Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the Part Appropriation Bill makes provision for the appropriation of a lump sum for the continuation of existing services in the financial year which is due to commence soon. In fact the amount which is now being requested is merely an advance on the main appropriation and authorizes the expenditure of the State in the new financial year until such time as the main appropriation is passed by Parliament later this year.

The advance requested in this Bill amounts to R2 922 million, of which R2 872 million relates to the State Revenue Account and R50 million to the SWA Account. The application represents the expected spending by departments during the first four months of the financial year.

Mr. Speaker, I shall as usual give a full elucidation of the economic position when I introduce my budget on 30 March. However, there are a few aspects of our economy to which I should now like to refer briefly.

Over the past year our balance of payments has consistently been our greatest economic problem, but I am pleased to be able to inform this House that a considerable improvement has already taken place. The deficit on the current account of the balance of payments in the third quarter of 1976 was only approximately half of the deficit during the first and the second quarters, and in the fourth quarter there was a further considerable decrease in the deficit.

This improvement in the current account was attributable in the first place to a drop in our imports. At a seasonally adjusted annual rate imports decreased from R7 681 million in the first quarter, and R7 652 million in the second quarter, to R7 160 million in the third quarter of 1976. This decrease is primarily due to the Government’s strict fiscal and monetary policy, as well as to the import deposit scheme which was introduced in August last year.

Exports have increased encouragingly from a seasonally adjusted annual rate of R4 238 million in the first to R4 454 million in the second and R4 939 million in the third quarter of 1976, and in the fourth quarter exports increased even further.

The value of our gold production dropped in the third quarter of 1976 to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of R2 187 million, compared with just over R2 400 million in the first and second quarters, primarily as a result of the low level of the gold price between July and September of last year. Since then of course there has been an appreciable improvement in the gold price.

I think we may be very satisfied with the course of the gold price in recent months. Gold has shown that, despite many unfavourable factors, it still occupies a strong position. The gold market has demonstrated that it is able to absorb the IMF gold sales, as well as considerable sales by Russia. The so-called restitution of a portion of the IMF gold to its member countries last month had only a slight effect on the market because the world realizes that the central banks which receive gold will not readily dispose of that gold.

Looking ahead there are several favourable factors for gold. Firstly, there is the fact that the IMF gold auctions will in future take place at shorter intervals and in smaller quantities. This is in accordance with representations we made to the IMF, although I would have liked to have seen even shorter intervals. Nevertheless, this ought to help to eliminate, to a great extent, the nervousness caused by the first IMF auctions.

Secondly, the amendment of the Articles of the IMF, which is expected to come into operation by the middle of this year, makes it lawful for central banks to buy gold at a market related price—instead of at the present unrealistic official price—and I expect certain central banks to avail themselves of this opportunity to consolidate their gold reserves.

Incidentally, the amendment of the Articles of the IMF will make it necessary for us to introduce legislation to place the gold marketing and valuation arrangements of the Reserve Bank on a new basis. At present the Reserve Bank buys the gold at the official price of R29,75 per ounce, and then sells it back to the mines at the same price, which then receive the price for which the gold is sold on the private market. This procedure will have to be changed so that the mines receive the higher prices directly from the Reserve Bank. In addition the question of the valuation of the gold reserves of this bank will also receive attention. The necessary legislation will be introduced later this session.

With the revaluation of the gold reserves of the Reserve Bank a considerable profit will occur in the books of this bank. The Chamber of Mines has requested that this profit, or a portion thereof, be transferred to the gold mines. I have given thorough consideration to this request, but cannot support it.

Until March 1968 the gold price on the private market was kept very close to the official price. The principle central banks saw to this by selling gold on the private market from their reserves whenever necessary. In March 1968, however, the central banks of the major industrial countries ceased to buy or sell gold on the private market. This entailed that the price on the private market was allowed to deviate from the official price; subsequently the former price exceeded the official price by a considerable margin.

Now, it seems fair to me that the gold mines should receive the actual selling price for all gold produced by them since March 1968, but that any revaluation profit on gold which was already in the possession of the Reserve Bank at the time, lawfully accrues to the bank. But the gold reserve of the bank is lower now than in March 1968; in other words, the mines have already received the benefit of the private market price, not only on all gold produced since March 1968, but even on a portion of the gold reserves at that juncture. Consequently I have informed the Chamber of Mines that I shall not be able to comply with their request.

In terms of the Currency and Exchanges Act any profit or loss on the gold held by the Reserve Bank shall be for the account of the Government. Thorough consideration will subsequently be given to the question of the utilization of the revaluation profit, but it is clear that care will have to be taken to ensure that, as far as possible, the profit is not utilized in an inflationary manner.

I return now to the prospects for the gold price.

A third favourable factor for gold is the possibility of renewed inflation and exchange rate problems abroad. On this point it is difficult to speculate, but the expansionistic programme of the new American administration is at least creating the expectation in certain circles that something of this nature could happen.

The present position, as well as the prospects for the current account of our balance of payments, is therefore encouraging. Consequently I was able to announce the discontinuation of the import deposit scheme last week. This scheme served a useful purpose, particularly in order to clamp down on imports until the fiscal policy set out in the 1976 budget could become really effective. However, it was always regarded as temporary and I think that the basic fiscal and monetary measures will now be sufficient to keep imports in check.

The position on the capital account of the balance of payments is less favourable. The net capital inflow decreased from R483 million in the first quarter of 1976 to R89 million in the second quarter, and in the third quarter there was a net outflow of R12 million. The indications are that a net inflow occurred again in the last quarter. In fact, I think it will be a significant inflow.

The disappointing figures for the second and third quarters were primarily the result of a considerable outflow of short-term private capital. To an extent this outflow was attributable to the drop in our imports and the consequential net payment of trade credits; this is a normal phenomenon when imports drop. The slow growth rate of our economy and the relatively low level of private investment was also a factor. The political problems of Southern Africa, and particularly the one-sided and exaggerated reports in the overseas media, were undoubtedly an important cause of the drop in the capital inflow, and unfortunately we cannot expect the confidence of foreign investors—particularly those who do not know our country very well—to be restored overnight.

It would be a mistake to infer that no foreign capital is at present being obtained. In the first three quarters of 1976 the private sector showed a net inflow of R635 million in long-term capital, of which more than one-third was obtained in the third quarter. During the present financial year, i.e. from 1 April 1976, the Government has obtained new foreign loans to an amount of R246 million, apart from the amount of R291 million which was drawn from the IMF.

Nevertheless we must expect that the capital inflow in the coming months will be relatively modest. In view of the need to build up our foreign reserves and to pay off certain short-terms loans, it is clear that the present conservative fiscal and monetary policy should be continued.

In respect of inflation the latest figures show a considerable improvement. As an annual figure the seasonally adjusted consumer price index for the fourth quarter of 1976 was 9% higher than in the previous quarter—the lowest increase for more than three years. This is gratifying, but of course is still not sufficient.

Several factors should be borne in mind here. Firstly, increases in certain administered prices have to be allowed from time to time. This is simply unavoidable, although I can give this House the assurance that such adjustments are considered very carefully. Secondly, there is the fact that the price and wage provisions of the collective campaign against inflation terminate on 31 March—and here I wish to express the hope that after this date the greatest measure of control will continue to be exercised in the determination of prices and wages. Thirdly, there is the possibility, to which I have already referred, that inflation may subsequently revive overseas.

A favourable factor in respect of inflation is the present relatively low level of capacity utilization in our economy. Then, too, I want to emphasize that all the provisions of the collective campaign against inflation, except for the price and wage provisions, continue to remain in operation.

It is clear that, for the sake of the struggle against inflation too, the present strict financial policy should continue to be maintained.

This conservative policy, together with foreign factors such as the recent depression overseas and the drop in the gold price, has of course contributed to an inevitable drop in the growth rate of our economy. Nevertheless, and in contrast with many other countries in recent years, the real growth rate of our gross national product in 1976 was still positive, although relatively low—approximately 1% according to provisional estimates.

Of course this low growth rate has implications for employment and unemployment in South Africa. The number of registered unemployed persons—Whites, Asians and Coloureds—rose from 11 492 in December 1975 to 22 581 in December 1976. As a percentage of the total labour force in this category unemployment is still very small— approximately 1,2%. As the hon. House knows, official figures for unemployment among Black workers are not available. [Interjections.] I have seen various estimates or speculations in this regard, but they are so divergent that one can hardly rely on them, except that I am sometimes very doubtful about the excessively high estimates. The most scientific estimate that I am aware of indicates an increase between mid-1975 and mid-1976 of 38 000 in Black urban unemployment and 62 000 in Black unemployment in the rural areas outside the homelands, which, under the circumstances, does not appear to be excessive.

It is important to note that employment is still increasing. The seasonally adjusted index of employment in the non-agricultural sectors shows an increase from 115,3 in December 1975 to 116,8 in September 1976.

†Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of critics of our present economic situation or of the Government’s economic policies. [Interjections.] In particular, much publicity—I would say excessive publicity—has been given to criticisms recently expressed by a gentleman who, though undoubtedly eminent in his own field, is perhaps not equally noted for the balance or moderation of his views on national economic affairs. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister, as well as my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, dealt effectively with some of his criticisms in this House last week, but I should like to make some further brief reference to them, and to the views of other critics, this afternoon.

I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulties of our economic situation. We have a balance of payments problem; we have a growth problem; and we have an inflation problem. [Interjections.] But we should look at the situation in perspective, in the context of a world plagued by economic problems which, in some countries, are of crisis proportions. And we should compare like with like; that is, we should see our position in the perspective of the situation in countries in a similar stage of economic development.

Talk about South Africa.

I was about to say, when I was once again interrupted, that I am dealing with facts relating to South Africa.

In its annual report the IMF publishes statistics for a group of countries which it calls “the more developed primary producing countries”. Perhaps one or two members on the Opposition benches who are so vocal, might even have seen these. In addition to South Africa, this group comprises Australia, New Zealand, Spain and a whole number of the smaller and less industrialized countries of Europe. For this group, the growth rate in 1975—the latest year for which statistics are available—was 1,6%; ours was 2,25%. For most of the industrial countries, I might add, the growth rate in 1975 was negative. For the group which I have mentioned, the rate of inflation in 1975 was 16,7%; ours was, at its highest, 13,5%. The latest available figures show that inflation in Australia, New Zealand and Spain is still far above South Africa’s level, and in fact half the industrial countries of the world have inflation rates in excess of 9%—many of them far in excess of 9%. As regard unemployment, it is well known that this is still an extremely serious problem in Europe and in North America. The balance of payments on current account of the group of more developed primary producing countries deteriorated from a combined surplus of 1 billion U.S. dollars in 1973 to a deficit of no less than $14 billion in 1975—two years later—and most of these countries financed their large deficits in part by heavy borrowing on the international financial markets. The recent substantial devaluation of the Australian and New Zealand dollars shows that the balance of payments problems of important countries in the group are by no means solved.

The troubles of other countries give me neither comfort nor reason for complacency, but they do serve to place in better perspective the gloom-and-doom prophecies of those who see only South Africa’s problems and blame them all on the Government-myopic critics who see only the mote in South Africa’s eye and not the beam in the eyes of other countries.

I should also point out that South Africa not only has to cope with problems similar to those experienced by other countries in the group of more developed primary producing countries; we also have particular or peculiar problems of our own. [Interjections.]

Order! If I am not mistaken the House will devote 12 hours to debate these matters and I should therefore like hon. members to listen to the hon. the Minister without interrupting him.

I would mention specifically the fall in the gold price since the end of 1974, the effect of political events in Southern Africa on the confidence of some foreign investors, and the need to increase very substantially our expenditure on defence. It is, indeed, a tribute to this Government’s economic and financial policies that, despite these additional adverse factors, our economic situation compares favourably with that of other countries in a similar stage of development.

The soundness of our financial policies is further illustrated by the action of the IMF in permitting South Africa to make substantial drawings on the Fund. Such drawings are only granted when the Fund is satisfied, after a thorough study by its staff, that the country’s policies are likely to lead to a substantial improvement in its balance of payments. Apart from the import deposit scheme, about which they could not be expected to be particularly enthusiastic, the IMF mission which visited South Africa last July were in full agreement with the Government’s financial policies and had no hesitation in recommending that the drawing be granted, and last November the IMF was prepared to grant a further substantial drawing under the so-called compensatory facility.

Even more important, the most recent trends, as I have already indicated, show that we are definitely on the right track. The current balance of payments is improving, inflation is diminishing, and if we persevere with our present policies the rest will certainly follow in good time.

According to Press reports, the critic to whom I have already referred described the 1976 budget as “a tragedy”, and argues that this budget, though necessary, was the result of Government overspending since 1972. So the 1976 budget was a “financial tragedy” because those immediately preceding it overspent! I ask the House: What sort of argument is that? This overspending he apparently ascribes to the fact that, as he puts it, “the Treasury was bitten by the gold bug”. I must emphasize that I have had to rely on newspaper reports since I have not had an opportunity to read this critic’s book. [Interjections.]

This is of course not a new criticism, though I cannot recall that any of the critics who are now so wise after the event forecast at the time that the gold price would fall to the extent that it did in 1975 and 1976. But that is by the way. Is it really true, however, that Government expenditure was allowed to increase to such an extent during the past few years as to cause serious problems to the economy?

The best way to judge this, I believe, is to relate Government expenditure to the national accounts. Expressed as a percentage of gross domestic expenditure, consumption expenditure by general government—which includes all public authorities but not their business enterprises—increased from 12% in 1970 to 13,1% in 1972, then declined to 12,3% in 1973 and 1974, then rose again to 13,8% in 1975.

I suggest that these figures scarcely seem to justify the charge of profligate Government spending. It must be remembered that the past two years have seen a tremendous but unavoidable increase in spending on defence. If defence spending is excluded, the relative percentages are 9,7% for 1970, 10,8% for 1972, 10,3% for 1973, 10,1% for 1974 and 10,3% for 1975. Again, these figures scarcely support allegations of unbridled Government spending. They also include many items which, for special reasons, have shown large increases in recent years, such as expenditure on homeland development and on strategic stockpiling.

What about capital expenditure? Again, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic expenditure, the gross domestic fixed investment of public authorities varied from 8% in 1970 to 10,8% in 1972, 8,9% in 1973, 8,4% in 1974 and 9,7% in 1975. The percentages fluctuate and there has been a slight tendency to increase, but again they hardly support the impression of a reckless slide towards socialism.

Figures for the public corporations show a more definite upward trend. As a percentage of gross domestic expenditure, the gross domestic fixed investment of these corporations rose steadily from 2,6% in 1970 to 4,6% in 1975. There were good reasons for this increase. Most of the public corporations furnish basic infrastructure services or, as in the case of Iscor, a basic product for private industry. Nevertheless, I would agree that in this case this is no doubt a trend which we shall wish to watch in the future.

In general it is true that, over a long period, the State’s share in the South African economy has increased. This is a worldwide trend, and is certainly not confined to countries which are socialist or near-socialist. It is to be expected that, as national income increases, there should be a greater demand for the so-called “collective goods”, such as are generally supplied by public authorities. We all want better schools, better hospitals, better roads, more efficient telephones and all the other amenities of modem living. It is not a sinful drive towards socialism or communism which causes this expansion of State activity, but the understandable and, in many cases, perfectly justifiable desire to the people themselves.

To return to the 1976 budget, this was, in fact, widely acclaimed, both inside and outside South Africa, not as a tragedy, but as a realistic response to a difficult situation arising from, firstly, the need for a very considerable increase in defence expenditure—indeed about 40% in one year—and secondly, the substantial decrease in the price of gold, by far our most important export. “What I like best about this budget (i.e. the 1976 South African budget)”, said a world-renowned banker, at a dinner in Europe which I had the honour to attend last April, “is that it is a professional budget”. I think that it is appropriate for me to say that here today.

Another criticism which has been made, if newspaper reports are correct, is that our tax system tends to discourage private enterprise and production. The object of all taxation, clearly, is to divert resources from the private to the public sector, and it is hence very difficult to devise a tax system which does not, in some measure, impinge upon production. In South Africa, however, we have gone very far—some would say too far—to modify our tax structure so as to minimize this effect. I need only refer to the substantial initial and investment allowances, the exporters’ allowance, the Bantu workers’ training allowance, the beneficiation allowance and many other provisions of the Income Tax Act.

One final point. The Government is criticized for being hypersensitive to criticism. This is, of course, to put it politely, not true. Any Government in a democratic country must expect criticism and it is its right and duty to answer this criticism. The fact that I have today dealt patiently and at some length with a number of criticisms—most of them very wide off the mark—seems to me to be a sufficient answer to this charge.

I should like, in conclusion, to deal with the Glen Anil case and the Government’s involvement therein.

Towards the end of last year the Government was approached by representatives of a consortium of banks. They drew attention to the difficulties of Glen Anil, the involvement of the banks and the possible wide-spread repercussions if the company were liquidated or placed under judicial management. The consortium submitted proposals, which were subsequently modified in some respects, for Government assistance in a rescue operation. Because of the importance of the matter, the Government did not wish to dismiss the proposals without careful consideration. On the other hand, because of the important principles involved, a thorough investigation into the position of the company and the banks was necessary. The banks therefore agreed to a moratorium, which was subsequently extended to 15 February 1977. To meet its other current liabilities, however, the company required cash, which the banks were not prepared to advance without a Government guarantee. As an interim measure, therefore, I agreed to such a guarantee up to a maximum of R5 million, in order to keep the company alive until the Government could complete its investigation and come to a decision.

The position was then fully investigated by the Reserve Bank, and I wish to express my appreciation of the thorough and expeditious way in which the Bank carried out its task—an extremely complicated task, if I may say so.

In short, the bank consortium’s proposal was that the Government should guarantee the banks’ claims against Glen Anil, which amounted in all to a very considerable sum—indeed, of the order of R100 million. In return the banks would extend their moratorium and would cede to the Government the existing security loans. There were a number of other provisions, but it is not necessary to go into detail here.

In weighing up the proposal, the Government had to take into account the possible effects of Glen Anil’s failure.

Firstly, there were the possible losses to the banks and to other financial creditors of Glen Anil. Fortunately, it appeared from our investigation that only one bank, Rand Bank, would be placed in serious difficulties. The exposure of the other banks is in total considerable but is well within their capacity, especially as many of their loans are covered by good security. Nevertheless, the situation could have a ripple effect on other banks and especially on the smaller South African banks. Secondly, we had to consider the possible losses to purchasers of plots who had paid some instalments to Glen Anil but had not yet taken transfer of the land. According to my information there are about 4 000 such purchasers involved, excluding the so-called “bulk buyers”. Thirdly, the possible effects on the property market and on general business confidence in South Africa had to be taken into account.

These are important factors to which the Government gave very careful consideration. On the other hand, there were weighty arguments against the Government’s acceptance of the bank consortium’s proposals. Firstly, it appeared from our investigation that there was no certainty at all that, even with the large-scale Government assistance proposed, Glen Anil could be saved. There was also a strong possibility that additional cash injections would be required to meet the company’s current liabilities. Secondly, it seemed questionable to grant a Government guarantee to certain creditors, namely the banks, while leaving others unprotected in the event of Glen Anil’s eventual failure. Most important, it would create a most dangerous precedent to risk the taxpayers’ money to shore up an ailing company, and it would be difficult to resist similar demands by the creditors of any other property company, or indeed of any concern which might in the future get into financial difficulties. With reluctance, therefore, the Government decided that it could not accept the bank consortium’s proposal.

One of the first consequences of this decision was that Rand Bank had to be placed under curatorship. As I have explained, the other banks involved appear to be in no danger. Nevertheless, because of the possible ripple effect on public confidence in other small banks, I deemed it advisable to issue a statement last Wednesday to reassure the public that, to the best of our knowledge, the position of all other banks is sound. I hope that the public will act with responsibility so as not to create unnecessary problems, particularly for the smaller banks. May I also express the hope that the Press, and particularly certain newspapers, will act with due responsibility regarding this very important matter.

In order to preserve South Africa’s credit standing abroad, it was also regarded as advisable for the Reserve Bank to guarantee the obligations of Rand Bank to foreign creditors. Most of these obligations consist of guarantees issued by Rand Bank for external obligations of the bank’s clients, and it is unlikely that these guarantees will have to be implemented to any extent. The Reserve Bank requires a Government guarantee to back its own guarantee in this instance, and the necessary legislation will be introduced this session to empower the Government to issue such a guarantee.

Finally, the Government will have to implement the R5 million interim guarantee to those banks which advanced money to Glen Anil to keep it alive while the Government was investigating the position. The actual amount advanced was much less, i.e. approximately R1,4 million, and this amount will be requested in the Additional Estimates.

This has been a most unfortunate event, and my sympathy goes out to those who, in one way or another, have lost money thereby. I believe, however, that the effects need not be as wide-ranging as some people fear. The banking system, I repeat, is to the best of our knowledge sound, and even in the case of Rand Bank—as also of Rondalla Bank, which was earlier placed under curatorship for other reasons—it can reasonably be expected that, given time and good management, depositors need suffer no loss. Care will have to be taken to avoid the disruption of the property market by the sale of Glen Anil’s properties, and I hope this can be achieved. The action of the Reserve Bank in respect of Rand Bank’s external obligations has, I understand, already created a most favourable impression overseas.

I wish to stress that a very heavy responsibility rests upon the banks—eight in all— which lent money on such a scale to Glen Anil, and not only the Government, but I am sure also the public at large, will closely follow the measures they take to minimize whatever losses may ensue from this unfortunate affair.

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for our economy, as for the world economy. But I firmly believe that we are on the right road. The trends are right, and that shows that the policies are right. I am confident that, long before I present the next Part Appropriation Bill, the South African economy will have shown solid and substantial improvement on all fronts.

Mr. Speaker, I always find this Part Appropriation Bill which is presented to this House every year and asks Parliament to approve the spending of a huge sum of money, in contemporary terms, to be one of the less satisfactory pieces of work we have to do in Parliament. I say that because in fact we are being asked to sign a blank cheque for the huge sum of R2 922 million without being given any idea of how this money is to be spent, without knowing how the total of R2 922 million is going to relate to the total expenditure in the main Budget for next year and without knowing how a huge sum of money such as this is to be financed. In other words, in dealing with this Bill, we are working in the dark.

I fully realize that, owing to seasonal and other influences, to draw conclusions from the amount to be voted in the Part Appropriation Bill is a hazardous occupation. But it has not escaped my notice that the amount asked for this year is a full 25% higher than the amount asked for at the equivalent time last year and that in recent years there has been a consistent relationship between the total of the amount asked for in the Part Appropriation Bill and the total of the Budget. That relationship has been in the vicinity of either way of 29%. If this relationship is maintained this year, we can look forward to a main Budget in the vicinity of R10 000 million. That figure is a conclusion which, as I say, I draw with reservation, but I still draw it with no sense of comfort.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I am pleased to note that on this occasion he has taken the opportunity of giving this House a fairly comprehensive survey of the economic scene. He has dealt with the position of gold, the balance of payments, inflation, growth or rather lack of growth in the economy, the employment or rather the lack of employment situation, State participation in the economy and other subjects. I believe that the step which is contemplated to revalue the gold in the hands of the Reserve Bank is a wise one, one we will certainly support as it is one we have recommended on previous occasions. But there, Mr. Speaker, I would say my pleasure with the hon. the Minister ends. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Minister in his survey of the economy, has tried to place all the numerous weaknesses in the economy in the most favourable light, and in doing so, he has not been objective and in many cases has given the wrong impressions. He has omitted from his survey what is propably the most important economic factor in the present situation, namely our political situation, which has such a direct bearing on the economic situation.

Mr. Speaker, these are all questions which we on this side of the House will examine during the course of this Second Reading debate, and in order to enable us to consider the matter further, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I have found it interesting to listen to the 22 speeches already made on the subject of this Bill. At this stage it is clear, too, that misunderstanding still prevails among some people in regards to the legislation, misunderstanding which I shall illustrate later on. Speakers on the Government side pointed out that it was the aim of the Government, of the hon. the Minister, to prevent the commercialization of Sunday, commercialization which can be furthered to a large extent by the free exhibition of films on Sundays.

Speakers on the Opposition side advanced the argument that if film shows on Sundays were prohibited, cafés may not be open on Sundays either. In my opinion these are not comparable cases, since cafés are regarded as service establishments. Cafés render an essential service to the public. People who have to obtain bread, milk and other foodstuffs on Sundays, obtain them from cafés. A bioscope which exhibits films on a Sunday cannot be regarded as a service organization. On the one hand they provide for the entertainment of people and on the other they aim at the profit of the owner, and if bioscopes are permitted to open on Sundays, it can be expected that shopowners will in the future argue that they want to open their shops on Sundays since bioscope owners are allowed to do business on Sundays.

This could also give rise to hotel owners insisting on opening public bars on Sundays, since bioscope owners are free to operate on Sundays. This, however, is where the misunderstanding occurs, since this legislation is not aimed at restricting the privacy of people. Just as anyone who chooses to do so is free to have a drink on a Sunday afternoon in the privacy of his own home or that of a friend, but not in a public hotel or bar, in the same way this legislation will see to it that people may not attend a public bioscope on Sundays. But people, like members opposite, will however be permitted to see their own films in the privacy of their homes; no one will prohibit them from doing that. A lot was said about the fact that much of the population would be opposed to this legislation. In fact, an Opposition speaker found that only about 5% of the population was in favour of this legislation. I want to point out to him that he is quite wrong. The three biggest Afrikaans churches in South Africa have a little over 2 million members, viz. well over half of the White population of South Africa. The leaders of those three churches and the leaders of smaller Afrikaans churches in South Africa have expressed themselves in favour of this legislation and unhesitatingly objected to the exhibition of films on Sundays. To my knowledge, only one random test has been carried out by way of referendum among a local community in South Africa to find out how they feel about this matter, and this was in Pinetown, Natal, which, I think, is probably up to 80% English-speaking. Those people decided by a majority of votes that bioscopes should not be open on Sundays.

A two-thirds majority.

One of our newspapers, Die Vaderland, conducted a snap survey in Johannesburg last week on how the public felt about this Bill, and the report was entitled “Rather church on Sundays than bioscope”. Let me quote some of the people he interviewed: Mr. J. A. Human, a member of the Methodist Church—please note, a member of an English church—said—

Another person interviewed by this newspaper is Mr. Frankie Martim, a Spanish immigrant now living on the Rand. He said—

An Afrikaans-speaking person says—

This is what our people in general feel about this legislation. A few Opposition speakers have maintained by implication that this legislation is a so-called “Afrikaner law”. I want to tell those gentlemen that if they want to regard it as such I shall not object, because the Afrikaner has certain principles and certain customs which he wants to uphold, and because the Bill arises out of those principles and customs, I want to say that we shall continue doing so. If necessary the Minister will introduce more legislation of this nature in the future to ensure that Sunday will continue to be a day of devotion in South Africa and not simply another day like Monday to Saturday in other parts of the world. I know that we in South Africa, Afrikaners and many English-speaking people, would like to see Sunday in South Africa retaining its character as we have known it up to now, and are insistent that this should be the case. If people want to describe this Bill as an Afrikaner bill, I want to say—and the PRP can go and tell this to their kindred spirits at the University of Cape Town, who asked last week: “Afrikaner, waar gaan jy heen?” that the Afrikaner knows where he is going. As long as the Afrikaner knows where he is going, we shall introduce such legislation when necessary because it is good for them and for us—for everyone who has South Africa’s interests at heart. I was in my constituency this weekend. My people in my constituency unhesitatingly support this Bill. We want to congratulate the the hon. the Minister and say: “Thank you very much!” We are grateful to him for having introduced this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, unfortunately laid great stress on the fact that this Bill was being described as an Afrikaner Bill. He laid stress on the fact that this Bill was described in this way. I think it is very unfortunate. Let me say immediately that when he refers to the Methodist Church of South Africa, he should be clear on one thing: it is not an English-speaking church. The majority of its members speak either Xhosa or Zulu and a great number of them speak Afrikaans. I concede that there are many people within the Methodist Church, and many other churches of different language groups and representing different cross-sections of language groups, who would actually support this Bill. That is not the issue on which I want to concentrate now. My hon. colleagues from Sandton and Parktown have already referred to the irony of a protracted debate on this Bill against the background of burning social, economic and political problems. I must say, listening to the debate on the Bill, it seemed to me quite remarkable that with the state our economy is in and the consequent problems flowing therefrom, we should spend seven, eight or more hours debating this rather trifling Bill. It is beyond my comprehension. It seems to me—and the hon. the Minister has emphasized it as well—that there are two major points in this debate, a debate which has become remarkably obscure: in the first instance, the nature of the Sabbath itself and Sabbath observance, which should be seen as two quite distinct aspects, and secondly, the role of the State in relation to Sunday observance, the Sabbath and the Church in general. Just so that there can be no mistake—and I address my remarks particularly to the hon. member for Aliwal, who in his speech stressed the idea of the Ten Commandments and made that one of his major emphases—let me point out that the seventh day of the week is the Jewish Sabbath. The Old Testament refers specifically to the Saturday rather than the Sunday. It was to be sanctified by complete abstinence from work and marked by the doubling of the daily sacrifices and special gatherings for worship.

Which one do you prefer?

I shall come to that in a moment. The point I wish to make to that hon. member, and indeed to the members on that side of the House, is that if they want to stand by the Old Testament with regard to the Sabbath—and that is exactly what the hon. member said, and many echoed his words— they should be put against a wall and executed, because the punishment for contravening the Sabbath was nothing less and nothing more than execution. Therefore, I think we must be very careful when we stress the fact that the Sabbath was observed in a particular kind of way according to the Old Testament. I think it is worth recording the fact that those who belong to the Christian tradition do not celebrate the Jewish Sabbath as it is referred to in the Old Testament. Therefore, one cannot take what is applicable to one type of Sabbath in the Old Testament, and impose that on a Christian Sabbath, because the two are very different. This has been a controversy which has raged over hundreds of years so much so that there is a definition concerning Sabbatarianism, namely the excessive strictness in the observance of the divinely ordained day of rest. In its most rigorous form it is a peculiar development of the English and the Scottish reformation, being unknown on the Continent even among Calvinists. This is what intrigues me, because one would have imagined that someone like the hon. member who has just sat down, who laid great stress on the Afrikaner’s character, his views, his beliefs, his culture, his religion and the fact that he was going to see to it that what was good for him, was good for the rest of us, would not be taken in by the English and, least of all, by the Scottish. I want to ask the hon. member why they follow the English reformation and the Scottish reformation so blindly; he knows that they are not to be trusted! I am amazed that this House has been allowed to be influenced so very badly by the English reformation and by the Scottish reformation and that they have left John Calvin a long long way behind. One could speak at great length about the quality of Sabbatarianism, but one does not have that kind of time.

I believe, however, that the majority of members accept that Sunday has a specific and special character, namely that it is set apart for worship, recreation or recreation but there is a wide range of opinions concerning what it means to indulge in recreation. It seems to me that we have already moved away considerably, every one of those hon. members on that side of the House included, from the rigid interpretation of the Sabbath, as it is found in the Old Testament, and was found in the 19th century. I submit that there is a considerable difference between the attitudes of those who belong to different denominations and even those who live in different towns. For example, I do not think one could compare Cape Town with Koedoespoort in this connection. I should imagine that the people of Koedoespoort live in a different kind of way from the people who live in the heart of Cape Town. [Interjections.] I shall leave it there, because one should not judge Koedoespoort only on its representative in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Finance has said that the Government is not sensitive to criticism, but there is …

You are a lot of “Boerehaters”! [Interjections.]

That hon. Minister is the most sensitive man on that side of the House and he has every right to be sensitive, because with his kind of reputation I would also have been sensitive. [Interjections.] I assume that the hon. the Minister will be given a chance to reply and therefore he should keep quiet and think about the Sabbath for a while. The point I am trying to make is that matters concerning the way in which one approaches the Christian Sabbath, should be left to the Christian churches concerned with the matter and to the individuals participating in those churches.

I should like to say a word about John Calvin, because he figures so very prominently in the life and the ethos of many of those who are on that side of the House, and indeed in the lives of some of those on this side of the House as well. John Calvin makes it very clear in his writings that the Sabbath is “only the shadow and not the substance” to use his exact words. He goes on to say that the “false prophet” who lays stress on a day rather than on an attitude. In his Institutes (Book 2, chapter 8) Calvin specifically warns against Sabbatarian superstition. Regrettably so many hon. members on that side of the House have not taken Calvin’s warning seriously enough. They have disregarded that warning and have now become superstitious in relation to the Sabbath. In his writings he stresses that it is more important to stress a positive quality of devotion to God which is “not confined to a single day, but extends the whole course of our life”. Here he is strongly supported by the Helvetic Confession of 1566, and I am quite sure that the hon. member for Port Natal will agree with me when I say that this is perhaps one of the most important, if not the most important, confessions in the Reform faith.

The Helvetic Confession stands very close to Calvin’s point of view. If you, Mr. Speaker, read the book The Humaneness of John Calvin by Richard Stauffer you will find that on one occasion a very prominent divine, by the name of John Knox—who will be familiar to some in this House—visited John Calvin to find that he was out playing bowls. It happened to be on a Sunday and he was very shocked by this. However, I think John Calvin had every right to do this although in that time, of course, it was regarded as a very great scandal. But the next Sunday he stopped playing bowls and went yachting instead! Therefore there is much more to John Calvin than most people realize. What is more important for the purpose of this debate is that Calvin and the Helvetic Confession have strong support in Scripture for their attitudes. For example, if one reads from Isaiah, and I actually have the correct quotation in front of me, one will find the following words in chapter 1: Away with your incense and oblations, your prayers and your Sabbaths; it is an iniquity in my sight, but rather learn to do well, seek justice and relieve the oppressed. These are the words I would like hon. members to hear, because if they would only concentrate on the true Scriptures instead of isolating certain fragments from it, they would not make so many mistakes. Just in case I am accused of doing the same thing, let me develop my argument a little bit and allow me to give hon. members a few other quotations. The prophet Amos condemns those who make a great show of their religion on Sabbath and who then contradict this during the week. He cries against those who observe the Sabbath: “Let justice rather run down as the waters and righteousness as a mighty stream.”

It should be Jimmy’s slogan.

The hon. member’s absolutely right. If one moves from the Old Testament to the New Testament one will find that Jesus Himself was strongly critical of the Pharisaical attitudes of those who stressed custom, days, hours or specific clothes. He likened them to “whitened sepulchres, white on the outside with death on the inside”. He said—and surely this is what should guide us—that “Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath”. Paul, later on, wrote that “Christians should not judge one another’s observance or lack of observance of the Sabbath”. He stressed the fact that it is “the Spirit that gives life and the letter of the law that killeth”.

I have tried to explain this because it would seem to me that there is a great lack of biblical understanding on that side of the House whereas the biblical witness should be prominent when we look at the whole question of the nature of the Sabbath.

I want to go on and to talk about the role of the State in relation to the Sabbath and Sabbatarianism. According to the Scriptures, the State was ordained by God and therefore stands under God as a servant of God, having a specific responsibility to prevent religious persecution, and more positively to allow freedom of worship. The hon. the Minister and many of his colleagues have stressed that in preparing this Bill for this House, there have been a number of requests from churches and from individual members of churches. However, one would wish the Government to be a little more consistent in relation to its response to requests from the churches. For example, there was the outcry and there were the arrogant statements made by the Provincial Administrator of the Cape when the churches wanted to extend the privilege and opportunity for education, in church schools, to people of all races. Then suddenly the Church was condemned and blamed, and the Government did not respond and refer to the long list of names and denominations. Then it was an entirely different matter. [Interjections.] Then we had these arrogant outbursts condemning the Church. That hon. Minister is always slightly critical, if not overly critical, of much that the Church does and stands for, in South Africa today, in relation to the policies of his own Government.

Then, too, what about the infamous church clause which the State introduced but never implemented because the Church rose up against that clause? In succumbing to this kind of pressure from some churches, and some church members of a whole variety of denominations, I believe the Government is forcing this House into nothing less than a vote of no confidence in the Church. It is saying—and if this House passes this Bill we shall be saying the same thing—that the Church cannot cope and has not the assurance and confidence in its own message and its ability to sway and convince rather than to coerce and to compel. So the real question is not whether the Church should observe the Sabbath because that, I think, we accept; no one quarrels with that. The real question for me, however, in this debate, is whether the Church should seek to impose its convictions upon society at large, and I emphasize the word “impose”. Of course the Church has a responsibility to try and persuade and convince, but if the Church seeks to impose its convictions upon society, and uses the State as an instrument to do this, I believe that it is contradicting its very nature. For the Church to agitate for such legislation as appears before us today, would be for it to confront the world in a theologically incorrect manner. Instead of appearing as the bringer of good news, and as a community that seeks to serve the world, it will come over as a threatening, limiting, depriving, legalistic and judgmental establishment. It would then be reverting to what I can only describe as a theological perversion; it would be a false witness, and this is very dangerous to the cause of Christ and his Kingdom in the world. No one is asking for the churches to be closed down in order that film shows can be patronized. No one is saying that we must now decide between the Church and movies. It is a question of people acting out of personal conviction, and not the other way around, i.e. being compelled to believe something that other people have experienced. The Church must not be seen as something which is negative and restrictive because then its watchword becomes “Thou shalt not” instead of rather “Thou shalt”. I believe we are doing a grave disservice to the Church when we attempt to make it conform and seek to impress or impose its convictions on society at large. This can only be counter-productive for the life and witness of the Church. The hon. the Minister has made the point that he is seeking to make it possible for the Church to do its work. I say that by this Bill, however, he is doing just the reverse. Religious law, in a sentence, should be observed out of religious motivation, and should not be compelled by civil legislation. Finally, it has been stated several times during the debate that South Africa is a Christian country. That, of course, is not true. South Africa is not a Christian country. There is no country in the world that is Christian per se. There is no such thing even as a Christian Government. There is no such thing in the world as a Christian Government. There is only an opportunity for a country to declare that its basic philosophy is determined in terms of the Christian faith. That is very, very different from saying that a country is a Christian country.

You are splitting hairs.

Not at all. There is a very, very real difference, and the Bible and all the great scholars down the years have sought to maintain the difference between the Church and the State. Immediately one starts talking about a Christian country, one blurs that distinction and then we are on very dangerous ground indeed.

Do you belong to a Christian party?

Indeed I do; at least, I think I do. I know the hon. member does not agree, but his problem is that he does not understand the meaning of the word “Christian”. Anyway, I shall talk to him afterwards.

If the argument is that there are certain basic Christian principles which the Government takes into consideration as it seeks to introduce legislation, I must ask whether in the final analysis, when we begin to take account of a Government’s or country’s claim, we judge a country or a Government and its policies in terms of its attitude and approach to the Sabbath or in terms of its treatment of all the peoples within its borders.

That is the old Prog argument again.

No, Sir, the hon. member is begging the question. I have made no statement yet, but it is quite clear that we have a very, very sensitive conscience over there. Surely, of the two alternatives, it must be the latter. Surely, if we are going to follow John Calvin, if we are going to follow the New Testament Witness, the emphasis should be placed not so much upon the observation of a particular day in a particular kind of way; rather, the final test and criterion is: What are we doing in our attitude and in our policies to all the peoples of this land? One need but mention a single example; that is all that is necessary. Today we read in Die Burger that, despite the response to a question put to the hon. the Minister on Friday, there is really no change in relation to District Six. [Interjections.] I shall come to the point in a moment. When I was a young man I used to go to a church in District Six, a church that was really flourishing. It was regularly packed to the doors.

It was of no avail.

Let me say that as a direct result of the Government moving people, without their having any choice in the matter, because they happen to have skins that are brown, that same church is a shell of the glory it knew in former days. If one really cares about the witness and the work of the church, I want to say that the real test is what we are doing in our attitude towards and control of people. If we are going to accept the Christian faith as the determinant, I think we must change this Government as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Bill, I believe it is the thin end of the wedge. I believe the church ought to persuade its people as to how they ought to live and not compel them by using legislation which puts them at the mercy of an arbitrary approach. Furthermore, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and also the further amendment to that amendment by the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that we have all found the theological talk of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, to be very interesting. The part I found to be the most interesting was his remark about John Calvin that he did not consider the playing of bowls on a Sunday to be a mortal sin. I hope that all the bowlers in the House will bear that in mind. However, where I do not agree with the hon. member is where he said that this Bill was a trifling one. I am afraid that I cannot consider it in that light. It is not the prohibition of films on a Sunday that I consider to be the main objection in this Bill, but the principle of interference with the rights of the provinces and the local communities to decide what is best for them and for the people. I have become very confused listening to the speeches so far in this debate, particularly those emanating from hon. members on the Government side, and with the arguments that they have advanced, the platitudes offered and the moralizing which we have heard. Some of them sounded like evangelists out to save the souls of the wicked, probably the weak people of Natal. Many of them sounded like stem parents who were very worried about their children and that their children might want to do those things they wanted to do when they were young. Some of them sounded like self-appointed moralists, looking for the beam in their neighbour’s eye. Others sounded like missionaries on a commission basis, trying to see how many people they could convert from the “flicks” to the half-empty churches on a Sunday night. I am afraid they will starve if they are going to rely on the commission they are going to earn from this because closing every place of entertainment on a Sunday is not going to send an extra person to church. I believe that people go to church because they feel they want to go to church; they enjoy going to church and they enjoy worshipping their Maker. All the laws on earth are not going to make them go back to church.

I believe that the arguments offered so far only bring one to the conclusion that this Bill is not one that is wanted by the Government, but it is one that is wanted by the hon. the Minister. I would like to look upon it as a private member’s Bill, the hon. James Kruger. I feel that this hon. Minister is feeling frustrated because his threats have been disregarded and have not had the desired effect. He now wishes to show that he is the boss. Every reason that this hon. Minister has given sound hollow, particularly his last one where he said he was introducing this Bill to prevent people from making money derived from disturbing the holiness of the Sabbath. He talks about the Christian Sabbath. As the last speaker has pointed out, it is not the Christian Sabbath that is an issue. After all, this sounds very much like minority rule.

I did not say a word about the Sabbath. You are misquoting me completely. You did not read my speech or if you did, you did not understand it.

Somebody did refer to the Sabbath. I think the hon. the Minister did in a comment from his seat.

You are talking nonsense!

It is not a Christian Sabbath that we must enforce. After all, as has been pointed out, there are more non-Christians than Christians in South Africa and some do not observe this day at all. The hon. the Minister said his objection was not to the showing of films, but to the making of money from the showing of those films. There he cannot say I am misquoting him. As has been pointed out, this argument is illogical, and if the hon. the Minister wishes to stop all money-making from entertainment on Sundays, why just pick on the showing of films? It has been said that organized sport should be stopped. I wonder if he realizes just what falls under the term “organized sport”. Does it include even the using of a public swimming bath for organized sport? Pleasure boating on a lake or in a bay is organized.

Do not give him ideas.

I wonder if the hon. member for Aliwal realizes that mineral baths should be shut on Sundays. That should affect Aliwal North. I wonder if the hon. the Minister remembers the furore that was caused in Welkom by the closing of a public swimming bath.

I remember the furore that was caused in Sea Point in connection with a swimming bath.

Welkom is the centre of the Free State. Perhaps the hon. the Minister feels that the showing of films on a Sunday night is having a harmful or demoralizing effect on the people, but why then does he not tell us what ill-effects it is having. Has it caused outbreaks of violence, noisiness, rowdiness or hooliganism around these places? I do not think so; otherwise the hon. the Minister would have said so.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to represent an area where this so-called evil has been perpetrated for more than 20 years. I remember, when I first went to Margate, and saw they were having cinema shows on Sunday evenings, how shocked I was—I who came from the Free State—because I could not understand how they got away with it. [Interjections.] All I can think, is that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, who we then thought was “kragdadig”, was probably far more tolerant than he and had more common sense. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if I must go by what hon. members on the other side have said, Margate must be the wickedest place in the Republic. [Interjections.] I am sure the hon. the Minister knows that this is not true. The local people do not frequent the cinemas, and I myself have never been to a cinema on a Sunday. However, although the locals do not frequent the cinemas, they nevertheless feel that visitors must be catered for. This brings me to the crux of my argument. I feel that tourist resorts, particularly coastal tourist resorts, deserve to be differently treated from any other type of community. Films have been shown at Margate, with the permission of the town council over many years, the only condition being that film shows should not take place during normal church hours and that the films shown, should be of such a type that they should be subject to no age restrictions. In this respect we have had the exhibitors themselves co-operating. We have always had films of a religious, a semireligious or of a cultural nature, and I know of no harm being caused by any of those shows.

The hon. member for Stilfontein, I think, spoke about Pinetown. However, I have to point out that Pinetown is a different kettle of fish altogether. Pinetown is a settled residential community, and they have the right to decide what their residents want to do. By the same token, we of Margate have the right to decide what our visitors wish to do and whether they should be allowed to do so. This blanket legislation, Mr. Speaker, is foolish.

One cannot use the same legislation to cover all the requirements of all these different people. I believe anyone here who has spent a Sunday evening at a coastal resort knows exactly how boring and how dreary a place that can be, particularly if one stays at a hotel or at a boarding-house. What does one do after church? Does one wander around the town? After all, it is not everybody who has access to the homes of friends, it is not everyone who has the privilege of visiting people. Therefore, people have to be given some form of entertainment.

What do you do?

I have a home of my own where I can remain and where I can amuse myself.

Mr. Speaker, it has already been said that people can sit in a hotel lounge on a Sunday evening and watch the television programme. I am sure many hon. members on the other side find the television programmes on a Sunday evening very exciting, however, not all of us, I am sure, are ballet or opera lovers. [Interjections.] Holiday-makers usually have money to spend, they want to be entertained, they have no Monday morning worries next day and do not have to go to bed early. Often they have young children, children who are normally bored with their parents’ company and tend to become a handful. Consequently, they too welcome this sort of entertainment, whether it is at the dining-room table in the hotel, or whether it is a cinema show after church hours.

What is the alternative? Can the hon. the Minister think of any alternative? I have seen that, where people have nothing better to do, they loiter around the streets doing a bit of window-shopping. The young people congregate at street corners, usually in noisy groups. Ultimately, they organize beach parties where they start drinking and smoking—often dagga—and many evils result from that. [Interjections.] Such parties eventually break up with people fighting and chasing around town on noisy motor cycles or in sports cars with blaring exhaust systems, making a general nuisance of themselves and constituting a hazard to everybody else on the roads. What is the other alternative? Midnight shows! This is what we get in an effort to circumvent the law. Then there is a noise in the middle of the night, motor-cars chasing around at two or three o’clock in the morning and causing a nuisance. [Interjections.] An hon. member on the opposite side referred to home movies. I am opposed to home movies, and I am sure the hon. the Minister is too.

Oh no; now you have given them another idea!

There is no control over home movies. The type of films which are hired by private people is, in many cases, not suitable for showing to young people. Many of these films are violent and full of sex. Nevertheless they are hired and taken home where they are shown to children irrespective of age limits. I do not think that this is such a wonderful alternative. The hon. the Minister is putting money into the people’s pockets who let out home movies, because henceforth they will have no competition. At the moment they are suffering because they have to compete, but the competition will be removed and their business will boom. I am sure that the hon. the Minister knows as well as you do, Mr. Speaker, that a prohibition achieves nothing. Once you forbid something, then people really want it. Forbidden fruit is by far the sweetest.

Remember Eve and the apple.

The hon. the Minister should realize that he could have achieved his object far better by persuasion, by reasoning or by discussion. That is what he achieved with the Durban City Council, or did he not? [Interjections.]

I also believe that this is not in line with Government policy. The Government tells us that its policy is to decentralize, to give more power to the provinces because it is in line with the policy of separate development. However, by means of the legislation they are taking away powers from the provinces. In this respect I should like to quote what Mr. Frank Martin, the leader of the Natal Provincial Council, said when this motion was being debated on 9 June—

Why can the hon. the Minister not realize that in matters of this kind it should be left to the community—not to the province, but to the community—to decide what is best for them? I would commend the following words of the leader of the Natal Provincial Council as well—

After all, that is common sense. All this legislation will achieve—I am certain of that—is to encourage more bitterness and more talk of secession. I cannot believe that there was agitation or an outcry for this legislation …

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is the hon. member for Vryheid who wants to ask a question, I shall certainly allow him the opportunity.

I just want to know from the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that, after Mr. Martin had made that speech from which he has been quoting, the National Party held a congress in Natal and that that congress decided unanimously to ask the Minister to introduce such legislation?

I am not aware of that because I am not a member of the NP.

†Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the agitation of which that hon. member has just spoken, came as a result of the pressure of certain groups who call themselves Christians. They try to propagate a brand of Christianity which I compare with the Christianity of the Spanish Inquisition. I reject that sort of Christianity. Where is the leader of the NP of Natal? He has not taken part in this debate and has not been here. Why does he not tell us whether this is what the NP in Natal wants? I know what he is doing; he is playing Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of the whole affair. The hon. member for Durban Central told the House about the way the NP leader in the Natal Provincial Council spoke about this Bill and the way he feels about it. I can do no better than to quote from Mr. Hanekom’s speech.

*I only regret that the quotation is in Afrikaans, but in Natal we feel that it is not necessary to translate our Hansard. It is also a waste of money. Mr. Hanekom asked himself—

Mr. Hanekom said—

The hon. member for Durban Central has already quoted from Mr. Hanekom’s speech with regard to the other principle.

†This proves, Mr. Speaker, that that provincial council, including the NP members of that provincial council, showed a sense of responsibility in this matter with regard to the Sabbath and the individual liberties of everyone of the people in Natal. The hon. member for Port Natal—I see he is listening—stated that Mr. Hanekom, whom he had seen a few weeks ago, has since changed his mind. I must accept what that hon. member says, but I cannot accept his reasoning that Mr. Hanekom changed his mind because certain local authorities have not co-operated. That is what I understood him to say. I wonder why that hon. member did not tell us in which way these local authorities did not co-operate, which local authorities failed to co-operate, if they have shown a disregard to the hours of showing films or if they have shown a disregard of the types of films to be shown. If this is so, is it not true that there is a session of the provincial council due in a week’s time and, surely, if Mr. Hanekom feels so strongly about it, that he can then raise it in the provincial council? I doubt, however, if the matter will be raised.

I do not believe that there is any justification for this piece of legislation. I believe the hon. the Minister has introduced it only because of the one Kruger Day that has been taken off the Statute Book. He now wishes to replace it with 52. I have great pleasure supporting the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for South Coast participated in the discordant choir on that side of the House, which was surprising because we are used to something better from him. I am really shocked that this is the best contribution which the hon. member could make on legislation of this nature. The hon. member told us that the children would have to hang around on street comers and would have nowhere to go if the cinemas were closed on Sunday evenings. However, it has been testified here that those film shows advertized for Sunday evenings have age restrictions from 4 to 18 or from 4 to 21 and I wonder what will become of those children now. The hon. member also says that the cinemas in Natal, specifically those in Margate, do no harm to the people who attend them and that so far no harm has been done. In that respect he confirmed a remark made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana when he said that the people in Natal observed the Sabbath no less vigorously than the people in the other provinces. I do not know whether this is the case, because I do not know the people of that province very well. However, I should like to read what a clergyman had to say about this matter. A certain Bishop Bradley said the following—

He goes on to say—

Natal particularly, we are raising a pagan race. I fear for the future of our young people because in Natal so many young people have no Christian background or knowledge of the Bible.

This evidence was given to a Select Committee during 1964.

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

No, you have had your chance. I should like to return to the remarks which the hon. member for Pinelands made earlier today in respect of this very Bill. I listened to the hon. member this afternoon and it almost seemed to me as if I was listening to a false prophet. I really wonder whether that hon. member and I still read the same Bible. This afternoon the hon. member addressed a request to the World Council of Churches. I think that he would feel at home in the ranks of that World Council.

During the past week we have heard a chorus from those benches to the effect that the local authorities should be allowed to control this type of legislation, to decide themselves what they want to do in this connection. In respect of this matter the hon. member for Pinetown was even prepared to bend his principles to such an extent as to remain true to his Christian conviction and duty in Pinetown, whereas here in Cape Town, for the sake of political expediency, he is prepared to vote against the Bill which affirms this principle. This is the height of equivocation, because after all, a principle remains a principle. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is a senior frontbencher of the Herstigte United Party, moves this amendment, and this indicates precisely what the present position in Natal is. However, it is extremely unsatisfactory and, indeed, we have evidence that it does not work.

This is why the hon. the Minister is being inundated with appeals in this connection. In spite of the local ordinances which exist in Natal, they apparently do nothing to implement them. Let us see what a former town clerk of Durban, a Mr. Howes, said when a question was put to him while giving evidence before the Select Committee of 1964 in connection with this matter.

But, after all, that was long ago.

Yes, but when that hon. member’s side of the House used it as motivation, they said that it was not long ago. He was asked when last proceedings had been instituted in Natal under the Lord’s Day Act. He answered: “Never, as far as I can remember. ” They then went on to ask him if the public had first to complain or whether it was the council’s duty to see that the by-laws dealing with Sunday observance were observed. He replied: “The council maintains a police force to enforce its by-laws.” In spite of this, however, they do nothing—there has never been a prosecution which this man could remember. This is what is done in Durban at the moment.

[Inaudible.]

This is just the point; this is how the hon. member does it. One wonders whether this is not the manner in which the hon. member wants to do it in the future too. Actually there is no control. The hon. member for Umbilo also referred to the question of uniform legislation in this connection. In support of his standpoint he quoted the evidence of a representative of, inter alia, the United Municipal Executive before the Select Committee of 1964, a committee of which he was a member. The section which he quoted, does indeed support his standpoint, but he did not read far enough because on the following page one finds that the following evidence is also given on behalf of that same organization—

The hon. member therefore did not give the House the whole truth in this connection because he ought to be aware of this since he was a member of that Select Committee. I can go further and quote what another member of the same organization, a Mr.

Jooste, testified in this connection on pages 19 to 20 of the report. He said, inter alia—

However, the hon. member goes on to quote the evidence given by the representatives of certain churches. He quoted it in support of his standpoint against the Bill. For example, he reads to us what the Very Rev. King, one representative of the Anglican Church, says in his evidence on page 89 of the report. However, once again the hon. member does not read far enough, because on page 90, the same Rev. King says inter alia the following—

The hon. member also referred to the testimony of people of the Church of England in South Africa, and simply dismissed them as people who had an extremist view on the matter. However, let us look at what these people said and also, who they are. On page XXVIII of this report among other things the following is said—

This request is signed by 36 clergymen, inter alia, seven additional clergymen, i.e. Bishop R. C. Bradley, Bishop of the Church of England in South Africa, D. P. Myburgh, minister of the Duth Reformed Church, A. L. de Villiers, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Southern Africa and J. Poorter, President, Natal Baptist Association. The hon. member also refers to the standpoint of the D.R. Church in this connection, and once again quotes only what suits him. However, I shall quote what else was said in this connection—

Then, on page XXXIV of this report—

1. (a) to honour the Sunday in its own province in affairs and activities of State;
2. (b) to protect the Christian day of rest by legislation so that it may not be desecrated;
3. (c) to enable its subjects to observe the Sunday properly.

He also used the name of the Roman Catholic Church in this connection, and he said that they adopted a completely different standpoint. I now quote what the Roman Catholic Church says, inter alia, about this matter—

Now the hon. member for Pinelands comes here today and tells us that there is no country or Government that is Christian. I think that he should go and speak to these learned clergymen about this matter.

I will.

The problem is that he went to church in District Six!

Oh, is that the problem! To quote further—

To continue—

However, the hon. member for Pinelands also just dragged up the matter of attendance at private schools. In this matter, however, we must listen to the church, because it is a matter which lies within the province of the church. Therefore it has nothing to do with the matter relating to schools which was dragged in here this afternoon. Furthermore, Dr. McCann, also of the Roman Catholic Church in South Africa, says the following—

This appears on page 70 of his evidence. These extracts which I am reading here, are the true evidence. They are not statements fabricated by politicians who see the matter differently and who are trying to work up a group of people so that they will vote for those politicians at the next election. This is the evidence of responsible churches, evidence of the representatives of the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church in this country, churches whose members number many millions. However, it is also the testimony of the Dutch Reformed Church and other Afrikaans churches whose White members, in 1964, already comprised 52,4% of the White population in South Africa. This is the testimony of these people. The hon. member for Vereeniging also referred to this at the beginning of this debate.

But they do not all agree, nor do some of you.

When we consider this, and listen to the arguments of hon. members opposite, we are, after all, entitled to ask whether these people are the “Holy Joes” whom the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North mentioned in a mocking and derogatory manner. I wonder whether the people of his church know of his standpoint on these matters. I hope that someone will discuss this matter with him and ask him whether this is what he thinks of Christians of other faiths in this country. Judging by his obstreperous statements in this connection, I think that it is not only in the political sphere that he has lost his way. Or does it concern the 5% to whom the hon. member for Sandton, who is not here this afternoon, referred? Does it concern the high priests who want to prescribe and dictate to the people, or the minority to whom the hon. the Minister is now listening, the minority to whom the hon. member for Parktown referred? After all, if this is their standpoint, they are uninformed. If they are not uninformed, then their behaviour borders on maliciousness in their attempts to get at the NP on a matter like this.

The standpoint which I put forward here, is the responsible standpoint of many millions of Christians in South Africa. I want to ask: Must the NP, the Government and the hon. the Minister simply ignore this and not take note of it? It is my submission that should the hon. the Minister do so he would indeed be ignoring the standpoint of the majority of people in South Africa, and would therefore be guilty of not listening to the majority of people in South Africa.

Christians throughout South Africa cannot object to this legislation. Indeed, they will welcome it. A Christian will not see any infringement of his freedom of worship or privacy in this matter. To him the observance of the Sabbath is already a commandment which is not to be debated. It is quite unthinkable that people who allege that they are Christians and who pass as Christians, can make such a fuss and debate at such a fuss and debate at such length a commandment which we as Christians have had for a very long time. It is unthinkable that a person who professes to be a Christian, can stand up in this House and argue that we must not accept this Bill because it will make us ridiculous in the eyes of the world. I can think of nothing better with which to be ridiculous in the eyes of the world than this very type of legislation. We as Christians welcome this Bill and we want to give our very strong support to the hon. the Minister in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most of this debate. I think I have listened to practically all that has been said. The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, quoted to us the opinion of various church leaders as expressed some 14 years ago when they gave evidence before a Select Committee of the House. Bearing those in mind as also the points of view of members of the House who have forsaken the pulpit for Parliament and now address us in the House, I come to the conclusion that in dealing with this particular subject matter here is so much conflict of opinion that it comes down in the end to the question of how Sunday is observed by the individual. That, I believe, is our concern in legislating. A person who wishes to use his Sunday in the classical sense, in the accepted Christian sense, should not be interfered with or impeded in conducting himself in that manner by the actions of other people. Only to the extent that the actions of other people interfere with his freedom to so conduct himself, should legislation be considered.

Sir, looking at the Bill before us, I can find no logical or acceptable reason for it, nor can I find the objective of this legislation. I realize that the hon. the Minister has been under pressure. I should imagine that he has been under pressure more from political angles than from church angles in regard to the introduction of this measure. The hon. the Minister admitted quite frankly—in this he is correct—that he did not see it as his duty to persuade people to go to church. He said further that he did not want to tell people what they should do on Sunday. Per se, the exhibiting and viewing of films on Sundays is obviously not an evil in itself. The hon. the Minister in this Bill provides for permits. He says that he will grant permits in general and in a particular place and in cases of a particular nature. Certain hon. members on this opposite side who have spoken in this debate—I refer particularly to the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Meyerton—spoke on this measure as though it were a prohibition on the showing of films in public or in public places. That is not what is in the Bill. This Bill as it stands is not restricted to the showing of films ih places of public entertainment, theatres or halls; it covers private clubs and it even covers the viewing of films in private homes in certain circumstances. I myself would be guilty of having gained admission to see a film for a consideration, either direct or indirect, if the hon. the Minister were to invite me to his home and say: “Look, my friend, I will hire the projector and the film and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education will supply the snacks. You can come along and bring a few bottles of highland dew for our refreshment.” If that were to be done on a Sabbath night, I would be viewing a film for a consideration, and we would be laying ourselves open to a fine of R1 500 for having done so. It certainly is ridiculous if we try to legislate in this way, but that is what is in this Bill.

It is in the Bill. You are making your house a public place.

It is not a public place; you are laying yourself open to a fine by inviting a person and allowing him to see a film for a consideration. That is not a public place. A club is an association of people. In the sanctity of a licensed club with prohibited or restricted membership, the members will then be committing this heinous offence of exhibiting a film on a Sunday. Home movies are only going to be possible for those people who can afford to own, to buy or to hire a projector and who can afford to hire a film to show in their own homes. When once two families or three families club together to do that very act, they will contravene this law. That is surely not what the hon. the Minister has in mind, but nevertheless it is in the legislation before us. What this is going to mean is that the man who is affluent enough to own or hire a projector and hire films is going to have home movies, while the man who lives under poorer circumstances will not be able to have home movies unless he breaks the law. Surely, once a film has been passed by our Publications Board, there can be little objection to the showing of that film even on a Sunday evening.

There are three reasons why this legislation needs careful consideration. The first is that it is our duty, and I accept it is the duty of Parliament, not to allow freedoms which will restrict the activities of the Church. That is what the hon. the Minister said. Is it necessary to think for one moment whether the showing of films on a Sabbath is so restrictive to the activities of the Church that the banning must be for all day on every Sunday? Surely, that is ridiculous in the extreme? At most, it could be argued that films should not be shown in public places of entertainment during normal church hours. There is a case for that. That is something which has been adopted by local authorities. It has been applied in Natal and I am sure that the majority of local authorities would accept such an approach if they were entitled to make the regulations. They could do it quite simply because cinemas are places of public entertainment which have to be licensed by them and the municipalities can impose conditions that such places of entertainment shall not be open during certain hours on a Sunday. To achieve that, does not need this Bill.

Secondly, public Sunday film shows should not be a nuisance to or interfere with church activities on a Sunday. But are they? Interference and disturbance in the physical sense depends on the local conditions pertaining to the locality of the cinema. In my own constituency I agree that the opening of a certain cinema is interferring with and is a nuisance to church-goers. I refer to the Three Anchor Bay Dutch Reformed Church, which is almost across the road from two cinemas. If those cinemas function during church hours on a Sunday evening, every parking place in the vicinity of the Dutch Reformed Church is taken up by cinemagoers. That can be stopped simply by not allowing any cinema shows during church hours.

By law?

By regulation by local authorities. It need not prohibit films all day on Sundays.

And if the local authority refuses to do it?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has this fixation that nobody else can be reasonable except the hon. Minister.

I am telling you now that this local authority will not do it.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. the Minister that they will.

They will not.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to have the hon. the Minister put this matter to the test here in Cape Town. Let him test the local authority here and the proprietors of that theatre. They will cooperate, provided the hon. the Minister does not interfere to the extent he wishes to in terms of this Bill. The hon. the Minister gave a third reason. That was that we must not be seen to permit the Sabbath to be commercialized. Payment for admission to a cinema, I take it, is the commercial aspect referred to in this Bill, is it not the hon. the Minister’s argument? Mr. Speaker, let us be responsible and logical. The public pays every Sabbath to go inside and use the facilities of a swimming-bath. They pay to enter game parks; they pay to visit restaurants where they sit and view television. They pay for a snack supper at a hotel and sit there all evening listening, as I too have to sometimes, to oompah bands and the like which play to young people who sit and listen. Those bands are also paid to play on Sunday evenings. What is more, the public at large can bum up litres and litres of petrol by aimlessly driving around looking for something to do but they will not be able to sit in a cinema if this Bill is to be passed. They cannot enjoy the recreation provided in a cinema.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was perhaps a little bit unfair to the hon. the Minister, but I was interested to read in Die Burger of Saturday in “Van Alle Kante”, quite a reasonable statement of the situation—

That is the attitude this hon. Minister wishes this House to adopt. For that he is asking us to legislate.

We object to this “exemption by permit” law which we again have before us. There can be no norm laid down as to how the hon. the Minister is going to determine those permits. Let us assume for one moment the practicability of the whole scheme. The hon. the Minister says he is quite happy to grant a permit so that Jewish people may attend a cinema at a set time on Sunday evenings. Now, who is going to sit there and check that everybody who comes in is in fact Jewish? The result is going to be ad hoc decisions. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the words of anguish of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, on the question of ad hoc decisions when it comes to the question of the admission of audiences to theatres. This is what his colleague said last year (Hansard, 1976, col. 10240)—

The hon. the Minister also said—

He went on to say—this was eight months ago—that a Cabinet Committee had been appointed to see whether the application of the policy could be made more streamlined and where clearly set out principles could be laid down. We have waited for eight months and there is no streamlined principle because it is quite impossible of being determined. However, that is the right which this hon. Minister is asking us to give him in terms of this legislation: A right to administer the law by permits, by exemptions.

If you want me to take it out of the Bill, I will do that.

The hon. the Minister cannot take it out of the Bill, because he himself accepts that the showing of films on the Sabbath is not evil in itself; it only becomes evil when it impedes other persons’ freedom, when it impedes or becomes a nuisance to those who wish to observe the Sabbath in a particular way. We on this side of the House say, however, that it is for the local community to decide what does or does not impede.

I now come to the question of Sunday observance. When one considers the facts to their fullest extent, one comes to the conclusion that Sunday observance does not exclude recreation. I think we must also not forget that Christian charity itself requires consideration by us of the beliefs and the circumstances of all South Africans as a people, individually and collectively. I know that in terms of our Constitution and our individual conviction we acknowledge the sovereignty and the guidance of Almighty God. As a Parliament and in practice we have in our laws regulated the affairs of the country according to the norms and customs of the Christian faith and thus we have in our calendar our Sundays and our other holidays in so far as we Christians are concerned. However, there are thousands upon thousands of our fellow South Africans who accept the sovereignty and the guidance of Almighty God and who do so with a deep sincerity, but who are not Christians. They are devout believers, but they have other holidays on their religious calendar. Even after 2 000 years of existence the Christian Church has no uniformity in regard to aspects of the practice of the Christian religion in all its aspects. The practices vary from religion to religion. They accept and respect the Sabbath, but they differ widely in respect of the personal conduct which is essentially necessary to live out the basic acceptance and belief of the sovereignty and guidance of Almighty God and the Christian practice. The depth of man’s sincerity in these matters is the quality of his conduct viewed from the Christian aspect and is not something which can be laid down by laws made by this Parliament. Diversity has to be accommodated and the diversity of the approaches to the Sabbath cannot be accommodated by way of permits being issued under a Bill of this nature. This is the problem which will always come up and with which Parliament will always be confronted when it begins to regulate, by law, moral and religious aspects of our daily life.

Do you suggest that we open all businesses on a Sunday?

The hon. member is being ridiculous, Sir.

Why?

The businesses are closed on Sunday because it is a day of rest. A business does not have to be open to provide recreation for people. A cinema, on the other hand, provides an acceptable form of recreation.

If it does not worry anybody else, why can a man not go and buy a suit of clothes on a Sunday?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is now being quite ridiculous. The principle is quite different.

Why?

Trading for seven days in a week is unnecessary. It prevents numbers of persons in the commercial distributive trade from being able to celebrate the Sabbath in the way they wish to celebrate it.

What about all the people working in the cinemas?

The only persons who are prevented from so doing are those who may be engaged in operating the machines or acting as usherettes. Against that, however, they are providing recreation for others.

What is wrong with Sunday sport, then?

I see nothing wrong with sport being played on the Sabbath. Let me come back to the point I was trying to make. I think one has to be careful. By all means accept, as I do, that one man’s freedom should not allow him to interfere with the freedom of another person …

Well, why can the shops not be open for those people who wish to use them on a Sunday?

I have tried to point out that thousands upon thousands of shop-workers would be required to work on the Sabbath whether they wished to celebrate the Sabbath as a day of recreation or not…

And the hundreds of operators in cinemas do not work on a Sunday?

There are certain necessary works that have to be done. Public transport, such as the railways, has, for instance, to be operated.

Is working in cinemas a necessary work?

I told you that it is a reasonable requirement of a Christian person

You have one principle for one person and another principle for another.

No, Sir. The hon. the Minister knows that he cannot continue with this Bill, having said that the viewing of a film is in itself not wrong on a Sunday.

I am following exactly the same principle that you believe in.

That it is not evil to see a film?

Yes.

Well, then what is the reason for closing cinemas? The only reason for doing so can be that the people attending that cinema are interfering with or being a nuisance to those persons who wish to attend a church …

You may as well stop the buses running too.

That is an absolutely necessary service.

As I have said, the first reason for our opposition to this Bill is that there must be a physical, factual interference in the freedom of other persons to conduct their Sabbath in the way in which they wish to conduct it. I now want to leave this aspect, because I believe I have made my attitude quite clear. As I have said, I believe that with the divergence of approach in the various Christian denominations as to what one should or should not do on the Sabbath, the State cannot legislate on the matter. It is a matter for the personal conscience and conviction of the individual South African concerned. On the other hand, individuals must not be interfered with as the result of the noise or nuisance caused by other persons.

Sir, I now come to another aspect of this question. I want to ask the hon. the Minister also to give consideration to certain other matters. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that after the introduction of television and the showing of full-length feature films on television on Saturday nights, the cinema industry in this country found that it was having a difficult time in securing the patronage it had before over the weekend. They then commenced the showing of films late on Saturday nights. Many of them started showing films at 11 p.m. on a Saturday so that people could watch the TV film early and then go on to watch cinema films. Some of these cinema films, which run for two hours or more, intrude into the early hours of the Sabbath morning. I cannot see that there is any grave evil in this, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to bear this aspect of the matter in mind.

There is also the matter of the drive-in cinemas, which, in the summer months, usually commence at about 9 p.m. They usually have one programme which could very easily spill over the midnight hour for approximately half an hour. As a matter of fact, it frequently happens. This will be contravening the law if it were to happen. The hon. the Minister could consider these matters on the basis of permits at least so that they could be in general and so that every cinema could know exactly where it stood in connection with these shows that might spill over into the Sabbath morning.

I have raised these matters with the hon. the Minister because these are aspects which crop up if we have to legislate about matters of this kind and if we are to have laws of this kind. The hon. the Minister says that he does not want to tell people what they should do on Sundays, that he does not want to make people go to church. I can assure the hon. the Minister that this Bill is going to stop people from doing what they want to do by way of recreation on a Sunday and will have a direct and a disadvantageous result in so far as church-going is concerned. Legislation of this kind will not make one additional person enter a church on a Sunday night if they would not have done so before.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asking that the organization and control of the exhibition of films on Sundays and public holidays be left in the hands of local authorities. I just want to say briefly why I adopt this standpoint. I do not believe that the majority of the people in this country would like to see Sunday become even more commercialized than is necessary under the modern circumstances of today. I personally am in favour of preserving the tranquillity of Sundays to the greatest possible extent; and it would be very unfortunate if Sunday in our country were ever to develop into just another ordinary day. Perhaps it is the influence of the traditions of one’s home. Most people grow up with certain habits and traditions and, happily, a good tradition does not die easily, even in the most unfavourable conditions.

I myself see little danger of our Sunday degenerating into an ordinary day. My reasons for not believing that this will happen are not only religious but also social. Over the years, the tendency in our country has always been towards shorter working hours, more rest and more days of rest for the worker. This is my problem in regard to this Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced. I cannot understand what the problem is that the hon. the Minister wants to solve by way of this Bill. If such a problem really exists, then I cannot agree with the way in which he is tackling its solution. It is my considered opinion that the hon. the Minister is going to create more problems with this Bill than he is going to solve. There is already a certain degree of commercialization of Sunday; we all know this. The major factor contributing towards the existing measure of commercialization of Sunday does not lie in the private sector but in the public sector: the Government sector with its air services, its transport services, its postal and telephonic services, its radio and television services, its licensed hotels and many other things which I could enumerate. It is true that in recent years the private sector has seen an increase in the number of delicatessens open—city dwellers know about these—as well as bookshops, restaurants, cafés, pharmacies and even spares departments of garages, and one must expect this to increase still further in the future. In the urban areas in particular, Sunday has long been an important day for sport, and it is no use saying that there is not an element of commercialization involved in this because at the innumerable clubs and holiday resorts where people take part in sport, they have to pay very high prices for membership of their clubs.

Had the hon. the Minister, therefore, come to this House with a wide-ranging Bill aimed at keeping in check the existing commercialization of Sundays—not excluding the Government sector—he would at least have had a case to which we could have listened with interest, and we could have seen whether it was possible to help him. What have we now been presented with however? The hon. the Minister chooses one of the factors, namely film shows, which contributes least to the commercialization or the disturbance of Sunday. It is a factor with very little growth potential. It was, in fact, the cinemas which suffered most from the advent of television. Many have already closed down, others are becoming progressively emptier and there is already a tendency to build smaller cinemas. Surely we know full well that as television develops, expands and increases its number of channels, and as the programmes improve, the tendency to go to the cinema will not increase, but rather decrease, even more so on Sundays than on other days, because as matters stand at present, due to the South African climate, for most people in the big cities Sunday is a day for outdoor recreation, a day for driving around. The result is that it is only a small percentage of working people that also goes out on a Sunday evening to sit in a cinema. Where film shows do take place in the Christian community, church services are for the most part respected. Shows normally begin after the church services, as is the case with symphony and other concerts in Cape Town and in other cities.

Your facts are completely incorrect.

I said in most cases, and in any event, this matter could easily be arranged without further far-reaching interference. Consequently I really cannot understand why, in view of the strictness of the existing legislation regarding the Sunday observance, it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to come forward with a limited Bill of this nature, one which cracks down on a factor which constitutes one of the least serious dangers in respect of the further commercialization of Sunday.

Our country is far from being the most Christian, or—perhaps I should rather put it this way—the most church-conscious country in the Christian world, yet despite this, as a result of the existing legislation on Sunday observance, we have, in comparison with other countries—I want to emphasize in comparison with other countries—one of the most peaceful Sundays in the Christian world, as far as my experience goes. Nowhere else is it more dead on a Sunday than here in our country. I am not bemoaning this; I merely state it as a fact. Our smaller towns, and even larger towns such as Paarl, Stellenbosch and Potchefstroom—every one is like a graveyard on a Sunday. This is also the case in even the centre of Johannesburg and all its suburbs. Those areas are absolutely dead on a Sunday. It is true that there are traffic jams on the roads but in Johannesburg it is only in Hillbrow, one small spot in the whole of Johannesburg, where there is a little public life on Sunday evenings.

That is my reason for saying that I do not really know what the big problem is which the hon. the Minister is trying to solve. What I can see, however, is that the hon. the Minister is quite certainly creating new problems for himself, the hon. the Minister said that he had received representations which led to the introduction of the legislation. I know that the hon. the Minister has received representations but he has not presented us with a complete list of the people involved, nor will he do so. Will the hon. the Minister do so?

I received a bundle this size. The hon. member would not be able to read them all.

I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would submit them to the House because I am sure, and this is my opinion, that were he to do so, it would very soon become clear how unrepresentative those representations are when the whole South African population is taken into account. If this is not so however, then surely it is his duty on such an occasion to submit to Parliament the full range of the representations. Surely no one who has made representations will be embarrassed if it becomes known that he has made representations in respect of a matter of this nature. After all, we are public representatives. I concede that it is the duty of the Government, when it receives representations from any quarter, to heed them and to consider them. However, it is just as much the Government’s duty to test representations it receives from certain quarters against the full extent of the problem and particularly, not to apply double standards. If a Government representative is asked by certain churches to take action against film shows on Sundays, and we have been told here that because certain churches spoke out, he had to heed them, then he must apply the same standards in all cases if he want us to accept his bona fides. Then he and his Government must not come along the next day, when the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church and other churches want to open their private denominational schools to all population groups, and apply a different standard, and say that he will not hear of it and threaten to close the schools.

But they were acting against the law, man!

No, they have often made representations in the past.

But must the churches then continue to act illegally?

That is not the issue. They made a request at an earlier stage and the Government refused it. My point is that if members come here and say that there were representations from certain churches and that for that reason they must be heeded, then double standards surely can not be applied. Then one must heed all the representations of all the churches. [Interjections.] I repeat, if one must heed the voice of the churches, then one must give heed in all cases to all of them. The hon. member for Meyertön also suggested that one has to give heed to the church. I just wonder whether he is prepared to heed the representations made by all of them, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he has no objection in principle to film shows on Sunday and that he will grant exemption where he deems it necessary. However, this is one of the major objections I have against this Bill. Here is a prime example of what one could call legislation with a “but”. Let us look at the Bill. It is a Bill which is to become law, but it is not legislation which is applicable to everyone. It is legislation with a “but”. It states that—

Then comes the “but”. I quote—

In other words, in essence, this Bill indicates that: I, the Minister, will from now on decide who may go to the movies on a Sunday in South Africa.

That is really pathetic.

That is the crux of this Bill [Interjections.]

If you make an exception of one person …

No. Just look at the wide scope of the permission he may grant.

That is pathetic.

One politician, he alone, can invalidate the whole act. I quote from the bill: He can grant permission “in general or in a particular case or in cases of a particular nature.” It is a piece of political arrogance of the worst kind. He as Minister will become the great controller of the country’s affairs in the sphere of Sunday films. And if, therefore, there is a cinema open on a Sunday, then we can assume that it is Jimmy’s “pal”. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly when he replied to an interjection, he mentioned people of Greek descent as an example of people to whom he would grant exemption. There was the issue of some people who spoke other European languages and were unable to attend cinemas during the week and who had therefore to make use of Sundays. Allow me to say at once that I regard it as a completely wrong principle for the Government to subject yet another part of citizens’ private lives to authoritarian power which it can apply arbitrarily. The hon. the Minister may favour whomsoever he wishes. This is what is stated in this Bill. It will inevitably lead to political pressure upon him and to favouritism on his part, apart from the fact that it must also lead to an expansion of bureaucracy—the last thing we can afford these days. After all, we know that every law must be administered. This takes time and the taxpayer’s money. It requires officials, there is a lot of paper work and so forth.

[Inaudible.]

But time is money. It will entail a lot of paper work. It will create additional work and if there is extra work there have to be more officials to cope with it. With every Act put on the Statute Book, the bureaucracy has to be enlarged. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister realizes that if, for example, he were to agree to the exhibition of films on Sundays by Greek-speaking South Africans and if he were to grant exemption for this, he would have a problem in regard to the Germans-peaking people. There are 40 000 Germanspeaking people in Johannesburg. There are also considerably more than 100 000 Portuguese. Then, too, there are thousands of Italians and thousands of Dutch, many of whom still speak their own language. Thus there is a whole variety of language groups amongst South Africans. Where will the hon. the Minister draw the line? Where is he going to end his discrimination between one group of South Africans who may attend film shows and another group who may not do so? If he grants exemption to such a group of people, is he going to prevent the films which they show from having English or Afrikaans subtitles? Is he going to prevent the films which a certain group is showing with his approval from being accessible to South Africans who belong to a different language group? If so, how is he going to enforce this? Is he going to shoulder the Police with new responsibilities?

There is yet another aspect of this Bill which I want to refer to. According to its own stated policy this Government has undertaken to decentralize, and is presumably in the process of decentralizing, the powers and the control over the lives of people in the different population groups. They are using all sorts of nice phrases. They talk about self-determination, separate freedoms and, in the case of Indians and Coloureds, of domestic self-determination. But in this instance they are acting in direct conflict with their own policy. What the hon. the Minister is doing here, is concentrating absolute power in the hands of the White administration in South Africa in regard to an intimate matter like the showing of films and recreation on Sundays. He wants to have full control over this, not only over provinces and local authorities, but also over Coloureds, Indians and other population groups. I want to ask the Minister pointedly whether he is going to make any exceptions with respect to population groups other than Whites, population groups to whom he and the Government have promised self-determination in their own affairs. I hope that the hon. the Minister will answer us on that score. Is he going to do so?

Just wait.

I see that the hon. the Minister does not care to do so at the moment. He is probably tired by this time. Nevertheless, this is an important matter. The Government’s policy is that every population group must arrange its own intimate affairs leaving the Black man out of the argument for the moment, will the hon. the Minister permit exceptions in the case of the Indians and the Coloureds or—this is the alternative—is he going to apply White authority at the level of cultural, religious and social affairs, as contained in this Bill, to the Coloureds and Indians? Is he going to maintain this White authority over the other population groups in regard to a matter such as this, or is the Government going to give other population groups the power to decide for themselves, at their own administrative level how they want to handle a matter of this kind? This is a question to which we must know the answer because this bill is in total conflict with the declared standpoint of the Government. I want to ask: If the hon. the Minister and the Government are really in earnest in wanting to give the Coloured and Indian populations full domestic self-control over matters of this nature, what will prevent cinemas in Coloured and Indian areas adjacent to and among White areas from being frequented on Sundays by Whites, if the Coloureds and Indians want to admit them? Even as the bill reads now, ways will be found of getting around it. I am absolutely sure that it is only a question of time before the hon. the Minister introduces amending legislation to patch it up further. To be specific, the Minister will have to start making exceptions himself. As soon as this legislation is placed in the Statute Book, he will have to make exceptions and grant exemption.

It is therefore our standpoint on this side of the House that the sensible thing for the Government to do would be not to draw towards the White political centre even more powers than the Government already has over all population groups; this is an incorrect principle, particularly in that it concerns powers in respect of matters intimate to a people, about which different population groups and people in different parts of the country think and feel differently. Authority in respect of matters of this nature ought to be decentralized, not only to the various population groups, but also to local authorities. Existing powers concerning matters of this nature ought at least not to be taken away from the local or provincial authorities because we know full well that the different parts of the country have differing views on matters of this nature. It is not only the Opposition which feels this way. I found it interesting that when the hon. the Minister failed to proceed with the bill last year, one of the mouthpieces of his own party— Rapport—adopted this standpoint—

If I heard rightly, Israel was mentioned a few times in this debate. Israel was put forward as a country in which strict views on the Sabbath are upheld. This is true in so far as it concerns the Jews of Israel. Israel prides itself on the fact that it is a multi-national country—“a pluralist society”—in which there is complete freedom of culture for the different population groups. I have here an official publication by its information service and I find it interesting that Israel was twice used as an example by speakers on the opposite side. In regard to its pluralist society the publication states—

It then lists the communities in Israel—

They then go on to explain in the section on the Sabbath and business hours—

There you have the concept of multinationality …

Do you want us to do the same?

I am mentioning it because it was presented as an example by your side. Here we have the implementation of the concept of multinational control. They give effect to their pluralism. There is scope for every cultural group or religious denomination to make its own arrangements about matters of intimate concern to each, and each respects the customs and views of the other. In this country the Government talks about multinationalism and a pluralist society, but in practice we find that wherever local choice exists it is invariably smothered and that people are governed and ordered around arbitrarily from an office in Pretoria, according to the whim of a Minister or an official appointed by him. I am glad that a man like Dr. Wimpie de Klerk supports the correct standpoint. He is editor of Die Transvaler, an official publication of the NP. He wrote last year—“Die veelvolkigheid raak ook beleid oor Sondae.” He added: “Handhaaf die Sondag en beheer dit, in sover die Staat beheerreg en beheerplig het, maar dan sonder ’n wettiese oorentoesiasme wat gewetensvryheid aantas … Motiveer die mense om Sondagaande kerk toe te gaan en ontwikkel hul spiere om self die televisieknoppie af te draai.” This is the standpoint which he adopts.”

The Opposition would be neglecting its duty if it were not to voice its strongest opposition to this increasing tendency on the part of the Government to try and control everything in an arbitrary and authoritarion fashion.

Mr. Speaker, in his carefully documented speech the hon. member for Verwoerdburg quoted from the Select Committee report on Sunday observance, a Select Committee of 1964. He made reference to the Church of England. I think he equated it with the Anglican Church. In view of any misunderstanding which may exist, I wish to make the matter quite clear in this respect. If one refers to the figures given— which I will refer to again later—of adherents of various churches, we find that the Anglicans are sub-divided among the Church of the Province of S.A., Anglicans and the Church of England. May I say that, to the best of my knowledge, the Church of England represents a very small proportion of the total number of members of the Anglican Church as such. For the benefit of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, as well as the hon. member for Klip River who seems to be particularly interested, I want to quote from the evidence given before that Committee by Bishop R. Cowdry, who was the main witness of the Church of the Province when evidence was given before the Select Committee in 1964. He said this—

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the last paragraph referred to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Bishop Cowdrey continued:

The hon. the Minister has referred to representations which have been made to him. Mr. Speaker, when I was very young, I can remember that the daily train from Natal to the Orange Free State, which left every evening, did not run on a Saturday evening because it was customary, for passenger traffic at least, to be restricted through the Orange Free State on Sundays. I believe there was a general restriction in the Orange Free State on train traffic. However, times have changed, but I believe if all the other provinces had adopted the same practice of personal option in this particular respect, the traffic in South Africa would have been severely curtailed … [Interjections.] Now, we have the other situation where three provinces since the end of the last century have experienced certain restrictions in regard to Sunday observance. Natal, on the other hand, has had a fairly open system, and we find the hon. the Minister saying that he has had many representations. I would like to refer briefly to the evidence that was given before the committee in 1964. I am referring to the evidence given by Mr. W. L. Howes, the then town clerk of Durban, who said—

I think that the time has come when we should raise the federal standard in South Africa and lower the double standards under which we have become accustomed to living for many years. Let me refer to some of the double standards which have been and which are accepted as our pattern of life nowadays. There is the question of double standards in regard to this Bill. It is claimed—not in the terms of the Bill, but it is claimed—and it is directed at assisting the churches and helping them to preserve the Sabbath. But what is the Government doing in the various provinces, with the exception of Natal? It is busy hampering the churches themselves, as the hon. member for Pinelands indicated, in their efforts to carry out their Christian belief and concept in the admission to church schools of pupils of other races; they are acting in accordance with their own Christian concept.

We have this Bill providing for no films on Sunday, but there will be exceptions, there will be prescribed conditions. We have no sport broadcasts on Sunday and sports results are restricted to a minimum, but we have commercial Springbok Radio and advertisements on regional SABC programmes. We have no lottery, because a lottery is illegal, but we have horse racing, one of the major industries, almost, in South Africa, which is legal. Are those not double standards?

We have the differentiation between the lower and the higher income groups. The hon. member for Green Point referred to it, but let me quote a more specific case. Take a man who has a group of friends, who is in an upper income group and who can therefore afford to go along on a Saturday afternoon, hire a projector and a film and tell five or six of his friends with their families to come to his house where he will give a film show. There will be no charge, and they will have tea and see the film and all will be in order. One of his friends will show a film the next Sunday and someone else will do so the following Sunday. This will mean that, because they are in a higher income group and can afford to do these things without having to have a collection, it is possible to hold a film show every Sunday without even seeking a permit. However, people in the lower income group are not able to avail themselves of that particular position. Firstly, they are not able to afford the extra expenditure of hiring the film on a Saturday. Secondly, they might wish to combine their more frugal resources and decide to get together and have a film show by hiring a film and by pooling together to pay for it. In this way they can afford to see it.

There is another example of discrimination, the SATV. The rich man can watch his TV in his own home, but the poor person cannot afford a TV set and cannot afford the R36 a year licence. He is prohibited now, in terms of this Bill, from subscribing to an innocent little film club which might provide that person with entertainment on a Sunday. If that is not double standards, then I just do not know what is.

The prohibition is, in the Minister’s own words, “by virtue of any contribution to any fund”, so it rules out the poor man in the instances which I have quoted. The Minister referred to what he called a “groot aantal vertoë”. I read his Second Reading speech very carefully, but I must say I remain unconvinced of the validity of his claims, because he did not give any, in my opinion, specific instances or figures which convince me or this House that his claims are fully justified. But you see, Sir, we live in an atmosphere of much confusion. The hon. member for Pretoria East, for instance, was reported by the SABC as saying that as far as he was concerned, both English and Afrikaans speaking South Africans were overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill. In contrast we have the hon. member for Parktown, who said that it was rejected by the majority of the population. Who is right, the hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Pretoria East or the hon. member for Parktown? Again, according to the SABC report, we have the hon. member for Klerksdorp who said that the Bill did not remove the rights of the individual; people could still view films of their own choice in their own homes, and in certain instances the Minister would grant permission for a film to be exhibited.

Tedious repetition!

Tedious repetition? Well, I wish it would sink in so that you would change your mind. I hope that the hon. the Minister will in his reply give this side of the House some facts and figures which will substantiate the claims he made in his Second Reading. I want to refer to some actual figures—I take the amended census figures—which give the number of people who claim to be Christians as 21,7 million. 3,6 million are adherents of the Dutch Reformed Churches. 1,7 million of the Anglican Church—I have explained the breakdown of the three different names or designations given to the Anglican Church—2,3 million are Methodists—and the hon. member for Pinelands indicated that they represent a cross-section of all population groups—and 1,9 million are Roman Catholic. We therefore have a group of people professing to belong to churches, numbering almost 6 million, who in my opinion have not indicated in any positive way that this Bill is repugnant to them. We also have the position of the Indian Christians. According to the year-book 10% of the Indian population accepts Christianity, so it means that of the approximately 600 000 Indians in Natal, a very small proportion would be concerned by the implications and the effects of this Bill on Sunday entertainments, because 68% of the Indian population is Hindu and 20% Moslem. There are, furthermore, more than half a million people who are classified as “other Christians”. Nearly 15 000 of these people are Seventh-Day Adventists who have their Sabbath on a Saturday. If the hon. the Minister would care to read a very good book, which is in the library, on the difficulties which Seventh-Day Adventists were forced to accept when they were fighting or occupying non-combatant positions in Vietnam, he would realize that Seventh-Day Adventists take their religion very seriously. I believe that they do a great deal of missionary work in South Africa for all races and all religions but keep Saturday as their Sabbath.

Has the hon. the Minister asked Chief Buthelezi, who represents plus-minus 4 million people, mostly in Natal, what he feels about Sunday observance? Has the hon. the Minister consulted the Indian Council and has he had an expression of opinion from them, because the Indian Council is alleged to represent a large proportion of Indians in South Africa? I believe that we are giving the power in this Bill for the further imposition of bureaucracy from the citadel of conservatism, in Pretoria.

Sit down!

I am not going to sit down, as that hon. member requests. I wish to put the matter into perspective. I wish to quote from the report again. This is the comment of the Roman Catholic Church, which is published in the appendix, chapter 13. This is what it says—

It is a reasonable and humane application of the Commandments and it is in keeping with the injunction of our Lord Jesus Christ: “The Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. ”

To put the matter quite clearly in so far as my own church, the Church of the Province of South Africa, is concerned, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the opinion expressed by a leading member from Natal. It was Bishop Russell, who had telephoned me to indicate his views. As I understood them they are the same as those of the Archbishop of Cape Town, head of the Church of the Province. I received this communication on Friday from the most Rev. Bill Burnett and this is what he said under the heading “Bill on Prohibition of Films on Sunday”—

1. (1) I do not think as a Christian that we need to have films on Sunday and would prefer to do without.
2. (2) On the other hand, in an urban society where perhaps a majority are not churchgoers, everyone cannot relax on golf courses and country clubs or beaches. People might be much worse occupied than seeing films.
3. (3) Sunday is a day of celebration for Christians. It is a celebration of the resurrection. It is not really the Sabbath, that would be Friday. It should nevertheless be a day which Christians give to God for His use and as a sign that all life belongs to Him. But I find it difficult to require non-Christians to observe Sundays with the same love for God and commitment as Christians and to restrict their chosen activities if these are not morally harmful to the community. It is foolish, I think, to stop people fishing on Sundays. It would be equally foolish to stop people seeing a film unless it is a morally undesirable film. After all, Moslems and Jews have to celebrate their weekly Sabbath on an ordinary working day.
4. (4) I would like to protect those who would be obliged to work in the cinemas on Sunday. The staff on Sunday should not be the same as for the rest of the week, so that those who work in the cinemas during the week would not face the possibility of not getting a job if they were unable, for reasons of conscience, to work on Sundays. It may not, of course, be possible to legislate for this, but that is how I would like to see it.

The hon. the Minister may have his sources of information, but I do not believe that they are of the broad spectrum as put forward by this side of the House, and if he is not prepared to accept the amendment which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has moved, I suggest with due respect, that he withdraws this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, apparently this was a debate which was unnecessary, but I do not think there is anyone in this House who can accuse me of not having been busy these past few months with major events in South Africa. Whether I did it well or did it badly, I leave to the judgment of the people around me. I acted to the best of my ability as far as the major events of South Africa are concerned. Many hon. members expressed the opinion that this Bill is not necessary. Apparently this is so, and at one stage I felt the same way, but then why did I get so much opposition in this House if it was supposedly such an unnecessary and such a petty little Bill? We cannot simply look after the major events in South Africa and neglect the small item, which may also be really essential. We are living in a very interesting time in our history, a time of onslaughts on South Africa from outside, subversion from within, and onslaughts on the spirit of South Africa. It is good to hear all these debating points, and I found it interesting to listen to the various arguments, for the time is coming when we shall have to determine where we stand spiritually in respect of these matters, and what the motivation for them is. The hon. gentlemen are entirely correct if they ask me for a principle which may be carried all the way through. I shall now try to explain this to the best of my ability.

I listened carefully to what everyone said, and there was almost no speaker who did not say that it is traditional in South Africa that we keep the Sunday as quietly as possible. There was no one who told me that there may not be any church on Sunday or that there should be church on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It is traditional that the churches use Sundays only for church services. I want to put it to hon. members as a fact that in the past few years those two characteristics of our Sundays have become debased, far more than this Bill indicates. I shall deal later with the question of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who asked why the legislation should relate only to the film industry if there are so many other things. There are many other factors, but Sundays have become debased, and we are on the slippery slope as far as Sundays are concerned. It has become so bad that one may walk into a shop on a Sunday and buy more than just a tin of milk. Hon. members will recall that the principle on which trade on Sunday rested previously was the fact that the commodity purchased had to be an essential item, for example a dummy, a tin of milk, bread and butter. That was the end of it, however, and one could buy nothing further, so that the people could rest on a Sunday. However, that principle no longer applies; another principle has now been laid down. Hon. members can go and see for themselves, and walk around in the cities, in Durban, Johannesburg and all over, and see what is being sold. One can buy just about any article in a shop on a Sunday. The shops began to open on a Sunday, and it was only the trade union which slammed the doors of the shops closed and which applied restraints to the shops. Yesterday the trade union issued another statement and said that the shops would not open. The trade union is applying restraints therefore, but we are lifting them. We are simply allowing them to open so that the people may buy clothing, shoes, may buy anything, so that commercialization can take place and these people can make money. We can forget about the church and restfulness.

It is quite correct and I agree with the hon. members that the amusement parks, for example the merry-go-rounds, the big-wheels, little wheels and all the other wheels continue to operate on a Sunday. The people amuse themselves, and the restfulness of Sunday is no more. Then the bioscopes came along and sought the most sensitive time to take us further down that slippery slope. They chose the time between 5 and 11 p.m. which coincides exactly with the times during which the churches still have their doors open. I want to reiterate that I am not there to fill the churches; the churches are quite capable of doing that themselves. I, as legislator, can see, however, that the traditional restfulness of the Sunday is disappearing. Some people have now come along and are occupying the church time in a way of which not even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is aware. There is almost no cinema in Cape Town which is not open on a Sunday evening from 5 p.m. right through to 11 p.m. The same applies to the cinemas in Durban and Johannesburg, as well as to all the drive-in cinemas.

And they are all full of sin?

I am not saying that it is a sin; I am saying that we are on the slippery slope, and that we do not know where it will end and when the traditional restfulness of Sunday will be entirely a thing of the past. Then we will be like Europe. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was correct, although not entirely correct, for there are many places in Europe which are quite dead on a Sunday. London is one of them. He should also walk around in Madrid and Rome on a Sunday, for those are places where there are still churches.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the Minister mention one cinema to me which was open on a Sunday evening?

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with all the questions in the course of my speech, if the hon. members would only give me a chance.

You said they were all open. Just mention one.

I say they are all open.

Mention one to me, just one in Durban.

In Durban of course not. The Durban cinemas are going to circumvent the law by means of the clubs. The cinemas are already circumventing the Transvaal provincial ordinances by means of the clubs, and they are circumventing the Cape ordinances by means of the clubs. They even advertise their shows. Here it is stated in the Rand Daily Mail. These are the clubs which have now been established. Rand Daily Mail advertises under “Sunday cinemas”: In the Ster in Orange Grove “The Owl and the Pussycat” starring Barbra Streisand, is showing. Children from 4 to 21 are not allowed. Here the film “A Fistful of Dollars”, and I do not know what else, is showing on a Sunday. Here I have all the advertisements. There is not a single cinema in those big cities which is not open. [Interjections.] They came just at the time when the Government realized that the restfulness of our Sunday was being removed from beneath our feet and said: “So far and no further; cinemas will have to close on a Sunday.” We shall now have to provide the provincial authorities with guidance, for they are completely confused, and I shall prove this. Unfortunately this is the task of my department, although there are people who dispute this. There are hon. members here who, a few years ago, served on a Select Committee on Sunday sport. Then the United Party did not complain. Then the Department of Justice was the right department. They served on the Select Committee. Then nobody asked what that department was doing there. It is the task of my department. The point I want to make here, however, is that it is the work of my department which is being disputed here.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that I, Minister Kruger, wanted more power. I am not looking for more power. I would prefer to have another department deal with this matter, but it is the task of my department. The important point at issue here is whether the Government should see to such matters or whether the local authority should do so. One of the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg said that we are depriving the local authority of its “right”. Where does it get that “right” from? Let the hon. member who has such a lot to say reply to that question. It receives its right from the provincial council, and the provincial council receives its right from this Parliament. This Parliament is the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. This is where we are given the right to make laws. We delegate certain powers to the provinces—I think it is in terms of section 87—to administer on our behalf. They in turn give the local authorities certain powers, but that does not mean that they are the sovereign power. This kind of thing keeps on cropping up, and it is very important that we rectify this matter. It is not because the party to which I belong has been in office for such a long time now. I know those people are frustrated, but as long as this system exists, the sovereign power is vested in the Parliament of South Africa. That is why I say that the local authorities do not have a right. The question which arose was at what stage the central Government would interfere with a local authority. To me it is desirable that local authorities deal with this matter, but at what stage will the Government have to decide to deal with the matter itself? I should like to offer the following for consideration. Firstly the Government will step in in those cases in which the local authorities refuse to obey the general policy guide-lines of the Government of the day. And now I am referring not to the NP only. If that United Party were ever to come into office, this statement would be as valid as it is under the régime of this party. The Government which is seated on this side of the House is entitled to lay down certain policies because it has the confidence of the voters. That is why I am sitting here.

It is also a question of personal choice.

As long as this is the case, every Government has the right to tell the provincial and local authorities, to whom it has delegated powers, what Government guide-lines they must follow. If a local authority refuses to do so, this is one of the factors a Government has to take into consideration, and it has intervened.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why, if this is the case, he does not simply abolish the local authorities? [Interjections.]

I have said where the Government lays down guide-lines. Normally the local authorities will quite simply be allowed to govern on the local level. When the Government lays down a guide-line, however and that provincial or local authority refuses to comply, the Government has to intervene. That is the first case.

You mean you can do what you like as long as you do what I say?

Just after I had stated the Government’s policy and it had appeared in the newspapers, Pietermaritzburg, even before I had a chance to discuss the matter with them, jumped up and said: “We will not listen to you. We are in Natal, we are sovereign in Natal, we shall do what we please and you Afrikaners must stay off our backs.”

When did they ever say that?

I shall come back to that in a moment. I now want to deal with the second case.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister kindly to tell the House at what stage the Pietermaritzburg city council or anybody in Pietermaritzburg said “you Afrikaners”?

No, I did not say “you Afrikaners”.

You did.

The hon. member is being ridiculous now; he is becoming emotional. He gets his support in Pietermaritzburg and he now has to try and keep it. But he cannot bluff me. I said that the city council of Pietermaritzburg was the first to adopt the standpoint: We shall pay no heed to you; we shall continue with film shows.

What about “you Afrikaners”?

That is what The Daily News said.

Well, read your Hansard afterwards.

I come now to the second case, and that is when a local authority is not able to deal fully and properly with a matter which has been entrusted to him. Let me give an example. Suppose local authorities were dealing with this matter of film shows and a specific local authority decided that films may not be exhibited on a Sunday. It may then happen that there is a drive-in cinema very close to the town in question, which does not fall under its jurisdiction. In other words, the regulations of the local authority will be totally frustrated by the fact that another authority has control over the drive-in cinema. In such a case the central Government or the provincial administration has to intervene.

I come now to the third case. What happens when a certain policy has been laid down and there is a lack of uniformity in that everyone chops and changes so that the country is made to appear ridiculous? So it may happen that the one town decides one thing and another town another, although they are all the same kind of people. Then it is time the central Government told the people what ought to be done. Let me give an example. Let us take Natal. Newcastle wants bioscopes closed on Sundays. The same applies to Vryheid.

Is that so?

These are two country towns. Pinetown, a part of a city, is also in favour of that, and so is Durban. Pietermaritzburg, which is also a small city, is opposed to it however.

So what is wrong with that?

There is a veritable Babel of confusion in Natal. Under those circumstances the central Government has to intervene. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to reply to the debate.

There is another principle we have to take into consideration. Hon. members opposite can become as angry as they like, but we are going to discuss this matter. As I have said, if a province wants to make an ordinance or if a local authority has made a by-law and it becomes clear to the Government that the ordinance or by-law can be circumvented too easily, the Government has to intervene. Let me give an example. In the Cape and in the Transvaal all kinds of shifty clubs have sprung up which frustrate the legislation. That is why the central authority has to lay down legislation so that these clubs cannot frustrate the legislation.

How strongly do our people feel about this measure? I have with me here a whole pile of letters from young people, old people, from churches—from ordinary people who tell me that this is the best thing South Africa has ever done. I am not going to quote from the letters. If hon. members wish, they may come and examine them afterwards. Let me just say that the people who wrote to me, understood the principle far better than those who do not want to hear. In these letters they say that they can well understand that there are many other things which still need looking into, because, so they say, we find ourselves on a slippery slope of permissiveness, and South Africa must put a stop to it.

Sir, let us examine this. Hon. members have asked me: How many people are opposed to it? I do not want to look at Die Burger because Die Burger is supposed to be a Nationalist newspaper. The hon. members opposite will say that Die Burger did not conduct the poll properly. Therefore, I would rather refer them to The Daily News of Natal. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to this investigation, but he referred to it only as far as Sunday sport was concerned. He did not refer to the cinemas. I do not know why he did not do so, for at that time the subject of the debate was still the cinemas. He referred to the statistics in regard to Sunday sport. Here in my hand I have the newspaper cutting which maintains—

This was the question; let me first read the question. I quote—

The hon. member is laughing but these are the statistics from his own newspaper! Undeniably South Africa does not want cinemas on a Sunday. I have been accused of all kinds of things here, particularly by hon. members from Natal and also by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I have been accused of allegedly acting in an extremely callous manner, and of ignoring people’s rights. In the first place, and I want to say this in all honesty, I think I have acted quite fairly here. Do hon. members wish to deny this? I attended five National Party congresses and each congress adopted a unanimous resolution that cinemas should be closed on a Sunday.

Yes, master!

Every congress adopted that resolution. The National Party congress of Natal resolved unanimously with approximately 40% … [Interjections.]

There is a minority there. [Interjections.]

The first thing I did was to listen to the National Party congresses throughout the whole of South Africa and South West Africa. I approached the film distributors—I did not want to be unfair to these people and I did not want to intervene with legislation—invited them to my office and held quiet talks with them. I told them: “There have been 5 congresses; these are the resolutions. What are you people going to do?” They then told me that they were not going to do anything. They were in the hands of the cinema people, and those cinema people were undisciplined, and did just as they pleased. They simply hired out the films. I told them: “Go back and speak to your people who hire films from you, and make it a condition of your contract that a film may not be exhibited on a Sunday evening while the church services are in progress. Then I can consider the matter and I can also submit it to the Government and discuss it with my colleagues.” They told me that this could not happen; the cinema people would pay no heed to it.

†Mr. Speaker, at that particular point of time the main difficulty was in Natal, and I say that it is an unfair allegation made against me by the hon. member who said the Bill was the result of a personal feud between me and the Executive Committee of Natal. I have no feud with anybody. I approached the Administrator, as was my duty, the very moment the Government indicated what its policy was. As the responsible Minister, I approached the Administrator of Natal and I told him the Government’s view was that Sunday cinema shows should stop. I was informed by the Administrator of Natal that the Executive Committee of Natal was not of the same view and that they would not be interested in whatever the Government might say about the matter.

One of the members of the Executive Committee took it upon himself to vilify me on every possible occasion—personally, not on principle. He went for me personally, and so did the Natal Daily News. They carried on a vendetta against me on these points. They vented their spleen on me personally. The Daily News went even further and dragged in the Afrikaner. As usual, they also dragged in the Free State. What the poor old Free State has done, I do not know. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the Free State’s money is very welcome in Natal, but when it comes to gratuitous insults the Free State always gets it in the face. The Daily News said it did not suffer from the mentality of the Free State and it did not want Afrikaner ideas thrust down its throat. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that newspaper carried on a personal vendetta against me on these points. It is easy for the editor of a newspaper to dip his pen in poison against a particular individual and to play brinkmanship with the laws of defamation. As a matter of fact, that particular editor invites an action of defamation against him. He invites it, because, if his paper should lose such an action, it is covered by insurance whereas if any ordinary person should lose such an action, he would have to pay for it out of his own pocket. If that newspaper loses it, insurance covers it. Furthermore, that newspaper, in any event, gets the additional circulation by reporting the court hearing on the matter. This particular newspaper went to town on this issue.

What has that got to do with Natal?

That was part of the Natal action, part of the Natal stand which we saw here today. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, at that particular time the Natal Executive Committee member concerned also jumped onto the bandwagon and made all sorts of remarks. Then the management committee of the Durban city council decided to request the Administrator to consent to the repeal of by-laws that had stood for 18 years prohibiting the showing of films on a Sunday. This, of course, conclusively refuted the allegation by the Natal Daily News that the Afrikaner was forcing his own ideas onto Natal, because 18 years ago there was not a single Afrikaner in the Durban city council when the by-law was passed prohibiting for the first time the showing of films on a Sunday. At that time it was exclusively the English-speaking Natal citizen following his traditional line of thought. The Afrikaner was right out of it. That is why I say that the insults to the Afrikaner and to the Free State were quite gratuitous.

What pressure did you use?

I shall come to that. I know there is an allegation of pressure. Mr. Speaker, when this happened I again telephoned the Administrator. I said to him that I realized that it was a provincial matter, added what the policy of the Government was, and asked him whether he was of the opinion that he could do anything about it. He said his Executive Committee would not touch it. According to him they felt in principle that the matter should be left to the various municipalities … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I respect the Administrator’s point of view on that issue. I said to him: “Then you must forgive me, but I shall have to speak to the municipalities myself, because the Government has taken a stand on this issue”. I spoke to the municipalities telling them exactly what I had told the Administrator. I informed them that the Government’s point of view was that Sunday film shows had to stop,.

Why?

I explained that we were on a slippery slope as far as Sunday laws were concerned, and that it had to stop. They then asked me whether they could come and see me about the matter, and I told them to do so, so that we could discuss it. They came to see me, and unless the Durban city council allows me to disclose the full conversation which took place in my office—I am not ashamed to do so, for there is nothing to hide—I shall not do so because it is not my custom to disclose such conversation which took place in an office. If the Durban city council gives any kind of indication that I can reproduce the conversation at any time in this House, I shall do so. However I do want to tell this House, and I think I may say this, that I found the two gentlemen who visited me to be very fair. They were very, very fair, and I explained the principle which I have elucidated here in this House to these people to the best of my ability, particularly the point concerning the Afrikaner, for they were also under the impression that it was the National Party Government which wished to impose its will on them. However, when they realized that they had had that ordinance for 18 years already, and that it had been done in accordance with their directives, the atmosphere changed completely, and they admitted that it was true and was also an English tradition in Natal. They returned, and what happened there I do not know, but they resolved not to continue with the alteration of that by-law. Now I want to state unequivocally that I appreciated it very much indeed of the Durban city council that they were prepared to heed the friendly appeal of the Government. I caused this appeal to be published far and wide through the Press and also informed each municipality of what the Government’s policy was, and addressed a friendly request to them to adopt the policy of the Government in this respect. The Durban municipality did so, and I now want to inform those members opposite that even if I introduce this Bill for the sake of the Durban city council only, I shall do so.

[Inaudible.]

I owe it to Durban. I am telling the hon. member now that I owe it to the Durban city council, because they were prepared to listen and to be reasonable and rational about it. I owe it to them to bring this piece of legislation today, and I will tell why. The reason is that all the little holiday resorts around Durban make it one of their special attractions to have you go to a cinema on a Sunday. They draw people away from Durban and I do not think it is fair to Durban. [Interjections.] Durban was disciplined enough to fall into line with Government thinking. Why should they be penalized? I say that I owe this to Durban and that is one of the reasons why I am bringing this legislation. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister whether the Durban city council or the delegation that went to see him, realized that the type of legislation which the Minister is moving would also do away with film clubs which were …

I did not at any time leave them uninformed and, to tell the truth, I submitted the Bill which is now before this House to these people and told them that I was going to introduce it in that form. The Bill was ready to be introduced at that stage. [Interjections.] In spite of that they told me that they were satisfied.

†I think they took the right approach. They said: “This is not really a big issue, we have never had bioscopes on a Sunday night before. Why is there this ballyhoo about it now?”

*After all, South Africa has never had cinemas on Sundays before. Why is it so terribly essential now? [Interjections.] Let us just take the history a little further. What happened then? When Durban turned round and said that they went along with Government policy, the provincial council jumped to its feet and this same member of the executive committee was furious and made a kind of “Natal last stand”. All kinds of things were said, and the Pietermaritzburg City Council became red in the face and hot under the collar. Everyone then maintained that they would oppose the legislation to the death. They went so far that the executive committee introduced a motion in the provincial council in which I, personally, was censured; not the Government. I told them repeatedly that this was the standpoint of the Government. However, a personal attack was then made on me. A motion was tabled in which they stated that they wanted nothing more to do with Kruger. What I find strange is that there are people here who say that only the municipalities should look after this matter. If they had wanted to be consistent, surely they should have kept out of it. Why, then, did they debated in the provincial council if that was their standpoint? Why did the member of the Executive Committee, who adhered so adamantly to the principle that the local authority and only the local authority should decide on this matter, become annoyed with Durban, and why did he want to introduce a motion in the provincial council? Surely his standpoint should have been: “Look, I am going to keep out of this quarrel. It is a quarrel between the local authorities and the Minister. I am not going to concern myself with it.” Then he jumped on the band wagon and wanted to pick a fight with me because he was annoyed with Durban. They went around with the story that I had allegedly blackmailed Durban. Where and how I could have blackmailed them, I do not know.

Sir, there is one other matter I want to point out. When the Durban City Council asked that same Executive Committee whether they could repeal the ordinance, the reply was that it could only be done on certain conditions. What were those conditions? The conditions were that they could exhibit films on a Sunday, but not on Good Friday, Christmas Day or the Day of the Covenant. I then felt myself obliged to tell the Administrator that I could not understand why they stated conditions, why films could not be exhibited on the Day of the Covenant. In reply to that question he told me that the Day of the Covenant was a traditional day on which films were not exhibited. I then told him that I agreed with him, for the covenant of Sarel Cilliers had been that we would commemorate that day “als een Sabbat”. If that applied to the Day of the Covenant, it should also apply to Sunday. I then told him: “If you wish to impose the condition that films may not be exhibited on the Day of the Covenant, you must carry the condition all the way through and say that this may not happen on a Sunday either.” Then he told me again that his Executive Committee wanted to have nothing to do with the entire matter and that they adhered absolutely to their “Natal stand” as far as this point was concerned. What must we do now? Must we carry on and allow film companies to exhibit their films throughout South Africa, must we eventually allow the shops to be opened, the restfulness of the Sunday to disappear completely and allow a Sunday to become like any ordinary day so that the churches no longer have any say and are driven out? This is the principle as I see it, and this is the reason why I say to this House that I want to introduce this Bill to show the local authorities what course they should adopt. I am saying this today in this House, and I am saying this to all local authorities and provincial councils: These are the lines along which the Government wants them to think. If they do not want to do that, we have no choice and we have to come to this House and do their work for them. The Government feels that these two principles must be taken into consideration absolutely.

The first is that it is a traditional standpoint in South Africa that a Sunday should be kept as quietly as possible. It is not for me to say now that a person should go to church, nor is it for me to say what he should do on a Sunday, but a Sunday must be kept peaceful, so that we may be restored in body and soul after the six days we have laboured, so that we can start afresh the next week. Even the Russians have a day of rest. They do not work seven days a week. Why should we simply allow our day to be lost now? Secondly, this day should not be commercialized. The reason for my saying this is not because I am opposed to money being made—I believe in capitalism—but because the commercialization means the drawing away of people from the tranquility of a day of rest, for it is advertisements dinning in one’s ears, pictures which entice one, such as this Rand Daily Mail advertisement asking people to come and see a film on Sunday. Here you have advertisements which spoil one’s whole day of rest, and which make Sunday completely distasteful, for one always find an advertisement here, and something like “Come to the sale; the prices are cheapest on a Sunday. Come and buy!” Where will it all end? These are the two principles we should like to maintain here.

I should now like to deal with the little clergyman on the opposite side, the hon. member for Pinelands. That hon. gentleman kicked up a great fuss here about how one would supposedly not be a Christian by making such laws. I agree with him; we never said that. What I did not like, however, was what the hon. member had to say about me here. He said: “The Minister is critical of the churches in South Africa.” And I tell him that that is an untruth. As Minister of Police, however, I have to keep my eyes wide open when clergymen adopt a political standpoint—I do not want to argue about whether it is Christian or non-Christian, for they may imagine that it is Christian—and make use of people with a Black consciousness, by means of schools, lectures, church organizations and church funds, to bring about a polarization between White and Black which then leads to Black Power organizations. The hon. gentleman then come here and cast their cloak of Christ over these activities, as the hon. member told us here. He told us that our behaviour towards the Black people was wrong, and did so after we had said so many times here in this House that our policy was as Christian, if not more Christian, than the policy of any other person, and that our standpoint towards the Black people was as Christian as that of any other person in the country.

I do not stand back for any clergyman, not from Pinelands or anywhere else, as far as the Christian principles of our policy are concerned. I do not like it at all, this mud-slinging and this casting of the cloak of Christ over political ideologies which in their opinion are Christian, but which we think are diabolical. We should not debate these matters. But then the hon. member must not tell me that I am critical of the Church, for if the churches want to do that kind of thing, they must not expect that they are doing their work as churches in the eyes of other Christians. If the churches were to allow revolution to be fomented, or if they are closing their eyes to it or are sympathetic towards it, then the time has come for them to call a halt, for then Christianity is no longer Christianity. The hon. member said: “The Sunday has a special character, set aside for worship and recreation.”

What is wrong with that?

I simply saying this to indicate that even that hon. member admits that Sunday has a special character. Why should it not then be observed? These are the principles I see in this Bill. I do not want to be ecclesiastical today, but I want to express my appreciation to members on this side of the House who stated their ecclesiastical standpoint here. I am in complete agreement with them. I also support the Church and the standpoints of the Church in respect of Sunday. However, I do not want to argue about this in respect of this Bill, for the principle of the Government is that we must have a peaceful and a non-commercialized Sunday.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill was published in the Government Gazette in March 1976, after consultations with the KWV, the Cape Wine Institute, the Federated Hotel Associations, the Association of Law Societies and other bodies. Apart from possible minor points of disagreement, the measure is acceptable to the producers, to the various branches of commerce, and to the legal profession as far as its functions are concerned. Nor have any objections been received from the part of the consumers. From this we may conclude that basically the Bill before the House contains no controversial provisions.

This measure may be regarded as the preliminary to the final consolidation of the 1928 Act. At the same time, licence and application fees, which were last amended in 1963, are being increased. However, the most important change which is being proposed in the Bill is an amendment to the licensing system.

The main function of the 56 local liquor licensing boards is annually to consider applications for the renewal of liquor licences and to hear evidence in connection with applications for new liquor licences. The liquor trade, and especially the hotel industry, have long been agitating against the annual renewal of liquor licences. Apart from the cost this involves, they allege, there is no need for annual renewal. Measures exist and others may be introduced, in so far as they may be necessary, for exercising proper control over licensed premises and liquor distribution.

My Departments of Justice and Police and I myself are satisfied that we can do away with the existing system of annual renewal of liquor licences and the so-called sections 1006A and 100sex authorities which are at present renewed departmentally. Consequently, there will be no further need for local liquor licensing boards. In terms of the proposed system, a liquor licence will remain valid, once it has been issued, until it is cancelled by the competent authority, until it is given up by the licence-holder or until the competent authority considers that it is no longer being used for carrying on business. Particulars of all concerns in possession of liquor licences and other legitimate liquor distribution points will be fed into a computer and a notice will be sent to every licence-holder by 30 September every year in which payment of the prescribed licence fee for the following year will be demanded.

The intention is that new applications, apart from temporary and late hours occasional licenses, will be heard in public by the National Liquor Board. This also applies to the new sections l00bis and l00sex applications. Every year, the Liquor Board will hold a meeting in respect of each province for hearing these applications.

Provision is being made for objections, review, appeal, special and interim meetings, etc., for the most part retaining the provisions presently applicable to local liquor licensing boards. In this connection I refer in particular to clause 12, which inserts a new chapter III dealing with matters of this nature. I should like at this stage to express my thanks and those of the Government for the great task performed by local liquor licensing boards since 1956. I have great appreciation for the work of a specialized and mostly complicated nature performed in this connection by magistrates as members of liquor licensing boards.

Another matter of principle which is touched upon in the Bill is the provision of liquor on election days. This matter is more clearly defined as far as the Liquor Act is concerned, and provision is being made for the elections of the Indian Council, at the request of the S.A. Indian Council and the Department of Indian Affairs. Section 79 of the Constitution and Elections Amendment Act, 1973, repeals section 181 of the Electoral Consolidation Act of 1946. The repeal has not yet been made operative, in anticipation of a decision on the question of whether the provisions of the Liquor Act relating to the sale and provision of liquor on election days are to be adjusted, and if so, in what respect. The relevant provision in the Electoral Act was repealed at the recommendation of a Select Committee, by way of a majority decision. In this connection one may refer to the discussion in the Committee Stage as reported in columns 8968 to 8974 of the debates of this House on 12 June 1973.

The provisions of section 181 of the Electoral Consolidation Act have now been embodied in this Bill in clause 147(f). Briefly, the effect of these provisions is that the position regarding the sale of liquor on election days will remain as it is in spite of the repeal of the relevant provision in the Electoral Consolidation Act. I gave my special consideration to this matter and a change did not appear to be desirable. I am satisfied that the present system does not prejudice anyone in any way. Nor have any representations been received in this connection.

†I wish to say something about the proposed amendment to section 100sex contained in clause 88. At present authority for the sale of liquor may be granted to an association of Coloured or Asian persons having at least 20 shareholders and in which no single shareholder holds more than 20% of the issued shares or has contributed more than 20% of the association’s capital. In addition, no person may have a financial interest in more than one such distribution point. There is an exception in the case of the Coloured Development Corporation. After consultation with the departments concerned and the CDC, it has been decided to delete these restrictions. Extensive provision was made in 1969 in section 100sex(2B) to deal with the case of a shareholder in a section 100sex authority who permanently departs from the Republic. This provision is considered to be no longer necessary.

Section 94 prohibits the supply of liquor to Bantu except under circumstances set out therein. This provision is a relic from the days of almost total prohibition as far as Bantu are concerned, and is no longer considered necessary. It is deleted by clause 84.

Section 74 provides that before a club liquor licence can be granted, the authority considering the application must be satisfied that the establishment is a bona fide club. There is no definition in the Act of a club, and it is a matter which must be considered with regard to the requirements specified in section 74(2). A club must have at least 35 members, and ordinary members must pay an annual subscription of at least R6. The National Liquor Board is of the opinion that the minimum number of ordinary club members should be at least 50 and that the annual subscription should be increased to at least R12 per annum. Clause 60 provides accordingly. The Liquor Board recognized that in some rural areas there may be a need for licensed club facilities at industrial undertakings such as power stations where the membership requirement will be difficult or impossible to meet. In such cases it is proposed that a licence can be issued if the club has only 35 ordinary members. I trust that these amendments will eliminate applications by institutions which cannot really claim to be clubs.

Under clause 147(y) it will become possible to grant a wine and malt licence in respect of a boat which is lawfully operated on a lake, lagoon, dam or river. I can foresee that in the not too distant future pleasure boats will operate on our bigger dams. As in the case of all wine and malt liquor licences, it will be necessary to make provision for the service of food on such boats. Clause 51 has reference. Provision for light meals will be made in the conditions which will be applicable.

At present hotels may be authorized to close for certain out of season periods. This principle is being extended to all on-consumption licensed premises. Provision is also made for keeping open a part of licensed premises in cases where a material portion thereof is destroyed or becomes unfit for the proper carrying on of the business. Clause 67 has reference.

Section 112 limits an hotelkeeper’s liability in respect of the property of a lodger on the premises to a maximum of R40. There are certain exceptions to this restriction which are set out in subsection (1). The amendment proposed in clause 100 will increase the extent of liability from R40 to R100. The limit of R40 dates back to at least 1928. The hotel industry does not object to the proposed amendment.

In 1975 Parliament made it an offence to introduce, possess or consume liquor in any portion of a sportsground to which members of the public are admitted on payment of an admission fee. I undertook to give this provision further thought and consideration. It is now proposed to amend section 166(hA) as indicated in clause 139(f). I trust that this amendment will obviate the problems previous raised.

Until now sportsground and theatre liquor licences have been grouped together in the Act as one class of licence. This is an impractical situation. Separate provision is being made for the two classes of licences as will be observed from clauses 7(b) and (c) and 55 the proviso to the proposed new section 71 quat—see clause 55—has been inserted to deal with a practice which has grown up over many years at the Milner Park Show Grounds and which, according to the department’s view and that of the Show Ground’s legal representative, will not fall within the ambit of the special condition prescribed in the proposed section 71 quat.

By clause 99 it is proposed to extend the present limitation of the time for the recovery of retail liquor debts, from three to four months. I have agreed to this extension after careful consideration of the retail trades’ representations to me. I do not think this concession can lead to any abuse.

The National Liquor Board consists of six persons, one of whom is nominated by the Minister of Justice and is the board’s chairman. The Secretary for Justice, or a person nominated by him, is also a member of the board. Since its inception, a nominee of the head of the department has always served on the board. It is now proposed to amend section 118 bis so that this particular member will be an officer in the Department of Justice to be nominated by the Minister and who will automatically be the deputy chairman of the board.

Clause 109 authorizes the National Liquor Board under certain circumstances to co-opt persons to assist it in the hearing of matters before it. This provision has been inserted at the suggestion of the Liquor Committee of the Association of Law Societies and has the support of the trade.

Another innovation introduced at the request of the lawyers and fully supported by the trade, will be found in clause 145. Provision is being made for condonation, under certain circumstances, of certain formal or technical errors or omissions in applications.

Section 118 provides for the appointment of what is called “liquor traffic inspectors”. This provision has been part of the Act since 1928 but only one such appointment has been made since then. Inspections for purposes of the Act have since 1928 been and are still being carried out by the so-called designated police officers. It is proposed to delete this provision and to substitute a provision whereby the Minister of Justice will be able to appoint government officials to carry out the duties now performed by designated police officers. The relevant provision will be found in clause 108 which was inserted after lengthy discussions between the two departments concerned and an inter-departmental investigation.

Clause 75 amends section 86A. In terms of this section the holder of a wine house licence can only sell wines produced by the holder of a section 6A authority. The amendment proposes to allow also wines produced on certain estates to be sold under a wine house licence. The amendment is being made at the request of the Cape Wine Institute and has the blessing of the K.W.V.

The existing penalty clauses are numerous and involved. In order to simplify matters, clause 140 now prescribes maximum penalties in a simplified manner.

The supply of liquor by certain restaurants, which are not licensed for the sale of liquor, is causing concern. It appears that at some of these places liquor is supplied to customers under the pretext that it is given free of charge as a gesture of goodwill. The charge for the liquor, so I am informed, is hidden in the price of the meal. Restaurateurs who wish to supply liquor to their clients, must apply for and obtain liquor licences so that proper control can be exercised. The existing provisions relating to dealing in liquor without a licence, are inadequate to meet the problem. A proposed amendment in this regard will be found in clause 128.

*I have now referred to those provisions of the Bill which I consider to be the most important ones. I wish to conclude by saying that the Bill contains many good principles—and this is not only my opinion, but also the general sentiment of those people who are most closely affected by the provisions of the Liquor Act.

If this measure becomes law, many administrative functions will have to be performed, especially as far as the preparation for the introduction of the amended licensing procedure is concerned. It will most probably not be possible to finalize these in the course of this year, but we trust that it will be possible to implement the provisions early next year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has made virtually the same speech he made last year, with the exception of two or three new points which have been introduced into this Bill. This Bill changes 150 of the 175 sections of the Liquor Act and repeals 42 provisions of the existing legislation. What the hon. the Minister did not mention is that, although last year’s Bill and this year’s Bill appear virtually the same, there are in fact over 60, almost 70, differences between the two Bills. I admit they are minor changes, textual changes, but they are nevertheless changes. It has necessitated a careful study, clause by clause, to find the differences. I think it would have been much fairer if the hon. the Minister had said: “Look, it has changed, but there are no changes in principle, except this or that. But there are changes.” Then one would look for them from the start, instead of being misled and assuming it was the same Bill and then, when studying it, finding these changes in clause after clause. One of the changes which was not mentioned until the hon. the Minister’s speech is, for instance, the clause amending section 118, which introduces a new inspectorate and describes the powers that that inspectorate will have. A number of other changes make provision for the Indian Council elections. Others remove the recommendation to the hon. the Minister from the National Liquor Board in respect of some of the decisions which he has to take in granting licence applications. But essentially the Bill is the same as last year and I am not going to repeat what I said a year ago with regard to the Bill as a whole.

Do you still stand by what you said last year?

I shall deal with that. I did not complete my speech last year. However, I do think it is necessary to refer to the main principles contained in this measure.

Firstly, there are the improvements. The two main improvements, as I see them, are firstly that licences, once granted, shall remain in force until they are repealed and, secondly, that licences may be granted to companies. These are both positive amendments which have long been sought for and which I think are a tremendous improvement in so far as they grant a licence security of tenure and grant certainty to a person, who invests many thousands of rands, and sometimes many hundreds of thousands of rands, in an undertaking. Previously he did not know from year to year whether that business would continue. Now, at least, he has the knowledge that the licence is there until it is taken away from him. Similarly, the granting of licences to companies is an improvement. Previously, there was considerable difficulty in that there had to be a person appointed as the licensee. This person was usually an employee, and every time such an employee left, was sacked or died, one had to get the licence transferred. Each time such a transfer of a licence entailed effort and sometimes considerable difficulty, especially when a person absconded. These are the main improvements.

There are weaknesses in this measure as well, weaknesses with which I shall not have time to deal this afternoon, but I shall mention them at this stage and come back to them when the debate is resumed. The first is that all the power, and I repeat, all the power, the sole and total power to approve applications for licences is transferred to the Minister of Justice. Secondly, the National Liquor Board, now to be known as the Liquor Board, has I believe achieved its ambition in that it has gathered the last threads of control into its sticky palms and now has total control over the entire liquor industry over the whole of South Africa, except for the Minister’s signature on the licence application. The third weakness is that, where there has been a delay in the approval of licences in the past because of the procedure followed, I believe that that delay will now be even greater. The position at the moment is that applications, which must be lodged in August and which are heard and considered by the National Liquor Board in November, are not decided upon until April or even May so that the applicant does not know whether he has got his licence or not until then. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I want to ask him whether he has yet received any August 1976 applications, on which recommendations were made in November, and whether any one of those applications has yet been granted.

They have not reached me yet.

It is now February 1977—already six months have passed.

They were finished long before that.

It is already six months since those applications were submitted, but they have not reached the Minister yet.

They were only heard in November.

I am talking here about the period of time that elapses between the first submission of the application and its finalization. I suggest that the delay will be even greater when this amending Bill comes into force and the Minister will have to take all the decisions which must be taken with regard to so many of the applications received, concerning which many matters were previously decided upon by the board.

So, whilst there are advantages, equally there are disadvantages. When the debate continues, I want to deal with the effects of this measure and also with some of the side-effects which flow from it. I also want to point out why I believe that this is not as simple a measure or as agreed a measure as the hon. the Minister has indicated.