Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should tell this hon. House what the effect will be of the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister, because the hon. the Minister seems unprepared to do that himself. The hon. the Minister—somewhat reluctantly it seemed—has moved that subsection 2(c), page 2 of the Bill, be deleted. Sir, the Committee will see that that is the subsection which, as it stands at the present time, limits the discretion of the court to make an order—and more particularly, an order as to costs—in those cases where the State, or a servant of the State, has raised the indemnity clause as a defence, and has been successful in this regard.

As the Bill stands now, there is a considerable limitation of the discretion of the court as to any type of order it can make in those circumstances, and more particularly in regard to costs. Consequently, the amendment which the hon. the Minister has moved—the amendment to delete that subsection—is, as far as I can see, an improvement. It does away with that limitation on the discretion of the court, and consequently, it is an improvement on the measure as it stands. We on this side will accordingly support the hon. the Minister’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we will also support this amendment. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana pointed out, it is an improvement on the clause as it stands. However, it does not mean that we are going to support the clause as a whole, because we are against the entire principle of the Bill and we opposed it at Second Reading yesterday. Mr. Chairman, I am not able to go into the details of that; that I realize fully, but if I make use of the normal privilege of the House, briefly to sum up the attitude of the members of my party, I would like to do so. That is, of course, very simply that we are against this clause, which contains the entire gravamen of this Bill, because it takes away the rights of people to go to court and to claim damages for injury, loss of life, loss of wages, etc., as a result of the unfortunate event of June 16 and thereafter. I know the hon. the Minister has said that the right of people to go to court remains untouched, and it is true that everybody can go to court, but the onus which is placed upon them is so difficult that there is very little likelihood that anybody could succeed in a case against the State. In other words, the onus of having to prove mala fides is one that any lawyer or anybody else in this hon. House knows is virtually impossible.

Secondly, one of the normal concepts of our law, namely that the onus of proving mala fides should not be on the claimant, has been reversed in this particular Bill. For those reasons, Sir, we voted as strongly as we possibly could against the Bill at Second Reading, and we will, of course, also vote against the Clause, although we accept the amendment of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:

It is our view that the deletion of this subsection would mitigate the rigours of the whole of clause 1. Mr. Chairman, what does subsection (3) do? In effect it creates two presumptions in favour of the State—a presumption of good faith and a presumption of good intent. It gives the State a double benefit. In other words, there is a double presumption in favour of the State, as well as a double evidential crutch. Not only does the hon. the Minister say in this Bill that one cannot proceed in court unless one has shown mala fides; he says in effect in this Bill that the trial will start with the good faith and the good intent already proved, unless the plaintiff can show dishonesty, because there are numbers of cases in which mala fides and dishonesty are taken to be synonymous. Mr. Chairman, how does one prove dishonesty in a case like this if you are a claimant? With this presumption present in this Bill, all the defendant has to do in a case like this is not to call as a witness the official concerned. With this presumption, Mr. Chairman, the defence would not have to call a witness, the claimant cannot insist that the defendant be called as a witness, or that the defendant himself give evidence …

Why not?

That is our legal procedure in the courts. One side cannot insist that the other side give evidence. The defendant does not have to give evidence and therefore one is not able to cross-examine him or his witnesses. One therefore has no opportunity to examine his state of mind relative to the issue of bona fides or mala fides. One is therefore effectively precluded from placing evidence before the court on that very issue—his state of mind. One is left only with the possibility of circumstantial evidence. In such a situation the courts are of course bound by Blom’s case in the Appellate Division in 1939, where it is laid down that in the case of circumstantial evidence there are certain stringent requirements. One can only prove one’s case then if it is found that mala fides is the only possibility existing and, in addition, that there exists not one fact inconsistent with mala fides. Therefore this presumption effectively excludes claimants from the courts.

Yesterday hon. members on that side of the House consistently said that claimants were not being deprived of their rights; they could still prove their claims. I presume that those hon. members will agree that the rules of evidence evolved in our courts over the years are intended to create a situation of a balance of fairness. If that were not so, then of course courts would be a farce. This subsection is a grossly unfair one because it destroys that balance. Of course, there have been rebuttable presumptions brought into the law over the years, e.g. that the owner of a motor-car which is parked illegally is presumed to have been the driver or that a road upon which one has been driving under the influence of alcohol is a public road. However, those presumptions are necessary so that the State does not have to prove unnecessary side issues. Here the position is quite different since this presumption relates to the crucial issue in the trial. It relates to the issue of whether the claimant has a right of action or not. This presumption is not created to reduce the side issues which the party first adducing evidence has to prove, but it is a presumption, in fact, to protect the defendant so that he does not even have to put up his defence—it is presumed in terms of this presumption. Let us make the assumption on a hypothetical basis that there is bad faith by certain State officials or by some policemen in circumstances which in the normal course would give rise to damages. Although the circumstances would in the normal course give rise to damages, the plaintiff here will get nowhere if he cannot identify the particular offender because if not, he will then be unable to show that that particular offender had bad faith. This is an example of what I am talking about and that is why I have moved the amendment.

I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister of Justice that even in terms of the common law the plaintiff carries an onus. This is naturally the case. He carries the onus to prove his case. We hold the view that in this case the defender ought not to be given an additional presumption in his favour because that will have the effect of loading the dice too heavily.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North. [Interjections.] It is consistent with the attitude that that party has taken that an amendment of this kind should have been moved. It is quite consistent, because the PRP is opposed to an indemnity of any kind. That has been made quite clear. If one is opposed to an indemnity of any kind, then it is quite natural that one should seek to remove from the Bill the most important aspect of an indemnity clause. The subsection of the clause which gives efficacy to the indemnity is the very subsection which the hon. gentleman seeks to delete. It is quite consistent, if one is opposed to an indemnity of any kind in principle as that party is, that one should move an amendment of this kind.

We are being consistent; you should try it sometime.

Yes, they are being consistent—consistently wrong, if I may so so.

It seems to me that the divorce will come before the marriage.

If I may demonstrate the difficulty which one is faced with in cases of this kind, and why we on these benches are in favour of indemnity in principle, one has only to consider the position one would be in if one were in Government. If one were in Government and one had to face a situation of widespread disorder, where you had to use your police force, then you would, as all Governments of South Africa have done in the past, introduce an indemnity, but you would couple with it—afterwards, because it cannot be done before—as I have indicated at an earlier stage, measures for compensation and procedures to bring compensation about. There would be those two things. It is necessary, if one is going to have provisions for an indemnity, to have a presumption of the kind we have in subsection (3). There are not two presumptions, as the hon. gentleman suggested; there is one presumption. Although it is referred to in the terms of intent and in relation to the bona fides, you cannot prove bona fides unless you have the right intent. Likewise, you cannot have the intent unless you are bona fide.

So although the two concepts are there, it is in fact one presumption. If you go through the history of Bills of indemnity in South Africa, you will not find any Bill of indemnity which does not have those presumptions. Subsection (1) on its own would make very little difference to the state of affairs in which you have no Bill of indemnity at all. So, Sir, one supports the principle of an indemnity, one necessarily supports the principle of a presumption. Consequently we will not be supporting that amendment. I may say, though, that we shall oppose the clause for the reasons which I have already given. It is one of two legs which we regard as essential and I have already given reasons and expounded at some length on why I believe that there should be the two legs present. The one is, of course, the indemnity, without which you would have difficulty in getting proper reactions from your peace forces in times of riots, and the other is proper provisions for compensation in proper cases.

Mr. Chairman, referring to the argument of the hon. member for Houghton, I am afraid that when it comes to these matters she does not seem to be quite clear. She also does not seem exactly to appreciate what she is really saying. She told the House this afternoon that this places too heavy an onus on the claimant. I think that the hon. member for Durban North actually helped her right when he said that in any case any claimant only has to prove his case on the balance of probabilities. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana is quite right when he says that when you accept, in a certain set of riotous circumstances, that people who operate in good faith are to be exempt from responsibility, then that good faith must prima facie be accepted. In actual fact, all it really means when you make the presumption—and I again agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that there is only one real presumption—is that the claimant must now bring more evidence than the bare telling of the tale. The claimant will have to weigh the scale slightly on the balance of probability.

[Inaudible.]

Claimants will not be able to come to court with the sort of story that they tell the hon. member for Houghton. They will not be able to come there with a bare story of mala fides, for instance, “Somebody in a motor-car shot at us.” They will have to give some more facts, enough facts for the court to find that the scales fall in their balance. This is quite correct in the circumstances.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Houghton carries on like that in an emotional state when we are busy with a legal debate, it is very difficult to debate the matter. Has the hon. member finished or would he like to have another opportunity? There is actually no heavier onus on any claimant than would normally be the case. In terms of the Bill, good intent is all that is required from the State officials and obviously there must then able a presumption against the other person.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move a further amendment to this clause in the hope that, if it does not establish common ground between us in these benches and the Government, at least it might create an area of common ground between ourselves and the hon. gentlemen on our right. [Interjections.] I move the following amendment:

I have moved this amendment because we heard repeatedly from members on that side of the House yesterday that it was not the intention of the Government to take away anybody’s rights as a result of what has happened, but merely to indemnify agents of the Government who acted in good faith in relation to the unrest situation. It is on that basis that I have moved the amendment. Let us presume that there is an individual who would ordinarily have the right to go to court and to claim damages as a result of action at the hands of one of the agents of the State. He will be likely to succeed in his case on three grounds: first of all, if he can prove that the individual acted in bad faith. It is going to be extremely difficult to prove bad faith in the circumstances of this legislation, but nevertheless the hon. the Minister has conceded that if any of his agents have acted in bad faith, they are liable for the ordinary penalties which the court may determine. Secondly, the person is likely to succeed if it can be proved that the agent of the State has acted outside the law or beyond his or her authority. The intention of the Bill is to clothe the agents of the State with more authority than the existing statutes determine provided that it is used in relation to the unrest situation and provided that it is committed in good faith. In respect of these two provisions, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s argument, the individual will not suffer a diminution of rights. If it could be proved, in the ordinary event, that the person committing the act was negligent, then the plaintiff would be likely to succeed in his claim against the person concerned. I can see no reason why that position, the protection of the individual from the negligent person, should not be retained. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the hon. the Minister that where one of the agents of the State has acted in good faith and beyond his normal authority, but in terms of the new authority given in terms of this clause, that he will be exonerated if he acted negligently.

That is the whole intention of the Bill.

I want to give a simple illustration. A policeman, a Bantu Affairs Board officer or the hon. the Minister could act in good faith to get from one place to another in an unrest situation, but could act grossly negligently in driving a motorcar and injures an individual. In terms of the Bill he was clearly acting in good faith and within the authority he had, but, surely, he should not escape the penalty. The State should not escape the penalty, because somebody has actually suffered damages not because they acted in good faith, not because they acted outside the law, but because they were negligent in the exercise of their duty and responsibility. Clearly, the whole of the State machine cannot be exonerated from the consequences of negligence. This must remain one of the factors which is still subject to the testing rights of the courts. Therefore, if it is correct that it is not the intention to deprive people of their rights other than in a case of good faith or bad faith, then I hold that the hon. the Minister should not deprive the individual the right of claiming against the State or its agent if that person who, while acting in good faith, has nevertheless been negligent in the exercise of his responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a case—if I may say so—of “shoemaker stick to your last”. The case which the hon. gentleman poses is a case of gross negligence. A case of gross negligence is not covered by the Bill as it stands at all. In other words, if one acts in a manner which is grossly negligent, one cannot be said to be acting bona fide and one would not be able to invoke the protection of the indemnity Bill at all. That type of case would not be protected by the Bill and, consequently, I do not see the relevance of the argument. The amendment moved is in terms of the words “without negligence”.

If one were to accept that amendment—and I cannot accept it—it would merely be a lesser reduction of the efficacy of the indemnity than is contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North. The hon. member for Durban North’s amendment reduces the efficacy of the indemnity almost entirely. The amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point partially reduces the efficacy of the indemnity. It is inherent in any Act of indemnity that you limit the rights of individuals to cover damages in a court of law. That is what an indemnity is for, one need not argue that, because it is inherent in an indemnity. Because an indemnity does that, however, i.e. to inhibit the rights of individuals to proceed in the normal course through the courts of law to recover damages for loss suffered— and we accept that there are situations where one has to accept that situation—we plead for compensation by means of another source. Such a source is the committee of the type we outlined yesterday, namely the committee which appears in the Defence Act of last year and the principles there involved. Whether one is going to reduce the efficacy of an indemnity entirely or whether one is going to reduce it partially, it does not make any difference to us because we believe in the necessity and the righteousness of indemnity. Therefore we cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sea Point nor do I see the force of his argument.

Mr. Chairman, I find considerable difficulty in understanding the argument of the hon. the member for Umhlatuzana. In his support of the principle of indemnity, the hon. member advanced as an argument that the whole idea was to limit the rights of individuals to recover damages.

He then uses that argument in the case of mala fides. Is the hon. member, therefore, saying that the rights of the individual in the case of mala fides must also be limited? It was the argument in this House the whole of yesterday from members on the other side of the House, who said that there was no limitation of rights.

They said, quite rightly, that there was no limitation of rights in respect of mala fides, except in so far as there is a presumption clause. The hon. member here, however, says that we reduce the efficacy of indemnity if we vote for the elimination of this clause. I agree with what the hon. the Minister of Justice said, namely that in any event a plaintiff carries an onus. Let him therefore carry that onus and let him prove mala fides. That I accept. But why must there then be the added benefit to the defendant?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member for Sea Point perhaps failed to understand my argument yesterday when I replied to the Second Reading debate. I said quite clearly that usually, when a claimant goes to court in this kind of case, the test is one of negligence. Negligence is based on what can be foreseen, what the person could have foreseen. The whole idea of an indemnity act is that one cannot expect the police or even an official, in the circumstances of a riot, to display that measure of foresight which is usually displayed. The test which then takes place is one of good faith, whether the people were negligent or not. However, the question is: did they act in good faith in an attempt on their part to put an end to the riot? This is the whole idea of an indemnity act, and I said quite clearly in the debate yesterday that as far as the Indemnity Act is concerned, the test of negligence was being taken out of the hands of the courts. A test of good faith is now being placed in the hands of the courts instead. For that reason I told the hon. member for Houghton that I was not depriving these people of their access to the courts. I kept saying that we were not removing the access to the courts. All we are telling the courts is that these are not normal circumstances giving rise to the normal kind of court case in which the negligence of a person is investigated. These circumstances in fact give rise to a special court case taking place in times of riots, and because it is that kind of court case, the court should not inquire into the question of whether or not the accused was negligent. The court should forget about the normal test of negligence. What the court should ask itself now is whether or not the man acted in good faith in an attempt to curb the riot. If I were to allow this amendment I should be emasculating the whole Bill. Then I would be back to the common law test of negligence, and that would be absurd. Why did I stand here and argue with about 15 speakers if I wanted to retain negligence as a test? Now the hon. member proposes: “and without negligence.” In other words, he wants to re-insert negligence into the Bill. Surely this is ridiculous! I do not know whether the hon. gentleman perhaps did not understand the legal position. Or perhaps the hon. gentleman understood the position so correctly that he was trying to pull a fast one on me. However that may be, he is quite wrong and therefore I cannot accept the amendment. Nor can I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Chairman, while I understand the hon. the Minister’s argument and do not agree with it, I think it should clarify the position as far as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is concerned. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana started his repudiation of this amendment by saying that, in fact, the question of negligence was in no way affected by this piece of legislation. However, here I now get the hon. the Minister saying that the very essence of this legislation is that negligence should not be a factor to be tested by the courts in respect of these particular provisions. I therefore think that this matter could well be clarified. Yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister what the position was in respect of people who might be wrongfully or unlawfully arrested or kept in detention, for instance because of mistaken identity. Would the hon. the Minister let us know whether, in the event of mistaken identity and wrongful arrest, the committee he is going to appoint would consider compensation when claims are made for people who, by his wrongful action, have been either arrested or detained?

Mr. Chairman, I do not really hold a brief for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, but I do want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point that I agree with that hon. member, because once again I do not think the hon. member for Sea Point quite appreciates what gross negligence means. It is not a degree of negligence. It is an additional element to the negligence. It is an element of intent. There is an element of total disregard attached.

*It is recklessness. It implies that a person does not care two hoots what happens, and that implies mala fides.

The amendment does not mention “gross negligence”.

It means that a person does not care two hoots any more what he does; he does whatever he likes and shoots at anything he chooses. That is mala fides, and that is what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is trying to say.

There is no reference to “gross negligence” in the amendment.

I should like to reply now to the question in connection with wrongful arrest, or what the hon. member calls wrongful arrest. My attitude would depend on many factors. The committee I am going to appoint will be a committee which will give attention to those people who were really completely innocent. Where would a policeman arrest a person? Surely he would not arrest a person at a distance from the riot, someone standing by the roadside, for example. He may arrest a person in a crowd. If he arrests a person in the crowd he does so in good faith. If, having interrogated the person, he then finds that he should not have arrested him, he may let him go. Why should compensation be paid for this? I want to make it quite clear that the committee I intend to appoint will not play the part of Father Christmas. I am not going to appoint a committee which will hand out all kinds of presents. They will accommodate only the sad cases. They will help the bona fide cases where purely an accident was involved. Therefore it will depend on circumstances. I made it quite clear yesterday that in many cases, the State cannot be held responsible at all. If an innocent person happens to be at a certain place and he is injured and it appears that he is very wealthy, are we nevertheless to make an ex gratia payment to him although the State is not responsible for his injury? So it all depends on circumstances. The committee will check the facts and the circumstances, and where the committee feels that a payment should be made, such payment will be made. In other wolds, this is a committee of equity, not a committee in charge of hand-outs.

Amendment moved by Mr. C. W. Eglin put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, and Mr. G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Amendment declared negatived.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Justice agreed to.

On amendment moved by Mr. S. A. Pitman,

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

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, and Mr. G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Various persons and bodies from all parts of the Republic for many years have made representations concerning the desecration of the Sabbath to my department which, in co-operation with those who might be interested in this matter, gives attention to matters arising from the pre-Union laws in terms of which restraints are imposed on certain activities on Sundays.

Particularly since the beginning of 1975 a large number of representations were made to me about the exhibition of films on Sundays, also from Natal, where no restraints are imposed on entertainments as is done in the other provinces, viz. by Act 19 of 1895 in the Cape, Act 28 of 1896 in the Transvaal and Ordinance 21 of 1902 in the Free State.

†The extent to which the public objected to film shows on Sundays compelled the Government to give serious consideration to the matter and it was decided to put this Bill before Parliament. For many years so-called clubs have been established to evade the provisions of the legislation referred to. Since 1976 this practice was extended to nearly every theatre, including drive-in theatres, in the country, with the effect that film shows can be attended every Sunday evening wherever you go.

Clause 2 of the Bill prohibits the exhibition of any film on a Sunday, Good Friday, Ascension Day, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas Day in or at any place to which admission is obtained for any consideration, direct or indirect, or by virtue of membership of any association of persons or by any contribution towards any fund. Provision is also made that permission may be granted for film shows on Sundays.

*The legislation is based on two principles. In the first place, I want to make it clear that the Government does not see it as its task to persuade people to go to church. Everyone has a free choice in this matter and the State does not want to interfere. However, the Government feels itself compelled to allow no liberties which would obstruct the activities of the Church. The Church must be afforded the opportunity of fulfilling its task without hindrance caused by the fact that the Government allows certain practices.

In the second place, Sunday in South Africa is traditionally kept as quietly as possible, free of commercial activities, so as to afford everyone an opportunity to recuperate spiritually and physically and prepare himself for the task awaiting him the following week.

Not all the population groups hold the same views on Sunday observance and there are those who, from the nature of their work, have no opportunity to relax on any other day. For that reason provision is being made for permission to be granted in certain cases. The cases in which permission will be granted will be limited as far as possible. However, every application will be considered on its merits with due regard to the above-mentioned principles.

I do not want to tell people how they should spend the Sabbath. However, the State cannot allow commercialization to take place on Sundays to such an extent that it disturbs the peace on Sundays.

It has come to our knowledge that certain shops are open all day on Sundays and sell all kinds of commodities. A friendly appeal is made to provincial administrations and local authorities to apply licensing measures in such a manner that the Sabbath is kept as quietly and as peacefully as possible.

Moral values exist which have to a large extent contributed to the preservation of our society as we know it today, and I am convinced that we should guard in earnest, even by means of legislation, against those people who want to make money out of the breaking down of those values.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill incorporates two aspects which I have little doubt will be discussed in this debate. The one is the desirability of preventing abuses which can change the nature of Sunday in a Christian country and the other is the authority which should exercise control in respect of any abuses of that kind. I should like firstly to deal broadly with the question of Sunday observance in so far as films are concerned. The hon. the Minister said in this speech that this Bill had been introduced largely because of representations that had been made to the Government by people throughout South Africa. That suggests that there is at the present time no adequate control, by way of legislation, in respect of Sunday observance. It suggests also that there is a substantial group of people in South Africa that objects to films being shown on Sundays. Sir, let me say immediately that I do not accept that there is any material group of persons in South Africa that is opposed in principle to the showing of films on Sundays. I do not accept that; indeed, the Government itself is not opposed in principle to the showing of films on Sundays. What is more, I go further. The Government itself is not opposed to the showing of films on Sundays in respect of which indirect remuneration is paid. Were that so, we would not have television being shown in South Africa at the present time. This Bill deals specifically with films, and “film” is defined as including “any picture intended for exhibition through the medium of a mechanical device, and any film cassette, magnetic tape cassette or video-plate”. If language has any meaning at all, then in terms of this legislation television is covered by this particular Bill, and the hon. the Minister is going to have to issue in terms of this Bill, should it become law, an exemption to the SABC to show its services on a Sunday evening. I doubt whether he will deny that. There is no greater medium for the showing of films on Sundays than the television service that we have at the present time. What is more, they are shown only to those persons who have paid for the privilege, i.e. persons who have taken out a licence to own a television set. [Interjections.]

One can say quite emphatically then that if that is to be allowed, as no doubt it is, then there is no universal disapproval of the showing of films on Sundays and certainly not in the Government benches in this House. What is shown on a Sunday on television? There is a light-hearted programme early in the evening, there is a religious discussion at about 7 p.m. or 7.30 p.m., and then there is music, news and another discussion thereafter. There is therefore a broad scope of entertainment on television through the medium of films, for which the public pay, on a Sunday evening throughout South Africa at the present time. I state that merely to indicate that there is nothing inherently wrong, in the view of the Government and in the view of a great many peoples in South Africa, with the principle of the showing of a film on Sunday. As I have said, in terms of this legislation if it becomes law, the hon. the Minister will have to issue a permit to allow those services to continue.

Let me say a few words in regard to the Christian character of a State.

Do not rush in.

I shall not rush in; I shall tread very carefully. I think that films per se, whether shown on a Sunday or on any other day, have very little to do with the Christian character of a State. Let me say immediately that I am one of those who believes that Sunday has a character which is different from other days in a State like South Africa, and that it is right that Sunday should have a character which is different from other days in South Africa. Indeed, I speak as one who in many respects is regarded by my friends as somewhat old-fashioned in this regard. Nevertheless, I believe it is quite fair to say that films or no films on Sunday or on any other day are not going to alter the views of the hundreds and thousands of Hindus and Muslims in South Africa in regard to Sunday observance. It is not going to alter the views of the Jewish people in regard to Sunday observance. It is not going to alter the views of the millions of Black non-Christians in South Africa in regard to Sunday observance. It will not alter the views of the millions of people who are good Christians, but who may not be what one might call observing Christians in South Africa. These are the people who believe in the ethics of the Christian faith, but do not necessarily go to church on every Sunday. In other words, films or no films is not the hall-mark of a Christian State. One needs only to look at the “stamlande” of those of us who make up the White South African population at the present time to see that without exception, I think, in every one of them there is the controlled exhibition of films on a Sunday.

There are other things which I believe are the hall-marks of a Christian State. They are the encouragement of organized Christianity of all denominations, the encouragement of a free and healthy society, and the discouragement of a permissive society. I believe these things are the essentials of a Christian State.

Having said that, I think there is general agreement that Sunday requires—in a State such as ours—some measures of control. That goes without saying and, indeed, in the three provinces of the Cape, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State there has been Sunday observance legislation dating back to the last century which at the present time controls the showing of films on Sundays in those three provinces. Therefore, it cannot be said that if we do not have this legislation there will be no control over the showing of films on Sundays, because there will be, by provincial legislation in the Cape, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. I have taken the trouble to read the legislation and the control is there. The control is at the level of the province, which in my view is infinitely preferable to control from Pretoria. I shall elaborate on that point in a moment. In Natal there has never been provincial legislation as far as Sunday observance is concerned, but every local authority has legislation which has been enacted by the municipality, dealing with Sunday observance, and so in that province as well there is adequate control as far as Sunday observance is concerned.

I want to come to the second point which, if anything, is the real point at issue in this debate, and that is: Where in South Africa should control of matters of this kind rest? Should it rest in the hands of the community? Is it a matter which is of particular significance to a localized community or should it be dictated from Pretoria in accordance with the norms of Pretoria? I do not think there is any doubt about that if one looks at it. We on this side of the House believe emphatically that South Africa would be far better governed if matters like the showing of films on Sundays and a host of other allied matters of that intimate kind were not dictated from Pretoria but were enacted in terms of the norms and preferences of the community locally, that is to say, if these matters were left in the hands of the local authorities.

Do you not represent your community here?

Indeed, I represent my community here, but I do not represent my community here to interfere with how they behave on a Sunday. If I were a town councillor in the town near which I live, then it would be my concern as to how that community was governed in regard to Sunday observance and cinema shows on a Sunday, just as I concede that the hon. member, who comes from Mossel Bay, is fully entitled to exercise himself to the utmost in the town council of Mossel Bay as to how the citizens of Mossel Bay should observe their Sundays.

You will see them swimming in the sea every Sunday.

I am reminded of the question of swimming; therefore let us deal with the very question of swimming. I find it interesting coming to the Cape. There are some municipalities in the Cape which open their swimming baths on a Sunday and there are other municipalities that close their swimming baths on a Sunday. It is quite legitimate and in my view the proper place for that sort of decision to be taken. Whether or not the baths should be open on a Sunday is a matter to be discussed in the forum of the Bellville municipality or the Cape Town municipality. What I find most interesting, though, is the number of hon. members of this House who live at Bellville and who patronize the Cape Town swimming baths on a Sunday. However, that is beside the point. Let us come to a comparison which, I believe, will illustrate what I am trying to convey to this House. Let us take a number of municipalities in which this could be an issue. Let us take Bredasdorp and Cape Town. I have no doubt that the town council of Bredasdorp would seek to prohibit the showing of films on a Sunday. It is quite entitled to do so; indeed, it is its right in my view. On the other hand a municipality like Cape Town would probably permit the showing of films on a Sunday, if free to do so, provided they were not shown at those times that the churches were having their church services.

At what times are they shown at the moment?

I do not know, but I believe …

Between 5.30 and 11 o’clock at night.

I believe, for example, that the majority of cinema clubs in Sea Point show their films outside the hours of church services.

Between 5.30 and 11 o’clock.

Nevertheless, they are not controlled by the Cape Town City Council. I should say that that is likely to be the view taken by that council had it the right to do so. Let us now take Pretoria and Durban. Durban is likely to adopt a similar attitude, i.e. that on Sundays films could be shown, provided they did not conflict with the hours of church services.

For the Pretoria people.

That is the point, because all the holiday-makers come largely from the Transvaal. Pretoria is likely to prohibit the showing of films on a Sunday, and it is quite entitled to do so if that is its view. Let us now take Margate, the greatest holiday resort anywhere in South Africa. At this moment of time Margate shows films on a Sunday evening, as it has done for as long as I have known it.

At 8.30 p.m.

As my hon. friend has indicated, the films are shown after the hours of the church services, and why? It does so because of pressure from the holiday-makers from the inland areas. [Interjections.] Now let us take a holiday resort in the Cape, and here I am referring to the Strand. I should say it is likely that the Strand would not vote for films on a Sunday, but let us take other areas which some of us in this House are inclined to forget about. Let us take some of the largest towns in this country, and I am referring to Chatsworth in Durban, which is the big Indian town, and Soweto in Johannesburg. Those are areas which, in my opinion, ought to have municipalities of their own if they do not have them. What decision is likely to be taken there? For the simple reason that they are inhabited by people who are largely not adherents of the Christian faith, they are likely to vote for their cinemas to be open on a Sunday. And why should they not be?

Are you saying Soweto is not largely a Christian community?

I would say so, yes. There may well be substantial Christian minorities there, but I would say that probably the majority there are not members of a Christian sect.

Do you know how many Christians there are?

I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I would bet a 100 to 1 that they would vote in favour of opening their cinemas on a Sunday evening. In fact, I would not be a bit surprised if some of the first exemptions granted by the hon. the Minister are in respect of areas like Chatsworth. The hon. the Minister is nodding his agreement. Why is the onus then placed on the central Government when it comes to a matter of intimate interest to the community itself.

By conceding that he would be prepared to issue an exemption to a community like the Indians at Chatsworth—or that he would favourably consider doing so—the hon. gentleman is conceding that the interest is not paramount in Pretoria; the interest is paramount at Chatsworth.

Your whole criticism is that the matter should not have fallen under my department.

No, I say it should not fall under the central Government at all.

Yes, that is the gravamen of your criticism.

What is the difference in principle between the hon. the Minister taking this power in terms of the Bill, and then immediately granting exemption to the municipality of Chatsworth, and, as I would prefer it, allowing the municipality of Chatsworth to decide of its own volition. The point is, they have their cinemas on Sunday. However, there will be those communities in respect of which the hon. the Minister will not grant Sunday cinema privileges, communities that will be gravely upset by that decision.

I am just trying to find out what the difference is between us. In your eyes the difference is that the matter should not be controlled by my department as such but by a municipality or a province.

The matter should be controlled, not by the central Government, but by the local authorities.

Yes, that is the whole gravamen of your criticism.

It is the main gravamen of my criticism. Indeed, it is the whole philosophy of this side of the House that South Africa would be better governed if more decisions of this kind were delegated to the communities concerned, with less powers taken, in that respect, into the hands of Pretoria. Let me come now to one other point. The hon. the Minister says that it is as a result of representations and compelling public opinion that he is taking this power into the hands of the central Government. With great respect, there may be a number of people—indeed, I accept that there are—who have made representations, but I am prepared to bet my bottom dollar that the people who have made representations to the hon. the Minister are either busy bodies who have a wish to interfere in the rights and freedoms of others, or people who live in a community where they know they cannot get community support for the implementation of a measure of this kind. The people who talk at the Nationalist Party congresses in Durban are the sort of people the hon. the Minister has had representations from.

Not just a particular Methodist Church; the whole of the South African Methodist Church has asked me to do this.

That may be so. It is very interesting because I doubt whether the Methodist Church is stronger anywhere than it is in a town like Pietermaritzburg. If you were to ask me why the hon. the Minister has brought in this legislation, I would say it is so that he can get a grip on the province of Natal, which has consistently refused to implement legislation such as this at the provincial level, and so that he can get at municipalities, at the municipality of Pietermaritzburg in particular.

You are entirely wrong. Not only are you wrong; you also are unfair.

It is my view. The hon. the Minister has given no other tenable reason why he wants this legislation. I do not believe Natal is any less Christian in its observance of Sundays than any other province I know of. Indeed I believe it is the flexibility which we have in regard to the administration of Natal—under a United Party administration, I may say—in matters of this kind that has made Natal perhaps the most stable part of South Africa in the last eight months. I believe there is a lesson to be drawn from that, viz. that in practice, where the principle of devolution of power and of allowing communities to decide for themselves to a large extent is observed in this country, there one has a more stable population than one has anywhere else.

In conclusion let me say that the amendment I am about to move embodies the arguments I have tried to place before the House. Therefore, Sir, I move—

Before I sit down, and because I anticipate an avalanche of speeches hereafter lauding the desirability of properly observing Sundays in South Africa, let me say at once that there is no argument that there should be a measure of regulation of what should or should not be done on a Sunday; there is no argument that Sunday is a day different from other days and should be observed in a proper and decent manner. However, there is a great deal of argument, and it is cardinal, as to whether intimate matters of this kind, matters which are not national issues, but issues which even the Minister concedes can legitimately be different from community to community, should be decided by the community at the level of its community government, viz. the local authority, and not by the central Government. Consequently we shall oppose this measure and I have moved an amendment accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member before he sits down whether he believes that in Natal the local authorities must look after this matter?

Yes, I do.

What about the drive-in theatres which are not covered by the local authorities?

Now he is in trouble.

I do not know, as I stand here, what authority controls drive-in theatres.

The provincial councils.

The provincial councils?

Now he is in trouble.

There is no “trouble” in this at all. I have stated the desirability, in my view, that the control of the showing of films on a Sunday should be at the level of the local authority. If in Natal there is objection to the control of drive-in cinemas by the provincial council—and I accept what the hon. the Minister tells me that that is where the control lies—and the local authorities were to ask the Natal Provincial Administration to hand over that control to them, I am quite sure that they would do it. I should say that the historical reason for that is probably because the bulk of drive-in cinemas were established outside the local authority areas. That is probably the reason why these cinemas are controlled by the provincial council rather than the local authority. If I am right in that, then the provincial council is the local authority for the control of the areas where the drive-in cinemas are established. In other words, they are in the areas not regulated by the municipalities. So, the principle is the same. If the local authority is the provincial council, then that is where the control should lie. If the local authority is the municipality, then that is where the control should lie. There is therefore no inconsistency in my argument.

Mr. Speaker, we usually listen with great attention when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana advances legal technical arguments in this House because his arguments are skilful and because we believe that he has a clear mind when it comes to legal matters. Today, however, that hon. member was guilty of a very, very grave oversight. In his argument in respect of the comparison between television and the prohibition contained in this Bill, he overlooked a fundamental provision in the Bill which completely nullifies his comparison between television and the normal bioscope. The Bill provides—

The prohibition is therefore not an absolute prohibition of the showing of films on a Sunday. It is a prohibition of the showing of films at a place to which admission is gained by payment, direct or indirect. Let me illustrate this for hon. members. There would be nothing wrong if hon. members were to show a film in their own homes and invite their friends to see it. There is no objection to that. It does not constitute an interference in what they can do in their private lives in their own homes or, for example, if a church organization showed a film for its young people in its hall; it is action to prevent Sunday being commercialized by places which make it their business to show films. It has nothing on earth to do with television. The television set stands in the home and unless people charge themselves admission to enter that home, this legislation can never be of application in that case. Therefore, the whole argument of the hon. member has no merit at all.

The second main argument advanced by the hon. member was that this was a matter that could best be arranged at local level. Once again in my opinion he neglected to read the Bill properly. If he had in fact read the Bill properly he would have noticed that the hon. the Minister has also made provision whereby he can delegate his powers. The power to grant exemption is not being given to the Minister alone but also to an officer in the Department of Justice who can act in terms of those powers. In other words, there is nothing preventing the hon. the Minister delegating this authority to any magistrate, who knows the local circumstances of his community, so that in any event a decision can still be taken within the framework of this legislation at a local level in respect of who should be given exemption or not. In this case the question can be asked whether it should be an officer in the Department of Justice like, for example, a magistrate, to whom this right of deciding locally should be given, or whether it should be given to a town council. If I remember correctly, this procedure in respect of film censorship was applied in England. They decided that every community, every local town council could exercise the censorship provisions itself. But this has ended in such chaos that there is now a strong movement afoot to place all censorship under a central control once again. Decentralization did not work. There was therefore a decentralization of functions overseas and it did not work. One can imagine the situation, Sir, where a person in Estcourt can attend a film on a Sunday but not a person in Ladysmith. In both towns there will be a number of people who will be annoyed because the people in the one town are able to attend a film and not those in the other, and vice versa. No, really, if we have a situation of this nature we will have a number of dissatisfied people throughout the country. There will be a number of people in every community who will be dissatisfied because this is been allowed and another group who will be dissatisfied because it has been refused.

Mr. Speaker, the most important aspect of this legislation is that it has nothing whatever to do with the private right of anybody to relax on a Sunday as he pleases. It is aimed at the commercialization of a Sunday. I shall refer to this point again but I first want to comment on a few more arguments advanced by the hon. member. The hon. member contended that he was convinced that public opinion was in favour of the showing of films on Sundays on a commercial basis. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder to us that the hon. member and his party receive so little public support. It is obvious that they have no contact with public opinion. Furthermore, he has insulted those who say that they are opposed to this sort of film showing on Sundays. Another hon. member on this side of the House who will speak at a later stage will quote to the hon. member from the evidence given by various churches, including evidence given by the English-language churches, in which people have expressed their opposition to this kind of film showing. The evidence was taken by a commission of this Parliament. These are the people whom the hon. member has labelled “busybodies”. He has also branded them as being old women who want to stick their noses into the affairs of other people. Ten to one it is the churches to which most hon. members opposite belong that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has so insulted.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member went on trying to compare television with this. I have already explained that television cannot even remotely fall under this legislation because of the provision in regard to locality which is referred to clearly in the Bill. The hon. member went on to say that people may see films on television. He then wanted to know why they could not see them in bioscopes. However, there is a great difference. The one difference is that bioscopes are the places where films are shown to which the public normally have access; in other words, public places. Furthermore, bioscope showings take place on a commercial basis, they are regarded as an attraction and they can cause a public disturbance, while a television set stands in the living room and on Sunday evenings presents restful and chiefly educational material, material that centres around the spirit and the atmosphere that is regarded as traditional as far as a Sunday in South Africa is concerned. In contrast to this very few films—even films that are permitted by our system—fit in with the spirit and the atmosphere of the traditional view of a Sunday by the population of South Africa, White as well as non-White.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion the hon. member said that this whole action was aimed at Natal. I want to give him the assurance that some of my colleagues in Pretoria received serious complaints in this regard, complaints in regard to film clubs which circumvent the law there and offer showings on Sunday evenings. There were also serious complaints in this regard from other communities, in Johannesburg and elsewhere. This legislation is just as necessary as far as the Transvaal is concerned and there is just as strong a demand for it on the part of the inhabitants of that province as there may or may not be in Natal. It is therefore not legislation that is aimed at a specific province.

If one really wants to understand this Bill, one has to approach it unemotionally. Perhaps we should ask ourselves two questions. In the first place we must ask ourselves what the Bill is trying not to do, and in the second place we must ask ourselves what it is in fact trying to achieve. Firstly, I want to say that this Bill does not envisage the NP wanting the Government, by adopting the Bill, to intrude upon the sphere of the church. This point was also made by the hon. the Minister. It has never been the attitude of the NP that it is its task to force people to go to church. In full recognition of the principle of sovereignty in one’s own circle, however, we believe that clear lines of demarcation must exist at all times between the tasks and the activities of the state, the church, culture in an organized connection, and so forth. Furthermore, we acknowledge the truth of a statement by a legal philosopher which I want to quote and in which he issues a clear warning against making a mistake in this direction. The legal philosopher Paton said this—

We accept that and for that reason we are not trying through the medium of this Bill to make better Christians of these people or to compel them to accept the serious Christian’s view of a Sunday. Neither in this Bill are we trying to interfere with individual freedom, because I know that this is an argument that we are still going to hear from that side. It must, however, be recognized that it is the task of the State to balance things out when there are conflicting freedoms in the community. If one group of individuals claims a right and, in respect of the same matter another group of individuals claims precisely the opposite right, as has obviously happened in this case, then the State has to balance things out and ensure that both groups, balanced in harmony, can each exercise its right and can each live in peace and freedom.

This is not balancing, it is banning.

Let us see whether it is balancing or banning. Any person who greatly enjoys going to the cinema can do so on six evenings and six afternoons and, if he lives in a large city, on six mornings a week. Why should he do so on the seventh day as well?

It is in his free time.

This Bill is not a concession because of pressure by a small group of people, as the hon. member contended. If we had to yield to the pressure of every small group of people in respect of various matters, we would have legislation that would keep us occupied from January to December. The legislation would simply be to take action against persons or bodies against which we received requests to take action. All representations that are made are balanced and weighed and implemented according to their merits. It has been quite rightly said that the spirit and character of Sunday in South Africa is such that it must not be commercialized.

This brings me to the question of what we are seeking to do by means of this Bill. I want to state that it is a custom in South Africa—and this the hon. member admitted to us—to spend a quiet and restful Sunday, and we do not want to change its character. This custom has been laid down in numbers of laws, ordinances and the municipal by-laws which prevent a Sunday being commercialized in various spheres and changed into a normal working day. In the sphere of the film industry people have now begun showing films on a Sunday for a consideration, and have in this way intruded upon the basic foundation of legislation in respect of commercial practices in South Africa. Their action intrudes upon the spirit and meaning of our South African law over a wide front. If it has not been an offence against a specific law to show films on a Sunday for a consideration, it has nevertheless still been an offence against the principles that are fundamental to our South African law. We are introducing this Bill to ensure that we draw the line of principle in our legislation logically through to the film industry, the line of principle that states that a supermarket may only sell certain necessary goods on a Sunday and which ensures that most commercial undertakings, except those rendering necessary services, are closed on a Sunday. I submit therefore that there is no new principle in the Bill but that in it we are simply giving expression to a general principle of our law. For this reason it will not help hon. members on that side of the House to try to bring Sunday sport into this matter. The hon. member has already begun doing so by mentioning swimming baths that are the property of city councils. Sunday sport is another matter completely. In the first instance it is primarily not a business and in the second place it has experienced a completely different historical development. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, this Bill seeks further to balance the rights of citizens in South Africa. There may be many who prefer open bioscopes on a Sunday, but there are, however, also many, if not the majority—I am convinced of the fact that they are in the majority—who prefer that there be no commercialized film showings on a Sunday. In view of this conflict of opinions in the community then—I can hardly imagine that hon. members will want to try to make out that there is in fact no conflict of opinion in this regard—it is very fair to say to cinema lovers: “For six days in the week you can go to the cinema to your heart’s desire, but do not begrudge us the opportunity of keeping at least one day, Sunday, as we want it to be.” For the sake of those to whom it gives offence and those parents who feel that they want to protect their children from the temptation to approach Sunday as being simply another public holiday to enjoy as they please, as well as for the sake of all churches which seek to honour Sunday and the Sabbath Day, surely it is only fair to ask that this legislation be supported, particularly because it does not intrude upon the basic right and freedom of the individual who feels differently about a Sunday. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech, persons who feel very strongly in the other direction can be given exemption. I want to say immediately that if the Greek community in my town which has regular Sunday evening cinema shows in its own language because that is the only evening on which it can have the use of the cinema, makes representations to him and asks to be exempted, I shall support those representations because they have merit and present no problems; and I would think that the examples mentioned by that hon. member, examples of non-Christian communities, will probably also be given favourable consideration. The machinery is there to apply this legislation fairly, but the doors of all cinemas must not be open on a Sunday evening as on a Saturday evening. In South Africa a Sunday dare not become simply another commercialized day on which one can only spend more money on recreation than on other days. We want to keep South Africa as it is, and I support the hon. member for Umhlatuzana when he says that he also has sympathy and respect for the view of the South African in general in respect of a Sunday. This Bill seeks to do nothing more than to give expression to that respect for a Sunday by not intruding upon the right of the vast majority to honour a Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to make my debut in this illustrious forum today, and I am pleased that I can do so by means of a plea in support of a measure such as this. I think it is a suitable subject for an occasion such as this.

Mr. Speaker, the merit of this measure as I see it lies in the fact that it is basically a norm-determining measure, norm-determining in this sense that although it is a form of prohibition it is nevertheless in essence aimed at giving us a directive in connection with activities that are regarded as being suitable or not suitable for a Sunday as we see it here in this country. We realize that it is not easy to determine directives for a community such as the one we have in South Africa because we have a variety of communities and because we do not all subscribe to the same codes of ethics. There is a diversity of communities each with its own national and religious outlook on life. For this reason we do not all subscribe to the same codes. However, the Government cannot act passively in respect of a matter of this nature and simply allow things to develop, as has already been advocated here this afternoon. A government that has to govern and function under a Constitution such as that of the Republic of South Africa can certainly not permit that sort of thing. It is the duty of the Government, and fortunately, our Government accepts that responsibility, to in fact, as is borne out by this Bill, lay down such directives through the medium of legislation and other measures. This Bill then is also an indication that the Government, in its position of trustee, accepts the responsibility of at least doing what it can in respect of this matter.

We also have to take note of another aspect, namely, that we in this country have a school of thought today that is apparently reasonably strongly articulate and submits that in respect of its task and responsibility in this connection the Government has over the past while already moved too far in the opposite direction, and that in the process we may perhaps be running the risk of finding ourselves on the slippery slope of neglect of duty and of concessions in respect of points of principle, something that can have dangerous consequences for us. I can speak with particular experience of this aspect, of this school of thought, because I have on occasion been on the receiving end of pleas and representations in respect of legislation that I had to deal with in my former capacity. These took the form of criticism and doubts of a twofold nature; on the one hand in regard to legislation that we place on the Statute Book and which does not come up to expectations and, on the other hand, in connection with measures that are advocated but which the authorities neglect to introduce. That is what is said. The point of departure of people who think in this way, and the yardstick that they use with which to test Government action of this nature, is the Preamble to our Constitution. They reason that the acknowledgement in the Preamble to our Constitution must not remain empty or hollow words but that all our legislation should breathe the spirit of it. They submit that the legislation that is placed on the Statute Book must be legislation that will best fit in with the traditions and the history of our fatherland. Now it also so happens that this point of view is able to find suitable echo in the formulation of the attitude of the General Synod of the DR Church in respect of Sundays. There are 18 points in which the attitude of the church is officially formulated. The 18th point reads as follows—

I should like to refer to two further points of merit within the framework of this norm-determining function of the Government, points of merit which, I believe, should make this measure acceptable to all of us. I refer in the first place to the adaptability of the legislation and, secondly, to the reasonable or fair manner in which the provisos are tempered. The elasticity of the Bill lies in the provisos to clause 2(1) in terms of which the hon. the Minister is given the power to grant exemptions. Therefore, as the hon. member for Vereeniging has said, we are not dealing here with an absolute prohibition. We are absolutely convinced that in considering applications for exemption—the hon. the Minister also indicated as much—a false measure will not be used but that discretion will be exercised and a decision arrived at on merit. In South Africa it is often necessary for us to build an element of flexibility or adaptability into our legislation, particularly with a view to the complexity of our community life. In this way it is possible for our authorities on the one hand to fulfil their duty as co-protectors, together with our churches, of the morals of the nation and as guarantors of the healthy qualities of life in our country, and on the other hand to recognize and to accommodate the reasonable expectations of people with genuinely different views. I believe that we as legislators are bound in terms of our Constitution to base all our legislation on a Christian foundation. It is fitting that we bear in mind the fact that a good 70% of our White population belong to communities of the Christian faith. At the same time, however, account is also taken of the fact that our country also accommodates communities which, although they may perhaps be equally religious, profess other faiths and follow other religious traditions.

Although it is not spelt out in this legislation that the aim is to assist groups of this nature, it does in fact lie within the authority of the hon. the Minister, under the proviso in the legislation, to recognize bona fide religious differences and traditions of this nature, and to accommodate them readily by way of a special concession. The power that is being given to the hon. the Minister is in fact very wide, and we can count on his exercising his discretion judiciously and acting helpfully in respect of all truly deserving applications for exemption.

As far as the fairness and reasonableness of the measure are concerned, the complaint and accusation will no doubt be made against the hon. the Minister from certain quarters that he is being a spoilsport with this legislation and that, without good reason, he is seeking to deprive people of a healthy form of pleasure. Much will probably be made of the educational value of some of the films that are now being shown on Sundays, something of which the people will then be deprived. Arguments of this nature will, however, be based on an incorrect interpretation of the Bill. As a previous speaker has already pointed out, it is not the showing of films that is summarily being prohibited but simply the commercialization thereof, the profit motive that sometimes accompanies it. Film showings on Sundays that are offered purely for innocent pleasure are not prohibited, and still less the showing, for no consideration at all, of films with educational merit. As the hon. member has already pointed out, any person is at liberty to show any film in his own home for his friends, without remuneration, irrespective of the number of people attending the showing, with the proviso that this is done on the basis of friendship and charity.

In the light of the traditional relationship between Church and State in this country it is also fitting that notice be taken particularly of the attitude of our churches, and we have already been assured by the hon. the Minister that it is as a result of representations by our churches that this legislation is being placed on the Statute Book. I have already referred to the resolutions of the General Synod, and besides this we may perhaps also just take note, although I do not have the time to make the necessary quotations, of the very strong attitude that has been adopted consistently by the spokesmen for our churches recently in regard to this matter when strong pleas have been made for measures of this nature.

In connection with this matter we would do well to take a page out of Israel’s book. Many of us Afrikaners know what happens there on their Sabbath. Respect for that day and obedience to the demands of the institution are hard and fast rules there. This is quite obvious and people do not even argue about it. Public opinion and the sanctions of the community in respect of this institution are very strong there. I am sure we can accept the fact that Israel also has elements that do not share the faith and outlook on life of the Jewish nation. However, in spite of this it is accepted that the spirit of the Sabbath must be the spirit of the prevailing segment of that nation, and I think we must accept the fact that the same thing ought also to happen in this country. After having experienced that occurrence, the visitor to Israel returns with two impressions. The first impression is one of irritation and annoyance in regard to the inconvenience which the strict Sabbath in Israel causes, because one can get nothing of a business nature done on that day. However, this impression is fleeting; it leaves one very quickly. The second and most permanent impression that one retains in respect of this occurrence is respect—a respect which impresses itself upon one—for that adherence to principle and loyalty to tradition. I think we would do well here in South Africa to follow this fine example of Israel by entrenching our traditional respect for the Sunday here as well. Let us retain it as far as it still exists and let us cultivate it or restore it where we have already started to become unfaithful to it.

I believe that this legislation is not only justified and defensible but also necessary and desirable, and I believe that responsible public opinion in this country expects this action on the part of the Government. That is why this measure deserves the wholehearted and unanimous support and approval of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I must decline the invitation of the hon. member for Algoa to give unanimous support to this Bill, but in doing so I would like to congratulate that hon. member, on behalf of all of us here, on his maiden speech in this House. I think his speech was a balanced speech; and though he presented somewhat controversial viewpoints, nonetheless he did so in a calm and competent manner, and I think I will save my arguments on some of his viewpoints for another debate. I would like to add Well done, and we hope you do very well in this House in the years to come.

I find it a little bit difficult to be quite as relaxed about the Bill before us as the previous speaker. I want to say straightaway that we do not disagree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s amendment. We certainly believe that localized government is being infringed upon in South Africa in many ways, and that a great deal of good would be done if more government were relegated to local level and if we had less centralization and less central control of the affairs of the people of this country. We agree therefore that the local authorities would be far better arbiters, for instance, of Sunday observance than the central Government.

However, I think that I must state at this stage that our opposition to this Bill is not based solely on the argument that the local authorities should be the arbiters of Sunday observance. We have a further set of arguments relating to the freedom and the rights of the individual in matters which should concern the individual. I shall deal with these in the course of what I have to say.

Some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Vereeniging will be dealt with by me in the course of the next few minutes, but I should like to touch immediately upon two matters. The hon. member sketched the vast difference between television and the showing of films as such, i.e. not through television. He is, of course, correct in one sense, and that is that television is in fact a very different medium from a film shown in a film house or theatre. The difference is real. However, I think the hon. member is skating on thin ice when he denies the commercial aspect of television. After all, people who watch television pay a pretty stiff licence fee in South Africa and, in effect, that licence is almost a fee of admission to watch the films shown on television. I think it is quite wrong for the hon. member to deny completely the commercial aspect of television which in fact invades Sundays just as much as any other day. Therefore, all the hon. member is saying is that people who cannot afford a television set are discriminated against while those who can afford a set are able to watch television on Sundays, for which they pay.

The second point made by the hon. member for Vereeniging, a point I wish to deal with immediately, is that, according to him, one of the main aims of the Bill is to curb profit-making by commercial enterprises on a Sunday. I say, however, that the main reason for the Bill is not to curb profit-making. The main reason for the Bill, as outlined by the hon. the Minister and as stated by Ministers even previous to this hon. Minister if I am not mistaken, relates not to commercialism but to assisting the churches in the work they are doing.

No, I never said so.

The hon. the Minister said so today, although he now denies it. He said so half an hour ago, but his denial is quite consistent coming from him.

I never said it. You are entirely wrong. You are putting arguments in my mouth and then you are trying to shoot them down. I never said a word of what you claim I said.

Mr. Speaker, if I may reiterate, the hon. the Minister said, roughly …

I said I did not want to impede the churches. I said I was not putting anything in their way. I did not say I was going to assist them.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of semantics.

No, no.

Basically, the Minister has been quoted in the Press and consistently as saying that he should like to help the church to perform their duties.

I challenge you to show me anywhere where I said that.

Fair enough, and I shall try to do that in the course of this debate, and if not in this speech, then later on.

In any speech you like.

Is it the contention of the hon. the Minister that television, for instance, in anyway assists the churches in their work on Sundays?

I never said anything about supporting the churches. You are putting arguments in my mouth that I never used.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. the Minister a question. Is it his contention that Sunday television assists the churches in drawing their congregations?

That is immaterial to me.

That does not seem to be the purpose at all. I may say that the very content of television may drive people to the churches on a Sunday. However, I am quite certain that that is not the intention.

Let me come back to the point the hon. the Minister made. He said in his Second Reading speech—

That is all I was getting at. They must be given that opportunity, and the State, by passing this Bill, is assisting the church to get that opportunity.

I did not say anything about assisting the church. I said the church should not be impeded.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to argue with that hon. Minister. I hope he will keep quiet. I am making a speech, not the hon. the Minister. Let him try to listen for a bit and not talk all the time. I have just quoted what the hon. the Minister said. The ordinary meaning of his words is clear. I have a Press cutting of what the hon. the Minister said six months ago and I should like to quote it, but I cannot put my hands on it at the moment. At that time he said the identical thing in English, viz. that “die Kerk moet die geleentheid gegee word om sy taak te volvoer …”.If this Bill is not designed to assist the church in that, I do not know what is. As I see it, that is one of the main aims of this Bill and I think the hon. the Minister will be making a fool of himself if he tries to argue this point any further.

Let us for a moment look at the circumstances surrounding this debate and not just at Sunday observance and the implications of Sunday observance. Here we are, in February of 1977, in a state of armed confrontation on the Angolan border. Rhodesia is in flames and the situation is deteriorating rapidly. A military Marxist State is to be found on our eastern seaboard and it is growing in its sinister influence. Black, White and Coloured relations have deteriorated to a new low point. Even Dr. Wassenaar… [Interjections.] … following in the wake of the seldom heeded Opposition has restated the mess into which this Government has got our economy. What does this hon. Minister offer us in these circumstances? What does he deem that we should debate in this House in these serious times? He offers us a Bill, a Bill to ban bioscopes on Sundays! That is what he offers us. I want to say that Nero was a grade school musician compared to this hon. Minister and this narrow little Bill on this hot February afternoon, that is what he was. When I think of the very real problems that are confronting us, the challenges and the difficulties, I find it very difficult to discuss this matter of bioscopes on Sundays seriously. But, because it is before us, we have to discuss it. So now we have a further shutdown, a further clamping down, a further blanketing, a further dulling and deadening of our Sundays, to solve what? To save whom?

To give you a rest from speaking too much in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Members will laugh at the silliest things, Sir. Ministers who are all-powerful in the largesse they can distribute to members make inane comments, and then these members giggle like jackasses.

It is my contention that this measure solves nothing, benefits no one and has little to commend it. It may be a new enactment, but it is not a new subject. It is a subject which has been debated in South Africa over the years. It has been debated within many forums, throughout many authorities. It has even become a standard topic in primary school debating societies. It has covered Sunday swimming in municipal pools, whether with bikinis or without, it has covered Sunday dancing, Sunday fishing in the Free State—I am not sure whether this has been resolved and whether or not they are allowed to fish in the Free State on a Sunday—and now it covers Sunday films. I ask the question: Who are these high priests of our morals who seek to regulate our private lives? Who are these people who seek to dictate to private citizens on such personal matters? Who are they? They are not the vast majority, if I may say so, of Anglicans. I do not believe that they are the majority, or even remotely near a majority, of Methodists. I do not believe that they are the vast majority of Catholics. We cannot accuse the Jewish community in this case, and certainly not even the overwhelming consensus of English-speaking people. They are not the Coloureds and I do not think it is the Indians who want this Bill. It is certainly not the Blacks of South Africa; they do not want this Bill. It is not the Greeks, the Italians or the Portuguese, nor, I believe any of the immigrant communities of South Africa, I say that it is not the English Press that wants this Bill. Not even the Afrikaans Press wants this Bill. I do not believe that even all Afrikaansspeaking South Africans want this Bill. I do not believe that the Opposition wants this Bill. I believe that if hon. members are honest and absolutely frank—even if they are only secretly honest; they do not have to say it publicly—I do not think that all hon. members on that side of the House want this Bill either. In fact, a quick calculation which I have made demonstrates that this law is actually supported by persons representing something like 5% of the total population of South Africa. This is true. In other words, some five in every 100 citizens want this Bill, an exceedingly influential five indeed. It seems, however, that because of the political structure of this country those 5% are going to have their way.

What are the arguments that the 5% put forward to this hon. House and to South Africa in favour of this legislation? The first is that Sunday—and we have heard that in many quarters—is the Sabbath. For most it is the Sabbath; that is a fact. It is not an argument, Mr. Speaker. For others it is not the Sabbath. It has been said that for the Hindus it is not the Sabbath, for the Muslims it is not the Sabbath, and for many Black people it is not the Sabbath. For the Jews and hundreds of other sects in South Africa it is not the Sabbath and yet, in this country of religious freedom, they who are citizens—not foreigners in South Africa …

Can you go to a bioscope in Israel on a Saturday?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is trying to distract me. I wish he would listen and stop talking. [Interjections.] And yet, in this country of religious freedom they who are citizens are to be compelled to observe the Sabbath of others. I have not heard that any of these groups has ever requested the Government to protect their Sabbath for them. I believe that those groups who wish to protect their Sabbath will do so, and have done so over the years, for themselves. Because their Sabbath—the Sabbath of those minority groups—is not enshrined in legislation, and other activities proceed as on every other normal day, I have not heard that any of the non-Christian religions are collapsing, or that their churches and their places of worship are empty or falling into disuse. These groups maintain their faith despite the normal non-Sabbath activities going on all around them.

Another main argument is that this legislation is designed—and I quoted it just now—to help these churches in their work with utmost freedom. Perhaps the words the hon. the Minister used were a little bit different. Now, this is a laudable aim, but I can think of a hundred ways in which the State can assist religions and churches in their work and can make it easier for them to do their work amongst the people of South Africa without this legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this legislation will achieve that aim at all. If I may say so, I do not believe that the churches are any emptier than five or ten years ago. In my experience most of the churches that I know of have been quite a bit fuller in the last few years than they used to be for some time previously. [Interjections.] Well, some people, rather cynically, may say that with a Government like this what else can we do but go and pray? [Interjections.]

In any event, even to conceive for one moment that this legislation will send droves of people to the churches by making Sundays unbearably dull is, I honestly believe, a fallacy. People either go to church or they do not. I believe, and I say this very seriously, that Christianity has survived for over 2 000 years—and the hon. the Minister knows this; he is part of it—without this sort of legislation. In fact, Christianity has survived in the face of persecution, in the face of restriction and in the face of very difficult times. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is far stronger as a religion, as a belief, and is far more vital than this Government gives it credit for. It does not need force. For religion in general and for most of us, Christianity in particular is a personal thing and not a matter for State incursion. The perfectly harmless and legal activities of individuals in their own time is their own business, and, Mr. Speaker, tolerance—if I may put it this way—lies close to the kernel of the Christian philosophy, and the intolerant interpretation of principles does not do the religion any justice.

Another aim seems to be to try to obtain uniform observance of the country’s traditions. Let me ask a question: Why is uniformity so necessary? Is the wealth of our country not in many ways to be found in the diversity of our people, in the diversity of the races that live in South Africa, in the diversity of cultures with which we mix? Is the very wealth of our country not the diversity of religions in South Africa? Are we not big enough as a country to accept this diversity and to allow it to flourish? If the Government deems uniformity essential, then I ask again, despite the very weak argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging, why it encourages double standards. Why do we have a Sunday radio programme which has commercial advertising on it throughout the Sunday? I want to say that I am not opposed to commercial radio on a Sunday.

What do you say, Boraine?

I am opposed to it.

I am not opposed to it at all. What I am saying is that what is good for one principle is good for another. Why do we have television entertainment? Why do we have commercial advertising? Could it be—and I pose this question for answer—that money and revenue changes this carefully nurtured principle? Could it be that principle sinks where commerce long prevails? No, this whole matter relates to a question, I believe, of personal freedom and the role of Government in that personal freedom. In a free society individuals should be at liberty to do what they like as long as in doing what they like, they do not infringe the rights or peace and quiet of any other person and any other person doing that which he legitimately would like to do.

The question of Sunday film viewing which harms nobody and disturbs nobody should not be a subject of Central Government legislation. The Government should recognize the differences in attitude of different individuals and communities. I want to speak for one of these communities, the English-speaking community. If I am told that I am not speaking for the unanimous English-speaking community, let me say that I think I speak for the vast majority of English-speaking South Africans in what I am going to say. We object and we are hurt at the Government’s rigid and rather intolerant attitude being forced upon us. We do not take second place to any other community in South Africa in our religious beliefs, but the vast majority of us are very unhappy at this attempt to force a uniformity upon us which we do not wish to have, a uniformity which makes criminal on a Sunday an activity which is quite legal on any other day of the week.

I should like to mention another aspect of the Bill briefly. Despite the provisions of clause 2(2)—the provision in terms of which general permission may be granted to screen films—this Bill sounds the death-knell of the film societies movement in South Africa. There are in fact in South Africa some 35 of these societies. Some are small societies and some are large societies, but I would say, at a rough guess, that there are probably about 25 000 to 3 000 members of these film societies in South Africa. They meet in commercial cinemas because they are required to use 35 mm equipment, because they need a large seating capacity and because the theatres are only available to them on those days. They are operated by voluntary personnel and they are in fact non-profit, noncommercial organizations. Despite the fact that they are non-profit, non-commercial they are hit by the Bill. They are hit because people have to pay a fee to be members of these organizations. The reason why they have to pay a fee is that they have to pay for the use of the film house or theatre, the equipment and for the hiring of the film. By their very nature these organizations cater for special interests or for special sections of the community. These sections are minority groups in one form or another, be it a cultural group, a language group, a religious group or even a racial group. They largely like to see and wish to see films which are not screened on the commercial circuits, films which are not of general interest because they may be peculiar to the interests of the group who wishes to see them. They are not all educational films.

I do not wish to imply in any way that these are only educational films; they may be films of entertainment value for, let us say, the Greek community or any other community in South Africa. However, they have a value. And the effect of this legislation is destructive of these organizations, of these culture groups. With their closing down, importation of special interest films, nonbox-office films as I call them, would end and an enriching factor in our cultural life would be crushed. It is not good enough to say that permission may well be granted if one goes to the Minister. We all know what that means as the Minister has already given a hint this afternoon. He said that the applications and the consent to the applications would be limited and would be decided on merit. The hon. member for Vereeniging said that it would not necessarily be the Minister who made the decision in each case; it might be a magistrate or a senior Justice official. What is the end result of this? The end result of this is that more officials are getting involved in the affairs of private people, more forms to be filled in in triplicate and sent in, more paper work to be done, more sets of conditions to be prescribed by people who are granting permission, depending on the area for which permission is granted, and more sets of conditions administratively imposed. I can imagine the sort of conditions which would be applied. One would have to fill in a questionnaire: What sort of film are you going to show? What is your name? What is your religion? Are you married? Do you have children? Who is going to see it? What will the age-group of the people be? Where is it going to be shown and during which hours? Mr. Speaker it is going to be as bad as trying to get a Book of Life!

I can only see more and more paper work to be done and more and more control to be exercised, ending up in a morass of officialese, documentation, bureaucracy, discrepancies in decisions from area to area and more money spent, once again, on less freedom and finally, on the death of the film society movement in South Africa.

Finally I want to say four more things. Firstly, I do not believe that this law will remedy any ill or mischief. I believe that it should be one of the purposes of laws to seek to remedy ills and mischief. This law remedies no mischief. It will not fill the churches nor make us more pious. Secondly, it has nothing to do—with this Minister—as to how South Africans spend their Sundays, as long as they do not harm others. Thirdly, it has nothing to do with this Minister if some South Africans are different from others in their religious attitudes. Fourthly, I want to link up with the point made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, namely that this is a central Government infringement upon the rights of individuals and provincial councils to regulate their own affairs in matters which concern them, matters over which, in any event, the central Government should have no jurisdiction. We shall accordingly oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House knew that it would not be long before concepts such as “the free rights of the individual” and “a free society” were raised by the opposite of the House. We knew that it would happen very quickly. I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton, who has just resumed his seat, and the members of the opposite side of the House, that this Government considers it to be its duty to keep watch over the interests of the individual in South Africa. When a watch has to be kept over certain principles, this side of the House will not hesitate to do so, as we are doing by means of the legislation which is now before this House. The hon. member referred to the present time in which we face the hostile attitude of the world around us, in which Marxism lies in wait on the borders of South Africa, and then he asked this question—in a contemptuous manner, for that is how he did it: “What does the Minister offer us in this case?” I want to reply to that question. With this measure the Minister is offering us anew the preservation of one of those anchors which are so essential if we want to combat the Marxist world with its ungodliness. That is what the hon. the Minister is offering us in this case. The hon. member asked who in our community wanted this Bill, and he mentioned various factions of our community. I want to tell the hon. member that the people in this country who wanted this Bill are religious people who believe in the preservation of the principles of the greatest of all laws, i.e. the Ten Commandments. They are the people who want to place this legislation on the South African Statute Book. The hon. member also referred to the rights, the peace and quiet of people which should not be encroached upon. I now want to prove to the hon. member that this is in fact the object of this legislation. The hon. the Minister make it very clear in his elucidation of the Bill. This Bill was drawn up precisely in order to prevent the rights and the peace and quiet of people who would like to keep Sunday as it ought to be kept from being encroached upon or disturbed.

In the past it was frequently asked whether it was not time we abolished Paul Kruger’s Sunday laws entirely, or reconsidered them. This Bill, which deals with the prohibition of the exhibition of films on Sundays and public holidays, raises this question afresh, and this compels me to exchange a few ideas in this regard this afternoon. To my mind everything hinges on the question of what we consider to be the essence of Sunday. May I do anything on a Sunday or may I not do? One cannot dismiss these questions out of hand with a “yes” or a “no”. However, I want to say at once that since South Africa is a Christian State—I am emphasizing this because it is laid down in our Constitution—it is an essential requirement that we use, as fundamental point of departure in replying to this question, the guiding principles as indicated for us in the greatest of all laws, the Ten Commandments.

We must allow the requirements of the Bible in respect of Sunday observance to weigh most heavily when we give our attention to this matter. I have frequently thought how wonderful and how easy it would be if we could receive a direct answer to this question from the Bible, for then it would not be necessary to debate this matter today. However, since we receive no direct answers to questions such as these, we must bear in mind that the lifestyle of he would live according to the Word of God is in no respect a fossilized lifestyle. On the contrary, it is constantly open to the future with its new, unexpected and frequently even unpredictable circumstances of life. The life of the believer is under the sway of the future, and he is constantly confronted anew by new life situations to which he has to adapt himself. In the formulation of his adjustment he must seek God’s will and ask whether there are fixed guidelines in the Word of God by means of which he can cope with the challenges posed on him by the future, which crop up from time to time. In other words, we should, in faith, continue to seek and sift in order to determine what we ought to do in the new circumstances of life which occur from time to time. In this formulation it is important to me that we should seek it in the words and language of the Ten Commandments.

In this regard I want to emphasize two points. In the first place, the Sabbath must be hallowed, in other words as I interpret it, a setting aside of this day by the Lord, for the Lord. Therefore we may not lose sight of this particular hallowing of the Sabbath. It has been set aside for our Creator, once and for all, and with that we emphasize the worship services in the observance of the Sabbath. Therefore, if my week is unceasing rush from duty to recreation and entertainment, this day is there to be free of that hustle and bustle and for what was lacking during the week, a peaceful, constructive, formative togetherness with those nearest to me and in my family life. Here I now associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I want to congratulate him on having immediately stated his standpoint that he personally believed that the Sunday should be a day which is different from other days. However, I could not understand how, in the end, he was able to come forward with the amendment which he moved. I do understand how it fits in and may be reconciled with the words he uttered in this regard.

The second point, apart from the hallowing of the Sabbath, is that I must rest on this day and—this goes with it—do no work. For the interpretation of this we may seek in Isaiah, chapter 58, and the hon. member for Pinelands would do well to look it up in his Bible. Isaiah 58 tells us in this connection that you should “call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor seeking thine own words; Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord … That is the interpretation.

It is significant that numerous countries have tried to eliminate the day of rest in order to have a seven-day working week, and have been quite unable to succeed in doing so. To my mind this is a clear demonstration of how that day, one day out of the seven days of the week, the Sunday as we know it in South Africa, should be spent. It means that on a Sunday one should free oneself from the toil and moil of one’s everyday duties of the past week, and that one should, on that day, make oneself available to God the Father, one’s Creator, and that one should on that day take the rest which is essential after all one’s labours of the past week.

I have already said, at the outset, that historically, constitutionally and voluntarily South Africans adopted the Christian principle, and that we chose Christianity as such. In terms of this the State has a specific calling in respect of Sunday observance. I see it as the duty of the State, if it considers this essential—and the Bill is before us here today because we do consider it essential—to curb the forces of evil with the aid of the authority of the state as well, and in that way help the Church to continue to preach the word of God without let or hindrance.

Let me state frankly here, Mr. Speaker, that I do not flinch from the words “to help the Church”. I know the hon. Minister said that he did not mean it in that sense, but as far as I am concerned, if South Africa is a Christian state and if we have chosen Christianity, it is our duty to do everything possible to help the Church to disseminate those principles among its members and to try to persuade its members to follow the right path. That is why I see no harm in this, and consider it to be the duty of the State to help the Church.

In this respect I see justification for legislation aimed at certain conduct on a Sunday. However, the Church must also take account of the fact—and this is important to me, and I do not hesitate to say so—that the State does not create a Christian nation, rather, a Christian nation establishes a Christian State. I want to make this clear by saying that it is not possible, through the legislation, to put an end to alienation from the Church. It will remain the duty of the Church to continue to preach God’s Word. It is not the duty of this Parliament to drive or force people in South Africa to church. However, since South Africa has changed over to a five-day working week, I want to state unequivocally here today that it is my personal opinion that this Bill should have gone much further even. We have our five-day working week. Let us then use Saturday for our organized sport and entertainment—and therefore for the cinema as well—but let us use Sunday for the purpose for which it was instituted, as laid down in God’s law. That is why I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion it would have been a good thing if we had gone even further with this legislation before the House.

I want to conclude by saying that we should maintain the Sunday pattern in South Africa as we have always considered it as a nation in the past. Last night I saw a moving television programme on Rhodesia. One of the Rhodesian pioneers was questioned on the trek to Rhodesia, and it was moving when he said, of his own accord, that they did not travel on Sundays. On Sundays, he said, they set up camp and rested. I find it gratifying to see that this custom had been taken from South Africa to that country by our people who went there. We can use Sundays to gain renewed strength for the working week a-head, and to enjoy fellowship with other worshippers and with God in the worship service. The rest of the day we may then delight in the rest for which it was intended. Then, with Paul, we could say: “There remaineth therefore a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God”.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I shall give a detailed reply to the speech of the hon. member for Aliwal, because although today is Wednesday, it seems to me we are having Sunday’s sermons a few days early in this House today. [Interjections.] The hon. member quoted Isaiah and said one should not conduct one’s business on Sunday. I think the hon. member has let the cat out of the bag now. If he wants to act according to such a strict norm, this will only be the beginning of further legislation, because one will not have a clear conscience. After all, the task will not be completed if one goes no farther than films. It really is a sorry day when we have to debate legislation in this House which, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has already indicated, is unnecessary to a large extent. It is not true that film shows over which no one can exercise any control are being arranged in South Africa. Control can be excercised.

Where is it being exercised?

It is being exercised in Natal. The local town councils voted on the matter. Certain town councils passed resolutions in accordance therewith.

Film shows are being held every Sunday in Natal.

So what about the control which can be exercised by individuals? the hon. member for Vereeniging said in his speech that we must observe the day. Well, everybody agrees about that. In other words, one does not want to make this day unpleasant for those who would like to have a quiet Sunday. If, however, one allows the local authorities to decide about the showing of films on a Sunday, one is not compelled to attend a show. There is nothing which obliges one to do that. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I are both products of the Potchefstroom University for Higher Christian Education. As the hon. member will know, it was not possible for us to have dances on the campus, but if I and old Toy Dannhauser and other fellows in the X club organized a dance, say in Potchefstroom itself, there was no one who could force the hon. member on the opposite side to accompany Andrew Pyper to that dance.

[Inaudible.]

Surely that is right. So what is he afraid of? Why should the man be protected who really knows how to exercise self-control with regard to something like this?

What I really find tragic in this case is that this legislation is in fact based on a complete misconception of what South Africa is in reality. This legislation proceeds on the assumption that South Africa has a homogeneous population, that we do not have a variety of communities in South Africa.

†Nothing could be further from the truth than such a description of South Africa. We all know, of course, that South Africa consists of many diverse peoples and different identifiable communities. Everyone who knows a bit about South Africa and who moves around and knows both sides of the Drakensberg, will tell you, Sir, that in many respects the people of Natal differ from those of the rest of South Africa. To begin with, they are far more sensible and intelligent. That is why they have always voted for our party. However, even the Nationalist provincial councillors of Natal are more sensible than their counterparts in the rest of South Africa. They are far more mature when it comes to a matter such as this. I am not saying it merely as a joke. I can prove what I have said. As I said, the provincial councillors in Natal are definitely far more mature and sensible than the nationalist MPs representing Natal constituencies.

Last year the hon. the Minister introduced similar legislation. At that time the Natal Provincial Council debated a motion condemning it. I may say that that was not the first time that the question of the prohibition of the exhibition of films on Sundays was debated in the Natal Provincial Council. If one reads the Hansard covering the debate in the Natal Provincial Council, one can see clearly that the Nationalist provincial councillors in Natal can be regarded as a different breed of people.

*I want to quote what Mr. Hanekom said in the Provincial Council. He is the leader of the NP in the Natal Provincial Council and he represents the constituency of Klip River. On page 241 of his Hansard one reads that he said—

That is the motion of the previous year—

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it was not a backbencher in the Provincial Council who said that, but the leader of the NP in the Natal Provincial Council.

What did he say at the party congress of Natal?

Ah! Now the truth comes out!

The hon. the Minister asks me what the person concerned said at the party congress of Natal. He said—

He continued—

He went on to say that if one belonged to a party, one should vote for one’s party. On page 244 he went on to say—

It is stated very clearly there. I have dealt with the principle, but let us also look at the other matter. The hon. member for Aliwal spoke of the alleged infringement of other people’s rights. Let us see what Mr. Hanekom said about this on page 243.

Make your own speech; stop quoting.

The point is that we do have different communities in South Africa. In the different provinces we have people with different views. They accept different norms, and we as responsible Christian people should take this into consideration if we want to rule the country well.

Now we come to the question of people’s rights being infringed. He said—

If we look at the legislation we see that there is in fact infringement. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that there is, of course, the infringement of the right which the local authorities had in Natal of having been able to decide for themselves on a matter of conscience such as this. That is a right which they had. The right of those local authorities is being infringed; let us just forget about the infringement of the rights of individuals, because I can honestly say that I cannot understand how the right of an individual can be infringed if that is allowed and that individual does not want to go there. One can only infringe his right if you tell him: “Come, go on; go to a film show on Sunday.” In that case one would be infringing his right. The right of certain religious groups is also being infringed and it is not good enough simply to say what the hon. member for Stilfontein said here, viz., “Yes, but we are governing.” Surely that is not an answer. There are certain religious groups like the Seventh Day Adventists and in this case their rights are being infringed.

†Mr. Speaker, the question which may be asked, is: Why do we say that local authorities should decide? In this respect I am going to quote another member of the NP in the provincial council in Natal, Mr. Van Lingen of Newcastle. This is what he had to say—

Then he mentions the example of Sunday soccer, which was banned in Newcastle, and goes on to say the following—

That was what Mr. Van Lingen said. My whole point in this regard is the following. There are different people with different outlooks in South Africa. This type of legislation is bad. It illustrates clearly the insensitivity of a unitary system of government, in which matters are decided and dictated from one central spot. And this is what is wrong inherently in this particular legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is a cruel Bill. In a democracy it is cruel to force communities and local authorities to conform in such matters against their wishes. The Provincial Council of Natal made their position very clear last year, and I wish to quote the motion that they adopted. They adopted this motion, and they are part of South Africa. They cannot simply be wished away. They also have a right. I have been quoting from this debate to prove where, in fact, when it pertained to matters or principle, the NP members really agreed with the underlying principle, although they did not agree with certain wordings and voted against the motion as such. This is the motion. I want to read it for the record, in order to demonstrate once and for all the cruelty of a unitary and a centralized system of Government, a Government which can just go against the wishes of people, groups of people, communities … The Motion reads as follows—

1. (a) That this hon. council condemns the hon. Minister of Justice for his unwarranted and unjustified interference in matters traditionally the concern of the provincial administrations.
2. (b) That this province will, in any future dealings with the hon. Minister, comply with the strict legal obligations only.
3. (c) That this resolution be forwarded by respectful address to the honoured Administrator for onward transmission to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Now, knowing exactly the feeling of the province of Natal, knowing the feeling of the rulers of Natal—the local authorities—the hon. the Minister carries on regardlessly with this Bill. Why?

Out of spite!

Why must the hon. the Minister continue with this insensitive Bill? I want to know from the hon. the Minister what the people have done to be treated like this. Most local authorities in Natal have already decided not to allow cinema shows on Sundays. They have made this decision out of their own free will. That is right. Those people who feel they want it changed, need not feel frustrated because they can try to defeat their representatives at the ballot-box in the next local council election. What more does the hon. the Minister want? Why does he ignore the views of the Province of Natal completely? In this particular debate we also find that Mr. Hanekom offers some sort of reason why, and I just want to quote that as well. On page 243 he said—

*He went on to say—

He quoted the following example and said—

In other words, the leader of the provincial council in Natal said—and that was when the legislation was introduced in this House last year—

Therefore the story which we have heard here today, i.e. that this is not aimed at Natal, is nonsense Here it is stated very clearly. It is merely because there has been no reaction from Natal that the hon. the Minister is taking this step.

That is utter nonsense. It is not aimed at Natal at all. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is stated here—

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, all I want to say to the hon. the Minister… [Interjections.] No, I am not trying … I am only trying to substantiate my argument. There are people, even Nationalists, in Natal, who have a different approach to the matter. All I ask of the hon. the Minister is merely to accept that this is so. He must please accept that we are not all the same kind of people, that we are not all stamped: “Made in Hong Kong”, and so forth. [Interjections.] I should also like to tell the hon. the Minister—without getting involved in the argument between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Sandton with regard to the church aspect—that if we really want to help the church, this will not be the only legislation which we shall need.

But surely the church can help itself.

Why is the hon. the Minister talking about that now? Why is he trying to bring that in? I shall tell the hon. the Minister why he is trying to bring in the church. The hon. the Minister is doing this so that he will be able to say: “The people who voted against the measure, do not want to help the church—I, the Minister of Justice, want to help the church.” That is why the church is being brought into the arguments in this House. It is not because he really wants to help the church.

Now you are distorting.

No, he is not.

How many more people will attend church as a result of the Bill? I do not want to involve myself in this at all

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say, “You are distorting”.

I am afraid it is something that should not be said.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it.

I want to mention the following aspect and this is that I am very concerned about the fact that today one finds, especially in our large city areas, many lonely and poor people. These people cannot afford television and to belong to a film club you do not pay R36 per year like you pay for a television licence. You pay perhaps R12 and in some cases only R1 per year. That is all you pay for belonging to a film club. Hon. members in the opposite benches should realize and appreciate the fact that you do have people who go to the cinema Sundays. The hon. member for Vereeniging said: “Look, you have six days in the week that you can go to a cinema.” Does he not realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people that work for six days a week and that they will not go to a cinema every Sunday, but perhaps once in three or six months.

I am very concerned about what people living in the major urban areas in South Africa can do with their own free time. In many cases they cannot afford to pass the time in the way that most other people do. A sociologist tells me—I cannot verify the facts but that is what I have been told—that suicides in South Africa occur with the highest frequencies on Sunday afternoons and Sunday evenings. Why? I would much rather have people belonging to a film club or society to enable them to see films on Sundays because then at least they have entertainment. Somebody may ask why they do not go to church. Today they have the opportunity and they can go to the church, but you cannot force people.

In any case, this Bill is not about the conscience matter as such. It is really about how you govern a country and it is on that basis that we have moved the amendment.

I am not a justice man but I am grateful that I have the privilege this afternoon to say a few words about this Bill. Firstly I want to congratulate the hon. Minister on having introduced the Bill which we have before us this afternoon. I have no doubt that this legislation will be passed, for if I did not have faith in my undertakings and in my Government, then I would doubt, as the Opposition does. I am grateful. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Aliwal on that wonderful speech which he made here this afternoon. I want to tell him that I appreciated it very much. Well done! We know what Christianity means to this nation. We know what our Christian background means to us, not only to the Afrikaner, but to every good South African living in this country. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central: The legislation which is being enacted here, is being enacted for Natal as well. The Natalians, and particularly the Opposition members, must realize that Natal is part of the Republic of South Africa. The legislation will also be applicable to Natal.

It is certainly not the aim of this legislation or of the Government to attempt to force people to go to church through the implementation of this legislation. I do not believe this. It is the duty of the ministers of all the various churches to ensure that people go to church. The Government also has a duty not to make this impossible for those people. The Constitution of this country stipulates that the Sabbath shall not be desecrated but shall be observed. The Constitution of the NP, not only of the people, has included those selfsame principles in its Constitution. Therefore, the NP is built on Christian principles. I want to tell the Minister that I am sorry that this legislation is not being taken even further. I should have liked to have seen—and I hope that it will happen in future—the discontinuation of the Currie cup matches in Natal as well. If it were up to me this would happen. I received a letter this morning … [Interjections.] … from a voter in the electoral division of the hon. member for Maitland. I have received a letter not only from the Minister but also from the chairwoman of the N.G. Kerk-Sendingbond.

What does the madam say?

If you behave yourself I will give it to you later, to read after the discussion. These people, the chairwoman of that society, as well as the minister concerned, have probably made representations to the Minister as well. This matron and her organization and the church plead with us to introduce other measures as well, not only the prohibition of the exhibition of films but also a prohibition of all the other things which desecrate the Sabbath day. It is not the task of the Government to fill the churches. I have every confidence that the various church denominations of this country are doing everything in their power to draw the sinners to church. I want to tell the hon. members on that side of the House that the NP is governing the country. Whether they like it or not, we are governing the country and we shall do what we think is right without encroaching upon the private rights of any individual. We shall, in future, be held responsible for whether we governed correctly and whether we governed well.

The Western nations of today have become corrupt. Why is this so? Our countries of origin have become corrupt because they have strayed from the word of God, because they no longer recognize the Sabbath day and because they desecrate the whole week— from Monday to Sunday. It is a disgrace for the hon. member for Durban Central to say that we shall hear enough sermons today. If I could preach salvation to that hon. member, I would preach to him until tomorrow morning. [Interjections.] An hon. member on this side of the House says that I would be wasting my time. I think so, too, and I realize that I should rather hand the hon. member over to someone like the hon. member for Pinelands so that he may change completely.

With regard to the Government’s task in respect of the observance of Sunday, I just want to mention a few points. The Government, in all its ramifications, must, as far as possible, bring its own activities to a halt. What do we mean by that? It is precisely what the Government is doing today, and previous Governments have also done it. In this regard, we can refer back with respect to all the previous governors of this country because, as far as possible, they all brought their activities to a halt on this day. There are, of course, tasks which must continue but it is the duty of the Government to ensure that such functions are restricted as far as possible. I could never vote for my Sunday being used for holding cinema shows for any remuneration. I believe that the legislation will allow certain exhibitions, and I believe that concessions will be made to certain sectors of our population which perhaps practise a different religion to the one I do. Concessions will also be made to those who are perhaps on duty from Monday until midnight on a Saturday. The hon. Minister and his department will give such cases careful consideration and will grant the necessary approval. We shall not, however, allow the situation to become generalized. I repeat that the Government must do its best in its legislation and concessions to put a stop, as far as possible to activities on this day. I have already elaborated on this but I want to stress again that there are six days on which one can go to the cinema. As a result of the five-day working week one can go to the cinema from early on Saturday morning until midnight on Saturday. If one has not had enough by that time, then I do not know what to say to that person. The Government must also see to it that people are free from compulsory work on the day of rest so that they do not find themselves in the unfavourable position where competition on the labour and entrepreneurial level poses a threat to their interests. Tonight I want to tell the members on the opposite side that, as sure as I am standing here, I am convinced that if a referendum were to be held amongst the groups which uphold the Christian faith, the majority would vote in favour of the legislation. I am referring to groups which adhere to the Christian principles as defined in our Statute Books and as laid down in our Constitution. It is not the Government’s task to lay down the law in respect of Sunday observance. This is not the Government’s task; it is the task of the preacher and the Government must not stand in the way of the man who preaches the Word of God. The Government must ensure that people who exercise their freedom to spend their Sundays as they choose do not, in this way directly or indirectly deprive other people of their freedom on Sunday.

It has been a municipal by-law for many years now that when church services take place in the morning and in the evening, no business activities which could cause a disturbance in that area may be engaged in. Why did these local authorities, with the co-operation of the Government, place such provisions in the Statute Book? It is because we do not allow business concerns to conduct business on a Sunday—or Saturday as the hon. member for Houghton said earlier this afternoon, because Saturday is the Sabbath of the Jewish community, and I hope she observes it faithfully—because it is distracting. No nation, not this nation either, will continue to exist if it departs from this. I now want to return to the question of the Jewish community. Were it not for the Jewish tradition, as the hon. member for Algoa said today, and were it not that the Jews had faithfully preserved, through all the centuries, those things which they love and cherish, the Jewish community would not still exist today. Because the Jew’s traditions are so strong and because he preserves them faithfully under bitter and difficult circumstances and keeps that promise, the Jewish nation has remained steadfast and the Jewish nation will not perish. I should like the laws of Israel, as regards the hallowing of the Sabbath, to be put into practice to the full in our country as well. Then we would not receive such letters. I need not perish with Sodom and Gomorra. I need not. I shall be excluded from that and those people who want to perish need not address their grievances to this Government because this Government has done everything in its power to protect and preserve what has been written into Christianity for our future generations in South Africa.

I am grateful that I have had the privilege of speaking on this matter this afternoon. I should like to see the hon. the Minister go even further with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, one most certainly does not doubt the sincerity with which the hon. member for Stilfontein put forward his case here when he told this House very clearly what his opinion was and then confessed his belief in Christian principles. It is gratifying to see that the House is able to discuss this legislation in an atmosphere of calm and great maturity this afternoon. I also hope I shall be able to display the same sort of approach on behalf of us in these benches.

The arguments in favour of the legislation more or less concentrated on a few points. The first point is that there is a tendency to commercialize Sunday and that this sort of legislation which is now before the House ought therefore to prevent that commercialization from taking place. One is immediately faced with a problem, however. There are various examples of this type of commercialization, whether it is entertainment in the form of sport or any other form of entertainment which is freely available to the public. This sort of thing is already taking place. There are also various businesses which must, in any case, be open on a Sunday because of the service which must be afforded to the public on that day, too. I therefore find the arguments difficult to follow. It is said that you may not go to a film show on a Sunday, but you are perfectly entitled to attend some sporting event, if you want to, or you can take your family to a picnic place, to some attraction for which an entrance fee is charged. When we say that the State must do nothing to hinder the work of the Church, it is an argument which I understand. There is a modern view, however, because many business people and other workers work six days per week, that Sunday is the only day on which they can enjoy some form of entertainment—although they may go to church. No obstacle is put in their way. There is no obstacle in the way of members of the public who want to attend a sporting event on a Sunday. Nothing prevents me from participating in any honest form of entertainment, for example a little golf or tennis on a Sunday. When all is said and done, do all these things constitute desecration of the Sabbath? To me and to some other people they might.

I myself do not like that type of thing either, but not all members of the public have precisely the same approach as I have. The more our country develops, the more immigrants and tourists we attract to South Africa, the more we shall have to accommodate people who have a European approach whose views are, not necessarily unchristian, but who in fact do these things on a Sunday. It troubles me that we should have to defend such a measure in this country and that we should have to say: “It is a decision which is taken by a Minister of the State. It is the central Government which has taken this decision. It is not left to the population itself to make its choice. It has been left to someone in a central position, someone who has been given the power and the authority to take that decision.” I am afraid that if we go so far, we will create the impression that we are a country which says it believes in freedom of religion but which then wants to prevent other people, who are not of the same faith as you and I, from going a different way and from participating in other activities.

I want to remind the House that a few years ago we had legislation before us in connection with the prohibition of sport on a Sunday. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Umbilo and I myself—at that time we still belonged to the same party— represented that side of the House on a Select Committee which was appointed in connection with that matter. We had to investigate whether it was possible to prohibit Sunday sport in South Africa. We held quite a few meetings and listened to a lot of evidence and after a while we had to suspend the operations of that Select Committee because it was almost impossible to formulate a plan which would do justice to everyone and which would give us something to submit to Parliament. The evidence indicated overwhelmingly that were we to prohibit such a thing as Sunday sport, it would create a tremendous problem in our Bantu areas, considering that the Black man plays soccer and participates in other forms of sport on Sundays.

That is not a form of sport.

No, I know, but it is something similar—it is a form of entertainment.

The hon. the Minister has told us that many representations have been made to him for this sort of legislation to be introduced. I want to say at once that this legislation does not prohibit everything. It does not prohibit all forms of film shows. The hon. the Minister can make exceptions to the rule. He can, in certain cases, give his approval to them. The hon. members cannot therefore say that no film shows at all may be held on a Sunday. The point that I want to make is that even this legislation recognizes the principle that such a thing may indeed take place on a Sunday. In the past, when we discussed the matter I have referred to, it was very clear that we were faced with a tremendous problem when it came to this sort of measure. The hon. the Minister has said that many representations have been made to him and I am prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s word in this regard, but is not this legislation again the sort of legislation which ought to be referred to a Select Committee? On a Select Committee, we could listen to evidence from influential people in the country such as church leaders, local authorities, provincial authorities, etc. On the grounds of their evidence we could decide, firstly, whether this legislation is necessary, and secondly, if necessary, which would be the best way to apply a form of control. I must honestly say that we in these benches do not like the fact that the hon. the Minister should have to take this fantastic amount of work on his shoulders, when he could just as easily have left it to a local authority or to the provincial authorities to make decisions in this regard.

Provision is being made for that in the Bill.

Yes, it is true that the hon. the Minister may authorize someone to do it. There are two things which I should like to know. It is not only a question of how the control is to be exercised; one must also know whether it is necessary. We must accept that South Africa has to plan its future and to lay down guide-lines and I am not one of those people who think that you have to throw your Christian principles and approaches overboard. This is not necessary. If we want to be part of the Western world, however, if we want to attract tourists to this country …

We must conform.

No, if we want to attract immigrants to South Africa …

We may as well throw in the towel?

No, it is not a question of throwing in the towel. Surely the fact that we have different laws on our Statute Book, laws which preserve our culture here, does not put those people off. For the hon. the Minister to introduce a Bill wich would interfere with people’s normal entertainment and normal behaviour on public holidays and Sundays, for example, could create the impression that South Africa is petty and that it is not prepared to accept other people’s behaviour and approach to things. I believe it would be a mistake; it would be a fatal mistake, especially now that South Africa is seeking support. It would be a mistake especially since we want to show the outside world that we are the bearers of the Western culture. I cannot believe that a country such as West Germany, which is also a bearer of the Western culture, but where you can visit cinemas on a Sunday if you wish, is endangering the Christian culture. It is therefore the sentiment of this side, of us in these benches, that we want to move the following amendment to the hon. the Minister’s motion—

If the House accepts this amendment, I think that we shall be acting in the interests of the country and of the general public and that those who are involved in this will have the chance to give evidence and will also be better informed. The hon. the Minister will then be able to rely on the support of the general public because the impression will be created that the Government does not want to interfere with any aspect of national life.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park is a voter of Durbanville, and as such is someone who has had a very lean time of it over the past few years. I must say that I have had sleepless nights, because I do not like any of my voters to be unhappy. I am grateful, and I want to congratulate him on behalf of the constituency of Durbanville on the ray of light that appeared on his horizon in 1977 and on his having indicated at the beginning of this year that he is capable of taking a step in the right direction. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, at this point I must cease my expressions of praise, since unfortunately I am unable to agree with the opinions expressed here by a voter of mine. In the first place I want to say that the mere fact that the hon. member for Newton Park feels that we should adjust our legislation in this country so that it can also accommodate and satisfy people who come here from abroad—although this may perhaps be a good idea, a good principle— does not hold good. After all, we in this country, with its particular traditional religious ethos, cannot simply allow the religious traditional order to be overthrown and affected by people who come here to find a new home here, people whom we do indeed welcome, people who really want to make a contribution but not one which represents a deviation from the customs and traditions of this country, not a contribution which will contribute towards making our traditional Sabbath day a Continental Sabbath day. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park went on to argue that he could not agree with this legislation since according to him there were no measures relating to nonobservation of the Sabbath by people who practise sport on Sundays. In my opinion a much finer distinction must be drawn here. In the first place, it is surely crystal clear that the whole aspect on which this Bill is based is, in fact, the commercial exhibition of films on Sundays. After all, the film exhibited in the privacy of one’s home is not the issue here at all. That can certainly go on. After all, one can certainly play tennis on one’s own private tennis court on a Sunday. One can walk around naked in one’s own home, something which one may not do outside in the street. After all, there are certain things which one may do in private, things which, in the normal course, one may not do in public because certain laws and regulations prohibit it.

However the hon. member for Newton Park is quite correct when he points out that the commercial exhibition of films could be set on a par with organized, commercialized sporting activities. The latter is, however, something else entirely, something which is by no means included in or dealt with by this Bill. That is why, at this specific stage, this House cannot express its opposition to the practice of commercialized sport on the Sabbath day. This is a matter which will have to come under the spotlight in good time.

Mr. Speaker, the principle at issue whenever the practice of commercialized sport on Sundays is discussed is surely the same principle as that concerning the commercial exhibition of films on Sundays. That is why I also plead that that aspect—in good time, of course—should receive the necessary attention and consideration. It is surely very clear that if the request that the commercial exhibition of films on Sundays be allowed to continue, be acceded to, this must necessarily give rise to the opening of billiard rooms, dance halls, circuses, cabarets, etc. It must necessarily be extended to the unrestricted and unconditional throwing open of commercial activities, the throwing open of shops and the freedom to carry on any trade on the Sabbath.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Durban North all advanced the same argument throughout. The argument is that the people of South Africa are not in favour of such legislation, or that they have no need of it. I want to differ entirely from the opinion of those hon. members. I fully agree that the test for the necessity for any legislation is whether it is in the interests of the people, whether there is a need among the people for such a measure and whether the people do indeed want it. The hon. members opposite inform us that the Bill is not acceptable and that in fact the people do not want it, but I want to maintain precisely the opposite and I should also like to go ahead and prove it. I want to start with the hon. member for Durban Central—who is now walking out—who referred to a member of the provincial council and his attendance at the NP congress in Natal. Here I do just want to say this to the hon. member, viz. that although there may be certain people who have reservations in regard to this matter, there are people in his party, too, who do not agree with his opinions on the Bill. After all, it is true that when dealing with a matter of this nature, differences do arise. However, the matter goes much further, because the principles of this Bill have been recognized by all five NP congresses. Surely this also covers thousands upon thousands of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, people from every town and city. It represents 66⅔% of the population of South Africa. We find that in 1964 a Select Committee was appointed on the subject of the Sunday Sport and Entertainment Bill. Evidence was given and memoranda submitted to this Select Committee by inter alia, the United Municipal Executive, which is representative of all municipalities and local authorities in South Africa. When representatives of the United Municipal Executive gave oral evidence before the Select Committee, it was clearly stated in reply to question 21 (S.C. 5—64)—

Mr. Speaker, surely that includes the city council of Durban, or does that hon. member want to differ with me in that regard? It goes without saying that they spoke on behalf of all local authorities in South Africa. Now the hon. member for Durban Central maintains that his people do not want it; he maintains that the city of Durban does not want it.

When did I say that?

By implication.

The hon. member said very clearly that he was speaking on behalf of the people and that the people of South Africa did not want a Bill of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: The hon. member states that I maintained that the city of Durban did not want the Bill. I never made any such statement. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durbanville may continue.

The Durban city council also gave evidence before the same Select Committee. Mr. W. L. Howes gave evidence on that occasion, and made a plea for the retention of certain sporting activities in South Africa, particularly in Durban and its surrounding areas. However he also expressed very clear opposition to the opening of bioscopes in Durban. He said—

He continues in this vein. In other words, we cannot accept that in 11 years the morals and point of view of the inhabitants of Durban and surroundings have changed. Why should we?

Interestingly enough, I have here an extract from Die Burger dated 27 September 1975 which is a report on the proceedings at the NP congress of 26 September 1975. At this congress the hon. the Minister, after being confronted by people from the floor, said that the matter was receiving attention and that investigations were being instituted with a view to drafting a Bill in this connection. He added that at that stage he had already received 118 quite spontaneous letters of objection. We therefore have people who raise objections to the opening of bioscopes on a commercial basis, particularly in Durban and coming from English-speaking people in particular. The matter goes much further than that. The churches of South Africa, too, are totally opposed to the principle of bioscopes being open on Sunday on a commercial basis. On behalf of the Church of England in South Africa Bishop Bradley advocated uniform laws to regulate this matter. He goes further by saying that he had ascertained that his Sunday attendance dropped by up to 40% in the event of a major sporting event in the vicinity clashing with a church service. Although a sporting event is the opposite of a commercial film show, this nevertheless indicates the effect this has on church attendance, viz. that on one specific morning it can cause it to drop by up to 40%. He went on to testify on behalf of his church that bioscopes would attract young people away from the true purpose of the Sabbath. Even if it were the will of the people that bioscopes should be open on a Sunday, it is the will of God that Sunday should be reserved as a day of rest.

Archbishop McCann, too, appeared before that same Select Committee. He appeared on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in South Africa, representative of more than one million people. For the information of the hon. member for Durban Central, who expressed the suspicion that only about 5% of all people in this country insisted on legislation of this nature, I should just like to say that this church, too, stated specifically that people should not attend film shows on Sundays. This church, too, furnished an analysis of the composition of its membership, and we find that out of more than a million people, there were only 193 000 Whites, in other words fewer than 20%. This is quite the opposite to what we have heard this afternoon from the Opposition. The Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa also appeared before the same Select Committee. It is a church which also has more than one million members. This church also gave the same evidence and also pleaded that steps be taken to combat commercialized open bioscopes on Sundays. The same attitude was adopted by the Church of the Province of South Africa with regard to this matter. From this we can only draw one conclusion.

That was 13 years ago.

The hon. member for Sandton said that it was 13 years ago. In fact it was 11 years ago. In the nature of the matter, how can a community, within a period of 11 years, abandon its principles and traditions which have come into being over a period of years? I refuse to believe that. Here we have a clear testimony of churches, people and bodies who have come together over the past 11 years, until last year and the year before that, making the same appeal, namely: Stop this thing that is getting out of hand. This brings us to the conclusion that in South Africa, it is the historical, voluntary and statutory tradition that Sundays are not used for commercial undertakings. This is traditional; it occurred even when the South African nation was in the process of formation. In 1838 we made a covenant which runs throughout the history of this people, the golden thread of the high priority of religion, which has played such an important role in the life of this people. It is traditional in statutory terms, too. Apart from the ordinances, by-laws and statutory provisions between 1838 and 1902 and subsequently, which apply to all the provinces in regard to this matter, we find that they are expressly mentioned in our Constitution and form part of many other pieces of legislation. We need only call to mind the 1974 legislation on publications which referred to the upholding of a Christian view of life in the implementation of that Act too. The State has irrevocably, voluntarily and statutorily committed itself to basing South Africa on Christianity and using the Bible as the guide for the future. I find it interesting that that side of the House, which is adopting such a strong attitude today, and the NP, acknowledge the basic committal of South Africa to the Christian way of life in their programmes of principles and in their constitutions, and have done so in so many words. The NP acknowledges the supreme sovereignty of God in the destinies of nations and peoples. The UP, too, had made place for the Christian ethic in its programme of principles, and it is for this reason that the Church, the people and the State must necessarily move forward together, without the State ever attempting to perform the task of the Church. There is indeed a task for the State to perform, viz. to ensure that in the execution and performance of its holy and religious endeavour, the church is not intentionally hindered from doing so. After all, the State does not prescribe to what and in whom one must believe. But it is nevertheless the task and duty of the State, in view of the history of South Africa, to keep a protective wing over the Church in order to remove any hindrances placed in its way in the interests of the continued existence and progress of South Africa. If the Heidelberg Catechism emphasizes public worship on a Sunday, then surely the State must necessarily take cognizance of that. The State has also necessarily to take cognizance of the task incumbent upon it in terms of article 36 of the Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis, which provides that it will assist the Church in keeping in check forces of evil threatening its activities, even though this be done by way of legislation. The State does not perform this task because it wants to create a Christian nation, but does so as a good Christian institution and on a mandate from a Christian people. It is the Christian people that establishes the Christian State.

Due to the institution of the five-day working week, a certain laxness has shown itself in the ordinary man, a tendency to work shorter hours and receive a higher income for less work. An evil tendency for weekends to start earlier has taken root, and with it the idea that one should pass one’s days in a more leisurely manner. One has been given six days to do what one wants to, including one’s recreational activities. The seventh day is undoubtedly the day which must be respected by the people of South Africa. The question can be asked whether a Sunday can be properly regulated if each of our innumerable local authorities have their own arrangements which differ from each other, incomplete or over-complete or differing from each other as regards interpretation and implementation. After all, order must be created out of this chaos. Can a Sunday really be regulated if groups are allowed to exploit the Sabbath day for their own financial gain as regards the exhibition of commercial films so that they can push the traditional Sabbath in the direction of a Continental Sabbath? This Bill causes no interference, reduction or increase in freedom of worship. Nor does it seek to force religion on our people. This Bill does not try to make anyone good, nor does it try to make anyone a Christian. But what it does do is to remove the circumstances which threaten the traditional Christian ethos of a people. The Bill requires the various population groups of South Africa, South Africa with its special ethnic composition, to respect and accept each other’s religious convictions. Because we have such a remarkable ethnic composition, we must come together and consider the overall desire of the people and make concessions in order to acknowledge and respect those things which carry weight for a certain section of the people.

The Bill seeks to give a Christian form to the Christian norm of our people’s continued existence, not to let the Sabbath degenerate, but to place on the Statute Book a simple, uniform and consolidated measure which can be implemented uniformly for the sake of the continued existence of the traditional way of life of the people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville, who has just seated himself, referred to certain aspects of this matter in his speech and emphasized certain principles which we agree with. He said, for instance, that a man must be free to do what he likes at home and that he can even walk around naked if he so wishes as that is his priority. We agree with that, but now we find in this Bill that the hon. the Minister wishes to regulate the free time of the private individual. He also referred to the need to retain the traditions of Sunday-observance control in the country and we likewise agree with that. However, in this Bill we find the hon. the Minister introducing methods that are going to change the controls that exist in the country. I therefore wish to state at the outset my strongest support for the amendments that has been moved from these benches. I say this because I feel, as the hon. member for Sandton said earlier, that this Bill is a waste of time. We have the controls in the country which have worked quite successfully for decades in the past and it is not necessary to have this Bill before us, particularly—and this is the second point—as we are faced with a critical situation that exists in South Africa. We feel that the House should be putting its mind to that instead of debating this sort of legislation. However, the hon. the Minister feels that he must have this Bill, not that we really want it, and that he has to be the nursemaid of our free time on a Sunday. We must therefore examine the reasons he gives for introducing the Bill.

There were some discrepancies and some differences of opinion earlier on as to what he actually said; I would like to quote from a report which appeared in The Daily News on 3 June last year. What he stated there was identical to what he said this afternoon. He said—

I would like to examine these two points. I think that there is a third reason which motivates the Minister and I shall refer to that later. The first is the church issue. The hon. Minister said that the church must do its work with the utmost freedom. By “work” we presume, firstly, attendance at church and, secondly, combating forces of moral degeneration. It would seem that is the hon. the Minister’s contention that cinema shows on Sundays are detrimental to the work carried out by the church. If this is the case, it is encumbent on the hon. the Minister to give to this House figures to prove his claim. I, myself, am not aware that Sunday cinema shows have lessened the numbers attending church. In fact, I was under the impression that now that the era of the “silly ’sixties” is over, the people are turning back to church. I think it is encumbent on the hon. the Minister, however, to tell us how many cinemas operate at present on a Sunday in South Africa, how many film clubs are involved, how many clubs show films on Sunday evenings and how many viewers have deserted their churches in favour of this entertainment. I believe that when these figures are produced, the numbers will be so small that we will see that the hon. the Minister has raised a storm in a teacup with this Bill. I have taken the trouble to look up in the latest statistics the religious affiliations of the population. The numbers indicate that approximately 17 million out of South Africa’s population of 25 million are members of one or another church in South Africa. This accounts for 68% of our population and I think that is a pretty good average in the plural society in which we live.

The other aspect of the church’s work involves the moral standards of the youth. To produce evidence that Sunday evening film shows induce a lessening of Christian morality is, I think, very hard to do. If the hon. the Minister genuinely believes that Sunday cinema shows are a moral threat, he has to take a more puritanical look at the SABC’s television programmes. Surely in programmes such as “Mirage”, “Blitspatrollie” and “Man-hunter” one can then say that one has violence and an eroding effect on the moral character of the youth. If one wants to be a bit more ludicrous and take an extreme interpretation, one can look at Sunday evening programmes such as “Pirates of Penzance” and say that one surely cannot have the fearfulness of the police being shown, who are reluctant to arrest pirates rampaging in robbery and female abduction. This is ludicrous, but what is even more ludicrous is to find the hon. the Minister of Justice and of Police assuming this pious concern for South African morals whilst he feels nothing for locking people up without even a warrant for their arrest and without a trial. I find no ethical consistency in this attitude.

I never spoke about morals.

I was talking about giving the church an opportunity to continue with its work and this is what is involved in the work. There is another aspect in the question of giving the church greater freedom to operate. The question arises: What church? What church is the hon. the Minister referring to? It is certainly not the Hindu or the Moslem church or the Jewish church or the Jehova’s Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventists, because they do not recognize Sunday as a Sabbath. Is it the Anglicans, the Methodists, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Congregationalists? Or is it the Dutch Reformed and other Afrikaans-speaking churches? We have approximately 1 million people belonging to churches who do not recognize Sunday as a Sabbath, 7,7 million who belong to the English-speaking churches and 3,6 million who adhere to the Afrikaansspeaking churches. Now whose norms are being considered in the introduction of this Bill?

It is not a matter of numbers.

I think it is a matter of numbers because one has to consider all the South African people. One cannot introduce a law that is going to control everybody simply on the wishes of some small minority. I believe that theologians are generally not happy about the State blundering into Church affairs. I am not an expert on Church dogma, and I do not claim to be, but I think St. Peter had something of value to say in Acts 5, chapter 29. The history of Church and State unison is a very sorry one and is one that has often led to bloody and terrible persecution. Looking at clause 2(3), one wonders if this is not a start? Clause 2(3) imposes a fine of R1 500 or 12 months’ imprisonment on a South African who shows a film on a Sunday if money changes hands. I feel that Christ converts by persuasion and not by persecution. I do not think we therefore need a Bill of this sort to assist the Church and to give them greater freedom to do their work. In other words, we see this Bill as a serious invasion, by the State, of religious and civil liberties, particularly in regard to non-Christian faiths in South Africa. I should like to quote an interesting comment from Mr. Barry Naidoo, who is the chairman of the Indian Local Affairs Committee in Pietermaritzburg. He says the following in The Daily News of 4 June 1976—

It seems to me then, in the case of Moslems and Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, that Sunday films would appear to have a moral regenerating effect and not a degenerating effect.

What happens in Excelsior on a Sunday?

Now I should like to come to the second principle which the hon. the Minister gave as motivation for introducing this Bill, and that is the necessity for avoiding commercialization of Sunday. The first question I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is why he isolates Sunday cinemas for the chop? What about other Sunday commercial enterprises? What about tearooms, ice cream vending, S.A.R. luxury bus tours, newspaper operations, the hotel industry? These are all commercial enterprises which do obstruct the freedom of the Church’s work. Why should only Sunday films be singled out? I do not believe that the showing of Sunday films is a departure from South African tradition, certainly not more so than the showing of films on television. I mean, that is only a one year old infant, while films have been shown in parts of the country for 10 to 15 years. Talking about commercializing Sunday, what about Springbok Radio? What about Radio Port Natal, Radio Highveld and Radio Good Hope? They are very happy to receive the advertising revenue, and soon television is going commercial. This is commercializing a Sunday. In fact, when I heard the hon. member for Stilfontein earlier on, it set me wondering where this ban would stop because he went the whole hog. The hon. member for Vereeniging said sport is excluded because it is not commercialized. However, I do not think we should bluff ourselves on that score. Sport is big business. Indian soccer on a Sunday in Natal is big business. Currie Cup cricket is big business and motor racing at Kayalami is also big business. Money is changing hands. Are those aspects to be included? Must they all come under the guillotine?

Do not give him any ideas.

Should this kill-joy purge run its full course, areas of amusement and relaxation will all be banned, and then we shall face the kind of situation described by Dickens in Little Dorrit. I certainly hope that will never occur, but if the hon. member for Stilfontein has his way, it just might. Let me quote from the book I mentioned—

I hope that is not what the hon. member for Stilfontein envisages.

Now I just want to refer to the Mecca of amusement on the Rand, and I think many of the hon. members on the Government benches know what I am referring to. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Agriculture here because the Mecca of amusement on the Rand is slap-bang in his constituency. I am referring, of course, to Babsfontein. If those people do not know what I am talking about, let them speak to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture because he had his report-back meeting in the Babsfontein hotel. Babsfontein draws thousands of people on a Sunday from all over the Rand. They pay to go in and they go on the fun-fairs. There are also the “Green Bats” playing all Sunday afternoon. You can hear them miles away. People drink their beer, and in the evening they pay another 50 cents, cross the road and go into the hotel, and then the dance is on. Is this also going to come under the hon. the Minister’s axe because it is a commercial activity. If that does happen, that hon. Minister is going to lose a lot of money for his party coffers and also a great many votes.

They can also pay another R1 and see the MP.

It would be worth R1 just to hear the jokes he tells at report-back meetings.

They would be prepared to pay R2 not to see him.

I think I have now dealt with the hon. the Minister’s two principles, i.e. greater freedom for Church activities and not commercializing Sundays. There is, however, a third principle or motivation behind this Bill that I mentioned earlier on, and this has been touched upon by the leader from Natal, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I am referring to personal pique and discrimination against Whites and Blacks in Natal, particularly in Pietermaritzburg.

That is quite unworthy of you.

I want to draw this House’s attention to a front-page report in The Daily News of Natal. The headline states: “Kruger blames Natal capital”—

Here it is in black and white. Further down in the same article the hon. the Minister is reported as having said that the country requires uniformity and that Pietermaritzburg will not adopt a responsible attitude like Durban. I do not want to get on to Durban’s ideas of responsibility. I just want to say that to date the Pietermaritzburg city council has not been approached officially by the Minister on this score.

Do you deny that? [Interjections.]

Would you just repeat what you said?

I asked: “Do you deny that” ?

I said that to date the Pietermaritzburg city council has had no official approach. That is according to my information. I think this report does expose what is possibly the real reason behind this legislation. I know that at the Nationalist Party congress in Natal last year the hon. the Minister was cajoled by a couple of “Holy Joes”, after which he blustered in expected kragdadige fashion some threats about what he was going to do about those who did not toe the line. I think he feels that his pride is at stake and that he must carry out these threats. I do not think that the majority in Natal is behind him. The hon. member for Durbanville came with lots of marvellous figures, but he failed to mention that some of them are 11 years out of date. I am sure his figures in any event do not relate to Natal. It will be more than the hon. the Minister’s pride that will be hurt.

How will the Nationalist policy of noninterference in the affairs of other people fare when this principle is not applied to one’s own people here in South Africa? I wonder what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have to say about such a principle. This Bill constitutes direct interference in the local rights of South Africans in Natal. The hon. the Minister has consequently stirred up, unnecessarily, a hornets’ nest. People have always been aware of their local rights, particularly in Natal. I should like to remind the House that one of the conditions that Natal came into Union was that their local rights remained protected. What is now happening? The Government is riding roughshod over the lot.

The people there are aware of their local rights. I wish to read to the House a telegram I received yesterday from the Pietermaritzburg city council. I think the hon. the Minister of Justice received a similar telegram from them. I quote—

This telegram is signed by the Town Clerk of Pietermaritzburg. They still feel the same. They are not going to be cajoled like, I think, possibly the Durban city council was cajoled, although I have no facts on that score to support that.

They were blackmailed.

I stand unconditionally in support of the attitude of our city council in Pietermaritzburg in this regard.

They had a pistol held to their heads.

[Inaudible.]

Of course they had a pistol held to their heads.

Yes, they had a pistol held to their heads.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this Bill is another tragic example of the bureaucratic assault on the private rights of the South African people. I am not alone in this belief. I should like to quote a man, an Afrikaner, a Nationalist of high standing, who has recently been in the news. I refer to Dr. Wassenaar. He denounced the Government for excessive interference. He was talking in another sphere, viz. that of the private economy. Here we have a Bill virtually proposing the nationalization of the Sabbath. To quote Dr. Wassenaar—

Those words come from one of that side’s top men. He is one of their supporters.

You can have him.

That is what he said, and I agree with him. [Interjections.] It seems to me that the Government spreads itself like an oozy slime that suffocates our initiative, our productivity and our entertainment. The case of Pietermaritzburg is a gross example of the Nationalist steamshovel being used to pick an azalea.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North who has just resumed his seat went ahead and dealt with this Bill in the same way as did a number of hon. members from that side of the House this afternoon, viz. with a great deal of emotion and a lot of noise, but without saying much. Right at the end, however, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North did let a little of the truth glimmer through. It seems to me that the effort in regard to ex-judge Kowie Marais has not been so very successful. Now there is a new hero on the horizon. It seems to me as if the man’s name may yet be Wassenaar!

I think we should come back to the essence of the Bill. Without dwelling on it for too long, I just want to refer for a moment to the remarks of the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In the tirades of these three hon. members there was a common note of hate of the National Party. This is the same old “boerehaat” we have experienced throughout, particularly in the case of the hon. member for Sandton. One should really excusç him, because in the first instance his hair hangs in his eyes and in the second place he is blinded by the primordial venom he absorbs daily due to the indoctrination of the hon. member for Houghton. It is venom which spouts forth from the fountain of hate for the Whites and the Afrikaner in South Africa in particular. That, too, is why it was said: “On behalf of whom is this Bill being introduced? Not on behalf of this church; not on behalf of that group; not on behalf of that faith. ” What is left every time? Every time it is the Afrikaner church that is left. This became clear from all three of the hon. members’ speeches. I therefore do not believe it to be necessary for the hon. the Minister to take much notice of what those three hon. members had to say here today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if one looks at the Bill, basically one has to ask oneself three questions: In the first instance, what is envisaged by the Bill; in the second instance, is it something new, is it something sui generis or is it a Bill which is in accordance with the existing legal rules and customs in South Africa; and in the third instance—in my belief the most important—is it necessary and essential? Since I am now referring to the aim of the Bill, it is briefly and effectively summed up in the following extract—

The words “matters connected therewith” point, inter alia, to exceptions to the rule. In brief, what it amounts to is that the basic aim of the Bill is to place a restriction on anyone, whether a natural person or a juristic person. From doing what? To exhibit a film on a Sunday and to exhibit it in or at any place for any consideration. Some of these expressions are elaborated on in the definitions and in the Bill itself. We find, inter alia, that the definition of “Sunday” is extended to include the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Public Holidays Act. For this in particular we want to thank the hon. the Minister, because by doing so he has included in the provisions of this Bill, Good Friday, Ascension Day, Christmas Day and—very important for the Afrikaner—the day of the Covenant. In other words, the prohibition also applies to those four days. Furthermore, the expression “consideration” is extended to include club membership fees and so on. The word “film” too, has been extended and I do not want to go into that. One only hopes that these definitions and provisions are sufficiently watertight and that we will not end up with a lot of loopholes.

Before further analysing the legislation as such, one must take cognizance of the fact that is is not only film shows which our people at large do not want on the Sabbath day, or do not want to see for a consideration on a Sunday. There are also many other ways of not observing the Sabbath to which we are rightly opposed. I have in mind, for example, the supermarkets which are beginning to sell more and more goods.

Then, too, there is the fact that one can no longer drive to a city along the main road or an access road on a Sunday without being confronted with all manner of beaten copper goods, vegetables, fruit, paintings or other hawkers’ wares being sold along the road. I believe that this, too, should receive attention. The one thing which I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is to place a total restriction on the hiring of films and projectors on a Sunday. I do not want to prescribe to the private individual what he must do in his home, in his own time, on a Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening. However, I cannot understand why one has to go and hire a film and projector for Sunday viewing on a Sunday. Surely these things can be done during the week or on a Saturday. I believe that this is something which ought to be banned entirely.

Some previous speakers have already pointed out that the Bill does not ban the exhibition of films on a Sunday unconditionally, but that the hon. Minister may see fit to make provision for special permission, either by himself or by his authorized representative. Once again I believe that I am at least interpreting the feelings of the voters in my constituency when I ask the hon. the Minister to be very careful in the granting of such permission and not to make it easy. After all, one knows there are people who will probably have a good case, but the exception must not become the rule.

In the second instance we must decide whether this is a sui generis and unique Bill, something which has not existed before, as the people of Natal are so fond of maintaining. For this it is necessary to look at the past and I do not believe one could find a better example than section 3 of Act No. 19 of 1895 as adopted by the Cape Parliament. I should like to quote section 3 to the hon. House because it contains many important provisions which, it is probable, not all of our hon. Opposition members have looked up. Section 3 reads as follows—