I have to inform the House that the Parliamentary Service Act was promulgated in the Government Gazette today. The staffs of the Senate and the House of Assembly have accordingly been amalgamated under the Secretary to Parliament with effect from today.

Under the resolutions adopted by the Senate and the House of Assembly on 25 February 1974, the following officers have been appointed as Secretaries at the Tables of the two Houses:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) the expenditure of moneys by or on behalf of candidates at an election;
2. (b) the improvement of the procedures that are followed at voting by absent voters; and
3. (c) the elimination of problems experienced when holding House of Assembly and Provincial Council elections on the same day;

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up a Bill amending the said Act.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, when this Committee reported progress last night we were dealing with clause 5 of the Bill, a clause which provides which persons shall be eligible for appointment as members of the committees. I had pointed out that the committees were actually the powerhouse of the whole system that was being established by the hon. the Minister to deal with censorship matters in this country. I had also pointed out that these committees could be so established in terms of this clause that in fact two people would decide whether or not we in South Africa could read a particular book, see a particular film, and so forth. We had moved certain amendments to this clause and I had moved that the names of these persons should be published in the Gazette and that the hon. the Minister, in making his appointments to these committees, should have due regard to the question of adequate representation of all sections of the community on these committees.

When the hon. member for Bloemfontein East spoke, he asked what was meant by the expression “all sections of the community”. I thought that when I moved my amendment I had made it quite clear what I meant by saying “all sections of the community”. I said that it was not only the English and Afrikaans-speaking sections of the White population that I had in mind, not only those who lived in the Western Cape and had a different view of life to those who lived in the Transvaal, but that I also wanted to include the Coloured people, the Indian people and our Black people in this country. I also said that I believed that the hon. the Minister himself had indicated during his reply to the Second Reading debate that he would consider the appointment of these people to these committees. I am still waiting for some sign of support from the other side of the House for this particular amendment. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East asked what these sections of the community were. I want to refer him to clause 44(3) of this Bill which contains a provision—when we get to it I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell us exactly what it means—which refers to “different categories of persons”. I do not wish to categorize people. I do believe, however, that in this country of ours we have various sections of our community and I feel that I made my meaning quite clear in this regard.

Why am I asking for this? [Interjection.] No, Sir, the hon. member must not try to be funny. He knows full well why I am asking for this. Unfortunately, he did not have the privilege which I had of serving on the Select Committee last year and of sitting in when a panel under the existing system was considering whether or not a film should be considered desirable or undesirable. One particular session that we sat in on was concerned with the showing of a film which depicted various scenes, not only of sex but of violence, witchcraft and various other things as well. However, the three main matters involved were sex, violence and witchcraft. As an observer, I saw the film and I listened to the panel discussion afterwards. The sex scenes were the first to be considered and the panel decided that certain scenes should be expunged from the film. I am not going to say that I had any argument with that decision at all. The scenes of violence received cursory consideration only and in fact only one of the violent scenes was cut. However, after the discussion, the chairman of that particular panel asked the members for their recommendations. There was also a certain age restriction placed upon it. If I remember correctly there was a 4-18 age restriction imposed upon this film. The question was then asked whether the film could be shown to all races. Without any discussion and without any consideration, as far as I was concerned, the reply was in the affirmative. If that film is shown to our Black people in this country—I think it has already been shown—I believe that it will be undesirable, it will be offensive to those Black people. I believe this to be the case because of the way in which those scenes of witchcraft were portrayed. This is one of the reasons why I believe that we have to have adequate representation on these committees of all the sections of our South African community. I believe it is impossible for us to appoint people to decide what the Coloured people should see or what they should not see; or to decide what should be seen by the Indian people, who have completely different norms from ours, whose ideal of morality is completely different from ours and whose views, in the White society, would be considered to be verkramp in the extreme. Sir, I believe that they should have the opportunity of deciding for themselves; of having some say in what their people should see and what their people should read. Sir, it is for that reason that I have moved this amendment. I believe it is an amendment which can receive the support of all hon. members of this House and I commend those amendments once again to the Committee.

I should just like to point out to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that this Bill specifically makes provision for getting away from the existing deficiencies, which he has just pointed out, and for this reason panels are given the right to take the advice of any person from outside on a particular aspect. If the panels comply with the provisions of this measure, then a panel may, for example, take advice from people from a community of a different colour on what is good and what is not good for that particular community. The hon. member’s problem has therefore been met in this Bill.

Sir, when the House adjourned last night, I was addressing a few words to the hon. member for Parktown in connection with his amendment. On behalf of his party, with the support of the party sitting over there, the hon. member preferred to omit the words “educational qualifications and knowledge” and to substitute other words for them. Why the hon. member wants to omit the word “knowledge”, I cannot understand. I pointed out to him last night that the word “knowledge” included much more and was a wider concept than what he proposed in his amendment. If we look at the meaning of the word “kundigheid” (knowledge) in the Afrikaans version, we find that it means proficiency and competence. But if we look further, we see that a person who has “kundigheid” is a person who can do things skilfully and with knowhow. In other words, this amendment by the hon. member for Parktown draws the line in such a way that there is much less latitude. The hon. member and other hon. members mentioned names here of people who would not be prepared to serve on these panels; they mentioned the names of artists and famous authors in this country. But, Sir, I want to submit that the greatest authors in this country are not necessarily the greatest and the best judges of art. The best judges of art are not necessarily persons practising the arts themselves, and I am going to mention you a practical example. I am acquainted with a person whose own field of study was a subject totally different from the arts. That person holds a high academic position today, but this person is interested in the arts; he gained knowledge in judging art, and the particular person is regarded and generally accepted today as one of the best judges of the plastic arts in the country. He did not obtain special qualifications, nor did he make a special study of art himself. Therefore I want to submit that the word “knowledge”, as it appears in the Bill, already empowers the Minister to select the best people for appointment to these panels in order that they may judge the various works of art. I would like to repeat, Sir, that it is, after all, the aim of that side of the House as well as this side of the House that there should be control, and we should like to have control in the most effective and the most satisfactory way in which it can be exercised. That is why this clause was inserted, and that is why it is provided that the persons who will serve on these panels, must be persons who will be best able to judge what is in the interest of all population groups in the country. That is why I support the idea as stated in the Bill, i.e. that the word “knowledge” be retained. Coupled with that is the fact that such a person will have the necessary knowledge in order to pass judgment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to place a little evidence before the Committee on the statements which were made last night and which the hon. the Minister denied in connection with films which were passed for approval for persons over the age of 12 provided that they were shown only to people of certain racial groups. The hon. the Minister was very annoyed about this and said that I was talking about one or two instances. I had told the Committee that this was a source of particular grievance to the sophisticated, educated Africans who considered it an insult to be grouped, as they were by virtue of censorship, with children under the age of 12, since many films were passed subject to the condition that they were to be seen only by persons over the age of 12 and belonging to a certain racial group. Sir, I did a little bit of quick research this morning, because I knew I had set some questions in the past on this particular subject and I want to quote one question which I turned up quickly. My question was worded as follows—

which are not important—

Sir, I am going to give these statistics which I think will interest the Committee. The answer was that there were 75 such films in one year ...

Have you no more up-to-date information?

I have not had time to do any further research. In fact, I put this question many more times, but I will look up the information for the hon. member. Anyway, Sir, here we have one example: In one year 75 films were approved which could be shown to persons over the age of 12 and belonging to a certain race group, and of those 75 films, 45 could not be shown to Africans and the remaining 30 could not be shown to either Africans, Coloureds and Asians. In other words, they were available only to persons of the White race. But of the 75 films, 45 were specifically disallowed to African audiences, which means that they were classified with children under the age of 12 of the other racial groups. Sir, educated Africans are very irritated by this. They do not see why such a distinction should be made and nor do I. It is all too reminiscent of the insulting South African custom of referring to adult Africans as “boys” or “girls”, and it is the sort of thing, as I pointed out last night, which is offensive to human dignity. As the hon. the Prime Minister says, this is one of the causes of racial conflict in South Africa. Sir, we are not going to have advisory committees of Africans to which films can be referred. I want to know why it is that the hon. the Minister will not take it upon himself to assure this Committee that he is going to appoint educated Africans to these review committees. I cannot see why in fact he cannot do so. It is not going to be possible for me procedurally to move any sort of amendment to either clause 6 or clause 7 asking for a committee of Africans to be appointed, because it would involve more expenditure, and I cannot therefore move such an amendment in terms of the rules of the House, but there is nothing to stop the hon. the Minister from reconsidering this point of view. I hope very much that he will, because you do not have to have the Coloured Representative Council and the Indian Council from which to choose panels of Coloured or Indian people to advise on this particular issue. Equally, Sir, you could find a number of well qualified Africans, men and women, who could easily serve on such an advisory committee. I could submit a list of names to the hon. the Minister, the names of people who are well trained, who are either teachers or who have a special knowledge of the arts or of literature or cultural matters generally. There are very many excellent African writers, sculptors and painters in South Africa today and we should use these people as advisers if we are going to have a system of censorship. Therefore I support, with evidence this time, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to the effect that the hon. the Minister also appoints members of all races to these committees.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East has referred to the fact that these committees are already dealing with films. But I think it is clear to him, as certainly it is to the Committee, that that means merely films which may be referred for an opinion to the Coloured or Indian advisory committees. Quite correctly, as the hon. member for Houghton has just said, there is no provision for these films to be submitted to Bantu opinion.

But, Sir, I want to pose two questions to the hon. the Minister, questions which I think are the basis of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Whether we regard South Africa as a multi-racial country or as a multinational country, it is quite clear that the society of South Africa is made up of people of White, Bantu, Coloured and Indian groups and communities. If that is so, the application of this legislation must apply to and affect the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu people in South Africa. Before I put my question, may I say that I appreciate that it would be illogical and unreasonable to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that each of these four race groups are represented on every committee that may be appointed to censor a film. I believe that that would be unnecessary and impracticable. But having said that, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he accepts, as has been implied by the Minister, the principle that Coloured, Indian and Bantu communities are equally concerned together with the White communities with adequate control of offensive publications in South Africa. When I say “offensive publications”, I mean those which in the broad sense are offensive to decent standards accepted by the ordinary people in South Africa. That is the first point. Does he accept that principle?

Secondly, I say that if he accepts that principle, that all the race groups are concerned with the control of pornography and other undesirable publications, will he then give an undertaking to this House that he will give due consideration to the appointment of adequately qualified persons from each of those communities, from all of those communities on the committees that have to be established to administer the Act? In other words, if there is an outstanding man of letters—and there are many—within the Coloured community, can I accept from the hon. the Minister that he will have due regard to this by appointing that man irrespective of the fact that he is Coloured? The answer is simple. If the hon. the Minister gives that assurance, which is the import of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, then in this Bill we will get away from the fact, which can be read into and understood from the Bill as it is now, that we, the White people of South Africa, reserve and appropriate to ourselves the sole and exclusive right to say what is or what is not offensive and what should or should not be controlled as far as all the race groups of South Africa are concerned. I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with those two specific questions.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the Commission’s discussions we felt that attention should be given to the question of the other population groups. It was then generally felt that in respect of the Bantu application should be made to the Government for a special commission to be appointed to investigate the position of the Bantu peoples in South Africa. Such a commission would then be able to collect evidence and to inquire what part these people should play in the whole question of censorship in South Africa. Unfortunately we found nothing in this regard in the majority report. Neither has any opinion on this matter been expressed on the Government side. Provision is in fact being made, in a clause we shall come to in due course, for the appointment of advisory committees for the Coloured people and the Indians, but no mention is made of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East lays very heavy emphasis on knowledge. No one is objecting to the idea that the best people possible should be found to serve on these committees. We agree with that. But it is conspicuous that in the past, up to now, all the knowledge has apparently belonged to one group and one party. What we want is that these committees that will have to judge should be more representative of all the population groups, and certainly, as far as the White population group is concerned, of the various language groups. As far as the Whites are concerned, there has been very strong evidence from several quarters that the English-speaking people should be given a better chance of participating in the process of censorship. This was the attitude of the English Academy. Writers such as Wilbur Smith insisted that when literary works were to be judged, English literary works should be judged by English-speaking persons, while Afrikaans literary works should be judged by Afrikaans-speaking persons. Even members of the present Publications Board, in their evidence before the Select Committee, urged that greater representation should be given to the English-speaking community, for 99% of the publications submitted to that board are in English. We have now learnt from experience that this Government does not give a fair representation in its appointments, not even to the two White population groups in South Africa, let alone the non-Whites.

We shall have to take one of two steps. In the question of censorship we shall either have to give representation to the non-White population groups or we shall have to allow them to do their own censoring. We shall have to choose one of these alternatives, for already there are a multitude of works by Black writers, Coloured writers and Indian writers in South Africa, and especially by Black writers, which have been banned. The same applies in the case of Coloured writers, and these people have no say in those decisions. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Will he be prepared to make proper provision for the other population groups, the non-White population groups, in appointing these committees? If he says “No”; if he says that all the committees will consist of Whites only, I want to ask him whether, if the Coloured Representative Council wants to have its own system of censorship in South Africa, over its own people, he would be prepared to accept it. If the Indians ask him to give the Indian Council full control over these matters, will he grant this? If the various Bantu peoples wish to have full control over these matters, will he grant this? We want a clear answer from the Government side on this point. In addition, I want to point out to the Deputy Minister that this Bill is being made applicable to South West Africa as well. I think he will have to take this into consideration, for it is already Government policy that discriminating legislation should not be applicable there. Therefore he will have to decide what his attitude is going to be in respect of committees for South West Africa. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will answer these questions I have put.

Mr. Chairman, while I agree fully with the hon. member for Green Point in asking for the assurance from the Deputy Minister in regard to the appointment of members to the committee, I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to include this amendment in this clause if he is prepared to give the assurance asked for in due course.

I should like to deal with one or two comments made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. He said that it was quite open and available to panels to ask for advice from various experts and people of various qualifications. The problem is that when you have a panel which is restricted in its very appointment or its listing, you very often find that restricted panels very often ask restricted advice. For instance, if the hon. the Minister himself had a problem he would probably go to the hon. member for Waterberg. Whether that advice is good advice or bad advice is for the House to judge, but it is not true to say that a restricted panel would ask for advice on the wide divergence of opinion that is required in matters of this sort. I also wish to join issue with the hon. member for Bloemfontein East when he said that invariably the best writers were not the best critics. In my view the best writers very often are the best critics. It takes not only an educational qualification to be able to criticize something; it also takes the necessity of having had practical real experience in the particular field concerned. In order to criticize fully a work of art or the writings of a writer, it is necessary for a person to have gone through the agony and ecstasy of having written himself.

Have you never seen a hen sitting on rotten eggs?

I wish to support the amendments proposed by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South, Jeppe and Parktown. In doing so I should like to revert to a practice I learned in the Transvaal Provincial Council and call a spade a spade. Clause 5 gives the Minister wide powers to list whom he wishes for appointment to the various committees. The people are listed entirely in his discretion. Subsection (2) of this clause grants but very limited relief. It gives the Minister none the less discretionary powers, powers in his opinion and which obviously will be exercised in terms of the standards of the Government of the day. The educational qualification means almost nothing because it is as vague as it is wide. To the provision that a person who is appointed shall by reason of his knowledge be fit to perform these functions, the following query can well be put: Knowledge of what? Is it knowledge of the hon. the Minister’s view, or knowledge of Nationalist Party policy, knowledge of the norms which have been established by the Government party, or is it knowledge of literature, art and language? If it is knowledge of literature, art and language, why is it not possible to include the amendment? We have had experience over the years of people who have been appointed by members on the other side for their specific knowledge in one field or another. I think that over the years Senators have been appointed for having specialized knowledge whilst having no such knowledge at all. In my view the hon. the Minister wishes to create a body which has the confidence of the public and of this Parliament. The amendments proposed by the three hon. members aim at creating the very situation which the hon. the Minister professes he wishes to achieve. Firstly, by asking for the lists of committees to be published he creates a situation where the public can know. It also creates a restriction on the Minister to appoint only people whom he wishes to be seen in public. Secondly, by ensuring that all sections of the community are represented, this in itself creates a confidence in the public in that their particular viewpoint, no matter what minority is represented, is in some way reflected by the viewpoint of committees. Thirdly, by asking for people who are schooled in the arts, in language and in literature to be appointed, this places beyond party politics the decisions of the committee and puts it in the realm where it belongs, i.e. of language, art and literature. If these bodies are created in terms of these amendments, they will in fact achieve the very aim which the hon. the Minister seeks to achieve. It will in fact create the position that the public will have confidence in such bodies. Bodies which are not set up in terms of these amendments, are in fact going to come up against the very problem that the hon. the Minister has been complaining about. They will not enjoy the confidence of the public and I venture to say that it is not unlikely that it will be found that those bodies will not enjoy the confidence of this side of the House either.

It is true that Nationalist-orientated people and even Nationalist-orientated bodies are not disturbed by the provisions of this clause, but we must remember that the Nationalist-orientated people and bodies comprise perhaps 12% of the population of South Africa. Other people who are not Nationalist-orientated and who have had a different upbringing, are worried that by the constitution of these committees the views of the Nationalist Party, in all its characteristic narrowness, will be rammed down the throats of the majority of South Africans. That is in fact what is going to happen. The English-speaking people are going to have to suffer under the same norms and standards as are deified by the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] English-speaking people in South Africa have a different view from most Nationalists. They have enjoyed a more liberal upbringing in language, art, culture, race relations and all sorts of spheres. English-speaking people—and I believe I speak for such people in my constituency—are not prepared to accept a clause in terms of which pure Government policy is rammed down their throats. If the hon. the Minister wishes to impose his personal norms on society, we know where we stand. However, if the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept an objective norm established by committees representing all sections of the community and having wide experience in the fields mentioned in the amendments, he should have no objection to the amendments of the three hon. members mentioned.

We have had experience of ministerial appointments. Look at the board of the SABC or the National Education Council for instance. In the Transvaal we have the situation that, not two years ago, the Nationalist Party leader in the provincial council, when tackled on the constitution of statutory bodies, said: “Naturally I appoint Nationalists. Why should I appoint people to statutory bodies who do not reflect the view of my governing caucus in the provincial council?”

You are a real Boer-hater.

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to appoint committees or compile a list of committees that reflect the view of his side of the House or whether he is going to appoint committees which reflect the view of a broad South Africa. If he does the latter, there is no reason whatsoever why these amendments should not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was simply raising a hue and cry without really knowing what it was all about. The hon. member said that the Minister was going to appoint the committees, but the Minister does not appoint a single committee.

I was referring to the list.

If the hon. member means the list, he must speak of the list. He stood there waving his arms about and talking about committees. A long list of names is compiled by the Minister.

That is what I said.

The hon. member certainly did not say that. However, if that was what he meant, I shall accept it.

Do not say things which are not so. You were not listening.

It seems to me that the hon. member has to make a speech twice over every time to explain what he really meant. At any rate, the Minister does not appoint committees; he compiles the list.

That is what I said.

Well, we can read the hon. member’s Hansard afterwards. On the basis of that panel the directorate will decide which committees are to be constituted. The hon. member has created the impression that the Minister is now going to tell that directorate that in respect of a particular publication, object or public entertainment they must come to him so that he may lay down which persons appearing on the list may be appointed to the committee. That is about as nonsensical as one can get.

I want to come to certain specific matters mentioned by hon. members in today’s debate. However, I also want to return to what was said in this debate yesterday. I want to draw the committee’s attention to the fact that the main provisions of the amendments moved by the hon. members are, firstly, that provision should be made for the knowledge of panel members in respect of art, language and literature; secondly, that provision should be made for the representation of the broad South African population or public on those panels; and, thirdly, that their names should be published in the Government Gazette. Sir, as far as the qualifications and the knowledge of these people are concerned, we must remember that the committees, as constituted by the directorate for a specific purpose, will constitute the decision-making function. We on this side of the House certainly want the most knowledgeable people on this panel, and whether the panel is to consist of 80 or 100 members, we shall have to decide. In other words, from that large number of knowledgeable people the smaller knowledgeable committees are going to be appointed. Would it be the right thing, in looking for the most knowledgeable people, to limit the qualifications and to say that these people must have special knowledge of art, language and literature? Let me take myself as an example. I have had no particular training in language and literature. I did major in culture and cultural history when I was at university, but I have no particular ability in respect of that stipulation. I do presume to say that I believe that I, too, can distinguish between literature and reading matter. I, too, can see when a book is meant to be taken seriously and when it is just a pot-boiler. So there is some knowledge involved here, and there is no need for restricting it to persons who have been trained in the arts, in language and in literature or who have knowledge of these subjects. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East is quite right—the word “kundigheid” (“knowledge”) in the Afrikaans version gives us the wider concept which includes these specific forms of knowledge. The vast majority of the members of those panels will be people who have knowledge of art, language and literature, but we must not make that a specific requirement for all the people serving on that panel. Let us leave a little room for knowledge on other subjects, knowledge in respect of other disciplines.

Mr. Chairman, we must also remember that if the committee should run into difficulty, if it should have trouble with a decision or be at a loss as to what decision it should take, the aid of other knowledgeable people could always be called in. If a mistake has been made in the constitution of the committee and there should have been a person present with special knowledge of art, language and literature, such a person could always be added. I do not believe we should read anything wrong into the words “educational qualifications and knowledge” in the Bill. I want to say in conclusion that we are leaving room for the widest possible constitution of a committee or a panel, in respect of their abilities as well.

Then, Sir, there is the question of adequate representation. I agree with the hon. gentlemen that it is a fine ideal. It is a fine aim. It is an aim which will always remain, that all in South Africa should have a say and representation in these important matters. But, Sir, we are creating difficulties for ourselves if we want to write the word “adequate” into the clause, for what do we mean by “adequate”? We should have to define this word more closely in the definitions. Exactly how much is “adequate”? So we would be creating another problem there. Should we, for example, mention every population group which is to be taken into consideration, so that that group may have adequate representation? Let me mention an example to you. Would the number of English surnames, if we were to take that list of names, be an indication of the actual representation of the English-speaking population group in South Africa on that panel? Would it be possible to call it adequate? I do not think so. We cannot go on the names only. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City will be making a mistake if he wants to put certain English-speaking persons on the list, for I think their view on these matters may be the same as ours. So we shall welcome many of them there. Therefore, if he wants to start counting the English names, I think we shall still find ourselves on the wrong side of the fence and we shall not have achieved what the hon. member would like to achieve.

Sir, I shall now go further. In respect of knowledgeable non-Whites the hon. member for Green Point asked me a particular question, namely whether I recognized that the Bantu, the Coloured people and the Indians were also concerned about moral standards and about the control that was exercised, in order to protect the things they wanted to preserve. I agree with that. It is commendable that this feeling does in fact exist among them. Then the hon. member asked me whether attention would be given to the appointment of these people to the committees. Sir, I have no objection. I think it would be the right thing, i.e. if their names were submitted for the panel. But I cannot say now that the directorate will appoint one of them to a committee every time. This will be in the discretion of the directorate. I think it would be the right thing for us to include some of those experts on the panel, so that we may approach them as well, especially in regard to matters affecting their particular population groups. I think that would be quite right.

Are you going to do it?

The Minister has already indicated that he will consider the names of non-Whites as well when the panel is being constituted. I think we may take the Minister’s word for it. As far as this side of the House and myself are concerned, we should like to see the names of knowledgeable non-Whites from all three of these population groups on the panel; these are people who may be consulted. Even if they do not serve on a committee every time, their names will be on the list. They will be kept in mind as knowledgeable persons who may be consulted by the directorate on behalf of one of the committees. This replies to the question put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well. I think it was more or less of the same order.

The hon. member further asked whether this legislation would be made applicable to South-West Africa. Sir, it is in fact provided that it is to be made applicable to South West. The hon. member referred to discriminating legislation. I cannot see in what respect this legislation is discriminating or how it could affect our obligations to the outside world, and even to the U.N. I honestly cannot see that.

Then there is another remark that I wish to make. Hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Sandton, who got a little hot under the collar a short while ago, spoke of the question of confidence. Before I come to that, I first want to refer to another matter. There is the question of publication in the Government Gazette. Will it be of any help to the public who wants to know these things if these lists of names are published in the Government Gazette? [Interjections.] Let us go a little further. You are a representative, one of the most important representatives of your community. You ask the question here, it is taken up by the newspapers, and in that way one gets a lot more publicity than by merely publishing it in the Government Gazette. I want to ask a further question. If an ordinary member of the public does obtain that list of names in the Government Gazette, then he finds in it a man’s surname, perhaps his first names in full and his educational qualifications. If that ordinary member of the public does not happen to know any of those people, how can he judge whether they have the knowledge required for performing a particular function? It is an indication when a man’s name is accompanied by a degree or something of that nature, but I really cannot see how it is going to help the public.

The important matter to which I now want to refer is the matter to which I recently referred in regard to the hon. member for Sandton, namely the question of confidence. Several hon. gentlemen on the other side have raised the question of confidence.

It is very important.

It is very important. I just want to ask this: will the mere publication of a list of names in the Government Gazette inspire confidence? How will confidence be inspired by the publication of a decision here or a decision there? What is going to inspire confidence? It will be inspired by the actual functioning of committees, of the directorate and of the appeal board. Then, too, hon. members on that side of the House must not start creating an atmosphere of distrust even at this stage. Let me mention a good example. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said yesterday that we should inspire confidence by publishing the names of these people because we want to know about “those shadowy figures who lurk in the background”. I concede that he wants to see the names, but what bothers me is the idea of those “shadowy figures” who are going to ferret things out and snoop around in the dark. How can one inspire confidence by making remarks of that nature? How can one inspire confidence if one has such a poor opinion of the group of people that is going to be appointed and if one makes such disparaging remarks about them that they have that stigma attached to them from the start? The hon. member for Sandton also said—I wrote it down somewhere—that the ideas of the Nationalist Party “are rammed down the throats of English-speakers”. If we read the report of the Select Committee on the question of the part played by politics in the present board, then I just want to say that politics play no part at all. They were acting in terms of a certain piece of legislation.

It is their whole attitude.

Still referring to the question of confidence, I just want to say that we may publish thousands of names in a Government Gazette. However, if hon. members opposite start sowing the seeds of distrust even now, in the discussion of this Bill, our problems in this regard will never be solved. Let us differ from each other. I do not want to deny hon. members their right of criticism. Let us criticize and say that on the practical level this measure will not work; that for this or that reason it will not be practicable. However, let us not use those expressions used by hon. members opposite in respect of the panels. I want to request very earnestly that we should not discourage knowledgeable people from serving on these panels. The hon. member for Parktown mentioned the names yesterday of people who had said that they would not serve on these panels and committees. They are entitled to their views and they know why they adopt that attitude. However, we should not, through our actions in this House—I am not saying that the hon. member has done so—and our remarks here, by referring to “shadowy figures”, etc., frighten away still more knowledgeable people who might be of assistance to us. We must not allow them to gain the impression that they are going to be involved in a matter which no decent person would be associated with. That would be harmful, for we want to use all knowledgeable people, no matter what their opinion, for making decisions.

Sir, I am inclined to think that I have replied to most of the matters that were raised here, except perhaps for the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in respect of the Government’s standpoint on the Bantu peoples of South Africa. I just want to read to the hon. member the following passage to which the hon. the Minister also referred and from which he will see that the Government has in fact adopted a standpoint in this regard—

So, when this point has been reached, Sir, this matter too, will be discussed with them so as to give them proper representation in respect of this matter of control over various objects.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I did not ask him whether the Bill would be made applicable to South-West Africa. I am perfectly aware of the fact that the Bill makes provision for this. I was just drawing his attention to the fact that it was the standpoint of the Government that no discriminating measures should be made applicable to South-West, and thereupon I asked whether the names of representatives of all the population groups would appear on the list of censorship committees. He has now replied to me, but I just want to make sure that this side has not misunderstood him. Have we now been told unambiguously by the hon. the Deputy Minister that on the list of names of knowledgeable people to be compiled by the hon. the Minister, there will be representatives of all the particular population groups—Indians, Coloureds and Bantu?

Can be.

I do not want us to misunderstand each other and then to contradict each other subsequently. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether I am wrong. Do I understand him correctly that the Minister will see to it that the names of representatives of all population groups will appear on the list? I want us to have a very clear reply to that question, for if that is not to be the case, the Deputy Minister will concede to me that we are in fact dealing with a discriminating measure, and then I should like him to reply to this question: If it is discriminating, will the Government allow every population group to establish its own system of censorship for its own people? Sir, I am quite aware of the decision taken by the majority of commissioners on the position of the Bantu, but the point to which I referred was the following: At an earlier stage of our proceedings there was general agreement concerning the desirability of appointing a special commission to collect evidence from the Bantu on their standpoint in regard to their role in the question of censorship; that is why I raised it. No provision was made for that, and it seems to me that the Government just wants to let things develop by themselves. In actual fact I rose only to obtain clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister on exactly what he said in connection with the representation of other population groups.

Sir, I said “Can be”, and I shall tell you why. Suppose the names of Bantu and Coloured people are submitted to the Minister, but that list does not include the names of knowledgeable people. The hon. member for Houghton complained of having received the names of people who had only passed matric. Suppose of the names of such persons are submitted to the Minister; in such a case one could not expect the Minister, just because those names have been submitted to him, to appoint the persons, because they would not comply with the provisions of the Act in respect of knowledge and qualifications. But I believe that if there are knowledgeable people their names will in fact appear on the list. For that reason I qualify my reply by saying that their names can appear, for the possibility exists that many people will say that they are not interested in serving on the committees. Sir, you heard what the hon. member for Parktown said in respect of certain people. There may not be suitable, knowledgeable people who are able to help that population group in any way. Then it would be foolish to say that their names should nevertheless appear on the lists. But their names can appear on those lists and I have a feeling that if the knowledgeable people present themselves and their names are submitted to the Minister, their names will appear on that list. That is all I am prepared to say at this stage.

I must say I welcome the reply the hon. the Deputy Minister has given to the question which I put to him. It is now clear to us, and we accept that it is the intent of the Government that in the compilation of the panel the question of qualification and not the question of race will be the criterion. Having said that, Sir, let me say that the hon. the Minister has our wholehearted support in that approach to matters of this sort which affect the whole of the population of the country. But it is still a statement of intent as far as the Minister is concerned, although I do not want to say that we query that intent or the sincerity of it on the part of the Minister or the Deputy Minister. It is simply to ensure that that intent becomes reality that the amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and it is in order that the public might see that what is now an expression of intent is a reality when the panels are established that we ask that the names of the persons on the panels should be published in the Gazette. Although the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to accept these two amendments, I nevertheless believe that they are necessary to give substance to what he has now expressed as an intent on the part of the Minister. If he does not accept it today, I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider accepting them and putting that intent into the legislation in clear wording by the time this Bill is dealt with in the Other Place. I believe they should be included in the Bill.

First amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Second amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber put and the Committee divided:

AYES—46: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Mitchell, M. L.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—102: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; 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.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; 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.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; 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, S. W.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); 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.

Amendement accordingly negatived.

First amendment moved by Mr. R. M. de Villiers negatived and second amendment dropped (Progressive Party dissenting).

Question put: That the word “who” in line 37 stand part of the Clause.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. H. Miller dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

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

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—102: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; 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.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; 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.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; 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, S. W.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); 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—45: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cad man, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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 den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as amendments—

1. (1) In line 46, to omit “Committee”;
2. (2) in line 48, after “committee”, to insert “, consisting of not more than five members,”;
3. (3) in line 52, to omit “Committee”; and
4. (4) to add the following subsection at the end of the Clause:

The first, Sir, refers to the wording which we are using in the Bill; this is merely a textual improvement. The executive body of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council is known as the Executive, and we are altering the words “Executive Committee” as contained in the Bill, to Executive. In the second amendment we say that the advisory committee shall consist of not more than five members. In the third amendment I am in part accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, but this should be read in conjunction with an additional alteration in subsection (3) which is being inserted by clause 44. I am also prepared to accept a further amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, the first one on the Order Paper. But we shall come to that in a moment. Consequently, he need not then discuss the matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised this afternoon to find that the hon. the Deputy Minister—I hope I understood him correctly; there was a bit of noise and I did my best to follow what he was saying—indicates that he will accept my first amendment, as printed, and my third amendment, as printed. Am I correct?

Not as printed, but in the same spirit.

In the same spirit, I see. That is what I thought the hon. the Deputy Minister had said. Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned at this stage we are prepared to accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s first three amendments. Regarding his fourth amendment I should like to address the Committee later. Before we come to that, let me formally move the first of my amendments, i.e. the one the hon. the Deputy Minister already indicated he would accept, viz.—

Then I should like to move my second amendment, as follows—

Why are we moving this? The reason why I am moving this amendment is because I anticipated that what has just happened to clause 5 would in fact take place, that is that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the members on that side of the House, would reject the amendments which we have moved to clause 5. Those amendments were designed to ensure that provision is made for all sections of the community, all sections of this heterogeneous society that we have in South Africa, would have some say in the censorship which is applied in this country. As this has been rejected completely, we now come to clause 6. Clause 6 provides for the establishment of an advisory committee made up of Coloured people, to whom matters affecting the Coloured people could be referred. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister has only gone half way in this matter, in that he intends only to refer films to that subcommittee for their approval or advice as to whether or not they should be shown to Coloured people. There is a provision further on in the Bill which we welcome, to the effect that the advice of this committee shall be adhered to by the committee and the directorate and that they shall not be allowed to alter or to go against any recommendation of that particular committee. But, Sir, I feel that we have not gone far enough. We limit this provision to the exhibition of films. Why should it be limited to films? What about other entertainments? What about books? What about works of art? In fact, I believe that in every case where this Bill will be applied in a discriminatory way against Coloured people, they should be consulted. That is why this amendment is worded in the manner in which it is. If you look at the wording of the amendment, Sir, you will find that it refers to the “application of this Act in so far as it affects Coloured persons”. Sir, we are not asking that every decision by the committee that a work is not desirable, should be referred to the Coloured advisory committee but I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister must accept this amendment, because it deals with discrimination, where Coloured people are being discriminated against because they are Coloured people. I believe that he should accept that in those cases these matters should be referred to the Coloured advisory committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now come to my third amendment. I move—

Order! I must rule this amendment out of order, because it requires the State President’s recommendation. Only the Deputy Minister can move such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could elucidate your ruling a bit further. On what grounds do you mean that only the Deputy Minister may move such an amendment?

The amendment reads—

Therefore they cannot be paid less.

I am prepared to abide by your ruling, Sir, but may I address you on this ruling?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Am I not permitted to address you on the ruling?

The hon. member may address me, but I can assure him that I have given my ruling after very careful consideration.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I believe that there are provisions in this Bill which should allow me to move this amendment.

The hon. member can appeal to the Deputy Minister to move such an amendment, he can do so, but the hon. member cannot.

Come on, Willem, be a sport!

After what he has done to me?

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I must abide by your decision, and I will now proceed to follow your advice. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Under the provisions of clause 44(l)(f), the Deputy Minister may by regulation prescribe the remuneration, the terms of office, etc., of this particular committee. I want to submit that as the Bill stands now, without the amendment which I have moved, there would be nothing to prohibit the hon. the Deputy Minister from providing that members of these committees should be remunerated at a rate three times more than that which is paid to members of another committee. All that I am trying to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that I do not think he should discriminate in this way. Why should he pay the Indian advisory committee three times as much as he is paying these White committee members?

There is very little danger of that!

Why should he pay those Indian members three times as much? I do not believe that it is fair that he should pay them three times as much. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister must accept the fact that all these people should be paid the same amount of money. There should be equal pay for equal work. To put it another way, the rate for the job.

Equal pay for equal responsibility.

Equal pay for equal work with equal responsibility. You can use all the slogans you want to. This is why I wanted to move the amendment ...

Order! I have given the hon. member the opportunity to try to persuade the hon. the Minister to accept his amendment and to move it himself. I cannot, however, allow the hon. member to discuss the matter any further.

I shall abide by your decision, Sir. Let me return to the hon. the Minister’s amendment. I want to say right away that I believe this is an improvement because there was a shortcoming in this particular clause. In fact, there was a shortcoming in the Bill as a whole. This shortcoming was that there was no provision made for the remuneration of the members of these advisory committees at all. As it is an improvement, I believe that we should support the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister which is to the effect that remuneration and allowances will be paid to these people. I wish, however, to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister—I see that he is writing; I hope he is writing out a further amendment—to accept the provision I have asked him to accept and that is that these people should all receive equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Chairman, we too are going to support the amendments moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister because we believe them to be an improvement. I also wish to take the advice that was proffered to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he will consider moving an amendment which I in terms of the rules of this House am unable to move. I am referring to the appointment of a committee of Africans—this provision could perhaps be inserted between clauses 6 and 7. I want to ask him to consider the appointment of an advisory committee of Africans which he must appoint since there is no representative or advisory council which could make the necessary appointment. It is of course impossible to ask the homeland governments to make appointments for urban Africans and it will be very difficult indeed to get urban councils to make the necessary appointments. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider appointing a committee of, let us say, seven African members who are obviously drawn from people who have special knowledge in the fields of art, literature and culture, to act as an advisory body to the committee on films and so forth which are to be distributed among the African section of the community. One cannot rationalize at all the exclusion of the use of an advisory committee of Africans. There are large numbers of these people from whom the hon. the Minister can draw. There are thousands of African graduates. There are teachers, professors and persons versed in art and literature, and the hon. the Deputy Minister should experience no difficulty whatsoever in finding a good cross-section of Africans who are able to serve in an advisory capacity in this regard. I am interested to know why it is—perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell me, if I can get his attention—that the advisory committee to be appointed for the Coloured people has to be appointed annually whereas the other committee is presumably to be appointed without any time limit. I understood that the answer he gave as far as the general committee is concerned, was that he wanted continuity, he wanted people who were going to gain experience in this field. Why would this not apply to the advisory committees which are to be appointed for the Coloured people and the Indian people? Is it because he wants to be able to replace them if they are perhaps not as submissive as he would like them to be, if they do not agree with the main committee’s decision? Why is it necessary to have continuity in regard to the ordinary committees but not in regard to these advisory committees for the Coloured and Indian sections of the community?

Sir, the hon. member for Houghton referred to the question of the annual reappointment of members, but if she had read the Bill she would have seen that the list which is compiled by the Minister, from which the directorate appoints committees, is compiled annually by the Minister. The question of succession was raised when we were dealing with the appointment of the directorate; we then spoke of three years, but as regards the ordinary committees which reach an opinion, the position is that these committees are constituted from lists compiled annually by the Minister, so that there is no real difference between the appointment of committees by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and those which are constituted by the directorate. The hon. member is missing the point in this regard.

Sir, as regards the request that a Bantu Advisory Committee be appointed, I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that this subject was discussed by the commission of inquiry. There was a general consensus that this matter should be considered, but that it required a new inquiry, and that this matter should be brought to the attention of the departments in question by way of an interdepartmental arrangement. I therefore want to inform the hon. member for Houghton that there is a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House, and certainly on the part of members on this side who served on the Commission, for the appointment of advisory bodies which could also exercise control, seen from the point of view of the Bantu, but that we felt that we did not at this stage wish to prescribe what should be done; we would prefer to see it investigated properly on the basis of the Bantu standards, morals, etc. which go hand in hand with this. This would require an entirely new inquiry which we felt we were not justified in making at that stage.

As regards the question of remuneration, on which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South ran into a spot of bother, I also wish to observe that as the clause stands at present, it gives the Minister in question a measure of freedom to consult with the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council before he prescribes anything by way of regulation in this matter. If it were otherwise, if it were as suggested by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, then these matters would have been laid down immediately; but here we are now leaving a little leeway for the recognition of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council to address representations to the Minister in question, or to consult with the Minister in question about what kind of remuneration should be allowed or prescribed in this specific case.

Sir, I would also like to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that there is a very good reason why we are only allowing these advisory committees to function in respect of films. He will know that films are the only form of publication, as the Bill defines publications, in regard to which we apply pre-censorship. This is therefore the only reason why we should like to obtain the advice of these committees in advance before films are distributed. All the other items such as periodicals, books and other normal publications may, as he knows very well, be referred by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council or by the advisory committee, which they may themselves constitute if they so wish, to the directorate for consideration. The Coloured community would therefore be at liberty to make complaints or address requests to the directorate through the agency of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council, or whichever body they may have which maintains vigilance in respect of these matters. But more than that: Even if a committee had and even if an appeal board had taken a decision which was not acceptable to them in a specific case, they would still have access to the Minister, and the Minister could then direct that the specific publication, periodical or book be re-examined after two years.

It is therefore quite possible for the Coloured community to take action voluntarily and through its existing bodies and therefore to have a say in any written work which they felt should have been dealt with differently by this control body which is being created here in the Bill. It is therefore not necessary to write it in here. There is machinery for the purpose in the Bill. The reason why reference is made here to films is because these are the only publications in respect of which pre-censorship is applied.

In regard to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said about discrimination, I want to say there is no discrimination, as the hon. member for Bellville also rightly said. He cleared up the matter completely. It is only films which come into the picture here because there is pre-censorship. A decision has to be made as to whether or not they should be released and whether, inter alia, they should be released to the Coloureds as well. As soon as there is any doubt about a film, it is referred to the committee. But this does not refer at all to publications or other objects. We cannot say that a book is released to the Whites and not to the Coloureds. That is absurd; that simply cannot be done. Therefore, as far as publications and objects are concerned, it is not necessary to state it in this way in the legislation, for if these are approved, they are approved for everyone and if they are rejected, they are rejected for everyone, for how are you, for example going to prevent these from falling into the hands of Whites as well if they have been approved only for the Coloureds? Therefore publications and objects do not enter the picture at all here, because these are not prohibited for categories of persons.

Precisely the same applies to entertainments. If, to use an example, a public entertainment were to be approved for Whites and not for Coloureds, and the Coloured community felt that an injustice had really been done them here, the Minister is in this case just as much their sounding board as he is the sounding board of the rest of the population, and representations may be made to the Minister and he may lay this matter before the appeal board by way of direction, so that the committee has to review its decision. Therefore there is no discrimination as far as this matter is concerned. With regard to the reference made by the hon. member to equal salaries, I have caused this subclause to be worded in this way, and for a specific reason. We are consulting now and we say that the people may constitute an advisory committee, but now the Opposition want us to say to them immediately afterwards that they will receive equal salaries. The only reason why we do not lay down that provision is that within their state structure, within their public service, they also have salary structures. If we were now to lay down a provision and state that the members of this advisory committee should receive that salary, we would immediately be disrupting that salary structure. Let them make the decision as to what the remuneration should be which these people should receive and approximately how it should fit in with their salary structure. That is what is involved here. We are not going to prescribe to them precisely what salary they should pay. Why should we consult them in the one respect, and in the other respect impose a direct prescription on them in regard to how much they should pay? It is for this reason that this specific clause has been worded in this way, and also the reference to clause 44(a), viz. to afford an opportunity for consultation in respect of the remuneration.

The hon. member for Houghton asked why there is no advisory body for Bantu. In that regard, too, the hon. member for Bellville was quite correct in saying that the possibility that such an advisory body could be established is not excluded. There should simply be an opportunity for the necessary consultation to take place. For the same reason as I have just mentioned I am not prepared simply to say, “there is the advisory body”, without it having been possible for the necessary consultation with the various government bodies, or whoever it may be, to have taken place.

Why do you not put the words “the Minister may ...” in the Bill?

At present there is no provision for Bantu advisory committees. We can discuss this matter again. We are by no means unsympathetic towards it.

†As regards the question of the panel members who are appointed annually, this applies to all members of all panels, but they are eligible for reappointment after a year has elapsed.

*This, therefore, applies to all; it does not apply only to the Coloured Advisory Committee. It is in the case of the directorate that we want a measure of continuity. We referred to that yesterday. Sir, I believe that I have now replied to all the points which were raised.

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke just now I said that I was very pleased with the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, I am afraid that I must now admit to a feeling of frustration and disappointment. Statements have been made in this House and outside by various Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, about trying to narrow the gap and about trying to pay equal wages for equal work. Here is an opportunity for this Nationalist Government to show its bona fides by simply moving a small amendment or accepting in principle a minor amendment. But the hon. the Deputy Minister does not have the courage ... I beg your pardon, Sir; I do not mean it that way; I withdraw it. The Deputy Minister is not prepared to do it. Shall I say, the Nationalist Party is not big enough to do exactly what they have been talking about. It has to come, Sir. The hon. the Deputy Minister stands up and talks about different rates of pay in the Public Service for Whites and Coloureds.

It exists at the moment.

Of course it exists, but is it a good thing?

I do not say it is a good thing.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister admits that it is not a good thing, but here he is prepared to perpetuate it. He is prepared to perpetuate it in this clause. My plea to the hon. gentleman is exactly that; let us not perpetuate this system. We are all agreed that it is a wicked system, but he will not help us to do away with it. I am very disappointed in him. I cannot vote against the hon. gentleman’s amendment, Sir, because at least it is an improvement. As such I am prepared to accept it, but I accept it with reluctance.

Regarding the question of the representation of other people or of referring matters to other groups, paragraph 18 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry does, I must admit, say in paragraph 18, page 9, that “where the need arises for consultation with the non-White peoples this can be done by calling in expert advice”. I know that the commission also recommended the establishment of these advisory committees, but as regards the Bantu people, I must draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 45 on page 12, which reads as follows:

I do not know exactly what is meant by “othogenous development”, but I shall accept that they are different. This is what we have been saying and this is why we believe they should also be consulted. They must be consulted precisely because they are different.

Order! I hope the hon. member will not go too far, because this clause has nothing to do with the Bantu.

Sir, I shall abide by your ruling. I want to conclude with the plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should now institute an investigation to find out exactly what the Black people feel and whether or not he should consider a further amendment to this measure to allow for such a provision.

First amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

First amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber agreed to.

Second amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Second amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived.

Third and fourth amendments moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 60, after “committee”, to insert consisting of not more than five members,”; and
2. (2) to add the following subsection at the end of the Clause:

Basically these amendments are similar to those we have just been discussing. Therefore I do not want to comment any further on them.

Mr. Chairman, the amendments to this particular clause are identical to those amendments we have just discussed in clause 6. The only difference of course is that here we are dealing with the Indian population of South Africa and not with the Coloured population. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has not indicated whether he will accept or not accept my amendments as they appear on the Order Paper, I must formally move the first amendment which appears under my name—

I accept this amendment.

The hon. the Deputy Minister indicates that he accepts this amendment and I thank him for that.

Having debated the whole question under clause 6, I do not intend to debate it again.

Does the hon. member move the second amendment?

I do wish to move the second amendment standing under my name, although I do not wish to move the third one any more—

I do not think it is necessary to debate it again since we can only rehash what was said on the last clause.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of clarity, I just want to say here that I accept the first amendment of the hon. member.

First amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber agreed to.

First amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Second amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived.

Second amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, to facilitate the discussions a little, I want to indicate at this stage that I accept the amendment by the hon. member for Rondebosch on the Order Paper. The present wording of the Bill might in this way be changed slightly. Clause 8(1 )(a) deals with the production of a publication, and the prosecution which may result from that. Through this amendment the Attorney-General is being empowered to decide when a prosecution should be instituted. I am saying this now so that it will not be necessary to have a lengthy discussion on this matter. I now move the amendment appearing under my name, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 10, after “(1),” to insert “Subject to the provisions of subsection (4).”; and
2. (2) to insert the following subsection after subsection
3. (3):
4. “(4) Whenever the production, distribution, possession or importation of any publication, or any edition thereof, has been prohibited under the provisions of this Act, the director shall forthwith transmit to the Librarian of Parliament a certified copy of such publication or edition thereof, and the said Librarian shall keep such publication or edition thereof in such place, and make it available for perusal, inspection or examination by any member of Parliament or any duly authorized official of Parliament at such place and in such manner, and subject to such conditions, as the President and the Speaker may determine.”.

The first part of my amendment intends to inserting certain words and the second part deals with a proposed subsection 4.

Until the Second Reading of this particular Bill was approved, the position remained as it has been from 1963 when the principle was accepted that there was the right of appeal to the courts. I want to refer briefly to what the then Minister of the Interior said at that stage when he dealt with that particular Bill. He said inter alia my reference is paragraph 2.8.4.2 on page 55 of the Commission’s report—

That has been done away with, so that anyone who is not satisfied with the ruling given by the new directorate according to the new provisions, has the right to go to an appeal body which is however not a judicial body. I believe that, under the circumstances, Parliament is handing over its right, first of all to the directorate to be appointed in terms of this Bill, and then, should queries arise, to an appeal body which is no longer a judicial body. I accept that the appointment of the chairman will be on the basis of his judicial experience, but I do not believe that it is desirable for Parliament to give carte blanche on this basis in respect of a subject which is so important to so many sections of the community in our Republic. I believe that on this basis Parliament should have some safeguard in order to be able to exercise some sort of watching brief to ensure that the bodies created by the passing of this Bill will in fact be doing their work in a manner that Parliament is able to approve of. I believe, therefore, that members of Parliament should have some means of forming their opinion and of recording their approval or disapproval on the basis of that opinion. What is the position at the present moment? The only information that Parliament will receive will be the decision of the directorate, first of all, and then that of the appeal board as published in the Government Gazette. No member of Parliament will have access to the publication in question which the body has considered to be undesirable. I may add that I suggest that the amendments refer to publications only. As far as publications are concerned, I believe that the terms of the amendment set out clearly the administrative machinery which we on this side of the House believe to be desirable. The question of photographic material and films has not been included because, in fairness, one could imagine that there would be administrative difficulties with the projecting of films. I do not believe that in those circumstances it would be feasible for Parliament to ask for this particular right.

I want to come to some matters which particularly affect certain members of Parliament who have certain interests in that direction. Before I do so, however, I want to cite a case which occurred some years ago after the promulgation of the previous Act. At that time I happened to meet a doctor of history from Stanford University, California, who was in Cape Town at the time. He was very anxious to examine the list of banned publications. His reason was that he had a lifelong interest in history. Through the co-operation of a bookseller he was able to examine this list. His verdict after having examined this list, Mr. Chairman, was that he could not teach his subject adequately if certain of these books in the banned list were not available for his use and for his students to consider. I want to come to the question of the decisions which have been made, and how they can actually affect a member of Parliament. I take myself as an example, Sir, and I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House are not asking to have a peep-show at pornographic material under suitably controlled circumstances. Other matters are affected by this and I wish to mention these. I do not for example suggest that members of Parliament should, I quote from the Gazette, be allowed to inspect a “collapsible, blow-up doll in the shape of a female figure”. That is not the object of the amendment. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to some of the items which have been ruled as being objectionable over the years by the previous bodies. We need look at only one Gazette to see how anyone who is interested in the question of drugs and drug dependence would be affected. Here we have banned—

And so on, Sir. Then there are books such as Drugs and Society, two volumes of which have been banned. There is the Connoisseur’s Handbook of Marijuana and a book called Racism in South Africa which have also been banned. Why should members of Parliament not be given the opportunity to examine these publications and to decide for themselves whether in fact the body created by this Bill, is doing its work in the manner intended, and why should not members of Parliament be given the opportunity under the Minister’s Vote of being able to speak with knowledge and to criticize and seek, if necessary, some sort of reconsideration of this particular clause.

Have you looked at subclause (3)?

Yes, but I am referring to the fact that we are doing away with the right of members of Parliament to have access to these banned publications. If the hon. member opposite who has interjected can convince me that the position is so, I would be very happy to hear his argument.

It is covered by subclause (3). You can apply for a permit.

Would you like to tell me whether the position as it exists at the moment is being altered? Members have no access to the publications banned by the Publications Board. Mr. Chairman, I would be very interested when the hon. member makes his own speech to hear him explain the position. I have put my argument and I believe that we on this side of the House are making reasonable requests. I trust that the Committee will accept them in that spirit, that the right of members of Parliament should not be subservient to a body which has no judicial standing, to decide on matters of this nature in the interests of all the people of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to find that we are not getting any reaction from the other side. There were a few interjections from my friend the hon. member for Bellville, but he did not get up and defend the interjections. Is he prepared to support this amendment of the hon. member for Berea?

Of course not; it is nonsense.

“Of course not; it is nonsense,” he says. Yet he interjected all the time while the hon. gentleman was speaking. But he does not stand up and tell us why. He is prepared to abrogate his responsibility as a member of Parliament. That is what he is prepared to do, the same as all those members on the other side who are remaining silent. They are quite prepared to abrogate their responsibilities. They are not prepared to carry out the responsibility which has been entrusted to their care by the electorate on the day on which they were elected, when they were told that they could come here to look after the interests of the public of South Africa. They come here, and they pass a Bill such as this—half of them do not know what it is all about—and then they are not prepared to follow it up to see whether the body which they are establishing would carry out what we are asking them to do in this Bill. I see that the hon. member for Bellville is now ready; so I shall give him a chance.

Mr. Chairman, we should at least have given the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South an opportunity to have his say. After all, we are now at least dealing with a new clause. After all, he has to debate all the clauses.

The hon. member for Berea made a long digression, which I think was unnecessary. He spoke, inter alia, here of the appeal body and the reference of documents to it, of the fact that they no longer appear before the courts, etc. But we are not in any way dealing with this matter now. Clause 8 deals with the distribution of reading matter, and makes it a criminal offence to distribute reading matter which is undesirable. It provides further when and how reading matter is found to be undesirable. Ultimately a criminal prosecution is then instituted in this specific case. The case goes to an ordinary criminal court, from whence there is an ordinary appeal to an ordinary supreme court. These matters are hot being taken out of the hands of the criminal court or the court of appeal as far as criminal proceedings are concerned. It remains a criminal prosecution in respect of which one has an ordinary judge as a civilian in terms of criminal law.

But what is more, the hon. member complained because it is not possible for him to take an interest in books and periodicals which are going to be prohibited in terms of the Bill. The fact of the matter is, surely, that these works are available from the present Publications Board. The Publications Board must have scrutinized these publications, and they are kept by the Board. Members of the Commission were afforded an opportunity of perusing some of these works there. We were able to see what kind of books were being kept there. I am convinced that if the hon. member, as a member of Parliament, has a particular interest in this type of work which is banned and which is placed under control, he could simply address a request to the Minister in question, and through the office of the Minister doors will then be opened for him so that he can read whatever works he needs to read at the directorate. I am certain that there ought to be no problem for the hon. member to satisfy his interest in this connection.

Then I want to make the observation that the hon. member did not give proper consideration to subsection (3) of clause 8. It reads—

If the hon. member for Berea has a particular interest in some specific direction or other, whether it be pornography, whether it be reading matter aimed at the subversion of the State, or anything else, the hon. member may apply to the directorate for a permit. The directorate will grant this permit to him on certain conditions, conditions relating of course to the further distribution of this work. If he is really interested in including these works in his field of study, there can be no problems whatsoever for him in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville has made some interesting observations, although not very relevant to the problem. First of all, he talks about rights of appeal but why is a person brought to court in the first place? Because a committee has decided that a publication is undesirable. Whatever the committee’s decision is, it can never be tested by a court of law. It cannot be under this Bill. That is the point the hon. member for Berea was making. There is no appeal against the creation of a crime. Once you are in possession of a publication which has been declared undesirable, you are committing a crime and there is no appeal against whether it is a crime or not.

There is an appeal to the appeal board.

That is not an appeal. The hon. member is a lawyer. He should know that it is not an appeal. It is not worth the paper it is written on. The second point is that the hon. member has suggested that Parliament having created this body—it is a creature of statute by parliamentary decree—should now go cap in hand to this committee and ask for copies of the banned articles.

Not Parliament, but a person.

Very well, a person. The hon. member has stated that Parliament should be entitled to have these documents available at all times. The hon. member for Bellville states that some person or a member of this House should now go along and say: Please, can we have a copy of this or that because we want to see whether we agree with your decision. I believe that the hon. member for Bellville has not done a service to this House by opposing the amendment of the hon. member for Berea.

I want now to move on to the amendments to this clause which appear in my name on the Order Paper. The first amendment I wish to move is—

If it had been possible under our procedure, I would have preferred to discuss clause 9 before we discussed clause 8. However, that is not possible. Clause 8(l)(c) of the Bill provides that—

What are the provisions of clause 9(2)? It makes provision for that crystalgazing power that has been introduced into this legislation to the effect that if one edition of a periodical is deemed to be undesirable, then all the committee has to do is to say that all further editions of that periodical will be equally undesirable and can only be imported under the permit issued in terms of clause 12(2). We opposed these provisions in the Act as it stands at the moment and we shall certainly oppose the provisions in this Bill which suggest that there can be a censorship of the unseen, of the unread, as provided in this particular clause, and that a crime would be committed by any person if he were to import any document which, as I say, has been banned unseen and unread by the committee concerned.

The second amendment I wish to move reads as follows—

This is the provision that deals with the creation of a crime. It states—

When we turn to clause 9(3), we find that—

The effect of this is that the mere possession of such a publication or object becomes a crime. If one looks at the provisions of clause 8(4)(b), one will notice that the mere production of a Gazette stating that some publication or object has been prohibited and is undesirable shall be sufficient proof of the undesirability of that publication or object. So the Gazette is produced, I am produced and the book which was found in my library is produced, and I am liable for a penalty of up to R500. This is the case whether that book is in my possession innocently or not and whether or not I acquired it as part of an inherited library. I am in possession of it, I have committed an offence and I am subject to a penalty of up to R500. The amendment which I have moved in this regard merely provides that it must be possession for the purpose of production or distribution. If I am permitted to do so, I shall not use the words “as defined”. These words are in any event defined. If this amendment is accepted, it will be quite clear that if I have this undesirable matter and want to make use of it for my own gain, for sale, for reproduction, for distribution—distribution or showing either for gain or for my own perverted sense of enjoyment if it is something of that nature—then I deserve the penalties provided for. As the clause stands, it is placing in jeopardy of becoming a criminal any person in this country who has a library of any worth and size. Sir, can you imagine that any person could religiously go to the library every month to go through the list of banned publications in the Government Gazette and then go and examine all the books on the dusty top shelf of his bookcase to see whether he is in possession of a banned book to make sure that he will not lay himself open to the charge of being in possession of an undesirable publication? Sir, I believe that both these provisions, with regard to pre-censorship and the possession of an undesirable object, in the absence of a provision to the effect that there must be proof of an intent on the part of the person concerned to use the undesirable object, are quite ridiculous provisions, and I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will realize that to make the mere possession of an undesirable object a crime is an unwarranted imposition on the public and that it will also place many innocent people in the position of being criminals without any knowledge or intent on their part to break the law.

Sir, firstly I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for having accepted my second amendment. I think it is a vast improvement on the original clause. However, I do still want to say a few words about my first and third amendments. The hon. member for Green Point touched upon a few points in respect of my first amendment with which I agree, although I feel that his amendment does not go quite far enough. To my mind there are tremendous problems attached to the fact that one may commit an offence through the mere possession of an undesirable publication or object. I am referring to clause 8(l)(d). I can understand that one could have problems with distribution, production and use in this regard, as the hon. member for Green Point said, but as far as the mere possession of an undesirable object is concerned, my colleague, the hon. member for Johannesburg North has already pointed out in his maiden speech the problems which one can encounter in this regard if one should possess a work of art or a publication which is then regarded as being undesirable, and the possession of which is prohibited. So there are practical problems. How does one get rid of these undesirable publications or objects? Should one burn or destroy them?

You would have to have bonfires.

Sir, I am referring in this connection to clause 15(1) which provides for review after the lapse of two years of decisions that publications or objects are undesirable. Suppose I were to have a publication or object, and the possession thereof were prohibited, but I felt that this had perhaps been an unreasonable decision. After the lapse of two years there would again be an opportunity to appeal against the original decision. How is that object or publication to be preserved in the meantime? May I keep it in my home, or is there some central place where it may be stored, so that after a period of two years I may again apply for a review so that that publication or object may be restored to my possession? I think it would create tremendous administrative problems for the Government if they were to have a place where they could preserve objects or publications for a period of two years, after which period a person could apply again for review.

Sir, the next clause to which I objected is the one which refers to publication in the Gazette, viz. subclause (4)(b) which reads—

Does this then apply in all cases of the application of the Bill? If it is sufficient proof, what about the right of appeal? After all, it is being said that one may appeal within 30 days against the notice in the Gazette of a publication or object which has been prohibited. But it seems to me that sufficient proof of undesirability is being determined by the decision of the appeal board and not by the first publication or notice thereof in the Gazette. Therefore the right of appeal is to a certain extent being affected here, if one has to accept this specific clause, viz. that the mere notice in a Gazette shall be sufficient proof of undesirability and that one is in this sense in fact contradicting the right of appeal which is being granted in clauses 13 and 9. Therefore I should like to propose that my two amendments be accepted.

The problem of possession which was raised by the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Rondebosch, has really been wrested out of context a little. We already have a law on the Statute Book and I think the United Party supported it at the time, i.e. the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act of 1967, in terms of which the possession of indecent or obscene photographic material is an offence. This Act has been in operation in practice for seven years now, and have any of the hon. members ever received any complaint to the effect that this Act is being unfairly applied or that it has made inroads on the freedom of the individual? All that this provision is doing is to make it possible to take action against written pornography as well, of which the commission saw enough to say that it could be as bad as photographically obscene material, and against sound pornography, of which the commission on one occasion heard enough to say that it could be even worse and more offensive than photographic material, and against material which endangers the State. Now you must bear in mind, Sir, that the possession thereof may only become an offence after the appeal board has reached a decision on it in each case. It is therefore not merely a committee which is able to make the possession thereof an offence. It is examined twice. You therefore have the assurance that it will only be in respect of material which is in fact extremely undesirable or which does indeed fall under the same category as indecent or obscene photographic material, that steps will be taken.

As to the second aspect, raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch, viz. the question of the certificate which is required, he will find that the notice is not published in the Gazette, if an appeal is lodged, until such time as the appeal board has then given its ruling.

You are missing the point entirely.

You can make your speech in a moment. It will be the second under this clause. Sir, the hon. member for Rondebosch stated that even if a person should appeal, it would be possible for him to be charged in the meantime and it would be possible for a certificate to be submitted, or for the Gazette to be submitted; but it is not published before the appeal has been disposed of. For that reason such a case will not easily occur.

In conclusion, I want to say in this connection that the subsection to which the hon. member for Rondebosch referred, which he wanted to have deleted entirely, subsection (4)(b), seeks to achieve only one thing, and that is to refrain from having, in the hearing of a criminal case such as this, another presentation of arguments all over again from the beginning, so that every magistrate dealing with it has to decide whether it is undesirable. It will already, by that time, have been tested by competent persons and the question in regard to such an offence would simply be whether it has been produced or distributed, and in that respect the magistrate will hear evidence properly. We are satisfied that, to maintain this distinction of when a person should be prosecuted and when not, this discretion will be allocated to the Attorney-General, as is stated in the printed amendment. This affords the safety valve, and with that safety valve I am convinced that there need be no fear that this clause will be used unfairly, and that there will be a witch-hunt, and that every person in respect of a publication, the possession of which is prohibited, will suddenly be hauled before a court of law. This is anything but the intention of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am sometimes amazed at the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Vereeniging especially since he is a learned colleague of mine in the same profession. For him to suggest that the provisions of possession in terms of this Bill can be equated with the crime of possession under the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, is a non sequitur.

Tell us why.

I shall tell you why. In the case of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, first of all an accused is brought before a judicial body whose first decision must be whether or not the material is pornographic. He has access to a court which will determine whether or not it is pornographic.

But in terms of the Bill there is an appeal board.

An accused will under the Act I mentioned be able to present his case by means of legal representation as to why it should not be regarded as pornographic. He has full representation before an independent judicial body. However, what happens to possession in terms of the Bill? A committee sits, a committee decides that something is undesirable. The committee will apply the various tests which are laid down in the Bill. The committee makes that decision without the accused being present, without the accused being able to make any representation at all on the question whether the committee is coming to a correct decision whether the publication is desirable or undesirable. Once there appears a notice in the Government Gazette that the publication is undesirable—not grossly undesirable, because there is no such provision in the Bill—one’s mere possession of such a publication is a crime which I can only face in a court, not by testing whether the decision of the committee was not reasonable, because the court has no jurisdiction as it has in terms of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act. If I am brought before court in terms of that Act, the court can hear me through my legal representative as to whether or not the material in question is indecent. However, if I am brought before a court on the grounds that I am in possession of a book which has been found in my library, I am convicted on the grounds that a crime has been committed because I possess something which the court cannot dispute is undesirable because a committee has made that decision and the necessary notice has been published in the Government Gazette. How can the hon. member equate those two and say that this particular crime is nothing new?

Before you are charged the publication will have been checked by three bodies.

Before one can be charged, the publication will first of all have been checked by a committee. Thereafter it can be looked at by the appeal board. The necessary notice will then appear in the Government Gazette. The next stage is that the Attorney-General must instruct, as the hon. the Minister has now agreed. If the first two requisites are there for the creation of a crime, I, as the accused, have no opportunity of testing the validity, correctness or justice of the decision as to whether that was an undesirable publication.

It sounds like the Schlebusch Commission.

If I am then in possession and brought before court, my position is then that the determination has been done and I cannot argue it before court. The hon. member for Houghton made an interjection ...

I am sorry, but I just could not resist it.

She made that interjection in an attempt to make a little cheap propaganda. She knows perfectly well that in so far as persons appearing on a criminal charge are concerned, they can then also argue the fact whether or not a crime was actually committed before they can be convicted. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging that you can equate these two. That is our difficulty. We argued for a long time when clause 1 was under discussion on how different people would determine what should be the Christian view of a certain publication, be it a book, be it written, be it photographic or otherwise. I, as the accused, being in possession of such an article have no opportunity of making representations in so far as that basic decision which causes me to be prosecuted is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the possession of certain publications or objects I should just like to draw the attention of the committee to paragraph 36 and 37 of the majority report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Publications and Entertainments Amendment Bill. In these recommendations possession is linked to “grossly undesirable publications”. As the hon. member for Vereeniging rightly indicated there are problems concerning the proper control of written pornography in terms of the provisions of the legislation. Upon reading through the report I gained the impression that the majority of the commission were rightly concerned about the fact that the present machinery apparently makes no provision for that. However, we are confronted by the problem that this particular clause, as well as clause 9, includes any publication or object, and not only “grossly undesirable publications”. In view of this I want to say that I think that the motivation given by the hon. member for Vereeniging was not entirely accurate in explanation or elucidation of these comprehensive provisions contained in clauses 8 and 9. I want to ask, with all due respect, whether these hon. members’ legal interpretation was correct in regard to this matter. I should like to state my view of the matter. In terms of clause 9(3) the possession of any object declared to be undesirable may be prohibited, and then the director shall without delay submit such a prohibition to the appeal board in terms of the provision of clause 9(5). In other words, this is not a question of appeal and the hon. member for Rondebosch was entirely correct on this score. In other words, in terms of the provisions of clause 9(5), that decision of the committee shall be submitted to the appeal board. Then the appeal board, still in terms of the provisions of clause 9(5) shall confirm or set aside that decision. Upon the confirmation of such a prohibition by the appeal board, the director shall without delay publish such prohibition in the Gazette in accordance with the provisions of clause 12(3) of the Bill. With effect from the moment of publication in the Gazette, possession of such a publication or object is a punishable offence in terms of the provisions of clause 8(1)(d). In other words, there is no question of an appeal which is addressed through the director. The director therefore performs an administrative function in submitting the decision of the committee to the appeal board. If we go now to the provisions of clause 13(2)(b)—for I think the hon. Deputy Minister will probably give attention to the legal aspects—we see that the director and any person who has a direct financial interest, may lodge an appeal with the appeal board. The question which now arises in my mind is what sense would there be in the director lodging an appeal with the same appeal board in terms of the provisions of clause 13(2)(b) after he had made the submission to the appeal board in terms of the provisions of clause 9(5). It is a different function which he is performing here. Under clause 13(2)(b) he has an appeal function and not an administrative function, in that sense that he makes a submission to the appeal board. The clause provides further that any person who has a direct interest in the said publication or object may lodge an appeal with the appeal board after the prohibition has been published in the Gazette. This is followed by the normal appeal procedure which gives the director seven days time, and the other appellant 31 days time. The appeal board then has to consider the matter and decide whether the relevant publication, object or edition, is in its opinion undesirable or not. The appeal board may then confirm or set aside the prohibition published in the Gazette. In other words, there are two processes involved here. On the one hand the appeal board confirms the decision of the committee and on the other hand it confirms the prohibition published in the Gazette after the appeal. In all honesty, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that these are two entirely different matters we are dealing with here. Subsequently the appellant shall be notified forthwith, and if the prohibition has been set aside, it shall be published without delay in the Gazette again. In all humility, Sir, I do not think that the interpretation given by the hon. member for Vereeniging is quite correct.

In regard to the right of appeal, there are a few problems which one will simply have to iron out within this Bill itself. As I have already said, the director submits the publication, or whatever it may be, to the appeal board, and he has the right to lodge an appeal with the appeal board. I cannot understand why the director should take these two steps. I want to ask what hope a person who has a direct and financial interest in the matter—this is the point made here by the hon. member for Rondebosch—has of the appeal board giving a favourable decision after the appeal board itself was responsible for the prohibition. After all, that prohibition could not have been imposed without the approval of the appeal board. In other words, the body which has imposed the prohibition, is also the body to which the person must turn when he lodges an appeal. It seems to me that this is in conflict with all the basic principles of the administration of justice. I do not know how we can avoid this in terms of the formulation but it is very clear to me that this matter cannot remain as it is. It is, after all, no use appealing to the body which has taken the original decision, particularly if we bear in mind the nature of the appeal board as set out in clause 36(3)(a). In other words, there are restrictions in regard to how the appellant may act when he appears before the appeal board. I therefore want to say at this stage that, both in terms of clause 8 as well as clause 9, the possession of publications not only presents tremendous legal implications, but in principle is in fact fundamentally unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw attention to the kind of evidence we received in regard to this clause. As the position is at present if a book is banned one is still entiteld to retain the book, because the mere possession thereof is not an offence. However, we are now creating a new offence here. We already have so much which constitutes offences here which are not regarded as offences in other countries that that alone is unfortunate.

We are not another country; we are South Africa.

Yes, this is South Africa, Nevertheless we do regard ourselves as being in a Western country. But here many more actions are regarded as offences than is the case in a normal Western country.

We are not another country.

In this Bill we are now creating an entirely new series of offences.

They are our own.

They are completely unnecessary.

I did not say that they were unnecessary.

They are completely unnecessary, and the more statutory offences one creates, the more court cases one has and the fuller one’s goals become. We already have the fullest goals in any country in the world. Now we are creating another new offence here. Outside Russia and the communist countries, you would not find a single Western country which has a clause such as this in their legislation. Show me another Western country which has included anything of this nature in its legislation. [Interjections.] The principal objection to it is firstly that an ambiguity is being created here. There will, after this, be two kinds of banned books: The one kind may be possessed and the other will of that kind of which a list will appear in the Gazette, and which may not be possessed. This will immediately create a frivolous attitude towards those which one may in fact possess. I think that this could be an unhealthy position. The effect of this goes much further. This clause could consequently be called the bonfire clause. What should one do if one has a specific book and may not possess it? Has the hon. the Minister ever considered this? We come now for the first time to the burning of books, for if one wants to do away with the book, one has to burn it. This is the position at which we have now arrived with this growing application of censorship.

We heard a considerable amount of evidence on this matter on the Commission. I want to give you a few examples. We had an Inter-departmental Committee. A good deal of evidence was submitted to this committee. It was apparent that the churches did in fact want the mere possession of written pornographic books to be laid down as an offence. Various persons and associations, however, expressed themselves very strongly opposed to this “since people’s private lives are their own business and the authorities are not called upon to meddle in these matters.” Who are the kind of people who adopted this standpoint? Inter alia Mr. Justice Hiemstra. The names of judges have been flung across the floor here; here we have a very important judge who declared himself strongly opposed to this type of clause. There is Prof. J. J. Degenaar of Stellenbosch, the P.E.C. Centre, the National Women’s Council of South Africa. Other very important evidence was submitted to us by Die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. No one would lightly dismiss the evidence of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie. The Akademie told us in a memorandum that they felt troubled over the proposed insertion of a section in the Act that no person may possess a prohibited publication or object. They then said (translation)—

Sir, this is the considered opinion of an important body such as the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie. We had other evidence, which time does not allow me to present. One of the witnesses pointed out that (translation)—

Sir, there are thousands of people with revolvers in their possession. Whole families are wiped out, murders are committed, and now we are sitting here concerning ourselves with a person who may possess a book which he may not distribute in any case. If members want to be logical and are afraid that a book is so very dangerous, then we should begin at the right place and prohibit people from obtaining revolvers. Not a day passes that one does not open the newspaper to read that an entire family has been wiped out. This witness also stated (translation)—

Sir, where are we going now? Why this excitement about a book which a man possesses but may not in any case distribute? We are not concerned about the murder weapons which are lawfully in the possession of people. In conclusion I just want to say that I am beginning to wonder whether it was worthwhile appointing a commission of Inquiry. The preponderance of evidence before the commission was opposed to this clause. The same applied as well to various other clauses which we have already dealt with. What is the use of obtaining public evidence before commissions appointed by the Government if the Government does not in any way adopt the considered opinions of the witnesses who were called? No, Sir, we are completely opposed to this clause and we will not be able to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bellville. With due respect to his legal training, I want to suggest to him that he has missed the bus. While I was speaking he interjected and said that I should read subsection (3). Well, Sir, I want to read that subsection. This is what it says:

Our amendment uses the word “shall”—

I do not believe that a provision like that, as an alternative to the amendment put forward by the official Opposition, is in keeping with the dignity of Parliament, or in keeping with the rights of members of Parliament. To suggest that they should go along and fill in a prescribed form in order to obtain permission to have access to publications in order to judge whether the directorate and the appeal board are not going beyond what Parliament may consider their intention, is quite wrong. I do not believe it is in keeping with the dignity of members of Parliament that they should be called upon virtually to go cap in hand to make such an application.

There is another anomaly. From personal experience, I have sought to have access to books which have been declared undesirable by the existing Publications Board for the purpose of studying various aspects of drug dependency overseas. The position is that books published in South Africa and which are banned, are available, through the kind co-operation of the library, under prescribed conditions, under supervision. But if the book happens to have been written and published by an overseas author, in terms of the existing provisions, nothing can be done about it. It will be against the law for the librarian to endeavour to obtain this book for the perusal of any member of Parliament who may desire to do so. Under those circumstances, I want to suggest to the hon. members opposite and this Committee as a whole that, if they have a real appreciation of the value of Parliament as such and of the dignity of members of Parliament, they should support the amendment which has been moved from this side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the evidence which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout presented to us here, was of course not the only evidence before the Commission. I think it is also necessary for this committee to give attention to the other evidence submitted to the commission. We received evidence that certain books may be prohibited and that the possession of those books may also be prohibited in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act. However, there are other books which cannot be prohibited in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, and in terms of the Publications Control Act the distribution of such books is in fact prohibited, but not the possession of such books. We had two witnesses in this connection. The one was professor A. H. Murray who was a full-time member of the Publications Board. He is a professor at the University of Cape Town and I think he is well known to hon. members of this House. He is well-versed in all matters relating to communism. We also heard the evidence of Prof. J. P. Jansen. He is a part-time member of the Publications Board who is attached to the University of Stellenbosch. Hon. members will know that it is his specific field of study to examine writings dealing with intelligence which is dangerous to or subversive of the State. I just want to quote what Prof. Murray had to say at the beginning of his evidence. He said (translation)—

He continues—

I think when he used the word “prohibited” he means “removed from the possession of”. He is not the only witness we had before us. Prof. Jansen said the following (translation)—

And then he goes on to deal with the case of Jacobsen, who distributed quite a number of books. He also mentioned this case. He said—

The commission of inquiry devoted very thorough attention to this matter. The representations which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made here were the same he addressed to us when we were investigating this matter on the commission of inquiry, but we could not ignore the evidence of these two gentlemen, which related to a situation which was dangerous to the State, and consequently the commission recommended that the possession of books of this type which are of a grossly undesirable nature should be totally prohibited. That, Sir, is where this clause comes from, and this is the range of the clause as envisaged by the commission. I want to tell you that it was not in any way the intention of members of the commission on the Government side that all books should be seized. It was and still is our idea that only books which are of a grossly undesirable standard should be dealt with in this way, and that it should be possible to seize them. Sir, I think there are good reasons for this. We understand that there are complaints about this situation, but we have weighed up the negative side against the positive side and found that the positive weighs more heavily for us and that we have to make this recommendation as it now stands in the Bill.

Sir, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, accepted evidence of a very meagre nature, evidence such as that given by Prof. Murray and also Prof. Jansen on this point. Prof. Jansen himself admitted in his evidence in regard to Cry Rage that he had been very uncertain whether or not he should ban this book, but that he had eventually done so merely because of one little sentence in a poem. I read Cry Rage, Sir, and I can tell you that it is nothing but the kind of nationalistic poems which one finds in the life of every people. But let that be as it may. Is it worthwhile creating a general offence for the few isolated cases such as these which occur; but in any case if a person distributes something which has been banned, he is guilty of an offence and may be punished.

Sir, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to another clause, and that is subclause (3), which empowers the directorate to make exceptions and to grant a person permission to possess a book which has been banned. It would be difficult to move an amendment here, but I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his attention to the problem of how we can get the directorate at least to lay down reasonable conditions. Sir, I should like to mention a practical example to you. I had this interesting experience when our parliamentary mission was in America last year. In the office of an American Congressman we were officially handed a publication of the American Congress, a publication by the name of Three Faces of Africa. Just before I left South Africa, I had read in the Gazette that this publication had been banned, and could not suppress my laughter, when we parliamentarians in Washington were handed a publication in the presence of the Ambassador, a publication which contained the observations of a number of American parliamentarians, but which we were not allowed to bring home to South Africa because it had been banned here. Sir, what was the nature of that publication? It was simply this: A number of American congressmen had visited South Africa; among them were Mr. Charles Diggs, Mr. Edward Derwinski, who is a good friend of South Africa, and Mr. Guy Vanderjagt. They had also visited other countries in Africa and had then set down their experiences in writing in a document of the American Congress. Sir, there is nothing in that publication which was not in the newspapers. Mr. Charles Diggs said nothing in it which he did not say in the newspapers which we read, but the interesting part of it all is this: Upon my return, I obviously felt that I as a South African parliamentarian ought really to know what the American congressmen had thought of what they had seen in Africa. I then applied to the Publications Board for permission to bring the book into the country, and I have it and have read it through. But, Sir, can you understand my first having had to write a letter to the Publications Board? After that they sent me a long form which I had to fill in; I had to pay 50 cents, and then I received a letter in return which read: This book you may possess, but only the strict condition that it be kept “locked and bolted (onder slot en grendel)”. No, I had a place where I could lock it up, but when I had to figure out how I could keep it bolted ...

At De Grendel.

Well, what is a bolt really? It is something which one closes and then one must still have a lock as well. It is really quite absurd that South African parliamentarians should have to keep a publication dealing with what other parliamentarians experienced on a trip locked and bolted. I submit this to the hon. the Minister. I really think we should do something to avoid this kind of absurdity.

I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that absurd conditions should not be imposed when one obtains permission to possess a publication. This is something which could definitely be looked into.

Sir, I would prefer to begin at the beginning. First there were the remarks made by the hon. member for Berea. The problem is simply that the hon. member’s proposals are impractical and I shall tell you why. When a publication is handed over to the Board, as it is constituted at present, and to the directorate as it will be in terms of the new legislation if it is passed, they usually keep one copy, but it happens that that copy is submitted to them by Customs, for example, and when they have finished dealing with it is sent back to Customs, and Customs destroy it or it is sent back to the publishers abroad. In other words, it could happen that the Board no longer has a publication. They no longer have it in their possession. Usually, as I have said, they destroy it or it is returned to the publishers abroad. In such a case, where they do not have a copy at all, and we wanted to give effect to the prescription of the hon. member, that publication would have to be purchased, and where is one going to find a copy? Funds will even have to be provided for this purpose. The other question is whether the Library of Parliament, where the hon. member wants these copies of prohibited publications to be kept, will have the necessary storage space. Between 1963 and the present day almost 10 000 publications have been declared undesirable, and in order to provide storage space for 10 000 additional copies in the Library of Parliament, would be difficult. All libraries are already saddled with the problem of space and the hon. member wants to aggravate this even further for the sake of a member of Parliament who occasionally feels like examining certain publications. The hon. member must concede that we would rather have the hon. members of this House in this House than sitting in the library.

You are probably referring only to Nationalists.

The other problem is that when one has prohibited the importation of a publication from a specific publisher, or the importation of a publication dealing with a specific subject, the fact remains that it has been prohibited, in other words, it has been declared undesirable; it has not yet even entered the country. We simply do not have that publication, in order, eventually, to keep in that place where the hon. member would like to have it kept. I believe that if we were to comply with what the hon. member is asking for, it could be done in only one way and that would be to make administrative arrangements with this directorate which is now going to be constituted and which will on occasion probably have such copies in their possession, to make it possible for hon. members who are interested and who want to see a publication which has been declared to be undesirable to peruse the publications at the directorate. It can therefore be done. We shall have to arrange this administratively. This will of course not apply to all publications, for some of them will of course no longer be in our possession because they will already have been sent back, while others of course never enter the country since they have been prohibited in advance.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of a publication being declared undesirable, and subsequent editions of the publication also being prohibited. In reality we have here an amelioration of the corresponding provision in the existing Act. We are now trying to accommodate people. In the past there was hesitation to apply the relevant provision in the Act. That provision could impose great financial burdens on publishers because it was provided that if one edition of a publication were prohibited, the successive editions could similarly be prohibited. In future the procedure will be different. If one edition of a publication is prohibited, the publisher may be informed that the subsequent series will not inevitably be regarded as undesirable too. Such a publisher will, because he may be empowered to do so by means of a permit, distribute the ensuing editions.

The hon. member then went on to discuss the question of possession and asked that the words which he proposed by means of his amendment, namely “for the purpose of the production or distribution as defined” be included in the clause. Hon. members on this side pointed that as far as the question of possession is concerned, this really refers to “grossly undesirable” publications.

That is not stated in the Bill.

It is not possible to define this, and I know it is not contained in the Bill. This is however the whole idea behind this. Let us be specific about this. A committee will decide on whether written pornography is grossly undesirable. If the committee decides that it is in fact grossly undesirable, and they label it as such, the written work must be referred automatically to the appeal board. Let us again be specific in this regard. i.e. publications which endanger the State. We have only these two categories in mind. If such a publication is grossly undesirable ...

The Pill does not contain a definition of “grossly”.

I know that the word “grossly” is not defined in the Bill, but it is in that spirit that we shall take action. It would in any case be difficult to define “grossly undesirable”. If a person has such a publication in his possession it will be difficult to prove that he has it in his possession “for the purpose of production or distribution as defined”. That would be an impossible task. I repeat that what are involved here are only grossly undesirable publications. I also repeat that we have only written pornography and publications which endanger the State in mind. I am prepared to have the book collections of all the hon. members who have large book collections examined, and I do not think that we will, in one of those book collections, find the publications which we have in mind here. I have a large collection of books and I invite hon. members to come and examine them. I do not believe that one of us would fall under the provisions which we have in mind with this clause.

I want to come to what the hon. member for Edenvale said in this regard. In the case where a committee finds a publication grossly undesirable, provision exists for the publication to be referred to the appeal board on review. If the appeal board agrees that a publication is grossly undesirable, the possessor of that publication must appeal against the appeal board, according to the view of the hon. member, and because they have already come to a decision, his appeal has no chance of succeeding. That is what the hon. member suggested. However, there is in fact a substantial difference, for if he appeals to the appeal board, another procedure has to be adopted. He may make a written submission and be allowed to adduce evidence, as prescribed. He is therefore being afforded an opportunity now of convincing the appeal board that it is not a grossly undesirable publication. Then there is the possibility that the members of that appeal board at its second session, when it has to adopt a further decision, may be different to those at its first session. That possibility also exists. It need not necessary be the same board as the board which took the first decision. This is the answer I am able to give the hon. member in that regard. Various hon. members referred to these matters, but it all amounts to what I have now told hon. members. I shall not comment any further on them.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very attentively to the explanation furnished by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but to my mind there is still a very serious problem. In this Bill there is no provision which guarantees that the persons who are going to serve on these committees are as the hon. member for Vereeniging said, always going to be reasonable, although I am convinced that the hon. member for Vereeniging would be very reasonable if he had to serve on one of those committees. [Interjections.] I am certain he will not take a decision which will upset us, for example. However, there is no guarantee that this is going to be the case with the members of the committee. It is all very well to tell us now that the people will be reasonable and that they will try to understand, but the fact remains that people make mistakes. Suppose a committee were to decide that a specific publication or object is grossly undesirable, even though this is not stated in the legislation, and they make a mistake in their decisions, a mistake which may be rectified in two years time, in terms of the provisions of clause 15(1). In terms of the provisions of clause 15(1) one may, after a period of two years, appeal again and then the new committee may decide that the previous committee had made a mistake and that the publication or object is not grossly undesirable. What happens in a case of such a publication or object in the meantime? Who is going to look after it? If it is stated that I may not possess an object or publication, it does not, after all, mean that I should destroy it. I should like to have an answer to this question from the Deputy Minister.

I have to inform the hon. member for Rondebosch that if a committee has found a publication or object grossly undesirable, it automatically goes to the appeal board on review. According to the provisions of the legislation, a publication or object which has been found to be grossly undesirable by the appeal board may not be in the possession of a person. Then it is law and there is no further opportunity to review it after two years.

Mr. Chairman I want to return to this specific point. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that there is a great deal of truth in the saying: “Hard cases make bad laws”. I want to refer to the cases which were mentioned here of grossly undesirable objects and publications. If this were stated in the legislation in this way, one could perhaps be satisfied with it. Then it seems to me that the provision as it is stated here covers far too wide a field. I shall come back to this later when we discuss clause 9, but it does not seem to me to be sufficient that the hon. the Minister merely furnishes this House with an assurance as to how the legislation is going to be applied, and that in terms of the prohibition on publications, only grossly undesirable objects will be included in that category. Perhaps I could remind hon. members of the scandal that was caused by the incident of the Moses Kottler statues in front of the Population Registration Building in Pretoria. The agitation was that this group of sculptures should not have been there in terms of the definition of “undesirable”. Let us now be honest. This provision is too wide. We want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to the effect that it is not sufficient merely to give an assurance that the legislation is going to be applied in a specific manner. I accept the good faith of the hon. the Minister and his integrity in this connection but I am saying this because the hon. the Minister may perhaps in a few years’ time be an ambassador in London or somewhere else. Then the application of this legislation would be in the hands of another person. I do want to say in all honesty that this prohibitory provision is too wide in extent. I think that, in the interests of everyone, consideration must be given to a restriction of this nature.

There is another point I want to mention. The hon. the Deputy Minister discussed the problem in regard to storage space. According to paragraph 34 of Chapter 5 of the majority report, a total of 923 publications was declared undesirable over a period of six years.

No.

I beg your pardon, I am sorry, I am wrong. Paragraph 33 reads as follows—

I beg your pardon, this figure therefore shows to what extent it has increased. Even if we were to add up these figures, it still seems to me to be a completely reasonable number. I take it that there are quite a few periodicals of a completely reasonable number. I take it that there are quite a few periodicals of a pornographic nature and so on which are most certainly not covered or which the proposer of that amendment did not have in mind. In all honesty I think this Parliament is entitled to know what kind of publications will in fact be prohibited then. It is something which belongs in this Parliament.

I should like to move a further amendment for the consideration of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am doing this with reference to clause 8(3) which deals with the question of exemptions. I want to ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will not consider exempting universities completely in this connection. Let me just explain before unjustified conclusions are drawn. Every university has only limited funds for the purchase of books. Those books are not purchased by individual lecturers, but by the librarian, who is of course a responsible person. In other words, the possibility that other people may obtain books from the library for their own purposes, books which they ought not to have, is in essence excluded. I just want to request that the hon. the Deputy Minister leave the use of such books to the Committee of University Principals, so that they can make the necessary arrangements to ensure that those books do not possibly fall into irresponsible hands. Such a recommendation was also made in the minority report. As indicated before the Commission, if I read the report correctly, the present situation is that there are books which ought really to be on the shelves of university libraries but which are not to be found there. This is an unhealthy situation. It is not my wish that we should confine ourselves only to the possibility of exemption in terms of clause 8(3). What I should like to see is that in the interests of our South African universities and of the status of our universities in the rest of the world more specific exemptions should be granted to such universities, with such guarantees as may be deemed fit.

Mr. Chairman ...

Just before the hon. the Deputy Minister proceeds I should like to put a question to him, just for the sake of information. Did I understand the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly to say that in terms of this clause there is no appeal after two years in the case where a specific publication or object was found to be grossly undesirable?

The right of review is there, but after two years you will no longer have the object. If you still have this object after two years, then it was illegally in your possession.

That is precisely the whole point.

To get past that point, there is the provision in clause 9(5) in respect of the appeal board’s confirmation of the question of possession. I shall come to that in a moment. I can only give the undertaking that we will in the meantime look into this entire matter and certain definitions in regard to it, before it goes to the Other Place. I cannot simply give the undertaking that we will change this, that or the other. However, I do give the undertaking that we will, particularly in respect of clause 9(5) look into the matter again to see whether we cannot eliminate that problem. That also answers the problem of the hon. member for Edenvale. At this stage I am not prepared to say that we are able to grant a general exemption to universities. It will still have to be done on request. However, if they have had certain problems in the past, for example in that the procedure was too protracted, we could by way of regulations draw up the prescriptions in such a way that it would be easier for them to obtain the publication. I cannot see on what grounds this could be refused if a similar application is made for bona fide study purposes. It is therefore easiest if they make application in the normal way to have the book on their shelves, and that the procedure of application could, bearing that object in mind perhaps be facilitated.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has now admitted that he has a problem. This is the problem we have been trying to tell him about ever since the start of the Second Reading debate. It is quite obvious from the running to and fro which we have seen on the other side of the House, that we have them in trouble. I wish that the hon. the Deputy Minister would see that we are only asking for that which is reasonable. We do not want anything to do with this Bill at all, Sir, but now that the principle has been accepted we are trying to make it workable and reasonable. That is all we are trying to do at this stage. I am very glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister will at least have a look at that provision, because this is a provision that has worried us tremendously. I believe that he has to look at other provisions as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister is talking of having another look at clause 9(5), but I would say that he is going to have to have another look at subsection (3) of this clause with which we are dealing now, clause 8. He says that he will perhaps make provision under the regulations to relax the necessity for universities to apply for exemption. I submit that he must do it here under subsection (3) of clause 8, because as I read this, every person or body, even a university library, has to make an application in respect of each book. I put this question to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate and the hon. the Minister said that my interpretation was correct and that the universities could in fact not apply for a blanket exemption for them to be allowed to keep books on a certain topic. The universities will have to apply for exemption for a specific book, a specific publication, in each case.

They can be given a blanket exemption in respect of a particular topic.

Sir, this is in conflict with what the hon. the Minister said in reply to the Second Reading debate when I put this specific question to him. I put this to him as well, that universities overseas are beginning to look askance at degrees which are granted in this country, because those degrees are being earned by students who do not have access to all the literature concerned with that particular subject. This is the situation that we are getting to and it is going to become worse if this clause is applied in the way in which the hon. the Minister said it would be applied. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is contradicting him. He says that a blanket exemption can be granted. I am very glad to hear this, but I believe that he must amend this provision and write it in. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister pointing to the clause. I have read that clause as he has. He must stand up and tell us where it says that there can be a blanket exemption. Let us have it clearly written into the Bill. It is no good; all the undertakings which the hon. the Deputy Minister might give this Committee today count for nothing, because when the directorate is established and the committees are appointed they are bound by what is written in this Bill, Sir, not by what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said here this afternoon and by what may be written in Hansard. As one of my friends remarked a while ago, when the committee goes off it will go off armed with this Bill; it will not go off armed with 21 copies of Hansard. Therefore. Sir, I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have another look at that. If that is his intention, he must please move an amendment to make it quite clear. He can introduce it after dinner. If not then, I trust he will give us an undertaking that he certainly will do something before he takes this Bill to the Other Place. Now we come to another aspect.

While dealing with exemptions, there is something which must also be drawn to the attention of members on that side of the House, and the hon. member for Bellville in particular. He says that members of Parliament will be able to go to the directorate and apply for exemption in order to obtain a copy of a publication to look at, read or keep in his possession. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that, administratively, it will be possible, but if this is so this clause will have to be relaxed. You cannot do it, even administratively, as long as this clause stands as it is now. But the hon. member for Bellville must also know that in this clause provision is made for the revocation of such an exemption as well. That means that we, as members of Parliament, must go to this body, cap in hand, and ask them for permission to have something here which we can study and look at. And at the same time, we are subject to that board revoking that permission. What is going on here? This is almost going to the extent of contempt of Parliament. I want to say that, as far as we are concerned, we believe that the dignity of this House demands that we should be able to have access to these publications without having to go, cap in hand, and ask for exemption and without being subject to this directorate withdrawing that permission at any time.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also mentioned new offences which are being created. What is the effect going to be when this clause is passed? When this clause is passed, the position is going to be that every artist, writer and publisher is going to produce at his or her peril. At the time when the book is written or published or the picture painted, no offence is committed; but after the picture has been painted and the book published, the committee can decide that in fact an offence was created at the time when the painting was painted. One then finds the position where the artist is judged on the decision of two people, substantiated by the appeal board, an appeal board which at this stage does not allow the artist to adduce evidence. It is an appeal board which does not allow the public to be present at the time when this decision is considered by the appeal board. In other words, it is a decision which is made in some dark room in Pretoria, somewhere, away from the glare and publicity of public scrutiny.

Star Chamber justice.

Then the artist finds that his work of art which he has created in good faith some time back has now been declared undesirable and he finds himself guilty of the offence of having produced an undesirable object. Now, Sir, do you believe that this is fair and right? Do you believe, Sir, that the creativity of our artists in this country should be subjected to this sort of control? Do you believe that we should be inhibiting them to the degree that this clause is going to inhibit the future production of any work of art or book in this country? I do not believe that that is what we should be doing in this Committee.

First amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood put and the Committee divided:

AYES—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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 den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma. M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Dt 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.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; 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.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman. H.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; 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, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; 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 and second amendment dropped.

First amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Question put: That the words “possess any publication or object” in line 21 stand part of the clause.

Question affirmed and first amendment moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert dropped.

Second amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray put and the Committee divided:

AYES—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter. D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R.

M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie. R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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 den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten H. A; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Aucamp, P.

L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. 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.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; 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.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn. S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; 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, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, M.; 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.

Amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Second amendment moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the powers of committees relating to publications. I will endeavour, by moving certain amendments, to improve the clause as it now reads. In subclause (1) provision is made that if a single edition of a publication which is published periodically is found to be undesirable, the committee by some mystic means can make up its mind and say that it is of the opinion that because of one undesirable edition, all future editions are likely to be undesirable. Sir, I do not quite know how the committee is to function in this mystical way, but this power is given to it and it may declare every future edition of such publication or object to be undesirable. Then, Sir, when we read subclause (2) we find that a new procedure is being introduced into control measures. Here again we have the provision that if a committee has found any edition of any publication which is published periodically to be undesirable, then the committee may say that in future further editions of that periodical can only be published in terms of a permit, and then there are certain other provisions. Sir, what is the effect of this? This seems to be a new sort of procedure, following court procedures or adapting court procedures, whereby you get a suspended sentence in advance. Betore you publish your future editions you are told, “You can publish them, but if we find after you have published them that they are undesirable, you will get chopped and you will not be able to publish any more editions”. Sir, I do not know why a procedure of this sort should have been introduced into the law. We on this side are entirely opposed to the adoption of the procedure which is laid down here, that is, banning in advance editions which have not even appeared on the market. I know the argument is used that certain publishers publish shocking types of comics which find their way into the cheaper fruit-stalls and cafés, where they are sold to children, and that one cannot expect anything else but that every future edition, with its scenes of violence and its sordid presentation of life, will be the same. Sir, that is where our penal code should be applied. Surely the importer or publisher or distributor of something that is so undesirable is subject to heavy penalties under the law. The mere prohibition of import will not make any difference to that type of person. If a person wishes to import that kind of publication, he will find ways of doing it. But the sword of Damocles hanging over his head of ever-increasing penalties in the event of his being found guilty would certainly have the effect of making him less keen on importing these publications. Sir, I move the first amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

Then we come to the next provision, which creates the offence which we have already dealt with under clause 8, and that is that a committee may prohibit the possession by any person of any publication or object which is in terms of a decision of a committee undesirable. On the clause which we have just dealt with, we have already pointed out the dangers of a blanket provision against mere possession. I should therefore like to move an amendment which will have the effect that the committee’s powers to prohibit possession will be restricted to possession by any person for the purpose of production or distribution as defined. I therefore move the second part of my amendment—

I should like subsection (3) to be amended to read—

I therefore move the third part of my amendment—

The hon. the Deputy Minister has already in anticipation dealt with this. He has said that he agrees that it is only grossly undesirable publications that he would wish to be listed as giving rise to the crime of possession, but that it is so difficult to find a suitable word. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would only retain in this Bill provisions allowing access to the courts, the problem would be solved, because the courts have been able to determine over the years, for instance in regard to negligence, whether there is gross negligence, whether there is ordinary negligence or whether there is culpa of any degree at all. I can see no difficulty whatsoever in a determination of what is grossly undesirable as against what is merely undesirable in the strict application of the terms of the Bill. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister should put into the Bill what has been stated to be the policy of the hon. the Minister as the hon. the Minister himself set it out during the Second Reading debate and as it has been repeated by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Finally, I want to refer to subsection (4) of this clause. I do not want to repeat what I have said in regard to clauses 1 and 2; my submissions in regard to this subsection are the same. This subsection provides for the prohibition of yet unpublished matter entering the country. I believe that this is an insupportable provision and I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, clause 9 implies all kinds of complications and is probably the most important clause of the Bill. I think, therefore, that it deserves the proper attention of the Committee. To begin with, I want to state a few general principles as to why clause 9 is completely unacceptable to this side of the House and to me personally owing to its interference with what we regard as basic freedoms. I also want to go into more detail with regard to the provisions of the clause, more specifically with regard to the three aspects affected by clause 9, namely the prohibition of periodicals in South Africa, the prohibition of the importation of publications and objects which have been declared to be undesirable and the prohibition of possession. In regard to the really fundamental problem we are facing—and here I want to say that hon. members should not deduce from what I say that I want to place more emphasis on the rights and the privileges of the individual than on the interests of the community—I want to comment on the statements made by the hon. the Deputy Minister on various occasions. He said that the legislation would be applied in a particular way and that there was no need for the Opposition to be afraid that certain things would be done in a particular way in the application of this legislation. Perhaps I could try to say something about the kind of problem we are dealing with here.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that the principle of the Bill was accepted at the Second Reading. I therefore cannot allow the hon. member to deal with that point in too much detail. I shall give him the opportunity to put his case, but he is not to deal with it in too much detail.

The real point at issue here is the arbitrary power of persons. In this regard I just want to say briefly that I believe that every member accepts that a citizen of a country is entitled to certain basic freedoms. The safeguarding of those freedoms lies in the structure of the society and must not be secondary to the arbitrary exercising of discretion by any person, whoever he may be. That is what clause 9 really deals with. Before leaving this point, I want to say that it is not good enough to say that a particular assurance is given by a particular Minister at a particular period, because it has been our experience time after time that undertakings given at a particular juncture are changed at a later stage, because times change, because the political situation changes, and so on. One cannot, therefore, content oneself with a mere assurance that the legislation will be applied in a specific way. In other words, the guarantees must be embodied in the legislation itself. The Afrikaner himself, in the course of his history, took up that standpoint, and it was for the very reason that he was able to appeal to the law for the guarantee of his freedoms that he was able to utilize those freedoms properly. Consequently he protested when his freedoms were subjected to arbitrary restriction by politicians, officials or whoever.

What does “arbitrary” mean?

I shall explain shortly. I shall come back now to the three aspects dealt with in clause 9. With regard to the prohibition imposed on successive editions of South African periodicals which, in the opinion of the committee, are undesirable, I do want to say that what this really amounts to is that we are penalizing or punishing a publisher for acts which he might possibly commit later on. To me this really appears to be basically in conflict with our whole conception of law. This is tantamount to giving a child a hiding, not for what he has done, but for what we think he may probably do at some time or another in the future.

It is already stated that way in the existing legislation.

It is stated in the existing legislation, but those provisions were opposed by this side of the House. In any event, that does not affect the merits of my point. All I want to say is that it is basically wrong to punish someone for an act which he may possibly commit in the future. This is a philosophic point I want to make in this regard. What is happening here is that we have already departed from the ethical concept embodied in clause 1 and that we are no longer applying the provisions of clause 47 either, but that now, in clause 9, we are dealing with a third concept in respect of periodicals, namely “is likely to be”. In other words, the committee has to pass an opinion on whether the subsequent editions of such a periodical are “likely to be” undesirable. “Likely to be” is not a definable term. In other words, what we are dealing with here is a matter which is left solely to the discretion of the committee members. That is why I spoke of “arbitrary discretion”. How can one say with certainty that all future editions of a periodical are “likely to be” undesirable? I should not like to take that responsibility upon myself. I am just hammering at the fact that we are dealing here with a new concept, namely “likely to be”, which in fact leaves room for large-scale arbitrary interpretation.

It goes without saying that in our opinion this provision goes much too far. What is particularly strange to me is that if one reads the majority report of the commission, one gains the impression that the committee system was designed specifically to allow for prompt action in respect of publications which might possibly be undesirable. Without quoting it, I want to refer to paragraph 28 on page 10 and also to paragraph 41 on page 16 of the majority report. The commission states that one of the problems they experienced was that action against publications could not be taken promptly enough and that this resulted in such publications being distributed. That is why it is necessary in their opinion that this machinery be created. This machinery of the committee system was proposed in order that immediate action might be taken. Thus, if a specific edition of a periodical were to appear on the market on a certain afternoon, such a committee could set to work that same afternoon to have that edition declared to be undesirable and to have the prohibition on the distribution of that edition published in the Gazette. If that is the case, why these Draconian powers to prohibit all subsequent editions? After all, the machinery to take immediate action if required is there. Bearing that in mind, I want to say that it seems to me, in terms of the recommendations of the commission itself, entirely unnecessary to possess these wide powers further, i.e. in order to include subsequent editions as well, editions which could possibly be innocent.

Both the hon. member for Bellville and the hon. the Deputy Minister came out very vehemently against the principle of pre-censorship. What we have in this provision is far worse than pre-censorship. What we are doing now is also placing a restriction on future editions which may perhaps be undesirable. We do not wait until the edition has appeared on the market. It is simply said that it is likely to be undesirable and that it is therefore declared to be undesirable. We should also consider the arguments advanced by the members of the committee. I refer to paragraphs 50 to 53. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point had a great deal to say about the concepts “arbitrary” and “Draconian” measures, as if what we had here was a committee which would take a decision or would want to impose a prohibition and then give an unfounded decision, as if this committee could not be called to account in respect of what it decided, and as if there were no right of appeal to, and to review by, the courts. But, Sir, the Bill clearly provides that a committee has to furnish reasons for its decision. It therefore has to record and furnish an explanation of its decision when it imposes a prohibition on a book. Once it has done that, any interested party has the right to ask for and have access to those reasons, and to appeal within a reasonable time to an independent appeal body. Under the Bill, the appeal body, too, has to furnish reasons for its decision. Were either the committee or the appeal body to take an arbitrary decision, a decision which was not fully substantiated, because they had given insufficient attention to the matter before them, such a decision would be subject to review. Then the court would be able to say: “These people did not apply their minds properly to the matter before them.” By doing this they would be guilty of gross negligence, and there would be a review. To create the impression, therefore, that what we have here is arbitrary action in the sense in which the hon. member used it, is, to say the least, to put this matter in the wrong perspective. If we look at the appeal clause, clause 9, that clause which the hon. member for Eden-vale would like to see deleted in its entirety, we shall see that there is a right of appeal against each of the decisions which the committee may take. I therefore want to suggest that this hon. member really opposed this clause too strongly, and in doing so acted rashly.

In the second instance I want to refer to the amendment by the hon. member for Green Point. I do not want to deal with all its aspects. This is a basic problem encountered by both the Minister and the Commission, namely to try and define the concept “grossly undesirable”. However, the spirit of the Bill and the purpose of the legislator are clearly apparent from this legislation before the Committee, namely that there are certain things which are so bad that even the possession of such a publication should be a crime. Then there are other things in respect of which a mere prohibition is sufficient. It is in this spirit that the committees, which are made up of responsible people, and the appeal board, which will be a responsible body by virtue if its composition, will apply this clause with great responsibility. The contribution made by the hon. member for Edenvale in respect of this clause was really only aimed at creating a smokescreen and obscuring the fundamental aspects involved here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vereeniging has attempted to diffuse the objections we have to this clause. He is following the suggestion of the hon. member for Bellville, who unfortunately is not here at the moment. That hon. member suggested that the provisions of this clause are the same of those of the existing Act. They are not. The hon. member for Vereeniging nods his head as though they are. Under the existing provisions future editions of a publication which are issued periodically can be stoppped on two conditions. The first is that the publisher has been found guilty in a court of law of an offence, the offence being that of publishing or producing an undesirable publication. The second is when the board has made a decision in regard to undesirability and that decision has not been set aside by a court of law. That is the existing position. In other words, there must be either a conviction by court of law, or the failure of the person affected to go to a court of law to have the finding of undesirability set aside. But what do we find now in terms of these provisions? The access to the courts has gone. The hon. member for Vereeniging has suggested that this review procedure is effective. We shall deal with this matter when we reach clause 39, but for the hon. member to suggest that that emasculated form of review is a suitable substitute for the right of appeal which now exists is, I suggest, not an acceptable proposition. It is entirely a different procedure.

For arbitrary action.

We shall come to the question of arbitrary action. A publisher who publishes periodicals will be able to be put out of business by what kind of action? It will be the action of a committee which meets in secret and which allows a witness no representation. They sit, as I have said before, in solitude; they will sit in the quiet, dark cloisters of some conclave and they will themselves decide whether or not a publication is undesirable. That is what they will do. Then the hon. member suggests that this is not arbitrary! It is arbitrary in the extreme. [Interjections.] Where is the hearing of the person who is affected? Mr. Chairman, I may say that heaven only knows who might be appointed to these committees, when one takes note of some of those who are interested in censorship at the present moment. These are the people who will be the sole arbiters, in the Christian view, of what is undesirable or not. And, Sir, when they have made a decision, there will be no appeal to the courts of law. That decision will become binding and that same committee can then say: “Having read this particular edition of this publication, we are satisfied that Die Kruithoring of next month is going to be equally undesirable”. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member would regard that as being arbitrary if such a decision were taken and he could not be heard. One can imagine, Sir, that with the differences of opinion which have become apparent on the other side at the present time, a committee constituted of certain members or a certain group on that side of the House might well decide that a certain edition of Die Kruithoring was undesirable. On the other hand, you might have a committee composed of the verligte members on that side, with the hon. the Minister of Sport as the chairman of the committee, which would find that a certain edition of Die Kruithoring was perfectly desirable. I want to point out, Sir, that the provisions of this clause are exactly in line with what the hon. the Minister of the Interior said long before this Bill came before the House, and that was that he wanted to tighten up censorship procedures. That is what he is doing now.

This provision is exactly the same as the one in the existing Act.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Bellville has just returned. I have dealt with his argument and I would suggest that he read section 8 of the existing Act to find how different it is from this clause. Sir, in these circumstances we cannot possibly support this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start with a fairly categorical statement. I want to say that the powers contained in this clause are Draconian powers. I want to ask hon. members in this Committee to make a very reasonable assumption and that is that one of the committees will not be appointed by the Minister, as we were told this afternoon, but by the directorate after a list has been scrutinized by some inscrutable person. I suggest that this committee might consist of the hon. member for Carletonville—I am sorry he is not here this evening—the hon. member for Stilfontein—I do not think he is here tonight either—and another hon. member who shares their philosophy.

Did you challenge me? Here I am.

Mr. Chairman, he answered my call!

† I want to ask hon. members here to make a further assumption and that is that this committee of hon. gentlemen will be asked to adjudicate on the future of two newspapers in particular, viz., Die Vaderland and Rapport. I think hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Carletonville expressed some very decided views in this regard the other day. Let us assume what will happen if a committee of this nature were asked to consider the futures of these two newspapers. Hon. members will recall that the hon. member for Carletonville said: “Not another step,” and I am sure that the hon. member for Stilfontein agrees wholeheartedly with those views. I am not going to argue the merits and demerits of why he said this. All I am saying is that a committee of this nature will have the power if it convinced itself—as the hon. member for Carletonville will have absolutely no difficulty in doing—that these publications are undesirable, they are “volksondermynend en dat die weerbaarheid van die volk na die maan is”, to declare their existence undesirable. What future would periodicals of this nature have under these kind of circumstances?

The point I am trying to make is simply that a committee of this nature is being given the power to close down newspapers. What are they going to do? They may not only ban what has appeared—and this was enough to give the hon. member for Carletonville apoplexy—they can also ban any future publication. This is very serious indeed. It means that one can bring down an entire concern, that one can throw people out of work, bring misery to hundreds of people, and what can anybody do about it? I want to suggest seriously, Sir, that in a pretty rough Bill, this clause 9 is savage by any standards whatsoever. It is savage because it gives people the opportunity, the reason, for closing down businesses and for putting people out of work. These are Draconian powers which are going to be used not only to punish publishers for what they have done, but for punishing them for what they might do in the future. This seems to me to be absolutely outrageous. How does anyone judge whether a publication is “likely to be undesirable”? With the best will in the world, Sir, not any committee that anybody can appoint is going to have this kind of prescience. “Likely to be undesirable”—on what basis? Sir, besides being unfair and besides being unjust, this clause makes absolutely no provision for giving an opportunity to the editor of a newspaper or publication, who might have erred in some way or other and incurred the wrath of the committee, to mend his ways. A publication is simply going to be banned, and what can the editor do after that? To whom can he appeal? I hope the clutch of lawyers sitting on the other side are not going to tell us about the power of review. Sir, if this legislation had been in force, the magazine Scope, of Republikeinse Uitgewers in Durban, would have ceased to exist.

They published the Nationalist Party Newsletter free. That should exonerate them.

Sir, let me say this before anybody says that there is provision for publication under licence. Let me quote what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech when he was referring to the majority report of the commission—

Mr. Chairman, I ask you with tears in my eyes. Can anybody who has the foggiest conception of how periodicals and newspapers are produced believe for one single moment that this is practical? This is absolute nonsense. This clause is entirely meaningless. Sir, I believe that there are no circumstances at all under which we can even contemplate the powers which are envisaged here.

I would like to end with just one tiny warning to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and that is to remind him of something that happened in the Transvaal 78 years ago when President Paul Kruger did precisely this to The Star. He not only banned it one afternoon, but he said that it was not to appear for three months. Sir, The Star appeared the following afternoon under a different name, The Comet. The Star took President Kruger to court and a Republican court, as impartial as our courts are today, said to President Kruger that he had no right to do this; that he could not ban anything that was going to appear in future, but only what had already appeared. I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister would take this lesson to heart.

This particular clause deals with the powers of committees as regards publications or objects. It deals with one of the principles of the Bill which was decided at the Second Reading. It may not, therefore, be argued again. I have given hon. members of both the United Party and the Progressive Party, who are opposed to the clause, the opportunity to state their party’s opposition to the clause in question in general terms, but I cannot possibly allow hon. members to go into the matter in any more detail or allow each hon. member to signify his opposition to it. I therefore want to appeal to hon. members to come back to the Bill now and not to discuss that principle any further, for which they had ample opportunity during the Second Reading, but to come back to the details of this clause.

Sir, you will permit me to come back to the amendments. Two amendments were moved here, the first one was by the hon. member for Edenvale. His amendment asks, concisely and to the point, that the clause be negatived. The second amendment was moved by the hon. member for Green Point. In paragraph (2) of his amendment he asks that the words “for the purpose of production or distribution as defined” be inserted in line 40. Now, Sir, the problem facing me is this. Now, by whom were these proposals made? Are these proposals that come from the official Opposition? Thus far I have assumed that each of the two wings of the Opposition had a proposal of its own, that the Young Turks came up with a proposal to reject the whole Bill and that the other group came up with a proposal to make additions. But now the Progressive Party has also entered the picture, in the form of the amendment by the hon. member for Parktown, and he has taken up a very strong standpoint. Now, I take it that he must support one of the two standpoints. For the guidance of this House, Sir, and of this Committee, I think that it is probably necessary for him to tell us whether he supports the standpoint of the Old Guard or that of the Young Turks, or whether he is adopting a new course? I think that this is a matter on which we must have clarity. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are now abusing the concession I have granted them to make interjections. I want to make an appeal to hon. members to be reasonable, otherwise I shall have to take drastic steps.

Unless I have misinterpreted the Bill, I should like to hear from the hon. member for Vereeniging whether I understood him correctly that in imposing a prohibition in terms of clause 9, the reasons would have to be furnished to the publisher. May I ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whether I understood him correctly? [Interjection.] Then I want to say that my interpretation is that that is not correct, and if my interpretation is correct, I think the hon. member for Vereeniging owes me an apology, because the only time when reasons are supplied, is when a permit is applied for and the permit is refused.

Look at clause 11.

Clause 11 only deals with applications under clause 10, and does not affect clause 9. It is only in cases where an application for a permit is made. That, in any event, is my interpretation and I submit in all modesty that, in terms of clause 9, the Committee, according to my interpretation ...

Clause 10(1) (a) deals with it.

May I continue, Sir? In regard to this problem I just want to point out that we are, of course, faced with the difficulty that these powers under clause 9 may be exercised by a committee and by the appeal board. In other words, in both cases it may be two people, that is, it could be a maximum of four people exercising these powers because two could be a majority in any case if we take it that the appeal board consists of three persons. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Parktown because I really do not believe that power of this kind should be granted to such a small number of people without there being a right of appeal to a court.

I now want to come to clause 47(2) in which the definition of “undesirable” is given in full. In this regard I should like to draw attention to the fact that clause 47 also contains the words “or any part of it”. This means that even though the whole publication were in order, with the exception of a short paragraph to which the definition of “undesirable” would apply, such a publication could be declared undesirable and on the basis of that single paragraph, all subsequent editions of the publication could be prohibited. In this regard I want to come back to the question of the arbitrary exercise of powers. In the case in question the hon. the Deputy Minister will quite probably give the assurance that the interpretation of these provisions will not be so narrow, but then we are back at the arbitrary exercise by the Minister of his powers. In this regard we have in mind in particular of the contradictory findings concerning the words “or any part of it” in the cases Publications Control Board v. William Heinemann, 1965, and Publications Control Board v. Republican Publications, 1972.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to what I regard as a further anomally in this connection. If an edition and a subsequent edition of a periodical are declared undesirable in terms of clause 9(l)(a)(ii), it is an offence in terms of clause 8(l)(a) for any person to produce such a publication. In terms of clause 47, “produce” also means “printing, publishing, manufacturing, making or reproducing”. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how, if the distribution of all subsequent editions is prohibited in terms of clause 9(2), a person can apply for a permit which will enable him to publish an edition he was not allowed to produce. I take it that such a person would be allowed to submit a manuscript and ask whether the manuscript was in order, but according to my interpretation of the Bill he is not allowed to produce an edition which he could submit to a committee for approval.

I now want to deal with clause 9(4) which contains certain provisions affecting foreign publications or objects. I want to draw attention briefly to the fact that this subsection does not apply to periodicals alone. In the majority report, mention is made of the problems experienced by the German- and French-speaking communities in particular, when subsequent editions of imported periodicals are prohibited. In fact the position is that clause 9(4) does not apply to periodicals alone, but to all publications and objects as well. It therefore applies to books, works of art and all items of that nature. It goes without saying that we on this side of the House are unable to associate ourselves with a provision which grants powers which will make it possible to prohibit all publications of a specific publisher. We are likewise opposed to the granting of powers which will make it possible for all publications dealing with a particular subject to be prohibited. Here again we have a case of condemnation in advance

Order! The hon. member is now elaborating on the principles of the Bill.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I thought I was dealing with the application of clause 9(4). May I, then, in regard to the application hereof, once again ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give attention to a problem caused me by clause 9(4). The importation of a publication or object may be prohibited in terms of clause 9(4), but now the following problem arises: How can a permit for the importation of such a publication or object be applied for in terms of clause 10(l)(c) when clause 10(2)(a) provides that such an application for a permit must be accompanied by a copy of the edition in question? If all the books of a specific publisher were prohibited, I should be unable to obtain a specific book. How could I submit such a book, because I would be committing an offence by importing the book. How could I submit that book when asking for a permit to import the book? Here, then, is an obvious contradiction or shortcoming in the measure.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the last point made by the hon. member for Edenvale right away. If the importation of a foreign publication is prohibited and he wants to obtain a copy there of in order to submit it to a committee for its decision, his question is, how is he to go about obtaining it. That is what he wants to know. However, there is a way out. Section 113(1)(f) of the Customs and Excise Act provides that he may apply for a permit to import that specific publication and submit it for decision. If it is not found to be undesirable, he can apply for the second permit through the usual channels as prescribed, and then he may in fact import it. Therefore the possibility of importing it does in fact exist.

By way of trying to summarize this long discussion in some way or another, I should like to point out that many of the points to which the hon. members objected, two of them in particular, are also contained in the existing legislation. I know that the hon. members will say that this was handled in such and such a way, but to the best of my knowledge only one local publication has ever come up against the provisions of the existing legislation in respect of publications, and that was the periodical Scope. This has only happened once. No other local publication has found itself in difficulties in any way as far as the existing legislation is concerned. I want to say to hon. members on that side of the House that they are the very people who had a total lack of confidence in the existing board. In the past they have imputed things to those people which virtually verge on abuse, while those people in whom they had and still have so little confidence, have only once tried to cause a domestic publication to come to grief. In view of this I really do not know what the hon. gentlemen on that side are objecting to.

They knew the courts were there to stop them from going too far.

It is particularly with regard to imported publications that we want to restrict the products of a specific publisher or publications dealing with any specific subject. As I say, this applies to foreign publications in particular. The hon. member for Edenvale also asked where he would have to obtain a permit when he wanted to make a submission when a publication together with subsequent editions had been prohibited. He asked where he would have to obtain a permit in order to make a submission. He asked whether it would have to be in the form of a manuscript. I am afraid that it would have to be a manuscript or even the printer’s proof which would have to be submitted. This, therefore, is an alleviatory provision because the existing Act contains no such provision. We do realize that economically this could weigh heavily on publishers. That is why we provide that there may be submissions and that publication may continue on the authority of a permit. This applies to domestic publications in particular. Then, too, I want to say to the hon. member for Edenvale that as far as some foreign publications are concerned, it is very easy to judge. One of them which I would have in front of me for judgment looks bad and three editions which have already appeared look no different; that is how we know them to be. I am going to mention an example, namely Playboy.

Oh no!

Do hon. members want to tell me that Playboy is ever going to change? After all, we know what it is like. It will not change whatever one does.

What is that Playboy? [Interjections.]

I am using it as an example now. That publication looks that way and its appearance will never change. I am fully within my rights, therefore, in proceeding from the assumption that the future editions of that publication will not meet with our requirements and standards, either.

The hon. member for Parktown made such a fuss, I noticed, that the hon. member for Houghton actually went to the hon. member for Stilfontein to seek shelter. [Interjections.] Even she was frightened by the hon. member for Parktown, but let me set his mind at rest—we have never yet been frightened by him. The hon. member referred to certain newspapers which could supposedly be prohibited now. He may set his mind at rest because newspapers fall under the Press Union and are not at issue here.

What about Scope?

I think the hon. member really used a ridiculous example.

The hon. member for Vereeniging referred to the arbitrary powers and the powers of review which exist. Consequently I shall not repeat that. We have stated our standpoint in this connection. There we have clear evidence of the way in which the existing Act operated, an Act which these hon. gentlemen have also mistrusted from start to finish. We have now even mitigated the existing Act. I know that the hon. member for Edenvale has difficulties in respect of the Bill, namely that we want to administer it in a certain spirit, but that this is not written into the Bill. This is all I want to tell the hon. member. When it comes to the question of “grossly”, too, I have the problem of defining it in an Act. I readily concede to the hon. member that this is not so easy. However, there is also the spirit and the attitude with which one can undertake something and I can tell the hon. member that this, too, can be measured by the performance of the Publications Board under the existing legislation.

Before putting the amendments, I should like to announce a very important change in connection with the method of voting. Under the practice followed in the past in the case of proposed insertions in respect of which members of the Opposition had voted “Aye”, members had to cross the floor of the House when a division was called. In order to obviate this procedure, I have decided, for the convenience of the Committee of the whole House, that when members of the Opposition vote “Aye” in the case of proposed insertions, such members will remain in their seats when a division is called.

I shall now go on to put the amendments.

First amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived.

Please record the objection of the official Opposition.

Please record the objection of the Progressive Party, too.

Second amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived.

Please record the objection of the official Opposition.

Please record the objection of the effective Opposition.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is a member allowed to make a joke of a division?

Order! The objections will be recorded in the Minutes.

Third amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived.

Please record the objection of the official Opposition.

Please record the objection of the Progressive Party, too.

Fourth amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived.

Please record the objection of the only Opposition.

It will be recorded in the Minutes as well as the objection of the Progressive Party.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—84: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; 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.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller. H.; Mills, G. W.; 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.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11:

Sir, clause 11 makes provision in regard to applications for adjudication by the committees and for the manner in which the adjudications will be handled. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can hear me. I want to deal with the amendments on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers.

Order! Hon. members must not converse aloud.

I propose to deal with these amendments and then move them because the hon. member is otherwise committed this evening.

Sir, the first amendment is the deletion of subclause (1)(b) of clause 11 of the Bill which is before us. This clause deals with the procedure which is to be adopted by the directorate firstly in regard to requests which it receives from the public at large, from the Mother Grundies who submit documents and objects to be looked at by the committees. Subclause (1)(b) places another obligation upon the directorate and that is that it may of its own accord cause to be submitted for investigation any other publication to a committee for its decision. The principles there are accepted in regard to the functions of the directorate, but one wonders whether the directorate should burden itself by accepting, firstly, the responsibility of causing investigations to be undertaken and, secondly, whether it is desirable that it should be able to act mero motu. I believe from the records that we have been given in this House in reply to questions over a number of years show that the committees, or the censor boards which now exist, have been sufficiently loaded with work by those members of the public who have themselves submitted documents for investigation. I believe that by including the provisions of clause 11 (2)(b) the hon. the Minister is imposing upon the directorate a responsibility which it cannot possibly discharge. Any publication which is considered by the general public to be obscene or to be undesirable will cause the directorate to be attacked as to why it did not itself ensure that that particular publication was vetted by the censorship committees. I believe that this burden is an intolerable one and for that reason I wish to move—

I want to come now to my next point and that is the procedure which is laid down in regard to what the committee has to do once it has received, from the directorate a request by some member of the public that a publication be examined. I cannot understand why in introducing legislation into this House, the Government makes use of every possible opportunity to offend against the normal, accepted principles and practices that apply in this country. Why on earth we should have legislation before us the principle of which is that the committee should examine these particular matters that are submitted and then insert a provision stating that it should do so without hearing any person whatsoever, is something I simply cannot understand. This matter was dealt with very fully by an interdepartmental committee. What is the situation we have now? Let us say that Madam X desires the decision of the committee on a certain publication. Let us use as an example the periodical mentioned by the hon. Deputy Minister, namely Playboy. Let us assume that Madam X wants the committee to have a look at Playboy. In terms of the provisions of clause 10 she could send the publication through to the directorate with the request that it be considered by the committee. The directorate will then have to submit this periodical to the committee and the committee must then examine the publication or object or copy submitted to it and, without hearing any person, decide whether that publication or object or edition is undesirable in its opinion. Once it has done this it must inform the director of its decision and the reasons for it. I cannot understand why this should be done without hearing any person. Does this mean that the committee pulls down its hood and puts on its blinkers and then sits quietly in solitude to examine this publication or object in order to decide whether or not it offends against the principle of this Bill? The interdepartmental committee considered this matter and I should like to inform hon. members here of what the interdepartmental committee had to say. I cannot understand why the majority of the members on the commission should have departed from the laudable sentiments expressed by this interdepartmental committee, which had this to say:

What are their findings? They say this:

The committee goes on to deal with this point and states:

In conclusion, the inter-departmental committee says—

Sir, I would like one of the members who signed the majority report of this commission to tell me why they felt it was necessary to depart from this. There is no indication that they had a vast mass of representations that they should depart from this principle. I am sure this commission was in exactly the same position as the inter-departmental committee, in other words, that the vast mass of representations were that one should adopt the normal procedure and that people should be given an opportunity to state their objections. Sir, I might be the distributor of Playboy in South Africa, to which I have referred the hon. the Minister, and Madam X has gone along to say that this is a disgusting publication, that it is undesirable, and without my being informed, without my having been given an opportunity to say a single word, this committee will sit and decide whether or not this is an undesirable publication. The hon. the Minister will say to me, “Oh yes, but then you can appeal afterwards.” Sir, that is not the way in which one starts to apply a law; one does not start by breaching basic principles and then say, “You can put it right because you can appeal later on”, and that unfortunately is what is being provided for in this particular Bill. I therefore move the amendment as printed in the name of the hon. member for Von Brandis, as follows—

In other words, that we accept and apply the normal principles in dealing with objections and complaints in circumstances such as those provided for in this clause.

I would like on behalf of the hon. member for Sea Point to move the following amendment ...

Has he defected so soon?

... but before doing so, I would like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point for obvious and very good reasons, which I do not propose to repeat now.

I now move as an amendment—

Our reason for proposing this amendment is simply this: We believe that it is essential for this committee, when it turns down an application, to give the full reasons for doing so. I think there are two reasons why this is essential. The first is that such reasons, when they are given in full and not simply dismissed as being in accord with the requirements of the law, can constitute guidance for the future. Unless the reasons are given in full, this kind of guidance is not going to be available for people who want to base any future action on what has happened in the past. Sir, in addition to giving an explanation to those people whose application has been turned down, or who have suffered some kind of reversal, this will constitute a body of precedent which I think is important. Secondly, Sir, I think it will be a salutary reminder to any committed to know that its reasons are in fact going to be scrutinized by members of the public. In other words, I think whatever temptation there might be for it to deal lightly with a situation like this will be resisted if it knows that it is going to have to stand the scrutiny of public examination. Sir, I am not going to say any more. It seems to me to be a fairly reasonable request to make and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accede to it.

The hon. member for Green Point has raised two matters. The one concerns the power of the directorate to cause, of its own accord, a publication or an object to be submitted to a committee. He asked why this is necessary. I want to refer him to the findings, on page 15, paragraph 28, in the majority report of the commission, in which attention is drawn to a serious shortcoming in the way the present legislation is operating. I am not going to quote all that is stated there. On page 16, the commission comments further in this connection. This is a shortcoming that has been felt to exist for a long time, i.e. that it takes too long before many of these publications which are, in fact, obviously undesirable, are submitted to a committee by the public. The directorate should then have the right to do so. They are not going to become snoopers, as the hon. member wants to suggest. They are not going to try to inundate committees and themselves with work, but if an obvious case does occur, they must have the right—and this side of the House is in favour of it—to take the initial steps to have something of this nature submitted to the committee for is decision. This is a shortcoming which has been felt to exist in the existing legislation and we should like to rectify this shortcoming.

The second matter concerns the decision of a committee without hearing any person when conducting this examination. The only consideration here is that it must be possible to take steps speedily. If a publication is not undesirable there will be no problems. They take a decision and such publication becomes available. On the other hand, if the publication is undesirable, a decision is taken quickly. Such a publication is not allowed to be distributed, not as so often happens at the moment when an edition is sold out completely before the board comes along with a decision. That is the only reason and it cuts both ways, because even a publication which is desirable may be delayed unneccessiraly from coming on the market when evidence has to be heard.

And if the decision is the wrong one?

If the decision is the wrong one, we have the further provision that an appeal may be lodged against such a decision.

But the damage will have been done.

But who says there will be any damage if such a publication does not come on to the market? Surely, that decision was correct from the start. What we are concerned with here, is the question of being able to act speedily, and I do not think such a great deal of damage can be done as the hon. members want to suggest.

The hon. member for Parktown, on behalf of the hon. member for Sea Point, asked for full reasons to be furnished. Committees do furnish reasons, but not in detail, because if what is submitted to them is obviously rubbish and is rejected by them—take for example comics printed on paper of inferior quality—and they are required to submit a full report on that as well, it would really amount to a waste of time ... But even their decision will not be so briefly set out that no person will be able to understand what it is all about. A reasonable report will therefore be submitted, a report which is fairly understandable, even if it is set out rather briefly. But if a full report is asked for, an appeal will have to be lodged. Then such a brief report will, however, be supplemented more fully if an aggrieved party feels that it requires full reasons. This is mainly the reason.

But he will first have to lodge an appeal?

Yes, he will first have to lodge an appeal.

First amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

On second amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—79: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; 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.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. M. de Villiers negatived.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, our attitude to this clause is exactly the same as the one we adopted in the case of clause 11. I just want to add one brief argument, which is that if the appeal board is compelled to furnish the full reasons for any decision that has been made, we cannot see why a committee—i.e. an inferior body—cannot do so either. I think I should say no more than that we, as in the previous case, feel very strongly about this. The hon. the Deputy Minister said they would furnish reasons to a reasonable extent, or fairly full reasons, but we have no guarantee on that score. We should very much like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us why it is not considered necessary for a committee to do so as well. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will meet us in this case. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the committees are going to handle a great many more cases and this provision will therefore facilitate their activities to a certain extent. The appeal board has to furnish full reasons because they are setting a precedent which will form the basis of future action. These are the main reasons. As I say, the committees will not get away with it by not furnishing any reasons at all. However, what does the hon. member mean by “full”? I find it difficult to understand what the hon. member means.

Will they furnish any reasons?

Yes, they will furnish reasons.

They are not simply going to say: “The Act does not say so”?

No, they furnish reasons. It is laid down that reasons have to be furnished. They cannot say: “The Act says so”. They have to furnish reasons, but not detailed reasons. The board may do so after an appeal has been lodged.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) In line 44, after “Gazette” to insert “or, if the decision in question was not thus made known, within thirty days from the date on which the person who made the application in question was informed by the director of that decision”; and
2. (2) to omit the words after“of” where it occurs for the first time a line 58 up to and including “(1)” in line 62 and to substitute “the period, within which a person referred to in subsection (1) may appeal against that declaration, prohibition or decision, unless before the expiry of that period any such person”.

The proposed amendments merely serve to supplement and to substitute, as it is not necessary for all the decisions of a committee as to why a publication s undesirable to be made public in the Government Gazette. The decisions of the committee which are not made public in the Government Gazette are in respect of a subsequent edition of a publication found to be undesirable and of which subsequent editions are not allowed to be published, except on permit. In the second case it concerns an edition of a publication or publications which are published by a particular publisher and which are not allowed to be imported except on the authority of a permit, as is also laid down in certain clauses.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must help the hon. the Deputy Minister out of his misery and just tell him that we will support and accept the two amendments which he has just moved.

I would very much like to be able to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we will support and accept this clause but I am afraid that that is impossible. I am afraid we have to tell him that we cannot support this clause because, for the first time in this Bill we have the provision that if a committee has taken certain decisions, declarations, etc., ...

I think enough has been said during the Second Reading debate for the hon. the Deputy Minister to know that we are implacably opposed to any idea of an appeal board, a board whose members are totally dependent on the goodwill of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. We have made it quite clear that we believe that any decision made by the directorate or by a committee—no matter by whom—should be subject to appeal to the courts of the land. We believe that the highest authority in this land is the Supreme Court, and we believe that it is the inherent right of every citizen of this country that he should have free access to that Supreme Court in every matter, and that it should not be curtailed in any way, not by any legislation, whether implicit or in fact. We are totally opposed to such a curtailment, and for that reason we will vote against this clause.

But, Sir, there is another aspect to this matter, too. If I may briefly refer to clause 14, you will find that in the case where a committee makes a decision that a publication or an object is in fact not undesirable, that it is acceptable and should be allowed to be published or displayed, the hon. the Minister may at any time direct the appeal board to reconsider that decision. But there is no similar provision in this clause. In other words, what we are being asked to pass here tonight, is a clause which provides for the following: If the board makes a verkrampte decision and decides that an object or publication is undesirable, the Minister has no say whatsoever. No matter how verlig the hon. the Minister may be, he cannot take any action at all; nor could that hon. Deputy Minister. If the powers are delegated to him, he can take no action whatsoever if this board gives a verkrampte decision. But according to the next clause, if the board takes a verligte decision and decides that something is fine and can be published, the verkrampte Minister steps in and says: “Whoa! The appeal board must have a look at it! We cannot have this.” He sets himself up now as the protector of the morals of the State. But it does not happen in this clause at all. So, those of us who would like to see that publication which was mentioned just now, Playboy, cannot go to the Minister and say, “You must now ask the appeal board to have a look at this matter, because we would like to see it”. Why is that provision left out?

But I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister another question. [Interjection.] It is suggested, Sir, that I should give Penthouse a break!

Are you advertising?

No, I do not sell either. According to clause 14, as well as other clauses in this Bill, where an appeal is noted by the directorate, the person concerned must be notified. In fact, in case there should be an omission, the hon. the Deputy Minister has an amendment on the Order Paper to provide that the directorate shall advise the person concerned, the person who has an interest in the publication, object or film concerned. But we find that in this clause such a provision is omitted. There is no provision that in the event of the directorate noting an appeal, the person who has in the first place submitted the object or publication for consideration, or a person who has any direct financial interest in the publication, should be notified. Now I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us if this is an oversight. Or is it an omission? Is it deliberate, or is it by chance? I wonder why he is not going to compel the directorate in this case to notify the person concerned. Sir, as I have said, I regret that I cannot accept this clause, and we will vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, we in this party, too, obviously are implacably opposed to the idea of an appeal board as a substitute for the only body which should adjudicate in situations of this nature, in other words, the courts of the land. However, under the circumstances, there is nothing we can do about that; so we want to try to improve the machinery that is provided here. The object of this amendment is simply to widen the scope of those who may appeal. We simply cannot understand why this is confined to people with financial interest only. That is why we want to broaden the scope and include—

This seems to me to be completely reasonable. The situation at the moment is that the only people who can appeal are the directorate, the person who made the application himself and somebody who has a direct financial interest. Previously there were four categories of people who could appeal. The first was anyone in charge of any public entertainment or intended public entertainment; secondly, the importer of goods referred to in section 113(3) of the Customs and Excise Act; thirdly, any person who has in terms of section 8(3) submitted a specified edition of a publication or object to the board; and fourthly—this is the provision which seems to have been dropped—any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the board in terms of section 8(1). Why has this been dropped? Why is it narrowed down to people who have a financial interest? It seems to me that it is possible that cases may arise where people with no financial interest whatsoever may really feel aggrieved by a decision. Why should they be prevented from lodging an application? I can think of many categories of interest that are concerned, in the scientific, religious, political, educational, cultural fields; in all these categories there may be individuals who really feel aggrieved by this but who are prevented by the restrictive nature of this clause from lodging an appeal. I cannot see what the purpose of this is. Surely it is a simple, basic right that one ought to give to people who feel legitimately aggrieved by a decision of the board, the right of appeal. The courts are no longer involved. Why then narrow the scope of the possibilities open to people in this already narrow context? The situation might arise where a man has written an article without any financial return. Let us take a purely imaginary case; let us assume that the hon. member for Waterberg writes an article for Wits Wits for which he is not paid. Then somebody damns it because he believes that the hon. member’s standpoint is too logical and rational. The hon. member will have no financial interest; he will have no right to appeal and will be very upset. We need not take it any further than that, Sir.

It will be a very hooded article.

You are correct, it will be a very hooded article. It seems to me illogical and unfair to reduce the scope to the extent that it is reduced in this Bill. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that we are making a reasonable request. I should imagine that he is afraid that he will be flooded by requests by cranks, but to me it seems that this is a tiny risk to run. You must give the opportunity to people who really feel that they have a legitimate case, to appeal. They are already going to feel very bitter about the fact that their right of going to the courts has been denied them. Why take this further and add this deprivation?

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown developed his entire argument around those people who are supposed to feel aggrieved by a decision of a committee. He most probably referred to section 14 of the existing Act. He suggested that there are four categories of persons who were able to appeal to the court in the past in terms of section 14 of the existing Act. The hon. member misinterpreted the legislation. There are only three categories of persons. There are those in charge of a public entertainment and those concerned with the importation of goods and those in terms of section 8(3). Then one finds the little word “and”—“and who is aggrieved by a decision of the board”. In other words, no fourth category of aggrieved persons exists. There are only those three categories of aggrieved persons already mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). It is these three categories of persons who must feel aggrieved because we have the little word “and” standing there. If the hon. member therefore appeals to the existing legislation his entire argument collapses.

What about “or any person who is aggrieved”?

It does not say “or any person ...” there. I shall quote it to the hon. member in English—

That is paragraph (a)—

That is paragraph (b) and—

That means aggrieved by a decision of the board—

This again is the party who is involved in the transaction. This is the person who is involved, who is an interested person in terms of our law as it stands at the moment.

I am afraid the hon. member has misinterpreted the Act and I think the categories of persons who are now able to lodge appeals to the appeal board is as wide, if not wider, as those who were able to lodge appeals to the Supreme Court in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I feel sorry for the hon. new member who has just been called to order for passing in front of me while I am speaking. At this time of the evening, however, this sort of thing may perhaps liven up the House even if it does not succeed in livening up the debate.

The hon. member who spoke on that side of the House said that the Opposition were implacably opposed to appeal boards. He gave a few reasons for this. Most other members on that side have also advanced this argument. When one hears this type of argument, one tries to call in a competent witness to see what that witness has to say about the system of an appeal board and a committee hearing a case in regard to a book or publication. I have here a very interesting letter that was sent to me and I should like to quote one or two of the paragraphs in it because they are very short.

Who wrote it?

I shall come to that in a moment. You will be very interested to hear who wrote it. The writer of this letter is one of South Africa’s best-known authors, not only in South Africa but overseas as well. He sent me some cuttings from the New York Times. One is aghast to read these articles appearing in those newspapers, not to speak of one’s feelings if one were to have to read them in our local Press. In referring to these articles, the writer of this letter states—

[Interjections.] It is interesting to hear the reaction of hon. members opposite. There will be more reactions from them when they know who the writer of this letter is. He continues—

The writer of this letter is Stuart Cloete.

Why were his books banned?

The hon. member for Griqualand East has probably heard of Stuart Cloete but I do not think this knowledge is reciprocal. I am quite sure that Stuart Cloete would not know who the hon. member for Griqualand East was. The point that I want to make is that hon. members on that side of the House keep on talking about competent witnesses and competent people to discuss the question of censorship. I talked to Mr. Stuart Cloete; in fact, I spoke to him today. I asked him whether I could use this letter of his which I received about a week ago. He said that he had two provisos. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton might want to listen to this.

I am listening.

He said he had two provisos. The one was that reasons should be given when a book or publication or whatever it might be, is banned. This law adheres to that; reasons are given. That is the one point. Then he made a second point, coming to the appeal board.

Deal with the clause.

The hon. member must not get excited; I will come to the clause. Perhaps the hon. member always looks like that.

I am not excited; I just want to know ...

Sir, coming to clause 13, which we are discussing now, he mentioned a second proviso, and that is that the appeal board must be a different body to the committee which submitted the book to the directorate for banning. Those were his two provisos but he said that if those two provisos were complied with he felt that it was absolutely necessary to have censorship.

Will you tell me why Turning Wheels written by him was banned?

Stuart Cloete says here that he does not write pornography. Does the hon. member agree with that?

Why was the book banned then?

What is the relevancy of that?

Sir, the relevancy is that he was not given adequate reasons as to why his book was banned. Here we have the man who wrote Turning Wheels and he wants censorship applied. Surely we are dealing here with a competent expert ...

Which clause are you dealing with?

The hon. member is very interested in the clause. This is clause 13 and it deals with the appeal board. Sir, this author also says that one of the prerequisites for censorship is that there must be an appeal board, and if hon. members opposite want to argue with a man like Stuart Cloete about this type of legislation, they are free to do so in the Press. I fully support this clause 13. [Interjection.] The hon. member over there says that that side of the House is implacably against an appeal board. Sir, I feel that the discussion on verligte reasons or verkrampte reasons has taken us right away from the seriousness of this legislation. [Interjection.] Sir, if one wants to be a bit lighthearted at this time of the evening one can be, but then one should be in the right place. I feel that an appeal board is one of the best institutions that can be introduced into this type of law, and I am sure that having the backing of a man like Stuart Cloete, as it does, this legislation must be correct.

Mr. Chairman, may I just be permitted to say that if the hon. member who has just sat down thought he was talking about clause 13, then he was talking drivel.

You are now reflecting on the Chair.

Sir, there has been provision for an appeal all along the line. There was a right of appeal to the Supreme Court in Stuart Cloete’s time.

Why did he not appeal?

He says that he be lieves in the principle of an appeal board. The principle of an appeal to the Supreme Court has been in existence all these years. The hon. member says that Stuart Cloete feels that the right of appeal to an appeal board is one of the prerequisites for censorship. We did not say that the right of appeal was not necessary. What we are discussing here is the machinery that is being established here for an appeal; that is what we object to, and that is what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about.

Sir, I just want to make one small point because of its relevance to the following clause. Subclause (3)(a) provides that when a notice of appeal is given the chairman of the appeal board may in his discretion suspend the declaration. Sir, this differs from the normal procedure in appeals. Normally when an appeal is lodged the decision is suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. I want to make that point to indicate that the motivation for the establishment of this appeal board is based on some erroneous background, which I hope to be able to deal with when we come to clause 14. At this stage I just want to say that we cannot accept this clause because in this respect as well as in many other respects the establishment of an appeal board in this clause indicates some form of motivation which is extremely unhealthy.

I cannot let the statements of the hon. member for Caledon go unchallenged. I think he has this thing wholly wrong, and I do not quite want to allege it but I believe that Mr. Stuart Cloete has been misled somewhere along the line. Stuart Cloete has suffered at the hands of this Nationalist Government.

He has become a Nat.

I believe he has become a Nat, but I am not prepared to say anything about it now. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must please cease interjecting.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he told Mr. Cloete that the constitution of this appeal board which is to be established is such that there is no judge on it? Did he tell Mr. Stuart Cloete that this appeal board was going to be there wholly at the whim of the hon. the Minister; that the appointment of the members of this appeal board would be at the instance of the Minister? Did he tell Mr. Stuart Cloete that when he as writer appealed to this appeal board, he will not be allowed to adduce evidence before that appeal board? Did he tell Mr. Stuart Cloete that even so, not being allowed to adduce evidence, this appeal board would make its decision in some dark room in Pretoria, that it would not be in the glare of publicity with the Press or the public being present, but that nobody would be allowed to be present? I am sorry, but I cannot accept that Mr. Cloete wrote that letter knowing the full facts of what is contained in this clause. I believe that this is an iniquitous Bill. This clause we are dealing with gives us the first chance we have had in the Committee Stage of voting against the establishment of an appeal board such as is envisaged by the Minister, and we will vote against it.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that he said in his first speech that the person lodging an appeal would not be notified by the directorate. Provision for this is, in fact, being made under clause 13(2)(c). He will, in fact, be notified apart from another notice appearing in the Government Gazette. The hon. member also asked why it cannot be written into the Bill here that the Minister in charge may ask for a case to be referred back. As clause 14 reads at present, the directorate acts as the watch-dog over the interests of, for example, the publisher. In case a publication has been declared undesirable and the fact that it has been so declared is obviously absurd, the directorate may take steps.

But what about clause 14?

We shall come to clause 14 and we can then discuss it, but we are dealing with clause 13 now. I am replying to clause 13 now. I want to thank the hon. member for Caledon for the interesting information. [Interjections.] I should like to discuss the matter with him, because I wonder whether it was not a case of hon. members on that side of the House speaking their minds without knowing what is said in rest of the letter. The hon. member for Jeppe will also do well to read the clause dealing with suspension. The chairman of the appeal board can suspend it at his discretion.

Yes, but that is something quite different.

It does not matter. If it is obvious to the chairman that he is dealing with pornography, he will not indicate that it is. He will merely say that such publication may no longer be distributed and then the matter will rest there until he notifies the publishers of his final decision. What is wrong with that?

What kind of appeal board is this? This is something new in our history.

Perhaps it is something new in our history. We are new ourselves, considering the course of history. This is my reply with regard to the argument raised by the hon. member.

In conclusion, I come to the hon. member for Parktown as far as this clause is concerned. The hon. member for Parktown feels that any person who is aggrieved, must be able to do something. The major problem is that any person who does not like control, or censorship as that side of the House prefers to refer to it sometimes, will be able to lodge a complaint if a publication has been declared undesirable. Since we do not want to allow any person who has objections to lodge an appeal, the right to appeal is only afforded to the person submitting a publication or object and to those with a direct interest. If we do not do it in this way, it may happen that any person who dislikes control would lodge an appeal should he feel aggrieved. Hon. members can imagine what would happen if this were the case. A moment ago an hon. member said that a few “cranks” would want to do this. It is possible that there are more of them at large.

Is there no golden mean?

I do not see any golden mean. The closest we can come to rendering this machinery at least feasible, is to put it the way we have put it here. The person with something genuine to submit has a real interest in it, as has the person with a financial interest in it. We cannot grant the right of appeal to any person who feels himself aggrieved. Such persons may then, as I have said, simply lodge an appeal because they dislike control. If we have to frame the provision in this way, it would be far too wide.

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

Amendments moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Aucampt, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; 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.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G de V.; 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.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P.D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

NOES—38: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; 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.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing in my name, as follows—

1. (1) In line 27, to omit “11(3)” and to substitute “11(2)”; and
2. (2) to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (3):

The first amendment is a textual improvement and the second relates to a motion of the hon. member for East London City in connection with which we are introducing a re-wording of the subsection to bring the position of the person making representations into line with that of the appellant. The person making the representations will now also have the right to appear before the appeal board or to be represented by his legal representative.

Mr. Chairman, the House is aware that we intend to oppose this clause completely on the same principle that we opposed the previous clause. Here we have the question of the motivation for the appeal board which I dealt with earlier. In clause 13, as I pointed out, quite an unusual form of machinery with regard to an appeal authority is set up. The chairman of the appeal board has the right at his discretion to suspend the decision of the committee. In other words, he has the right to suspend the publication pending the appeal. Normally the decision of the committee concerning a certain publication would not affect the publication during the course of the appeal. In clause 14(1)(b) the Minister is given the right of appeal but the wording of the provision is what I disapprove of particularly. It indicates again the peculiar motivation for establishing the appeal board. Instead of stating as it does in clause 14(l)(a) that the directorate “may” appeal to the appeal board, it says:

It does not say that the Minister shall have a right of appeal to the appeal board against any decision, but that he may “direct” the appeal board to reconsider it. It is this peculiar, positive form of direction which I find repugnant because it is quite unusual and abnormal in dealing with questions of appeal. The Minister would seem to be the overall authority and, as I have pointed out earlier, he seems to have his hand on almost every aspect of the work of the committees, of the appeal board—in fact, on every facet of the machinery according to the requirements of the Bill. In this particular situation as well, he has the right to direct that a decision be reconsidered. I say that that indicates immediately that the appeal board will not have the status or confidence of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has endeavoured to reassure this House over the last few days. I think that the whole wording here should be reconsidered if, unfortunately, this clause is to go through. I think that in the interests of the ... I was going to say “credibility”, but I do not know whether that is really the term I should use, but certainly in the interests of the Minister’s own assurances to the public a clause which states that he has the right to direct an appeal board to reconsider its decision needs some rewording if we are to believe at any time that this appeal board is going to function as an appeal board in the truest sense of the term and as an appeal board which in any way conforms to what we expect and understand to be a board of appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) To add at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) “and shall forthwith notify such persons by registered post, addressed to their last known addresses, of such appeal or direction.”; and
2. (2) to add at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) “and may appear before the appeal board or be represented by his legal representative when the appeal board considers such appeal or direction and shall have the right to give or adduce evidence.”.

I would like to say that I am disappointed that more hon. members on the other side of the House have not spoken in this debate. I have been taking note of what has been happening and during the course of the discussion on the last four clauses of this Bill only one hon. member on the other side has spoken. I am not counting the hon. member for Caledon because I believe he was in the wrong debate. I am very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister has followed our lead. Our amendment was published in the Order Paper on 16 August and we find that on 23 August the hon. the Deputy Minister published his amendment, which follows very closely the suggestions that we make in the second leg of the amendment which I am now moving. But unfortunately, the Deputy Minister’s suggestion is not acceptable to our side at all, since it only goes half-way. And it only goes half-way, because, first of all, it restricts the right to appear to the person who submitted representations only, in terms of clause 36(3)(a). Secondly, it only grants discretionary rights to give or adduce evidence before the appeal board itself. Our amendment provides that the person or the legal representative may give evidence and may, in addition, adduce evidence, without being restricted by waiting for the appeal board to use its discretion in order to grant those rights.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal shortly, first of all, with the first leg of the amendment. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to say, as he did on the last clause, that the question of notification is covered by publication in the Gazette. It is, in fact, laid down in clause 14 that notification shall be given in the Gazette but we on this side maintain that it is absolutely vital that an interested party be notified, as the amendment reads, “by registered post”. I will give the reason for that contention. First of all, it seems to me that an anomaly exists here in the Bill, because when a committee makes a decision after a request, the Bill provides that the interested person shall be informed of the decision of the committee. That is when a matter is referred to a committee at the request of somebody, not when the committee is working mero motu on its own. This is provided for in clause 12(1). In other words, it means that when a person is specifically interested in a matter, he is notified of the decision of the committee. In terms of clause 14, an appeal to the appeal board lies in the discretion of the directorate or the Minister in respect of a specific publication or object. But there is no provision in clause 14 for notification to the person or persons concerned that an appeal has been lodged. Notification is also provided for in a further proposed amendment later on in this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself fills this lacuna by means of an amendment to clause 24, to the effect that the person who submitted a film in that particular case shall be notified in writing of an appeal. So I cannot see why it is that in this particular clause he is not prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that the parties concerned should be notified. I believe that this question of notification is part of the basic rules of natural justice. When a person’s rights are affected, he should be given a direct opportunity of meeting the point to be raised in respect of those particular rights. This aspect is recognized by giving the right in clause 14(3)(b) to a party to make written representations. It means then that a party is given the right to make written representations, but he is only notified by a notice in the Gazette. It seems to me that this is really not a genuine opportunity for a party to make written representations if you are not going to inform him directly of the fact that an appeal has been lodged. I believe that this is an omission in the Bill before us, and that the way in which we have framed our amendment, viz. by adding—

remedies this omission. Mr. Chairman, the second leg of the amendment is far more basic in that it raises implications with regard to the whole form of this body, namely the appeal board itself and not only its form but the nature of its functions. I believe it to be correct to look at the background of the intention and I would like firstly to refer to the report of the commission of inquiry, to page 27 of the report, paragraph 55, where they say—

In other words, the commission of enquiry envisaged this board of appeal as an administrative legal body. Let us see what the hon. the Minister said in his second reading speech as to how he considered this body would operate and what its actual form would be. In Hansard of 12 August 1974, col. 485, the hon. the Minister stated as follows—he did not in fact make a direct reference as to the form of this body but one can infer from what he said that he meant too that it was a court of law—

Mr. Chairman, let us have a look at what the hon. member for Vereeniging thinks about the function and the form of this particular body. In the same Hansard (col. 600) he stated as follows what he considered to be the form of this body—

In other words, he was equating the appeal board with a court of law.

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wondered whether we could hear from the hon. the Deputy Minster at this stage. Perhaps he might prefer to hear the end of the argument of the hon. member for East London City and I think I should give him a chance to continue his speech.

I am very grateful for the chance given me by my colleague, Mr. Chairman. I want to go on and ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whether he agrees, in the light of the discussion he had with this eminent legal practitioner, that the form and the function of this appeal board are in fact those of a type of administrative quasi-judicial body. He does agree. I believe that he is right and I believe that this body is in fact a quasi-judicial body. What is the definition of a quasi-judicial body? It has been defined as being a body with administrative functions, entrusting an independent discretion to the authority concerned. I want to take it a little further. I believe that the form of this body itself is such that it operates in the nature of a court of first instance and not in the nature of an appeal court. If you look at clause 11 of this Bill you will find that when a committee operates it takes its decisions without referring to any evidence whatsoever. It may take a décision without referring to any evidence whatsoever and it is in fact simply a decision-taking body. If this is a quasi-judicial body operating on a similar basis as a court of first instance, then it is absolutely vital that the basic precepts of natural justice, namely the operation of the audi alteram partem rule, should apply to all appeals made to the appeal board. The hon. member for Vereenining mentioned prof. Marius Wiechers. He follows this line and the hon. member will know this. The rule is basically that a subject who may be adversely affected by an administrative decision must be given an opportunity of stating his case. In a series of decided cases in this country this rule has virtually become a presumption based on the principle of fairness. In other words, a matter must be properly investigated and all parties should also be afforded the opportunity of putting their case.

Let us go back to the amendments of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He wants clause 36(3Xa) to apply in regard to this particular clause. However, clause 36(3)(a) refers to “any person who appeals”, and the amendment that I am moving here is not only applicable to any person who appeals, but also to any person who has an interest in that matter. Secondly, there is no right given to the persons involved to give evidence or adduce evidence except at the discretion of the board. We are totally against this because we believe that the right to give evidence, as I have just said, is a basic precept of the rule of natural justic and it must be accorded to all appellants. We believe that this cuts right across the rule and I am sure that hon. members opposite who are legally trained will not countenance ...

Quite wrong.

... the breach of this rule. I am sure that they will, after they have heard the hon. the Deputy Minister agree to the amendments which I am now moving, and be very pleased to support this plea.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has delivered a very interesting dissertation, but his conclusion is completely wrong, because the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment is doing exactly what he requests.

No.

Let me just explain to the hon. member. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment states that “The provisions of section 36(3)(a) shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of a person who submitted representations to the appeal board under this subsection”. Who will the person be who has submitted representations to the appeal board under this subsection? It will be the person described in clause 14(3)(b), and I quote—

This is followed by the important words:

In other words, it is not only the person who has instituted proceedings, but also the person who has a financial interest, who can make representations.

You are completely wrong.

Does the hon. member agree that the person who has a financial interest can also make representations in terms of the provisions of clause 14(3)(b)?

Sorry, but the hon. member is completely wrong.

If the hon. member cannot agree with that, I do not know. That is what I have quoted to him and that is what stands in the legislation. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment comes along and provides that a person who has a financial interest and who can also make representations in terms of clauses 14(3)(a) and (b), is also subject to clause 36(3)(a). Clause 36(3)(a) provides that that person is entitled to that, and I quote—

Go further.

He may not lead evidence except if the appeal board allows him to do so, but there is a reason for that. Hon. members will remember that in my Second Reading speech I clearly underlined that this appeal board is equipped with the privileges of a court, although it is not a court. We want to make the procedure pliable, we want to make it quick and cheap. We also want to make the appeal board accessible to people who cannot afford legal representation. Clause 14, read in conjunction with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposed amendment and in conjunction with clause 36, offers exactly what is being offered by the amendment of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I have to continue arguing with the hon. member for Vereeniging over the floor, but I do want to put him completely right. If he reads the amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister, he will see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has asked for a further paragraph to be added after paragraph (b) of subsection (3). This further paragraph reads—

This is the whole point. Those provisions read—

It restricts it very obviously to any person who appeals to the appeal board—

Do you not know what mutatis mutandis means?

Furthermore, paragraph (b) of clause 14(3) is completely on its own and it refers to any person who has a direct financial interest. The proposed paragraph (c) does not have such a reference. I therefore submit that the hon. ember’s argument is frivolous or that if there is an argument at all, it is fallacious. The amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister is not acceptable to this side.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If, in the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister, there is reference to “submitted representations to the appeal board under this subsection”, the proposed paragraph is surely referring to the whole subsection (3) . [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to link up with my colleague, the hon. member for Vereeniging. I really cannot understand what the hon. member for East London City’s difficulties are with the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not think the hon. member can read the words of the Bill properly. What this amendment means is that the provisions of clause 36(3)(a) are applicable mutatis mutandis to any person who makes representations to the appeal board in terms of the relevant subsection. Who makes these representations to the appeal board? The people who make representations are those mentioned in subsection (3) of clause 14. The paragraph which the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to have inserted is surely a paragraph additional to subsection (3). It will be (c) of subsection (3). I cannot understand the hon. member’s problem at all. All this amendment is saying is that all the privileges of the ordinary appellant can now also be obtained by this person who makes representation in terms of clause 14(3). He gets all those privileges which an ordinary appellant has in this specific case. I think it has been too long since the hon. member was last in practice.

I should like to broach another aspect which the hon. member also raised here. I am referring to the other leg of his amendment, i.e. that an interested party must receive notice. I compared that case here with the case where an appeal is lodged to the National Transport Commission against a decision of a local road transportation board. I consulted the Act to make sure I was not wrong. As regards this case, which is a comparable instance of two administrative bodies, the latter Act contains no provision requiring all these notifications, of which the hon. member spoke, having to be given. At the same time there is no provision in that Act for publication in the Gazette, as is provided in this Bill now before us. I think the hon. member is going a little far in expecting all these steps to be taken by the administration to protect interested parties. Any person who is interested in a particular decision will ensure that he obtains that decision. Any person who is in fact interested would ensure that he obtains the necessary information from the relevant Gazette. Here we have the example of a similar situation, as I have said, of the local road transportation boards and the National Transport Commission. There is no provision in that legislation for the kind of steps the hon. member wants here.

I should like to begin ...

Hurry up!

Unfortunately I cannot hurry up, but I shall not prolong my remarks unnecessarily either. The hon. member for Jeppe complained about the provision in this clause concerning the Minister’s power of direction which is being inserted here. We must understand the position in this light. This is in the case where a publication or object is not declared undesirable. That is what we are referring in clause 14. If I may put it in these terms, here the Minister is actually the general public’s sounding board. The hon. member for Jeppe may feel himself burdened by something which was not declared undesirable. In his opinion a wrong decision has been made. He feels that that publication is in fact undesirable. He may then also go and make a_ submission. However, if there is nation-wide pressure on the Minister from many members of the public, what must the Minister do? Must he simply ignore this?

He must lodge his appeal like the other people have to do.

The Minister is lodging an appeal, as it were. He directs the appeal body, the appeal board, asking them to review that matter. He is not telling those people they must change their decision. He is merely making another submission to that body. However, there is no instruction from the Minister that they must change their decision.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.