Mr. Chairman, when this debate was adjourned last night we were dealing with clause 14, the clause which provides for reconsideration by the appeal board of decisions to the effect that publications or objects are not undesirable. I think we made it quite clear last night to hon. members here and to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are utterly opposed to the provisions of this clause. Under clause 13 I think we also made it perfectly clear that we were totally opposed to the principle of an appeal to an appeal board. We claimed a division on that occasion but we will not continue to divide; we will simply register our objection as a token of the abhorrence with which we view provisions of this nature.

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

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

Second amendment moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

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

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

Clause 15:

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

1. (1) In line 51, to omit “13(2)(b)” and to substitute “13(2)(a)”; and
2. (2) in line 53 to omit “(a)” and to substitute “(b)”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, namely—

1. (1) In line 25, to omit “two years” and to substitute “one year”;
2. (2) to add the following proviso at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1):

1. (3) in line 39, to omit “without hearing any person,”.

The amendments propose, inter alia, that the words “without hearing any person” in line 37 be deleted. As the clause stands it means that a committee, on reviewing a decision it had taken earlier, may not hear anyone. I cannot understand why it is necessary to include this in the legislation. Could we not simply leave it to the judgment of a committee in this regard? Let them decide for themselves. They have an important job to do and if they believe it to be necessary for them to hear anyone, why impose this prohibition on them in the legislation? I think it is entirely unnecessary. I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask that those words be deleted. This does not require that they must necessarily hear an outsider, but only that the legislation does not prohibit it.

The next amendment is that in line 25, “two years” is deleted and replaced by “one year”. Here I ask that the period of two years which has to run before the case may be reconsidered, be changed to one year. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister why we feel it to be necessary to make the period shorter than two years. I have followed the banning lists which have been published in recent years from 1956, fairly faithfully. It is remarkable how often the existing Publications Board finds itself in the position where, a few months after it has taken a certain decision, it takes an amending decision. I want to mention another example to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He will know that there are certain provisions in the existing legislation which provide that where colour situations are involved, any “mixing” should be prohibited, particularly in a film. We saw cuts of such situations made by the existing Publications Board over the years and I must say that many of the situations were quite ridiculous. For example, there were situations where actors were performing together in a musical and came too close to each other. Those sections were then cut as being in conflict with the Act. When the Select Committee was sitting, we had evidence that one event caused the Publications Board to see this matter in an entirely different light. For example, I have the following evidence submitted to the Committee by Mrs. Theron. On page 67 (question 351) of the original evidence, the question was put to her whether there were things which she as a member of the Publications Board would have banned at an earlier stage, but which she would no longer ban. She gave this interesting reply: Yes, well, particularly as far as colour situations are concerned ... She then said the following—

In other words, if there were a photograph in a periodical in which White and Black were eating together then they banned that periodical. She went on to say—

The point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that a single state banquet changed their whole outlook in the space of a week, as it were, and changed the application of the section in question in the existing Act. Sir, if situations can change so rapidly merely as a result of the visit of a Black statesman to South Africa—because the Publications Board subsequently changed its whole policy—then I ask you why it is necessary, where the situation is so volatile, that we should have to wait two years; because it could very easily occur that in the application of the new Act a committee may consider that under the existing circumstances it has to impose a prohibition on a certain publication. But then in the space of a week one has a new situation such as the one we had on the occasion of the visit of President Banda, and if anyone wanted to ask for a review at that stage, he would have had to have waited two years before being able to do so, and it could well happen that it would emerge very clearly that in the interim there had been a change of opinion on the part of a particular committee. That is why I think that it would be better to provide that an applicant may ask for review of a decision after a year, instead of after two years. I think that this is quite reasonable. We can take it that if someone has a very poor case, he will not try to go back after one year; nor will he go back after two years. In fact, people will only go back if they think they have a good case, and it is on that basis that I proposed these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the amendments that he has put forward. Most of these amendments are very reasonable indeed and I am not going to talk for long on either of them because it seems to me that the request that has been made for the change will be heard by the hon. the Deputy Minister and I hope that he will be very reasonable this time. Sir, this is one of the few mitigating clauses in the whole Bill, because it does allow for some review. We hope very much that people will not have to wait for two years, but rather only for a period of one year before a decision is reviewed.

Sir, I want to speak just very briefly to the amendment which is printed in my name. The whole idea of a review, I think, should be that it is heard by people other than those who heard the matter for the first time, because if it is simply the same group of people, or a group made up of some of the people on the committee who made the original decision, it is hardly likely that they will change their minds even if the situation has changed. It seems to me that it would be far better for us to have a different committee altogether, and all I am asking in this amendment is that this be allowed in terms of this clause. I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I shall first reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. In view of the fact that committees are to review a decision on a publication after two years, he asks that these committees be allowed to hear the applicant. Our only reason for providing here “without hearing any person”, is to enable the committee to deal with the matter expeditiously. If one is going to allow people, when the committee has to make a decision and when the matter has to be dealt with expeditiously, to submit evidence, the review may become a long drawn out affair. What is more. Sir, this may not stop at the committee either; an appeal may possibly be lodged against the decision of a committee, which will mean a further delay before the party who feels that he has been aggrieved, reaches the appeal board. Sir, as a matter of interest, I should like to quote what Mr. Justice Marais said in his evidence—this does not concern the committee specifically—with regard to the question of disposing of a matter expeditiously when it was of real importance to do so. Mr. Justice Marais was referring to the Publications Board, but I believe that this is applicable to a committee as well (translation)—

This is also applicable here, i.e. that the committee should be able to give its decision with the utmost dispatch so that the aggrieved party may still be able to go to the body of appeal, where this will take somewhat longer.

Later on in his evidence Mr. Justice Marais referred to the question of dealing with matters expeditiously and said (translation)—

This goes to show how expeditiously even the committee will have to act. As regards the body of appeal, Sir, it is of course left to its discretion to decide whether it will in fact give the party concerned the opportunity of giving evidence.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister allow me to address him on this point before he proceeds?

Yes, certainly.

This is, of course, another of the hon. member’s turns to speak.

Yes, I understand. The hon. the Minister is labouring under a misapprehension, for this concerns the matter of review after two years have elapsed; it does not concern the ordinary decision taken by the committee in the first instance, and for that reason urgency is not relevant in this case. Secondly, I am not asking for an applicant to have the right to appear before the committee. If the words “without hearing any person” are deleted, the provision simply reads that the committee itself decides; it is left to the committee itself to decide whether it wants to regard a decision as a matter of urgency or whether it wants to call in someone, but this does not give somebody outside the right to claim that he be allowed to give evidence. We only want the committee itself—and that is after two years have elapsed, as the Bill stands—to have the right to hear someone or not.

Sir, I want to make a further addition in pursuance of the final remark by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member said that if a man had a weak case, he would not present it to the committee after two years. Sir, this is in fact what I fear. A man may possibly have a very weak case but still take it to the committee because he wants to cause an incident. Then the next person also comes along with his weak case and he, too, wants to cause an incident, and in this way the committees will be snowed up with work.

That is rather feeble.

I am quite sympathetic to the hon. member’s views, but I want to ask the hon. member to leave the clause as it is so that the Publications Board, as it is to be constituted in terms of this new legislation, may find its way, and then the necessary provision can be made if heaps of work are not going to be loaded upon these committees, as I am afraid will in fact be the case.

Then we shall have to amend the Act once again next year.

That does not matter, Mr. Chairman.

And the next year and the year after.

We can amend the Act next year. The hon. the Minister said he would amend the Act next year, if necessary.

The hon. member also asked for review to take place within a year and not only after two years. In this regard the hon. member referred to instances concerning films and, more specifically, to magazines, in respect of which only one situation had caused the Publications Board, as it operated in terms of the existing Act, to change its mind. Sir, this is so, but I think the crux here is that the norms according to which a committee takes its decision, are the norms of that day. Can we honestly accept that the general norms will simply change within a year; surely they are not so fleeting that they cannot remain for at least two years? I want to repeat that I fear the unnecessary work that will have to be done. There could possibly be a whole campaign to refer back to the committees what was prohibited two years before. If we were to shorten this period it would entail an enormous amount of unnecessary work.

Sir, I want to reply to the representations made by the hon. member for Pine-lands right away. I do not believe that it is necessary for us to make that addition, because it is highly improbable that the constitution of a committee to hear a case will be in exactly the same way identical to what it was two years previously. The lists of panelmember are supplemented by the Minister annually. As we know, some of these people’s names will be on those lists for a longer period since we should like to make use of their services for a longer period because of their knowledge, but I want to accept that it would be a strange phenomenon if after two years that same committee, constituted as before, were still to exist to have to decide on the same matter. In any event, even if the committee were to be constituted as it was when it took its decision two years before, then the committee of the day would still have to judge according to the norms applying at that time. Therefore, it need not necessarily have to confirm its previous decision. At that time it would have, to put it this way, a different set of rules applicable to it. Therefore, we have these two facts, i.e. we must, firstly, accept that its constitution would not be identical to what it was before—this is highly improbable—and, secondly, that it would have to judge according to the norms that would be generally applicable at the time.

Last night we dealt with this question of the right of a person to appear before the committee under clause 11. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we put forward then but I want to raise a point with the hon. the Deputy Minister which is worrying me, i.e. with regard to the inclusion of these words—which are peremptory—namely that without hearing any person the committee shall then reconsider this matter. Does this not conflict with clause 3 which we have already approved, whereby the committee can ask the directorate to obtain expert advice from an outside person? Surely, that is hearing some person outside the committee. I cannot suggest the answer but it seems to me that we are now landing up with two conflicting directives to the same committee—firstly that it must not hear anybody, while, secondly, we empower the directorate at the same time to obtain outside advice. I do not know the answer, as I say, but perhaps the Minister could consider this before we go further.

The hon. member for Green Point need not have that difficulty. We do not compel that committee to call in expert assistance. If that committee, as it is constituted, really has difficulty passing an opinion on the product before it, it may, of its own volition ...

But it may not.

I believe it may. That does not clash with clause 3. That is not my opinion on the matter.

The amendment by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout applies to that very point.

On the request of the committee it is referred to the directorate and the directorate may then consult experts.

Oh, now it has to go to the directorate?

It makes no difference because they work through the directorate, which is the administrative body. They ask people’s advice through the directorate if this should be necessary, but for the most part they will give their decisions without having to call in the assistance of an outside body or person. I really cannot see the hon. member’s difficulty.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has given his reply to the amendment I moved a moment ago but I find that the answer is not satisfactory. Firstly, he has suggested I am wrong in moving this amendment because it is very unlikely that the same committee will be operating after two years. But that almost gives direct support to the amendment before us because he agrees that it is not good that the same committee should be responsible for the reviewings. Sir, in his speech last week the hon. the Minister made it clear, as clear as one can be about something so unclear, that there are going to be many committees all over the country. I suggest that there may well be a committee in a small town and once they are entrenched my guess is that they will stay there as long as they can and are going to take on that work with great purpose and vigour and be a kind of watchdog for that area. It may well be that after two years the exact same committee will operate. Therefore it seems reasonable at least to suggest that a different committee be stipulated in terms of this clause. Secondly, the hon. the Deputy Minister suggests that even if this did happen, even if it was possible—he allows for that possibility—that the same committee would have to take into account new norms which may be operating at that time. But what new norms are these? It has been made very clear to us in clause 1 that under this broad scope of the Christian view of life those are the norms under which we are going to operate. It is very unlikely that after two years there is going to be a significant change. Therefore the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply makes my point far more strongly than I can, namely that it is very hard for someone to change his mind once he has given his view upon a certain matter. If a small committee, operating in a small town or in any part of South Africa, decides that a particular play, film, periodical or object of art is undesirable, they are simply not going to change their minds after two years; we find that it is so very hard for the hon. the Deputy Minister himself to change his mind.

The older they get, the more verkramp they get.

Sir, I would appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to allow this amendment if he believes, as he obviously does, that it is not good that the same committee should operate. Let us see some sign of greatness at last.

Mr. Chairman, the impression is being created here that this decision by a committee is the final decision. I do not know whether hon. members have read the whole clause. It would be wrong to create the impression that if such an appeal for a review were lodged, no reasoned appeal would be allowed. Although the clause provides that the committee shall reach its decision without hearing anybody, it does not say that the applicant for a review may not put in a fully detailed written application and that in that written application he may not give reasons why he is asking for a review.

In subsection 4 it is provided that if a committee has decided that an object is still undesirable, there may still be a further appeal to the appeal board. The appeal board can, if it regards it as necessary under the circumstances, hear reasons and invite witnesses to give reasons. Surely we must accept that the appeal board, which must give detailed reasons for its decisions, will be reasonable in its approach. If they were not to give reasons, then an arbitrary decision could possibly be taken, but they must give fully detailed reasons. Therefore they must obviously be reasonable in their approach.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised the further point that the review should take place in one year instead of within a period of two years. Sir, I am not referring to the hon. member, but if you offer the devil your small finger, he takes your whole hand. In the existing Act there is no provision for a review at any stage. In fact, contrary to the Act itself, after a certain period, normally five years, some reviews were given and some previous decisions were reversed. The commission has now recommended that a review be allowed after two years. We might be living in changing times, but we do not change in all respects so quickly that every single decision that has been taken must of necessity be reviewed within a year. Surely two years is a reasonable period. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has mentioned one specific instance, of the hon. the Prime Minister attending a banquet given by the President of another country. That is one case, but surely life in South Africa is not changing so rapidly that every single decision must of necessity be open for review after 12 months. Surely two years is a reasonable time within which a decision can be reviewed.

Then there is the other question, as to whether the committee which undertakes the review must necessarily be a completely different committee. We had evidence from members of the Publications Control Board to the effect that people do change their views in terms of changing circumstances. I would say that even if it were exactly the same people, if the circumstances which prevailed when the decision which was taken two years ago, had changed so as to warrant a review, those people might also be reasonable enough to change their previous decisions. This Bill seeks to maintain some kind of stability in the moral approach to various matters in this country. To try to introduce an amendment to have a review every 12 months, is, to my mind, going a bit too far.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reservations concerning the period of two years. I sympathize with him although I do not agree with him. However I do think that he is being a little unreasonable about the other two points. He himself said that it is surely unlikely that the same committee which had originally given an opinion on a matter, would perform the review after two years. If this is improbable in any event, why does he not make it a definite rule? After all, the appeal board is going to be the same, and why not give the appeal board the benefit of an opinion by other people? Why not ensure that it is not the same committee? What is the appeal board to do if the same people make the same or other representations? One would then have the ridiculous situation that someone who had made a certain representation to the appeal board two years previously now has a different opinion and must provide an explanation for it.

It seems to me as if the Minister is confusing two clauses. Where a committee judges a case from the outset, it may call in outside advice, but now the Minister provides that a committee may not do so on review. Why, Sir? I think that he should reconsider this, and delete the words “without hearing any person”.

If, for example, there was a committee in Johannesburg which had given a decision in a certain case and had declared a publication to be undesirable, the publication would be resubmitted to the directorate after the lapse of a period of two years, and they would refer it to a committee. I feel that the directorate, which will have its seat in Cape Town, would definitely not refer that case to the committee in Johannesburg, but would make use of a local committee. I am prepared to say to the hon. member at this stage that I shall look into this matter. It is difficult for me to say at once; I shall have to investigate other implications. The experts may still be called in. If that committee has a case before it and it is a case which can be dealt with fairly easily, why should they hear anyone? They need not. If there should be difficulty in connection with a decision, however, we should, after-all, come back to 3(b), in terms of which they may in fact enlist the aid of experts, and in that case someone would, in fact, be heard. So the proceedings would take their normal course, but if they were to be of the opinion that anyone should in fact be called in, as provided in 3(b), then they would in fact call in that person.

Why is it prohibited?

It is not prohibited; after all, it is stated in clause 3.

First amendment moved by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson negatived.

Amendment moved by Dr. A. L. Boraine negatived and second amendment moved by Mr. J. D. Du P. Basson dropped (Progressive Party dissenting).

Third amendment moved by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In line 20 to omit “displayed, exhibited” and to substitute “is displayed or exhibited in public or is”; and
2. (2) to add the following as a paragraph (b) at the end of subsection (2):

The first one arises from an amendment which the hon. member for Von Brandis originally had on the Order Paper under clause 47. The substitution of certain words in clause 17(1)(a)(ii) by the words as proposed in the amendment, puts it beyond all doubt that a person who is authorized by the Minister under clause 17 to enter any place and examine publications or objects there, will not be able to enter a private dwelling where, for example, books are displayed or exhibited in a study. I think that solves the hon. member’s difficulty in that regard.

The second one, again, arises from an amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, and concerns the question of seizure and the issuing of a receipt. I think that the phrasing will satisfy the hon. member for Berea now. It is just that we do not refer to a receipt, because a receipt is only issued when one asks for something and it is handed over. In this case it is a matter of seizure, and that is why we refer to a “document” which must be delivered. Therefore it is not necessarily a receipt in the normal sense of the word, but some document which is handed over and which will indicate that a specific article was seized. It amounts to virtually the same thing; only, there will be no requirement for the receipt to be in any specific form. In the second place it is provided that that document has to be delivered to someone. That, too, we state there clearly. I think that will satisfy the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister for what, in effect, is a take-over of the first part of my amendment on the Order Paper. I agree with him that this wording is an improvement, because it is now much clearer. But I do claim that the amendment emanated from the official Opposition, because if one studies the Order Paper it appeared on the 16th of this month, whereas the improved version of the hon. the Deputy Minister appeared a little later.

But you needed my assistance as well.

Yes, I concede that. Now I want to appeal further for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assistance to accept also the second portion of my amendment. I withdraw the first amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, but I appeal to the Deputy Minister to give very serious consideration to accepting the second one, as follows—

The position, as the Bill now stands, is that a person may enter any place and may search any home, any printing works or any publishing house. At the request of the person in control of that place, the one who enters shall exhibit the authority issued to him. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will go along with me when I say that any legislation functions more efficiently if there is co-operation between the parties concerned. As far as the amendment which I have moved is concerned, I believe that it would lead to a more healthy state of affairs.

I want to put a comparison to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Just assume an inspector comes to a private home, as he has the right to do under the provisions of this Bill, and says to the owner that he is from the publications directorate and would like to examine his library. The home-owner who wishes to co-operate, but who has no desire for a stranger or an imposter to come in and examine his library, has to satisfy himself about the bona fides of the inspector by asking to see the authority. The inspector is empowered to do that, but I believe that it is a much better arrangement if an inspector comes into a person’s home and says: “I am from the Directorate of Publications. Here is my authority. I wish to examine your library.” Then there can be no doubt in the mind of the owner of the home or the printing or the publishing works that this is in effect a genuine inspector. I am not asking for anything that has not been accepted before. This principle of an inspector being required to display his authority prior to inspection is embodied in several sections of the Atmospheric Pollution Act, in the Dental Mechanicians Act, in the Drugs Control Act and in the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act. Consequently, I believe the principle has already been accepted. I believe that it is a sound principle and I believe that it makes for a better relationship between an inspector and the person upon whom he is calling. I ask that the hon. the Deputy Minister accept this amendment in that spirit.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, with the exception of the first part of my amendment, in view of the fact that this is slightly broader in its context than the amendment to be moved by the hon. member for Berea.

Does the hon. member wish to delete the first amendment which appears under his name on the Order Paper?

That is right, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to move the first part of my amendment. I only wish to move the following parts—

1. (1) In line 19, after “which”, to insert “it is upon reasonable grounds suspected that”;
2. (2) in line 19. after “any”, to insert “undesirable”;
3. (3) in line 22, after “may” to insert “in such place”; and
4. (4) in line 25, after “may” to insert “in such place”.

This clause is one which authorizes access of individuals to private premises and public premises on the authority of the hon. the Minister. Quite clearly, even the hon. the Minister would be on his guard to see that not just anybody would be allowed access to people’s homes if in fact their homes are being used partly in terms of their profession, or business or occupation. I think he would agree that where individuals have authority to have access to people’s property, it should only be under the clear understanding that there is a suspicion that an undesirable object is being kept there. In the case of places in which objects or publications are being printed or reproduced, the hon. the Minister is quite specific. Then he has to conclude that it is suspected upon reasonable grounds that undesirable objects are being published or printed in that place. When it comes to a shop, a store, an exhibition or any place where objects are being kept or displayed, but not being published, he can authorize the entry of any person there in terms of this clause without there being any suspicion. In other words, he does not first have to satisfy himself nor does the person entering the premises have to ask himself the question, whether there is a suspicion of some undesirable object being kept there. We believe it is extremely important that the right of access to other people’s property should be applied only when there is a suspicion that an object of an undesirable nature is being kept there. This measure cannot be left so wide open that, without there even being any suspicion that an undesirable object is being kept, an authorized person can merely enter the premises, snoop around to his heart’s content, look at everything whether the things are undesirable or not, and then leave the premises. This concerns smaller communities in particular. Especially in view of the fact that the people who will be authorized to enter premises need not necessarily be State officials but can be merely individuals appointed by the Minister. A situation may arise in smaller communities that authorized individuals will be able to walk onto premises of their neighbours, their friends, their associates and even of people who may be their rivals in business. The Bill does not specify that it is limited only to people who are officials of the State. In these circumstances we believe there should be no entry into any premises unless there is a clearly defined suspicion that someone possesses some undesirable object.

I now want to deal with my amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. There is specific provision made for the seizure of goods. But where goods are not seized but merely examined by one of these people who are authorized by the Minister, I believe that that examination should take place on the premises. As the clause stands, it is not clear whether the examination should take place on the premises or whether the articles concerned can be removed from the premises for further examination and then returned. We believe that, unless an article is specifically seized in terms of the requirements of this Bill, it should be stated quite specifically that the examination should take place on the premises where the object is kept and that the object cannot be removed for examination by the official or the person authorized by the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I just want to say that we are aware that the hon. the Minister—perhaps not the hon. the Deputy Minister—objects to the fact that the public refer to these people as “snoopers”, but it is obvious that that is precisely the kind of task they are performing. Anyone would like to know what kind of person is going to perform this task. If we look at the first line of clause 17, we see that as it reads now, it could be anyone who is “either generally or specially authorized thereto by the Minister in writing”. We have heard that there are people who say they would like to appoint a number of housewives to perform this task. We must take it that there are going to be hundreds of these people. The whole question of who has access to one’s house, is very important. The hon. the Minister, when he referred to the appointment of persons who serve on the directorate and on the committees, said, inter alia, that they would not only have to be people who possessed certain qualifications, but added that it was important that they would have to be people of good character. In my amendment I proposed that not just anyone be authorized to perform this task, but that it should be entrusted to a Government official. By means of this amendment we are actually helping the hon. the Minister with his problem of finding people who, shall I say, have the integrity to perform such a task. It is of great importance to know what kind of person is going to enter one’s house. I believe that hon. members opposite will acknowledge that our officers in the Public Service are certainly people of stable character. After all, there cannot really be any problem as far as this matter is concerned. But over and above that, I just want to raise this point. This cannot be done on a general basis. It must have specific reference to a particular authorization. In any event, who would want to be placed in the position where even one’s own friends could refer to one as a “permanent porn detector”? I am sure no one would want to be anything of the kind. That is why we should rather come up with a system in which there may be specific cases. This, too, could evince some degree of confidence. After all, the hon. the Minister is dealing with a vigorous piece of legislation here. By this means he can also get vigorous government officials to carry out the provisions of this legislation. What we are doing here, in fact, is suggesting a better way. He has a point when he says that these people should not be snoopers; we should not refer to them as snoopers. Let us, then, call them the “Minister’s bloodhounds” who will sniff out all the wrongdoers in the Greek cafés. If we adopt this amendment, we could also raise their status a little as far as this is concerned and perhaps they could perform their duties in a more vigorous way.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by replying to the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Berea. I had some difficulty with the proposed replacement of subsection (3). I think it is a little impractical. I should like to tell him what my difficulty is in this respect. Take the case of a bookshop. I just want to say that I do not have private homes in mind at all.

The Bill has them in mind.

I just want to say that as far as I am concerned, I do not have dwelling houses in mind at all. Let us take the bookshop as an example. Before an authorized person may enter that bookshop, he has to produce his authority. Therefore this can be interpreted to mean that he has to stand outside and show his authority before entering. Now the owner of that café is not even interested in looking at him; the fellow stands outside and he can do what he likes with his authority but he is unable to enter the café. This is one possible interpretation of that. That is my only fear. I do not want to split hairs. The man has to produce that authority and he has to enter those premises in order to produce it. Then an entrance has already been effected and he produces his authority before going on with his work. That is all that this means.

I should now like to deal with the amendment by the hon. member for Sea Point. He has a few difficulties. In order to surmount them, I want to refer, firstly, to what the hon. member for Durban Central said. The persons who will be authorized are in the first instance the members of the directorate, people who are concerned with these matters, too.

Will they have the time for it?

If they do not have the time for it, then they do not act; then they do not operate. The second group of persons consists of members of the panels scattered across the country. They will be authorized in general. After that, a magistrate in a town may, if necessary, be authorized to enter upon a specific place. That is how we see the matter. I believe, therefore, that in this case it is unnecessary to delete those words “any person either generally or”. What is more, that person must in any event be authorized by the Minister before acting. It is not just anyone, therefore, who can go around doing his snooping or his bloodhound work, to use the terminology of the hon. member. They will be people who, as we have already argued in this debate, will be of high standing. These people will be appointed to the panel and they will be appointed to the directorate. Apart from them, there is, in exceptional cases, when it may be necessary, the case of the magistrate or a police officer. In any event, they will have to be authorized to do this by the Minister.

Sir, I now come to the hon. member for Sea Point. I have now replied in part to one of his difficulties. I now come to the question of suspicion. One case we are dealing with is the place where publications or objects are displayed and kept for sale, for example in bookshops open to the public. An authorized person, such as a member of a panel, for example, enters, and a publication catches his eye which he feels he ought to look at. He may then produce his authority to show that he has the right to take down particulars personally in respect of that publication. Then, too, Sir, there is the place referred to in sub-paragraph (i)—a printing works, for example—which is not open to the public, and in this instance, therefore, suspicion is a necessary prerequisite for entrance. This is not a place which the public would normally enter, but there is a suspicion that undesirable material is being reproduced or even offered for sale in that place, where the public does not normally enter and where the authorized official does not normally enter. Then the hon. member’s third proposal is that “undesirable” be inserted in line 19. Sir, this, too, is unnecessary in the light of subsection (i)(c). If this word is inserted, then this could possibly be interpreted to mean, in addition that only publications already found to be undesirable, and displayed in a bookshop may be examined—only those which have already been found to be undesirable and concerning which a decision has already been given. Sir, in both the fourth and the fifth instances, the insertion of “in such place” is suggested. These insertions are also unnecessary. It is wrong to interpret the clause to mean that seizure of a specific article or object or the taking down of particulars may take place at a different place because the place has to be entered and that place which is entered is the place where the seizure has to take place or where the particulars may be taken down. This cannot be interpreted another way. I think that the hon. member is wrong there. The place which is entered upon is the place where the action has to take place, whether for seizure or for the taking down of particulars. Sir, I think that I have therewith dealt with the various points raised by hon. members.

Sir, surely the hon. the Deputy Minister is not serious when he suggests that the members of the directorate and members of the committees who will be more than busy are going to be the people to be authorized to wander around and to do these inspections. Sir, if one looks at this particular clause, one finds that there are two aspects of it. The first one is that there can be an entry into premises on reasonable grounds for suspecting that something undesirable is being printed or produced. In other words, before there can be entry into a printing press, for example, there must be reasonable grounds for suspecting that something undesirable is being printed or reproduced, and then there is the right of entry and the right of search. Sir, when one comes to the second category, there need be no reasonable grounds for suspecting that something undesirable is being sold or exhibited; the authorized officer can simply walk into a shop or into a home. [Interjection.] Sir, must we really understand from the hon. the Deputy Minister that these highly educated intelligent people whom he is going to appoint to the directorate and to these committees are going to spend afternoons sitting in shops and going through shelves of comics and magazines to see whether perhaps there is something undesirable amongst them? Surely that is not what is going to happen—although that is what the Minister has told us will happen that these highly intelligent people, the cream of the intellectual life of South Africa, will go and sit in a Greek café in the afternoon and while drinking coffee look through the shelves and through the comics to see whether there is anything obscene. Surely that is not the position. [Interjections.]

How can you be so stupid?

I am not being stupid. It is stupidity in the legislation. Under the existing law, what happens? There is somebody who possesses something pornographic and somebody who tips off the Police about it, and what happens? The Police officer gets a search warrant, produces the goods and locks the man up who is then brought before a court and punished. But now we are going to have all these highly intelligent people charged with this duty of going round to look for things on shelves.

But let me go further. What is this power? In terms of the first portion of clause 17(1)(a) they may enter upon a place in or upon which it is upon reasonable grounds suspected that an undesirable publication or object is printed or reproduced. But in the second portion there is nothing about “undesirable”. He may enter upon any place in or upon which any publication or object is displayed, exhibited, sold or hired out or is offered for sale or kept for hire. That means every shop of every size which is selling any object, whether it is an undesirable art object or any other object, and the Deputy Minister says that that responsibility is going to be entrusted, given to and forced upon the cream of the intelligentsia of South Africa who is serving on these committees.

Sir, I honestly want to say that I am now starting to take pleasure in this debate because now the Opposition have really been exposed. They thought that each clause was worse than the last. They wanted to make the hair on our heads rise because certain snoopers would supposedly be able to desecrate the privacy of our homes, and now they are realizing that nothing of the kind will ever happen. Something they have been having nightmares about, is tumbling about their ears. They thought there was going to be a horde of inspectors snooping, but now they are finding out that it is only a handful of people, and very responsible people at that. It was never the intention that this Act be placed on the Statute Book in order to provide for snooping. That is what the hon. members thought and now they are realizing that the Bill is by no means as frightful as they had thought. Sir, let me say this to the hon. member in case he was unaware of it: the members of the existing board were invested with precisely the same powers. Have you seen the members of the existing board sitting in little cafés on a box of vegetables or whatever and paging through publications, as in the example given by the hon. member? That is what you want to imply. And yet we have the same situation at the moment and this is not happening. That case to which you referred towards the end, and the question as to why one of the members of the panel or of the directorate has to be used; in such a case, after all, a magistrate or a police officer may be authorized to do this. You are trying to make it ridiculous because you no longer have any argument with which to frighten the public at large. After all, a frightful snooping campaign is not being unleashed on the public of South Africa by means of this Bill. Are hon. members only beginning to realize this now? That is not the case. A member of the public may find out who the members of the directorate are or who is on the panel, and if he is under the impression that a periodical or a publication is being exhibited on which he cannot form a sound judgment, then surely he can ask one of these gentlemen to go, or he can write to the Minister and he can direct someone to do this.

This is another expression of intent. But it is not in the Bill.

Sir, all the hon. gentlemen wanted was that this legislation should result in a witch hunt and they are now discovering with a shock that this is not happening. Now they are splitting hairs. I can set their minds at rest: That is not the basis of this legislation.

But is it not said that this may not be done.

I have already told the hon. member that the position does not differ from the present position, and the hon. member has not had the slightest difficulty with that.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to my amendment. The Deputy Minister seemed to experience a little difficulty in interpreting it, but I think he understands the intention behind it. I should like to ask him please to give it further consideration. I should like to draw his attention to a previous incident which is recorded in Hansard. I refer to the Committee Stage of the Dental Mechanicians Amendment Bill of 1972. I should like to quote what was said by the then Minister of Health, Dr. De Wet (Hansard, Vol. 38, col. 4157)—

That is just what I am doing here, Sir—

The amendment was put and agreed to. Now, Mr. Chairman, in order that the hon. the Deputy Minister may be fully aware of the amendment to which I refer, so that there can be no misunderstanding, I should there can be no misunderstanding, I should like to read the wording of the amendment which was substituted for the previous provision in the 1972 Dental Mechanicians Bill, and which has the same intention as the subject at present under consideration. My amendment reads as follows (Hansard, Vol. 38, col. 4155)—

Sir, I believe that there cannot be any real misunderstanding about the amendment which I have placed on the Order Paper. I believe the intention is a good one. I believe it has been endorsed in previous debates. It has been included in previous legislation, and I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister please to reconsider his attitude to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister must not show surprise when we on this side of the House read the Bill as it stands. The clause reads as follows: “Any person either generally or specially authorized thereto by the Minister ...” There is no limiting factor there. He may have stated an intention, but how does he know that he is going to be the Minister who will be functioning in terms of this clause? What we are doing here is to introduce legislation. We are giving the power to a Minister to do certain things, and we on this side of the House are not prepared to accept bland, generalized assurances when we are dealing with specific legislation. “Any person either generally or specially authorized ...” means just that. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his explanation now says that he intends to include members of the panel, members of the directorate, and if they are not adequate, them magistrates can appoint police officers.

No; a magistrate or a police officer can be appointed by the Minister.

Well, if that is so, then I believe that it should be written into this clause. Sir, let the hon. the Deputy Minister then amend the clause as has been suggested by the hon. member for Berea. Let him amend it to make it specific, so that it can only include members of the panel, members of the directorate or police officer. If that is his intention, then I believe he has the duty to translate that intention into a legislative provision. When one reads in a clause “any person either generally or specifically”, those words mean exactly what they say, i.e. that anybody can be appointed an official snooper. We believe that particularly in smaller communities this is going to create tremendous tensions.

The next point is that it has already been indicated that the official snoopers are going to be supplemented by a whole army of people, because the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that as the work load is going to be so great on the members who are appointed to the panels and the directorate, he is inviting almost everybody in South Africa to join in the snooping operations, to go along to the cafés, look at the books and then to write to the Minister or to the directorate. We are changing the situation from an army of snoopers to a nation of snoopers, We believe that it should be quite specific, especially as this involves entry into private premises. It involves entry into the premises of other people and therefore it should be restricted to people specifically authorized, who should be officials of the State and who should only have authority to intrude upon the privacy of people’s premises if there is a clear suspicion that somebody is committing an offence or holding some undesirable object.

In the third instance I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to what I think is a conflict between the Afrikaans and English versions of the clause. In the Afrikaans text the clause provides—

I emphasize “bepaalde geval”. In the English text the clause reads—

The English text does not relate to a particular case. “Specially authorized” means that a person is specially authorized; it does not mean “in a specific case”, because in fact it says “specially authorized”. If it is intended that that authority should only be valid in a specific instance, then “’n bepaalde geval” is a much more appropriate phrase than the phrase “anybody specially authorized” I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at what I think is a discrepancy between the English and Afrikaans texts. If we have to have official snoopers, I hope that steps will be taken to ensure that this is limited to people acting in respect of “’n bepaalde geval” and not merely be specially authorized to enter even if there is no suspicion that an offence has been committed.

Mr. Chairman, if there were a difference between the Afrikaans and the English versions of the clause, I am prepared to request the legal advisers to go into the matter. I can give the hon. member that assurance.

As far as the other point is concerned, I want to point out that the provision in the existing Act, of which I have a copy here, is basically, with one exception, precisely the same as the proposed provision.

Yes, but we voted against that, too.

The exception amounts to this; that instead of an object having to be seized, the new provision also provides that particulars in respect of a publication or object may be taken down. Hon. members are afraid that the effect of this clause will not be as I see it, but I want to point out that they did not support the existing Act either. If they can tell me that things were done in respect of the matters you are now discussing which confirmed their fears, I would be able to acknowledge that they were right, because the Bill will be administered in precisely the same way by the same Minister who is responsible for this legislation. What, then, is the difference? That is all I want to say in this connection.

†As far as the hon. member for Berea is concerned, I am prepared to have another look at what he suggests. I shall try to establish whether it cannot be interpreted differently from the explanation which I gave when I made my previous remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given us any answer whatsoever. I do not think that he has made a case for refusing to accept the amendments which we have moved to this clause. I must admit that the hon. the Deputy Minister goes part of the way with his first amendment, but if he will only accept that those inspectors who are going to be authorized, should be officials, should be members of the Public Service, should be persons who are specifically authorized by the hon. the Minister to carry out these duties, we would not have the objection which we do have to this clause. What is the position? The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is going to authorize the members of the directorate, the members of the panels and magistrates generally and that there will also be certain people who will be specifically authorized as well. Why will he not write that into the Bill? If he will write that into the Bill, it will already be an improvement and we shall be prepared to accept it. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must know—if he does not know, I am certain that he will receive advice to this effect—that his intention and what he says here today in the Committee have no bearing whatsoever when the Bill comes to be interpreted outside, either by the directorate or in a court of law. He must know that. His intention has nothing to do with what we are considering. For him now to quote this amendment which was introduced, incidentally, in 1971 to the Act as it is today—it was not in the original Act—carries no weight whatsoever. He should know that we opposed it most vociferously at the time, and we divided the Committee on this particular measure.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions!

Sir, it has just been mentioned to me that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. I fear that the way to ensure the breakdown of this particular Bill and that it does not operate efficiently at all, especially if the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to lose the confidence of the public, is to go ahead with this clause as it stands today. Nobody will have any confidence whatsoever in any inspector of his who is going to be appointed in terms of these provisions. What are we going to have? We have already had an organization mentioned once before in this debate, namely the Genootskap vir die Handhawing van Sedelike Norme. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has had contact with these people at all; I have, unfortunately. I do not want to see one member of that organization appointed as a “super-snooper” under this clause. But we have people like the hon. member for Oudtshoorn who would appoint them. If he were sitting where that Deputy Minister is now, he would appoint every member of that organization and make them “super-snoopers” throughout the country. As the clause stands today and this is precisely the point—you will have these zealots coming with zest and enthusiasm, invading every single place that is open for business. Admittedly, the hon. the Minister’s amendment does create doubt as to whether they will be allowed to enter a private home. But I believe that they would still find a way also round that provision.

Let us go further. The amendment moved by my hon. friend from Berea I believe is perfectly reasonable. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is clutching at straws when he says that it might be read as meaning “before he enters the premises”.

I have replied to that.

Why will he not then accept it? It is already laid down in other Acts. It has been accepted before. There is a precedent for it. Why will he not accept it? Let us go back to our friends the Genootskap vir die Handhawing van Sedelike Norme and let us have a look at subsection (5), which reads:

So one of these persons comes into a store, messes around with the books, stacks them in piles and packs them into boxes or suitcases. The proprietor comes along and says “Hey! You cannot do that here.” Then he is in trouble. But, Sir, if an inspector comes into the shop and first says, “I am So-and-so, and here is my authority to have a look at your books. Do you mind if I have a look around?” is that not a better way of doing it? Does he want confidence in the application of his Bill or does he not? This is the point. Does he want the public to know that there will be a corps of “super-snoopers” who will be operating in the dark, who will just appear on the scene? Or does he want people who will come in the open and say, “Look, I am here to have a look; here is my authority”? I am afraid that we are most dissatisfied with the answers given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The fact that he will not accept these amendments leads us now to one course only, and that is to oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, arising from the reply by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I just want to say that it seems to me that we already have a system of censorship between the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister. It seems to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister is applying censorship to the hon. the Minister to some extent. There can be no doubt that the impression created by the hon. the Minister is that he wants legislation which functions well. As far as this matter is concerned, he did not want there to be only a handful of people to carry out this important task. I just want to put the question to the hon. the Deputy Minister whether we now have to accept that, as he put it to us, virtually every one of these people will in fact be an official of the Public Service? Apparently we must now depend solely on the promises he is making here. In fact this is only a promise that it is only going to be members of the directorate, it is a promise that it is only going to be committee members, and it is a promise that it is only going to be a magistrate or a policeman. Do we now have to let those few promises suffice, or is the hon. the Deputy Minister prepared to give us a few more promises in this connection?

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

First amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

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

Second, third and fourth amendments moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

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

Amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—8 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.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F; Cronje P; Cruywagen, W. A.; 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, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. 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.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; 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 der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, 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.; 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.; 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.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keysserlingk, 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, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The clause provides that the business address and the name of the publisher or printer shall appear in one of three places in a publication. Apparently this would create difficulties for the printers. For that reason I am now moving that it shall appear in a conspicuous place in the publication or periodical.

At the same time I may point out to the hon. member for Berea that we have a problem with his amendment; we simply have to distinguish between “business address”, which may be a person’s premises, and “postal address”, which may be the number of a post office box. We should like the address of the premises to be indicated.

What do you want to do with it?

(Inaudible.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he believes that this clause has been well considered. It is being provided here that the business address shall be printed fully and correctly in a publication. In the first place we are going to have the problem of imported books, and the vast majority of English books are imported. Very few of the well-known publishers provide a full business address in their books. Usually they just say, for example, “Oxford University Press, London”. This being the case, what is going to happen to the thousands of books which do not have a full business address printed in them? Will they automatically be ruled out and will it not be possible to import them?

This is in regard to local publications.

Where does it say that? No, it does not say that. It means all publications circulating in this country. That is the first difficulty. There is another difficulty. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at the definition of “publication”. It appears on page 59 of the Bill. The definition of “publication” includes a long list of things. Pamphlets are mentioned; they may consist of one page. But the worst of it is that any writing or typescript which has in any manner been duplicated is also included in the definition. In other words, if I duplicate something I have typed and I give it to three other people, I am actually publishing it. My full business address must then be indicated on it. The most ridiculous part of it all, however, is the following. The word „publication” includes a painting. Is Tretchikoff now to provide his whole business address on his painting? What is a Pierneef going to look like with his whole business address written upon it? What would a wandering artist do in this case? What about a statue? We had the case of the statue—The Bull, by Potgieter, in Pretoria—where he put his name in a delicate place. This had all Pretoria up in arms. Must he now provide his full business address in that “conspicuous place”?

Mr. Chairman, a definition of “publisher” is not included under the definitions appearing in clause 47. However, it has the usual meaning of a printer and distributor. That is all it means. A painter is not affected by this, and neither is the duplicator with a copying machine. The concepts have their usual meanings. In the case of an imported publication the distributors, for example, the CNA, will simply indicate the full business address of that firm by means of a small sticker in the book.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but if this is the explanation of the matter, we shall not be able to accept this provision. Must a local seller stamp on address in a new book? Some of the art books cost R30. What does it matter if it only says “Oxford University Press, London”? What more do you want? Everyone knows where that is, so why go and stamp a full business address in a book which is costing the buyer a lot of money? We shall have to exclude imported publications from this; if not, we shall become the cultural backyard of the Western world. So many imported books do not comply with this requirement of a full address. If the matter has to go to court, the definition of “publication” will have to be considered. The word “publication” includes all the objects I have mentioned, a statue and a painting as well. Unless these things are clearly excluded and the whole matter is defined, we cannot accept the provision at all.

Sir, I wish to move the amendments as printed in my name—

1. (1) In line 43, after “address”, to insert, not being a post office box number,”; and
2. (2) in lines 44 and 45, to omit “the front, penultimate or back page of”.

I gathered from the opening remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister, where he indicated that he would be prepared to move an amendment which could be regarded as an improvement on my second amendment, that he was not averse to the principle that the person concerned should indicate an address other than a box number. Sir, anybody who has served on a statutory body will realize that there are individuals who are out basically to act illegally in terms of various Acts and regulations, and I believe that to publish just a box number as an address forms an excellent cover-up for such people. From experience we know that it is extremely difficult to trace such individuals, because even registered letters are known never to have reached their destinations. I believe that respectable individuals and firms would have no objection to publishing their full address and not only a box number. I believe it is the less respectable firm which uses this form of advertising, publishing only a box number. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is prepared to accept this amendment on these arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return, if I may, to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument that “publish” in respect of clause 18 can have a special meaning which does not attach to it anywhere else in the Bill. Sir, it is perfectly true that the word “publisher” is not specifically defined in clause 47, but the word “publication” is, and the word “publication” covers a very wide range of objects, including works of art, sculpture, etc. Sir, if “publication”, in terms of the definition, covers all those things, then the publisher must be the man who is responsible for those things and the same meaning, the same range of activities, must attach to the word “publisher”. Where we speak of “publisher” or “publication” throughout this measure, it comprehends both the local publisher and the foreign publisher. If it does not mean that, then the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister must go back and rewrite this Bill because they will find all kinds of difficulties creeping in if they seek to attach to the word “publisher” the purely local meaning. Sir, you cannot have one meaning for “publisher” and “publication” in clause 18 and another meaning for “publisher” or “publication” in all the other clauses; you run into difficulties of interpretation, whether by a court or whether by an appeal board, difficulties which are absolutely insuperable. If the Minister has a special intention as to the meaning of the word “publisher” in clause 18, then he must use words which convey that meaning and not words which convey the meaning but are commonly understood and applied throughout the rest of the Bill. Sir, I suggest that he should reconsider this clause and attach to it the meaning which he desires and not the general meaning which must be inferred from the nature of the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I share all the doubts which have been expressed about the practicability of this clause, and this is one aspect of it that bothers me more than any other. On whom is the onus going to rest to put all this information on imported articles? Does it mean that every single book that is imported into this country must have this information, and who is going to have to do it? Is the seller going to have to do it, or are they going to have to do it at source? It seems to me that here we are asking for something which is going to prove virtually impossible to implement.

The hon. member must read this with clause 47(5)—

If the CNA has received books from Oxford University Press and it wants to indicate that it is the distributor in South Africa, then it is quite in order, for they are then deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be the producer of the publication. This is no problem; one sees it in most books. Sir, I have hundreds of them on my bookshelves and it is indicated in them with a neat little sticker, “Distributed by CNA”, or whatever the case may be. This presents no problem as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Chairman, this is precisely our problem. Take the case where some 20 000 or 30 000 books are being imported. One cannot expect the importer to spoil the appearance of the books by putting stickers on them. But the question is what on earth one wants it to be done; what purpose does it serve? What is the purpose of compelling the CNA to say it has imported these books? We have not received a good reason for this. But there is something else I want to mention to the hon. the Minister. In politics, if one wants to publish an election pamphlet, there are certain laws already which provide that one’s name and address must appear on it. That is accepted. But now we are dealing with literary material, with books and periodicals and with statues and things of that nature. That is what we are dealing with here. We are dealing here with cultural products. Why should cultural products all be lumped together? Why should they have the full name and address of the publisher?

I want to raise another problem. What about the multitude of periodicals published in other languages, including those printed in South Africa? In the case of a German pamphlet published in Windhoek, German being a national language of South-West Africa, more space has to be wasted by including, in a small publication as well, the name and address in one of the official languages in addition to German. In Johannesburg today, with its large population of German-speaking and Portuguese-speaking people, will the name and address have to be added in two languages every time, even if the space is limited? This would mean tremendous discrimination. It is certainly not reasonable to request that this should be made applicable to South-West Africa. We definitely cannot accept this clause.

Sir, I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is in trouble. [Interjections.] You know, Sir, I do not know why hon. members on that side just start shouting as soon as I open my mouth. Here I am, in all good faith, making an attempt to help the hon. the Deputy Minister out of his dilemma and this is the sort of reaction I get. But let us get one thing straight. The hon. the Deputy Minister refers to clause 47(5), which states: “For the purposes of this Act the importer of any publication or object ... shall be deemed to be the producer of that publication”, producer not the publisher. This provision is in here to help the Deputy Minister when he wants to prosecute somebody who has introduced something which is undesirable in terms of clause 8(lXa). That is where it comes in. This presumption here has nothing whatsoever to do with clause 18. Clause 18 deals with the publisher of an article. I can accept that if they are right in their attitude towards the whole control of publications, then they need a clause like clause 18, but I believe that clause 18 as it stands is totally incorrect and does not even meet their requirements. What the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said is absolutely correct. It is totally ridiculous to expect that every painting and every sculpture and every work of art and everything of that nature should be included. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head, but that is in fact what is written here. Now, let me let him out of his misery; I will suggest to him a funkhole he can take to get out of his troubles. I now want to move—

So then we will have clause 18(1) reading as follows: “A publisher or importer shall ensure that his name and business address are printed ...” The object there is to decide who is the person responsible for the introduction of that particular article here in the Republic of South Africa, whether it is printed and published locally or whether it is imported. I accept that that is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I think that this goes part of the way towards meeting his problem. But this does not solve his problem regarding works of art, sculptures and other objects of that nature. I believe his intention here is aimed at books and publications, and that is why I suggest that the clause should read as follows—

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

Accepting the hon. gentleman’s amendment, which I shall not read, the clause then continues as follows—

I think that this can go a long way towards solving his dilemma. It does not make this Bill any more acceptable to me, but I think the debate can be cut short if he will accept this amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I must say that one finds oneself in considerable difficulty, even more so when the hon. the Deputy Minister makes reference to clause 47(5) in order to find some sort of solution to the dilemma which he obviously seems to agree now exists. We do not have a definition of the word “publisher”. We have a definition of “publication” and we have an attempt to define the word “produce”, but the matter is complicated by the provisions of clause 47(5), where it is said that an importer shall be deemed to be the producer. I think that in this type of legislation one must get complete and absolute clarity as to what the provisions intend to convey. In the case of the definition of “publication or object” it has been pointed out that this will refer to every work of art. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say that it will not apply to a “skildery” or a sculpture, and that it will apply to something that is printed, but he cannot get away from this definition of “publication or object”. If there is no definition of the word “publisher”, then you must take whatever word is related to it, a word from the same root, such as “publication”, in order to arrive at a definition. One must therefore accept that when you talk about a publisher putting his name on something, he must in fact put his name on something which is a publication, because what other reference have you to indicate what a publisher must do? What reference have you to decide what objects the publisher must deal with? One can, for instance, in terms of this definition, have a print, an engraving or a lithograph. Just imagine a lithograph having to have placed upon the face or the back of it somebody’s name and address. It could also apply to a drawing, a picture, an illustration, a painting, woodwork, works of art, a figure, a cast, a carving, a statue or a model. This is carrying the whole thing to absolute extremes. Sir, one knows what the age-old tradition is in relation to a work of art; the artist scribbles his name in almost the same colouring upon a painting. I think what is troubling most members on this side of the House is the fact that there is no clarity. If there is no clarity, confusion arises as to who will give the decisions on what has to be done and who will decide when a man is liable to be convicted. I think that these words have to be clearly and properly defined. As has been pointed out on this side, clause 47(5) can only refer to clause 8(1)(a). That is the only reference in terms of which you are enabled to prosecute a person who has produced an undesirable object. However, if you ally all the various references to the words “publish”, “publication” and “produce”, then you will find that you are really in something of a maze of words. Who is it going to depend upon to interpret all this? Will it be the Attorney-General, the local prosecutor or the sergeant or policeman in some rural area? Who is going to decide? Is the appeal board going to come to a decision? That body does not even come into the picture. I do think that there must be more clarity if there is to be any serious and sincere intention to really interpret the provisions of the Bill fairly in the interests of the public, the writer, the literary producer, the playwright and culture in general. There must be absolute clarity, otherwise one’s conviction grows that all that is sought here is a tight and absolute control, irrespective of the norms, the thinking, the interpretation and the literary output of people, whenever works do not comply with standards set by a particular section of the community who at any given time may be in a position to exercize control over the matter. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is really, genuinely sincere, he will at least hold this clause back until his law advisers have given some clarity to the picture; by definitions or otherwise. Everyone will then know where they are going.

Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the lack of clarity, but that does not worry me nearly as much as this insistence to apply this clause to imported matter. What possible end can this serve? I can understand that the hon. the Deputy Minister is anxious to have information about matter which is printed and published in this country. He wants to know this for obvious reasons. In any case, I think there are similar provisions in the Newspaper and Imprint Registration Act as it stands at the moment. What purpose is going to be served by insisting that this should be applied to imported matter? It is going to cause an infinite amount of work and serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. It will make this Bill even more difficult to apply.

Mr. Chairman, in their interpretation of the words “publisher” and “publication”, the hon. members for Jeppe and Von Brandis wish to apply the eiusdem generis rule where it cannot be applied. After all, these words do not appear in the same section, nor are they related in any way that would cause the one to have a bearing on the other. They wish to suggest that because the definition of “publication” as contained in section 47(l)(xx) refers to illustrations, paintings, woodcuts or similar representations, it is not possible to “publish” something of this nature. They also say that this is not the formal function of a publisher. They want the term “publisher”, as used here in clause 18, to have the same meaning as is intended when we are dealing with the definition of “publication” in clause 47(1). I repeat that they are applying the eiusdem generis rule where it is not applicable. The word “publisher”, as it appears in clause 18, has its simple, normal, undefined meaning of a person who prints or publishes. I would suggest that it is even possible to publish a drawing in the sense that it is possible to publish a print of a drawing. I should like to see who is distributing a pornographic drawing, for I should want him to be prosecuted. A print of a painting or even of a woodcut may be distributed, i.e. one which has been printed, as it is normally printed and published by a publisher. I think it is very clear that when we are dealing with a publisher (“uitgewer”) as intended in clause 18, we are dealing with the normal concept of a publisher, i.e. a person who prints and distributes something, in writing and on paper or something similar.

The English term is “publisher”.

Even the English term does not create a problem as far as I am concerned. Again you will see that hon. members are needlessly trying to include the term “publisher” in a definition which appears in another clause. If I saw anything to criticize in this clause, it would be the marginal note. This deals with the registration of publishers. The initial intention of the clause, as considered by us originally, was that there would be a list of publishers, but we have abandoned that. The marginal note has apparently remained in the Bill through an oversight. But hon. members will know where it comes from. The intention is to provide access to people who trespass against the law, so that one may know exactly where to look for the origin of a particular publication or object.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question before he rises to speak? Will he not consider letting the clause stand over so that he may have time to give further consideration to the matter?

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the hon. member for Bellville I want to say that he is right. But we have to examine the matter more closely still. Clause 18 refers to the “copy of every publication”. However, the hon. gentlemen now want to add “object” to this. That does not apply here, but it does apply in clause 47(1)(xx), where mention is made of a “publication or object”. In that clause reference is made to a publication or object in the sense in which these terms are used together throughout the Bill. This definition includes everything that the hon. gentlemen want to add. In this clause, however, the reference is only to a publication in the usual sense. Reference is also made to a “copy” of a publication in the usual sense. In the normal sense a copy is, after all, a piece of printed matter. It cannot be a painting or the other things mentioned here by the hon. gentlemen. So I think we are correct in that respect.

The marginal note will be changed. However, no amendment is required for that.

What will happen if the State President signs the English text of this Bill?

If there is a linguistic problem, we shall go into it. I also want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that I am prepared to consider his proposed insertion of “or importer”. However, I am not happy about the word “literary”, for there is the problem of where to draw the line between light reading matter and literature. If there is really a linguistic ambiguity between the Afrikaans and the English texts, I promise the hon. member that we shall most certainly go into the matter.

As far as the German periodicals are concerned, I do not believe that there will be a problem for the publisher of such periodicals. It would really not entail any problem or extra cost just to indicate the name and business address in English or Afrikaans, in addition to German, when the periodical is being printed.

As far as the imported matter is concerned, we shall accommodate the hon. member for Parktown when we are considering the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

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

First amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived.

Amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of the Interior agreed to and second amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood dropped.

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

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—84: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; 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, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. 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.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit. H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; 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, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk. A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.;

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

NOES—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; 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. D.; Kingwill, W. G.; 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.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; 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 19:

Mr. Chairman, this is the first clause dealing with the whole question of the control of films in the Republic. It can be seen on the Order Paper that we have tabled a series of amendments to this chapter, Chapter III, which are identical to those which were moved to Chapter II which dealt with publications and objects. It is not our intention to waste the time of this Committee by going over all those arguments again. Certain ones we shall of course argue again. We will have our objection recorded where we believe it is right and we will again oppose clauses that we believe are totally unacceptable.

Dealing with clause 19 in particular, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an explanation of what exactly is intended by clause 19(l)(b) stating that “no person shall ... exhibit any film in public ... unless such film has been approved by a committee”. Is it his intention that no person shall show one of his home movies, i.e. a home-made movie, an 8 mm or a 15 mm film, whether it has sound or is a silent film? Is it his intention that such a film, made by the person himself, shall not be exhibited in public? If that is the intention, what exactly does he mean by “in public”? If we look at the definition in clause 47, we see that—

This includes clubs. I want to know whether it is really the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister that such films should not be shown at clubs. I personally am a member of a sporting club and the members of that club are very keen on taking cinematograph films of other members, their cavortings and the various postures they sometimes unwittingly adopt. These films are shown at meetings of the club.

Blue films.

No, they are not blue films, not at all. They depict my children so how can they be blue films? Some of the films even depict the children of the hon. member for Mooi River. I should n’t imagine that any of those will be blue films. I can understand what the hon. the Deputy Minister is referring to under subsection (1)(a) which deals with the exhibiting to any person of any film “intended to be exhibited in public”, because that is also defined. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us some explanation of what exactly he is after and what is not going to be included under these provisions because the matter is not quite clear to me.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue along the lines adopted by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South but in relation more specifically to the definitions clause, clause 47, in regard to what constitutes a “film”. In terms of that definition it is not just a cinematograph film. There are seven different categories of items that are included in the word “film”. I want to refer in particular to “any picture intended for exhibition through the medium of a mechanical device”. The second item is any magnetic tape cassette. The third one is any video-plate. The definition of “film” does not mean the orthodox cinematograph film but any picture intended to be exhibited through a mechanical device, and that would include any colour slide. It would include any colour slide produced by any amateur at any time. It is not simply a question of not being able to exhibit this but it becomes a crime to publish it. In other words, it is an offence to produce a colour slide. Provision is indeed made for exemptions but I want to know how the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to exempt this? This involves exemption by notice in the Government Gazette. We have the position therefore where, firstly, colour slides may not be published and, secondly, they may not be exhibited in public without specific permission, and that permission has to be published in the Government Gazette. Colour slides are a popular medium with political parties. They are popular amongst various groups of people who have an interest in a specific subject. These colour slides which people take are “pictures which are intended to be exhibited through the medium of a mechanical device”. This definition includes the epidiascope, as well as the colour slide. I think it is quite impractical to include items of this nature and say that they cannot be published and that they cannot be exhibited in public.

The second point I want to raise is on a point of information. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether the definition of a picture intended for exhibition through a mechanical device includes a television film? Direct television or a television film is, after all, a picture which is exhibited through a mechanical device. While the clause excludes items produced by the SABC in its definition of “film”, often we will have to do with closed circuit television, not merely used by commercial distributors as mentioned in this clause but also by political parties. Political parties use closed circuit television at public meetings or at symposia or at conferences. I should like to know how in practice one is going to deal with the live television film which is either published or shown in public. The word “published” is specially restrictive because it means that one will not even be permitted to publish a “film” in order to go and get permission. If one publishes it prior to its being authorized one has already fallen foul of the law. So before one has published the film one will have to get authority to produce something which is at that stage merely a concept, merely an idea. Sir, the concept of “published” is so restrictive as it is almost impossible to get authority to produce what is merely an idea. Sir, this includes magnetic tape casettes which are used by hundreds of thousands of people around the country as an ordinary means of communication, of tape-recording political speeches and religious meetings and then replaying these to audiences in places to which the public has access. Sir, when one reads clause 19 together with the definition of “film” in the definitions clause, I believe that it is not only very restrictive but that in practice it will be very difficult to regulate, except for the cinematograph film which is relatively easy to regulate. I refer again to colour slides, pictures intended for exhibition by a mechanical device and magnetic tape cassettes, items defined as films in the definitions clause. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain how he is going to deal with these in practice in terms of clause 19

Sir, I should just like to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that if he wants to show at his home his private film which he took in the game reserve, there will be no problem.

Not at my home, at my club.

Sir, I am afraid that I shall have to tell the hon. member that he will have to get exemption in that case. But if he reads clause 19(3), he will see that it refers to categories of films. A whole series can be exempted by the Film Board on just one application, and, therefore, there is no problem in this connection either.

To the hon. member for Sea Point I should like to say that he should take cognizance of the fact, as far as the publishing of films is concerned, that that is covered by clause 47(l)(xxiv) in the Afrikaans version. In the English version it is (xxii). This paragraph reads—

“Film”, of course, is defined. If it is the intention to deal with slides in this way, then, of course, they will have to get approval. A whole series of slides depicting scenic beauty, or whatever it may be, can be exempted. Even a whole series of political films for closed circuit television or films can be exempted, and there is, therefore, no problem in this regard either. With one single application, exemption can be obtained for that whole category. There is, therefore, no problem, only the bit of trouble of applying.

What the hon. the Deputy Minister has said now is not that the Minister but that the directorate consisting of officials appointed by the Minister are going to be in a position to decide whether a political party can make use of tape recordings or not. What is more, Sir, they will have to wait until this is proclaimed in the Government Gazette. I think this is quite intolerable. One can understand this in the case of the normal cinematograph film, but we are now talking of a magnetic tape cassette, which is a much used standard device. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister serious in saying that he believes that anyone using a magnetic tape cassette in public must first get the formal permission of the directorate and that that must appear in the Government Gazette? Sir, it is a totally unworkable arrangement.

No.

Sir, this is what the Deputy Minister said. He said: “Jy moet net die bietjie moeite doen om aansoek te doen”. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has in his mind at this stage certain categories which should be exempt, then I believe he should say it, because he has referred to certain exemptions. He has referred to certain exemptions for distributors under subclause (2). If it is not his intention to restrict, let us say, political parties using tape recordings or colour slides, then I believe he should make this quite clear, because in the legislation as the clause reads at the moment this is entirely in the discretion of an official; it is not even in the discretion of the Minister. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said that he wanted to make it quite clear that the directorate would not work under pressure from the Minister. Sir, is he correct that religious organizations and political parties must ascertain from the directorate whether they can make tape recordings of political meetings or discussions in order to re-play those recordings to other people? Sir, the Minister must be quite clear. Where reference is made to “publishing” earlier on, it says that “publishing” relates only to cinematograph films. The definition of “film” is far wider than “cinematograph films”; it includes the other seven categories in addition to “cinematograph films”. I believe that not only is this restrictive; the Minister is also not going to be able to make this operate in practice.

As the Act now reads there is no restriction as far as production is concerned. The hon. member can therefore make his films, etc., for political purposes. When it comes to exhibiting, that whole category can be exempted in the Gazette, or if there is no exemption in the Gazette, and there are others he wants to use, he applies for use to be made.

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

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. “(i) the advisory committee concerned shall submit its advice to that committee within a period of thirty days from the date on which that question was so referred; and
2. (ii) that committee”.

This is being done at the request of the Association of Full-length Films Manufacturers, i.e. that the decision of an advisory committee should be given within a reasonable period of time, because the film industry plans according to certain periods, and if a long period of time elapses, this can damage the industry.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This chiefly brings about textual improvements.

This is the first clause where reference is made to the appeal board. I think we have made it clear that we are totally opposed to this and we will therefore vote against it.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) In line 24, after “shall” to insert “by notice in writing inform the person who submitted the film in question under section 20(1) of that fact, shall”; and
2. (2) to insert the following paragraph at the end of subsection (2):

I am also doing this, in particular, to try to accommodate the hon. member for East London City and also in connection with an amendment which stood earlier in the name of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Its meaning is virtually the same as that of the amendment under clause 14 which we have already discussed. Apart from the fact that notice is now being given in the Gazette, the hon. member requests that in the case of direction by the Minister or an appeal by the directorate to the appeal board, the person who originally submitted the film should also be notified in writing of the said review of his film by the appeal board. We are trying to accommodate the hon. member here. But then I just feel that the hon. member is going a little too far when he speaks of persons with a direct financial interest. My problem is that there could, inter alia, be dozens of cinema-owners on the platteland whom we could regard as having a direct financial interest here, and to notify them all, as the hon. member requests, and to determine who these cinema-owners are, does furnish a problem. In respect of the problem of the person making representations, which we have discussed previously, I do not feel it is necessary for us to reply to that in full again. We have thrashed that matter out with each other.

Mr. Chairman, we are very appreciative of the attempts made by the hon. the Deputy Minister to meet us in this matter, but unfortunately neither of the two amendments which he has moved is acceptable to this side. We have debated the same matters when clause 14 was discussed, except the first amendment which has now been moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Unfortunately we cannot accept this amendment because it still restricts the notification to those people who have a direct financial interest, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has just mentioned. We feel that these people still have a right to be given notice, provided of course that the directorate should know who would have a direct financial interest in these films. We believe that as long as he takes steps to see that the people who are directly concerned with the production—not necessarily with the filming—of these films, are given written notification in view of the fact that they stand to lose as a result of this appeal being heard at the request of the director or the Minister we will be satisfied. We feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give us a further reply along these lines because we do not believe that the argument which he has just advanced about having to notify all the people who show these films, is a valid one.

Furthermore, I feel that I should personally like to hear the hon. member for Bellville on the first leg of the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved, because last night the hon. member made a lengthy reference to the fact that an appeal from a decision of a local transportation board to the National Transport Commission does not require notice to the parties. He then drew a parallel between that particular action and the action which is proposed to be taken in terms of this Bill. He asked why, if it does not happen in terms of the transportation legislation, it should happen here. I feel that perhaps he should try to find a few other boards of a quasi-judicial nature which require the giving of notice to parties so that he can substantiate the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved now.

The hon. member for Vereeniging, in justifying the granting of the right to be heard at the discretion of the appeal board, gave four reasons for creating a discretion to the board in regard to the right to be heard. Firstly, he said that the idea was to make the procedure more flexible—I presume that that is the correct English translation of his words. His second reason was that this was necessary in order to provide for speedy action. His third reason was that it should be made inexpensive and, fourthly, that it should be made available to persons who cannot afford the cost of legal advisers. Our views on this side are that if these are the only reasons for the Government to breach such a basic rule of natural justice, it leaves us with a complete sense of shock.

Under these circumstances I move the following two amendments—

1. (1) To add at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) “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 (2) “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.”.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to go into this clause at any great length, because it has already been dealt with fairly extensively during the Second Reading. However, I must at the outset state that we are wholly and totally opposed to this clause. It sets up a new kind of machinery in South Africa for the censorship of films. It is a kind of machinery which concentrates all power and activities relating to the censorship of films in a particular place under the supervision of a particular group of people who will have the power, amongst other things, to exercise control, not only by cutting and censorship, but above all by the power of delay. It is true that there is no provision in this Bill for the power of delay. I believe, however, that delay is implicit in the whole system. If one considers the extent of the film industry in South Africa, the large number of films already produced, the very large number of films imported, the volume of films in South Africa which are provided for public entertainment, which are being imported and which will continue to be imported and manufactured in ever greater numbers, one realizes that this institution, this place where the films will be assembled, looked at, judged, cut and eventually returned to the producers or distributors, will create an entirely new industry to be conducted by a large number of people. In 1973 the present publications board looked at approximately 3 000 films in the course of that year. It is not possible to skim through films or to look at merely parts thereof. Every film has to be seen to its full extent, run at its normal speed and seen at that speed. The number of hours occupied by this occupation runs into many thousands of hours. One can find only a number of people in a country like ours who are properly qualified to do this work. It is not an easy task to censor films. It requires qualities of knowledge, of taste, of discrimination, which are not the gift of every ordinary man. One therefore requires people of considerable skill, discrimination and dedication to carry out this task. We will now have concentrated in one place these people who will have to carry out this task in respect of all the films which are imported and all the films which are made in this country. I believe that, with the advent of television, we shall also have an enormous increase in the number of other devices which are already available on the market and which can be used in order to show films, videotapes, or magnetic tapes of other kinds, through a television set. There will therefore be enormous public interest in the acquisition of films by such people as tourists who go abroad and by people who receive them from their friends, because every home that contains a television set, can also be a cinema. This Bill lays down that every single film which is made in or imported to this country, with only certain specified exception, will in fact have to be subjected to this machinery, with all the time and work involved. I believe that the system is theoretically workable, but in practice entirely unworkable. I believe it will do enormous harm to the film industry in South Africa. The film industry is not purely a matter of entertainment. It is an important part of the economy and of the cultural life of South Africa. I believe we have imposed here a machinery that is so ponderous and unworkable, and that is going to cause so much damage to the film industry, that it will, in fact, be a major disadvantage to South Africa and do a great deal of harm. For all these reasons—I could elaborate on them a great deal more—we believe that clause 28 is ill-conceived in principle, that it will be impractical in practice, and we therefore can give no support whatsoever to this clause. We believe that it is a wrong clause. It is a wrong principle. It is a wrong practice, and it can do only harm.

Mr. Chairman, if unfortunately it should happen that this clause is accepted by this Committee, I would like to move the following amendment—

Subsection (4) provides that, where a film is sent directly by the Secretary for Customs and Excise to the director, and it is then viewed by the committee, the importer does not necessarily ...

I am accepting that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite correct that this clause introduces a new method of control over films; but I do not agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis when he says that this method will necessarily be detrimental to the film industry. It is true that this method may perhaps be a cumbersome one but the hon. member for Von Brandis should have known, in the light of the evidence that has been lead, that during the past few years in South Africa there has been a tremendous increase in a new category of films which is not normally imported by the film industry in South Africa, a category of which a large portion can be regarded as undesirable. In order to be able to deal with those problems which arise on account of the inflow of films of this category, it was necessary for the commission to propose a new system in order to be able to exercise control over it. The commission was obviously aware of the fact that we do not wish to restrict the film industry. That is why an exemption was inserted in this clause, which provides for certain distributors or certain categories of films to be exempted. In other words, exemption may be obtained on reasonable grounds for the normal, recognized, responsible distributors in the film industry. But if we are in earnest to be able to control or wish to control a problem we are faced with, a problem on which indisputable evidence has been adduced, we must provide new machinery to do so. While that machinery is experiencing its growing-pains, something which is probably going to happen, experience will teach us in course of time in which way we can improve and tighten up that machinery. To say that this machinery is undesirable and to want to suggest that they do not want to apply any alternative method whatsoever in order to overcome this problem, is to my mind an irresponsible attitude on the part of the Opposition. Therefore we must reject their opposition to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell too long on this clause, but I think it should be accepted as a fact by this Committee that the film industry views this clause with the gravest of concern. It is all very well for the hon. member who has just sat down to say that they need some system of control because of certain films which may come in, and that the ordinary “ordentlike” film importer will get a permit or a licence, but since when do we legislate so that people can carry on their business only on sufferance? If the directorate thinks it right that they should be allowed to carry on in a way not applicable to other people, they will be able to do so. In this Bill there is not the slightest indication of the guidelines within which the directorate must work when deciding whether or not to grant exemptions. There are no guidelines whatsoever. It is solely in the discretion of the directorate.

With the growing of this industry as a result of the advent of TV, one can assume that more and more businesses will be established to import films, such as cassette films, which can be utilized in conjunction with TV sets. What is to happen? Is this vast trade which one can expect to develop now going to be entirely in the hands of some film importer, some big boy in the trade who the directorate feels should have a permit? Such an organization will then spread itself out into the retail trade, the distribution side and into the letting and lending libraries. It can then take over the whole of the business in South Africa to the detriment of the honest to goodness, ordinary small man who wants to import or distribute a film. There are persons whom I would call the blacklegs in this business at the present time, but there are simple ways of dealing with them. You can deal with them without having to put the whole of the industry in bondage in order to get at the few who are bringing in films which are undesirable. I think the Deputy Minister should take cognizance of the concern in the industry, concern which exists even though there is a slight alleviation which the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to grant and which will mean that the film importer who wants to see his film can at least come and see it before it has been carved up by the censors. Then he can at least know what came into the country before he is given the remnant as an approved film to be shown on the circuits in the country. That is not enough, however, to get over the difficulty and the very serious implications this clause will have for the film industry.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is satisfied with the central laboratory which is to be established. Does he think that such a laboratory can really handle the volume of work efficiently which will have to be done? If he cuts down the volume of work to be handled at the central laboratory by granting permits, he must establish other laboratories or other places or another series of committees who can go and see those films which are imported under permit at other centres than the usual centre where the general supervision of the industry is to be sited in terms of the clause as it is before us. I think he should not proceed with this clause, at least in the form in which it is now.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I should like to put on record our total opposition to this clause. This is what the hon. member has called the new method of controlling films; it is just an extension of our mania of wanting to control everything. I agree with the hon. member on my right that this clause is unnecessary. I believe that it is also impractical. I do not think it can work. It can only hamstring, in the first instance, and harm the film industry and I think it is going to prove an irritant to the viewing public. The glib assurances we have had that no reasonable person or reasonable firm need be concerned about this, are assurances we have heard too often. We know that once this legislation is put on the Statute Book and it starts being implemented, it is then that the irritant begins. We are totally opposed to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, we wish this clause to be negatived. The hon. member for Klip River suggests that in the case of the film industry and the undesirable films which may be exhibited in this country, we are faced with a major problem. What are the facts? It was shown during the hearings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Publications and Entertainments Amendment Bill that 2 630 films were actually examined in 1972 by the present Publications Board. We have no final figure for 1973, but by extrapolation we calculated that it would have been just over 3000 films. Of the total number of films thus seen, this board actually banned less than 3% of all the films it viewed. We are now faced with the prospect of this vast factory or laboratory being created, and I shall qualify and justify “vast”. In this vast factory this work will be carried out in the endeavour to exclude the 3% of films which are considered undesirable. I have made a small calculation here. Let us assume that, at the present rate of growth, the number of films to be censored within the next few years amount to 6 900. This is not a very large number at the present rate of growth. Let us assume, further, that the average viewing time—that includes the time between films and the time taken for discussion—averages two hours per film. That means that we are going to spend 12 000 hours looking at films. I have not included the time taken in cutting the films, but only the time taken for viewing and discussing them. Let us assume further that these industrious gentlemen work every day of the week except Sundays and public holidays, i.e. they work Monday to Saturday, and they work eight hours on every one of those days throughout the year.

That is a 48-hour week.

Yes, an eight-hour day, six days in the week. This will require ten separate groups or panels working simultaneously eight hours a day for 300 days a year. This is the nature and size of the proposition we are considering. When you come to contemplate this and you add to it not just the normal growth of the film industry, the normal importations of the film industry, but the home market, the private producers of films, the people who are interested in making their own films, the private individuals who import films when they come home from abroad and show them on their television sets—all these fall under the scope of the Bill—it staggers the imagination. We are here erecting a mammoth machine, a machine as big as this building, in order to crack a peanut. It really is quite out of proportion. We believe that this vast labyrinth of bureaucratic action proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister will become the laughing-stock of South Africa. That would be bad enough, but much worse than that it would mean the destruction of the film industry in South Africa. The film industry is an important one and it affects many aspects of our national life including such things as tourism and the general contentment of all sections of our population. It is a form of recreation, a form of culture, a form of education which is an important facet of the national life of this country. This whole industry is being greatly endangered, being greatly handicapped and industrially undermined, all this to keep out the 3% of films, to cut out those odd sequences which the hon. member for Klip River thinks are so dangerous to the national morality of South Africa and the national health of South Africa. We believe the whole thing is ludicrous and we will oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has estimated _ what the provisions of this clause are going to cost the country. It is not only the storage which will place a tremendous burden on the tax-payer; one must accept that other people’s property, which will now fall into the hands of the State, will be damaged. As far as the Railways are concerned, they have to pay out enormous amounts in damages. Here we shall have a damage factor on a reasonably large scale, for very expensive articles. The hon. the Deputy Minister should furnish us with an estimate of what he thinks the burden will be for the tax-payer. I do not know whether it was pointed out when the clause was under consideration, but the definition of “film” also includes—

Possibly this could have worked in South Africa when we were still a small country, but with the tremendous expansion taking place here it will place an enormous burden on the tax-payer, and this is quite unnecessary. The principle on which this clause is based is that everyone dealing with films, is a criminal. He first has to surrender everything he possesses to the State and the State will then give judgment. Is it not better to operate from the other principle—that people are normal people and that one rather deals with the criminals only? After all, we do not have laws placing a policeman at every home in case someone commits a crime. Here we are now operating on the principle that every person dealing with a film is automatically a criminal. He now has to surrender his goods to the State, and it is decided afterwards whether the goods can be released. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an indication of the costs involved in the implementation of the provisions of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the basic problem we are dealing with here, was thoroughly thrashed out by the commission of inquiry. On page 18 of their report, where the question of cinematograph films is dealt with, Chapter VII, they state that film producers and distributors and film clubs submitted memoranda to them. They state—

Then follows some interesting information. But then there is the problem that there is a shortcoming in the present form of control, which is that films which are imported and even produced here, physically fall into the hands of an importer or distributor before they have been submitted to the control body, and there was sufficient evidence that this should rather not happen, because a considerable amount of undesirable material comes onto the market.

This also applies to books.

Yes, this also applies to books, but we are dealing with films now. All that is being suggested now is that imported films should be handed over to the directorate by Customs and Excise so that the directorate may then hand them over to the committee for submission so that no reproductions can be made of undesirable films, because in this way only the directorate will have them in its possession for a certain length of time. These pre-censorship cuts cannot be re-inserted later, because the cuts will remain under the control of the directorate. This is basically what it is all about. But, Sir, let us now consider the present position because the Act is standing on the Statute Book at present; the only way in which the present Act is amended, is that all films are canalized to the directorate, something for which no provision is made in the existing Act, and, furthermore, that certain actions have to take place with the permission of the directorate; that is the only difference. At present the control machinery is operating satisfactorily. The volume of material they will have to handle, is, in fact, being increased considerably, but then we have clause 5 with regard to exemption and it may be the case with regard to the distribution of categories of films. In addition, they can even obtain exemption with regard to the cuts which have to be made, and distributors may make their own cuts. The hon. member for Von Brandis says one needs particular technical know-how to be able to do this. Sir, these people can still do so through their own technicians; there is no problem in this regard. I really cannot see where the problem of the hon. gentlemen lies. The same machinery we have at present will continue to operate in practically the same form. There is, as I have said, certain other material which will also be submitted to them in future, but surely it will soon become clear in what respects a blanket exemption may be granted immediately so that importers and producers can continue in the normal way. Sir, these people become known and one is not going to interfere with people who have co-operated in the proper way through all these years. If there are any restrictions and if cuts have to be made, one is going to allow them to have the cuts made by their own technicians. I would not even object to those people having the cuts in their possession, because we know they have given us their co-operation in the past and have never re-inserted cuts in films. In other words, Sir, this will operate in exactly the same way.

I now want to come back to the figure mentioned by the hon. member for Von-Brandis, viz. the 3% of films which were banned. The highest percentage banned through the years was approximately 3% and this is minimal considering the mass of films which are imported. The impression is created that some or other sinister character is sitting at the top with a huge pair of scissors cutting to pieces every film entering South Africa and those he does not cut to pieces, he shoves into a drawer, and these are being kept away from the public so that they do not see any decent films and no decent entertainment is available to them. Sir, 3% is minimal. There are still going to be those films which no producer would like to submit to the directorate; I am referring to films which are distributed under the name “blue films”, which the police would like to get hold of and which we are all opposed to. The producer of that type of films will see to it that his films never go through that channel, because he knows they will be nipped in the bud, and all of want to see this done. Mr. Chairman, I honestly do not know what more I must tell the hon. gentlemen when I consider the exemption clause and when I consider the way in which the existing machinery has operated. In the interim, while the hon. the Minister was referring film appeals to me, I, too, came into contact with prominent people in the film industry, we had discussions and I listened to many of their problems and not one of them spoke in the vein in which the hon. gentlemen spoke here. Surely, they are aware of the problems they have in their industry, and they would surely have taken the liberty of discussing with me the proposed legislation which is now serving before us. I have received no representations from any of them. There are also certain problems with regard to certain decisions taken by the Publications Board, and other problems will arise as the industry progresses, but not a single problem such as those held out to us by the hon. gentlemen here today. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked whether I could furnish him with an estimate of the cost to the State of this new arrangement. This cannot be done at this stage because one does not know how many exemptions will be granted. This will depend on the number of exemptions granted. In the second place, some of these films which are to be sent to the directorate may be damaged while being stored and, as in the case of the Railways, large amounts will have to be paid out as compensation. Sir, I take it that there are not many films waiting at the Publications Board at the moment, films which are normally sent in by producers and importers. At the moment, they are therefore keeping them as well.

They themselves keep them.

They themselves keep them. But why should the directorate handle these films in a different way and leave them lying around? After all, they are responsible people who will see to it that they take good care of someone else’s property while it is in their possession. I really cannot see what the problem of the hon. member is as far as this point is concerned. Honestly, Sir, I cannot help the hon. gentlemen any further. We have our standpoint in this regard, which is that there must be control, and the only control is to canalize films to a control body and for that control body to be able to grant exemptions, and I leave the matter at that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—83: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S.P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, R. F.; 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, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W.C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; 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, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg) Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. Van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; 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.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyeserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 30:

Mr. Chairman, in considering the first clause which deals with public entertainments it is perhaps helpful to look at the definitions in clause 47 to find out exactly what is meant by “public entertainment”. We find that “public entertainment” is defined as follows—

This is not entirely helpful, but we have to do the best we can with it in attempting to interpret the meaning of the clause.

We have various objections against this clause, but these can perhaps be grouped together and dealt with as one. Our major objection relates to the use throughout the clause of the words “intended public entertainment” and the words in other places “or any part thereof”. In order to save the time of the Committee, we shall deal with the various subsections as one because the meaning and the nature of the objection will be the same in each case. I therefore move the following seven amendments—

1. (1) In line 32, to omit “or intended public entertainment”;
2. (2) in lines 35 and 36, to omit “or intended public entertainment”;
3. (3) in line 38, to omit “or intended public entertainment”;
4. (4) in lines 41 and 42, to omit “or any part thereof”;
5. (5) in lines 46 and 47, to omit “or intended public entertainment”;
6. (6) in lines 51 and 52, to omit “or intended public entertainment or any part thereof”; and
7. (7) in lines 57 and 58, to omit “or the part thereof in question”.

When one considers the nature of a public entertainment, one has in mind entertainments other than those which have already been dealt with in respect of films. One has in mind, therefore, live entertainment, the theatre, night-clubs, cabarets and performances for the entertainment of the public in general. These are of a much more ephemeral nature than what stands printed in a book, than what is carved in stone or than that which is recorded on film. You have here a human element which introduces to the entertainment at each performance a degree of vicissitude, a degree of variety and a degree of uncertainty, because in each case it depends on the artists, on the inspiration of the artists, on the response of the audience and on the nature of the occasion exactly how that play or that performance will be portrayed on the stage or elsewhere. We have to deal therefore with something which is unpredictable, which is not certain or precise or definite or established, as is the case with printed material or with films that are shown. It is therefore a particularly difficult subject to bring under censorship. One can see, nevertheless, that it may be necessary to try to exercise some degree of control over the kind of entertainment that is shown to the public. A major difficulty arises, however, when one deals with what is referred to here as an “intended public entertainment”. What is an intended public entertainment? Is it a twinkle in the author’s eye? Is it an inspiration, a concept, a desire, a vague intention to do something in the future? Is it a play which has already been produced elsewhere in another country and is to be imported into this country? If it is, how can one be sure that the same actors and the same direction will be used and that the same kind of performance will be put on in this country? One is dealing here with a field of enormous uncertainty. While the uncertainty is great enough in the case of a public entertainment, the uncertainty in the case of an intended public entertainment is almost entirely incalculable. One understands well enough what the intention of the Government was in bringing forward this Bill and in including the words “intended public entertainment”, because there were cases where certain plays, such as “Jesus Christ Superstar”, were shown in other countries, and it was desired to do something about them before they were actually produced for the first time in South Africa. But, Sir, the definition and the wording of the clause makes no distinction between this kind of intention and the general possibility that whatever is being prepared, is being rehearsed, is contemplated in embryo but has not yet reached any precise or definable form, may nevertheless be brought to the notice of a committee and dealt with in terms of this Bill. Sir, this intention and the method to be used is therefore so vague, because one is dealing with ghosts; one is dealing with something which has not yet been made, which has not yet happened, which has not yet taken any form and which, having taken form, may go on changing from night to night as each performance takes place. I believe that to deal with intended public entertainment in this way is really quite unrealistic.

We also have an objection to the inclusion of the words “any part thereof”, because an “intended public entertainment or any part thereof” is even more nebulous than “intended public entertainment” itself. I do not propose, once again, to continue my argument at length. I believe that what I have said illustrates why we have difficulty in accepting the clause as it stands, and justifies the amendments which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis is now proposing a number of amendments. I can remind him of the words of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who said “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. The hon. member probably has good intentions with this amendment, but the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg furnished him with the reply. What will the precise effect be of the acceptance of amendments of this kind? Sir, suppose it is ascertained that a theatrical company wishes to present the play “Oh, Calcutta!” or “Hair”, which we will, after all, never accept in South Africa. What the hon. member now wants is that it should be performed for one evening, and that only after that may action be taken. Surely that is absurd. In this clause we are providing that the directorate may give instructions to the effect that works like these may be viewed prior to he first performance and that decisions may be taken in regard to them. Then the hon. member proposes in his fourth amendment that “or the part thereof” be omitted. He will himself be aware that the stage play “Godspell” was recently performed and then banned. A judge was then appointed to go and see it, and he decided that, in his opinion, the play could continue to be performed, provided certain omissions or amendments were effected.

A judge, yes.

Whether it is a judge or a committee member is irrelevant now; what is relevant is that the person to whom the task of forming an opinion has been entrusted exercises his discretion here by saying that this work may be proceeded with. The performance will not be banned because of one sentence or word. An omission or amendment may therefore be effected to make it acceptable, but now the hon. member for Von Brandis wants to propose that the committee to whom this task has been entrusted may not propose that a part be omitted. Therefore, if there is only one word which makes it undesirable, the entire play must inevitably be banned. Surely that is absurd. But we can expect this of the United Party, for what they say usually does not make much sense.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am not as fortunate as the hon. member for Klip River. Not having seen “Oh, Calcutta!”, I cannot express an opinion as to whether or not we would accept it in South Africa.

I have not yet seen it.

Has he not seen it?

No.

Oh, well, Sir, he has just heard of it! But what is the attitude of that side of the House? He is prepared to say that something must be banned when he has not even seen it. That is one of the problems I have with this clause that is before us. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how the phrase “an intended production” is going to be applied in practice? Do we now adopt the line that has been suggested by the hon. member for Klip River? Will the directorate say that they have heard that “Oh, Calcutta!” is a shocking show, that there is some nudity, and that they will thus decide in advance that it cannot be produced in South Africa? I do not know the scenes and the lyrics of “Oh, Calcutta!”, but one could imagine that “Oh, Calcutta!”, as well as other productions, could be presented in a decently clothed manner, if the producers wished to do so, that the nuait, be excluded completely from the production. How is the directorate going to decide in advance that the production of a certain title should be prohibited? My experience perhaps is a little more restricted than that of the hon. member for Klip River; but one could look, for instance, at the production of pantomime. I have also seen pantomime produced in a very dull manner. How is the board going to say that an intended production or entertainment should be banned? It leaves the position open, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has said, to decisions which have no bearing, no objective approach and no objective judgment on the particular entertainment which is being adjudicated upon. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain to me how he imagines setting about dealing with that intended entertainment. If one puts the position in this way, one can think of so many forms of entertainment where it is the manner and the presentation which may or may not be objectionable and not the contents of the entertainment itself. I should like to know how this is going to be dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis. It is absolutely absurd to prejudge entertainment which has not yet been seen. Indeed, there is such a lot of hypocrisy about this whole subject, it is all based on such subjective yardsticks, that we are really making a thorough laughing stock of South Africa. We all know perfectly well that a production like “Godspell” (not “Jesus Christ Superstar”) was subsequently allowed after Judge Snyman viewed it and decided that there was nothing blasphemous about it. We know that hundreds of South Africans are streaming across the border to see it in Maseru. They go to Swaziland to see other shows which are being put on there. It is so ludicrous. The whole thing is such nonsense. Then they come back to South Africa and say: “Oh, no, not for South African eyes! We cannot possibly look at anything so vulgar and obscene”. It is all such nonsense from beginning to end. I want to show how absurd and how inconsistent we are in our judgment even in South Africa. There was an excellent play which was staged, the Zulu version of Macbeth “UmaBatha” or “Macbeth”: I saw it in the outdoor arena at the University of Natal. The ladies acting in the play were all most discreetly dressed in little white singlets, but down here at Maynardville, I am glad to say, there were no singlets. The ladies were as the good Lord made them. I say that the show was a lot less suggestive without the singlets than it was with the singlets. I saw it in London where it was a roaring success. Needless to say, in London nobody even considered putting on any singlets on these rather beautiful dancing ladies. This whole attitude is nonsense from beginning to end and I whish the hon. the Minister would emerge from his mediaeval miasma. [Interjections.] I wish he would try to consider the fact that we are after all living in the last quarter of the 20th century and that every other country has long since abandoned ...

He should take his singlet off.

I would hate to have him take his singlet off. [Interjections.] If we could get just a little modernity in our outlook and not try to think of this as permissiveness or something that is going to undermine the morals of the young people of the country, but as art and culture which the entire world has adopted.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a form of pre-censorship. From the evidence which we received from cultural bodies, it appeared that pre-censorship is regarded as something reprehensible. What is in reality happening here is that the censor may interfere in the creation of art. This is one of the most offensive measures in the entire Bill, for here one finds the situation that, while the artist is engaged in creating his work, someone may proceed to complain about his “intended public entertainment”. Even before the person has completed his creation he may be subjected to an investigation by a committee. Do you realize. Sir, what a terrible effect this is going to have on the creative work of the artist in South Africa. Such interference in the cultural life is absolutely impermissible. The S.A. Akademie van Kuns en Wetenskap expressed itself strongly opposed in principle to pre-censorship. This body stated with regard to a written work (translation)—

An artist may be engaged in testing out certain things before presenting the final product on the stage. At that stage it is already possible to interfere in his work of art, i.e. before it has assumed its final form. This is something which is quite unacceptable and we must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister please to consider withdrawing this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to put the record straight which the hon. member for Klip River, with his gift for doing so, has managed to get a bit confused. I made it quite and specifically clear when I spoke on my amendments that my objection to the words “or any part thereof” related to the “intended public entertainment”. I said that I objected, firstly, to the “intended public entertainment” and, secondly, to the application of the words “or any part thereof” relating to the “intended public entertainment”. It is perfectly obvious that if you have an existing public entertainment which has been seen and found to contain words which are objectionable or offensive to the public in general, and those words are taken out, that is something which we do not include in our amendment as “intended”. What we object to most strongly is what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has referred to as precensorship or the pre-judgment of something which has not yet reached the shores of this country, which is dealt with by hearsay and then brought to the notice of this establishment in order that they may decide on something which is not yet an existing entertainment in South Africa. This is where our objection lies. The objection applies as much to the “intended public entertainment” as it does to “or any part thereof”, i.e. any part of the intended public entertainment. I hope I have been able to put the record straight.

Mr. Chairman, before I forget, I should like to move as an amendment—

This amendment effects an improvement.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has indicated that there must be something wrong with me. I do not know now whether it is a psychological, intellectual or physical infirmity, but apparently there is something drastically wrong with me somewhere. Nevertheless I shall try to the best of my ability to reply to the points which have been raised.

In this case again, as in the case of films, I want to inform hon. members that they are truly conjuring up spectres. By now there is already an existing pattern for the judging of public entertainments in South Africa. Certain or most of the provisions in this clause are already contained in the present Act. I know that the hon. members do not accept the present Act, and that they did in fact vote against it at the time. That I also accept. In practice, however, one can surely see what happens. Let me say right at the outset that the present Act already contains most of these provisions. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they could mention any examples to me, apart from “Jesus Christ Superstar” and “Godspell”, where there was prior interference in the creative ability of the artist or where, in regard to any actual work of art which was to be presented on stage, the curtains were simply rung down and everyone who had participated in that work was thrown out of the theatre or the place of performance? Hon. members cannot mention one single example to me. The controlling machinery which we are now introducing will function along precisely the same lines.

The question was raised of how we are going to know, in respect of a public performance, what a person is contemplating producing. There is the possibility of previews. If a committee were to feel at a preview that there was part of the work—perhaps not even an entire scene, but part of a scene—which would possibly give offence, the persons in control could be advised to omit something which is unsatisfactory. Instead of cancelling the entire performance, that part is omitted or the scene is rewritten and the performance continues. But a preview is a possibility. In the case of a work which is performed abroad and which may be brought to South Africa as well, the script could also be read. There has to be a script for it. It is not merely a case of importing works. The script may be read before the time. This would also be an indication to the committee whether that performance, that public entertainment, would be acceptable or not. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the performance of the Zulu play “UmaBatha”. If actresses performed at the university of Natal wearing certain items of apparel, and again here at Maynardville and at other places naked to the waist, it is not the Publications Board which imposed that restriction. The Publications Board imposes a restriction whether it is in Natal, or Maynardville or in Johannesburg. It was the people who were in control of that performance who did this.

You are making judges out of everybody.

It was the people who were in control of that production, and they imposed that restriction. Now the hon. member says it was the Publications Board that did so.

You are making people censor themselves.

We cannot blame the Publications Board for things which other people decided to do.

You set the tone.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a point in regard to interference in a person’s creative work, interference whilst he was engaged in creating a work of art. At some stage or another he has his script as well. He creates it and completes it. There is the final product which he is prepared to stage. There are scenes which he is perhaps trying out, and which, to his taste, do not satisfy, as with musicals, for example. He is not at that stage engaged in a public performance.

Robert Kirby does not have a final script in advance.

Very well then. But when did Robert Kirby ever find himself in difficulty? Who has ever said to Robert Kirby: “You are producing rubbish now; you must stop”?

We are speaking about the statutory provision which makes it possible.

This measure makes it possible for this to happen. I told hon. members opposite today that they expected us to proceed to a climax. They said things which were supposed to make our hair to stand on end. Now they see that it is not happening, although they used expressions like “super-snoopers” etc. It is not our intention to ring down the curtains of the theatres. This machine is going to function as well as it is able to function, in spite of all the misgivings which were raised here. I really cannot accept the amendment.

First amendment moved by Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers negatived and second, third and fifth amendments dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Fourth amendment moved by Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers negatived and sixth and seventh amendments dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

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

Clause, as amended, 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.; Bohta, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; 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, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules), Lloyd, J. J.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L.A. Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; 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, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter. A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—44: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; 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.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.: Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 31:

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

1. (1) In line 17 after “entertainment” to insert “or any person who has a direct financial interest in that entertainment,”; and
2. (2) in line 50, to omit “directorate” and to substitute “director”.

The first is simply intended to bring clause 31 into line with clause 13, and the second is a textual improvement.

I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting the intent of the amendment I had on the Order Paper. I do not mind at all that he has polished up the language to have that intent included in the Bill. In so far as concerns the second amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, I will not move it in the light of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first amendment standing in my name will now of course be a hindrance if I were to move it, in that we have now dealt with the powers which cover an intended public entertainment. In these circumstances I will not move the amendment. I merely rise to explain that it would now be in conflict with the clause which has been adopted and would rather hinder than improve the position.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This amendment also arises from an amendment appearing on the Order Paper, as well as amendments to clauses 14 and 24 appearing on the Order Paper under the name of the hon. member for East London City. I also accept the idea underlying the first part of the hon. member’s amendment, and in the amendment which I have moved, this has merely been reworded. Unfortunately I cannot accept the last part of the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for going as far as he has gone. Obviously he has not gone as far as we would like him to go, but when he introduces the first amendments to this Bill, after it has been promulgated, he might perhaps take the next step and complete the reformation that he has accepted so far. I am sure that that occasion will arise next year.

Mr. Chairmain, I should like to move that the hon. the Deputy Minister delete paragraph (b) of subsection (1) from the Bill. This paragraph empowers the Minister to direct the appeal board to reconsider a decision.

Order! Is the hon. member moving this as an amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

My reason for moving this amendment is very briefly that it is quite wrong that the Minister should have the power to interfere in any respect with the functions of the appeal board. The practical effect of the possession of such powers by the Minister would be that if political pressure were to be exerted on him, he could consider himself obliged to issue instructions to the appeal board. We are not in favour of the appeal board, but the Minister is doing his best to give the appeal board the semblance of a court. The Minister cannot issue instructions to any court, but although he would like to give the appeal board the semblance of a court, he is nevertheless allowing the possibility of his issuing instructions to that pseudo-court. If he wishes that appeal board to be held in any esteem it is necessary for the Minister to eliminate from the Bill the power enabling a politician to issue instructions to that body.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that we have already disposed of two clauses in which a similar provision occurs. I am referring to the Minister’s powers of issuing a direction.

But they could be omitted.

The same applies in the case of publications and objects as in the case of films. Unfortunately I cannot comply with the hon. member’s request. The Minister is in fact appealing to the appeal board. He cannot issue them with an instruction to amend their decision. The Minister is in effect lodging an appeal with the appeal board. If so many complaints in regard to a public entertainment are made on the part of the public that the Minister finds himself in an embarrassing situation, the Minister, as the soundingboard of the views of the public, has to be able to lay those objections before someone. He requests the appeal board to reconsider their decision, but if they give that same decision again, then, to use this expression, that is the end of it. We are not dealing here with powers in terms of which the Minister may instruct the appeal board to give another decision. I cannot, unfortunately, accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Order! Would the hon. member for Green Point confirm that he did not move the amendment appearing in his name on the Order Paper?

No, I did not move it.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that what is involved here is an instruction to reconsider a decision. The point is, however, that censorship machinery is being created by means of this Bill which is, as far as possible, outside the political sphere. I mean that it is removed from interference by politicians. Under these circumstances, why should something be added which allows an opening for party political pressure on a Minister, while the public does in fact have another channel? The public may, after all, go to the directorate. Why should it be made possible for a Minister to interfere under political pressure? What I am concerned about, is the nature of political pressure .. .

What is that?

What that is? The Minister is appointing a body which will have to consider the admissibility of publications in a so-called objective manner, but what he is allowing now is that if political pressure were to be exerted on him on the part of people who say they belong to his Party ...

But why should it in fact be party political pressure?

But that is what happens in practice. The Minister has, time and again, acted on purely party political considerations. If this provision remains in its present form, I can see that the Minister is going to give way before such political pressure. But if it is not in the Bill, there is no chance of his giving way to political pressure, for then he would simply say that the independent machinery is there. The machinery is quite sufficient, but this is an extremely unhealthy provision. We should not be expected to take this appeal board seriously if the Minister has the power to stick his nose into the functions of the appeal board as a result of political pressure.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister could motivate subsection (1)(a) for us. Why is the directorate given the right to appeal against the decisions of its own expert committees when it is decided that an entertainment is not or will not be undesirable? How they are going to know that it will not be undesirable, heaven knows, but still—there it is. I wonder whether this is not going to open the way to the operation of all kinds of pressure groups. We were assured yesterday by everybody on the other side that these committees were going to be the ultimate in expertise. Now, when one of these committees actually finds something which is not undesirable—which will be a unique experience—the directorate is going to be given the right of appeal against its own body. This does not seem to make any sense.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how one squares the fact that the Minister may intervene or may ask for a reconsideration when material is found to be not undesirable with the fact that when it is undesirable there is no opening for the public to complain and the Minister cannot take any action in this respect. How can the hon. the Minister reconcile the fact that the power is being given to him in the one respect and not in the other?

I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that the directorate is also able to appeal. The directorate has this power in both respects. In the previous clause we also saw that the directorate is the watchdog in both respects, i.e. when the material is either desirable or undesirable. They may appeal in both cases. If something is declared to be desirable and it is a case where an obviously incorrect decision was taken by a committee, the directorate will take action. After all, standards are being set; we do create precedents as we go along, and if an obviously incorrect decision is taken, on the basis of both precedents and standards, the directorate may also appeal.

Are they going to see all the productions?

No, Sir, they are not.

But what criteria will they use?

We have criteria, which the Publications Board is using at present. The hon. member may perhaps not agree with them. This directorate itself will also, with the co-operation of the knowledgeable committees, lay down criteria. The hon. member for Durban Central asked the same question. With reference to the question put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well, I mention this example. You will recall the case of “Naked Yoga”. I think it was last year or the year before last that a storm of protest burst over the entire country.

Artificial.

It was not artificial. This was the only case, as far as I can recall, in which the hon. the Minister used his powers of issuing a direction. Therefore this is not being abused. We can accept what the hon. the Minister said the other day in his Second Reading speech, viz. that he also received letters from English-speaking people to this effect (translation) “We do not support your political policy, but in respect of this matter of the preservation of our moral norms, we do in fact support you.” If Afrikaans and English-speaking people such as these from all over the country approach the Minister with a request, should the Minister do nothing?

What does he have to do with it?

Why does he not have something to do with it? Should the directorate now, according to that hon. member, take action on the basis of a single complaint? Then that poor individual, as well as the directorate, would also be berated again for acting on the basis of a complaint from a single member of the public. Now many complaints will reach the Minister, and he will have to form an opinion. The complaints may be of a wide-ranging nature, and reflect any aspect of any political or religious views. However, it will not matter. The Minister may deem that a specific matter should preferably be referred back for a possibly different decision. Should the decision be the same, the Minister will have to be satisfied with that. The Minister cannot tell this appeal body that they have to change their decision.

Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Minister keeps on referring to “wide-ranging complaints”. We had a great deal of evidence showing that three-quarters of the people who complained had never seen the work. The reaction is artificial. I indicated earlier on in the debate how it had happened that people who, for example, had never seen “Godspell”, began a campaign against it because they had read something about it in the newspaper. They read about “Naked Yoga” in the newspaper. They read about it only in the newspaper.

And what became of “God-spell”?

Yes, what became of it? We still find ourselves in the ridiculous situation that it may not be performed in public. It is a brilliant work.

It is being performed.

Yes, Sir, but not freely. A special permit still has to be issued for it. It seems to me to be an absolutely absurd situation. I saw it twice, and it is a brilliant work.

“Godspell”?

Yes. It is absolutely brilliant. Really, it can only be a crack-brained person who objects to it. The point I want to raise here is that too much notice is being taken of these complaints which reach the Minister through political pressure. We had evidence to the effect that in most cases these were people who were never directly concerned with these things. But one does not have complaints of this kind from really well-informed people. Our standpoint still remains that machinery is being created here and we should keep party-political pressure out of it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to repeat that the Minister has to form an opinion. If there was political pressure, the Minister could have acted in more cases than in those of “Naked Yoga” and “God-spell”. How long has he not been Minister already? Surely political pressure should by now have caused him to find himself in more situations of this kind. We are only able to mention these two examples to one another across the floor of this Committee today. In other words, if there is so-called organized political pressure, it will not persuade the Minister to run to the appeal board. For up to now we know of only two isolated cases.

These were two flagrantly bad examples.

I do not think these were two bad examples.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a question. I have heard all the arguments now as to why the Minister should not be there, but the Deputy Minister has not yet explained why the Minister should in fact be there. Why is the Minister in any way necessary?

I explained it a moment ago.

Amendment moved by Mr. J. D. du P. Basson negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, the reason why these amendments of ours were placed on the Order Paper was because they would have been consistent with the amendments which we proposed under clause 30, if these had been accepted. It was our hope that the words which appear in both these clauses would have been removed from clause 30 in which case we would have asked that these corresponding amendments which appear in my name should also be accepted. However, in a generally bad Bill we believe one of the few redeeming features in it is the provision for a revision of certain decisions and particularly the possibility of a revision of decisions after two years. We therefore do not propose to move these amendments. We believe that within this particular clause there is a redeeming feature. We would have asked for these amendments to be accepted if the corresponding amendments of clause 30 had been accepted. Since they have not been accepted we propose to withdraw these amendments because if they were allowed to stand in the present context after the acceptance of clause 30, they would have a narrowing effect on the right of review and this is not our intention.

It is not necessary to withdraw the amendments. The hon. member just does not move them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) In line 3, to omit “or 32” and to substitute “, 32 or 33”; and
2. (2) in line 10, to omit “or 32” and to substitute “, 32 or 33”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, at the Second Reading of this Bill we spent some time on the question of an appeal to the court, which is to be eliminated by this Bill, and the establishment of the publications appeal board. The principle having been adopted at the Second Reading, appeals to the court are no longer available in connection with the administration of this legislation. It makes it necessary for us to attempt to deal with the constitution of this appeal board in such a way as to give it as near as possible a resemblance to and a status of the former right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It has been conceded by the hon. the Minister and by hon. members opposite in the Second Reading, as well as by the words of the clause itself, that judicial experience or at least senior legal status is necessary for the chairman. As will be noted from the clause the person to act as chairman must be fit to serve as chairman by reason of his tenure of a judicial office or of his experience of the law for not less than ten years.

The second point which is inherent in the clause before us, is that the legally qualified chairman should be assisted in the discharge of his duties by other persons with educational qualifications and experience which qualify them to perform the functions entrusted to the appeal board. I want to suggest that, if we have to have this board, we do not want to have it in such a form that it can be likened to or equated with a board constituted by the Minister and operating in the same manner as boards have operated up to the present time in dealing with questions of censorship. I believe it is necessary that we must look at the composition of this board. We must see that it is constituted in such a way as to command the respect of the public at large, not only because of the status of the persons who are appointed to serve on the board and who constitute the board, but also because they will be seen to be able to operate independently of any pressures from the committees or the directorate, or from a political field, i.e. from the Minister or the department concerned. When one says this, it is not that one anticipates that those pressures will necessarily be there, but I believe that there must be no possibility of the thought or suggestion arising in the mind of the public, whether real or imaginary, that political control can be exercised over an appeal board of the nature of the one which is to be established in terms of this Bill.

One comes to the first point at issue, namely, the permanent chairman. In terms of the clause before us, there is a wide selection of people who can serve on the appeal board and who can be appointed chairman. The chairman can be a man who has held judicial office, he can be chosen through his experience as an advocate or attorney, or by reason of his tenure of office as a lecturer in law at any university for a period of not less than ten years. I believe that an appointment of that nature leaves the door open for a political appointment to be made or, in fact, for it to be believed that a political appointment has been made. In other words, a man of that category, who has served well in this House or who has served his party well in other spheres and who has had ten years’ experience as an advocate, may well be put out to graze as chairman of the appeal board. That could be done as a reward for services and there would be no means of rejecting such a choice. I think that there are dangers involved as we have seen in other avenues where politicians are put out to graze. I believe they do not bring lustre to the positions which they held formerly. That is why I believe that, when we look at the question of the chairman, we should see how nearly we can equate the position of this board with similar types of courts which are established in terms of our laws at the present time. The best I can think of is that we should try to ensure that the appeal board is constituted somewhat in the form of the Income Tax Special Court. I may just remind you, Sir, that in the case of that particular court, the judge is appointed from the local Bench by the judiciary to preside over that special court. In addition, two assessors are appointed because of their special qualifications, one being from the accountancy profession and the other representing commerce. In that way one has a balanced board which is free from any outside interference and directly concerned with the judiciary of the country. Thus it is able to operate. This procedure has an additional advantage in that the chairman of the board, as is the case with the judge of the Income Tax Special Court, would then change from time to time. A particular judge will serve on it for one or two years during which he will deal with cases that arise in that court and after that someone else will take over. I think we will certainly not be receiving the thanks of the judiciary if we were to suggest that one particular member of the Bench should be permanent chairman of a board of this sort as a result of which he would be involved solely in dealing with the control of publications of this nature. I believe that this would not be welcomed by the Bench and I do not think it is necessary or desirable that that should be so. That brings me to this further point. The Bill makes provision for the appointment of a chairman on a certain basis. I shudder to think what his outlook on life is going to be when his sole job in life will be to sit and exercise a judicial discretion in regard to whether something is pornographic or not. If ever there was an occasion where something is deemed to be depraved ...

Everything will remind him of sex.

There may well be things that do deprave which come before him, not necessarily the subject matter that the hon. member for Houghton has referred to. In view of what I have said Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the first amendment standing in my name—

1. (1) To omit all the words after “be” in line 26 up to and including “years” in line 31 and to substitute “a judge of the Supreme Court”.

The effect of this amendment is that the chairman shall be a judge of the Supreme Court. Having decided that the chairman shall be a judge of the Supreme Court who, as I have said, will be appointed by the Judge-President of the local Division concerned, we then come to the question of assessors. This question of assessors is something we have had in our legal practice in this country for many years. We use them in criminal court procedures, to act with a judge in criminal court trials, they are used in shipping inquiries, in fact they are used in all manner of inquiries to aid the presiding judicial officer. It seems to me that as far as this appeal board is concerned, the judge should similarly be aided by two or more assessors such as he may wish to appoint. Now the question arises as to whether he should be fettered in regard to the selection of those assessors. Here I do not believe that it is the function of the hon. the Minister or the directorate to draw up panels of persons to serve as assessors. I think that this again is a matter that can be left to the discretion of the judge. He himself can select the assessors to sit with him. It is for this reason that I wish to move the second amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) In lines 32 and 33, to omit “persons whose names appear on the list referred to in subsection (3)” and to substitute “assessors nominated by the chairman”.

Having achieved this, there are certain consequential amendments, which are numbered (3) to (5) under my name on the Order Paper and so I also wish to move—

1. (3) To omit paragraph (b) of subsection (2);
2. (4) to omit subsections (3) and (4); and
3. (5) to omit subsection (6).

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Green Point and I am not going to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think the hon. member for Green Point has advanced all the arguments that are necessary in this regard. He certainly has convinced me.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point very calmly put his standpoint here, and we listened to him very attentively. However, I think there are a few basic aspects in connection with the functioning of the appeal board which he still fails to see. In the first instance, the acceptance of his amendment would have the effect that the court as such would be involved in a contentious matter about which controversy might arise from time to time. It is the intention, one of the objectives in establishing this appeal board, to keep the courts out of the arena of this question of the control of publications. A judgment by Mr. Justice Snyman has already been quoted here in which he says that he thinks it will be a good thing if the courts do not have to decide on this matter, and the acceptance of the amendment will still keep the courts in this arena.

It is not the courts; it is one judge.

If the hon. member had listened carefully to the hon. member for Green Point, he would have heard him saying that it should be a different judge from time to time. Some of these other courts which have a judge as the presiding officer also function along these lines; in other words, the Judge-President of the division concerned determines from time to time which judge will preside. Therefore, the whole judiciary of that particular division, consisting of 10 or 12 or 15 judges, becomes involved in cases of this nature from time to time. The whole judiciary as such will therefore remain caught up in this contentious arena. The second reason I wish to suggest as to why this amendment is not acceptable, is that it is for the very sake of security of justice that it is necessary for us to have one chairman, one chairman who will be gaining experience as time goes by. Sir, this kind of work is specialized work. Each of us here has had to start a new project at some stage or other in our lives, and when we look back after a year or so to see how we acted at the outset, we know that we have gained experience with the passing of time. Sir, this chairman, assisted by assessors, will set high standards as a specialized body and will build up precedents as the years go by, and it is a good thing that this will be in the hands of a well-selected, specialized, knowledgeable group of people. Mr. Chairman, the industrial tribunal is a tribunal of high standing. It is an administrative body with quasi-judicial functions.

Yes.

The hon. member for East London City agrees. The industrial tribunal performs very important functions. It can issue extremely drastic directions; it can intervene in the individual’s freedom of bargaining, and the Act does not provide that a lawyer has to be the chairman of the tribunal and I have never yet heard any hon. member of the Opposition complain about that; on the contrary, they boast of the fact that they appointed this tribunal.

Sir, a final reason I should like to mention as to why I think that we cannot accept this amendment is that the assessors, about whom the hon. member spoke, should also be readily available. If such an appeal board should from time to time have to go and look for assessors when they are available, it would eventually, in a year or two, be working with 30, 40 or 50 people, and here the same argument applies, i.e. that this is specialized work for which people are to have special knowledge, and that it is important that from the time they start work, they will build up a greater store of skill and knowledge in order to lend prestige to this body. I agree that there is a risk of certain sections of the public initially viewing this board rather distrustfully, but if that is the case, it will only be due to the negative reaction of both Opposition parties since this Bill came before Parliament. If, from the very outset, they had not used words such as those which were used in the Second Reading debate, i.e. that we will be dealing here with “a tool of the Government”, had they not sown this idea, there would have been no distrust.

Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging has made certain statements and advanced certain views with which I disagree as much as anybody can differ from a person holding opposing views.

Sir, let me deal first with the question of the Industrial Court, which has a permanent chairman. That is an industrial court dealing with the interpretation of laws for a particular aspect of life which are laid down and clearly stated in the Statute Book. Its task is the application of a precise, concise statement of law. But what is the function of this appeal board, Sir? This appeal board is to determine the attitude of the public at large as to whether or not publications, literary works and other works, are undesirable. Surely, Sir it cannot be said, if one wants to go to the top level to which one can go to get judgment on appeal on a censorship issue, that that top level should be a post controlled by a person who is in the nature of a permanent appointee who becomes a sort of ombudsman for public morals and starts laying down precedents and guides. Surely it is far better to have the wide experience and vision of the Bench. Sir, I am astounded to hear the hon. member say that the Bench should not be involved in matters which are contentious and of great public importance.

The judges say so themselves.

Sir, that is precisely where the judiciary is of value to the country. When emotions are running high and there are different views, you know that at the back of whatever decision will be made is an impartial judiciary which will not be influenced by pressure from one group or another.

You are prejudging the appeal board.

That is the position and I am sure that the hon. member and the hon. member for Bellville will not gainsay me when I say that to have a judicial officer at the head of this appeal board is far better than having somebody who has had 10 years of this, that or the other job. If that is so, then you do not involve every member of the Bench in a Division. How many cases are there going to be before the appeal board? It is similar to the income tax court. As and when it is necessary for the income tax court to assemble, the Judge-President of the Provincial Division concerned details a duty judge to do this job.

There will be many film cases.

The hon. member is not very happy about the efficacy or wisdom of the decisions of the committees, if he feels that every member of the Bench of every Provincial Division is going to be used during the course of one year to hear appeals. Then obviously the committees will not enjoy much confidence in the minds of the public. But I adhere to the amendments I have moved. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Vereeniging said, I have not changed my mind.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that one of the most important aspects of a board of appeal is that it should be seen to be independent and in fact that the chairman of the board and the members of the board should be seen to be independent. This is emphasized in the Commission’s report on page 27, paragraph 55, where it says that the following principles are upheld, namely, that appointments to the board of appeal will be made in such a manner and for such periods as to strengthen this body’s independence. In other words, there was emphasis laid on the independence of this body itself. Then if we go back a little to page 26 of the report of the Commission, we find that in paragraph 37 there are the arguments submitted by the General Bar Council of South Africa. They say there that they are against the abolition of the appeal to the courts and that the judiciary, first of all, is an independent forum. So they themselves laid emphasis on the fact that there should be a vast measure of independence in the establishment of the final court of appeal. Secondly, they say that the judges, by virtue of their training, background and experience, are competent to give decisions on ethical norms. I think we must accept that the General Bar Council are the people from whom the judges are appointed. Each one of them expects some time in his career to be appointed to the Bench. They are prepared to accept appointments to the Bench and they are prepared to accept that the appeal court should not be done away with. In fact, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point is in keeping with this view in that the judges themselves are willing and able to sit on this appeal board.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I believe that the Deputy Minister’s only hope of creating an appeal body in which there will be public confidence is to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Green Point. Under no other circumstances is this going to be possible, because with the best will in the world and with the best people they can get, the appointees are going to be the appointees of a politician, in the final resort, and this body will be seen as a creature of that politician. [Interjections.] It is no good saying it will not happen; of course it will happen. It has happened throughout the last 12 years. But it will not happen if you have a judge of the Supreme Court who, in terms of this amendment, will nominate his assessors. In any case, I find this deep concern about keeping the judiciary out of the field of controversy or contention rather touching. This is something new. This is something “wat hulle nou net opgediep het vir hierdie omstandighede”. Why should we be so concerned? This is absolute nonsense. Why should the judges lose any kind of prestige in the public mind if they enter into a field like this for which they are eminently qualified? They are constantly in the field of contention and controversy. This is just special pleading of the worst kind. I am sure that no judge wants to be cosseted in the way the hon. member for Vereeniging wants to cosset them. I think this is a purely fallacious argument.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why hon. members of the Opposition have been fixing their minds solely on what the Bar Council had to say about this matter. Why do they not also have regard to what the judges themselves had to say about this matter? Why do they not have regard to what Mr. Justice Williamson had to say about this matter?

Order! The hon. member must not repeat arguments which have been advanced before.

I should just like to know how they can fix their minds solely on what the advocates said and completely ignore what the judges said.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should clear up the question of the industrial courts to which the hon. member for Vereeniging has constantly referred. The industrial court, or the industrial tribunal as it is known, is not a body which has to interpret the contents of a statute. The industrial tribunal does not function on such a basis. Neither does it deal with an appeal arising from the decision of a committee, nor does it consider the judgment of a committee in the light of the standards or norms which are set up in terms of a statute. The industrial tribunal has a specific task and is appointed from specific people. The chairman has to be acquainted with industrial matters. Some members come from local authorities and others from the employees of local authorities or from employees employed by employers other than local authorities. In other words, the industrial tribunal complies in many aspects with exactly what was asked for by this side in regard to the establishment of a directorate. We should like the directorate to comprise people who are interested in the particular subject with which the Bill deals. The industrial tribunal is something entirely different. It is not a body appointed as an appeal board with the function of dealing with legal matters. Its appointees need not be people who have, generally, a knowledge of law. The whole objective of the appeal board is that it should deal with matters of law. The industrial tribunal has an entirely different purpose. Moreover, the industrial tribunal has to carry out a certain policy of the Government, called job reservation. That is one of the most important jobs and in this connection I refer to section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. I think the whole line of comparison which the hon. member for Vereeniging is trying to draw between the industrial tribunal and this appeal board is so laughable that it almost makes me believe that the whole intention to set up an appeal board has the same laughable content which is so apparent in the hon. member’s argument in the matter. I do not think it is a sound comparison.

On first amendment,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—78: 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, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; 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, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; 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, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V.A.

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

NOES—40: Aronson. T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; 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.; Enthoven (’t Hooft). R. E.; 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. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; 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.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Second and third amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Fourth and fifth amendments negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—78: 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, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; 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, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hefer, W. J.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux. F. J. (Hercules); Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Smit, H. H.;

Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Maraisburg); Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Volker, V. A.

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

NOES—39: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; 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.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; 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.; 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.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.