Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned last evening, the hon. the Deputy Minister had expressed some views on the representations which had been made to him in this House up to that stage. You will recall, Sir, that we were dealing with the advisability of accepting an amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, namely, that whilst we would accept the purpose of clause 1, that is to say that the application of the Bill would be to observe the Christian way of life, it was desirable to insert in the Bill a re-statement of the freedom of conscience which is recognized in this country so far as religious matters are concerned. Sir, in dealing with a matter of this sort we are dealing with something which is highly personal to the individual. We find ourselves here in a field of sensitiveness in so far as the individual is concerned. That feeling, that sensitiveness, varies from individual to individual according to their concern in so far as this particular aspect of life is concerned. The hon. the Minister said yesterday evening that he felt that the amendment was not necessary; that was the gravamen of his argument. Sir, I think it should be tested further than only being not necessary. It should be tested also as to whether it conflicts with what is contained in clause 1—I believe it does not—and whether it offends the intention of clause 1, which is the basis and the approach of this legislation, which I would also suggest it does not do. But what it does do, and what the amendment will have the effect of doing, is to eliminate any doubt as to where we stand in this country in regard to freedom of conscience and the religious freedom of individuals in South Africa, and it would emphasize for everyone to see and to read that there is a tolerant approach in regard to individual religious convictions. The hon. member for Waterberg yesterday, when it was pointed out that the particular phraseology of this amendment adheres to the principle of the governing party, the National Party, referred to what is contained in the aims and principles of the United Party. Sir, I think one wants to look at these because there are two legs, one might say, to the approach of this matter of religious conviction. The first is that the United Party recognizes the sovereignty of Almighty God in the destiny of countries and of peoples. That is something which is universal to us in this House and in South Africa, i.e. recognizing the sovereignty of Almighty God except of course for those who are atheists. The second leg, so far as our aims and principles are concerned, deals with the question of the interpretation of Christiantity, of what Christianity means in so far as our daily political lives are concerned. According to the aims and principles of the United Party it says that on the basis of Christian ethics the party seeks to promote the progress, happiness and Well-being of all citizens of the Republic of South Africa by creating conditions which will ensure that all race groups in the Republic live in amity and peace. Now, I want to suggest to the hon. member for Waterberg that there are two aspects to this matter. One is the acceptance of the sovereignty of Almighty God. The other one is the subjective aspect, as to what are, in the views of Christians, a correct view, a Christian view of this or that situation; or, in so far as my Party is concerned, what is the interpretation of Christian ethics in regard to the handling of a particular situation. Sir, that becomes a subjective test. The first one is not a subjective test. It is that one believes in the sovereignty of the Almighty, but when one comes to interpret what is a Christian view or what are Christian ethics, then one is in the hands of the individual Christian, the true and sincere Christian as to how he views a certain situation or a certain publication, for the purpose of this legislation, or as to how he interprets what is the ethical conduct to be accepted in relation to certain of these activities. Now, I want to suggest that that subjective test is so open to various interpretations that one does not want to spend time on dealing with it. What is the Christian view in regard to such matters as divorce? Can anyone lay down what is the Christian view on this, because there are certain churches and certain religions which have different views in regard to the sanctity of marriage and the question of divorce. It is subjective, i.e. what in the eyes of the Christian the attitude should be. Also if one looks at the question of birth control, what is the Christian view in regard to birth control?

What about murder?

The hon. member talks about murder. That is a stupid question and the answer is obvious. I would only waste time answering him. We are going to debate the Abortion Bill in this House. Is anybody in this House able to say what is the acceptable and final Christian view, and that anybody who disagrees with that is not a Christian or is false in his approach?

I believe this amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout cannot offend the whole concept of what is behind clause 1 as it stands. But it can eliminate any dogmatic interpretations of what constitutes a Christian view on the part of those who will serve on the various committees. It can eliminate any question of a dogmatic view being applied to all citizens in South Africa, irrespective of what their own personal views on this matter might be, or what religious denominations they belong to I do hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister, who said that this amendment is not necessary and thereby concerned that it did not offend against the principle of this clause, will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, because in fact it gives no offence to anybody. It can give no offence to anybody, but the omission of these words which are contained in the amendment may well result in this clause giving offence to persons whose religious convictions do not accord with the dogmatic determination by a committee as to what the Christian view is in relation to a publication which has come before it. I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude and accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, from the interest that was displayed by members on that side of the House, it would appear that either they have already made up their minds on this clause, or that they are absolutely closed to any form of argument whatsoever. I do not believe that there were three members on that side of the House who paid any attention whatsoever to what the hon. member for Green Point was saying. I believe it is shocking that hon. members on the other side are not prepared to listen to the arguments we are putting. [Interjections.] Sir, do you hear the noise they are making now? That proves that what I am saying is true. They are not prepared to listen at all. In fact, the Minister himself is also otherwise engaged at the moment.

I want to carry on from where the hon. member for Green Point left off. I want to address my remarks to the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. the Deputy Minister, both of whom quoted the provision which stands in the constitution of my party, the United Party. They wanted to know why we were running away from that. But I want to ask them why they are running away from the constitution of their own party, their own program of principles. I want to quote from a pamphlet which they put out before this last general election. The pamphlet is entitled “The Election Manifesto of the National Party”. As was pointed out to this committee, the amendment which we have moved is taken from this pamphlet. I want to ask them whether they are now rejecting the principles of their party, as contained in the election manifesto of their own party. Every single thing which is contained in what the hon. member for Green Point read, plus the amendment which we are moving, is included in this manisfesto.

May I look at that document?

Yes, certainly. I shall send it to the hon. member for Bellville. It is obvious that he has never seen it. Perhaps I had better read it to refresh his memory.

I just want to see that you read it properly.

I want to quote from this pamphlet, under the heading “Freedom of Religion”. I quote—

What is wrong with that?

Nothing at all, but I quote further—

What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that either, Sir. But this manifesto goes further—

This is the important point. What is wrong with that?

Nothing at all.

The hon. members for Bellville and Waterberg say there is nothing wrong with that. I hear a chorus from all over saying that there is nothing wrong with that. If there is nothing wrong with it in this manifesto, what is wrong with it when we want to put it into this Bill? [Interjections.] Will hon. members accept this amendment?

No.

The hon. member says he will not. Now I want to ask them whether they are going to vote against this amendment.

Yes, of course.

The hon. member for Waterberg says they are, but against what is he going to vote? He is now going to vote against a declaration of the due observance of the individual’s freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Is he now going to deny our freedom of conscience? This is what he and that Nationalist Party are now going to do. They are going to vote against our right of freedom of conscience and they are going to vote against our right of freedom of religion, because that is exactly the point which is made here.

This is an incorrect interpretation.

No, it is not a question of a false interpretation. That party will be branded as having voted against the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion of the individual when they vote against this amendment. That is why we have introduced this amendment, viz. to prevent exactly the sort of thing that I am afraid they are going to do, i.e. to apply their norms or that of a section of the country.

Your party also talks about it. Why are you running away from it now?

My party acknowledges it and wants it in the Bill. This is exactly what we say. But it is that party that does not want it in the Bill. Why do they not want it in the Bill?

Read it again.

Shall I rather read it in Afrikaans? Perhaps hon. members on the other side will then understand it better. Under the heading “Gods-diensvryheid” the following is said—

What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that. Why do hon. members on the other side not accept it in this Bill? This is what I cannot understand.

Will the hon. member please tell this Committee where the freedom of religion is being attacked in clause 1?

The whole point of clause 1 is that here we refer to the “application in this Act of the constant endeavour of the population of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian view of life”. But what is the interpretation of a “Christian view of life”? A Christian view of life has been interpreted in a narrow manner by certain sectors, by certain sects and by certain communities, not only in this country, but throughout the world. All we are asking is to acknowledge that the individual in South Africa does have the freedom of conscience and the freedom of religion.

Of course we have it.

If we have it, what is the objection to putting it in this Bill? Let me ask the hon. member for Waterberg: Does such a provision exist in the constitution of the Broederbond?

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

With respect, Mr. Chairman, this is the whole point. It is the question of the application of this provision. Let me put it another way. If the clause is passed as it is now, who are we going to look for when we want to appoint the director? What are we going to look for? Are we going to look for somebody who agrees with the particular religious outlook of the Minister of the day? Are we going to look for somebody who is going to do a good job of work or are we going to look for somebody who is going to apply the interpretation of the Minister of the day? This is the whole point, because without the safeguard which we are now seeking to include in this clause, I am afraid it leaves the whole situation open to abuse, to abuse by only one man who has full powers in terms of this Bill, viz. the Minister. I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, some years ago I was involved in a debate in this House on the exclusion of a conscience clause from the statutes of the University of the Orange Free State. This debate took place on a Friday afternoon, and the House was full. After arising the views of this side of the House, which pleaded for the retention of the conscience clause, it was decided that the application to remove the conscience clause be rejected. The conscience clause consequently remained and this university has not suffered as a result of that. As a matter of fact, I think that the conscience clause in the statutes of the universities of our country, except for one or two special universities who deal primarily with theology, has been a good thing. It does give strength to the religious belief of people who seek high moral and ethical standards in our country. It is a pity that we should squabble over religion and belief here in this House, that we should even have to debate such a question and that we should have such vociferous explanations as came from that side of the House when we ask for the addition to the clause of the words in the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What harm can those words do to this Bill? What damage can be done to South Africa by the inclusion of these words? The members of the Nationalist Party themselves believe in these words and we on this side believe in them. Surely this Bill we have in front of us is far more important than a party manifesto. Either they inserted those words in their manifesto to catch a few votes, or they were genuine. If they were genuine—and I believe so—then I say that there is no reason why we should not have those words in the Bill as well. When I ask hon. members on the other side why it should not be done, they must not say that it is not necessary. I say it is necessary.

Why?

Because it is an extra protection and it gives support to the hon. the Minister in implementing the provisions of this Bill.

Nobody is threatening you in any, way.

We are not talking about threats. We on this side of the House say that the Minister’s hand will be strengthened by having the support of all religious bodies right throughout the Republic. We are not talking about people who do not believe in religion. We are asking the Minister to enable those people who want to support him and are not of the Christian faith—I include myself—to do so and to see that these standards are the amendment, it will be on their conhonoured. If that side of the House rejects science. For that reason, I plead with the Minister to include these words, because it can only lead to strength and not to weakness.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps we should come back to the contents of this clause and come to the point for a change. The other side of the House has repeatedly made mention here of the freedom of the individual, which is supposedly being restricted here. Now, I should like to re-assure hon. members on the other side of the House, and I do this on the grounds of what hon. members on that side have already said, that that freedom of the individual, inter alia, his religious freedom, is already being guaranteed to the individual in the Republic in numerous ways by this side of the House as the governing party.

In that case, why do you not include that here as well?

We are not including it, because we are dealing here with facts and not with a political game. For that reason we are not inclined to insert those words. That the freedom of the individual is being restricted by this clause, amounts to going to meet one’s troubles half-way. That does not exist here. This amendment that was introduced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a bit of politicizing calculated to present him as a prophet and champion of the freedom of the individual. If democracy has ever been striven after by any party in this country, it can be said of this side of the House as the governing party. This is proved by our actions, and yesterday it was once again pointed out very splendidly here by the hon. member for Jeppe when he said that the South African people was known throughout the years as the people that was consistently displaying tolerance in respect of colour, faith and other population groups and had laid this down in its legislation. We need search for words to substantiate our deeds, but we ask hon. members on that side of the House and the inhabitants of the Republic to judge this Government on the grounds of its actions, also in respect of the implementation of that which is being provided for in this clause.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also made the statement that this clause should be viewed in the light of the involvement of the Minister who handling this legislation, as though the Minister is being suspected of adopting a biased and intolerant attitude towards any other religion which this legislation may apply to. Reference was made here to tolerance. We heard hon. members on that side of the House referring to it in various ways. They referred to tolerance as being the doctrine of Christianity and the doctrine of the Christian church. Tolerance is merely a facet of the doctrine of Christianity. In my opinion the doctrine of Christianity is summarized in love of one’s neighbour. This clause defines the endeavour of the ruler in the application of this legislation. When we speak of Christian love, it seems to me as though hon. members on the other side of the House are over-emphasizing the one aspect of love, namely love for a particular group. I should like to ask hon. members on the other side of the House whether we should not also have love for young people and weak people in our population groups, whether they are Brown, Black or White or whether they are members of other religious groups. Should we not have love for those people who are going to rack and ruin through certain publications, certain theatre productions and certain cinema shows? When we speak of love, we should see it in its totality, i.e. in all its various facets, and that includes tolerance. I feel that this clause should remain as it is, that it does not in any way detract from the freedom of the individual, but in fact reveals an endeavour, an endeavour which is also embodied in this legislation, i.e. to see to the welfare of the people of the Republic of South Africa. For that reason this House can, with the greatest confidence, accept this clause as it stands, without the fear-inspiring suspicions which are apparently being stirred up on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side of the House fail entirely to see the crux of the matter, and I am particularly surprised at the superficial manner in which the hon. member for Waterberg approached the problem. A party constitution, such as the constitution of the United Party or the National Party, merely expresses a disposition, on approach to matters. A party is not a body which anyone is compelled to join, and its philosophy is not enforceable by law and applicable to everyone. Even our Constitution Act speaks only of the acknowledgement of the guidance of the supreme authority of the Almighty. We acknowledge that. It indicates a direction and does not set up a constitutional norm which determines one’s civil rights. Here, however, we have a clause in a Bill which does something completely different. Here a view of life is being laid down as a determining norm in an enforceable act.

No, you are wrong.

That is the case. In the application of the Act, the concept which is being laid down here must be taken into consideration as a norm. In practice it will mean that, if a publication, or whatever it may be, is laid before a censorship committee, the members of that committee will have to judge the publication according to the norms which are laid down in the Act. If not, they can even be taken to court according to the review provisions of this very Bill. It is relatively easy for a censorship committee to determine, in terms of clause 47, whether a publication is blasphemous. It is determinable. It is relatively easy to determine whether a certain publication is offensive to the religious feelings of any section of the population. It is, however, an impossible task for a committee consisting of a few ordinary people to decide, in respect of everything which comes before it, whether it complies with the concept “Christian view of life” as prescribed by the Act. We all subscribe to the Christian view of life, but I do not believe that any one of us will be so immodest as to want to prescribe to every writer, poet, dramatist, producer and film-maker what does or does not fall within this concept. However, that is what hon. members on that side are now doing with this Bill, unless the amendment is passed. We in this House will not even be in agreement on the interpretation of the concept. Churches and cultural leaders have testified that they are not in agreement on the interpretation of the concept either. Nevertheless, this is the instruction which hon. members opposite want to give the censorship committees. The members of those committees are being given the task of applying it. Suppose the hon. member for Waterberg is a member of one of the censorship committees and I send him a book which expounds the doctrine of evolution and I point out that I would like the book to be banned since the Act provides that, in the judgment of such a work, the “Christian view of life” should be taken into consideration. What is his attitude going to be? Will he ban it or not? I am now asking him whether or not he will ban it in terms of this Bill. He is not prepared to reply, but he nevertheless wants to entrust that task to the committees. I think it is a very poor show that a man is not prepared to make this judgment himself and entrusts the task of taking the difficult decision to a committee consisting of ordinary people.

Let us face up to the facts. It has already happened time and again, that works of a man such as D. J. Opperman, who is one of our greatest living poets and dramatists, have been attacked in certain circles on moral grounds, and specifically in the name of the Christian view of life. If I had the time, I would be able to furnish proof of this. The same happened with the works of N. P. van Wyk Louw and Peter Blum, and then I am not even mentioning our younger poets and writers. Attacks of this kind, i.e. that a certain work does not meet the requirements of the Christian view of life, usually come from circles or pressure groups, especially in Pretoria, which make it their full-time task to organize petitions and to write to members of Parliament, Ministers and the Publications Board. I will give hon. members an example. I have here a pamphlet from one such organization, namely “Die Vereniging vir die Behoud van Sedelike Norme”. What are its objects? According to this pamphlet its object is (translation)—

This is a “professional” group which urges people to complain that publications, etc. do not meet the requirements of the norm which is now being proposed here. Now they will be able to continue their work on a greater scale, for such organizations will seize upon this clause in particular, if it remains as it is, and use it as a weapon against our writers, against the censorship committees and also against the Government and eventually the Minister if he does not let them have their own way. I think the hon. member for Somerset East would gladly like to help them get rid of the Afrikaans Writers of the Sixties (Sestigers). This proposed new provision is going to be a tremendous source of conflict if no guarantee is written into the clause that freedom of religion and of conscience has to be respected. I am saying this to the hon. member for Waterberg in particular. He wrote a book called Op die Keper and in that book he said the following (translation)—

I stand by that 100%.

Yes, that is right. I take it for granted that he would stand by it. He went on to say (translation)—

He asks this himself (translation)—

Similarly, I can ask those hon. members: Whose guidance should be followed when an interpretation has to be given to this clause in the Bill at the level of the censorship committee? In regard to every case which comes before them, they will have to decide what the meaning of this norm is. I want to put this question specifically to the hon. the Minister, for he cannot shift the responsibility from himself to the hon. the Deputy Minister. This is his legislation and the conditions which he is hereby creating are his conditions. I want to put this question to him: Is he going to accept literature only if it fits in with the up to now unknown interpretation of the concept “Christian view of life”? Let me put the question to him in a simpler form: Is he only going to accept literature which fits in with the Christian view of life?

Of course not.

Of course not. The hon. the Minister says “no”. He says “no”, but he entrusts this impossible task to the committees which will be appointed under this legislation. According to whose interpretation should they take their decision? One thing that surprises me more than anything else, is that there is not a single member on the opposite side, the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior included, who has told us in this debate why, when the Nationalist Party told the country in its manifesto during the recent election that it seeks development along Christian-national lines, but “with thorough regard for the freedom of conscience and religion of the individual”, they then deemed it necessary to add these words to it. But now they suddenly do not deem it necessary to lay this down in the legislation, legislation which is being submitted here in execution of the mandate which the Government received. What can one think of a political party which asks for and receives a mandate on a certain understanding, and the moment it has to implement its legislation, comes along with only half of what it promised?

Your argument is cheap and transparent.

I should just like to say that this action on the part of the Government is going to create a lack of confidence in the Act ...

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member’s attitude is hypocritical?

Who said that?

You did.

The hon. member must be deaf. I said the hon. member’s argument is cheap and politically transparent, and I say it again.

I beg your pardon—I must have misheard you.

If there is anything which is cheap and transparent, it is this proposed clause of the hon. the Minister, because it is being inserted for political reasons. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this debate has now become unnecessarily emotional. I think there is no doubt that the United Party is trying to make some political capital out of this introductory clause. Yesterday the hon. member for Edenvale vehemently denied that this amendment from their side was in any way a smoke-screen, but, for all that, he did go on to say at the end of his speech that if this amendment should be accepted, it would be a guarantee and then he said—

That is to say, the acceptance of this amendment—

In other words, the hon. member has made the charge that this side of the House is guilty of narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy because, in the first clause of this Bill, we set the endeavour of the people to uphold a Christian view of life as the broad framework for the Act. But, Sir, the important point which the Opposition does not want to accept, is that in the implementation of this Act the test is not the Christian view of life; it is the broad framework, but we find the test in clause 47(2), which reads—

Paragraph (c) reads—

Sir, it is a pity that the Opposition wilfully fails to take account of what a Christian view of life actually embraces. The Christian view and philosophy of life has a long history, a history in which it specifically wanted to free itself from all factors enslaving its freedom of religion and of conscience. For that reason, it is deplorable that the hon. member for Edenvale yesterday referred to history here in an attempt to insinuate that that was the character of the Christian of life; he said—

Sir, I am at a loss for words to describe what one is to say about people who still read the Crusaders into the Christian view of life. After all, we are living in a time long after the Reformation, and the Reformation took place for the very reason that people, under the compulsion of conscience could no longer be silent; they yearned for freedom under the compulsion of their faith. They could no longer endure the stifling churchism which sought to stifle their consciences and faith. What was it, if not freedom of religion, that could make Luther come forward and say: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise”? Implicit in the Christian religion, the Christian view of life, there is room for the freedom of conscience of the individual; there is room for freedom of religion; there is respect and appreciation for human dignity, for the possession and the right and the freedom of the individual. Sir, the Christian view of life, the Christian norms, the Christian ethics, which are referred to so freely here, are a broad framework within which the test of this Act in its implementation still refers back to clause 47(2). This broad framework must serve as a guide. This side of the House is convinced that the guide should not only be the “average man”, but because we wanted to set the standard even higher than that, we wrote into the introductory clause of this measure that the endeavour of the population of the Republic to uphold a Christian view of life shall be recognized in the application of this Act. That is a guide, a norm, an ideal which is even loftier than the shifting standards of the average man. We on this side of the House do not proceed from the libertine idea that man finds the norms within himself, that man, in his rational power, can determine what is good and bad and what is ethical and unethical. We believe that man must, in some way or other way, lay down outside himself norms arising out of his view of life, and in this way we must apply as a criterion the Christian view and philosophy of life, which finds its norm in the Scriptures, as the broad framework within which this Bill is to be applied, but that broad framework leaves room for the individual’s freedom of religion and of conscience. That Christian view of life, which must serve as an endeavour and a broad framework, is founded, as far as Christian ethics are concerned, on the Ten Commandments, i.e. they are norms, criteria which are not only accepted by people of the Christian religion. As a guide the Ten Commandments are, in their clarity, acceptable to people who are by no means Christians by birth. And the Christian norms, the Christian ethical standards which are founded on the Ten Commandments are ultimately consolidated into the one great overwhelming commandment, the commandment of love, which specifically implies respect for others for the human dignity and the freedom of others, because one has respect for one’s own human dignity and one’s own freedom.

With this principle, this view of life as a broad framework, I absolutely fail to see any necessity for writing into the legislation that the individual’s freedom of faith and of conscience will also be upheld. That would be tautological: it would be totally unnecessary, because the Christian view of life includes this in its ample definition and because this is in any case not the test when it comes to the application and the implementation of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, it was with great respect that I listened to the hon. member for Johannesburg West. I should just like to say that having listened to and also observed the reactions of the hon. member, I as an older person should like to give him some advice concerning something he learnt in his sporting days—play the ball and not the man. [Interjections.] Now, I want to say that I did not say the Government was narrow-minded or hypocritical. I said that if the Government did not accept this amendment, there might be a possibility of its being accused of one of these two things.

That is semantics.

No, this is by no means semantics. It was merely by way of a passing remark that I asked the question I am going to put here to the hon. member for Johannesburg West or the hon. member for Waterberg, arising out of my remark about certain films. I should like to hear from the hon. member for Johannesburg West whether he regards a film such as The Great Gatsby, which is showing in Cape Town at the moment, as being in accordance with the principles contained in clause 1.

That is not the test.

If that is not the test, then I want to ask him whether Jesus Christ Superstar of all the others may be imported if there is supposedly no test?

The test is there and it is very clear. May I ask the hon. member a question? May I ask the hon. member whether the test applied in clause 47(2) is not a clear test as to whether Jesus Christ Superstar, to which the hon. member referred, should or should not be allowed?

He should read the legislation before he speaks.

Sir, we know that the hon. member is only trying to make jokes. Consequently I do not blame him at all for putting such a question to me. Take, for example, the case of Jesus Christ Superstar. In such a case, as in similar cases as well, there is a difference of opinion among the Christian churches on the question whether this is in fact in accordance with Christian ethics or not. If hon. members want to tell me that there is no such difference, then I tell them that they must take it that I am speaking with authority, because I know that such differences do exist. We are now speaking about a general matter, and I am grateful that the hon. member for Johannesburg West has told me that this point is not relevant now. But just when will it be relevant? Will it be relevant in a film such as Deliverance, with its violence?

The test is whether it is offensive, and not whether it is in accordance with those norms.

No, clause 1 has nothing to do with offensiveness. It has been said time and time again by the hon. member for Waterberg and other hon. members that what clause 1 does is to state certain ethical norms, within the framework of the Christian view of life. Sir, let me say at once that it is not necessary for hon. members opposite to lecture us on both the vertical and the horizontal implications of Christian love. That is not necessary.

What is your test?

Sir I am talking about clause 1 now. When we come to those clauses in which the tests of what is desirable and what is undesirable are laid down, this side of the House will probably have a great deal to say in that regard. We are discussing clause 1 now, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other hon. members on this side have stated very clearly that when we come to a definition of ethical norms which are supposed to be basic to the Christian way of life, there is no such thing as unanimity. There is no such thing, and the hon. members for Johannesburg West, Waterberg and Bellville know it.

But who has denied that?

If, then, there is no unanimity, how, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also wanted to know, can it be expected of an ordinary member to interpret something of this kind honestly, with a clear conscience—unless he receives instructions from the director or whoever? How can he do this? When it comes to the desirability or undesirability of the inclusion of this provision, I want to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg West this: Would he be prepared to support me if I were to recommend in this House that we also insert this provision in the Group Areas Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act? All these measures affect human relations.

All Acts ought to comply with that.

No, the point at issue is not that all Acts ought to comply with that. I have put a simple question now. Would the hon. member for Johannesburg West support me if I were to propose in this House that we insert a similar provision in the Group Areas Act?

Of course.

Thank you. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, that is the point I want to make. If, then, it is the contention of those hon. members that it is unnecessary to insert such a provision in those Acts, because we are a Christian State and because, in the implementation of that legislation, we profess those principles in any case, why then should it be inserted in this measure? That is the first question I want to put, Sir.

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is almost up. My second question concerns the lack of clarity of this concept. It has already been acknowledged that there is no clarity on the ethical norms one is to take the concept “Christian view of life” to include. There are certain broad principles concerning the love of man, which we shall not argue. I have said that in terms of the horizontal and the vertical implications I have no quarrel with these two principles. However, hon. members know that we cannot in terms of the general outline, come back to those details in order to judge a particular book, publication or poem.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member conduct his speech?

Order!

I have seen a great deal of this kind of behaviour in this House, but I want to say at once that I have been hearing a frightful cacophony from the orchestra I have been conducting here. That is the kind of remark which does not bring this debate any closer to the solution of the problem. In conclusion I simply want to say that if we admit that we are unable to define clear ethical norms within the framework of a view of life, I can see no reason, if I am to accept this, why hon. members opposite should not want to accept this protection and safeguard embodied in our amendment.

Order! Before calling upon the hon. member for Vereeniging to speak, I just want to point out that hon. members have now been repeating a lot of arguments. Time and again just about everything under the sun has been brought into this discussion. I have allowed a very wide-ranging discussion, but now I want to make an appeal to hon. members to come back to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, a Bill should be read as a whole. Clause 1 should be read together with clause 47(2). Say, for example, a complaint is made about a book dealing with the theory of evolution, an example which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. What does a committee have to do about this book in terms of this Bill? In the first place it has to read the book and then it has to refer to clause 47(2), because it has to decide whether the book is undesirable or not. In the Bill there is a definition of what is undesirable. This definition is not clause 1, but clause 47(2). I do not want to waste the Committee’s time by quoting it in full. The committee must determine whether, in its opinion, the document it has examined “is indecent or obscene or is offensive or harmful to public morals”. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if hon. members opposite have not studied this Bill well. Clause 11(2) states that a committee, as referred to in subsection (1), “shall without delay examine the publication or object or copy submitted to it under that subsection”, and then paragraph (b) reads, “and without hearing any person, decide whether that publication or object or edition is undesirable in its opinion”. Thus the committee therefore decides on the basis of the definition in clause 47(2) whether, in its opinion, it is undesirable or not. But now we want to strengthen the committee’s arm and give it an indication of what the basic objectives of this Bill are. The basic objectives of this Bill are to preserve what all respectable people in South Africa want to see preserved, and to avert what poses a threat to the endeavour of the respectable people in South Africa to live a respectable life here. That is what clause 1 is about. Clause 1 does not concern an objective norm which is turning the Christian view and philosophy of life into the one and only norm. If that were the case, we would have said so in clause 47(2). We could, in that case, have omitted that whole definition and said that something was undesirable if it clashed with the Christian view and philosophy of life. But that is not stated in clause 47(2). To conclude, therefore, the point at issue here is that when this commission drafted the Bill, the members of the United Party on the commission wanted us to work with “contemporary standards”. We said at the time that we were not satisfied with “contemporary standards”, and that it was the endeavour of the people of South Africa to uphold the Christian view and philosophy of life. It does not succeed in doing so, nor has it achieved this in full, but this is its endeavour. By means of this Bill we want to encourage and strengthen that endeavour.

Mr. Chairman I would like to deal in the first place with the last argument of the hon. member who has just sat down. He referred to the desire of members of the commission on that side of the House to do away with contemporary judgments and to stand for eternal standards. May I ask, in the first place, why it is that the English text speaks of the “constant endeavour” of the population to uphold a Christian view of life, while the Afrikaans text speaks of “die strewe”? It does not speak of “die ewige strewe” or “die konstante strewe”. Why is there this difference? I mention this only in passing. I think that perhaps it is a translation error.

I now come to my second point. I would like to refer to the hon. member for Somerset East. He advanced I think, the only substantial grounds we have heard as to why it is that this amendment by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout cannot be accepted; that is to say, to ensure the individual’s freedom of conscience and religion. The hon. member for Somerset East advanced it as a reason that freedom of conscience and religion is implicit in all relevant legislation and in the policies of the Government. Fair enough. Good argument. He says that this concept is implicit in the Government’s policy, its attitude and in previous legislation; therefore, it is not necessary to have it in this Bill. Now, Sir, if I accept that, I must ask him whether, in fact, clause 1 itself is not implicit in the policy of the Government. Is that not implicit in the Government’s previous legislation and its policies? Sir, what is sause for the goose, is sauce for the gander. If clause 1 is already implicit in the Government’s policy, attitudes and previous legislation, why is it necessary to put it in? Or, if it is necessary to put it in, why cannot the amendment which is also, as is said by members of the Government, implicit in their legislation, be included? Logic operates in one direction or in another, but it cannot run in divergent directions. So, if clause 1 stands, there is justification, on the same grounds, for the inclusion of the amendment dealing with conscience and religion.

Sir, it has been averred, in the third place, that clause 1 should be read in conjunction with clause 47(2). This again, I think, is an aberration of logic. Clause 1 has a specific purpose. It reads “In the application of this Act ...”, that is to say, it is an injunction to those who administer the Act. Sir, it is perfectly clear what their duties are. In the case of the directorate, for example, it shall (a) perform functions, (b) submit matter and (c) advise the Minister. In those three main functions, in the application of the Act. it must act in the manner described in clause 1. In the case of clause 47(2), there is a different injunction. This is a negative injunction. It provides that they shall not permit matter published by other people which is of a particular character. In other words, clause 47(2) describes the nature of the publications to be prohibited, the nature of the things other people may not do, which would be a contravention of this Bill. Clause 1 lays down what the administrators of this Bill must do. These are two entirely different concepts. One cannot read the one concept, which is an injunction to the administrators of this Bill, and clause 47(2), which is a definition of what the publishers may not do, as being one and the same thing; nor can one read them together. They are two entirely different provisions.

You cannot ignore the one, as you are doing.

There is no question of ignoring them. However, these are arguments which I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take into serious account because they are advanced seriously.

I come now to the most important argument of them all. I shall be brief. The fact is that this Bill is going to be administered not by a number of sophisticated members of Parliament such as one or two we have heard recently but, by the hon. the Minister’s own admission, by some 80 or 100 people who will be chosen throughout the land in order to represent a broad variety of opinion in these matters. These people, these members of committees who are going to look at publications, are obviously going to try to form a criterion in terms of the provisions of this legislation. These people will not necessarily be administrators or politicians or civil servants. Most of them will be drawn from a broad field, from various walks of life. They will look at the provisions of clause 1 and they will seek guidance from the Bill, if it is enacted, as to how to do their job. They are going to read clause 1 as it stands without qualification and each one will interpret it according to his sectarian or particular belief of what the Christian religion is about or of what the Christian view of life is. Each one is going to take that as his yardstick. It is dangerous to put 100 different people in charge of a yardstick which is so vaguely enunciated as this, because each one will attach his own particular meaning to it and you will get maybe 80 or 100 different interpretations. If, however, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is accepted, it will become perfectly clear that this yardstick has to be applied with due observance of the individual’s freedom of conscience and religion. The question is not why these words should be added; the reason why they should be added is obvious; the advantages are obvious and everyone in this House agrees on that. What needs explanation is why they should be left out. If it is common cause in the whole House on both sides of the House, why then should the amendment be left out? It can add nothing but advantage to this clause and it can add nothing but benefit to the Bill. Why then must it be left out? Without such an amendment clause 1 lends itself to all kinds of interpretations which could have undesirable effects while with the amendment clause 1 will become manageable, reasonable and beneficial to the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that it is not unseemly of me to interfere in this fraternal quarrel, but I feel that the hon. the Minister of the Interior could perhaps assist us greatly in regard to the question we are discussing here now. He could do so by telling us precisely how we should interpret the following two passages from his Second Reading speech. Unfortunately, I only have the English Hansard to hand at the moment, but he said the following, and I quote from col. 468—

He is referring here to clause 1—

Does this not mean that we cannot read clause 47 without direct consideration of the first clause? If this is true, is this not a limitation and is this not a good reason to accept the amendment of the hon. Opposition? I think that it might be of great help if the hon. the Minister could just explain to us how we should interpret this passage of his in which he states, “must be interpreted in the spirit of this provision”. I agree that this amendment is a worthwhile one, enabling any misunderstanding to be eliminated and enabling us to have far greater clarity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal first with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I want to give the hon. member the advice which one of the hon. members diagonally behind him there, gave him. It is that he should play the ball rather than the man. I did not give that advice; the advice came from that side of the House.

Are you getting hurt now?

Yesterday I thanked both sides of the House for the spirit in which an emotional matter such as this had been discussed. I am being very honest when I say that that hon. member has come along here this afternoon and disrupted that spirit. He came along here with an arrogant attitude as if the full Gospel was his alone and no one else had an opinion. The hon. member need not lose any sleep thinking that he has ever hurt me. I continue to endure him and I shall even continue to endure him in the remaining discussions and shall deal with his arguments in a very civilized manner. I just wanted to get that off my chest.

To summarize: In our discussion of this clause and other clauses we have still to deal with, we are going to have two things clear every time. The one is that we are going to have differences of opinion here in respect of the view of life, as we have already experienced. Later, when we come to the methods which have to be applied, we are going to have differences of opinion in respect of the machinery to be established, too. We shall come to that later. As far as the view of life is concerned, I want to ask: What is the chief component of an outlook on life (lewensopvatting,), as I prefer to call it or a view of life? The chief component of any outlook on life is one’s religious attitude. Whatever a man’s outlook on life or view of life may be, that component is built into it and I have a very great respect for the religious views of any person, whoever he may be and whatever his views in regard to religion may be. This is a fact we should not lose sight of. Yesterday we also heard evidence to the effect that we in this country behave in a tolerant fashion towards each other specifically when these matters to which I have just referred are involved.

Some of us.

I think that there is little reason for us in South Africa simply to point a finger to the left or to the right and to say that people are intolerant in respect of the religious views of other people. We are tolerant, irrespective of the fact that somewhere in a piece of legislation there is a provision to the effect that we should be tolerant. This is a component part of our character. It is a part of our whole set-up that this should simply be the case in South Africa.

There was further evidence that the existing board had respected the Christian character of our society. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said this only yesterday. Nowhere in any Act was this prescribed to this board but, because it was the general view of the majority of the population, they, too, respected it. From where did they receive the instruction to do so? They found it from the Act in accordance with which they operated. I am not sure now, but section 9 or section 10 of the existing Act corresponds very closely to clause 47(2)(b), to which the hon. member for Vereeniging also referred.

It is more or less the same.

Yes, it is more or less the same. Thus, even though there was no specific provision in regard to an outlook on life or a view of life, they had an instruction in the Act of which they had to take careful note and in accordance with which they had to operate. That very section, the direction on how the Act was to be applied, led to the hon. member saying that they honoured the general Christian character. Apart from a particular decision here or there, I want to ask the hon. member whether he could point a finger at the members of the present board and say that they bred discontent in this country as regards their tolerance towards the religious views of people. There were disputes about the content of specific results but I cannot recall a single instance when they were accused of that, and they consistently acted in accordance with a direction which we are also writing into this Bill.

But now you are adding uncertainty.

I am not creating uncertainty. I am making a statement which that hon. member himself has also made. Since it is the case that we will not appoint people of one particular religious view only to these various committees, not even to the directorate—it will be for the hon. the Minister to make those appointments—one will have people of various religious views who will come together to pass certain judgments. On what basis must they pass those judgments? It will have to be in terms of the provisions of clause 47(2)(b). It is in terms of that that they will have to pass these judgments. What enters the picture immediately? The chief component of a person’s view of life, the Christian outlook of a certain section, even of a single person, again enters the picture there. If one is to act in accordance with the direction contained in clause 47(2)(b), one cannot deliberately—I could almost say with the best will in the world—offend people’s religious views and their religious outlook. I do not want to repeat myself. Mr. Chairman, because you have warned us against that. I just want to refer again, briefly, to the fact that in that Christian view and approach is to be found the overall tolerance which is what we in South Africa are really commending. If it is now being said, according to clause 1, that there is a general aspiration here, that there is a framework here, then I want to put this question to the hon. member for Edenvale. I do not want to trip him up, but I ask him honestly: Does the hon. member believe that we in South Africa, do, generally speaking, have a Christian character? Will he say “yes”?

Certainly.

The hon. member says “yes”. We perceive that general Christian character and it is our aspiration to see that it is upheld. While we say this, we are also saying, according to clause 47(2)(b) that this important component of a view of life should never be lost sight of. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said yesterday that he understood the spirit, the attitude and the intention with which this clause was placed in the Bill. I want to let what I have said, suffice and I want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he really need not doubt that we are honest in our views when we put the matter to the hon. member this way. He can accept with a great degree of certainty that this really is the view of this side of the House specifically taking into account the chief component of a view of life.

I want to say further to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South with reference to a National Party election pamphlet, what is involved there is not a view of life of which we have a more general framework; what is involved there is specifically religious freedom. The pamphlet is concerned with the religion one professes. If it had been concerned purely with a broader view of life, it would perhaps have been put differently. I think I am going to let that suffice. I have stated the view of this side of the House in all fairness, in all honesty, as well as the great respect we have for the views of every section of the population and of each individual. In this Bill we have made ample and certain provision for these to be respected.

The approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister is that this clause is necessary in order to establish and to state clearly in the Act for all to see that our approach to this matter is one which is based on the tenets of the Christian way of life. Sir, we agree with him; there is no argument in that regard. But, Sir, then he goes on to destroy his own argument by saying that implicit in the Christian view of life is the tolerance which is to be shown to people such as those covered in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He says that that is implicit in the Christian view of life; that the Christian view of life makes allowances for those who because of their religious convictions may hold views which differ from the strictly Christian interpretation. If that is so, all we are asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to do is to say it in clause 1. The hon. the Deputy Minister must understand that if somebody wants to see what our laws are in this country in regard to publications and undesirable publications, he will look at this Bill; he will not know what is provided for in other Acts or what the other way of life in South Africa is. What is the first thing that that person is going to say? After all, Sir, we have looked at the legislation of other countries to see what they are doing in this matter. If a man in Canada or Australia looks at this Bill he is going to say: “Good heavens, look at this; provision is made here exclusively for a Christian approach without any regard to the religious freedom of those who differ from the Christian approach.” I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member that we on this side have no objection to the Christian approach and the way in which he has interpreted it, but we want that interpretation put into the Bill and into this clause, and it is for that reason that we have moved this amendment.

Sir, there is really a great deal of uncertainty in my mind after listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister. If I understood him correctly, various people of various religious convictions or denominations may serve on these committees. I think that under clause 9 an advisory committee may also be appointed by the South African Indian Council, an advisory committee on which the Malay religion and the Hindu religion have representation. The same applies in respect of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council; they too may appoint advisory committees. The point I really want to make is this: If this Bill is passed and if, as the hon. member for Johannesburg West put it, clause 1 expounds the general aspirations of the people of the Republic of South Africa to uphold a Christian view of life, what is the obligation which then rests on any persons serving on these committees; how should they apply it through their actions; what role should they play in respect of clause 1? Take for example representatives of the Indian population who are to serve on a committee. If clause 1 is in any way binding, if it is important, how is it to be interpreted by these members? On the one hand we get the argument that it is not important; that we need not be afraid. We accept the honesty of the hon. members who put it in that way. But on the other hand it is also argued that it is a very necessary clause. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout conceded that it was a necessary and an important clause, but the point he was trying to make was that by adopting this amendment, we should be eliminating any possibility of misunderstanding; there would then be no problem weighing on the conscience of any person serving on any of these committees.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht and A. van Breda.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) In line 18, to omit “in his opinion”;
2. (2) to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (2):“(c) The names of the persons so appointed and their qualifications shall be published in the Gazette.”;and
3. (3) in line 22, after “period” to add “, not exceeding three years,”.

I feel quite strongly about this because the hon. the Minister in appointing a directorate, should do so having regard to the members’ educational qualifications and their special knowledge which would qualify them to perform the functions entrusted to the directorate under this Bill. But I feel that this should not be a matter only of the opinion of the hon. the Minister and that it should be specifically by reason of their educational qualifications and knowledge, not educational qualifications and knowledge which “in his opinion” qualify them to perform the functions entrusted to the directorate. I think the way in which the paragraph is worded leaves the assessment of the standard of their qualifications and knowledge entirely to the hon. the Minister and this in many senses makes him the arbitrary authority as to whom he wishes to appoint. If he intends administering this measure in the manner in which he has indicated not only in his addresses to the House, but also in statements which he has made subsequently in public, I think he should try to remove his personality from every scope of activity in this regard.

In fact, what makes me a little apprehensive is that the Minister of the Interior in 1969 (Hansard, Vol. 27, col. 5873) made the following statement in this House on 13 May, in revealing how members of the then Publications Board could be subjected to the views of a Minister—

This indicates to what extent the hon. the Minister can impinge his personality, his thinking and his direction on to a board. This he can obviously also do with persons whom he wishes to appoint.

To whom are you referring?

I am referring to the Minister of the Interior at the time. I am not acknowledging the hon. the Minister in his private capacity as a citizen now. I deal with him as the man who is given power in terms of a Bill. The Minister has too much power in this Bill, because he can please himself. For example, he might have a very good reason to appoint a person who has qualifications which he thinks are satisfactory but which may not necessarily fit the position which is envisaged in terms of a Bill of this nature read completely impersonally and objectively without any other motive. In our view this is very vital and important. I do not think that we should leave it that wide, so wide that the hon. the Minister can decide to appoint a student who has perhaps been doing a teacher’s course but has not been a success, but who could fit into this type of work because he seems to have certain administrative abilities.

The term “in his opinion” is so wide that you cannot even test it. You cannot test whether his opinion is wisely and correctly used. The words “in his opinion” restrict to him only the full power to do as he pleases. I think that is far too wide a power to give to the hon. the Minister in this case. The hon. the Minister generally seems to have far too much power in terms of this Bill. He can even appeal to the Appeal Board should he be dissatisfied, firstly, with the decision of a committee and, secondly, should he be dissatisfied when the directorate does not like what a committee has recommended and wishes goes to the Appeal Board. He can take a hand in the proceedings directly to see to it that there is an appeal. He has tremendous powers here and I feel that these powers should be limited. If the hon. the Minister wants the decisions to be arrived at as he more or less indicates, where a man should be judged by his peers, there should not be the guiding hand of an authority in the State who is subject to all whims and changes and whose personality as a Minister can change from time to time when others are appointed to hold the portfolio.

He puts into the hands of a particular office-bearer of the State a power which I think is far too wide and far too arbitrary to make for the fair judgment of a man’s work through the opinion of his peers, if that is what the hon. the Minister had in mind when he talked about a list of, if necessary, 100 persons which could be submitted to him, so that people could be chosen to sit on committees and on the directorate. It is in accordance with the thinking of all the courts of the country that interpretation should be such that as much as possible should be left to the workings of the Bill itself, as regards the ability of the people to carry out their duties and the educational qualifications required to enable them to perform these duties, and as regards the method of assessment of what kind of person should be appointed to the directorate. I am sure the same thing happens in respect of any type of post to which a person has to be appointed on the strength of certain qualifications. I think qualifications are a vital factor. Therefore, we ask that the words “in his opinion” be eliminated from the clause.

There is a very important reason for my next request, that the names of persons who have been appointed, should appear in the Government Gazette. There have hitherto, unfortunately been many complaints, even by the courts, in their interpretation of the matter, as to what is regarded as the secretive actions of a board. No one really knows who is dealing with anything. I think the public should be aware of who the persons are that are appointed and what their qualifications are. There should be a sense of confidence in the minds of the public with regard to the work of this particular directorate.

Furthermore, the question of the period being limited to three years is vitally important, because it may be necessary, if the directorate takes a certain direction and finds itself in difficulty because of the views of a particular individual member of such directorate that that individual or the directorate itself should be replaced. There should be a short time limit, so that the whole situation can periodically be judged and reconsidered by the Minister himself. Because I feel that these qualifications should be taken into account, and that the public should be aware of the names and qualifications of the persons to be appointed, I move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the argument on clause 2 just a little bit further. I move the amendment standing in my name as follows:

1. (1) To omit all the words after “who” in line 18 up to and including “Act” in line 21 and to substitute “have special knowledge of art, language and literature”; and
2. (2) to insert the following subsection after subsection (2):
3. “(3)
   1. (a) No person shall be appointed as a member of the directorate unless his name appears on the list referred to in paragraph (b).
   2. (b) A list shall be compiled annually by the Minister from names submitted to him by national organizations for the promotion of culture and the arts and shall be supplemented by him from such names from time to time when necessary.”.

The purpose of my amendment is twofold—firstly, it is aimed at leaving as little doubt as is possible in the minds of the public, those people who are going to be affected by this legislation, that those who are appointed to the directorate will have special knowledge of the work which, after all, directly concerns them. That is the first aspect. In the second instance, the members of the directorate should be as representative of the community as a whole as is possible to achieve under these circumstances. I do not believe that it is enough simply to refer to “educational qualifications and knowledge fit to perform the functions”. This is fair enough, but it seems to me that the need to emphasize and to underline the need for specialist knowledge in this regard is very considerable, and it ought to be spelt out. I say this in spite of what the hon. the Minister of the Interior had to say in his Second Reading speech. He said that personality was more important than knowledge, and that personality rather than that should be the criterion.

It seems to be eminently desirable to go further than that. Obviously personality must be taken into consideration, but then it must also be said that the people who are to be appointed in these key positions should be people who have a specialized knowledge in the three particular fields, namely, art, language and literature. We all recall the fact that the 1963 Act laid down that six of the nine members of the Publications Control Board had to have a special knowledge of art, language and literature and that the chairman and the vice-chairman had to be two of the six members to have such a knowledge. Even though the experience with that board over a period of years was as dismal as we all know it was, it does not seem to me sufficient reason to depart from this precedent and to omit any kind of reference at all to specialist knowledge for those who will have to do this work. Those hon. members on the other side of the House who argued against the use of the courts in the whole process of censorship have told us time and again that one of the reasons why they are opposed to recourse to the courts is that the judges do not always have an expert understanding of art and literature and films. If I am not mistaken, I think the hon. the Minister has in broad terms spoken in this vein. As far as the directorate is concerned—we will discuss the Committees in a few minutes’ time, says he hopefully—I suggest that this is an opportunity to make sure that the men and women entrusted with this task should really know something about the work that they are going to do so that they can do a better job.

As far as the second part of my amendment is concerned, the purpose of it is to ensure that as wide a field of potential recruits as possible is canvassed. We know that the hon. the Minister may well say that he is going to do this in any case, but why do we not say it specifically? If there is going to be any kind of public confidence in this machinery that is going to be created, you have to see to it that it is as representative as possible. One means of doing this is by taking advice from national organizations concerned with the promotion of culture and the arts. If he does this, I suggest that the hon. the Minister will be going some way towards creating a directorate that is representative of more than just a single point of view.

This is the real danger and this is something which I think the hon. the Minister in his own interest must guard against. In this kind of context it is also essential that both language groups should be represented; as a matter of fact that almost goes without saying. But they should be more than just represented; they should represent different points of view. The danger inherent in this legislation is that we are going to get a narrow, single-minded approach on these issues. The purpose of our amendment is to try to broaden the scope in this regard. We hope and believe that this amendment will go some way towards achieving this. I suggest that this is one way, perhaps the best way, of trying to build up some confidence in the directorate—by making it representative and by equipping it with people who have some knowledge of the work they are going to be called upon to do.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe fails to take note of one matter of fundamental importance, and that is that any appointment which the Minister must make, or which anyone else makes, incorporates the exercising of a discretion. If for argument’s sake the hon. member for Jeppe were to receive an instruction from his Party to nominate a member for a Select Committee, how else would he do so but by exercising discretion? If he is instructed to make an appointment, how else would he do so but by forming an opinion of the capabilities of several persons and then selecting and appointing the person who is best equipped in his opinion. His amendment therefore requests omitting the discretion of the Minister without asking the Minister not to make the appointment. If the Minister has in fact to make the appointment, it goes without saying that he must form an opinion and appoint the best person in his opinion. That is why I think that the hon. member for Jeppe’s amendment is really ill-considered and ought to be rejected.

With respect to the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown I can see that he has scrutinized the problem more thoroughly. That is why he comes along with a definition of the knowledge and qualifications which he wants people to comply with. In respect of this amendment I also want to argue, however, that the hon. member has not really considered the impact and procedure of the Bill. He is asking us to consider a special knowledge of art, particularly literature. But what about psychology, sociology, theology and education?

It just goes to show how unworkable the whole system is.

Why only language, literature and art? What about an authority in political science? If the hon. member looks at the grounds for prohibition, he will see that these also include matters threatening the security of the State. Therefore his amendment is an attempt to restrict this to too narrow a field. The commission struggled with this problem and that is why we came along with the concept “knowledge”.

Arising out of this, we must reflect on what the essential function of this directorate will be. In essence this directorate is a secretariat and will have to consist of senior and knowledgable people who must do specialized work. In the first place, however, their knowledge is different to the knowledge that is needed in respect of committees and the appeal board. The director, and the deputy director, will have to have a knowledge of people, because they must work with all these committee members. He will have to co-ordinate and constitute such a committee for each specific subject that has to be considered. He will have to have a knowledge of the human sciences and of art and culture, the aspects to which the hon. member referred. These people must also have organizing ability. Under “knowledge” I should therefore also like to include organizing ability, because a very important part—in truth, the most important part—of his task will be the organization of the whole question of control over publications and entertainments. Therefore I feel that this amendment is not acceptable either.

There is a further aspect of the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown which I should like to point out. He asks that the Minister should annually compile a list of names from nominations. He is therefore advocating that the Minister should be bound by this list of nominations. The problem here would be, firstly, that a general call for nominations might not bring forth enough names. If one therefore wants to follow the hon. member’s system, one would have to turn to specific organizations and designate the organizations that may come forward with nominations. The problem is then again to draw a line and decide why one particular organization may nominate and another organization may not. Therefore, once again, the Minister is not shrinking from his duty; in accordance with the wording of the Bill he will appoint the persons although he will, as we have been glad to hear, endeavour as far as possible to obtain the co-operation of all the interested organizations and societies.

Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the speech which was made by the hon. member for Vereeniging because he highlighted the impracticability of having a directorate of this sort to manage the censorship in this country when he added the various other categories of qualifications that the directorate should have. It is quite impracticable. The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Park-town that these persons should hold qualifications in the field of the arts. He is quite correct in suggesting that. If one has regard to clause 1, which we have already discussed and clause 47, which we have yet to discuss, one wonders how those qualifications alone are going to be sufficient to enable persons to discharge the duties which they have as members of the directorate. The departmental committee had another approach. They felt that the persons whom the Bill stated should be chosen because of educational qualifications—the hon. member for Parktown suggested that they should also have certain cultural qualifications—should have special knowledge and experience of life, the character and the way of life. I do not know what they had in mind. I do not know whether they meant that to qualify for the directorate one should have had a wild youth, a fruitful experience of touring those places which should not really be visited by statesmen when they go overseas, in order that one could have a full experience of life before one could sit on the directorate. I mention this simply to point out that the whole concept of this directorate is something which we on this side opposed at the Second Reading and we shall certainly oppose it during this Committee Stage. There have been attempts to improve it but when one hears even these attempts being rejected, then the clause as it is becomes even more objectionable than it was when we first looked at it. We had hoped and expected that we could perhaps persuade hon. members opposite to support some method of improving its provisions. I want to say that our attitude on this side is that we are trying and have tried and will continue to try by means of amendments which have not yet appeared on the Order Paper but which will be moved in due course, to improve the provisions of this clause. We feel that there are no such beings, such humans, who have such experience of life and so much wisdom and knowledge of the arts that they can sit and perform the functions they are expected to perform under the umbrella of the Christian view of life. Such people do not exist and this directorate is completely worthless in its entire concept.

Mr. Chairman, in connection with the hon. member for Jeppe’s motion to the effect that we should delete the word “in the opinion of the Minister”, let me just say that this is impossible. Any person who must pass judgment can surely not dissociate himself from his ideas, his judgment. If he must appoint persons to a board, he uses his judgment. Therefore, if one does not want the Minister’s judgment to be operative, one must remove the Minister himself because the Minister cannot function without using his judgment. That is completely impossible and there is no sense in accepting such an amendment. The hon. member referred to the fact that the names and educational qualifications, etc., of these people who are appointed should be published in the Gazette. I cannot accept that either, not because one wants to hide that from the public, but because it can become general knowledge by way of a question in the House. It is simply not the custom to publish the names of the members of such statutory bodies in the Gazette. Suppose the board has just been appointed. This will be news and will appear in the newspapers. The hon. member can put a question in the House and the newspapers will take it up further. It can therefore become general knowledge. There could be some value in publishing this in the Gazette, but how many members of the general public will go looking for that information in the Gazette? It is simply not general practice in the respective Government departments. The hon. member also proposed that there should be a limit on the period of service of members of the directorate. The hon. member has a period of service of three years in mind. That will not work either, because a period of three years is a little too short. Take for example the case of the chairman. One wants a measure of continuity and one wants to set a standard in respect of the judgment and decisions of those people. A board must now come into being. How much work will really be done in a period of three years? One wants to choose knowledgeable people who will actually make a career of this. One cannot have them leaving their ordinary jobs for three years, have them serving on the board for three years, and then have them returning to make a living elsewhere again. They will have to do that in the hope perhaps that their previous employer will take them back again. I think it is only fair that we do not stipulate a period of three years and that we do not incorporate this into the Bill either. If it is necessary to prescribe the period of service, whether five years or longer, this can be done in the regulations. I think it would fit in better there.

Then I come to the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member also speaks of special knowledge. I wonder whether the hon. gentlemen have clearly separated the question of the directorate and the committees. The directorate is the body which is chiefly going to carry out the administrative and organizational functions. They will need to be knowledgeable people, they will need to be people with good academic qualifications, but if they are compelled to pass judgment on a particular product, whether a publication, object, film or public entertainment, this is going to happen on the few occasions when they are going to have to decide whether or not they are going to appeal against the decision of a committee. There it is perhaps necessary, therefore, for one, two or three persons to have specialized knowledge, but apart from that they have to do the organizational work, the administrative work, of this body and we must not tie the Minister’s hands as far as appointments are concerned and tell him that the five persons, for which the Bill makes provision, must be specific persons with specifically those qualifications. We must take into consideration the broad background to their task, as stated later in clause 3. The member requests that they be appointed from a list submitted by national organizations. I also want to agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging that this is a problem; what national organizations should one invite to place names on the list? The Minister has indicated that as far as the committees are concerned, he would like to give everyone an opportunity. That is a much wider field; he spoke of 80 to 100 people. A great variety of organizations can therefore make their submissions. Here we are dealing with five persons. Proposals can thus be forthcoming, and I do not think that anything in the Bill prevents a national organization from writing a letter to the Minister and saying: “When you get round to the appointment of the directorate, I have a name I should like to submit to you.” Names must be brought to the Minister’s attention, but I do not think it will work so well in practice if we prescribe to the Minister in the clause that these names must specifically come from national organizations. Let the national organizations carry out their function when we draw up the committees.

Sir, I think I have now replied to all the points that hon. members raised here.

Sir, we have just heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister that unfortunately again he is not going to accept our amendment. But at this stage, before I deal any further with that, I wish to put right an omission. When I spoke earlier this afternoon I omitted, out of a sense of urgency because I was a bit upset at some of the things which had been said here, to wish the hon. the Deputy Minister well in his new appointment and to say to him that we welcome him in that position and we are just sorry that his baptism has to be in the terms of this Bill which we are debating here this afternoon.

Sir, having got that on record, I want to say that I am sorry the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept any of these amendments. I believe that there is merit in them. I believe that we should not place on the hon. the Minister the responsibility of saying that in his opinion these people are capable of doing this particular work. Either they are capable or they are not capable.

Who must do it?

The hon. the Deputy Minister asks, “Who must do it?” Sir, that is exactly why we are asking that the names of these people and their qualifications should be made public in the Government Gazette, so as to take away from the hon. the Minister the responsibility of having to decide on his own. Either these people have the administrative ability and the ability to carry out their functions in terms of this measure, or they have not got it, and, as was said by the mover of this amendment, if the Minister decides to appoint a man who has not even got his matriculation, then that is the end of it. But, Sir, that is not right. It is not right that this responsibility should be placed wholly on the Minister alone to decide. It does not matter what anybody else might think of that particular person; it does not matter whether he has in fact got the ability to carry out his functions. If the Minister believes he has, that is the end of the story, the way the clause stands at the moment. That is all we are asking, in all reasonableness—that all we should have are people who have in fact got the qualifications and the ability to carry out the intentions of this House when we pass this Bill.

Now, regarding the period, the hon. the Deputy Minister says he cannot accept the amendment in this regard because he must have continuity. Of course he must have continuity. There is nothing to say that at the end of three years a person must stand down and that he cannot be re-appointed. But, Sir, I do not believe that we must get to the position which we faced last year, when we had to appoint a commission to get rid of Jannie Kruger. That is another reason why we believe that we should insert a provision into this Bill, into this clause, that these people should be appointed for a period not exceeding three years.

That is a scurrilous remark.

Order!

We submit it should be a period not exceeding three years. Let us have a degree of flexibility and let us give the flexibility to the Minister too. If he finds that things are not going right with the people he has appointed, if initially in his opinion they had the ability, and he subsequently finds that he was wrong, then he will not be saddled with them. It is all very well to say that the period will be prescribed. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what he intends prescribing? Does he want to prescribe that they should only be appointed for one year, or does he want to say for five years? He must take us into his confidence. If he is not prepared to accept the period of three years, he must take us into his confidence and tell us what his intentions are. Does he want to make it for 10 years, or does he want to make it for life? I think he must also tell us those things.

I come now to the hon. member for Parktown, who has moved two amendments to this particular clause. I am glad to be able to say that we shall support the first amendment, subject to an addition which I am now going to ask him and this Committee to accept. I want to move:

In other words, this amendment should then read: To omit all the words after “who” in line 18 up to and including “Act” in line 21 and to substitute “have special knowledge of art, language and literature or the administration of justice”.

“Or” or “and”?

I beg your pardon? No, “or” is quite correct.

Who is moving the amendment?

I am, Sir. The object of this is that if you look at the functions of this directorate, you will find that they are almost entirely administrative, but that they do have a discretion. They have to exercise a discretion, for instance, in the granting of exemptions. They have to exercise a discretion as to whether or not they will appeal against the decision of a committee. They have to exercise a discretion in appointing the committee. Their functions are therefore not wholly administrative. They do have a certain discretion, and of course they have to look at the interpretation of the Act in exercising that discretion. It is for this reason that we believe that it is not only a special knowledge of art, language or literature which is necessary, but also a knowledge of the administration of justice. I believe it will be very difficult to find five people who have all those attributes, and that is why the amendment refers to “or” the administration of justice. [Interjection.] Yes, it should be art, language or literature as well; that is quite correct. But that the hon. member for Parktown must move on his own. I believe that is a perfectly reasonable amendment and that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give it due consideration before deciding whether or not to refuse it. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Parktown on the second amendment he has moved. I do not believe it is necessary here. It is the sort of amendment which I believe should be moved under clause 5, which we will discuss later, because here we are in fact appointing administrators. These are the people who will have to administer this particular Act and I do not really believe that we can support an amendment that these administrators should be appointed from lists of names submitted by certain organizations throughout the country. I must also ask the hon. member for Parktown why he limits these organizations only to those which promote culture and the arts. What about our churches, Sir? Surely the churches should have some say here; maybe the Bar Councils should also be consulted, but I certainly believe that such national organizations which represent publishers, film manufacturers and film importers should be consulted.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN. The Minister should be able to supplement.

The Minister should be able to supplement, I agree with the hon. member for Houghton.

We want to make sure that there is somebody on the directorate who knows something about these things.

I agree with the hon. member for Houghton, that we must make sure that there is somebody who knows about these things. This is why I am prepared to support the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Parktown. This is why we have moved amendments to remove this discretion from the hon. the Minister and the responsibility which is placed upon him. As I have said before, let us have people who are capable of carrying this legislation out in the best interests of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I find it a great pity that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South used the expression he did when he spoke of a commission of inquiry having to be appointed “to get rid of Jannie Kruger”. I thought that it was indicative of poor taste to make such a remark. I wondered whether he had not perhaps spoken in an unthinking moment, without quite realizing what he was saying. I find it a great pity, because I do not know the hon. member as a person who would normally act in that way. Mr. Jannie Kruger is not present in this House to defend himself, and in any event he was in no way the subject of any investigation made by this commission of inquiry. I do not know where hon. members get the idea that the commission of inquiry was appointed for that purpose. I do not think there is any reason why he should be smiling in a self-satisfied way about this circumstance; on the contrary, I think he owes an apology to the gentleman concerned. This commission of inquiry had nothing to do with the activities of Mr. Jannie Kruger. It occupied itself with the reconstruction of our whole system of control in South Africa. That was the goal of the commission; it had nothing to do with Mr. Jannie Kruger, but only with the system in terms of which things were done in the past. That is also what we are investigating here. I should be pleased if the hon. gentleman would be more careful in future when making remarks of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, if I may now come to the amendment he moved here, namely that the words “or the administration of justice” be added at the end of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Park-town, I should like to know from him whether he now thinks that he has completed the whole list by way of this amendment he moved. He has now added these words “or the administration of justice”. Is it only those persons who are mentioned here—those who have knowledge of art, language, literature or the administration of justice—who are to be taken into account and who may exercise discretion in respect of literature or other items which have to be controlled in South Africa? What about experts trained in theology? After all, we are concerned here with whether or not a publication, etc., is blasphemous. Are we now to do without the help of these people on these committees? What about people who are trained in political science? We are continually dealing with reading matter which is subversive of the State. Are we now to do without the knowledge and the assistance of people who are schooled in this particular field? What about people who are trained in philosophy, because many of the publications, etc., which we receive have to be analysed in depth in order to determine whether they are in fact profound, or whether they are merely superficially erotic. All these additional factors and facets are connected with the question of the judging of reading matter and entertainment in South Africa. To limit this, as the hon. member for Parktown or the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South wants to do, is in my opinion, absurd. They have not thought far enough or deeply enough in this regard and now want to impose limitations here, which is totally unnecessary.

There is a third remark, too, which I want to make, and it concerns the statement by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that the names of the persons so appointed as well as their qualifications should be published in the Gazette. We have been told by the hon. the Deputy Minister that he does not accept this amendment. The hon. member argued the case again, but I cannot understand how it will further his standpoint here in any way. I cannot understand how this can in any way contribute to the appointment of the people he would like to have appointed. What is his safety-valve? Surely his safety-valve is to come to this House and challenge the Minister in connection with his appointments. Surely his safety-valve is to put questions here on who the persons are who were appointed and on what their qualifications and knowledge are. His safety-valve is, in addition, to tackle the hon. the Minister in this House when his Vote comes up for discussion and to point out to him that he has made an absurd appointment. None of these other things which hon. members want to add are remotely necessary for furthering this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will immediately and readily concede that the directorate is a very important body with very important tasks to perform. Since this directorate is not, as was said at the time, a purely administrative body, but a body which will be able to exercise important discretions in respect of a whole series of matters, surely it is important for it to consist of experts, people equal to the task entrusted to them. If one looks at clause 2(4) one sees that the administrative work incidental to the performance of the functions of the directorate shall be performed by officers designated by the Secretary for the Interior for the purposes of this measure. The functions of the directorate are set out in clause 3. In the first place it has to perform the functions in respect of publications, etc., and, in the second place, at the request of a committee it has to submit a matter to an expert for his advice, and thirdly, it has to advise the Minister. These are important tasks all of which have to be carried out by the directorate. It is impossible for the directorate to carry out those duties if it is not at least as qualified to do so as the committees. In other words, if the committee members have to possess certain qualifications, the directorate would surely have to possess those qualifications to a far greater degree. Sir, what are these qualifications? If one looks at clause 47(2) one sees what this work is really about, what bones of contention have to be eliminated. As you know, Sir, there is a very long list of subjects which have to be investigated by the committees, and therefore by the directorate. These, of course, concern indecency or obscenity, and things which are offensive or harmful to public morals—in other words, psychological aspects.

They have got to hold certain educational qualifications.

The hon. member refers to educational qualifications, but the educational qualification that meets all these requirements does not exist. Therefore the requirements must at least be stated clearly. If it is a question concerning the arts, the people concerned must be knowledgeable on the subject. In the same way, others must have knowledge of languages or of literature. Then of course it will also be necessary to have people with a knowledge of the administration of justice, because such people will be in a position to discuss matters with the experts on an equal footing to seek, receive and process advice and then to advise the Minister. We regard this as an improvement. It is impossible to find people with all the necessary qualifications on the basis of the provisions in the Bill, on the basis of a very general educational qualification.

As far as publication in the Government Gazette is concerned, the hon. member for Bellville said that it was unnecessary to publish the names, because we could come to this House at any time and ask the Minister for the names of these people. That is not sufficient. In the first instance, this House does not sit for 12 months in the year. In the second instance, it is those very hon. members who said that this new system which is being proposed, would stand or fall according to the confidence it was able to inspire in the public. If the public does not have confidence in the people appointed to these important posts, then it will serve no purpose.

How can the publication of names inspire confidence or otherwise?

It will impose an obligation on the Government to ensure that the best people are appointed and to satisfy the public that this has in fact been done. It is only where this is done, and it can be seen to be done, that confidence will be inspired. It is like Caesar’s wife: It is not good enough that a good person be appointed there; the public must see that they are appointed. That is what inspires confidence.

We cannot hide them. Their names will become known.

But if they cannot be hidden why is the hon. member not prepared to accept that their names be published? After all, what we are seeking is confidence. We want to help to make this unwieldy structure work. If the Minister wants to make it work, he will definitely have to win the confidence of the public. Without that confidence it will not work in any event.

Mr. Chairman, first the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South fought with me, yesterday, and this morning too, and now, this afternoon, he says “Hearty congratulations on your appointment”. I am not angry with him on that score. I accept it. Thank you very much. He said that he was terribly sorry that I had to undergo my baptism of fire in this way. I should not have wanted it any other way. Sir, I do not want to boast, but actually I am a lot like tea: It is only when I am in hot water that you begin to see how strong I am.

I want to come back to a few of the arguments. The first is the question of the Minister’s opinion. Unless we omit all reference to the Minister from that clause, unless we provide that he is to make no appointments or is to have no hand in any appointment, there is no point in our omitting the words “in his opinion” from the clause. Let me illustrate this by means of an example. Suppose I accepted the amendment by the hon. member for Park-town, in terms of which national organizations could submit a host of names, one would have the Minister sitting with a prodigious list of names, of people with titles and qualifications as long as this behind their names, people who had distinguished themselves in life as knowledgeable people. The Minister would have to appoint five people from that list. After all, he is not going to close his eyes and say “Eeny-meeny-miny-mo”, as we did when we were young. Surely he would first evaluate them; surely he would first determine whom of the people whose names he had before him should in his opinion be members of the directorate. Therefore there is no sense in this, in spite of any arguments the hon. member may advance. The Minister cannot separate himself from his opinion. If the hon. member wants this to be otherwise—and I can tell him in advance that I am not going to accept it—I want to give him the tip that he might still have an argument if he were to ask for someone else and not the Minister to appoint the directorate, but the Minister cannot be separated from his opinion. That is impossible.

As regards the question of the three-year term of office and the question of continuity the hon. member states that the man should be appointed for three years and that provision should be made for his re-appointment. If that person were a knowledgeable person with high educational qualifications, it would still be a risky venture for him to give up his employment in the hope of his being re-appointed at the end of the three years.

What about an indefinite period? Surely that, too, gives rise to uncertainty.

True, a degree of uncertainty does exist. Suppose the board were to be appointed next year; the members of the board would then have to be told what their term of office and their remuneration would be and so on. That hon. member could then immediately ask the hon. the Minister to provide him with that information. The hon. member could then indicate immediately whether he was satisfied with it or not. Then the hon. members could come along with their arguments. We are dealing with new legislation and there are various points of view which have to be taken into account before a final decision on the term of office of these members is reached.

Therefore you have not yet decided?

We have not yet decided.

What are you considering? Two years or three years?

I am unable to give the hon. member any indication nor should I like to do so. The whole matter will have to be looked at again in broad outline before a decision can be taken as to who these people will have to be and what salary scales are to be attached to the posts. There are a number of actors and at this stage, therefore, I am not prepared to reply to the hon. member in this regard. However, the hon. member will not remain ignorant as far as this matter is concerned. At the earliest opportunity he will have the opportunity to attack the Minister in this House on his standpoint or to tell the hon. the Minister that he is satisfied with the appointments.

You come and ask for powers, yet you do not know what you are asking for.

In pursuance of what the hon. member for Bellville did, I, too, want to comment on the remark made about Mr. Kruger by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Whatever we may think of Mr. Kruger, comments of this kind will always be something uncalled-for. A short while ago the hon. member also referred to “Mr. Kruger and his gang”. The hon. member had an opportunity to have Mr. Kruger before him when the Select Committee was investigating this matter, in other words, prior to its becoming a commission. I paged quickly through the evidence and in doing so discovered that on that day he had the courage to put only one solitary question to Mr. Kruger. When Mr. Kruger was sitting in front of him, the hon. member sat there with nothing to say. Now that Mr. Kruger is not present, he is able to make a remark of that nature about Mr. Kruger. He had the opportunity to tackle Mr. Kruger by way of questions and to air his opinions by putting questions. I think the hon. member’s comment was uncalled-for.

Sis, Warwick!

Is that parliamentary?

I now turn to the question of qualifications again. I think we have stated very clearly in legal terms in the clause that the Minister will appoint persons who are suitable in his opinion by reason of their educational qualifications and knowledge. The word “knowledge” embraces a great deal. To compile a list of qualifications and to say that they should possess those specific qualifications, would mean that we should have to put next to each one’s name what qualifications he would have to possess. We should then have to say that Mr. A. should possess these qualifications and Mr. B., those qualifications. We should have to do the same with all of them. I think the definition as it stands is clear enough. Now let us bear in mind a point which, in my opinion, is very important. What is the objective of this side of the House. It is to make this legislation work, while hon. members on the other side of the House say that it cannot work. What is one of the cornerstones on which this legislation has been built? It is the very constitution of the directorate of knowledgeable people in a way which will allow of the directorate being able to perform the functions allocated to them effectively. If it were to do so, those hon. gentlemen would very soon be saying that they had told us that this legislation would not work; and we do not want to give them that opportunity. We shall therefore try and make those appointments as sound as humanly possible, because that is one of the cornerstones of this legislation. But do not tie the hon. the Minister down by saying that these people should have specific qualifications of one kind or another.

I think I have replied to most of the points raised. I have also replied to the point made by the hon. member for Von Brandis concerning the importance of this body. We consider this body to be just as important as he does, and we shall endeavour to make appointments in such a way that this important body will work.

As far as the knowledge and the question of what the work of the directorate is going to be is concerned, I want to say that there are only two tasks to be performed by the directorate which will be final. These are the appointment of committees and the allocation of work to those committees. That is where its task ends, but in respect of every subsequent activity of that directorate, its decision may be taken to the appeal board. Those are the only two activities in respect of which the directorate has the discretion and concerning which its decision is final, in other words the appointment of the committees and the allocation of the work to the committees.

What about the appointment of the snoopers, the inspectors?

No, the Minister authorizes the appointment of people to such posts. In terms of the Bill, the activities I have mentioned are the only two in respect of which the directorate’s decision is final. For the rest, appeals may be lodged against their decisions by interested parties. Therefore we may leave matters as they are as regards the appointment of the members of the directorate, in other words, as the clause as it stands provides, namely “by reason of their educational qualifications and knowledge”. This will not be infallible, but I want to give hon. members the assurance that we on this side will strive to appoint such a good directorate as not to give those hon. gentlemen the opportunity to come and breathe down our necks or to maintain that they had always said that it would not work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal explanation that at no time was there any intention on my part to reflect on the character of Mr. Jannie Kruger as an individual. It was not my intention to reflect on him personally or on his personal integrity. I referred to him merely as a personification of a system or board that has not worked. I am sure that I have the concurrence of every member in this Committee when I say this, including that of the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Bellville and the hon. the Deputy Minister. No reflection whatsoever was intended on Mr. Kruger. I was merely reflecting on the system when I referred to Jannie Kruger. I might just as well have referred to Jannie Kruger and his merry men, if you want to put it that way, or Jannie Kruger and his gang. I referred to him merely as a personification of a system.

Mr. Chairman, the whole essence of art is the production of an image which is open to interpretation in different ways by all those who see it. This may be one of the very few spheres in which the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg and Bellville may agree to differ. If they do not differ, it will be a greater condemnation. Therefore, the more people who see any work of art, be it a sculpture, film or a painting, the more different interpretations there will be since each person forms a different image of it in his own mind. It must be so. It is therefore subjective. The whole trouble with this clause is that it is also subjective in that it is subjective in the judgment of the Minister. Therefore, all we are asking for is to try to prevent forestall or head off a dreary conformity which will inevitably follow when a number of people have the power to enforce their subjective opinion throughout a very broad sphere. All we ask in this connection is that the nucleus of people whose opinions will be consulted will be made as broad as possible and that those people will be drawn from those who have a proven track record of success in the spheres which will fall within their purview. There is nothing unreasonable in this. If hon. members opposite find it unreasonable, then therein lies the very danger we are trying to avoid which will in the end result simply in the stifling of creativity in this country.

Question put: That the words “in his opinion” in line 18 stand part of the clause.

Question affirmed and first amendments moved by Mr. H. Miller and Mr. R. M. de Villiers and amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Second amendment moved by Mr. H. Miller negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Second amendment moved by Mr. R. M. de Villiers negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Third amendment moved by Mr. H. Miller negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Brand. J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson. J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw. W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—42: 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.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On a point of order, hon. members who were sitting on this side of the House moved to that side of the House after the counting had started.

According to the rules, hon. members sitting in the row which must be left free during a division, are entitled to move to whichever side of the House they prefer, even after counting has started.

On a point of order, Sir, they were not sitting in those benches.

That was not how I saw it.

Clause 3:

Having settled clause 2, we now have a directorate which will be appointed by the hon. the Minister when he is satisfied that they have been adequately educated, that they are fit to perform their duties and that they have knowledge enough to do the job with which they are entrusted. They will then be empowered in terms of clause 3 to perform a large number of functions, functions which are determined in this Bill and which are contained also in other clauses. But other than the fact that this directorate is to be established in Cape Town, according to the Bill, the rest of its activities, its whereabouts and how it will function, will be clouded in secrecy. Its functions are administrative—to administert the Act. It will administer the Act from Cape Town, but what it decides, what it does, will be known only to those very few people who might be involved. Perhaps the Minister will bear with me. Sir, what do they do now? They appoint committees. The directorate appoints committees. The Minister submits a panel of names to it and those committees are appointed, and to the extent only that that is made known through a Press announcement is the identity of those committee members known to the general public. The public only knows it from Press announcements. Otherwise they will not know who is serving on the committees—ten or whatever number it may be serving throughout the Republic. The committee in turn will authorize, as the Bill now stands, a large number of persons generally or specially to have the right of entry upon and inspection of various business and private premises. If one goes further, one finds that the directorate will decide on the recommendation of the committees, what publications are so undesirable that the mere innocent possession of those publications will be an offence. The possession of an undesirable publication will be an offence. Sir, that is the only provision in this Bill, or the only decision in this Bill, which has to be made known in the Government Gazette, i.e. when it is decided that a certain publication is so undesirable that mere possession of it constitutes an offence in terms of clause 9. This directorate’s other functions are, for instance, to receive a complaint from any person about any publication. They can then refer it to a committee to decide whether that publication is undesirable or not, and that is decided by that committee without hearing any person whatsoever. Sir, the members of the committee or the directorate make all these decisions affecting the whole of the art and cultural life of the country. They may not be influenced by anybody whatsoever, because if anybody attempts to influence them he is subject to a fine of up to R500 or imprisonment. As far as matters of decision are concerned, they have the power as a directorate to make decisions to have matters reviewed. They can be reviewed without hearing the evidence of any person whatsoever. The Minister looks puzzled, but I shall give him the section, clause, references with which we will be dealing later on. I must say that he has put some amendments on the Order Paper to rectify some of these terrible provisions in the Bill, which we have suggested should be put right. It goes further. As the Bill is now before us, the directorate can refer matters to an appeal board and this appeal board can deal with these appeals without the persons concerned being entitled to any legal representation. The committee reviews matters after two years and then again there is no representation. We will deal with those particular provisions as we come to them later. What I am attempting to indicate to the House is that this vast machine is to be set up by the directorate to control publications, art, literature, music, public entertainment and cinemas, and there is no means by which the public can ascertain the decisions that are made in regard to the various matters which they, the directorate, are investigating. It is for this reason that I wish to move as an amendment—

In other words, Sir, I ask that the directorate should be charged with the responsibility of making known all decisions of the committees and of the appeal board for publication in the Gazette. The reaction to this will be: Who reads the Gazette? This was the reaction given by the hon. the Deputy Minister earlier when we asked for publication in the Gazette. How is the public to know what norm is being adhered to, unless there is some means whereby the decisions of these committees and of the directorate, and more particularly of the appeal board, are made known publicly in some form or manner? I know that at the moment there is a long list of books that have been banned under the provisions of the present Act. That is so out of date that it is difficult to know whether or not one is committing an offence by having one of these books in one’s possession. Let me remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that the sittings of the appeal board are going to be in camera, unless they decide that somebody else can come and listen. Access to the courts and to newspaper reports on what has been decided on by censoring bodies is now going to be removed. The public will be completely in the dark as to what methods and tests are being applied. At the present moment the right of access to the courts does mean that there is a public manifestation, a public testing and a public reporting upon what has been decided by the board at least in so far as the matter which is taken on appeal is concerned. It is for this reason that I am hoping that there will be other occasions in the discussions on this Bill later on for the Minister to also lift the veil for the public to see what is going on in this conclave, this oyster, in which our morals are being protected by committees and a directorate. We might then find other ways to enable us to gain access to the workings of these persons who are to be charged to look after our morals. I believe that one step in that direction will be this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand the hon. member for Green Point wanting information about the decisions of the various committees, and that in terms of clause 3 alone he cannot obtain that information. I refer the hon. member, however, to clause 12(3) in connection with decisions about any object which is undesirable. This clause provides very clearly that a committee which finds such an object undesirable shall “without delay make known such declaration, withdrawal, prohibition or decision by notice in the Gazette." In other words, a decision of a committee that something is undesirable, must immediately be published by the directorate in the Gazette. Now there is yet another possible decision that can be taken by a committee, i.e. that if an object or a publication is submitted, the committee can decide that it should not be declared undesirable. Personally I do not see that under such circumstances it will be necessary for a committee to have that decision printed in the Gazette as well, i.e. that something submitted to it is not undesirable. That is the implication of this proposed amendment. The hon. member requests that all decisions—not only decisions about undesirable items, but also the decisions about items not regarded as undesirable, should be published. When the committee finds that something is not undesirable, I do not believe it is really necessary for such a decision to be published. Numerous things can be submitted to a committee and the committee may find that there is nothing wrong with them in terms of the Act. Surely it is not necessary for such a decision to be published in the Gazette as well. The hon. member’s amendment also refers to decisions of the appeal board. In this connection I want to refer the hon. member to clause 13(6)(i) where it is provided that the director shall without delay make known to the appellant the decision of the appeal board, and make known the decision of the appeal board by notice in the Government Gazette. The request being made here by the hon. member for Green Point is therefore included in clauses 12 and 13. There is consequently no need to include this in clause 3 as well. But what is more: Anyone can apply for a copy of a motivated decision of the appeal board on payment of a nominal fee. But to publish the full motivation of the appeal board’s decision in the Gazette is in my opinion unnecessary. I therefore really cannot see the reason for this amendment, because provision is already being made in the existing Bill for rejecting decisions to be published in the Gazette.

Mr Chairman I do not agree with the hon. member for Klip River at all. When he points to clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill and says that in terms of those clauses there is already provision for the publication of decisions in the Gazette, of course we do not agree with him. Because the hon. member has not done his homework. Did he ever look at clause 24, or did he not read that far?

I have looked at that, but I shall do so again.

Oh, he did read that far! Sub-section (6) of clause 24 reads:

There is no requirement whatsoever for any publication in the Gazette. Now, Sir, there are other provisions in this Bill regarding decisions where we believe such decisions must be published. Now, Sir, to go through the Bill and insert in every clause, where it applies, an amendment to the effect that the decision should be published in the Gazette will fill the whole of the Order Paper. Therefore we felt it would be easier to propose an omnibus provision in clause 3 of the Bill to provide for the publication of all decisions. We did this simply to simplify matters. I do not believe that the hon. member for Klip River, nor the hon. the Deputy Minister, nor anybody else, is really averse to the publication of decisions in the Gazette. I think I am quite right in interpreting the hon. member for Klip River in this way. The hon. member for Klip River is not averse to this idea, but, of course, he is just arguing. But then the hon. member came with a further argument, asking whether we should now provide for the publication of the full decision of the appeal board in the Gazette. That is not what we asked for at all.

I know.

The hon. member says he knows; why then does he come with that argument?

It was part of the hon. member’s argument.

No, Sir, it was never a part of the hon. member’s argument at all. All we want, is a simple notification in the Gazette that a particular film has been considered by the appeal board, that it was allowed or not allowed, or that certain excisions ought to be made. I do not believe that this is unreasonable. I believe the hon. member for Green Point is quite reasonable in moving this amendment, and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I am almost inclined to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that he should also read a little more carefully. Even in terms of clause 34, which he quoted, decisions must be published in the Government Gazette. I want to cut short the discussion and say that there are only three decisions that are not published. In the first place, all favourable decisions. In that case the public has the material before them. They can use it; it is not kept from them. Supposing 8 000 titles per year come through Customs and 800 are submitted. Suppose 400 of those 800 are rejected as being undesirable. 400 are not undesirable. The titles of those 400 publications are then not published in the Gazette, i.e. those publications on which a favourable decision was given. That is surely not what the hon. member wants. That is one instance where publication in the Gazette does not take place. The second instance relates to the rejection of a film. But the person in possession of that film is notified of the decision of the committee or the appeal board. The third instance is where a public entertainment is rejected. There are so few such cases that such a provision would not be justified. At the moment I can think of only one. There is a person in control of that entertainment in any case, and he is notified. In only those three instances, of all the instances occurring in the whole Bill, can decisions not be published. What this briefly amounts to, in my opinion, is that the hon. member for Green Point is seeing this clause in the wrong light. The broad functions of the director and the directorate are being presented to us in this clause, but the details of their functions are concerned with provisions or decisions of the committees and the appeal board which are dealt with in later clauses. The hon. member for Sea Point will indeed encounter them at a later stage.

Green Point.

I mean the hon. member for Green Point.

There is quite a difference.

Yes, politically speaking there is quite a difference as far as the hon. gentlemen are concerned, and it seems to me they are terribly sensitive about that.

To sum up, what is chiefly amounts to is the fact that all the decisions of committees and of the appeal board in respect of publications and objects are published in the Gazette. I have impressed on the hon. member what the three groups are. The decision on favourable publications, i.e. those that are approved, are not published. Hon. members surely do not want that. Decisions on films that are rejected are not in fact published, but the person in possession of the film is notified of the decision. I think that is the present situation.

That still does not mean to say that it is a favourable situation.

Decisions on undesirable public entertainments are not published either. I can only recall one such instance in the past few years where such an entertainment was not staged. These are the only instances where this is applicable.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s point of view that there are these provisions in this Bill. What I have done with this amendment is to place the responsibility for publication on the directorate and not on the committees which are all over the place.

It is there.

Not on the directorate. Clause 3 gives us the functions of the directorate. I want this clause to provide that it is the responsibility of the directorate to see that these decisions are published in the Government Gazette.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that provision is made in later clauses of the Bill for . ..

For specific functions.

Yes, for the specific obligation on the directorate to publish in the Government Gazette. The functions set out in clause 3 are just the general functions, not the detailed functions of the directorate. The hon. member will find the detailed functions in subsequent clauses.

Mr. Chairman, I must agree with everything the hon. Deputy Minister has said, but the fact remains that regarding films he is not going to publish the fact that a film has been rejected by a committee. This will not be published. In a later clause which I unfortunately cannot discuss now—I refer to clause 8—certain offences are stipulated, one of which is the possession of an undesirable object. It could be a film which has been rejected by a committee. The fact that the committee has rejected that film is, not published in the Gazette and how must I, when I come into this country with films in my pocket, know that I am committing an offence? This is why ...

Then you cannot bring it into the country.

Why not?

It is in the legislation.

I can come in with a film; why can’t I?

Is it not an object?

Clauses 8 and 3 apply to films as well as others, this with respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Clause 3 applies to everything including films and so does clause 8. If that film is undesirable I believe that for the sake of the protection of the people of South Africa it is necessary to make these decisions known so that any person who comes into the country will be aware of the fact that he is committing an offence because that film has been rejected by a committee. I really ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to have another look at this amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. He must look at it. If he cannot do it now, then at least he should consider it before he takes this Bill to the Other Place.

Films are restricted differently.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to impress on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that there is a fundamental difference in the approach of the committees and the appeal board towards publications generally and films. Films are the only objects which are subjected to pre-censorship. All other items are not subjected to pre-censorship. It is obviously impractical to ask the directorate to publish decisions of the committee in respect of films, seeing that they are subjected to pre-censorship.

Why not?

For the simple reason that pre-censorship supposes that before anything is made available to anybody—and this includes all films—a certain control is exercised over films. Most films which are viewed are indeed not prohibited outright. Many of them are merely altered slightly by way of a few cuts or the imposition of an age limit. In this Bill only two age limits are proposed. If certain cuts are made, surely it is unreasonable to expect that a description of each particular cut in a film should be published in the Government Gazette? Surely that would make the whole thing ridiculous. Consequently, where any object is subjected to pre-censorship, it is unnecessary, in my opinion, to publish the decision of the committee in the Government Gazette.

Let me come to the question the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised in connection with the man who comes into the country from overseas with a film. If he comes into the country with a film which is intended for public viewing, that film even though he may have acquired it privately, must be made available to a particular committee for its decision. He cannot just come into the country with a film because, if he can do it, what would prevent the owner of a chain of cinemas from coming in privately with a film? That is why, as far as films are concerned, this Bill provides that all films are to be subjected to pre-censorship. This was done specifically in view of the problems which are being encountered in the whole film industry. This is not the time to go into details, but it is obvious that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, if he wants the decisions on films to be published, must raise this question under a completely different chapter of this Bill, the chapter dealing specifically with films.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, we come now to what is possibly the most important part of this Bill where provision is made for those persons who will be eligible for appointment as members of committees. In discussing this particular clause we must bear in mind what exactly we are discussing. This clause could be described as the powerhouse of this Bill because the members of these committees are going to bear the responsibility of ensuring the efficient working of this whole machine. This is in fact the whole of the censorship machine envisaged by the Government. I am sure, Sir, that you and hon. members opposite as well will have realized by now that we are diametrically opposed to this whole censorship machine, that we are diametrically opposed to this system of censorship altogether, and it is for that reason that I now wish to move the first amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

The first amendment covers a subject which has really been debated at length by this Committee here this afternoon and I do not wish to waste too much time in discussing the amendment. What I am asking here is that when the hon. the Minister compiles a list of the names of the persons whom he considers suitable to serve on the committees, he will publish that list of names in the Government Gazette. The way it will actually read then is that no person shall be appointed as a member of such committee until his name has been so published in the Gazette by the hon. the Minister. I believe it is necessary for the public to be aware of the persons who are doing this work. I stated during the second reading debate that all of us in South Africa are now going to be made subject to the whim of two persons in that these committees can comprise three members only, and a majority vote of two can decide whether or not we will be able to read a particular book or see a particular film. I believe that it is essential for the people of South Africa to have confidence in this machine if it is to work at all. They cannot have confidence in some shadowy figures who lurk in the background and who are totally unknown to the public. It is for this reason that I believe it is only right that the hon. the Minister should publish the names of the people making up the committees which will decide the future of the arts in this country.

Having said this, I want now to refer to my second amendment which I now wish to move, namely—

What exactly are we dealing with here? We are dealing here with a list that will be compiled annually by the hon. the Minister and which will be supplemented by him from time to time when necessary. We are dealing here with committees which are going to decide what we may see and what we may read; which are going to decide which works of art are acceptable and which are not acceptable. This is not only in respect of those of us who are English speaking and not only in respect of those of us who happen to be White. These decisions will be made and will apply to all the people of South Africa. I believe therefore that it is only fair that all the different communities which go to make up this heterogeneous society of ours should be adequately represented on these panels from which the committees are to be appointed. When the hon. member for Somerset East spoke on this matter during the second reading debate—I hope I can have his attention—he said that he accepted the fact that South Africa was made up, or as he put it, “dat Suid-Afrika opgemaak is deur mense van verskillende bevolkingsgroepe”. Sir, this is one of the measures which I am hoping to put right with this amendment, which I hope the hon. member for Somerset East will support because it provides for representation on these committees of all these important groups which go to make up our country. In other words, Sir, to put it quite plainly, I am pleading not only that these committees should be adequately representative of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, but also of Catholics and Protestants, of people of the Jewish faith and the Indian community, the Coloured community and the African community of South Africa. We believe that the panel of names should contain the names of people representative of all the communities of South Africa, and that when the directorate comes to appoint the committees to consider the various matters which they have to consider, they must appoint the members of the committees with due regard to the readership, etc., of the particular item which is being considered. I know, Sir, that provision is made a little later in this Bill for the establishment of advisory committees to represent the Coloured people and the Indian people, but I do not believe that this is adequate, especially when those committees are limited in their functions to the viewing of films only. I believe that this is a reasonable request which I am making and I believe that the hon. the Minister opened the door for this amendment during his reply to the Second Reading debate when he said that if the name of a capable non-White person was given to him, he would seriously consider including his or her name in the panel of names. Sir, I want to suggest to him today the names of people like Freda Mutwa, who is an accepted literary figure; I also think of somebody like Professor Nimbezi, who can only add lustre to this panel of names. I can mention many more names, but I do not think it is necessary at this stage; I think that we have got the message through to the hon. the Minister. Another name which has just been mentioned to me is that of Adam Small, the Coloured poet. I am sure, Sir, that he could only serve with distinction on these committees, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will now indicate that he is prepared to accept these two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I warmly support the plea of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South about adequate representation for all sections of the community on these committees; but I want to take this further. This is really in a sense a continuation of the discussion that we started on clause 2, because here again I believe that the purpose, as in clause 2, should be to ensure the appointment to these committees of people with qualifications more than the educational qualifications which are laid down here. We want on these committees people who will have expert knowledge of the task that they undertake, or as much expert knowledge as it is possible to get under these circumstances, and we also want them to come from as varied a background as you could possibly find in this country. We will no doubt be asked, as the hon. member for Vereeniging asked under clause 2, why we do not extend this category and include various other groups. Somewhere or other, Sir, we have to draw the line, and we believe that by drawing the line where we have, we have given some kind of framework that makes sense. We realize that it is going to be very difficult indeed to persuade people to serve on these bodies. I think this is something which the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to face right at the outset. We have already been told in the last ten days that Etienne le Roux and Ernst van Heerden and Walter Battis, among other people, have said that they simply will not serve on these committees because they are opposed to the whole principle of censorship. This morning I see that Professor John Lighton, who served on the Publications Board until last year, has said that he will never again join any censorship board. Sir, this is going to be a difficult problem and we do not want to make it any more difficult, but we do want to try to ensure that people who are recruited have the qualities which we believe are necessary for this task. This is why we want to go as far afield as possible. There are going to be from 80 to 100 of these people serving throughout the country and they must be qualified to do the job. Why must they be qualified? Let me tell you, Sir, what two artists who have run this gauntlet—what they call the censor gauntlet—the Lindbergs, the people who produced Godspell, say about being subjected to this kind of censorship. After saying that censorship and freedom of the arts are incompatible, they say this—

And, incidentally, they list as members of this group the editor of Die Transvaler, Nadine Gordimer and Anton Rupert, among others. Anyway, they say—

Then they go on to say this, and I think this is important—

Sir, there is the experience of people who have run this gauntlet. They know what happens when you appoint people who are not really equipped to do this job. And here again, as in the case of the directorate, it is necessary to make these committees as representative as we possibly can. We have heard from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South about making them representative of both language groups, which is obvious, but we want to go further because we believe it is essential to get on to these committees people who reflect as broad an outlook and as wide a spectrum of the philosophy of their own groups, incidentally, as it is possible to get. In other words, it is important to get people with a diversity of background, otherwise you will not get a true reflection of public thinking. It is also important, we think, that there should be consultation with organizations concerned with the promotion of culture and the arts, and that is why we have included this in our amendment.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior is on record as saying that he does intend to canvass such suggestions, and we accept this but we believe that it would be preferable if this were in fact incorporated in the Bill so that there could be no doubt about it in the future. With the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, we also hope sincerely that the hon. the Minister’s reference in his Second Reading speech to the appointment of people of colour to these committees will in fact be put into effect and that it will not just remain merely an expression of intention. This is important; it is part of the whole process of making these committees representative.

Sir, they should not only be representative; they should be seen to be representative, otherwise they will not in fact carry any kind of confidence. It will be difficult enough to build this up anyway, but this is one way of doing it. Now we know that these committees can call in experts if necessary, but I suggest to you, Sir, that this could often be a cumbersome process and it may not always be practicable. Why not try to get on to these committees right from the outset people who have this kind of experience. That is why it seems to me to be preferable to start by having committee members who have a specialized knowledge in the field. They are going to judge standards and lay down norms for every single one of us, what we may see and what we may read and what we may experience. It is an unenviable task and I believe that the more expert people we can enlist for this the better the chance of their making sense when they start functioning.

I move the three amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In line 33, after “Minister”, to insert “from names submitted to him by national organizations for the promotion of culture and the arts”;
2. (2) in line 34, after “him” to insert “from such names”; and
3. (3) to omit all the words after “who” in line 37 up to and including “knowledge” in line 39 and to substitute “by reason of their special knowledge of art, language and literature are”.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Here I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate that we have taken notice of his suggestions. I suggest that the words to be omitted include the reference to the opinion of the Minister. If the amendment is agreed to he will be altogether precluded from the operation of this clause.

It merely states that persons whose names are included on the list, shall be persons who have a special knowledge of art, language and literature or the administration of justice. What has become clear from articles by other persons such as Prof. Light on who served on the board for some time, is the necessity in his view as a man of experience, that one should have, as has been suggested, as wide a spectrum as possible and particularly one should have the academic qualifications. The work is very demanding and it is not always the easiest thing in the world to get the people you want. In this case the House has already accepted the fact that the hon. Minister himself will appoint the directorate. Surely the directorate which is empowered to appoint the committees should be able to deal with the list. This then should not once more involve the opinion of the Minister.

I am sorry that he became a little sensitive earlier but I was obviously only talking about a certain office-bearer of the State. Somehow one sees his hand resting over every aspect of this board, not only over the appointment of the directorate but even over the making up of lists of the persons who will serve on the committees which the directorate has to appoint. He is there to watch the decision of the committees or even of the board if he is not happy. If he is dissatisfied with a decision and wishes it to be dealt with once more he puts it up to the appeal board. He seems therefore to be in close touch with every aspect of this work all the time. Surely this is going to inhibit the whole purpose of what he has in mind. Having appointed his directorate, the list should be free to include within it as many people as possible who have qualifications in so many directions as possible. From that list then the directorate which is after all charged with the administration of this Bill will have the right to choose those people whom it wishes to appoint. That should be the purpose of this particular clause and it should be the purpose of the Bill. Here we have an opportunity to do something about what the hon. the Deputy Minister suggested.

If we think the opinion of the Minister should not be employed in any specific aspect, he should not be given the power to have anything to do with these appointments. If he has to make appointments he obviously must make use of his own opinion. I am prepared to concede that. He cannot look at it like a dummy; his mind must be directed towards the choice of persons. I think that in setting up these committees which are going to do the basic work under this Bill, we must rely only on qualifications and leave the board to choose the people whom they believe are qualified to do the specific work which must be done. Their judgment would then be motivated by the type of person, the qualifications he has and the capacity in which he would fit into a specific category of activity in dealing with this work. This would then give some semblance of possible confidence in the administration of this measure.

I want to make one further point, namely that the whole purpose of the commission and of this Bill was because there was dissatisfaction with the workings of the previous system. On this there is no argument and both sides have conceded it. This Bill only arose out of a sense of dissatisfaction with the way in which the existing board is operating. This question of dissatisfaction is not a new one. There has been dissatisfaction with this type of activity, this type of authoritative operation, over the years. This has happened all over the world.

In our country also the history of this subject began with the appointment of the Cronje Commission. I referred to this in another debate. This commission held exhaustive inquiries and eventually drafted a Bill which was not satisfactory. An entirely different Bill to the present one was presented to the House by a former Minister of the Interior. A further commission was then appointed because those very boards then established were unsatisfactory. Now it is endeavoured to set up an entirely new structure. The thing that worries me particularly, and also other hon. members on this side of the House, is why the hon. the Minister is implicated in every movement here. Surely, having appointed the directorate and having his right of appeal which I hope he will not get, but which is provided for in this Bill, he should not want to have complete control of every facet of the work?

I do not think it is a wise thing for any Minister to accept all these responsibilities. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that membership of the directorate should be regarded as a career. It should not simply be an appointment for a few years, but should be something to which a man could devote all his talents and ability and make it his career. If this is the case, the hon. the Minister is not even being given the opportunity to appoint the members of the directorate from a list which is drawn up on an entirely objective basis. What sort of confidence, enticement and desire would there be on the part of any person to want to accept a position of this nature when their whole career will be inhibited from the start? That is all we are pleading for and I do not think it is an unreasonable request. In this respect even the hon. the Minister should realize that it is essential to restore confidence in the public mind and, more particularly generate confidence in the minds of those who seek this type of work, in order to attract the right type of person. They should know that they will be reviewed by an established organization under whom they will serve and who will deal with their appointment and their future careers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendments that have been moved on this clause. I notice that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has moved that the names should be published in the Government Gazette. I support this despite the hon. the Minister’s explanation on an earlier clause that it is easy enough to obtain the names of the people appointed to the committees, because one only has to put a question in the House to get the reply. This is, of course, absolutely true. Indeed, I have put many questions on this particular issue in the House and have always obtained a very detailed list of the people who are serving on the committees and of their qualifications. The very first year that I put a question of this nature it was just out of pure feminine curiosity. There was no publication in the Government Gazette and I did not have the slightest idea who was serving on these committees. I think I put a question in 1967 and, lo and behold, many of the people serving on the committees had nothing more than Senior Certificate qualifications. One of them, in fact, only had a Junior Certificate qualification and this lady was the mother-in-law of a Cabinet Minister who shall be nameless. One comes up with very interesting information. I might say, as soon as that was disclosed, the lady disappeared from the committee on which she served. Anyway, the point is that she was not qualified for this job. I think the very fact that it is made incumbent on the Minister to publish the names in the Gazette and not to rely on the curiosity of a member of Parliament to extract that information will be further protection for the public. One will know that the Minister is going to be particularly careful in selecting people with the proper qualifications. That is point number one.

The hon. member for Parktown has pointed out quite correctly that it is not really going to be very easy to find people of high reputation in the different fields of art and literature to serve on these committees, because, by nature, they object to this whole form of censorship. They do not like the rigid uniformity being imposed upon them, and they have made their feelings very well known. So it is not going to be easy to find people of high reputation to serve on these committees. But at least, let us make sure that the people we do get have some qualifications. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister—I must inform the hon. member for Parktown—is going to find a number of people who will be only too willing to serve on these committees; but they are not going to be of the high calibre that he and I also believe should be inherent in the composition of these committees. I think it is also very important that we know who these people are, and that they have to have special knowledge of art, language or literature, because some very curious decisions have been made in the past. All of us have had examples of this. I just want to mention two examples of books that were embargoed by the Customs. It seems to me to have been a most extraordinary and curious decision to embargo a book by Nadine Gordimer who has won prizes for literature in world circles. In fact, the particular book that was embargoed, entitled A Guest of Honour, had won a prize in international literary circles; but in her own country, it suffered the humiliation of being embargoed. It is a most extraordinary position. The book, I think, was subsequently released. Then there was a book, too, which was published 20 years ago, by another world famous South African writer, Mary Renault, The Charioteers. That book was suddenly embargoed as well. That too was a most curious decision. Although one obviously disapproves in principle of the whole of this censorship Bill, since we now have to have it, at least let us see that the people to be appointed on those committees do have special knowledge of art, literature and language.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to the effect that it should be the duty of the hon. the Minister to appoint people from all sections of the population. The hon. the Minister did say that there was nothing in this Bill—at the Second Reading, I think it was—to prevent him from appointing a Black person on one of the committees. I am sure that there is no stricture in the Bill, but we want a positive side as well. We want a duty to be laid upon the Minister so to do. I have a very particular reason for asking this, more especially as far as Africans are concerned. Although, as has been pointed out already, in terms of two subsequent clauses, the hon. the Minister will call on an advisory committee of the Coloured Representative Council—although heaven knows how and when that Council will ever function again—and of the Indian Representative Council to vet certain of the films which are to be shown or not to be shown to the Coloured and Indian populations, there is no board or representative council of any kind for Africans to which the Minister can refer films which are to be shown to African people.

Which of the African nations?

If you are going to send films off to the homeland Governments of Bophuthatswana or Lebowa or wherever to vet what films are to be shown to Africans in Soweto, it would be ridiculous. Anyway, the urban Bantu councils are completely impotent councils, a fact which appears to be recognized by the Minister, because there is no mention of referring a film to an urban Bantu council although there are many of them operating in the urban areas. I want to point out that there is a particular grievance among African people and that is that many of the films which are censored are insultingly censored, in a way which allows them to be shown to children under the age of 12 and Bantu. In other words, these films are classified as suitable for White children and children of other groups like Coloureds and Indians under the age of 12 and adult Black people. I have elicited this information via questions in this House.

For children under 12?

Yes.

Films only available for children under 12?

Yes, and Africans.

Are these films not for grown-up Whites?

Yes, but that is not what I mean. This is so and Africans ...

The way you put it ...

Well, let me put it in another way. There are films which are forbidden to White children under the age of 12 and also to Bantu.

May be for two totally different reasons.

I do not care what the reasons are. The very fact that the two categories are lumped together is an insult. Surely the hon. the Minister must see that. It is one of these insults to human dignity about which the hon. the Prime Minister talks a great deal. Why should an adult Black man or woman be classified with a White child of under the age of 12?

That is totally incorrect. That is how you interpret it.

It is not a question of my interpretation; it is the effect of the classification. I have had letters from adult Black people wherein they complain bitterly about the classification. They consider it to be an insult.

We had evidence to that effect.

Yes, of course. I put the questions and the replies indicated that.

Of course you two belong together.

Oh, do not be silly. Let us not worry about small political points. We have had enough of that yesterday. Let us get on with this. The point is that this is a real insult to Black people and the hon. the Minister must recognize it. We have thousands of Black matriculates in this country, as a matter of fact I think they matriculate at the rate of something like 2 000 per year, and a couple of hundred of graduates among African people every year. To put those people in the category of White, Coloured and Indian children ...

Oh, please, do not carry on like that. It is incorrect.

But it is correct. It is the way in which this does in fact operate. It may not be the intention to insult them, but I can assure the hon. the Minister that this is the way it operates.

There may be one or two films which are categorized in that way, but it will not be the general trend.

It has been ...

Don’t make a rule of it.

No, I am not making a rule of it, but the way in which this has been operating ...

Once or twice?

I can assure the hon. the Minister that it was done much more than once or twice. And it should not happen at all. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister must do something about that.

What do they do in Zambia, Helen?

For all these reasons I have mentioned, I want to support the amendments which have been moved by other hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is much to say about what the hon. member for Houghton said. She is applying interpretations to this legislation which are not justified at all. She is actually arguing to the point of absurdity. That is why I do not want to say a great deal about what she said.

I should like to come to the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The second part of his amendment proposes after “Minister” to insert, “with due regard to adequate representation of all sections of the community,”. In the first place, what is this amendment actually aiming at? What are “all sections of the community”? Does the hon. member mean by this amendment all language groups and population groups? After all, there are age groups which are also “sections” of the community. Does he mean the youth? Does he mean the Old Guard, the Young Turks? Whom does he mean? [Interjections.]

He belongs to the Broederbond.

No, he belongs to GROW.

If the hon. member means by this merely the various population groups, he will find himself, in his amendment, up against the problem in the amendment itself. Why does he use the words “with due regard” and “to adequate representation”? What is “adequate representation”? Why does the hon.member not spell out to the hon. the Deputy Minister what “adequate representation” is? How many members must be nominated, in his opinion, from the Jewish community? How many would he like to see from the Greek-speaking community and the Portuguese-speaking community in this country? What the hon. member actually wants to achieve with this amendment—since he does not specify what exactly he wants—is to create the impression that the judgment and implementation of this Bill will be solely in the hands of one language group. That is actually the impression that party wants to create with this Bill. They know they must use the word “adequate”, because it cannot be qualified. They are trying to create wrong impressions by virtue of what they are advocating in this amendment.

Let me say immediately that this Bill applies to the whole country. It is not only one language group that has an interest here; all language groups and population groups have an interest here. However, when it comes to judgment it is my conviction that the best people must be designated in respect of the speciality being judged. Whether all are English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking will make no difference to me, as long as I am convinced that the most competent people are being appointed for the particular aspects being judged at that stage. We do not want the kind of division they are proposing here, because here it is not a question of language groups or population groups, it is a question of what is in the best interests of the country. All these population groups are inhabitants of this country, and the interests of all must be placed on an equal footing.

I now come to the hon. member for Parktown’s amendment to the effect that persons should be chosen “by reason of their special knowledge of art, language and literature”. What is “special knowledge”? The relevant clause mentions that these should be people who are chosen “by reason of their educational qualifications and knowledge”. I allege that “knowledge” includes the concept “special knowledge”. The term “knowledge” is an even wider term. It includes more than “special knowledge” does. I can give a good example.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.