanimously rejected the resolution passed by the South African Council of Churches and expressed their disapproval in that regard. I want to express my tanks to them for the brave stand they have taken in regard to this matter. In this regard it is also interesting to take notice of a very interesting theological motivation which reached me. It was written by a well-known theologian in South Africa, Prof. Heyns of Pretoria. He made certain comments on the resolution by the Council of Churches. I just want to read a few paragraphs from it (translation)—

A second reference of his reads as follows—

In a third reference he wrote—

This is confirmed by what was resolved by the English-language chaplains, who sent me the following message—

Since I received this message from theologians outside the chaplain service, from chaplains in the Afrikaans churches, from chaplains in the English-language churches, from chaplains in the Pentecostal churches, and since this was confirmed by petitions and messages from a great many of our Defence Force units, I think that I am justified in saying that the insertion of this clause is in accordance with the feeling of the majority in South Africa.

Clause 11 is an amendment which is consequent upon the preceding amendment. In connection with clause 12 I should like to say that honorary orders have been awarded to senior officers of the S.A. Defence Force on several occasions, while we have no provision in terms of which the S.A. Defence Force can award reciprocal honours. This is now being made possible by this amendment.

Clauses 13, 14 and 15 propose certain improvements in respect of compensation or pension benefits for members of the Citizen Force, Commandos, Reserves and Permanent Force which may be effected in connection with the performance of their duties. In my opinion this matter can very profitably be investigated further by a select committee.

The object of clause 17 is to make provision in the Civil Defence Act for official decorations and medals for long service and bravery to be awarded to members of auxiliary services attached to the Civil Defence branch which falls under the Army. I have received strong representations in this regard, especially from the congress of the Fire Brigade Institute which took place recently.

These proposed amendments are the result of serious deliberations held by me, the senior officers of the Defence Force and the Cabinet. I am nevertheless of the opinion that we should continue a good practice by referring this Bill, after its Second Reading, to a select committee for further deliberation so as to give final shape to it. It is in fact my aim to follow this procedure time and again. I want to take this opportunity this afternoon, since it is obvious that there are threats against South Africa, since it is obvious that attempts are being made from abroad and internally to bring pressure to bear on South Africa, to make an appeal to this House to raise his voice unanimously, as it did in the past—and by that I do not mean that we may not differ with one another—by saying that South Africa will tolerate no outside interference in its defence force.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the announcement, as communicated to me beforehand by the Minister, that this Bill is to be referred to a select committee. This is a respected tradition which has been followed for years, and which has produced good results time and again. Normally it would not be necessary for me to say more than just a few words at this stage. Under the circumstances I feel obliged to comment on certain aspects of this Bill. We have a new Parliament here with a new party and new members, and for that reason I am going to say a few words about this Bill.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Minister and I often differ; in fact, we sometimes even write rude letters to each other and exchange hard words. However, on the fundamentals, as far as the security of South Africa is concerned, there is common cause. I want to specify aspects thereof which. I believe, are concerned in this Bill. The first is that we are at one, the Government and the United Party, on the defence of the sovereignty of the State in South Africa. We believe that the authority of the State must be defended and protected. We are at one on the territorial integrity of South Africa and we will give our support to any measures to protect the territory of South Africa from assault or attack. There is also a third field on which we are at one and that is on the need for an effective Defence Force to perform these tasks. On issues such as this Bill where steps are being taken to improve the effectiveness of the Defence Force, its effectiveness as a defensive mechanism, the Minister has always been able to rely on our support. Fourthly, we recognize that our Defence Force must not only be strong enough to meet the immediate needs of today, but it must act as a deterrent in order to meet the needs of tomorrow and what may lie ahead. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if we have differences on how these principles should be achieved, if we have arguments on detail, we have no differences at all on these four fundamental aspects of the security of South Africa. Here dealing with this measure, we have the opportunity in this House to discuss the principles involved in the Bill, to discuss them in perspective, and then to thrash out differences—and I am going to deal in broad outline with some differences myself—in the select committee. That is how I believe it should be done. I think it is a pity that the Progressive Party should have issued the statement which it did this morning. I was also approached by the Press and asked to make a statement, but I believe that when a measure of this nature is to be debated in this House it is, to put it at its least, a discourtesy to prejudge, to pre-empt, the debate which is to take place on the very day that it takes place. Where a measure cannot be debated for some time, it is the normal practice to state the view of the party, but I hope that on measures of security we will not try to indulge in petty point-scoring either in debate or in the Press. I believe that some members of the Progressive Party were in the Government caucus room yesterday, as many of us in this party were, and they were able to see there an exhibition of weapons and documents. I think that sort of experience should in itself be enough to convince them and all of us who saw them that this is not a game we are playing. These things did not arrive in a Christmas parcel, wrapped up with pretty paper; they were obtained the hard way from enemies of South Africa and when you see and read some of the things I saw and read yesterday, then you realize that we are not playing with unsophisticated, simple people; we are dealing with high levels of training and high levels of planning. Sir, I hope that all parties will follow the practice which we have followed here over the years of seeking not to make a political issue of defence. Let me deal particularly, Sir, with the six headings under which this Bill falls; in other words, with the principles in so far as a measure of this kind has principles. The first is the principle that an employer should not victimize an applicant for employment. I can say at once that we accept that principle. We have some difficulty in regard to the wording of the clause and the presumption clause because we see some practical difficulties. In fact the Minister will acknowledge that I wrote to him some 18 months ago drawing his attention to this very evil, and that I pointed out in this House last year that the South African Broadcasting Corporation, in advertising a post, had in fact stated that preference would be given to those who had completed their military service. Sir, not only do I support it, but it is something for which we on this side of the House have asked. The details, as I say, we can argue in the select committee.

The second principle is that of extended liability. Again—I do not need to repeat it—we accept the principle that where forces are needed to defend South Africa, we on this side of the House, the official Opposition, are prepared to give our support where we are satisfied that it is justified. Here, in theory, a great deal is being asked, and it would be very easy to exaggerate what this means. I believe that, again in Select Committee, we will be able to incorporate safeguards which will ensure that the burden which may flow from this extra service will be fairly shared amongst all men so that one unit or one group of men will not be called up over and over again, and that the responsibility, the obligation, will be spread fairly and that it will be used only when it is absolutely necessary. We shall also suggest to the hon. the Minister that, in terms of the obligation which he himself accepts in clause 8, of reporting to Parliament when power is used to call up Reserves outside their normal commitments, the same practice should be followed when persons are called up over and above their normal basic responsibilities. We believe that when this power is required, Parliament should be notified. This is a detail which we can discuss.

On the second principle there is thus no problem as far as we are concerned, except as regards the safeguards. On the question of the introduction of key-men, and the question of the extension of awards, we have no problem. The extension of liability for the death of or injury to servicemen is something which we welcome and which we have often discussed in this House. We believe, and have believed for a long time, and in fact have pleaded that more satisfactory compensation be paid for men who are injured or killed in the service of their country. We believe that where the lives of our young men are concerned, you cannot measure them in cents or approach the matter in a penny-snatching way. I might mention although it is not germane to this Bill, that we believe that the life of any man is equally valuable to South Africa, and on another occasion we will deal with this principle. Whether he be Black or Brown or White, a life is a life and should enjoy equal value when it is offered or lost in the service of South Africa.

That leaves us then with the one clause, which deals with the question of incitement to evade service. Let me say at once that only a fool or a traitor would be blind to the realities of the dangers that face us. Old borders are in the process of disappearing. They are just names to most people, like the Congo and Zaire, Zambia and the Zambezi, the Rovuma River and Tanzania. They were a long way away. But when we start thinking of Ruacana and the Limpopo and the Kruger National Park as the borders of South Africa, it becomes much more real to us. I have not met Presidents Kaunda or Nyerere, but I have been to Carmona and the jungles of Angola, to Cabo Delgado, Porto Amelia, Montequez, Vila Cabral and Tete, names which we read about every day. These are all strange names to most South Africans. But we will have to get used to hearing names which are more familiar to us. Therefore, against this reality, I believe that we cannot afford to split hairs. We have here a provision which does not in fact introduce a new principle. The present Act, in section 121 provides that a person who incites a serving member of the Force not to do his duty or to evade duty commits an offence. This amendment simply places a person who is not yet a member, but is liable to become a member in the same category as those who are already serving, in relation to those who may incite against them.

We have two problems. There is a practical problem in the wording of the clause which could mean that, even though it was not the intention of the measure—I accept the hon. the Minister’s word.—normal church services, including the preaching of peace, could technically be brought under the ambit of this clause. I accept that this is not the intention and therefore we accept the principle as it is outlined. We can deal with the details, to avoid the possibility of its applying in a ridiculous way, when the Bill is considered by the Select Committee.

In regard to the penalty I do not think we must go overboard and indicate to our enemies that there is any question about the patriotism of South Africans. When you start providing for vast penalties there is the danger that you may imply that you need a great, big stick to protect or encourage the patriotism of your people. Again this is not a principle; it is a detail and I think we can argue this in the Select Committee. The present punishment is five years for inciting serving people not to carry out their duty, but the Bill increases it to ten years. It is a question of whether this is twice as bad or not. The main principle with which I am concerned is that it will be a matter for the courts to decide; it is not a minimum sentence but a maximum. We can argue the detail of it and leave it to the courts of South Africa to decide finally.

I say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House shall support the Second Reading. We shall play our part in the Select Committee and I hope that we shall be able to achieve a unanimous agreement on the final measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to be able to take part again in a defence debate in which there is as much unanimity as there is this evening. I nevertheless find it fairly interesting and different that the hon. member for Durban Point is sensitive to the position on his left flank.

They must learn.

I think that in the next five years we are going to see quite a few interesting movements on the left of the hon. member. I think the hon. member is quite correct in his attitude when he reproaches the hon. members of the Progressive Party for the attitude they are adopting in connection with this legislation.

Perhaps they will support it.

The question that arises is whether they can be reproached for having issued a press statement today. I agree that they can be blamed because that press statement was issued by the kind of person the hon. the Minister referred to, and also because a certain procedure was adopted. However I do not believe the hon. member need go so far as to deny someone the right to issue a statement on the day of the debate. It is sometimes quite customary for a statement to be issued by an opponent. It should at least be done on the basis indicated by the hon. the Minister.

I do not want to go into the Bill in detail. It will be discussed in a Select Committee and there we shall look at more details. I only want to comment on two matters. The first is clause 1. Having a look here at clause 1, one is again disappointed at the thought that there are still employers in South Africa to whom the hon. the Minister of Defence has to say: “Because you do not want to cooperate, I must have legislation passed against you.” There are employers who, inter alia, lack appreciation for two matters. The first is that these young people they do not want to employ are the young people who, inter alia, ensure that the employers make a good living in South Africa. In the second place those employers do not want to realize that when they employ a young person who has already done military service, must go and do military service, or is still doing military service, they are actually employing a young person who has an advantage over another young person who has not yet had the opportunity to do military service. He is actually a better person to employ. It is really disappointing that we have to discuss that again today.

I should just like to look at one matter in particular. I refer to clause 10. The hon. the Minister referred to a very strongly-worded explanation and statement by Prof. Heyns. I am no theologian and will make no attempt to venture into that field, but I do not think that it is necessary for us tonight, in this House, to take a look, inter alia, at the motivation for this clause, i.e. the resolution passed by the South African Council of Churches during their recent meeting at Hammanskraal. I have the complete resolution solution here to hand and I want to take a look at a few of its aspects. I should like to point out to the House some of the elements which are dangerous to the State and which are embodied in this so-called Christian resolution.

I do not want to comment on the preamble, because Prof. Heyns made that very clear to us. The motion has nine introductory paragraphs, and then six paragraphs which embody the actual resolution. I should like to refer to some of the introductory paragraphs. It is very interesting to see the wording and sequence of these paragraphs. This is not as innocent a document and resolution as the proposer and seconder wished to have South Africa believe. The preamble is “In the light of this, the conference ...” and then we have paragraph 2—

The third paragraph reads as follows—

And then paragraph 4—

In other words, the words in paragraph 2, “whenever the State demands it”, in paragraph 3, “a just war”, and then in paragraph 4, “a basically unjust and discriminatory society” are important here. Paragraph 5 reads as follows—

What is the meaning of these words “institutionalized violence”, in other words, built-in violence? It is nothing more than is normally known as revolutionary “jargon”, or slang, with which the leftists and anarchistic agitators throughout the world these days try to justify their own deeds of outrageous violence, including arson and murder. That is the language being used here. Those are dangerous words to use in the situation prevailing in Southern Africa. This ecclesiastical meeting proceeds and states the following in paragraph 6—

Again it is interesting to take a look at what these words mean. What do the words “radical change from outside the White electorate” mean? There is insufficient time available to go into this fully now, but one asks oneself what the South African Council of Churches expects of this Government. Do they expect the Government to sit with folded arms and allow matters to develop without let or hindrance, and this from certain sources in South Africa as well? What do some of these “Moves for Radical Change” look like? This concept “Radical Change” blew across to South Africa from three different quarters. The first identifiable direction is from the World Council of Churches. The second is the European “New Left”, particularly in the Netherlands, West Germany and Scandinavia. The third is the American “New Left”, with its related political phenomena, particularly amongst the aggrieved sector of the Negro population. Who are the most important apologists of this movement, particularly those from America? Amongst others a gentleman known as Herbert Marcuse with his neo-Marxism, and another person, Stokely Carmichael, with his “Black Power” ideas. I mention just those two. This concept “Black Power” and its concomitants are given shape in South Africa, inter alia, by visitors, by an organization from America which has shown interest, and by the establishment of an organization in South Africa known as the “University Christian Movement”. The latter was originally an innocent organization for Christian students. I do not want to comment on that. It does not befit me, as chairman of another commission, to do this. I merely want to confine myself to an off-shoot that relates to this matter, inter alia, “Black Power” and “Black theology”. The fundamental premise which is a springboard for the Black Power exponents is the following—

This trend of thought has only one objective, and that is to destroy the White capitalistic powers and to replace them by a Black socialism, under the banner of the so-called freeing of the Black people. The main object is therefore to make the Black man aware of his own identity and in conjunction with that the resulting political power. That is one element I want to bring to your attention.

Another concomitant is the so-called “Black theology”. The Black Theology does have a few interesting names and titles. In South Africa we encounter it under the names “Black Theology”, “Theology of Revolution”, “Theology of Politics”, “Theology of Land”, “Theology of Hope”, and then also “Theology of Sexual Politics”. What that means is known only to the man who wrote a paper on it and preached about it. For these exponents of Black Theology it is not a matter of conveying the sound Biblical gospel of Christ; it is a Flack, revolutionary, political ideology which is aimed against the Whites and the White community with all its structures, and its final goal is a socialistic Black state. That is also the objective of some of the people who were present at the Hammanskraal meeting and were a party to this resolution. The exponents of this Black Theology state, inter alia—

It is a kind of moral philosophy of which the following is stated—

In other words, these people use elements from the Bible to lend strength to the so-called “Black Power”. These are, amongst others, exponents of the concept “radical change from outside the White electorate”. This evening I shall not even comment on what is being envisaged “inside the White electorate”. But let us proceed to the following paragraph. Paragraph 7 reads as follows—

In other words, it is hypocritical to refer on the one hand to the terrorists or so-called “freedom fighters”, while within one’s own country one is engaged in this built-in violence in one’s own state structure. In the very next paragraph the motion reads—

Just imagine that, Mr. Speaker! Our two wars of independence are being brought into line with the situation that prevails today. And what is more the word “hypo-critical” is used in the introduction to this resolution. There is surely no comparison. The people who fought on the side of the Boers in the Anglo-Boer War were surely not a bunch of murderers. They were, after all, not persons who cold-bloodedly killed innocent people, and yet that comparison is being made. It is interesting how this i comparison is being made between the Afrikaner and the Black man in this motion on which, according to the Progressive Party, not too heavy a sentence must be passed. What their sentence must be, I do not know. According to the Progressive Party’s statement their objection is to the sentence that could be passed. It is interesting that one finds this comparison here. It is also interesting to note where one variously finds this. Let me just refer hon. members to one other example of how relations between the Afrikaner in South Africa and the Black man in South Africa are being distorted. Here it is being done in the name of the Church, in fact the various churches that are involved. I refer hon. members to paragraph 16.2.99, page 418, of the Fourth Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Organizations ...

The hon. member may quote a portion, but he may not discuss the report.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss the report since in accordance with a motion the report will be discussed in the House at a later stage. I just want to quote from it, and I want to refer hon. members to this paragraph—

I took this quotation from a paper which appears in the report which will be discussed in this House at a later stage. I find it interesting that one picks up that sort of line in all things of this nature against South Africa that blow along from the left.

Let us look at the following paragraph in the statement of the South African Council of Churches—

In other words, they are telling the chaplains serving in the Defence Force that they should ask themselves whether they are justified on moral grounds in serving in the South African Defence Force, or as an alternative they must ask themselves whether they are justified in serving in the Defence Force since they thereby become servants of the State which is described in the terms contained in this motion. That is the question being put to chaplains by the South African Council of Churches. Then, as a result of this discussion, the South African Council of Churches comes along with the following resolution—

In other words, they are asking the member churches to ask their members to consider whether they should take up arms or not. This is not simply one isolated appeal that is being made. As far as I am concerned this is one of the worst possible indications to justify the introduction of this legislation. Amongst other things, the following paragraph states—

In the next paragraph the following appears—

In other words Mr. Speaker, here the South African Council of Churches is asking its chaplains and their members to minister to the spiritual needs of people outside South Africa, fugitives and terrorists outside South Africa “under arms beyond our borders”. They must consequently withdraw themselves from the South African Defence Force. They must not go and minister to the spiritual needs of their own boys in the South African Defence Force, but rather to those people outside our borders. That is to say “the hon. gentlemen who are sitting outside”, the “dishonourable gentlemen who are sitting inside”. Can one imagine anything more serious in the light of the situation in which South Africa now finds itself? In the second paragraph I quoted to you, people who went to gaol as a result of their opposition to so-called “unjust laws” are being congratulated. I should like to ask the South African Council of Churches who they are hereby excluding. Is it Mr. Abram Fischer, is it the accused in the Rivonia case, is it John Harris who threw the bomb on Johannesburg station? These are surely, amongst others, the people who went to gaol because they revolted against so-called unjust laws. Surely the South African Council of Churches owes South Africa an answer in connection with all these various aspects. They also come along with this—

From this I must therefore conclude that the South African Council of Churches is asking their people to follow this example that has been set, i.e. the breach of the law by people who have gone to gaol because they insisted that their conduct was just. What other conclusion can one draw from: “... and who challenge all of us by their example”? That is the wording of the resolution of the South African Council of Churches. This same body also has the temerity to say, in all seriousness, in the last paragraph—

I leave the matter there. What I find interesting is that Mr. D. Bax, who was the person who moved this motion, was in 1968 the host—probably as minister of his church—to a young lady from America by the name of Miss Mary McNally. She visited South Africa in order to attend a certain conference. At the conference that took place here in South Africa, that Miss McNally was regarded as one of the extremist radicals—to such an extent that even the fiery individuals in South Africa could not associate themselves with her ideas. I am now speaking of the leftist delegates. She brought with her a newspaper of her organization in America. She represented the “University Christian Movement” of the United States. The title of the newspaper is The Hot One. It deals with politics and related matters. Their intentions are set out in this newspaper, their intentions as far as South Africa is concerned. The wording of this motion also contains this idea, amongst others things. As one of their aims I refer you to one of the paragraphs—

One asks oneself if that is where the South African Council of Churches is heading. The off-shoot of this is, inter alia, the following. The kind of resolution adopted there is also, with respect to the definition of the so-called “unjust society”, for the purpose of stirring up a feeling of guilt amongst the inhabitants of South Africa. Must one ask oneself whether one should make oneself available for military service in view of what is going on behind the scenes? The provision in this legislation will certainly not refer only to people who use words alone to stir up persons in this connection from a pulpit or at a meeting This provision can also relate to people who do so in writing and under other circumstances. I leave the matter there.

I want to conclude by quoting a paragraph that appeared in a leader in Die Burger of 9 July. I think it relates to this Bill before the House today. The editor of the newspaper states the position as follows (translation)—

The editor concludes with this—

Mr. Speaker, permit me to say at the outset that I stand in this House today with a deep feeling of honour, of gratitude and of humility. I appreciate most fully the honour which has been bestowed upon me by the constituents of the newly formed constituency of Umhlanga in electing me as their first member of Parliament. This is something that I must never forget. I am grateful to them for having bestowed this honour upon me. My feeling of humility is brought about mainly by an appreciation of the tasks that lie ahead and my earnest desire to do everything in my power to ensure that I play my part in and make a meaningful contribution to the scheme of things.

We are today considering a Bill to amend the Defence Act of 1957. I am sure that there are many members present here today who were also present in this House when the Act was considered and debated in 1957. I am sure that to them that day seems like only yesterday. I know it does to me. Let us consider this fact, however. Many, many of the infants of the 1957 vintage are going to make up a large proportion of the intake into our Defence Force in January and mid-year of 1975—next year. I believe sincerely that we must at all times remember that it is the youth of our country who are affected by changes that we make or any amendments that we may effect in this Defence Act. I also believe that the Manpower of tomorrow in our Citizen Force, Commandos, Reserves and the Permanent Force is the Boypower of today. The young lad who in December takes his cheese-cutter and throws it as far as he possibly can and gleefully hangs up his school blazer for the last time is the boy who one month later will be an armed soldier in the service of his country. There is this sudden change from a boy to a man. This is a very sobering thought Mr Speaker, for those of us who have sons in the matriculation classes who will be writing their final examinations in a few months time. I know this, Sir, because I am in that position myself. Mr. Speaker, it is these boys who have had to become men almost overnight that we expect to accept without question the provisions embodied in, let us say, for example, the proposed amendment to sections 21, 22, 35, 44 and others as outlined in the Bill before this House. I believe that any South African lad would accept readily any demand made on him if he had been taught the meaning and the understanding of two fundamental and important principles, namely loyalty and patriotism, and I believe also that it naturally follows that no loyal patriot would ever think of declining to do his duty and would certainly not lend even a minute portion of his ear to any person or organization that attempted to discourage him from doing so. I am sure, Sir, that this House will agree that every encouragement should be given to youth movements and organizations that aim at taking positive action in promoting the ideals of loyalty and patriotism plus any other action that will serve to make our youth better able and ready to wear proudly a uniform in our Defence Force and also to accept more readily the training and discipline that they will have to undergo in order to become good soldiers, sailors or airmen. Mr. Speaker, there is such a movement in our country and one with which I am proud to have been closely associated for a number of years. I am speaking of “The Boy Scouts of South Africa”. “Die Padvinders van Suid-Afrika”. There are, of course, others, but I am sure you will permit me, Sir, to acquaint this House with the workings of the one of which I have an intimate knowledge. During the many years I have been associated with Scouting, I have made a point of studying the effects of army life and discipline on young men who had been Scouts and those who had not, and I can say without any doubt that the Scouting movement has established a two-way traffic. By this I mean a beneficial traffic both to the boy and to the Army. The ex-Scout, the boy who was a Scout, going into the Army far more readily accepts his new life, albeit a temporary one, and its discipline and its hardships. The unit to which he is attached finds in him a lad who has a good understanding of what is expected of him in his new role.

Sir, hon. members may ask: What is this movement all about; what are its virtues that are leading me to the point where I want to convince this House of its value to our Defence Force? Simply stated, Sir, it is in its aims and principles, and with your indulgence, I would like to read out the aims and basis of the Association—

Sir, a very simple promise is taken by a lad who becomes a Scout; he says simply: “On my honour I promise that I will do my best; to do my duty to God and my country, to help other people at all times, to obey the Scout law.” Sir, the laws are simple. We heard some “thou shalt nots” here this afternoon. The ten Scout laws never use the negative injunction; they are positive. They say “Thou shalt”, and they deal with honour, loyalty, helpfulness, friendship, courtesy, kindness to animals, obedience, cheerfulness, cleanliness, cleanliness in thought, in word and in deed. Mr. Speaker, this movement took root here in South Africa and has spread throughout the Western world, and it is almost ironical to think that out of one of the darkest chapters of our history should come the idea for this international movement. I am speaking, Sir, of the Anglo-Boer War and, of course, of Robert Baden-Powell, whose Boy Messenger Corps at Mafeking is thought to have stimulated the idea that he later put so effectively into practice. A well-known educationist wrote this—

I want to say a little about the Movement’s strength. In South Africa its membership stands at 58 100. This was as at 30 September 1973. Incidentally and for the information of the House, the membership throughout the world is spread over 106 countries and totalled 13 110 259 members as at the same date. Among the Boy Scouts of these 106 countries, South Africa is widely recognized as an international leader country, and although membership is small by the standards of many of the other countries, we have a great influence on them because they recognize that our standards are high and that we have in South Africa a wide-awake and enterprising movement. Many patterns set here are followed in other countries. These things may not be relevant to this discussion, but I hope to have an opportunity later of illustrating the magnificent contribution the South African movement has made in the field of environment both here and abroad.

I wonder how many of the hon. members who yesterday visited the exhibition in the caucus room in this building noticed in the text-book there that the Boy Scout movement in South Africa is listed as one of the defence organizations in this country.

*Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay great emphasis on one point. The Boy Scouts of South Africa is a bilingual movement. It is not there for English-speaking boys only, but for Afrikaans-speaking boys as well. The doors are open. The movement is divorced from politics, and to illustrate that I read Rule 13, as printed in the movement’s Policy, Organization and Rules—

†Mr. Speaker, defence depends on available Manpower and I would like to stress that we cannot have that Manpower without Boypower. I would like to urge that both sides of this House will recognize this and will also encourage and support all youth movements such as the Boy Scouts founded here in our own country.

Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I want to confine myself to a single aspect before congratulating the hon. member for Umhlanga, and this also relates to that point he explained here, i.e. those boys and girls who can furnish a contribution on the home front. That is why we are grateful to the hon. member for Umhlanga for having furnished here a very constructive and extremely useful contribution. Sir, we can assure him that this House values very greatly his interest in defence at the level at which he has placed it here. He is also welcome here in the House, particularly because the hon. shadow Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Durban Point, has need of strength, and it is clear that the hon. member for Umhlanga will be able to bring him the necessary strength in that connection.

Sir. I have said that I should like to get to the point in connection with our youth who are also being included in our defence. Clause 17 of the Bill interests me at this stage. On the surface it appears to be a clause that does not have much body, but what it means is that in the service of civil defence certain decorations and medals can be awarded. This means that one does not obtain decorations and medals for nothing; one must work for those decorations and medals. This means that with the envisaged amendment to the Civil Defence Act, the hon. the Minister is encouraging people to join the civil defence services. That is why it is so important for us to ask, at this moment in our history, where we stand in the field of civil defence. It is also important to take note of the policy in that connection. The policy in that connection is very clear, i.e. that local authorities, as a result of their particular ability to coordinate services—a task with which they are engaged every day—such as the combating of fires and the provision of services, are specifically the proper bodies to carry out the civil defence services. That is nothing new to them. That is why it is important to note that in terms of the policy, as the hon. the Minister implements it at present, a responsible person with authority is designated in each local authority area to co-ordinate civil defence services. Yes, those persons are expected to present a national protection plan in consultation with officers in charge of commands. The purpose of this is to ensure that in time of emergency, in the time of crisis, when the lives of people on the home front are at stake, everyone will know what he has to do and where he has to do it. For that reason I personally welcome this new provision, and we want to express the hope that local authorities will ask themselves, at this point in our history, whether they are doing their duty in this connection. Have they already completed the necessary plan? Have they already worked out a committee system according to which the plan can be implemented?

To what clause is what the hon. member is now saying applicable?

If they have not done so, it is now the proper time to request that attention be given to this matter.

And this brings me to another clause which enjoyed the hon. member for Potchefstroom’s attention, i.e. clause 10. In that connection we have taken note that a mouthpiece of the Progressive Party in Defence matters issued a certain statement. Here we are faced with a unique situation. I want to point out that the standpoint of the Progressive Party, as it is reflected in that statement, boils down to the fact that the existing legislation is adequate to combat this threat, as it were, from a hitherto unknown quarter, i.e. the discouragement of military service. What their standpoint amounts to is that it is sufficient for the Act merely to prohibit people agreeing amongst themselves about not doing military service or a person being dissuaded from doing military service. However, if the hon. members take note of their own standpoint in connection with the South African Council of Churches’ conference, and the resolutions passed there, they must realize that this is not adequate, because in this resolution of the South African Council of Churches there is the following very significant sentence—

Therefore, what they are requesting here is that people should be challenged from the pulpit about a certain standpoint; in other words, preaching in general is being recommended to churches for challenging their members to pay heed to the standpoint of the South African Council of Churches. There is consequently no person-to-person agreement; no discussion with any person in particular, and that is why we are now introducing the amendment to the effect that if there is general dissuasion as far as military service is concerned, this shall become an offence. At this juncture I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition whether they have realized that point and whether they consequently, by implication, are satisfied with certain church pulpits being used and employed to bring a particular standpoint to the fore. At this juncture it is a relevant question to them. We have also had general statements from the U.P. about the standpoint of the South African Council of Churches, which we on this side appreciate. We also had a statement from the Progressives, but there was not the specific attack on a specific point in the resolution of the South African Council of Churches which we would have liked to see. The matter concerned is that in point 5 of the resolution of the South African Council of Churches it is implied or suggested that the so-called freedom fighters on our borders are there because discriminatory practices exist within our borders. That is a syndrome which is proclaimed and which is developing and enjoying the stimulus of responsible parties within Parliament, and there must be a timely warning against this particular syndrome. In other words, if we as a constitutional body allow the idea to take root amongst members of the public that the terrorists on our borders will only be satisfied if we have here considerable socio-political reforms, let me ask whether that Opposition party does not have a duty in this connection to unequivocally tell the world that that is not so. Those of us who went to view the exhibition of certain equipment are convinced of the fact that the so-called fighters on the borders are people who are inspired by Red China and. in particular, Russia. We are convinced of the fact that they do not seek the so-called freedom of our Black people; they seek our country. They seek this country and desire control over what we have. Here is a unique opportunity for the next speaker on the Progressive Party side to come forward and tell us unequivocally whether the Progressive Party also believes, like the South African Council of Churches and other groups, that the so-called fighters on our borders would be satisfied if so-called social and political transformations and reforms were to take place here.

Mr. Speaker, may I just say in reply to the hon. member that we do not believe that changes within South Africa should be made as a result of coercion or violence from outside. We believe that such changes that are made within South Africa must be in the interests of the people of South Africa.

Answer his question.

That was the burden of the question, and I have answered it. In any case we have issued a statement in which we deal with the statement of the South African Council of Churches. Both the hon. member and the hon. the Minister referred to this. The other point I think that should be made is that members in these benches have as great a sense of responsibility and as great a sense of concern for the future, the safety and the welfare of the whole of the South African people as any other members may wish to claim for themselves. This is our view and if and when we disagree, whether on detailed matters or broad sweeps of policy, this is in the exercise of our own responsibility and our own judgment. We believe that our actions are in the interests of the total welfare of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this amending Bill has been introduced against the background of mounting tensions. We are aware of events in Africa just to the north of us. We are aware of incidents on the borders. We are aware of these things because many of us have friends, relatives and children who are involved in increasing military preparedness within South Africa. Only yesterday we heard that the Defence budget had been increased by R230 million to R700 million. The situation I believe concerns every South African, and I mean every South African no matter his political party, race or status in society. Under this premonition—because there is a premonition of impending conflict—emotions tend to run high. This is reflected in a number of different ways; it is reflected on the part of some people by means of an outward display of what is called patriotism. Others have an apparent great concern for moral issues. Others are concerned with safety, others with change and others with defence. But in this situation of impending conflict, emotions do run high, and I think we all have to recognize this. I believe that we are living in dangerous times, not merely in the physical sense of the word, but because when emotions in a society run high, especially a heterogeneous society such as South Africa, it does happen that judgment very of the becomes clouded. These are the circumstances in which we in this House and people in the country in responsible positions have to make important value judgments.

I believe that this House owes it to the nation to give an example of calmness and objectivity in spite of the emotionalism which is prevalent in our society today. I believe it is important that, above all, we should avoid developing a war-psychosis as opposed to a realization of the danger of conflict. I think that while we are preparing quietly and diligently to meet such threats of which we are aware, to the State or to society, we should also do everything possible to try to prevent conflict from taking place. I think prevention of conflict is certainly better than cure. I make these comments on a personal basis as well as in the capacity as leader of the members on these benches perhaps because I, at the age of 19—there are others in this House today who also experienced it—tasted something of the horrors of war in the service of my country. I also have looked at history and come to the conclusion that in the final analysis in the long term, in war there are no winners—there are only losers. It is with this sense of responsibility and concern for South Africa as a whole that I comment on this Bill.

As with so many amending measures, there is in this Bill a variety of clauses, some of which are mere adaptations of former sections, others whose provisions are not of a serious nature, and a few others the provisions of which are so substantial that they amount to matters of principle in terms of the ordinary rules of the House. I think one should look at the nature of the clauses which are contained in this measure to amend the Defence Act.