Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a rebuttal of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that there was no crisis in South Africa, I believe it to be this Bill which we are now considering at Third Reading, because there is indeed no precedent in South Africa for measures of this kind, except in times of emergency, when martial law has been declared or when a state of war has been declared. Therefore, the very fact that the Government sees fit to come to Parliament with a measure of this kind is, I believe, a clear indication that South Africa has been in a crisis situation and, indeed, one might almost say, is in a permanent state of emergency. [Interjections.] I want to remind hon. members on the other side that when they were in opposition they opposed every single Indemnity Bill that was ever brought before this House, even though, as I have pointed out, the precedent has been that measures of this kind have only come before Parliament after a declared state of martial law or of emergency. I just want the House to listen to one or two quotations from Gen. Hertzog when the 1914 Indemnity Bill was discussed in this House. That was after a time of declared martial law. He said that the Bill “would indemnify wrongdoers and protect them against claims which private individuals had against the State”. He had the strongest objections to that. So, too, have we. He added that the Bill would “indemnify any illegal act”, and similarly, the Bill we are considering today will indemnify the Government against any illegal act, provided, of course, it is committed bona fide.

Mr. Speaker, Gen. Hertzog also talked of “might becoming right”. Well, if ever a statement applied to any government, it applies to the present Government in South Africa. I intend to move the same amendment at the Third Reading of this Bill that we moved at Second Reading, and that is—

I am not impressed by the hon. the Minister’s objections to the procedure as far as this is concerned, and I am not particularly impressed by the objections which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana voiced when he made his Second Reading speech. Indeed, I find the actions of the Official Opposition rather extraordinary, because the UP reiterated over and over again that they accepted the principle of the Bill …

We never said that.

Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said it several times.

I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said he accepted the principle of indemnity … [Interjections.] … and this, Sir, is an Indemnity Bill. This Bill provides indemnity, and therefore the principle of the Bill is to provide indemnity. It is as simple as that. The hon. member, or one of his colleagues—it might have been the hon. member for Griqualand East—said that the UP did not object to what was in the Bill, but to what was not in the Bill.

Well, I must say that in all my years in this House I have never heard anybody use the explanation for voting against the Second Reading or the principle of a Bill that one is not objecting to the contents of the Bill, but to what the Bill in fact does not contain.

Mr. Speaker, what in fact is not in this Bill? What is not in this Bill is the right to compensation. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana moved an amendment, which he wanted included in the Bill, making provision for the actual right of compensation before a committee which would consider the claims of persons for compensation. Yet, Sir, if we did not have this Bill, if one voted against the principle of this Bill or moved that this Bill be not accepted, then surely exactly such a provision would remain in South Africa, allowing the right to claim compensation for wrongful actions taken by the State or any of its agents. It is therefore indeed the contents of this Bill that do away with the right of compensation. Now, it is true that the hon. the Minister and other hon. members on the Government side tell us that access to the courts of law is not being denied by this Bill. That is correct; access is not denied, but the only thing is that the cards are hopelessly stacked against the claimant, for he has to prove mala fides, something which everybody knows is virtually impossible, and it is made even more impossible by the fact that the bona fides of the action committed by the State or by any of its agents is in fact an assumption in this Bill. Therefore the claimant has to prove the opposite, and thus any act, as the hon. member for Sea Point pointed out, whether negligent or grossly negligent or wrongful, which is committed by the State or by any of its agents, is in fact condoned by this Bill as long as it has been committed in good faith, which is something one cannot disprove.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has told us that he is going to set up a committee headed by a judge, a committee which will examine the claims of what he calls “innocent persons”. Now, I want to say something about the proposed committee. I first of all want to emphasize once again that we on these benches welcome the setting up of such a committee to consider compensation claims as better than nothing, the giving of ex gratia amounts is no substitution for the right of access to the courts, access without the bona fides provision, which, as I say, makes the claimant’s chances virtually nil. The setting up of this committee is what the then hon. member for Johannesburg North, Mr. Plewman, when an Indemnity Bill was being discussed in this House in 1961, a Bill which the UP opposed, called “a sort of executive charity”. Sir, in a way that is really what the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is asking for—executive charity. We say that this sort of executive charity is no substitute for the ordinary right to go to the courts.

I want to spend a few minutes on the so-called “innocent victim” or “innocent person” concept. Such persons, it seems to me, are to be the only recipients of the executive charity. Innocent in terms of what? That, surely, is the burning question. What criteria will be used to decide whether a person who is making a claim to the committee was innocent whilst the riots were on? Let me give an example. Let us take the example which has occurred over and over again of a school-boy who joined in a demonstration, be it a demonstration against the use of the Afrikaans language as a teaching medium

Oh, it is the same old story again!

The hon. member can shout and scream, but that was the original spark. [Interjections.] It is not only I who say this; it was the original spark and the Government agreed. I am not saying it was the only cause of the riots by any means. Indeed, the evidence that I gave on behalf of this party to the Cillié Commission says exactly that, i.e. it was a spark, but there could have been many, many other things. However, the language issue happened to be the spark. Let me return to my example: It could have been a school-boy taking part in a demonstration against Dr. Kissinger’s visit, which also took place in this country after the unrest had started. A demonstration takes place and the school-boy is there. Some student shouts, “Black Power!” and some students throw rocks at the police who have arrived to disperse the demonstration which is illegal because it is out of doors and has been prohibited in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act. Then the police shoot and the school-boy who is at the demonstration is blinded for life by bird-shot or is killed. Is such a person innocent? Is he, if blinded, entitled to claim compensation since he did not, in fact, do anything with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm? I should also like to know whether his parents or anybody else would be entitled to claim compensation if he was killed. We have no idea what sort of criteria will apply.

I want to ask again whether the criteria to be used will be ordinary common law criteria, the Riotous Assemblies Act criteria or the Police Standing Orders criteria. What criteria will be used by the standing committee as the criteria which are to be considered? I want to point out at once that I took the good advice given to me by the hon. member for Umlazi and obtained an up-dated copy of Police Standing Orders from the Commissioner of Police. In fact, the relevant paragraph I read out is identical with the paragraph in the outdated orders. The paragraph deals with the conditions indicating when the police may shoot without being given an order by a superior officer. I admit that other paragraphs were different in their wording, and they certainly were not as eloquently worded as the original orders and they did not contain quite as many references to “humane behaviour”. However, they are virtually the same as the actual paragraphs that I read out. For purposes of the record, I must point out again that they do not contain the words “when in doubt, do not shoot”. I must say that the up-dated orders do not contain such an instruction.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister what procedures are going to be used. Are people appearing before the committee going to be allowed to have legal assistance? Are they going to be allowed to lead evidence? We do know one thing about this committee. In fact, we know two things, because the hon. the Minister has told us. We know, because he has told us, and I quote, that “this committee is not going to be Father Christmas”, as if anybody ever expected it to be Father Christmas! We know too, because the hon. the Minister has told us, that pain and suffering are evidently not going to be one of the factors. The hon. the Minister has said that if somebody was “skatryk” he could not expect to get any compensation from the committee. I doubt very much whether the courts would take into consideration the question of whether a person is “skatryk” or not when they consider damages for pain and suffering. I foresee that people are going to have the greatest possible difficulty in getting anything, either out of the courts under this legislation or out of the Minister’s compensation committee.

Finally, I want to say two things. Firstly, it would have been rather nice if the hon. the Minister or any other single Government member had taken this opportunity to express sympathy and condolence with the people who suffered grievous injury or with the relatives of people who were killed during the unrest in South Africa. Not one of them took that opportunity.

We on these benches regard this as a rotten measure which will have far-reaching effects on the relationship between Black and White people in South Africa. We believe that it should be opposed in the strongest possible way. Secondly, I believe that this Bill need never have come before the House, or may never have come before the House, if the Government had taken steps to provide the police with proper, protective equipment at the beginning of the unrest instead of waiting until over 500 people were killed and more than 1 000 injured. I believe that it would have cut down on these fatalities enormously. Sir, the Bill would not have come before the House if the Government and the defunct Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his defunct Ministers, particularly the defunct Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, had taken timely steps to defuse the tension and burning resentments which were building up in the African townships from various underlying causes.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary at this Third Reading of the Bill and I summarize briefly the attitude of us in these benches in regard to this measure. There are two factors which have to be considered. One is the principle of indemnity, not the principle of the Bill as the hon. member for Houghton said. The other is the principle of compensation. Now, so far as the principle of indemnity in general is concerned, we accept the necessity for the principle of indemnity to be adopted where there has been large-scale violence and upheaval which necessarily had to be contained by the forces of the State. On this aspect we differ fundamentally from the PRP, who rejects the principle of indemnity in toto. The principle of indemnity is well known and well established, not only in South Africa, but also in Great Britain and in all the English-speaking countries of which I am aware. It has been accepted in South Africa in the recent past by Gen. Smuts, Gen. Hertzog, Dr. Malan and by the leaders of the Labour Party, both in the time of the 1913 violence on the Witwatersrand and the 1922 violence at the same place. The principle of indemnity was also clearly accepted and supported by Mr. Harry Lawrence in 1961, when he was the leading speaker on the then Indemnity Bill on behalf of the Progressive Party. He clearly accepted—as an ex-Minister one would expect him to—and supported the principle of indemnity. There is therefore a major departure from the standpoint adopted by all those gentlemen on the part of the hon. member for Houghton in this debate. Why does everybody, except the hon. member for Houghton, accept the principle of indemnity? Why? Firstly, because you cannot as a Government and as a responsible body expect your peace officers, who principally are the police and those officials who direct them, to go in fearlessly into a dangerous situation at the risk of their lives, unless they know that they will be backed by an indemnity. To put it in its converse: If you are not prepared, in proper circumstances, to accept the principle of indemnity in respect of your police when they have to operate in dangerous conditions, you are emasculating the power of the police adequately, to control a riotous situation.

We, as a responsible party, are not prepared to adopt that point of view. I must express my surprise that there are people in this House who are in fact prepared to accept that point of view. There is a further aspect on this principle of indemnity, namely that when involved in highly dangerous and riotous situations—because errors of judgment can bona fide be made in order that the situation be contained—one can indeed expect bona fide errors of judgment. Here is another reason why the principle of indemnity in this type of situation will and should be accepted by all responsible people. In the past that was the attitude which was in fact universally adopted. Inherent in the principle of indemnity, is that certain claims—not the extreme types as suggested by the hon. member for Houghton, of gross negligence, because cases of gross negligence are almost akin to mala fides. Cases of this kind are not ruled out by the Bill, but would normally find their way to the courts and would not be barred by this Bill. But, Sir, there are cases where in the ordinary course a claim would lie which would be inhibited by this Bill, in fact by any indemnity Bill that one chooses to draft. I may say that in its terms, as far as the indemnity is concerned, this Bill is very little different from any other indemnity Bill that I have ever read. It is in respect of those cases and a variety of other cases of that kind that one requires, in addition to an indemnity Bill, proper measures for compensation.

The hon. the Minister has conceded that there is an area where compensation should be properly paid. The hon. the Minister has, however, not clearly defined to this House the area in which he accepts that compensation should be paid, nor has he clearly indicated the type of case in respect of which he believes compensation should be paid. He has indicated the setting up of an ad hoc committee, but he has not told us its area of jurisdiction—if I may use that term—and he has not told us in any detail the method by which it will operate. I have indicated at an earlier stage, and I shall merely touch on it now, that we on these benches believe that it is not sufficient for the hon. the Minister to state in general terms that he accepts that there is a field where compensation should be payable and that he proposes to set up a committee. I believe it should be done in far greater detail and with far greater clarity. It should be embodied in the legislation, in this Bill, as it was done in the Defence Amendment Act of 1976.

There are only two aspects of this Act to which I should like to refer. One aspect is that if the hon. the Minister disputes the amount claimed in terms of the Defence Amendment Act, then he is obliged to submit the claim to the committee set up in terms of the Act. Furthermore, there is laid down in clear terms in the Defence Amendment Act not only the composition of the committee, but also the method by which it will go about its business; that it can receive a written and oral statement, that it can hear evidence under oath and that it can hear argument from the persons or from their representatives concerned with the matter. Finally, what was most important as far as the Defence Amendment Act is concerned, is the fact that the hon. the Minister is obliged to give effect to any recommendation of the committee on compensation.

Having briefly referred to those aspects of the workings of the committee and its composition under the Defence Amendment Act of last year, I believe I have indicated sufficiently to the House that the hon. the Minister’s statement at the Second Reading in regard to compensation was wholly inadequate. I hope I have also said enough to indicate that it is not enough merely to have a ministerial statement. I do not doubt the hon. the Minister’s intention, but the matter must be precisely defined and be included in legislation. It will be seen, from what I have said, that whilst we accept the principle of indemnity, we do not accept the Indemnity Bill which we are discussing at the moment because it omits an essential part of the whole process of indemnity and compensation.

For these reasons we do not support the measure at Third Reading and therefore wish to move the same amendment as I moved at the Second Reading, namely—

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton as to why she would not support this legislation at the Third Reading. The hon. member referred to personalities, in our history, among others Gen. Hertzog, who, as a member of the then Opposition, opposed indemnity legislation in 1921. It is interesting that this hon. member should find a precedent in history for what they should do. That is the attitude of the hon. member, but what she did not say was that when Gen. Hertzog assumed the responsible position of Prime Minister, he and even others who succeeded him, acted in a quite different manner when they were faced with a situation such as the one the present Government and South Africa had been faced with during the past seven months. The precedent which the hon. member took from history can therefore also be quoted to prove that it is the responsibility of the authorities, when such a situation arises, to introduce a Bill which provides for the indemnity of the police and of Public Servants. The hon. member said that one must be in a state of war or in a state of emergency. South Africa is definitely not in a state of war. It is the prerogative of the State President to declare such a state if he regards a situation as being a state of emergency. I am prepared to concede that the situation in South Africa was serious at that time, but that is their decision and their responsibility. Why does one necessarily have to declare a state of emergency before action can be taken? I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: If a state of emergency had been proclaimed, would she have been in favour of indemnity?

There is a possibility, but not without … [Interjections.]

Surely, that is the test, because if one had had a situation where riots had been going on for months, where the police had to take action and where one had to mobilize the riot police, it must have been a situation which assumed serious proportions.

†We on these benches, Mr. Speaker, are obviously going to support the Third Reading of this Bill and we are going to do so for a number of reasons. The first reason is because the provisions of this legislation is nothing new and because we believe that it has become customary to give protection to our civil servants and especially to our police in the event of civil disturbances. Unless one is prepared to give legal protection to those who are responsible for putting out the fires and keeping senseless destruction to a minimum, and to those who must control the unruly and militant mobs, one will find that anarchy is the result. Those men and women who must control the situation—as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has so rightly pointed out— must have the confidence to do their jobs with efficiency. The hon. member for Houghton also made the point that as far as she could remember nobody has been prepared to express their sympathy with people whose relatives have lost their lives or with those who have lost property. However, I heard no word from the hon. member for Houghton, during that period, expressing her criticism of or antagonism towards people who are prepared to destroy or set fire to buildings, schools, libraries, etc.

*I know that hon. members on this side of the House—as I myself have done publicly on various occasions—expressed their sympathy with those people who lost relatives under these circumstances. We also associated ourselves with leaders among the non-Whites who asked that this situation in South Africa should be stopped. However, we did not have a squeak from the hon. member for Houghton then.

I’ve done more than you.

This legislation does not exonerate anyone in the employ of the State who acts in bad faith and with malicious intent, but I refuse to believe that our police and our security forces would deliberately harm innocent people. I believe that it is their duty to act with determination against people who have revolutionary action in mind, and it has certainly been revealed, in the past eight or nine months, that there are people with revolutionary ideas in mind in this country. Nobody, however much he may be opposed to the Government or however much he may be aggrieved, frustrated or disappointed about the policies adopted by the Government—and in this I include myself, who am opposed to the Government— has the right to take the law into his own hands and to give vent to his feelings in an uncontrolled and violent manner. No one has the right to destroy schools and other buildings which belong to the community and to the State. It is unheard of that some people should enjoy so much freedom that they can also interfere with the freedom of others, especially the freedom of those who are law-abiding and who also detest violence and disorder, as I believe we all here do.

This Bill must serve as a deterrent to those who want to take the law into their own hands, to those who want to cause destruction and violence and who then want to claim compensation for any losses experienced in the process.

Do you not trust the courts?

Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear during the Second Reading debate what sort of compensation committee we should like to see established. The hon. the Minister, however, has informed us that he will establish his own committee, a committee consisting of a judge, a magistrate and a practising attorney. We are prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s good intentions in this regard. We in these benches have no reason to doubt that his committee will act in anything but a reasonable and fair manner.

We believe the committee will do so and, therefore, any person who suffers loss innocently will have every opportunity to receive compensation. We in these benches will certainly do our duty and enquire from time to time from the hon. the Minister how his committee is progressing. We shall also be prepared to make representations on behalf of bona fide cases where people have suffered accidentally during the riots and disturbances.

Mr. Speaker, we regard this Bill as being in the interests of maintaining a peaceful South Africa. Above all, we regard this Bill as an expression of thanks to and confidence in those who have the unenviable task of maintaining peace and protecting the interests of all responsible and self-disciplined people in this country. Let people be against the Government and against the present policies in this country if they wish. However, there are those whose hatred and antagonism towards a particular regime is such that they resort to actions of destruction, actions which do immeasurable harm. Such actions can never be justified. As I have said, they can be against the Government and its policies if they wish.

*However, they should not allow their hate to go so far that they are prepared to harm South Africa through their actions. For that reason we support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to tell the Opposition that for reasons to which I shall return just now I am not prepared to accept the amendment they have moved. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, it is obvious that one cannot attach any real value to her actions and to her amendment. As far as the hon. member for Newton Park and his group are concerned I want to say that I do not actually know what one should call that group. Perhaps one should call them provisionally the “South African Party”. It would appear to me as though they are more or less fashioned on the pattern of the old Botha/Smuts South African Party. In any case, I want to thank them for their support of the Bill.

The hon. member for Houghton said that there was no right to compensation. Of course, that is not so. I have already pointed out during the course of this debate that this legislation will give people the right to go to court with their claims. That right exists. However, the grounds of the claim have changed. The previous grounds were negligence while the present grounds are mala fides on the part of the police. However, the right and the courts are there.

As far as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is concerned I want to say that this Bill already makes provision for the right of people to go to court. However, let me first reply to the hon. member for Houghton. The compensation that we have in mind is in all cases where the State is not responsible in law and where persons have not participated in unlawful actions. This answers the question of the hon. member for Houghton as to whether a person who has taken part in an unlawful disturbance or march or attended an unlawful gathering cannot obtain compensation from the State. The reply is “no”. This compensation is not for people who have participated in an unlawful action in South Africa but for people in respect of whom the State has no responsibility whatever and who were not at all involved in the disturbances.

Even if they were just present at demonstrations?

That makes no difference. It is only the people who were injured quite innocently who are involved here. This is an ex gratia payment. The reason why this has not been written into the Bill is obviously that it is purely an ex gratia payment that has nothing to do with the true principle of the Bill. I cannot give more information than that now. It is my intention to appoint a committee and I also intend to thrash out this whole matter departmentally and with that committee to discover precisely what has to be done, whether the committee feels that we should allow any evidence to be taken and how the compensation has to be paid. I intend subsequently to announce the names of the members of the committee in a Press statement and also to let people know to whom they have to write in order to obtain that sort of compensation. This will in all probability take place during the next few months. Hon. members are aware of the fact that the discussion of my Vote lies ahead of us, in a few months’ time, and we shall then have the opportunity of discussing other aspects of the committee in this House. For that reason I feel that I am in no way acting to the detriment of this House if at this stage I do not give full details in regard to how that committee will operate.

Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that in terms of the Defence Act the Minister is in fact compelled to agree to the amount of compensation awarded. I have already stated previously that that compensation tribunal takes the place of the ordinary court, and this deals only with cases of ex gratia payments. At this stage I cannot say that we can commit ourselves to the payment of any particular amount. Everything will depend upon circumstances. I cannot imagine that we shall change any amount without due cause or without a full discussion of the facts. However, at this stage I cannot allow myself to be bound as the hon. member feels I should bind myself and as the hon. the Minister of Defence is bound in the case where the compensation tribunal is the only tribunal.

I want furthermore just to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the compensation that we have in mind is compensation to innocent people. I do not know whether those who participated in the procession and who have less blame than others may not also perhaps be able to obtain compensation. There are many bodies that are collecting money at the moment for the people who were involved in the disturbances. I just want to give the House a few examples in this regard so that the hon. member will know who these people are. On 16 June last year the South African Council of Churches established the so-called Asangeni emergency relief fund. This fund was established on the day on which the Council of Churches, from the nature of the news reports that they apparently received, deduced that the disturbances would be accompanied by loss of life and damage to property. That is the information as given to us. Comparatively shortly after the announcement of the establishment of the fund the South African Council of Churches contacted the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Dr. Allan Brash, informed him of the establishment of the fund and asked him to set the machinery of the international church body in motion in order to collect funds for the project. On 18 June 1976 the South African Council of Churches decided to set the target for the fund at R250 000. The South African Council of Churches decided on the name Asangeni for the fund in order to indicate their sympathy with the protesting students. The word means “Come out!” That is of course to say: “Come out in protest against Afrikaans.” As a result of the appeal of the S.A. Council of Churches for funds, the following round figures, inter alia, were received:

These funds are, inter alia, applied by the S.A. Council of Churches to cover ex gratia payments for funerals, to study funds for alternative study facilities for Coloureds, and so forth. Besides this fund, the following organizations received financial support from abroad during 1976 for a variety of projects, chiefly also in order to cover the legal costs of accused persons in an ideological trial and to give assistance to these people and to their dependants. The Sumela trust fund whose purpose as an unregistered welfare organization was to finance the above aims received an amount of R95 078 from abroad for its aims from, inter alia, the British Council of Churches and the World University Exchange of Switzerland, the Church of Norway, and so forth. The Black Parents’ Association, with the aim of giving assistance to people who suffered damage during the disturbances, offer assistance in which the emphasis falls particularly on the so-called Black Power consciousness groups. They received an overall figure of R116 000, all from abroad, chiefly from Amnesty International, the Lutheran World Federation of Sweden and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention only one further example of the assistance that these people can obtain. The Sasol trial, as you will remember, that involved people who were concerned with Black consciousness and Black power, received an amount of R341 004 from abroad for the defence of accused people in that trial. This amount was received only for the defence of accused persons in one single court case. An amount of R21 502 was also received from a firm of attorneys in London for this purpose. The African American Institute—whoever they may be—contributed R221 502. The S.A. Council of Churches contributed R98 000. This brings the total amount for only this one court case to R341 004.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. R. M. Cadman dropped.

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

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman and Mr. G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday afternoon, I had just quoted section 3 of Act no. 19 of 1895 to hon. members. It must have struck hon. members how comprehensive the provisions of the section in question still appear today. It must also have struck them what an impression of strictness, almost grimness, is conveyed even today by the provisions of the section in question. Reading the debates of those times, one does not find there the pink liberal arguments we heard here in the House yesterday, particularly from certain hon. members on that side of the House. Nor does one find there an argument larded and tinted with Afrikaner hatred against this type of legislation. One finds, though, that both the then Government in the Cape and the Opposition came close to not permitting an exception such as the one which is in fact to be found in the section concerned. If it were not for the existence of the Salvation Army, no exception would, in any event, have been permitted. It is very clear that the legislators of 80 years ago were really in earnest in maintaining their principles and observation of the Sabbath. They placed a premium on their values and the protection of their values. In 1895 these people were not Afrikaners as we know them today; they would very probably have sat where the Independent United Party are sitting today. But nevertheless they did not hesitate to pass legislation to protect their own morals, norms, codes and traditions. We have already seen, in regard to the legislation on publications, that the hon. members of the Opposition—particularly some of them—stopped trying to protect even their own traditions a long time ago. As far as the Cape legislation is concerned one does not want to take this legislation too far, but section 6 of the Act in question even provides that when, as a special exception, an evening of music or singing was in fact permitted on a Sunday, three policemen had to be allowed to attend the concert free of charge. They had then to ensure that law and order were maintained. I can imagine that the hon. member for Houghton would have felt very unwelcome at such a music concert, due to her chronic antipathy to the police.

When I look at the Transvaal legislation, one finds a short section dealing with “schouwburg-voorstellingen, publieke danspartijen en conzerten”. All this was prohibited except for “gewijde muziek, harddraverijen”. The former would be punished—

It is therefore very clear that there were far stricter measures in force than are to be found in this Bill today. In the Free State, too, the conquerors clearly made provision for certain offences on the Sabbath in the Police Offences Ordinance of 1902. Here, however, the chief concern was billiard rooms and gambling. One sometimes wonders why provision was made for this because I can hardly imagine gambling taking place in Bloemfontein at that stage. Possibly it was to protect them from anything of the kind.

As far as Natal is concerned, we find that the legislation concerning non-observance of the Sabbath applicable there, only concerned two things viz. the purchase and sale of fish and meat before 9 a.m. on a Sunday. I do not think one can take it amiss of the legislators of that time for not thinking that Natal would ever progress so far in the sphere of culture that there would be concerts and film shows even on a Sunday. I therefore think that we should absolve them, because it was not their fault that legislation was not passed for Natal.

I now come to the final question, namely the question whether legislation such as this is essential. I want to dwell on two points only: in the first instance on the economic facts, and in the second instance, the traditional aspect of this matter. In view of the fact that we are living in times when one has to budget very carefully, I do not think any of us can understand why people should be tempted to spend money on entertainment on Sundays as well. I am not referring only to the admission fee one pays at a film show, nor am I only referring to the membership fees one has to pay to belong to a club in order to be admitted to such a show. When one looks at the drive-in theatres and one sees, even on Sundays, the long queues of cars which creep forward while we are trying to save as much fuel and energy in South Africa as possible, I cannot understand how we can condone anything of the kind or regard it as necessary or desirable. Since I am discussing the traditional aspect, I could point out that both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people were in favour of similar legislation in the past in protection of the Sabbath. I believe that this is still the case today, because one still finds today that both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people are in favour of this and are therefore in favour of this Bill as well. I want to quote a single example to hon. members. In a residential area within my own constituency there is a drive-in theatre. Within a radius of 2 km from that drive-in theatre there are three churches and five schools, including English-medium schools. Hon. members can imagine what dissatisfaction is caused, not only among the members of the congregation and the church councils, but also in the community and the schools as such, because this drive-in theatre presents its film shows at the same time as the church services. I believe that the House ought to take cognizance of this, and I want to quote just one example of appeals which not only I, but many other hon. members, too, have received. This person writes in his capacity as head of a school of 800 pupils and a staff of 40—

It is on behalf of these people, on behalf of these parents and these children and young people that we want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that a uniform law is now being placed on the Statute Book, and for the fact that clarity has now, for once and for all, been obtained as regards this matter. Because a responsible Government must have the courage to introduce a measure when it is convinced that that measure is necessary, we in South Africa are obliged to support this Bill and I support it with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to agree with many of the ideas expressed by the hon. member on the other side, and I think many hon. members on this side will also agree with him. However, what we are really finding fault with here is the method. I suggest that what that hon. member is doing is to interpret the ideas of the people on the basis of his own point of view and not on the basis of the point of view of other people. However, I shall react to some of the points he mentioned here in the course of my speech. I therefore hope that he will not take it amiss of me if I do not do so immediately.

†This kind of legislation raises a number of interesting issues. As I see it, this Bill before us embodies two principles or concepts. One is the principle of Sunday observance and the other is the way in which this is applied. I should like to deal with the manner in which this applied at the end of my speech.

The relationship between the Church and the State is obviously a difficult one, and in the Reform tradition, out of which the hon. the Minister of Justice and most of his colleagues come, it is one which is being discussed at great length. In fact, we even have a man in this House who obtained his doctorate on the relationship between Church and State. I am referring to an ex-“dominee”. We have another young ex-“dominee” who made his maiden speech on this issue. We also have an ex-lecturer from the University of the Orange Free State who made a maiden speech on a similar topic. So we are not without experts, in this House, on the relationship between Church and State.

You should keep quiet, because you know nothing about it.

You know even less.

It seems to me that we have to think very carefully when we deal with legislation such as this, partly because, in spite of what the hon. the Minister of Justice says, this Bill does have some relationship with the Church. If we are going to make moral precepts into laws or crimes, we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position. If we are going to be consistent, why do we not make things like adultery a crime, because that is clearly forbidden in the Ten Commandments? Furthermore, why do we not make things such as idolatry a crime? To impose a R1 500 fine on anyone showing films, is to make disregarding Sunday a crime. We have examples of places where the communities enforce Sunday observance. Some of the members of the House may have visited a town called Staphorst which is in the polders of the Netherlands. Staphorst is a small town which literally enforces Sabbatarian principles. No one can live in Staphorst and drive around on Sundays. That is, of course, one community which has chosen to adopt the Sabbath principles completely. We have had suggestions from various people that any attempt to have legislation on social issues is, shall we say, priggish and that some people are enforcing their point of view on others. I do not think that is a sensible view. Let us not be naïve. We do not live in a vacuum. We have people of diverse competing points of view in our society, and the only way we are going to change things in our society is through pressure groups, through competing individuals. We know that from our caucus meetings, our committee meetings and this House itself. It does not help to talk about “holy Joes” or busybodies because quite honestly they are lobbyists. They represent some particular point of view, and lobbying and seeking to influence opinion-formers, lawmakers, party caucuses and congresses is a valid and very important part of our whole democratic process, even though we may disagree with the people who are doing the lobbying. Indeed, I believe we should encourage various points of view in our society. However, there are two problems which arise when we seek to pass legislation such as this. The one concerns the value system we are to use. As was said by the hon. member for Pretoria East, who has already left, how do we decide what the “volkstradisies” are? How do we decide what our mores and our standards are to be? How do we decide what should be of value? I believe that this is what we have to understand.

There are various points of view. There is, for example, the Marxist point of view. The Marxists pursue their point of view very vigorously. Let me give an example of the kind of commitment a Marxist would have to passing legislation that would be the Marxist’s equivalent of some of our Christian legislation of which this Bill is an example. I have here some of the slogans which are at present being published all over Maputo for the Frelimo Congress: “Let us consolidate popular democracy, the base of socialism”; “long live the dictatorship of the proletariat, the highest form of democracy”; “long live the ideas of Marx and Engels”; “let us resolutely support the total liberation of Africa”; “down with colonialism, racism, apartheid and Zionism”; and so on. That is one point of view. Although we in the House do not agree with it, they pursue their point of view.

There is another system of values we know well, viz. the liberal or the libertarian view which is based on the humanistic position of Seneca that man is the measure of all things. This leads to relativism and existentialism and the despair, hopelessness and hedonism that characterize the West and are reflected in so much of the art, literature and films we have to deal with. At the same time it also provides a great measure of personal freedom, although we all know now of the famous statement that “all men must be free, provided that they are free to be liberal”. We may well decide that the personal freedom is not worth what comes with it.

Then there are also Christian views in society. Let us not be naïve: Christians are commanded as a matter of their faith to express themselves on society. The South African Council of Churches is constantly telling us to do this, as is the Christian Institute. I notice, however, that they have said nothing about Sunday observance. The Scriptures make it quite clear that the Christian must also have a mind. He must have a Christian view of life and society and “new wine must go into new wine skins”. Paul put it very graphically when he said: “Do not be squeezed into the mould of this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your thinking.”

In this House we stand in two great traditions. On the one hand there is the Dutch tradition of Groen van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper and perhaps now Dooyeweerd. On the other hand there is the British tradition. The British tradition never had any qualms about imposing its Christian viewpoint. It immediately abolished “suttee” the burning of wives in India. It opposes ritual murders, such as child murder. We oppose witchcraft. In the Bill before the House, as in other Bills, the same principle applies. Indeed, the history of Western democracy, and its strength, lies in its Christian roots. Ultimately, true justice can only derive its authority from God, and the value of man from the value of God. A famous British Prime Minister, William Pitt, said to the British people: “You must seek to be governed by men who are governed by God, or else you will be governed by tyrants.” That is true, because if we really believed in the sovereignty of God— incidentally, the first of Kowie Marais’ 14 principles emphasizes this fact—then we do not really need a Bill of Human Rights. If we, as men who stand in public life, really believe we exercise a trust from God, we look after every man’s rights and interests. I believe the Christian acknowledges that there is a causal relationship between honouring God and his standards and the happiness and/or prosperity of the individual or the community. It runs right through the Christian Bible that if you honour God, God will honour you, and if you dishonour God, you will be dishonoured. This was the whole theme of the prophets Isaiah and Amos. This is also much of the thinking behind the legislation we have before us. To suggest that the Christian has no right to pursue his view of life and society and to seek to have that embodied in legislation, is nonsense and I reject it. The Christian—and his ancestors in religion, the Jews—believes that God has given certain standards that must be maintained.

One of the problems is where we should draw the line as Christian people. Christians themselves disagree in their views of the Sabbath. There are those who are Sabbatarians and who stand mostly in the reform tradition, which is that Sunday should be a Sabbath, similar to the Old Testament tradition of the Sabbath. Then there are those Christians who hold the view that Sunday should be similar to the Sabbath, but that they should not be bound by that—a middle position as it were. Then there are those Christians who in most cases represent Catholic traditions who seem to have a very relaxed attitude to the Sunday. I would say that most South Africans who are church-members support either the Sabbatarian view or the view that Sunday is a special day that must be set aside or, as my leader in Natal, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, put it, who perhaps share that slightly old-fashioned view.

In Natal we have had an interesting history of Sunday observance. In fact we are the only province which has not had a Sunday Observance Ordinance. I think this is partly because nobody ever thought it was necessary in the old days, because Sunday observance was generally held in high regard. We had the beginning of sport in Natal some years ago on Sunday afternoons, so as not to clash with church times and, in fact, in Natal there is no organized sport on Sunday mornings. The Durban Symphony Orchestra plays on a Sunday afternoon, in the same way that the Cape Town Symphony Orchestra plays on a Sunday evening at 8.45 p.m., therefore after the church services. Then we had the introduction of the showing of films. This was a change, because this was a deliberate attempt to commercialize the Sunday. It was a deliberate attempt to break down what I venture to call the customary law of Natal, which was that Sunday should be God’s day. I believe that the film companies saw television on the way and then decided that they had to establish themselves with the Sunday viewing public to prevent incurring losses when television arrived. But this has been presented in Natal as though the showing of films has been going on for 50 years and any attempt to stop the showing of films was regarded as being a “killjoy”, a wet blanket, a reactionary attitude, which it was not. Indeed, if we like these leftist terms such as “reactionary”, it was the people who started showing films who were reactionary. There have been various specious arguments in the debate in Natal on Sunday films, e.g. that there are the Hindus who do not have a Sunday.

The Hindus, however, do not have any particular day of worship and I know that many devout Hindus appreciate the fact that there is one day, whatever day it may be, which is set aside in our country when they can have their religious services. The only genuine religious groups which are affected are small groups: the Jewish community, the Muslims and some of the other smaller church groups, such as the Seventh Day Adventists, etc. But I do not believe that they are being severely circumscribed by our Sunday laws.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how we dealt with this matter in Natal. We had in my constituency in the borough of Pinetown an attempt to get Sunday cinemas going. In fact they started showing films on Sundays, but we approached the matter in a way in which I believe it should be approached, namely at local level. There was of course immediately controversy and the local newspaper played it up. I believed it was important that there should be a public statement from the most senior public representative in his personal capacity. I wrote a letter which was blazoned all over the newspaper. We then held a referendum—the town council is a democratic body—and the result of the referendum was very interesting. There was a very small percentage poll—less than 20%—which showed that most people were perfectly happy with the Sunday position as it was and were not particularly interested whether cinemas were open or not. The people in favour of the cinemas won by a minute margin of about one percent. Quite rightly the town council took that as an indication that they should decide. I made sure that I lobbied various ministers of the churches by sending them telegrams and I know that people also contacted the council. The Pinetown council threw out Sunday cinemas. It then, if you do not mind, had to ask the police to prosecute because the cinema-owners were not prepared to accept the decision, which gives one a good indication of the kind of determination they have. Then, as a result of prosecution, they were turned down. I received a great deal of correspondence with regard to this matter. A lot of it was anti and some of it was pro. I want to read just one paragraph from a letter from a member of my constituency. This is what he said—

Mr. Speaker, in this whole controversy in Natal there was dead silence from the Nationalist MPs, and particularly the few in Durban. It was possibly because they were nervous of the political implications of the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have to oppose this Bill. I might say that I was astonished at … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I should add, by the way, that the cinemas involved in the Sunday shows business in Pinetown have since encountered very serious financial problems. Of course, the people of Pinetown are convinced of the relation between showing films on Sunday and financial difficulties. I do not necessarily share their conviction; it is a superstition, if you want to call it that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Well, I am astonished that he should suggest such a thing, and I believe it reflects very badly on the parliamentary competence of that party that they should want a Select Committee for a tiny little Bill dealing with such an unimportant matter; not only unimportant, but which only concerns cinemas. Mr. Speaker, to waste the time of a Select Committee with an issue of this nature, is to my mind most unfortunate, because this Bill is only a partial Bill. It does not deal adequately with all the other issues associated with Sunday observance, matters which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised. There are many things other than cinemas which are involved, and if we want to raise the whole issue of Sunday observance we should do it by means of a proper commission of inquiry. We have had that already. Not only that. In South West Africa, where they had it, it was found that people had to change their attitude to Sunday observance, because it is a very complicated matter. I am surprised that they want a Select Committee on films only. If they had proposed a motion asking for a broader investigation, it would have been different.

Mr. Speaker, the second reason why we do not support this Bill, is because it is one of those “permit” Bills. This Government believes in the rule by law, by law in the breach. It is like job reservation: everything has to be done with a permit. I want to suggest that this is not a healthy principle in legislation.

The third, and major, reason why I find that I cannot support this Bill—and my party cannot either—is because it forces a central Government edict down the throat of local authorities. I believe that this should be left to local sensitivity. I accept that the hon. the Minister may well administer this legislation carefully and that magistrates will have authority to give permission, and so on. However, I believe that it should be put into law. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first Bill concerning Christian principles which we have had since I have been in Parliament. The very first Bill that had the whole Christian concept written into it, was the Publications Control Bill, introduced by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, he realized that he ought to have local knowledge. That is why, in the new Censorship Bill, he introduced the concept of local committees, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has co-operated positively in getting the particular parochial point of view in Pietermaritzburg represented on one of those committees. Surely, it is an important principle which the hon. the Minister of the Interior recognized in that Bill. Now, why does not the hon. the Minister of Justice do the same in this particular situation? However, I want to sound a note of warning. I believe that most people in South Africa support Christian principles and many of them appreciate the fact that this Government has passed many Bills and has taken a stand on what they would describe as Christian or religious principles. This, however, demands consistency. It is a two-edged sword. Many people, religious people, are deeply disturbed by a Bill like this because they feel that it is straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Somebody once said to me that in South Africa the people are very interested in all the hot-blooded sins, while the cold-blooded sins are ignored. The Bible has a lot to say to us about hot-blooded and cold-blooded sins. I borrowed this Bible from one of my colleagues who keeps it on his shelf; it is not as dusty as I thought it might be. [Interjections.] Unfortunately my Bible is at home. If we read in the Book of Isaiah—I do not want to read it because I am sure that the hon. members know it … [Interjections.] No, I know where it is, but we have had enough quotations from the Scriptures today. We can also read from Amos. [Interjections.] Let me read it to you, Sir, since hon. members seem to doubt my Biblical knowledge. I am reading from Amos, Chapter VI—

He goes further and asks these people why they care nothing for the fruit of righteousness and turn it into hemlock. Then he says—

The fact that the prophets emphasize all the time is that it is not sufficient to be pious. Piety is a good thing; it does not say that piety is wrong. The Lord Jesus said the same thing, i.e. that there is nothing wrong with being pious, but then one must be consistent.

Read to us the piece where Peter was warming his hands by the fire.

It seems to me that the Government is concentrating on things that sometimes seem to the public as a whole to be the smaller issues, rather than the issues of justice and righteousness; not that I want to suggest that the smaller issues are not important. I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

When I was in Kenya last month with many Black Christian people, who were very interested in the whole South African situation, I found that they were deeply disturbed about the fact that much of what is done in this country, in the form of cold-blooded sins, much as they would have supported some of the ideas in a Bill such as this, was done by a Government and a party which claims the name of Christians.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Pinetown has left the House in confounded confusion. I think we all appreciate that he has personal views that coincide with the Christian view. I have here the statement to which he referred, and which was published in the Highway Mail of 15 August 1975. The headline reads: “M.P.’s ‘No’ to Sunday Cinema”. The hon. member sent a statement to this newspaper and I would like to read some passages from it. He said—

That is his one statement. He concludes by saying—

Today, constricted by his membership of a caucus, he adopts a different attitude. I am reminded of Peter, who said one thing in the company of the disciples, while when he was in the company of other people, he said something different. Then he heard the cock crow.

Could I ask the hon. member whether I in fact supported closing Sunday cinemas in my local community or not?

Mr. Speaker, he opposed the principle of cinemas on a Sunday. He opposed the principle in that particular locality, because that is where it was at stake. It was a referendum in the local community. What was at stake, was a referendum in the local community. Let me deal with this aspect of whether it should be a decision of the local community, or a decision of the community as a whole. I would like to know, in view of his specific statement that there is a curious point of view that Christians should not propagate Sunday as a special day of God, but should rather retire into their little Christian communities, whether he now retires into his own little Christian community in Pinetown? If people have moral principles, then they should also have the moral courage to accept the responsibility of taking decisions based on those principles when discussion takes place on those matters. The idea of leaving this whole issue to local communities is nothing but escapism from the idea of accepting responsibility for moral principles. To my mind the same applies to the suggestion that this first be referred to a Select Committee. I believe that this is an issue which this House has to deal with now and that we must accept the responsibility of voting in terms of our moral principles.

The Minister can make exceptions.

The Minister can. What I would like to stress here is that this is not a question of being against or for the idea of having cinema shows on a Sunday. The principle involved is the commercialization of cinemas on a Sunday. The hon. member for Pinetown also dealt with this particular issue. He said that there were other issues at stake, and asked: “Why doesn’t one impose one’s view on adultery in legislation?” Adultery is not a question of commercialization. [Interjections.]

Are you in favour of adultery?

Of course I am not! [Interjections.] It becomes commercialized for many of my friends; I agree [Interjections.] the question of the responsibility of the State in regard to the question of commercialization comes into this aspect when it comes to brothels. If hon. members say that in the case of moral decisions it should be left to the local community, would any one of them have the courage to say that the question of allowing commercialized brothels should also be left to the local community, or do hon. members accept that they have a responsibility to the community at large in this regard? It is the principle of commercialization that has to be decided here, and not the question of whether or not a community can show films when no entrance fee is involved.

I should like to deal with the aspect of the hon. the Minister imposing the views of a section of the society on the community at large. It has been said that the hon. the Minister is imposing the will of a section of the community—not only Christians, but specifically Calvinists—on the community at large. The hon. member for Pinetown has already referred to the fact that throughout the whole history of Natal Sunday films had never been shown until the introduction of television. Why then try to create the impression that the hon. the Minister is now imposing his views in a bullying manner on Natal? Certainly, there is no change whatsoever in terms of the history of this practice in Natal. Surely, hon. members must accept that in view of Natal’s history there is no question of imposing a will that is foreign to Natal. Throughout the years Natal has had no commercialized Sunday cinemas. It is only now that this issue has been raised that we find the very lame excuse that it is because of the effect of television on cinema attendance.

Tell us about Gert Hanekom.

I have dealt specifically with this idea that people have their own personal views in regard to this matter. I accept that Mr. Hanekom and Mr. Van Lingen might have said something in the provincial council, but here we have the specific example of the hon. member for Pinetown saying something to his constituents, and then saying something else here in Parliament.

This is not a complicated Bill, which deals with many principles and points; it is a very simple issue. The issue at stake is whether we are in favour of commercializing Sunday cinemas. If Sunday cinemas on a commercial basis should be approved, then why not extend commercialization to the whole field? Why not allow every single shop to be open on a Sunday? Why should we then accept Sunday as a day of rest at all?

*I am of the opinion that it will be no solution whatsoever to allow the local community to decide on this. Yesterday attention was drawn to the fact that many drive-in theatres do not fall within a municipal area. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked which authority has jurisdiction. He received the answer that it is the provincial authority. If the provincial authority already has to take decisions on drive-in theatres outside municipal areas, what moral justification would there be if they, as the chief authority in the province, were to take a decision in respect of drive-in theatres outside municipal areas, while the local authorities on the other side of the boundary could take a different decision in respect of drive-in theatres or cinemas within their area. Surely a principle is at stake in this matter and the principle is not the participation in entertainment. The principle is the commercialization of an entertainment industry on a large scale. Therefore I feel that if the provincial authorities would be prepared to take up a standpoint, they should take the decision. However, if they say that they are not prepared to take up a standpoint and leave such a decision to those areas with local authorities, while those who are outside, can do as they like, they are shirking their responsibilities just as the Opposition is trying to pass their responsibilities on to others. They do not have the moral courage to exercise their responsibilities themselves.

I know of cases where local authorities do have regulations prohibiting cinema shows on Sundays, while drive-in cinemas situated just outside the area of the local authority and not subject to their authority, screen films. Owners of drive-in cinemas inside the municipal areas, because they were subject to unfair competition, felt against their own principles that they were also being forced to continue screening films on Sundays. Where such screenings were prohibited, they tried to circumvent the law by forming a club and charging membership fees. This legislation will place everyone on an equal basis and it will not subject certain people to unfair competition in contrast to people outside municipal areas. If one has principles, one must also have the courage to take up a standpoint according to one’s principles.

Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate we have had a variety of interpretations and expositions of this Bill and of justifications for this Bill. We have just heard a new one, but I am still completely unconvinced. We have heard of commercialization and now on top of this we have just heard of the commercialization of adultery. This is a new idea to me—because I have never heard of it before—but there will probably always be something new from Klip River. We have heard about the desecration of the Sabbath and yesterday it was even suggested from the depths of a back bench that if we did not accept this legislation, we should have to—I quote—“conform and capitulate”; we should have to surrender to “the permissive world which naturally wants to plough us under”. Mr. Speaker, can one be more foolish than this? If one listens to some of the supporters of this Bill, one would swear that without this legislation everyone would be under an obligation to attend a film show on a Sunday and if anyone did, he would be on the road to hell. What can one do with people like this? It is difficult to react to such twaddle, or, as we say in the Free State, “nonsens”. To oppose this Bill does not imply that one wants to desecrate the Sabbath or change its nature. All we want, is for the State not to interfere with the activities of the individual. It is not an argument for licentiousness. On the contrary, it is an argument for the individual and his community to use their own good sense in matters of this nature. Why does the Government not want to allow this? No explanation has yet been given for this in the House, and I shall therefore try to do so.

My explanation may not meet with general approval, but I am nevertheless of the opinion that there are grounds for my argument. As I have already indicated, what we are primarily concerned with in this Bill is with the question of the right and the freedom of the individual vis-à-vis the State. The Afrikaner as an Afrikaner attaches great value to personal as well as group freedom. Indeed he is—as some of my friends on the opposite side will know—the product of a struggle for freedom, a struggle in which the individual played a very important role. Afrikaners take a pride in being regarded as “children of the protest”, protest against something which they do not like, or protest against any conflicting interests which restrict their freedom in any way. Moreover, the Afrikaner does not begrudge other individuals this right and this freedom. But what about the National Party? It has a different approach, as the hon. member for Klip River showed us a moment ago. Unfortunately, the freedom of the individual is something for which the party has very little feeling indeed. He said a great deal about general freedom, about freedom for the people as a whole!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No. The NP speaks about the freedom of the people, but when it comes to the freedom of the individual, it stops short. Then it seems as if there is a growth in its throat. Its conception of freedom is like that of the late Henry Ford: One can buy any car of any colour as long as it is a black Ford. This is the National Party’s approach to the freedom of the individual.

How does this legislation affect the freedom of the individual?

The National Party adopts this attitude because it has no confidence in the individual. It does not allow the individual to use his own judgment. The individual must always be prescribed to.

So why do they vote for the party?

The National Party itself wants to protest but it begrudges others that right. Sometimes it wants to forbid even the individual to protest. Heaven preserve you if you clash with the party—then you will get it in the neck: We shall still see what is going to happen to the two poor M.P.C.s in Natal who spoke before the crack of the whip. They are in hot water! I maintain that in this Bill we have proof of how little feeling the National Party has for the freedom of the individual, because the party does not allow the individual to use his own judgment. After all, this is the ultimate effect of this Bill. It does not give the individual the freedom to decide for himself whether he wants to go to a cinema on a Sunday or not.

It has nothing to do with the “going”.

Yes, that is the whole issue. This is what it is all about. The State must decide; the hon. the Minister must decide; the National Party must decide. Here we have another question which evidently, as far as the NP is concerned, is not negotiable at all. The party will have its say, and one must accept this or you will get it in the neck—one or the other.

Some of the hon. the Minister’s own supporters sitting behind him want the Government to go very much further than this Bill. They want to interfere with the rights of the individual elsewhere. When are we going to get this? How long must we wait before it comes? Because the NP does not trust the individual, it always has to make a law to force the individual to do this or that. If this was not so, why have they come forward with this Bill? Why does the Government not leave it to the individual to decide? After all, hon. members on the opposite side will agree with me that there are many spheres in life in which the State has no jurisdiction whatsoever and ought not have any jurisdiction either. As I have said before, I maintain that the Afrikaner as an Afrikaner would not have made a law like this; he would have left it to the individual to decide, because this is a right which he does not begrudge himself and others. I simply do not believe that a majority of the White population in this country want this legislation. There may be a minority who want it, and they are the people to whom the Minister is listening. Why is he doing this? It seems inexplicable to me.

What percentage do they constitute?

Who knows. I say that it is a minority, and the hon. member says that it is a majority—who knows? I want to allege that if one were to construct a test at random in the constituency of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, for example, or rather in the constituency of the hon. member for Pretoria Central—he is not here at the moment; he is never here—on the question of film shows on Sundays, 80% of the Afrikaners in that constituency would support the motion that the decision on film shows on Sundays should be left to the local authorities—i.e. if they were to be asked this question as Afrikaners. If, however, they were to be asked as members of the NP and the whip had cracked, my goodness!—then they would be as quiet as mice and one would never hear anything from them again. We are told that every one of the party congresses of the NP decided that they want this measure. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of any resolution not being adopted by an NP congress once the whip had cracked? So what value can we attach to this? What expression is that of public opinion? As I have said, this Bill will be rejected by the vast majority of Afrikaners.

There are other reasons why Afrikaners and thousands of non-Afrikaners want to reject this Bill. They know that one cannot try to turn a community or an individual into a moral one by means of legislation— ultimately this is another of the objectives which the State has in mind with this Bill. In spite of what the NP may say or think in this case, legislation is for other purposes. One will not be excluded from heaven just because one went to a cinema on Sunday. One can go to church 3 times per day and still go to hell. Let there be no doubt about this. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members who have had their turn to speak should not try to do so again.

We can go further in our opposition to this Bill. In spite of the speech of the hon. member from the environs of Pretoria, we are living in the last quarter of the twentieth century.

You would not think so.

No, you would not think so—not if you listen to some of the hon. members on that side.

*Nevertheless we are living in the last quarter of the twentieth century and the way of life of many of us has changed radically in our own lifetime.

For the good?

Yes, very often for the good.

Not always.

When I was at school, one could not do homework on a Sunday under any circumstances.

But that was a hundred years ago.

When I was at school, one could not play any sport on a Sunday. Since that time all this has changed. Today there are many clergymen who are not opposed to sport on Sundays. They are on record. All they ask is that members of their congregation attend church at least once per day. After or before that they can do what they think best. The same principle holds good for film shows. Until recently in the Free State there was a law against fishing on a Sunday. Can you imagine, Sir, what would happen if someone wanted to implement that type of law today? He would come to grief. Times and people have changed. It is just the NP which has not changed and which cannot understand these things. The whole conception of the desecration of the Sabbath has changed, not necessarily for the worse. There is a reality somewhere, which must be taken into account and we must reflect on these things in this House. Those who think that the church must be protected or saved by ensuring that it is not thwarted by film shows being allowed on Sundays, should rethink the matter. How many regular churchgoers will stay away from church just because they want to see a film on a Sunday night which they can see any other night of the week? How many of them? Churches do not need this kind of assistance, support or protection. Their continued existence does not depend on this type of thing. Inherently the church is strong enough to survive. It has survived through the centuries; it is not going to be affected by petty legislation such as this. But on the other hand, this law can do a great deal of damage. We all realize that much more serious sins are committed on Sundays than going to a cinema. I shall not digress on this. The hon. the Minister will know what I mean, because a word to the wise is enough. Speaking of sin, I should like to refer to the opinion of a highly respected academic of Potchefstroom, Prof. J. D. van der Vyver, on the role of the State and the Church in this regard. Referring to the possibility of this type of legislation he said the following—

Here is a man of high academic standing and he knows what he is talking about. He went on to say—

He went on to refer to what had happened in Durban and said—

What is the answer to a “hand-off policy to be preserved by the State in the area of religion”? What do hon. members say now?

There is one last matter which I should like to raise. Up to now I have confined myself to the commercial film industry, but there is something else to which passing references have been made. One of the serious effects which this Bill will have, is on the future of bona fide film societies. As my colleague the hon. member for Sandton indicated yesterday, it would be tragic if these societies were to cease existing. I should like to explain for the edification of the House that these societies must be distinguished from the film industry and Sunday film clubs. I am not referring to them now; I am referring to the film societies. They are voluntary and non-profit-making organizations which aim to advance the propagation of the cinematic art as a cultural and educational medium. For various reasons which you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the film shows take place on Sunday evenings. Of course, the Bill does provide for exemption, either in general, in a particular case or in cases of a particular nature. One hopes that exemption will be granted to bona fide film societies because most of them do good and constructive work, at least most of them. Exemption procedures are, however, highly undesirable in principle, and sometimes their operation is very cumbersome in practice, they are arbitrary and also cause uncertainty. One would prefer to see film societies continuing to make use of such facilities as they are able to obtain for presenting Sunday shows.

To summarize I should just like to say that I am opposed to this Bill for four important reasons. In the first place it is not in the public interest to pass legislation of this nature, inter alia, because it creates the danger of discrediting the law in the eyes of large sections of our community. This is a very real danger. The second reason is that I am convinced that this type of legislation is condemned and rejected by the vast majority of the population. It is unnecessary. In the third place it endangers the future of bona fide film societies and in the fourth place— something to which we shall all have to give serious consideration—this legislation will once again make South Africa a world exception. As far as my knowledge and information go, the showing of films on Sundays is not prohibited anywhere else on earth. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this legislation, we shall once again be making ourselves ludricous in the eyes of the world outside. This is a danger which we should try to avoid at all costs.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and for many other reasons which, because of the time factor, I am unable to mention now—some of which have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton—I and my party cannot support this Bill. We agree with the amendment of the UP. We feel, however, that their amendment does not go far enough, and we should like to give it an extra dimension. For that reason I should like to move an amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I can summarize the speech by the hon. member for Parktown by simply referring to a joke about the little boy who had to go to church against his will. When he came back from church and his mother asked him what the subject of the minister’s sermon had been, his answer was that the minister had preached about sin. When his mother asked him what the minister had said about sin, the little boy’s answer was simply: He is against it.

Far be it from me to allege that that hon. member is in favour of sin. What I can say about him, is that he is against this legislation. The hon. member referred scornfully to what the Free Staters had to say but I think he has been away from the Free State for too long now and has therefore apparently lost all contact with the Afrikaner and his sense of values. If there is one thing of which I have become convinced in this debate, it is that there is a necessity for uniformity on this sort of matter.

The hon. member for Klip River demonstrated very clearly what the net effect would be of the acceptance of the amendments which have just been proposed. It would boil down to the fact that we in this country could possibly create a situation in which increasing commercialization of Sunday took place and in which, within the same community, some cinemas would be closed and others open, depending on how and where the boundaries of the provincial or local authorities lay. The Government is not prepared to evade its responsibility and it will therefore honour its responsibility in this regard. The whole drift of the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down was one of a permissive spirit—let everyone judge for himself! He adopted the same standpoint three years ago when we were concerned with legislation aimed at control of publications. Since he referred scornfully to the standpoint of the Afrikaner and to that of the NP …

I did not refer to the Afrikaner.

Very well then, of the NP, or of the Nationalist Afrikaner, if the hon. member wants to put it that way.

That is a different matter altogether.

I want to point out to the hon. member that were it not for that standpoint—which he calls a narrow-minded, “verkrampte” standpoint—this country would not have had the degree of freedom for all its inhabitants that it has today. I shall return to a full analysis of the hon. member’s speech at a later stage, but before I do that I want to refer to certain remarks uttered by hon. members opposite in the course of the debate.

It amazes me how often we find that members either do not listen to the introductory speech of a Minister or have not read the legislation properly. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, amongst other things, that the Bill did not alter the opinions of Hindus, Jews and other groups which he mentioned, in regard to the exhibition of films on a Sunday. However, the hon. the Minister stated emphatically in his Second Reading speech that it was not the task of the Government to alter people’s opinions and that it was not the task of the Government to send people to church. That was out of the question.

The hon. member for Durban Central said, amongst other things, that the Bill was drafted on the assumption that South Africa has a homogeneous community. This is surely not true. If it were true, provision would not have been made for the cases in which permission may be granted in accordance with clause 2(1). The hon. member also said that the Bill encroached upon the rights of certain religious denominations. Surely this is also untrue. The hon. member for Vereeniging replied conclusively to that and pointed out with reference to the case of Chatsworth, for example, that if the Hindu community, which has a specific viewpoint about this type of thing, were to approach the hon. the Minister with a request in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(1), it is quite possible that an exception would be made. Such an exception, however, would most definitely not be made within the White community, as the White community of South Africa has a definite view on matters of this nature. That is what it is all about. The hon. member for Durban Central threw up his hands melodramatically and said: “It is a cruel Bill, people are forced …” One really does not even want to react to such statements. The culmination of his argument, the peculiarity of his argument, if I may put it that way, emerged when he said that according to sociologists, the most suicides take place on Sunday afternoons and Sunday evenings, apparently because people are lonely and do not know what to do. He then urged us not to accept the legislation for that very reason. It is the same sort of argument as the one of the man who says that he does not sleep on a bed because statistics show that it is the most dangerous thing on earth—most people die on a bed. [Interjections.]

Next I come to the hon. member for Newton Park. I am deeply disappointed in the standpoint which the hon. member has adopted. He has said that commercialization is already taking place because there are many businesses that open on Sundays.

For entertainment.

Yes, he spoke of entertainment as well. He said it was the modem development. However, I want to know whether if this is the case, we must now forfeit the character of Sunday to which we have attached so much value.

But it is true that the Minister can allow it in accordance with the legislation.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North sang the same tune. He also spoke of the “big-money business” that goes on on Sundays. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, as well as the hon. member for Sandton, also put forward the argument that because there is now an increasing tendency, and because it is a modern tendency, for certain business practices to take place on Sundays in the form of certain entertainments which are offered and for which admission is charged, we may as well conform and give up and not go ahead with this sort of legislation. I can still understand the hon. member for Newton Park advancing such an argument because he is not a lawyer. However, it astounds me that the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Sandton should put forward this sort of argument. I should like to refer them to the very well-known judgment of the late Chief Justice L. C. Steyn in the case Publications Control Board v. William Heinemann Ltd. and Others, 1965, Vol. 4 of the S.A. Law Reports. On page 148 he says the following, after referring to certain sworn statements which had been submitted as evidence and in which there was reference to similar passages in recognized publications—

This is precisely the same argument as the one we received from that side: Because this sort of phenomenon exists in other spheres anyway, leave it alone; it is modem development, as the hon. member for Newton Park said. Concerning this argument, the late Chief Justice Steyn said the following—

The very fact that this type of phenomenon occurs, is not an argument. I want to go further, however, I want to agree with the hon. member that there is a modem development and tendency in this direction, but the very fact that the cumulative effect of all these things is depriving Sunday of its character, is a reason why we must introduce this legislation. We must start somewhere. Therefore, it does not help the hon. members on that side of the House to tell us that doing away with the exhibition of films for profit on Sundays is no solution if we neglect to do such and such a thing. That is not the argument at all. We could give attention to those things if it became necessary. In this regard, it is a matter of making a start, precisely because the cumulative effect of this type of thing on Sundays is in the process of depriving Sunday of its character.

I now come to the last argument of the hon. member for Newton Park, an argument which coincides with those of the hon. members for Sandton and Parktown. I am sorry that I now have to label them both with the same tag, but their arguments amount to the same thing. The hon. member for Sandton said: “Personal freedom is infringed.” The hon. member for Newton Park said that Sunday was the only day on which many people could enjoy entertainment. That was his standpoint. The hon. member went on to say that everyone had his own taste and view in regard to the Sabbath and desecration of the Sabbath. The hon. member said furthermore that since this was the case and since we wanted to encroach upon the freedom of the individual, we could not defend South Africa’s standpoint because, according to the hon. member, if we wanted to join the ranks of the West, we would have to go along with the West. The people in the West do it in this way. I know a proverb which says: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” but if that Italian comes to South Africa, he must do as we do because we are not going to conform simply because he is used to something different. He must fall in with the character which this people in this country has worked out for itself. I cannot but label any other standpoint which the hon. members on that side of the House have adopted in regard to this matter as being in harmony with the permissive spirit of the times which is making an assault on us in the Western world and also in South Africa to an ever-increasing degree. I do not have the slightest doubt about it. I can understand the hon. members for Sandton and Parktown adopting this attitude, because they are trapped in the liberal spirit of permissiveness which will destroy all forms of discipline. We are living in a time when the corrupting conditions of permissiveness and degeneration are rampant. They are threatening the community and good order within the community. Freedom of the individual is a monstrosity; no one can do as he wants because we are living in an ordered society.

As long as he does not bother anyone else, he can do as he pleases.

Precisely, because we are living in an ordered community. Our task is to preserve the distinctive, religious and conservative character of the South African community. That also goes for the distinctive character of Sunday as we know it and as the vast majority of the White population in this country—I believe this is the case—wants it.

We put a high premium on the freedom of communication, of speech, of publication and of entertainment. We do not do this however if it is contrary to the accepted religious and/or conservative national character. This is where I differ radically from the hon. member for Parktown. South Africa recognizes a certain atmosphere on a Sunday, no matter what people’s individual religious beliefs may be. One need not necessarily be a clergyman to hold a definite view in regard to Sunday. We cannot allow the spiritual and conservative disciplines of the South African community to be undermined. It undermines the spiritual and the moral welfare of South Africa and it weakens our resistance to the corrupting Zeitgeist of permissiveness and lack of spiritual preparedness because it rots away the inner values of our people. We must have no doubt about that and that is why it remains the function of the State—in this regard I differ from the hon. member for Parktown—to ensure that violence is not done to these principles.

No one wants to encroach upon the vested interests of cinema owners. No one wants to deny anyone the right to see a particular film, not even on a Sunday; but if he really wants to see it on a Sunday, then he must do so in the privacy of his home or those of his friends. In this way we must implement the Christian philosophy. This philosophy certainly takes the other man’s standpoint into account. No one is trying to improve people’s morals and norms by way of this legislation. On the other hand, failure to take action may corrupt the good character and good morals of others. The Christian philosophy is not being forced upon anyone by this legislation; it merely recognizes the Christian philosophy of our people, so that those religious beliefs and philosophies may not be handicapped. We dare not harm those philosophies by our activities. The Church must not be hindered in the execution of its task simply because the State has neglected to take action. Therefore the legislation makes no attempt whatsoever to take the Church’s task out of its hands. The legislation aims at allowing the nation to work unhindered at the preservation of the character of Sunday and this includes the work of the Church as well. Therefore, the legislation has no intention whatsoever of encroaching upon the religious freedom—and this is an argument which has been put forward here—of any sector of the population but, by implication, the legislation recognizes the character of Sunday as being in accordance with the view of the major part of the population. No one is being asked to accept the view or standpoint and the philosophies of a certain church; only general Christian standards in respect of one specific facet of Sunday, are applicable here. It prevents one facet of Sabbath desecration which is offensive, inconvenient and which can also, in extreme cases, even disturb the peace. Thus, it is not a matter of compelling people by Act of Parliament to accept specific ethical, moral or religious standards or beliefs. It is very interesting that on page 336 of the British Longford Report on publication control and pornography, Archbishop Temple says these meaningful words—

Nowhere is the freedom of the individual, in respect of his conscience, his freedom of belief and his religious freedom, implicitly encroached upon. I want the hon. member for Pinetown to realize this. The highest norm of the Christian philosophy and world view is to be found in the Scriptures and it is there, too, that it finds the framework for its actions. We do not apologize for this. It is this that the State and this Parliament must take cognizance of and it is in this regard that they have a function to perform. The hon. member referred to the learned professor from Potchefstroom. The same Professor Van der Vyver is supposed to have said—he was quoted in last Sunday’s edition of the Sunday Times—

This is a terrible thing to say. It is furthermore alleged, as a result of this, that due to this very fact, bureaucracy and totalitarianism are the fate of this country. I think that the arguments in this regard are exaggerated and unfounded. Were I to weigh them against the consequences which a permissive community holds in store, a community in which everyone is left to himself and his own so-called conscience, I would rather choose the more restricted, more disciplined State control. Permissiveness leads to laxness of morals and habits and eventually to the decline of traditions. What takes its place is licentiousness, immorality and indiscipline and then a decadent community has already come into being. If I had to make that choice, I would have no other choice.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort started his speech this afternoon by giving the clue to the intention behind this particular Bill. He ended up by trying to soften it a little bit when he said that he was convinced of the State’s responsibility to create a moral atmosphere in which the people may live. Nobody will argue with that latter statement of his at all. What does it mean, however? It means that it is the responsibility of the State to provide housing, the environment and all the necessary facilities and amenities for the people to be able to exist in a moral atmosphere where they can enjoy family life and the various facilities and amenities, but it does not mean that the State must then turn round and dictate to the people whether they may or may not see a film show. That brings me back to his opening words, and his opening words were that the longer he listened to this debate, the more convinced he became of the necessity for the State to enforce conformity. That is the clue to this Bill. It is an attempt to enforce conformity, and more particularly to enforce conformity on the wicked English-speaking people of Natal. I shall come back to that a little later. [Interjections.] Yes, that is what it is. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that he made that statement in June of last year. He cannot deny that he stated that this Bill was forced upon him by the people of Pietermaritzburg. He did make that statement last year and he cannot deny it. The hon. the Minister looks at me questioningly, but he cannot deny that he made that statement in June 1976. The hon. the Minister also knows that he did not go ahead with the Bill last year because he still had to face the Nationalist Party Congress in Natal. That is why he did not proceed with the Bill last year.

I now wish to refer briefly to the hon. member for Vereeniging. He said he was not opposed to films being shown on Sundays; he was only opposed to their being shown for gain.

I said the Bill does not prevent the showing of films on Sundays.

He says the Bill does not prevent the showing of films on Sundays. However, one of his colleagues has pleaded with the hon. the Minister to close down the film-hire shops so that they cannot hire out films to people on Sundays.

They should be closed on Sundays because films can be hired on Saturday.

There we have it; they should be closed on Sundays. He wants to stop the showing of films on Sundays, even if it is not for gain. If I wish to have a film show in my home on Sunday evening, that hon. member would deny me that right. [Interjections.] That is exactly what he said.

Hire the film on Saturday.

Ah yes, now we must hire films on a Saturday. Where is the morality of that hon. member? I can hire the film on Saturday and show it on Sunday, but I must not hire it on Sunday to show it on Sunday. What is the difference? If hon. members speak about not doing things on Sunday for gain, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Klip River who also raised this point.

*Does he want to send his children to the beach on Sunday, where they have to sit in the sun without ice-cream or cool drinks and where his wife has to go without tea all afternoon? Does he believe that none of these things should be provided either?

†Because that is also done for gain. Then the hon. the Minister of Transport must stop his trains and his aircraft because they are all operated for gain. Then the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications must suspend the telephone service because that is a service which also operates for gain. Those services must also cease to operate on a Sunday, if we are to accept that these hon. gentlemen, who claim to be honourable and moral, are in fact genuine in their morality. I do not believe there is any genuineness in their morality at all.

The hon. member for Vereeniging also spoke about television. He says that television is not affected by this Bill. We agree with that. The actual projection of television is not affected by this Bill, but it has been argued—and I am not going to repeat the arguments—that the SABC does the projection for a consideration and that action could morally be taken against them in terms of this Bill. However, what is the position with those restaurants, hotels and clubs which have installed television sets on their premises as part of a service offered by the restauranteurs, the hoteliers and the persons running the clubs for the benefit of their clients or members? Are they going to be compelled to switch those television sets off on a Sunday? Will the Wanderers Club and the Collegians Club in Pietermaritzburg be compelled to switch their television sets off on Sunday evenings?

[Inaudible.]

Now the hon. Chief Whip is showing his ignorance. He has obviously not read the Bill, or if he has read the Bill, he does not understand it. What is a film in terms of the Bill? In terms of the Bill a television projection is a film. The hon. the Minister will agree with me. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what he intends doing about those people.

Regarding this whole question of whether or not we should be permitted to show a film, a film in terms of the Bill, on a Sunday, I want to ask what is going to happen to all the hotel-keepers in holiday resorts who over many, many years—this is not something that happened yesterday as the hon. member for Klip River tried to indicate—have had shows for their residents on a Sunday evening. What is going to happen to them? Will each and every one of them have to apply for an exemption? The hon. the Minister might know that at the moment a congress of the Durban and Districts Hotel-keepers Association is being held in Durban. We have received a telephone call from them urging that we should repudiate this Bill, because it is going to affect their right to show films to their clients, their residents, on Sundays. I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of that as well.

Sir, while I am talking to the hon. the Minister, I want to ask him to give us satisfactory proof of a statement he made when he introduced the Bill. He said he had been asked by the Methodist Church as a whole to introduce legislation to this effect. I am a member of the Methodist Church.

You never go to church!

I resent that comment from the hon. Whip. He obviously does not know what the inside of a church looks like. It is the sort of low … comment we expect from that sort of person—I was nearly unparliamentary but not quite. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will give definite, positive proof that the Conference of the Methodist Church passed a resolution which was conveyed to him asking him to produce legislation such as this which we have before us.

I had a letter from their General Secretary.

I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to produce it so that we in the House can see it, because to the best of my knowledge—and I have checked this …

Will you vote with me if I produce it?

What is that? Blackmail?

Is the hon. the Minister trying to blackmail me?

I repeat, will you vote with me if I produce it?

Sir, the hon. the Minister must not try to blackmail me. All I am asking him to do is to establish his bona fides. I believe that if he is unable to produce proof of the fact that this was a decision of the Conference of the Methodist Church …

I do not know whether it is a decision taken by the Conference of the Methodist Church. I had this letter from the secretary.

We want to know whether that letter came from a small group

I do not know.

Ah! He does not know.

The letter came from the General Secretary himself.

That was not the impression he gave when he introduced the Bill.

I said it came from the general Church.

The hon. the Minister said it came from the whole of the Methodist Church. That is the whole point.

How must I know what they decided?

Why did you not find out?

I believe the hon. the Minister must produce this proof because otherwise we will be quite entitled to draw the inference that the hon. the Minister is making statements here that are not wholly true, because unless this comes from the Conference of the Methodist Church, it does not come from the Church.

It might have come from a small group within the Church, in which case the hon. the Minister had no right to say it came from the Church.

Now you are talking nonsense!

No, Sir, this is an important point.

While we are talking about churches and the effect of this Bill on the churches, let me say that a phone call was received last night from a leading member of the Anglican clergy in Natal. That gentleman said that we must convey to the hon. the Minister that that Church does not need the Government to assist them in church matters.

How do I know it is the Anglican Church that phoned you?

I am not suggesting that for one moment. Unlike the hon. the Minister, I have made it quite clear that the call was received from a member of the Anglican clergy. I did not allege that it came from the whole of the Anglican Church. I do not need to bolster my case because my case is strong enough. It is the hon. the Minister who needs to bolster his.

The telephone call came from somebody who was entitled to speak for the Anglican Church, though. Not so?

Well, I am very glad to hear that it was such a person. The gentleman went further and said that he does not need this Minister or this Government to assist them to attract people to attend church.

I believe the hon. the Minister through this Bill is going to make it more difficult to attract particularly young people to the church. I believe that the Bill contains a provision which directly infringes on the rights of the churches because no church or Sunday school will be permitted to show any film, which includes any slides, without a permit. [Interjections.] I say that advisedly and I see from the hon. the Minister’s face that he agrees with me.

You are talking nonsense!

The hon. the Minister says I am talking nonsense. Will the hon. the Minister look at his own Bill? What are its provisions?

No person shall exhibit any film on any Sunday.

For gain.

Where does it say “for gain”? It is no wonder that we call that ignorant member for Klip River the “klip” from Klip River; he is totally ignorant. Clause 2(1) states—

Which place? The clause states further—

I grant that a church or a Sunday-school does not fall under that category. The clause reads further—

Admission to a Sunday-school is by virtue of association of persons. The clause states further—

It is “or”, not “and”,—any one of those conditions pertains. I believe that admission to a Sunday-school is by virtue of an association of persons. Therefore this hon. Minister will not allow my son in Pinetown or my daughter in Pinelands to show their Sundayschool classes a slide-show on Sundays. That is the effect of this Bill.

Nonsense!

The hon. the Minister says “nonsense”. Will the hon. the Minister give me an assurance that he will not stop any church at any function on a Sunday from showing any film in terms of this Bill?

It depends on the film.

Why “it depends on the film”? Now listen to the hon. the Minister prevaricate. He first of all says it does not affect the churches; then he starts prevaricating when I ask him a question. There is no question of whether there is a consideration or not. What sort of film does he think churches will show? Is he casting aspersions on the type of film that he thinks the churches will show? I am afraid this hon. Minister and the NP are now displayed here in all their nakedness. There is only one thing that they seek and that is conformity—in the words of the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

Let us have a look at the history of this Bill. Why have we got a Bill like this? Why has it been introduced? The story starts in 1975, when the hon. the Minister warned the Durban city council against allowing the showing of films on Sundays in public cinemas. When they took no notice and it appeared that Durban would persist with this, the hon. the Minister leaned on the mayor and on the city councillors. Sir, it was said here by somebody that he blackmailed them and by somebody else that he bullied them. But I believe that he threatened to ban not only films, but all Sunday recreation if they did not agree to close their cinemas. This included the banning of all organized sport. The hon. member for Stilfontein is still pleading for that. They even wanted to stop us fishing. They do not even want us to fish in our beautiful sea in Natal. It was even extended to the point, as I said earlier, of banning the hiring or showing of home movies. Durban unfortunately acquiesced because that hon. Minister has the power; he is the Lord High Pooh-Bah with the power to do that. But, unfortunately for the rest of Natal, the people of Pietermaritzburg had more spunk. They refused to take steps to stop the performance of films on Sunday. Because of the intransigent attitude of the wicked English-speaking people of Pietermaritzburg, the hon. the Minister drafted his “Never on Sundays” Bill last year.

Then, because there was a NP congress coming up in Durban, shortly afterwards, he held it back; he did not proceed with it. So much for the courage and the “kragdadigheid” that the hon. member for Koedoespoort was talking about. What he is saying to us now and confirmed by my friend, the hon. member for Vereeniging, a little earlier, is that you can do it on Monday, you can do it on Tuesday or even on Wednesday, you can do it on Thursday, on Friday and even on Saturday, but never on Sunday. That is what he is saying to us—never on Sunday. Go and buy it during the week, hire it during the week, do what you like on weekdays, but do not hire or buy it on Sundays. Do you wonder, Sir, why the Pietermaritzburg city council—because of the hon. the Minister’s attitude in 1975—passed the following resolution on November 24, 1975—

This, incidently, was carried by 12 votes to one in the city council of Pietermaritzburg. This has been confirmed, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North pointed out yesterday, by a telegram which the hon. the Minister received during the last few days, a telegram in which they reaffirmed that resolution. But then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister also had something else from Pietermaritzburg. He has a petition which was sent to him, a petition with I do not know how many signatures, because I never got the final count. However, I have copies of some of the pages here. It is a petition which reads—

The petition is addressed to the hon. the Minister of Justice, Mr. J. Kruger, House of Assembly, Cape Town. The signatures on here are not only those of English-speaking people. They do not only have English surnames. When one looks through them, one notices names such as M. van der Merwe, J. H. van der Merwe, J. H. Bredekamp, J. B. Venter, and so forth. There is even a Langley among them, believe it or not; there is also an Ackermann, a De Jager and a Steyn. Just look at them, Sir! [Interjections.] Another Venter, a Van Niekerk, and so it goes on, Sir. The hon. the Minister is in possession of that petition. Why does he not take cognizance of it? Why does he not take any notice of it at all?

Then of course, there was the comment by Mr. Barry Naidoo, the chairman of the Indian Local Affairs Council. Yes, Sir, we have those bodies in Natal. The rest of the provinces do not have them. We consult with the other races in Natal. We have had Mr. Naidoo’s comment, which was read by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North yesterday.

The biggest disservice of all that, I believe, the hon. the Minister is doing us today, is by wasting the time of this House with this legislation.

You are wasting the time of this House! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister says I am wasting the time of the House. I am wasting the time of the House, I will concede, but only because this hon. Minister had the temerity to introduce this Bill. If he had not introduced this Bill I would not be wasting the time of the House. [Interjections.] Why do I say that the hon. the Minister is wasting the time of this House? I say that because I believe that the hon. the Minister does not need this legislation in order to achieve what he is trying to do. We have in existence in the Republic three Acts which apply to the three provinces of the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and the Cape, Acts which completely prohibit the showing of any film for gain, or in a public place, on a Sunday. The hon. the Minister, in this Bill, is repealing the provisions of those Acts which pertain to the showing of films on Sundays. In Natal local authorities have the power to legislate against such showing. If it is the intention or the feeling of the people concerned that it is undesirable that films should be shown on a Sunday, they have the power to legislate against it. They do not only have the power to legislate to prohibit the showing of films on a Sunday; they also have the power to legislate to control the hours of showing of films, or the type of film, or any other conditions. They have the full power to control the showing of films on a Sunday. Many local authorities in Natal have taken the opportunity of doing so. Ladysmith, Newcastle, Vryheid, Durban and Pinetown, just to mention some, have already legislated a total ban on the showing of films in public on a Sunday, or for gain on a Sunday, within the areas of their jurisdiction.

I want to say to the hon. member for Klip River that when he attacked my friend, the hon. member for Pinetown, he really showed the depths to which he has sunk. Here we have a young man who has the moral fibre and courage referred to by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. The hon. member for Pinetown came out publicly and said to his local authority: “I believe that you should ban the showing of films in Pinetown.” He supported the city council all the way and in doing so went against the wishes of many of his voters, but on a moral stand he stood. Now, what is the position today? He is taking exactly the same stand by saying that we have the right to ban it, we have banned it, we will stand by that ban and we do not need this Minister to ban it. That is what he is doing and I believe that every member in this House should admire him for the courageous stand which he took. However, at the same time, just as you have these local authorities which have decided, in their wisdom, that there should be no showing of films in their community, so you have local authorities such as Margate and Amanzimtoti who have allowed films to be shown, to the best of my knowledge, for the last 20 years or more. Again, the hon. member for Klip River shows his ignorance when he says that this is something new in Natal. There have been film shows in those centres for at least 20 years’ but there they have limited the hours. They do not allow films to be shown during the hours in which you normally expect a church service to be held. What is wrong with that? Why should they not continue with that? If the Pietermaritzburg City Council, by an overwhelming majority—a larger majority than even the NP has in this House—of 12 votes to one, decides that they will not legislate at all, it is their right to do so. I repeat what I said when I started: I believe this legislation is simply aimed at the people of Pietermaritzburg and other local authorities in Natal like it who decided that they would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Minister’s threats to them when he said: “You ban this or else I will wield the big stick.” This is the big stick we are talking about this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister said: “Yes that is all very well as far as the local authority areas are concerned, but what about outside the local authority areas?” He then referred to drive-in theatres outside the area of jurisdiction of local authorities in Natal. I want to say to him that I know of none and that I do not believe that the hon. member for Klip River, if he really applies his mind, knows of any either. The hon. member for Klip River, who was a member of the provincial council, must know that we have a body in Natal, known as the Development and Services Board, which used to be called the Local Health Commission, and which controls those drive-in theatres which are outside the area of any local authority.

The board does not control all of them.

Which one? The hon. member for Klip River cannot name a drive-in theatre in Natal which is not controlled by a local authority, because …

I can. The Country drive-in outside Ladysmith.

Where?

Outside Ladysmith.

Is the hon. member prepared to say that it does not fall under the control of the Development and Services Board, Sir?

Yes.

I do not think that is correct, Sir. [Interjections.] I believe the Development and Services Board controls it.

The Bull of botterbul? [Interjections.]

Now, Sir, having said all this, I believe that it is not too late for the hon. the Minister to put this matter right. I do not believe that he needs this legislation. I do not believe that he needs it for political purposes, because he is only putting the backs of the people in Natal up. This Bill does not affect the people of the Cape Province, Transvaal or the Free State except those who are members of film clubs, and they are not his supporters anyway. Many of his own supporters are going to be very angry with him next time they come to Natal for a holiday, because they will not be able to indulge in their normal Sunday past-time of watching …

You are chasing them away.

I am not chasing them away; the hon. the Minister is chasing them away. Will the hon. the Minister allow those holiday hotels to continue to show their films on a Sunday night?

Not for money.

Not for money? Any consideration, in terms of this Bill, includes the amounts paid for accommodation. Will he allow those holiday resorts to continue to show those films? Will he allow the restaurants, the hotels and the clubs to continue to show their television on Sunday evenings? Is he going to compel them to switch them off too? That is what the Bill says now. Are all those clubs going to have to apply for exemption? Every single one of those members is going to be forced to conform in some way or other with this hon. Minister and his ideas. For that reason I support the amendment moved by my hon. colleague.

The arguments of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat are particularly weak. As he did today, he has the habit of bolstering his arguments with wild gesticulating and loud shouting. In the process he gives his neighbours a rather torrid time. I think that he must be particularly harsh on the ear-drums of the hon. member for Berea.

I enjoyed it.

Listening to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I said to myself: Here is a man—and he is a brother of Rev. Ian Webber, one of the finest parsons I know—with civil war in his breast, civil war between his Christian convictions and political expediency. It is always a matter of great sadness when the politician gets the better of the Christian and when the politician wins this duel. The hon. member comes here and advocates a measure that can lead to the desecration of the Sunday, a measure which can cause people to stumble and can rob them of their Christian and moral values.

*Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted a whole series of statistics to indicate to us that there is a majority of people who do not support this legislation. He said for example that the Pietermaritzburg City Council adopted a resolution to this effect by 11 votes to two. The hon. member for Sandton told us that only 5% of the population supports this Bill. We dispute those figures. Those statistics are completely erroneous. Let us suppose, however, that it is correct that only 5% of our population support this Bill. A majority or a minority is a completely alien concept in theology. It is a concept which we use in politics and in sociology, but in religion, theology and ethics no mention is made of a majority of a minority. The validity of a divine edict does not depend on whether a majority of the people respect that edict. In the New Testament the most powerful language is used when the Sabbath is being described. The hon. member for Pinelands will be able to confirm that in the New Testament the Sabbath is called the Lord’s day. This idea is so overwhelming and so vital that surely one has no alternative but to support this Bill. Therefore it is not a question of whether the hon. the Minister should have come to this House with this Bill. On the contrary. He would have been guilty of the greatest dereliction of duty if he had omitted to do so. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also said that this Bill was aimed only at the English-speaking people of Natal. There were other hon. members who also said this. With that the hon. member suggested that as far as Sunday observance is concerned, our English-speaking citizens have a more liberal outlook, and that the Afrikaans-speaking people have a more rigouristic outlook. If we were to examine our traditions, we would find that the opposite is true. The dogma of the three Afrikaans churches is based on the three Formularies of Unity, i.e. the Canons of Dort, the Confessio Belgica and the Heidelberg Catechism. In the Canons of Dort there is no reference whatsoever to the Sabbath. In the Confessio Belgica there is a very indirect reference to the Sabbath, and in the Heidel berg Catechism there is a very succinct reference to the Sabbath.

In the English theological world we find the fullest, most comprehensive, most rigoristic and most legalistic view of the Sabbath in the Westminster Confession. I do not have the time to quote from this now. This is the English tradition. A Reformed ethicist like Geesink claimed that it had a salutory effect on the Calvinistic world which did not initially share the strict view of the Sabbath as found in the English theological world. The church to which the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, belongs, is a branch of puritanism in which Sunday observance was extremely strict, stricter than anywhere else in the world. England also had the strictest legislation in respect of Sunday. In England there was legislation prohibiting horse-riding on a Sunday.

On 26 May 1975 the Provincial Council of Natal unanimously adopted the following resolution—

Why did the Natal Provincial Council adopt this resolution? The motivation was that, at that juncture, at the beginning of 1975, there were several local authorities that sporadically discovered that they had the right and the power to adjust their local by-laws in such a way that they were able to allow film shows on a Sunday. Apparently the Provincial Council was not satisfied with this state of affairs. There was no order, and therefore we find this very urgent appeal being made to the local authorities to respect the Sabbath. They also adopted this resolution because they believed, quite rightly, that it would be possible to induce people to adopt a certain standpoint by means of friendly persuasion, rather than by using the force of legislation. That was their standpoint, and it is still the standpoint of hon. members on that side of the House today.

The hon. member for Durban Central quoted what the Leader of the NP in the Provincial Council, Mr. Gert Hanekom had said, i.e. that he also held the standpoint that the local authorities should decide in this regard. I think it was a very fair standpoint which Mr. Hanekom adopted. He said that he believed that the Minister had first held the standpoint that it was possible to persuade local authorities. I know that a delegation from the Durban City Council went to see him and that he persuaded them to repeal a resolution they had adopted in respect of Sunday film shows. There is not a single legislature in this country which would resort to the force of legislation if it were possible to induce people to adopt a certain standpoint by means of persuasion. That was the standpoint of Mr. Gert Hanekom. As it happened, he was on a visit to the Cape last week. In fact, he was at my home, and I discussed with him the standpoint which he adopted in the Provincial Council in 1975. He admitted that that had been his standpoint, but added that in the interim so much confusion had arisen among the local authorities, that today he fully supported the Bill of the hon. the Minister. Unlike what happened in the past, we heard very little in the newspapers about this Bill which is being introduced. The only reaction from Natal which I read was a short report in The Natal Mercury of 26 January under the caption “Sunday film ban draws a warning”—

Here we have a provincial council which made a friendly appeal to the local authorities. Those local authorities, or a large number of them, did not react to that appeal. It fell on deaf ears. They did not display the good judgment which this motion asked of them, and that motion was sent to each one of them. A total lack of discipline prevails, and there is no uniformity. We would have expected Mr. Martin to have reprimanded those local authorities on their lack of discipline, but instead he attacked the hon. the Minister who has come forward with a measure which will create order out of this chaos.

Why do I support this Bill? I support it in the first place because it puts an end to a confusing situation. It is not conducive to good order that, as is the position in Natal at present, one local authority may decide that there shall be no shows on Sunday, while a neighbouring town decides otherwise. Elections on this issue are continually being held, and there are local authorities in which a resolution was adopted with a bare majority of one. After the election the entire community was in an uproar. The main election issue of the candidates was that they were either in favour of film shows on Sundays or opposed to it. We are going to experience a constant see-sawing in Natal as councils rescind decisions.

The Bill is also essential because of the question of the drive-in cinemas which was mentioned, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to this matter. There are certain drive-in cinemas which do not fall within the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities, but which are controlled by licensing boards which receive their powers from the provincial council.

My most important reason for supporting the Bill is that I believe that it is our task to take preventive measures against that tidal wave of subversive forces which is bearing down so ominously today on the virtue and integrity of our people. It is depriving our people of their spiritual anchors, of their moral values and their most precious possessions.

When we have lost those things, we have lost everything. We should fear this more than any external threat, for if we have become rotten and weak on the inside, we can no longer defend ourselves against the external threats. It is true that when we detract from the Sabbath, we detract from the church, and when we detract from the church we detract from the family. When we detract from the family, we detract from the nation. This nation was built on spiritual foundations and if those-foundations are ever undermined, everything we have built up here over generations will collapse in ruins. I support this Bill for we are living in a time in our history in which we will be in sore need of those spiritual anchors. I think it must weigh heavily on the conscience of those people to come to this House and, in a frivolous spirit—such as that which one or two hon. members have already displayed—ridicule those values which are not only important to us, but which are everything to us.

In conclusion I want to refer again to the debates in the Natal Provincial Council and to the standpoint adopted by Mr. Martin, the leader of the provincial council. It was a very strange view which he adopted there. On page 195 of the 1975 Hansard he said the following—

Oh well, that is also the standpoint expressed on the opposite side. But listen further to a man who says that we do not have the right to prescribe to people what they should do all day on a Sunday, and that we do not have the right to introduce legislation on this matter. Immediately afterwards he stated—

and the “them” to whom he was referring are the non-Christians. He was referring to the Indians. I quote further—

It was not a slip of the tongue on his part. On the following page he said the same thing again. He said—

This is a man who feels incensed at the idea that there should be any infringement of those four religious days. I agree with him on this score. This Bill was also extended to include public holidays. May I have the attention of the hon. member for Parktown for just a moment? The other day I enjoyed a programme on the Day of the Covenant very much indeed. There the hon. member for Johannesburg West acquitted himself brilliantly of his task, but then the hon. member for Parktown said a very strange thing. He said that he had heard of a clergyman who had said that the Voortrekkers did not have the right to raise the status of 16 December to that of a Sunday.

No, I said that they were not entitled to commit their descendants.

Yes, they were not entitled to commit their descendants to regarding it as a Sunday. The hon. member is a journalist. That is not surprising at all. If he could find a theologian who maintains that the Voortrekkers did have that right, it would definitely be newsworthy. I am saying this because I know of thousands of theologians who confirm precisely what he said there. After all, we do not have the right to do so, the Voortrekkers did not have that right either, the Church does not have the right, the State does not have the right to raise the status of any day of the week to that of a Sunday. We cannot do this to Good Friday, the Day of the Covenant, or any other day. The prescribed day in Scripture is the Sabbath, and that day alone. Of course one has respect for those other days and for what they signify, but one cannot raise the status of man-made days—and they are man-made days—to that of a Sunday. That is why one can feel as strongly about this matter as Mr. Martin felt, but then without such a casual attitude towards a Sunday, the day of the Lord.

René, you may as well scrap one of your arguments now, because if falls away.

For the reasons which I have already mentioned, I am very glad to be able to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the longer I listen to the debate, the more I believe that the hon. member for Newton Park was correct in asking the House to appoint a Select Committee before the Second Reading to investigate this matter. I have just listened to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Port Natal. I am no match for him when it comes to religious learning or to matters concerning the church. From the nature of the case he is a man who has an intimate knowledge of these matters. He described to us the nature of the Sabbath, and I have no fault to find with his description of how we ought to behave on the Sabbath. What troubles me about the hon. member’s arguments, however, is why he is applying that view exclusively to film shows. Why does he ignore all the other things done on a Sunday? We must remember that the hon. member supports the Bill. He wants to see the Sabbath the way he wants to see it, but only in respect of the showing of films. All the other things he ignores.

They are not relevant here.

As I have said, there is something unsound about the argument which troubles me, and because there is something unsound about it, I want to submit that the hon. member for Newton Park had good reason for asking that this matter be properly investigated by other people.

The arguments advanced by the hon. member for Port Natal were not the only ones that were unsound. The hon. member for Koedoespoort argued very convincingly that if an Italian comes to South Africa, he must conform. He may do what he likes, but he must be sure not to attend a film show, for then he will be in trouble. He may play golf, he may go swimming, he may play cricket, he may watch soccer and he may even attend a film show free of charge, but he may not attend a film show if he has to pay for it. The logic behind that argument escapes me. That is why I believe that we should have this matter investigated further.

The hon. member lor Klip River said that we were trying to shirk our moral duty by requesting a Select Committee. Is that so? If that is so, did the predecessor of the hon. the Minister of Justice also shirk his duty when he appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the question of Sunday sport? Did he shirk his duty? That was another matter which was investigated to good effect. In that case, the question of shirking one’s duty did not arise at all. The fact is that an attempt was made to obtain certainty and facts and that these were provided by people who knew more about the matter than we did.

The hon. member for Pinetown—he is not here at the moment—said he could not understand our wanting a Select Committee on such a small and simple matter as the showing of films on Sundays. Mr. Speaker, the matter is so simple that this hon. House has been discussing it for hours now. That is how simple the matter is! On the contrary, the matter is not simple at all. I find it a pity that a Bill of this nature has been brought before this hon. House and that the situation has arisen where members of Parliament and politicians have been playing with arguments and counter-arguments in an attempt to ascertain whether or not a matter of this delicate nature should become law in South Africa. For that reason I believe that the hon. member for Newton Park made a very sound suggestion when he asked the hon. the Minister for a Select Committee.

What are we trying to achieve with this Bill? We are trying to achieve a pattern of behaviour for Sunday observance, as the hon. member for Port Natal said, a pattern of behaviour which will at least preserve the spirit of Sunday. We all agree with that. No one would object to the desire to have a Sunday of this nature in South Africa. However, how are we trying to achieve this? We are trying to achieve a pattern of behaviour which will be suitable for Sundays by prohibiting the performance of certain acts. We are trying by means of a negative action to call forth a positive reaction from the people. We are telling the people outside: “You may not eat of the fruit of that tree.” It seems to me that when it comes to a matter such as this one, the more we say by way of legislation that the fruit may not be eaten, the more vulnerable the matter will be and the more unsound the argument will remain. It seems to me that what we need in South Africa is not a negative approach, not a negative action calling forth a positive reaction. What we do need in South Africa is a positive action to rectify the matter, and I say with the greatest respect that I do not think that action should be taken by the State. I have the greatest respect for the positive action taken by our churches to rectify the matter.

Suppose I am mistaken in my view. Why are we then to try and rectify the matter by prohibiting films and nothing else? I have already pointed out that there is no difference whatsoever between wanting to look at a film on Sunday and wanting to go and play a game of golf.

What about the question of payment?

I shall come to that. There is no difference whatsoever between looking at a film and playing cricket. If the one is a sin, the other must be a sin as well. To me it seems completely illogical to call the one fish and the other flesh. The only argument advanced by the hon. member on the other side is that the Bill refers to films shown for a consideration. I really cannot understand why the nature of the deed should be changed by payment. Whether a deed is good or sinful, payment or non-payment is not going to make any difference to the nature of that deed.

In any case, you have to pay to play golf.

I stand corrected; one pays very high fees for golf. I am glad to learn that the hon. member for Houghton also plays golf. I cannot see any difference in the nature of my behaviour whether I go to see a film free of charge or for an entrance fee on a Sunday. The commercial aspect has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the act. If my hon. friend from Port Natal wants to be correct in condemning all the acts performed on a Sunday nowadays, saying that they desecrate the Sabbath, then I say to him: I may agree with you, but at least be logical: draw the line all the way through; tell me where I should stop in my behaviour. Where should I stop? I find it difficult.

Another question I want to ask is this one; even supposing I am wrong again, and my hon. friend with his superior knowledge of Biblical matters, my hon. friend of Port Natal, is in fact able to tell me where that line must be drawn—is this to be done by the State? Who is to draw the line? Now, this is how the matter seems to me: I may be misinterpreting the Christian religion, but as an individual—I am now speaking only as an individual; as a member of Parliament I have not been instructed by my electorate to take a stand concerning their conduct on a Sunday—I have always accepted that an outstanding characteristic of the Christian religion is that it promotes tolerance, tolerance towards one’s fellow-man.

And if one is to be tolerant in this matter, and the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that the State ought to do this, then I say no; one should rather bring down the question of force to the lowest possible level, so that the decision will be made, not on a high national level, but rather on a local level, and in this way one is likely to give offence to the smallest number of people. In this way one would be subjecting people to the smallest amount of force.

The whole issue is surrounded by quite a number of questions, questions I cannot answer—to my regret. Even my hon. friend of Port Natal cannot give a satisfactory answer to these questions. I think there are many municipalities who would be only too glad to have the hon. the Minister take action in this matter. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because they do not have the courage themselves to take a stand on the matter. Now the hon. the Minister will do the work for them. If we value democracy in South Africa, if we want to preserve in all its vigour the spirit of the decision of the people and of the community, then, I believe, the municipalities and local authorities must be placed in a position in which they will be forced, if necessary, to take a stand on this matter to the satisfaction of their people. However, I repeat that this is my personal view. I do not know whether I am right. I should very gladly read a report by people who have a deeper insight than I into the spiritual affairs, the sociological affairs, of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all these questions because they are questions which have occurred to me. I ask all these questions because they are questions which are being asked by people outside as well. I ask all these questions because I know that we are living in changing circumstances. The nation of today is not the nation of yesterday, and it is no use trying to ignore this. Our Sunday legislation of today must be very different from what it was in the distant past. Things change. A nation must adapt itself, and our Church, too, is adapting itself. The Church is adapting itself very effectively, and I am glad to be able to say this. The Church is adapting to change, but is not changing its principles.

This what I like about the matter. That is why I say that in my opinion the positive action should be taken by the Church, and not the negative action by the State. However, because I am not acquainted with the facts, I believe that the hon. member for Newton Park argued his case with great conviction when he said that this House could not do better than to do what it did a few years ago when it said: “We do not know whether we should allow sport on Sundays. Let us appoint a Select Committee. Let us appoint people with knowledge and with background and let them inform us. Then we shall know how to act.”

Mr. Speaker, the result of that was that this hon. House came to the point where it could not continue and where no decision could be taken. This may be the case with this Bill as well. For this reason I believe that the soundest step—not a question of shirking one’s duty, not for me or for the small number of people in this hon. house, but for all South Africa—will be to ascertain the facts and then, if necessary, to introduce legislation in this hon. House if the people so prefer.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me, on a point of personal explanation, in terms of rule 134(2), to refer to something which has occurred.

The hon. the Minister has consulted me, as the rules require, and I am prepared to afford him the opportunity of explaining.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asked me, while I was sitting here, whether I had received a letter from the Methodist Church, a letter in support of the legislation which is before the House at the moment. I had received a letter with a letter-head of the Methodist Church. In the same way, I had received many other letters from church denominations. I have a pile of them. I did not read them all through again before the beginning of the discussion on this Bill. This is a letter which was written by a very important man in the Methodist Church, but I notice that he does say in the very first line of the letter—

One of them is Sunday observance—

Order! The hon. the Minister must please be brief.

Then he goes on to support me, but I should not like to leave the impression at this stage of the debate that the support came from the Methodist Church as a whole, and I apologize for having created that impression.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Maitland. He referred to certain arguments and theological points advanced by the hon. member for Port Natal. It would perhaps have been better if the hon. member had read that speech first, before commenting on it. The hon. member for Maitland was concerned about why the hon. member for Port Natal had concentrated his arguments only on films when what was at issue was the observance of the Sabbath. However, that is all that is at issue at the moment. The hon. member wanted—so it seemed to me—to bring other matters, such as the practising of sport on a Sunday, into this as well. That is something which is not relevant at this stage and in this Bill. It is in fact a matter which has an entirely different history and which does not take place on the same commercialized basis. The hon. member also raised the question of tolerance. It is my conviction that one may sometimes be too tolerant of sin, and that one might be overwhelmed by it in the end. This afternoon I do not want to advance any further theological arguments— perhaps I could discuss the matter with the hon. member himself.

Firstly I want to discuss the standpoint of the Opposition parties on the question of whether the central Government should remain aloof or neutral towards a subject of this nature, and should leave it to the local authorities or the local communities to decide on the control of films on Sundays. Firstly, this would mean that the State would not, then, be entitled to involve itself in the moral sphere. In other words, the State would not be entitled to take action in the sphere of pornography and repulsive reading matter, and we would then have to leave this as well to the Church or the local authorities. Secondly, we would have the position in every community that there would be people in favour of this matter and people opposed to it, which would constitute a source of great dissatisfaction and dispute in every community. I should like to tell the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg North and Pietermaritzburg South, who are not present here at the moment, that they are welcome to make inquiries, and that they will find there are thousands of people in Pietermaritzburg who are in favour of this legislation.

Thirdly I am convinced that this subject will, time and again, be one of the main issues at every local authority election, and that the question of Sunday observance, for or against, will permanently be dragged into a never-ending debate throughout the country, merely in order to create confusion and arouse feelings so that, in the end, what is in fact a scandalous debate will be conducted on the question of Sunday observance. A fourth point which has already been emphasized by members is that there would be no uniformity either.

We know, moreover, that the Opposition Press has never made a secret of the fact that they want to break the NP, and particular the Afrikaner as well, by opposing it, inter alia, on the question of its traditions and Church; in fact, wants to alienate them of that Christian outlook on life. They want to try to make us ashamed of these things and to belittle them. We heard this kind of sentiment being expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Sandton. In my opinion the hon. member for Sandton galloped through this Bill with all kinds of disparaging standpoints. For him and his party what is at issue in the first place is simply the individual and his freedom and after that, if at all, God and His commandments. The PRP, I believe, is the party which will change the entire character of South Africa if it were to come into office, particularly the traditions of the country, but also the Church. I believe that this party and its principles will close the doors of the Churches in South Africa, except for those among these institutions which proclaim violence in the name of God, foment incitement and proclaim so-called freedom. My impression is that the PRP does not even recognize the uniqueness of Sunday. The whole issue, for the hon. member for Sandton and his party is—I am quoting from his unrevised Hansard (Hansard 2/2, p. Z. 1)—

Subsequently he also referred to “Central Government infringement”.

This Bill has nothing to do with the private and personal right of any individual to spend his Sunday on any form of recreation which he prefers, nor does the Bill place any coercion on the faith of any individual. It has nothing to do with the question of religious freedom, or otherwise, and it is in no way an attempt to force people to go to church, as the hon. member for Sandton implied. The hon. Minister made this very clear in his Second Reading speech, and I just want to quote this section by way of emphasis (Hansard, 2/2, p. J 3)—

The hon. member for Sandton and other members of the Opposition argue that rights are being rescinded. However, film shows on Sundays are not being prohibited. A person may still rent a film of his own choice for his own purposes and exhibit it at his home on Sunday, if he is so inclined, and if he really has a need to do so. Secondly—I do not want to elaborate on this any further—it is also possible in certain circumstances to obtain exemptions to the prohibition of the exhibition of films from the hon. the Minister or the persons to whom his power has been delegated. This has already been pointed out by several speakers.

I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East that it would not be desirable to make business days of Sundays and hire out films. There is enough time during the week to do that.

Now I want to refer to the argument which is being used against us, namely that television, and therefore films, is being allowed on Sunday. Firstly, in reply to that, I want to argue that such films are not being exhibited in a public place. Secondly, television is not being commercialized, nor is there any question of a consideration. I am convinced that the argument advanced by hon. members that the licence fees for television may be regarded as a consideration is quite unfounded. Thirdly, there are no organized exhibitions. Fourthly, every individual has control over the utilization of his television set, for he may switch it off if he so wishes. However, he has no control over the film which he goes to see. Fifthly, I believe that the programmes presented on Sundays on television are to an overwhelming extent adapted to the character of the day, with a few exceptions. I should like to draw a few practical comparisons between the programmes offered on television on Sundays and those on the cinema screen. The S.A. Cine Club advertised two shows for Sunday, 29 January 1977, at 5.15 p.m. and 8.15 p.m., respectively. Our church service times fall within those times. In the five cinemas they were presenting: In Kine I Date with a Lovely Girl—no persons 4 to 21. The hon. member for Parktown argued in favour of the young people in his speech. He asked: “Where, then, should our young people go?” In Kine II the subject matter was: Let the Good Times Roll. In Ster Elite: Rosebud—no persons 4 to 14. In Cinerama Terror in the Woods—no persons 4 to 16. In the Ster Constantia Drowning Pool—no persons 4 to 14. The membership fee is R1 per annum, but they charge an entrance fee of 75 cents per person.

On that same evening the following programmes were presented on television: Ligstraaltjies; Historiese Kerkgeboue; Met Woord en Lied; Tema met variasies; Die Nuus; Horizon, which dealt with excavations; a film version of a Gilbert and Sullivan Opera, and the Epilogue. To see whether it was not an exception, I looked up the previous Sunday’s programme. For Sunday, 22 January 1977, the S.A. Cine Club advertised two shows, also at 5.15 p.m. and 8.15 p.m. In Kine I the films Fat City and Stacey Keach (Murder)—no persons 4 to 16 years—were presented. In Kine 2 Forty Carats (Comedy); at the Cinerama, The Chase (Thriller)—no persons 4 to 18 years. In Ster Elite Night of the Generals—no persons 4 to 12. In the Ster Constantia Murder on the Orient Express—no persons 4 to 10. For the same Sunday evening the Sunset Cinema Club advertised: To Hell and Back—no persons 4 to 12.

At this stage I did not really have the hon. member for Houghton in mind, but the hon. member for Durban Point, for last week he implied that he was even prepared to co-operate with he devil. I wonder whether the hon. member for Durban Point would not be prepared to co-operate with the Church for a change. On that same evening, 22 January, the following television programmes were presented: Tick-tock Time; Cross-roads; Thy Kingdom Come; a quiz programme entitled “Specialists”; ballet; News Review; Bybelvasvra; Groot Veldslae van die Verlede and Lig van die Wêreld.

I think these examples indicate clearly that at that very time when our ministers are preaching the Word of God from their pulpits, these films, most of which are not even accessible to our young people, are being exhibited. I am therefore very grateful for this legislation because I think there is a great need among our people and among our churches in this regard. That is why it will be welcomed and not only by the Nationalists or the Afrikaans-speaking sector.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has indicated that there was perhaps no connection between the position as far as the Select Committee on Sunday Sport and Entertainment is concerned and the legislation which is before the House. I should like to indicate that the Select Committee which had considered the proposed legislation at the time did not only deal with Sunday sport, but also with entertainment. It had an extremely wide scope. In fact, the Bill that was sent to the Select Committee stated that “no person shall organize, direct, control or take part or be present at any public sportsmeeting, entertainment, game contest or function”. Obviously, that Bill covered an extremely wide field when it was introduced by the then Minister of Justice, who now happens to be the hon. the Prime Minister. Because the Bill covered such a wide field the Select Committee had to take into consideration the evidence from a large number of organizations, including all the major churches, in order to reach a decision as to what should be done in regard to the proposed legislation which was referred to it before the Second Reading. I might also mention to the hon. member for Klerksdorp that the schedule of that Bill seeked the repeal the same ordinances which this Bill now seeks to amend in regard to Sunday film shows. It had the same object of bringing about a situation of uniformity.

The whole question of uniformity in regard to Sunday observance is a contentious matter, a matter on which people have varied opinions. That is why it became increasingly obvious to the members of the Select Committee that in considering this matter, one would have to take into account the divergence of opinion concerning Sunday observance. This Bill is undoubtedly connected with Sunday observance and the hon. the Minister has virtually indicated that his object is to prevent commercialization taking place on a Sunday. I believe that is the main basis of the hon. the Minister’s argument as far as this Bill is concerned. We have listened to a considerable number of speeches dealing with the theological aspect. I do not wish to delve into that, but should like to refer to the South African Yearbook of 1975, which indicate under the heading “Religion”, that it is common knowledge that church attendance in South Africa is good, that it does not only apply to the rural areas, which are generally considered to be conservative, but that it is particularly applicable to urban areas. It is particularly noticeable that in the cities young people fill the churches to capacity on Sundays. This same official yearbook, which is issued by the Department of Information, also indicates that as far as 1975 is concerned, 85,1% of all people in South Africa are members of a church or of a religious group. Of the White population group 93,8% claim adherence to the Christian faith. It would appear that up to 1975 the churches were not really subject to any great problems as far as their attendances were concerned. As far as bringing people over to the Christian faith is concerned, it would appear that a very large percentage of the country’s inhabitants adhere to the Christian faith. Therefore, if there is in any way a threat to the churches which this Bill aims to eliminate, we should like to know what that threat consists of. If one look at the situation today, very few local authorities permit films to be shown on a Sunday. It would be interesting to have a survey as to the number of people who are in fact attending such shows. We know that there have been film clubs and film circles in the past. I myself attended a film circle some 15 years ago, and at the time there was no objection to these film circles, just as there has not been any objection from a large number of the people in South Africa in regard to Sunday cinemas, they do not wish to see this type of legislation introduced on a uniformed basis throughout the Republic.

That is the reason why I believe that this has some connection with the position, as far as the showing of films on a Sunday is concerned, with the times at which such films are shown. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister that films should not be shown at times when church services are taking place, such as Sunday mornings. It is also wrong that a cinema should have its shows at the same time that churches are having their services during the early part of the evening on Sunday, and such shows should be held at least after 20h30 in the evening on a Sunday.

And if they do not?

The hon. the Minister asks what will happen if they do not. I would like to know whether any attempts have been made to persuade them to do so, because the whole question of the timing of a function on Sunday is an important one and was considered in the 1960’s, when it came to the question of professional football. I know, from a personal point of view, that in Durban there were strong objections to professional football being played on a Sunday morning. Representations were made to the authorities—the local authority, the Football League and the Football Association—and they immediately acceded to the request. Football games now take place on a Sunday afternoon, and as far as I know, there have been no objections since they have been taking place on a Sunday afternoon. It does indeed become a family affair because the children can attend their Sunday school and the parents themselves can attend the church service on Sunday morning and then the family can watch football on the Sunday afternoon at Kingsmead. I see no evil in that, and that is why I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister now wishes to bring forward a Bill with very wide powers. He has indicated by way of interjection that he does not intend implementing the provisions of the Bill so widely, but we have to read the Bill as it stands before us. The Bill is certainly open to wide interpretations, and the only outlet is the fact that the Minister or an officer of his department, at their discretion, can grant exceptions in certain cases. It will, therefore, be interesting to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind as far as the granting of exceptions is concerned. The question of how this matter should be tackled also arises, as does the question of whether the basis chosen, namely the local authority, is indeed a wise one to encourage. This is, in other words, the existing position as far as Natal is concerned. Here the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has quite rightly moved an amendment which, in effect, would allow the position to remain as it is.

Let us look at what took place when a similar matter, concerning sport and entertainment, was discussed. I served on a Select Committee in 1963, when that committee was unable to complete its work in view of the tremendous amount of evidence which had been placed before it. The hon. the Minister of Justice at that time reintroduced the Bill in 1964 and it was once again referred to a Select Committee. During that Select Committee’s deliberations the United Municipal Executive gave evidence. This was indeed a very important body to give such evidence. At that meeting they were represented by Mr. L. J. van den Berg, Mr. W. C. Dempsey, who, I understand, is now a NP Senator, Mr. F. Jooste, MPC, who is a NP MPC, and Mr. F. W. C. Buitendag. They said that the memorandum which they submitted to the Select Committee was the unanimous decision of the United Municipal Executive when they considered legislation of the sort which dealt with sport and entertainment. They then submitted the following as being their recommendation—

This is a very strong recommendation coming from members who represent the United Municipal Executive, and this is a very important aspect which the hon. the Minister should bear in mind, namely that these people requested that the matter be left as it was, particularly as far as Natal was concerned, and that it be done at local level. This also indicates that the local authorities, through the United Municipal Executive, have very strong views in regard to this type of legislation. It also indicates that there is a tremendous divergence of opinion amongst the people as to what should be allowed and what should not be allowed on a Sunday.

Other organizations who submitted recommendations to the Select Committee agreed that it would not be desirable to have uniformity as far as this was concerned. What is the position as far as the churches are concerned? Obviously I am not going to quote from evidence given before the Select Committee by sporting bodies, as virtually every sporting body said that they should be allowed to have their sport on a Sunday if need be without hindrance. Others, such as the Rugby Board, said that it was not the code of their particular sport to have competitive sport on a Sunday. However, that was their decision and was taken by the sporting body itself. As far as the churches are concerned, there was a wide divergence of opinion. There was the church known as the Church of England in South Africa which was represented by their Bishop. This is a small church with an extreme view as far as this type of legislation is concerned. Indeed, the Bishop in his evidence said that we were raising a pagan race in South Africa. He believed that legislation prohibiting sport and entertainment on a Sunday should have the penalty of imprisonment without the option of a fine. This was the type of evidence we had to hear. It ranged to extremes as far as this church was concerned. We also heard evidence from other churches and other faiths …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister may well enjoy that suggestion although I do not suggest that the hon. the Minister should adopt it. The position, however, is that there are other churches, for example the Roman Catholic Church and others, which had a completely and utterly different point of view. Indeed, it is interesting to look at the evidence given, e.g. by the Anglican Church when they were asked what should be done, particularly as far as prohibition was concerned, in accordance with the teachings of Christianity. We must, of course, remember that this Bill is a prohibition law. Its name indicates that it is a prohibition Bill. They said they looked upon the spiritual well-being of people as being the responsibility of the churches. When they were asked whether they believed that legislation prohibiting sport and entertainment on a Sunday should be passed, they said the following, and I quote from page 89 of the report—

So there are churches which believe that this type of prohibition legislation, as far as Sundays are concerned, would rather hinder the Church in its work than help to protect it, which is the avowed aim of the hon. the Minister. I am merely quoting these points of view because these are the points of view expressed by the various churches when they appeared before the Select Committee. It is also interesting to see some of the other suggestions that were made about Sundays. The question was put to the person representing the Dutch Reformed Church before the Select Committee, and the question was: What would happen as far as the non-White people were concerned if one prohibited sport on a Sunday, since one realizes that this could be a problem? On page 76 of the report on the Sunday Sport and Entertainment Bill, the person representing the Dutch Reformed Church said—

So here we have the representative of the Dutch Reformed Church before that Select Committee giving evidence of his opposition to organized sport and suggesting that educational films could perhaps be shown on Sundays to keep people occupied in their leisure hours. I am merely indicating that this was the view that was held at that time by the people concerned. This is, I think, an indication that it was virtually impossible to find a formula or to draw up a Bill laying down certain prohibitions as far as Sunday is concerned. Indeed, I believe the Government itself has experienced some difficulty in this matter, as illustrated by the fact that this report is dated 1964. The report of that Select Committee brought out a decision based on a majority vote, a decision recommending to the Government that legislation on the subject of the committee’s inquiry was desirable. It therefore recommended that the Government should introduce such legislation at an early stage during the following session and again refer the subject matter thereof to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. That was in 1964. To date, however, we have not had legislation on the lines recommended by that Select Committee, a recommendation made, as I have said, in accordance with a majority decision of that committee. This is, in fact, the first occasion now on which we have had an attempt by the Government to find some other means of prohibiting a particular Sunday activity. The particular activity the hon. the Minister wishes to attack is that relating to cinemas and films. As I said earlier, the legislation is couched in very wide terms. I think the hon. the Minister should not take it amiss, therefore, if people look at this situation and try to imagine what the implementation of this measure will mean. Obviously the Government, with its numerical majority, will pass this legislation. It will mean extra work for the department concerned because the department will have to issue permits and consider applications for consent to show films on Sundays in certain cases. We know that additional police will have to be employed. The police force is already divided up into various squads, and whether there is now going to be a film squad I do not know. However, the police force will be called upon to perform an additional duty to ascertain whether people are contravening this particular prohibition.

The word “film” in the Bill—

Well, will people connected with certain cultural organizations, e.g. wild-life societies and clubs, who sometimes raise funds on a Sunday evening by having slide shows or showing films, have to obtain the hon. the Minister’s consent, because in terms of this Bill it would appear that that is necessary. Such people would then have to have consent. Then there are the various sporting bodies which sometimes also have film shows on a Sunday evening in order to raise funds. Such occasions are great family occasions. The family can be brought along to see the film shows, while at the same time the organizers are raising funds. These will consequently all be activities requiring permits because the showing of films on Sundays is apparently some kind of evil the hon. the Minister now aims to eradicate. However, I simply cannot understand the logic when one considers all the other things that are permitted on a Sunday evening. For example, a person who is resident in an hotel can have intoxicating liquor. He can then go and watch a TV show in the lounge.

No he will not be able to. The hon. the Minister is going to stop that.

Well, if the hotel resident does not pay for watching the TV show, perhaps he may be allowed to watch TV. The present position may allow a person to watch a TV show in the public lounge if he does not have to pay an admission fee, but as soon as a film is hired and a person is required to pay to enter the lounge and watch the film, the persons showing the film will be committing an offence in terms of the proposed legislation. However, it is quite in order for people to sit in the lounge and drink for as long as they like. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, who was previously a Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, knows of the enormous problem of alcoholism we have in this country, yet no doubts are expressed about that. Drinking is permitted.

Why not prohibit eating on Sundays?

Is eating the same as drinking? Does the hon. the Minister consider the two in the same light? That might be his point of view, of course.

It is essential to his diet.

I am glad we have added a little spirit to the debate along these lines. The hon. the Minister has worded the Bill in extremely wide terms, and there are many people who are concerned about what the full effect of this legislation will be on their lives. It might be said that the hon. the Minister is not trying to curtail what people should or should not do on Sundays, but the very title of this Bill indicates that he does wish to see to it what they shall or shall not do on Sundays because, for a start, he will prohibit films on a Sunday. So there is the prohibition aspect as far as that is concerned.

Then I wish to refer to the attitude of the people. The hon. member for Stilfontein and others indicated in their speeches that they wish to see this whole Bill extended to cover sport, entertainment, etc. They want all such activities that one can engage in on Sundays stopped. The hon. member for Stilfontein is of course just speaking for himself and perhaps a few of his supporters in Stilfontein. Surely, Sir, there are a large number of other people living in the country who also have a right to certain freedoms, who also have the freedom of the individual in mind.

There was a Market Research of Africa survey undertaken in April 1975. In that survey the following question was put to a cross-section of the public: Do you agree or disagree that the Currie Cup and other pay-at-the-gate sport should be banned on Sundays? Obviously, this is a matter that is of interest, particularly in view of the plea that has been made by hon. members opposite that the hon. the Minister should extend this type of legislation to include sport, especially pay-at-the-gate sport.

In addition, sport is obviously also classified as entertainment. It is interesting to see what the result of that survey was. The replies that were received show clearly that there is a traditional pattern in how people spend their Sundays. Different customs and traditions apply. The hon. members opposite made great play of the fact that there is tradition involved in how Sundays are spent. There is, of course, a traditional Sunday in the Orange Free State and a different traditional Sunday in Natal. Why not then let it be? When the relevant question in the survey was put to a cross-section of the people, it was shown that the majority of the people in the Cape, Natal and Transvaal favoured Sunday sport while the Orange Free State turned in a massive 79% against it. As far as the Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned, it is interesting to see that 34% of them were in favour of sport being played on a Sunday. The survey indicated too that of the English-speaking people 79% favoured major sport on Sundays, 11% were opposed and 10% had no opinion. Therefore, Sir, when the hon. member for Stilfontein comes with the plea to extend this prohibition as far as Sundays are concerned, I do not think he has really taken into account the feeling of a large number of people in South Africa. We respect the feelings of hon. members opposite and we ask them to respect our feelings as well when it comes to a matter of this nature. After all, I have never yet heard anyone in Natal asking the people in the Free State to have the same facilities available in the Orange Free State that are available in Natal. No one has asked them to do that in any way whatsoever.

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Minister is endeavouring, together with those who have supported him in this debate, to try to create the impression that they are going to be the great saviours as far as Sunday observance is concerned by prohibiting the exhibition of films on Sundays. I do not believe that this is going to be the case. It would appear from the figures I have quoted earlier from the official Year Book of South Africa that the churches do not require such protection. At the present time they seem to be able in their own way, viz. the spiritual way, to attract and hold people to the Christian way of life. I do not believe that, by making criminals of people who show a film on a Sunday by charging them in terms of the provisions and penalties laid down in the Bill, is in any way going to help the churches. Indeed, it could hinder some of the churches in their work. We believe that this matter should be left as it is and that is why I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, viz. to allow the traditional way in which Sundays in South Africa are spent in terms of the law to remain as it is.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the hon. member for Umbilo, who usually devotes a great deal of time and attention to the preparation of his speeches. However, the hon. member said that we did not respect the feelings of the representatives of Natal and in that respect, I believe, he is making a mistake. In dealing with this legislation, it is not a question of a lack of respect on our part for the feelings of others. The most important motivation for this legislation is in fact that we want to create a milieu or atmosphere on Sundays by means of which the Church will be enabled to do its work.

The hon. member for Umbilo provided figures on church attendance in South Africa. It is a very good thing that church attendance is as good as is indicated by those figures. However, if the clergy feel that the increase in the attendance of film shows on Sundays is a source of public disapprobation, it is the task of the clergy and of the Church to draw the attention of the State to the fact that this matter is getting out of hand.

As far as I am concerned, I should like to say that I welcome this Bill. As far as my local community is concerned, I have received petitions, from church bodies and cultural organizations in particular, that something should be done in respect of film shows on Sundays. This has happened specifically as a result of drive-in bioscopes where motorists have started queuing early on Sunday afternoons, waiting for the premises to open. It was said that the films which were shown were religious films or films with a religious message, but these films soon became more and more secular. They attracted audiences from far and wide on the Eastern Rand. It was said that the film shows would be preceded by a prayer and also concluded by a prayer, but as the last sounds of those films died away, the cars had already begun to leave. The closing prayer was therefore accompanied by the roar of departing cars. Money was also collected at these film shows so that they later became a profit-making concern. Now I cannot understand why, under these circumstances, the Opposition does not want to allow the State to create an atmosphere on Sundays in which the Church can do its work.

It has been said that only a portion of the people have actually asked for this measure and that they want to force it upon the majority. However, the issue here is rather the interpretation of public opinion and we know that the Opposition has never actually been expert in ascertaining or interpreting the public opinion in South Africa. However, what are the facts in connection with Sunday legislation? Why was it the accepted practice in Natal from 1838 to 1958 to introduce legislation in order to control Sunday activities? Ordinance No. 1 of 1838, at the time of the Great Trek, has already been mentioned. At that time it was a British Government which was in power in the Cape and which introduced this legislation on the desecration of the Sabbath. It was only in 1930 that the Cape amended the Sabbath legislation in order to make it possible to sell newspapers and petrol on Sundays. This was in 1930, not long ago. I wonder whether this was not a mistake, especially if one thinks of the rubbish which some Sunday papers dish up on a Sunday, for example the Sunday Times. In 1896 the Transvaal introduced legislation similar to that which had been placed on the Cape Statute Book in 1838. In Natal Ordinance No. 9 of 1939 introduced the same provision. Section 8(2) of the 1939 Ordinance of Natal allows the selling of bait for bona fide angling purposes except if one does it as a hawker. Nor was it allowed to take place in a shop. This was in 1939. In the Transvaal section 25 of Ordinance No. 14 of 1930 provides that—

As far back as 1910, the appeal court ruled that a film show on a Sunday was an offence against the Transvaal law. In Act No. 19 of 1895 in the Cape it was laid down that—

If we refer to the legislation dated from after the Second World War, we find that in terms of section 5 of the Public Holidays Act, Good Friday, Ascension Day, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas Day are considered Sundays. No one may organize any races or dog races or any other public entertainment, contest or function where admission fees are paid. This was in 1950. Only the communist Sam Kahn raised his voice against this section because he did not believe that the Day of the Covenant should be considered a Sunday. Let us look at the gentlemen who voted for this clause at that time. They were Mrs. Ballinger, an arch-liberalist, Dr. Friedman of Hillbrow, Sir de Villiers Graaff, Dr. Albert Hertzog, Mr. Pilkington-Jordan, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, Mr. Harry Lawrence, Mr. J. G. N. Strauss, a certain Mr. Japie Basson and Mr. Gray Hughes.

Then that Prog professor of Potchefstroom, Prof. Johan van der Vyver, to whom the hon. member for Parktown referred, made the allegation that this is a denial of the Calvinistic teaching. I should be pleased if the hon. member for Parktown would read that article, because in that same article he said that if the Afrikaner people were to disappear under certain circumstances, it would be just too bad. This is the type of man that that professor is. In the same article he also said—

This is what he said in that same article. Now I should like to know why a Christian Government of a Christian State may not step in in order to create an atmosphere in which the Church can operate successfully on Sundays. Why was such an important matter quite in order from 1838 in the Cape to 1958 in Natal, but now, all of a sudden, it is no longer Calvinistic? Or does it no longer suit the liberal lack of discipline of the leftist Opposition? I think that this is the only explanation. If we in South Africa found it wise for a century and a half for the State to introduce legislation in this sphere, why has it now, after 1958, become odious for the State to introduce legislation of this kind?

Prof. Van der Vyver emphasized that the State as such may not interfere as such in the private religious activities of its inhabitants, unless the activities are prejudicial to certain people. I think that this is the crux of the matter, that when one is causing a public outcry by showing these films on a Sunday, the time has come for the State to step in.