Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not be surprised to know that this side of the House intends opposing the Bill also during the Committee Stage. I think it became obvious during the course of the Second Reading debate that we on this side of the House considered the Bill to be both undesirable and unnecessary. The Second Reading having now been passed by the House, it is now our task to endeavour to obtain further clarity and elucidation from the hon. the Minister in regard to the various clauses.

Clause 1 indicates a very wide scope as far as the legislation in concerned. The hon. the Minister has indicated that his main object in introducing the Bill is to eradicate the situation as far as Sunday cinemas and Sunday cinema clubs are concerned. If one looks at the definition of “film” one finds—

On the basis of this definition, we require a further clarification. It would appear that the definition goes far beyond merely the showing of a film through a projector—in other words, the normal cinema as we understand it to be. The clause indicates that any picture intended for exhibition through a medium of mechanical device, is included in the definition of “film”. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has taken the position of various organizations, clubs, societies and churches into account, organizations which from time to time hold a slide evening, particularly on Sunday evenings. They show a variety of slides which can be regarded as a picture shown through the medium of a mechanical device. There are a number of these societies that charge for admission. We know that these slides are invariably of the cultural type. Various sporting bodies and organizations may also have slides related to their main interests. Should they wish to charge, either by means of a direct consideration or an indirect consideration, they would require the consent of the hon. the Minister in terms of the provisions of clause 2, which the Committee still has to deal with. It is therefore important to obtain some clarification from the hon. the Minister as to whether he intends the scope of this prohibition to extend also to those persons showing slides and charging admission from persons who wish to come and see such a display of slides.

Another aspect is the question of television. Another member on this side of the House will deal with the position as far as television is concerned, but there are certain matters regarding television in respect of which clarification is necessary. We know that there are a number of hotels and clubs which have television facilities available in their public lounges or at their club-houses. A number of these people have invested in video cassette recorders. This is a costly device, ranging in price from R800 to R1 500. It enables a person to record directly from a television set various programmes that have been screened during the week and to repeat those programmes through a television set for the benefit of members. In some cases persons are charged an admission fee to see such a programme recorded by a video cassette machine. It would appear that in terms of the definition of “film”—which also includes “video-plate”, the situation could arise where these people too would have to obtain the necessary consent from the hon. the Minister. This virtually means that a person who is watching television in a lounge or in a club, where perhaps he has not paid any direct admission charge, is restricted to seeing the programme that is provided by SATV on a Sunday evening. The Minister is, therefore, precluding such persons from seeing a repeat of a programme that may have been screened during the course of the week if the programme is repeated on a Sunday and admission is charged or persons gain admission as a result of their membership of a sports club or of an ordinary club. In that event the members of the club are, by being members of that club, paying indirectly in order to watch the screening of such a recording through the medium of a television set.

These are merely some of the problems which we see in regard to the definition of “film”, in its widest sense, that has been placed before the Committee. That is why we believe that this is going far beyond what the hon. the Minister indicated during the Second Reading. At that stage he said the Bill was aimed at stopping commercialization on a Sunday, as regards the showing of films in cinemas and the Sunday cinema clubs that are in existence in various parts of the Republic. This would appear to go far beyond the scope that the hon. the Minister indicated at that stage and that is why we intend to vote against clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo has raised with the hon. the Minister the question of slides, and whether it is his intention to include them in the definition of “film” as it is contained in this particular clause. I have an interest as to whether the definition is intended to include film slides, because of the question which I put to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate and to which, so far, we have not had a satisfactory reply. If it is his intention that film slides should be incorporated or are taken up in this particular definition, we will find the situation where a Sunday school or a church or an organization of any church which wishes to illustrate any lesson or any talk it might be giving by way of slides, is going to be precluded from doing so.

They do not charge admission.

Clause 2 refers to “any consideration”; they may take a collection.

There is no question of a collection, please! I thought that that hon. member, who is a lawyer, had had another look at the Bill after I had spoken in the Second Reading debate. If he looks at clause 2 of the Bill—and I am sure I shall be allowed to refer briefly to clause 2—he will find—

Then there are three conditions which are imposed. Firstly, if admission is obtained—

Now I do not believe that admission is obtained to a church in that sense, but there is a second condition, and it is not ancillary to the first. It stands on its own because the Bill reads—

I do believe, however, that admission to a church is obtained by such an association of persons. It is because people are associated with a particular congregation that they go to the church. If it is not the hon. the Minister’s intention that churches and Sunday schools must apply for exemption from the hon. the Minister if they intend to show slides during their church services or during Sunday school classes, then let him say so now. Why did he prevaricate during the Second Reading debate? If it is not his intention to include the churches, as far as the showing of slides or films is concerned, let the hon. the Minister say so now quite clearly and unequivocally so that the churches of South Africa will know what the position is. When I spoke during the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister interjected and said it depended on what films they intended to show. He did not say that he did not intend to control the churches, and that is what I am asking him now. If this definition includes slides, which the hon. the Minister will concede are used by Sunday schools, churches and similar organizations, he must say so now.

Then we must go further in looking at this question of the definition of a “film”. We must also obtain clarity from the hon. the Minister about what his attitude is in regard to television. The hon. member for Umbilo has raised the question of television. Does the hon. the Minister include in the prohibition, which is contained in this Bill, the showing publicly of a television programme? It has been argued that the fact that television programmes are projected for payment—i.e. by virtue of the licence fees that are paid and because of the payment for advertisements when we do obtain commercial television— would bring them into the ambit of the definition of “film” as contemplated by this Bill. Therefore such projection on a Sunday would constitute an offence unless the hon. the Minister’s permission were obtained. I do not go along with that argument, but I simply record it here. The point that worries me, however, is that I believe that the display of that projection in any place which falls within the three categories laid down in clause 2, would constitute an offence unless the hon. the Minister granted an exemption. I refer here particularly to restaurants, hotels and clubs which have television sets on their premises. They are there for the benefit of clients or members. They are there as an enticement to people to visit the hotel, restaurant or club! One could argue that a consideration is paid by virtue of club membership, the amount paid for accommodation at an hotel or the payment for the food that is provided at a restaurant, and this could be regarded as an indirect charge for the showing of the television programme. I raise these matters in an attempt to find out exactly what the hon. the Minister intends. Will he give categorical assurances that he does not intend this Bill to apply to the showing of slides or films in churches or to the showing of television programmes on a Sunday in restaurants, hotels, club lounges and similar places?

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that I do not believe that one can interpret this Bill in such a way that a church which shows films completely free of charge falls under this legislation. The difference between the examples the hon. member has given us and the reality with regard to film shows in churches, is that when one goes to that church, one is not asked whether or not one is a member of that church. No church on earth first asks one whether one is a member or not. In other words anyone is entitled to enter a church.

†It is not a case that he can only enter if he is a member of some association or of the church. He is entitled simply to enter. The church is providing something free, gratis and for nothing to further whatever it is they wish to further and they are quite entitled to do so in terms of this Bill. I do not see what the hon. member’s problem is. This Bill presents no problem at all in this regard.

Now I come to the question of television. It is not the intention whatsoever—indeed, there is nothing to that effect in the Bill—that a person cannot switch on his television in his private home to let his friends look at a certain programme. That has nothing to do with the Bill.

You mean it is not a film?

It is not a matter of its being a film. The television is in his private home. It has absolutely nothing to do with me or anybody else if a person looks at his television in his private home.

What of the hotel lounge and the restaurant?

I shall come to that. Even if a person hires a film from a company and shows it in his house, it has nothing to do with me whatsoever. I am not interested in what a man does in his own private little kingdom. I am simply not interested in that, and neither is the Bill.

As regards hotels, exactly the same position applies. To a resident the hotel is virtually his home. No special charge is made for a television. A resident is part and parcel of the hotel because he is living there. If he brings in his friends to have a look at television, it is absolutely nothing to do with this Bill.

He pays an extra hire charge for television.

He does not do so, but if he should, the television will still be in his room so it has nothing to do with this Bill whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. the Minister had to say about the churches as such. However, I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister a slightly different situation. I refer to the fact that many churches after for instance a church service on a Sunday evening have what they call a fellowship meeting of members of the congregation or of church societies. These are not necessarily open to the public. They are open to the members of the church society concerned. There are in fact several such societies … ’

Name me one.

… where subscriptions are paid. The sort of activities that take place in these societies on Sunday evenings are debates, film shows and sometimes even dancing. I do think that this Bill affects that sort of society and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would like to react to that.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the hon. member for Sandton can name one denomination which has a specific society like that. If there is a church which does have such a society I challenge the hon. member to tell me that that society is so exclusive that people who are not members of the society, are not permitted. In other words, such societies are loosely constituted. They call themselves the S.C.A., or whatever it may be, but they welcome any member of the public at their functions. Therefore this is not a society in terms of the definition of this Bill. Surely it is as plain as a pikestaff that those societies are not associations which do not permit other people. These societies are open, and one may attend the functions organized by them free of charge. Therefore anyone is entitled to attend those functions.

Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would reply to the question I raised concerning the slide-show evenings because I know of a definite case where a wild-life society does indeed hold slide-evenings, where they show slides in connection with wild life which are of interest to them and to which they charge an admission. It would appear that as far as the definition of the word “film” is concerned, this would make them liable to obtain the consent of the hon. the Minister or from someone from his department before they can hold such a show. I am merely asking whether the hon. the Minister can give a reply to the two points that I have raised, the one in regard to a slide-evening and the other in regard to video-casette records by means of which a person can show or repeat a programme that has been shown during the week. They may wish to repeat it to the members of a sporting body who may wish to see a film re-screened which appeared on SATV during the week, a film which is of particular interest to them, e.g. of a rugby match. They could then have a film evening by making use of the video-casette recorder for the benefit of their members to see a replay of the particular screening that took place earlier during the week. I now want to know whether the definition of the word “film” would now mean that these people would have to obtain his consent in terms of clause 2 of the Bill before they could proceed along those lines.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for what he has said so far, but I do not believe that he has gone far enough. I thank him in particular for the assurance that there is no intention to involve any church or church society in this particular Bill. As long as it is part of the operations and functions of the church, they do not need to go to the hon. the Minister to ask him for any exemption whatsoever, but are free to continue as they did in the past with their normal church activities, e.g. film shows, slide-shows, etc., on a Sunday. But, in relation to what the hon. member for Sandton was saying, I do want to say that church organizations and church societies do exist—one that comes to mind is a Methodist Church Guild, a guild of young people …

Order! The hon. member may deal with that under clause 2, not under clause 1.

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I do believe, however, that this is important in so far as the definition of “film” is concerned. But the hon. the Minister has given me an assurance and I accept that.

Obviously the hon. the Minister has misunderstood what I said about TV sets in hotels, restaurants and clubs. I am not for one moment referring to a TV set which is hired or which is part of the service provided by an hotel in a bedroom or private suite of a guest. I am referring to the TV set which is in the public lounge of the hotel or in a public restaurant or in the lounge of a club on which TV programmes are projected. I believe that such a projection falls within the definition of “film”. What I wish to get from the hon. the Minister is a reply whether it is his intention to include the projection of cinematograph film pictures by television in this definition, because if it is his intention, then those hotels which have TV sets in their public lounges and those restaurants which have TV sets, those clubs which have TV sets in their lounges will be compelled to switch them off on Sundays, otherwise they will have to get an exemption from the hon. the Minister. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can allay my suspicion and say whether or not it is his intention to include the showing of a TV service in this definition.

Mr. Chairman, I think you would rule me out of order if I were to reply fully to the points just raised by the hon. members, because they fall under clause 2. As far as clause 1 is concerned, the definition is clear and I should like to reply to the hon. member for Umbilo by saying that the video cassette is specifically mentioned in the clause. For that reason it is definitely included in that definition. Whether or not it should be prohibited is a matter which we may discuss under clause 2.

And slides?

The hon. member is referring to something which changes into a visual picture, is he not?

Slides.

We are not talking about a record; we are talking about a visual plate. It is a mechanical device which makes a film; so it obviously falls under that.

And the slides?

The slides also fall under that. A magnetic tape cassette or video-plates are referred to in this clause. Is a video-plate a slide?

It is shown through a mechanical device.

I believe that a slide falls under this definition.

Clause put and the Committee 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.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Order! Before I call upon an hon. member to address the Committee, I must point out that the principle contained in this clause was fully discussed and agreed to at the Second Reading. In accordance with the practice of this House I shall, accordingly, permit only one member of each of the Opposition parties to state their attitude to this clause and the Minister to reply thereto. Further discussions will be, in accordance with Standing Order No. 63, strictly confined to the details of the clause and the amendments to such details.

Mr. Chairman, we have opposed this Bill and so we will oppose the wording of this clause and other clauses for several reasons. Firstly, in our view, these provisions constitute an infringement of the right of individuals to go about their lives without interfering in the lives of others. We do not believe that it should be in the power of the State to legislate in regard to matters of private conscience, for instance in a matter such as the one before us today, that of Sunday observance. We are unimpressed with the arguments relating to commercialism, for these arguments smack of double standards. We have been told, for instance, that we are to have in terms of this provision no films on a Sunday, but as yet no full answer has been given to the criticism of the Opposition that television is allowed on a Sunday. We are going to have a provision that there will be no films on a Sunday and yet the hon. the Minister has in no way answered the criticism that commercialism is implicit in the advertising media allowed to operate through the State-owned radio service. The same double standards, if I may add, are evidenced in other walks of life. For instance, the Government for reasons of high conscience is against gambling and yet have allowed the betting industry to become one of the biggest industries in South Africa. The argument that this measure will assist the churches is in our view not valid. We believe that it may even cause antipathy to the work of the Church. Although as a reason for the wording of this clause it has been stated that it is the aim of the Government to put a stop to commercialism on Sundays, particularly with regard to commercialism connected with Sunday movies, I believe that this Bill goes far further than just doing that. It hits, particularly by the wording of clause 2, at the legitimate cultural activities of societies and organizations which ordinarily meet on Sundays. They must meet on Sundays because they have to show their films in local cinemas, which are the only places where the seating accommodation is adequate to accommodate these societies. They are the only places which have 35 mm equipment available. What is more, these local cinemas are not available to such societies on any days other than Sundays.

These societies, some 35 in the country, and numbering some 25 000 to 35 000 people, will as a result of this provision— clause 2 in particular—have to close. It may now be said by the hon. the Minister that genuine cultural societies can obtain permission to hold film shows, but implicit in that answer is our very next reason for opposing this Bill and that is that this provision means that once again we are to have a situation where more forms will have to be filled in, more officials taking decisions and hearing representations, more decisions to be made, more confusion amongst the public, more bureaucracy and more money wasted. The fourth reason for our opposition to this Bill is that in our view it infringes upon the rights of communities. We can see no reason why Pietermaritzburg, for instance should not be different in its by-laws from Durban. We can see no reason why Port Shepstone should not have a different point of view from that of, say, Newcastle. We believe that different people live in each of these towns and should be entitled to decide their own way of life in their own particular community. Sunday observance has been a matter for provincial debate over the years, and in Natal in particular a matter for even more local debate and local decision. This ramming down the throat—down the throat of at least one province of South Africa—of intolerant views has in our view no justification whatsoever. Therefore we will not support this clause, but shall vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, we have over a lengthy Second Reading debate canvassed the reasons why we on this side are opposed to this particular legislation. I do not propose repeating those arguments this afternoon, but want to deal with the situation, as we are in Committee, that the House has already approved in principle that there should be a prohibition on the exhibition of films on Sundays and certain public holidays in certain circumstances and to provide for the matters connected therewith.

Mr. Chairman, I think you and the House are aware of the basis of the objections expressed during the last few days with regard to this Bill.

I address myself to the hon. the Minister to get a certain degree of clarity as to how he sees the effect of clause 2. I want to ask the hon. the Minister several questions at this stage—questions I trust he will answer—to get perfect clarity as to what is intended in so far as clause 2, as it is open to various interpretations.

The first point I want to put to the hon. the Minister is in relation to hotels. The hotel industry as such has introduced a system whereby, on Sunday evenings, patrons or guests are invited to come to the hotel to have dinner and to view a film. These film shows are sometimes later than the normal dinner hours, but the guests do not pay extra to see such a film; they are entitled to see it, because it is very often shown in the dining-room of the hotel. I should therefore like to know whether that is the sort of exhibition of a film which the hon. the Minister feels will be hit by clause 2 of the Bill.

Some hotels, especially those at holiday resorts, also provide, as they provide a television room, for film shows in the dining-room or in the lounge of the hotel. The only consideration that is paid is a very indirect one, in that it might be for the refreshment which the residents of the hotel purchase or the fact that they are paying for their board and lodging; it is an amenity of the hotel. For the industry it is necessary that those two matters should be clear and I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate how those two stand.

We then come to the question of social and sporting clubs. It is true that these clubs are not equipped for the showing of 35 mm films, but they are able to hire equipment which can adequately enable them to present films. A rugby club might, for instance, show films of rugby tours or rugby matches. These clubs do this on Sunday nights and, in fact, they charge entrance fees which serve as a means of fund-raising. The admission is open to members and guests of members. Most of these clubs are in licensed premises, so that the control of visitors is strict. It is related to members and their guests. As I understand the Bill, this sort of club will be prohibited from doing this if there is a charge levied, even though it might be for fund-raising in the common interest of the members. One wonders why that should be so.

I also want to raise the matter of home movies. The hon. the Minister has said that he does not mean to change the position relating to home movies shown on a Sunday. Here again, because of the wording of this Bill before us, it prohibits, as I read it—and the hon. the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong—four or five members in a locality agreeing to have Sunday night movies and rotating as to which one of them shall hire and pay for the projector and the film for each consecutive week. In other words, instead of them all paying a share for each showing, they take turns to provide a film and invite the other families. Although such an arrangement is a social one, where families get together, there is in fact a consideration passing from each one of the four who are visiting the other one, because they have the obligation to hire movies themselves. For the purpose of the home movie business, I think this matter should be made clear to us by the hon. the Minister. He should give an assurance to the public that he does not regard such an arrangement or a sharing in the cost of hire as a consideration for the purposes of this particular clause.

I now come to the extent of the prohibition. I think it became clear in the debate that there were two fundamental reasons why that side of the House supported this measure. Firstly, there is the question of the interference or the impeding of the activities of the churches, and in the second place there is the question of the commercialization of the Sabbath—

And the restfulness of the Sunday.

Yes, one can argue about that; I believe that restfulness includes recreation. For instance, if one discusses the matter with the Lifeline organization, they find that it is highly desirable, particularly in crowded residential areas such as Hillbrow, that there should be theatres where people can get out of their small flats and enjoy recreation by attending cinemas on a Sunday. That is the attitude of organizations such as Lifeline. I believe the hon. the Minister must be consequential in what he says. He does not want to tell people what they must do on Sundays and he does not want to tell everybody that they have to go to church. He says that we should not interfere with those people who want to have a quiet and restful Sunday. Surely that interference would only arise as a result of activities which take place in public. The hon. member for Meyerton, who is not here now unfortunately, and the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is here, both made the point that what one was getting at in this Bill was the public showing of films on Sunday, namely those shows which are open to the general public. That was the complaint. It is for that reason that I want to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 12, after “place” to insert:

1. (2) on page 2, in lines 13 and 14, to omit “or by virtue of membership of any association of persons or by virtue of any contribution towards any fund”.

The hon. the Minister will be aware that places which are licensed for entertainment include cinemas, theatres and public halls, such as municipal halls, which are licensed in order that they may be let out, as part of the business of the owners of those halls, for public entertainment. I think the hon. the Minister will be meeting those who are complaining if at least he would clarify those questions which I have put to him. Leave the clubs alone where they are genuine associations. The hon. the Minister knows that persons form themselves into an association or club to get round the Cape law which exists at the moment. They are able to do it on the basis of a form of membership and they go to the theatres as clubs, but are not genuine clubs. What I am talking about, however, are the genuine clubs.

How do you know they are genuine?

I am talking now about the general club that has its premises and which is not merely an association of people who go to see cinema shows on Sunday nights. It is a club like Keurboom, Kelvin Grove, Pretoria Club, City Club and Here XVII—that sort of club which is of a permanent nature and not a club which is not merely termed a club and which is in fact an association of people for the purpose of one specific entertainment, namely Sunday film shows. I can see no objection to the hon. the Minister allowing films to be shown in those circumstances.

I want to come to the next point and that is the question of the permit which is mentioned under this clause. I do not know how the hon. the Minister intends administering this particular provision. [Time expired.]

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

The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the amount of the fine and the length of the imprisonment which may be imposed on any conviction relating to an offence contemplated in this Bill. People are in most cases sentenced to far less stringent prison sentences for culpable homicide than are to be found in the provisions of this Bill relating to the showing of films on a Sunday, and I accordingly want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept my amendment. Secondly, I would like to say, in relation to the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point, that we will support his amendment. It does not go all the way to solving our difficulty as it does not solve the difficulty of the cultural society which has no other means of showing its films except on a Sunday in a normal cinema. It will therefore not help that position, but I think that it does at least assist a certain category of people who will be afflicted by this measure, and we will accordingly support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue with the second point I was about to raise with the hon. the Minister when my time expired and that is the question of permits. His colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, has been wrestling with the problem of permit exemptions where it applies to theatres.

I would like the hon. the Minister to be good enough to indicate to the Committee how he would set about this permit system. What persons and organizations will be consulted when there are applications and what will be the guiding principles he will apply? Could he please in some way indicate to the public whether they would be wasting their time or not in applying for permits. What sort of principles will he apply and how will the matter be administered? Will he decentralize the administration to local magisterial level? The overworked magistrates will certainly not thank him if they also have to deal with applications for permits of this nature. I do not know who is going to handle them, but I can say that the hon. the Minister is going to venture onto a path that is going to prove very hazardous for him and his department. I would like the hon. the Minister to present the guide-lines and elucidate the method by which he is going to apply this permit system.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to follow up what the hon. member for Green Point has just said about the criteria to be adopted by the hon. the Minister in granting his consent because clause 2(2) reads—

Here I would like to submit that the hon. the Minister would have to give consideration to many factors, particularly in the province of Natal, because of the large number of Indian people who are resident in Natal. Applications for consent could come from such a source, particularly in view of the fact that their religious beliefs are not the same as those of many others in the country. Therefore the creation of a prohibition on Sunday cinemas does not really apply to them to the same extent. Will consent in general, or consent in particular circumstances, be taken into account because the Indian community has cinemas and could apply for consent in areas such as Chatsworth or Isipingo. There consent could perhaps be granted. At the same time, however, they also have cinemas in the Albert Street or Queen Street areas which are in close proximity to the Roman Catholic cathedral. Here we are therefore dealing with a different geographical context to that in Chatsworth or Isipingo. I am mentioning this merely to indicate the difference between granting general consent in certain circumstances and granting consent of a particular nature in other circumstances.

I would further like to ask the hon. the Minister about the point I raised in the discussion of clause 1. Could the hon. the Minister give an indication of whether he would give sympathetic consideration to applications from cultural organizations who wish to apply for consent to have slide evenings, particularly in view of the fact that the type of function that has been held in the past, and which they might wish to continue holding, has not brought forth any objections, to my knowledge, from anyone whatsoever. Therefore it is of great importance, in studying this clause, to have an indication from the hon. the Minister of the criteria he wishes to adopt concerning the consent that is provided for in terms of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a couple of questions to the hon. the Minister in relation to clause 2. I should like to begin with clause 2(1) in which there is a blanket and uniform ruling against persons exhibiting films anywhere on Sunday if admission is charged. I want to make it very clear to the hon. the Minister that there are churches, well known to myself and others in this House, which do actually show films on Sunday evenings and charge for the viewing of such films. The hon. the Minister will probably want to know exactly where they are and what they are. I hope, however, that he will accept my word that they do exist. I have actually participated in some of their activities. Young people, in particular, have actually been asked to pay a price to defray the cost of the film and the projector that have been hired. Can the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that churches that do this, i.e. that show films after the church services, will not fall under the provisions of this clause, because if they do, it means they are going to have to apply for exemption. Also, if they do so out of ignorance—which is no excuse—they will face a very heavy fine, although I note that a maximum and not a minimum figure is stipulated. I should like some assurance from the hon. the Minister with regard to that.

Then I should like to support the amendment to clause 2 moved by the hon. member for Sandton. Like him, I believe that the relevant figure is exorbitantly high.

Finally, in terms of this clause and in terms of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate, it is clear that what the Government is trying to achieve is uniformity. That has been stressed sufficiently. I refer especially to the words—

The question of consistency has been raised. I find it very difficult to understand the position. I should like some response from the hon. the Minister as to how it is possible for his colleague, the Minister of Community Development, to say that members of all races will not be allowed into the Civic Centre of Johannesburg because that is a different community and therefore different regulations apply. Yet we are told by the hon. the Minister …

Why do you not raise that matter with my colleague? You can ask him that directly.

Sir, I think the policy of the Government should at least be consistent in the course of one day, even if it is not consistent in the course of a week or a month. I think the hon. the Minister owes the House an explanation of how it is possible for him on the one hand to argue for uniformity throughout South Africa—that was the burden of his speech—while today we are told by another Minister that separate regulations apply to different communities.

Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to try to answer the various questions. In the first place I want to say that I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. Let me try to explain what the actual problem is that we are experiencing. In my Second Reading speech yesterday I said that I had had dealings with the film people. I told them very openly that we did not wish to interfere by means of legislation in regard to films, but that they should then also play the game. I pointed out that we did not want to see the disappearance of a Sunday as a day of rest. I said that we did not want to place stumbling-blocks in the path of the churches. Whether the churches are packed or not we did not want the churches to be able to come along to us later and say: You allow film showings on Sundays precisely when we hold our religious services. What happened? The film people told me that they were financial institutions that rented out films and that they were only interested in the renting out of films and the money that came in. They said that they could not control individuals in bioscopes. What happened then? I am at the moment replying to the hon. member for Green Point. They started organizing clubs which were not actually clubs.

When one goes to a club on a Sunday evening in the normal course of events, the girl at the box-office asks one for one’s film club membership card. If one says that one does not have it, she says that it makes no difference and she asks one’s name. One then gives her one’s name and address. If the film costs, let us say, R1,50 or R2,00, she asks one for R1 for one’s membership and, because one is a new member of the club, one’s ticket only costs R1. The result is that one also only pays R2 like the other club members. In this way one can attend the film showing and become a member of the club. This type of club has been established throughout South Africa at the box-offices of the ordinary bioscopes. They did not decide to establish a club at some other place. When one gets to the box-office, there and then one becomes a member of the club. They have bypassed all the provincial ordinances in this way at every cinema in South Africa. I want to emphasize the fact that these film showings are at the same time as the religious services. When the churches wanted to hold their services on a Sunday evening, they found suddenly that all the cinemas were open on Sundays. For that reason we have made this measure applicable to all clubs. I know that there are clubs that show a particular type of film—art films and so forth. These clubs are the bona fide clubs. However, we do not have a choice because the rogue clubs are operating everywhere and we have therefore to put a stop to the operation of these clubs and associations generally. It is for that reason that we have the proviso which enables us to give exemptions.

One of the organizers of a club of this nature came to see me. He has 30 000 members in his club. I asked him how many of these people attended film showings on a Sunday. His reply was about 15 000. We then calculated how much that person was making. I have nothing against a man who makes money. I like making money. I have never been able to make money in my time but I like to see other people making money. We calculated that this person was making R175 000 per annum, without doing any work. He takes the ordinary film that is shown on the other six days of the week, and gives it to the owner of the cinema where it is shown on a Sunday evening. He buys up all the seats for the Sunday evening. All he does is enrol members. He has two girls in his office and they inquire which films are being shown on various dates. Then a list of these films is sent to all the members so that they can see those films on those particular evenings as members of that club. I have nothing against a man’s making money, neither have I anything against the organization of such a club. But I do object to the fact that he does this on a Sunday evening. I object to the fact that he has done this during the times for religious services. That is why it is provided in the Bill that we can close all clubs.

It goes much further.

What do you mean “It goes much further”?

It includes all sorts of people.

It does include people, but I am coming to that.

What about the genuine club?

I am coming to that. If the hon. member will only give me an opportunity I shall answer that. And if I should perhaps forget, I have no doubt that the hon. member will jump up immediately and remind me that I have forgotten.

*The position is such that we have the right to give a general exemption. I can now say to my Department: Take a few weeks to find out who the people are who have art clubs or religious associations or rugby clubs. I really do not think that a rugby club would show films on a Sunday evening; I really do not think it would. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, no matter who they may be, we can now give attention to the bona fide cases, to people who are interested in a bona fide art club, or whatever interest it is that they have, and we can say immediately that in those specific cases—and we shall mention them by name—we shall grant general exemption. Whether such an organization asks its members for money or not, we know that generally speaking it does not disturb our Sunday rest. It is doing its own thing at its own place. We shall give it a general exemption and it will therefore no longer have to ask for it. It need not even apply; we simply have to know about it.

Now my hon. friend says to me: Yes, you can give certain Indians permission but please not those who are near our church.

I did not say that. I referred to the difficulties.

In those specific cases they can apply and we can then consider each case on its merits. We can take all the factors into consideration. Is your locale situated near a church? What are your religious convictions? I received a letter from an Indian community—I do not know what church they belong to—in which they said that they were grateful that we were no longer going to permit the showings of films on a Sunday. I don’t “know who they were. It may have been one of the sects, I do not know. However, they told me that they were people who keep the Sunday just as we do.

One of the 10% Christians.

I do not know. It may well be. As I say, there are specific cases in regard to which we can make an exception.

I come now to the hon. member for Green Point. He spoke about the hotels that have developed the custom of showing a film to those people who eat at that hotel. If people eat there and on that evening they show a film free or as part of the service, that does not fall under this Bill.

They pay for the food.

Of course they pay for the food, but it is a free service that is offered to people as a recreation, to the people eating there. It has nothing whatsoever to do with me and with this legislation.

How naїve can you be!

I beg your pardon. Would the hon. member like to make a speech? Does he want to ask me a question? He should not kick up a general row and he should not just make a noise. That is no argument. If he wants to argue, let him!

*I come now to the question of television. Precisely the same thing holds good in this case. The hotel has a television set in the lounge where people sit having their drinks and chatting. That television set can be turned on and people can sit and watch it. That has precisely nothing to do with this legislation. This legislation is not at all interested in it. This legislation has no interest in the television set standing in a person’s bedroom and which he can turn on or off as he pleases. This legislation has no interest in the ordinary television set in anyone’s home. The Government holds the view—and this has also been embodied in the Bill—that the television set in a person’s home is his own affair. The Government has nothing to say about that. He can switch his television set on or off as he pleases. He can sing in his bath or he need not sing in his bath. He can walk around naked in his house or he can put his clothes on. That is his own affair. [Interjections.] He can do what he likes. He can swim or walk around in a swimming pool. He can do exactly as he pleases.

However, there is such a thing as “home movies”, something about which the hon. member for Green Point is very concerned. If anybody wants to do this sort of thing—and now of course I have to remain legalistic— and he asks his friends to pay an admission fee in order to see a film in his home, he will find himself squarely within the scope of this legislation. All that I can say to such a person is that he will have to approach the Government for permission. However, let us imagine that a person, together with a friend, decides to show a film on a Sunday evening at his home, and they rent the film on the Saturday, if then, on the Sunday evening, they look at that film together with a group of other friends and no admission fee is charged, that has nothing to do with me and with this legislation.

Otherwise it is only the rich who can afford that type of thing.

Yes, precisely! That is, however, a case for those people. But if a man stands at his door and asks people to pay an admission fee in order to cover the costs that he has incurred in hiring the film, it remains an admission fee that he is charging and that is forbidden. It is just unfortunate that we have to make the provisions of this legislation so wide but it has had to be done in order to restrict the clubs that are out to commercialize a Sunday. That is the reason why this legislation has been introduced.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands put a question to me in connection with the Church. I think that I have already replied to him. A general exemption can be given in such cases. As an alternative, special exemption can also be given. If the hon. member can mention specific cases to me I can make the special exemption general in respect of that specific religious group. In other words, I can say that that specific Church will from now on and for all time be exempted, and then the matter will be over and done with.

Now, however, the hon. member wants to know why the fine should be so high— R1 500. The reason is obvious. We have calculated that a cinema with seating for 1 000 people, if all the seats are taken—and one must accept the fact that this will be so particularly if The Godfather or a similar film is shown—will put R1 500 in the pocket of the theatre owner. We decided therefore that the fine should be R1 500. It is of course not because a first offence must cost him R1 500. However, if I were to accept the amendment of the hon. member—something that I am not prepared to do—the people running film clubs will know that they will only be fined R100. Accordingly, a cinema owner will ensure that his cinema is full on a Sunday evening. This will put R1 500 in his pocket. Every Monday morning he will pay an admission of guilt of R100. Such a person will then say that he is going to proceed with this sort of unlawful action. He will then continue doing so and every Monday morning he will automatically write out a cheque for R100. However, the magistrate is now in the position, if somebody is guilty of that type of action, to tell him that he will be fined R100. Furthermore, the magistrate can tell the man who has shown the film that if he is caught again he will be fined R500 or more. He can also ask him how many seats he sold the previous evening, and if the man then says that he sold 1 000, the magistrate can order the money forfeited to the State. This then will mean that the man will have kept the cinema open for nothing.

The clause gives the magistrate before whom the case is heard a measure of discretion to do what he thinks is right under the circumstances. The circumstances may be such that the magistrate does not want to impose a heavy fine. An hon. member has referred to the circumstances in Margate on the Natal South Coast. I should imagine that in that case the magistrate would say: “Yes, in Margate the film was shown to visitors and we shall make the fine only R200 or R50 or R25.” However, if this had taken place in Durban right next to a church in Smith Street, he might say to the man: “Look here, I am going to hit you hard. You saw there was a church there, so why did you disturb these people with your business which was then in operation?” The legislation gives the magistrate the opportunity to decide himself and accordingly there will be some measure of flexibility.

If I have forgotten something I shall be glad if hon. members will question me. I am only too willing to reply. I want to emphasize the fact that it is not the purpose of this legislation to tell people what they should do on a Sunday. [Interjections.] No, that is not so. I challenge any hon. members who have made speeches to tell me that they want to change the character of a Sunday. The hon. member for Pinelands has said that he wants to retain its character as it is. An hon. member read a letter from the Anglican Church to this effect: We do not expect legislation but we do not like the idea of a film on a Sunday. Not one of us wants our Sunday rest to be disturbed to any great extent. I have not acted in a churchified way; I appreciate it of my colleagues who in fact do so, and I said in my Second Reading Speech yesterday that I agreed with them. However, I have not acted in a churchified manner officially on behalf of the Government. We have simply adopted a practical attitude and said: We do not want the Sunday rest to be badly disturbed, and although some people are going to swim or play tennis or something else, that has nothing to do with us. Neither has it anything to do with us what people do in private places. We simply do not want the whole country to find itself in the position that prevails in Europe. I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who would want it to be so, and that is the whole purpose of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise two points arising from the hon. the Minister’s reply. One is the rejection of the whole of the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. the Minister did not refer to the first part, the question of places licensed for public entertainment.

[Inaudible.]

These are the places to which the hon. the Minister takes exception; he talks of the commercialization. Now, it is only in places licensed as cinemas or for public entertainment that you can get commercialization, because they are the places with the seating and the facilities and usually they are in commercial centres. These are the places which the Minister wants to stop. If he controlled all places licensed for public entertainment, then he would not be bothered with these hundreds of petty, minor problems which have been raised: The genuine club, the cultural club or the holiday resort hotel in the mountains which has a Sunday film for children. All these examples—the rugby club, the social club—would all have been dealt with. [Interjections.] However, these are not what the hon. the Minister is worried about. He is clearly worried about commercial exploitation on Sunday. This amendment, limiting the Bill’s application to places licensed for public entertainment, puts a stop to that and it therefore achieves the Minister’s objective. Now, why go beyond the objectives at which he himself says he is aiming?

The hon. member for Green Point moved an amendment to meet the hon. the Minister’s objective. He said: “This is what you want to stop; this is what you want to deal with; now this deals with it. ” Why go beyond what you want to deal with? The hon. the Minister himself says that he is not going to stop the genuine clubs and other organizations and groups, of which examples were given. He is going to exempt them. Why then give himself that extra work? If he is not going to stop them and if he is going to exempt them anyway, why does he include them in the first place and then exempt them? You stop the evil you are aiming at by stopping places licensed for public entertainment. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister which of these numerous examples which he says are harmless and which he does not want to stop, could exploit a place not licensed for public entertainment. How can a place not licensed for public entertainment be exploited, because it would have to be either a hall big enough to accommodate the public or a place licensed as a cinema. Otherwise it would not be economic. It is not a commercial proposition to have 10 people in your lounge looking at a film. Even if they are millionaires it does not become a commercial proposition. This is the one aspect I want to raise with the hon. the Minister.

The other is to follow up the reference to hotels and clubs made by the hon. member for Green Point. All hotels and clubs are licensed and controlled by his department, subject to the regulations, inspections and— later this afternoon we are to deal with the streamlining of that procedure—the full control of the hon. the Minister and his department. I ask him whether he will not then consider making a blanket exemption of hotels and clubs licensed and classified by the Department of Justice under the Liquor Act. Then you will have cleared the lot and dealt with them all in one fell swoop. Otherwise injustice can be created if you deal with each one individually and can say to X hotel that it can have its cowboy films for the kids on Sunday nights, whilst you say to Y hotel that it cannot.

What is wrong with the grown-ups?

Yes, lots of grown-ups will go to a cowboy film. If you do not have a blanket exemption you are going to discriminate between the one and the other. These are all matters which are in the hands of the hon. the Minister anyway, and he can deal with them if they exploit or abuse that exemption. I am therefore going to ask the hon. the Minister to consider excluding licensed clubs and hotels from the application of this provision.

The last point which I want to make ties up with this, and relates to the Minister’s explanation that if you have a free film show during the course of a meal, you are not paying for it. How does that relate to the wording of the clause, which says, “for any consideration, direct or indirect”? If you were paying for a meal and watching a film, could that not be held to be an indirect payment? This could be overcome by a blanket exemption to licensed hotels and clubs. If this is not done, I visualize there being an evasion of this provision by, say, the selling of tea and coffee at a film show at 50 cents a time, which is a nominal charge simply to cover the hire of the film, and not to make profit for the hotel. If that is the case, that is the way that would be done. I think that in the interests of holiday-goers and of the industry as a whole it is necessary that there should be clarity on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I would like to say that the examples quoted to me by the hon. members for Durban Point and Green Point do not fall under this legislation at all. Why should I grant them exemption under the Liquor Act for something for which they cannot be exempted from since they do not fall under the provisions of this legislation? That would be ridiculous. The other cases which the hon. member for Durban Point has in mind are cases that we do not want to exempt. Why should a man go into an hotel and pay 70c for a cup of tea while it normally costs only 20c? If the hotelier wants business and wants people to come and have tea, let him show a film free of charge. I have no argument about that at all. If he wants to provide an extra facility for people who come and have dinner or drinks, he is welcome to do it. What I want to know is why he should always charge the public, in the first place to get them into his hotel in order to get their business and also for something which he holds out to them as being free of charge. If he wishes to give something free of charge, we shall not argue with him and he will not fall under the provisions of this Bill at all. If he does not give it free of charge, but is charging people to come and see a film in his hotel, then he Mis under the provisions of the legislation. That is how simple it all is.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister, simply in order to have absolute clarity in connection with this matter? I want to mention a specific case. The hon. the Minister pointed out that certain clubs may perhaps not at all fall within the scope of this clause. For example, one may have a sporting club to which one can take one’s family to have a hamburger or curry and rice while films are shown on Sunday evenings. At the moment an admission fee is charged for this. However, should this take place in the future without an admission fee, it will not then fall under the provisions of this clause?

As long as those people are members of that club.

In other words, if they are members of a club then they do not fall under the provisions of the clause. In other words—if I may mention a specific case—are Glenwood Old Boys such a case? The hon. the Minister has said that he will consider possibly granting complete exemption if there are rugby clubs or sporting clubs that show films on Sundays. The hon. the Minister said that he would go into the merits of each case. I have now mentioned a specific club, namely, Glenwood Old Boys, a licensed sporting club, that shows films for a fee every Sunday evening. What I want to know now is, if in the future they are prepared to show these films free and nevertheless to serve a meal, will they be permitted to do so?

Where for example that club shows a film free of charge and does not double the price of the hamburger mentioned by the hon. member, it will not fall under the provisions of this legislation.

But it is a club.

I am coming to that aspect now. If they were to say only registered club members were able to eat there on a certain evening, they would in fact fall under the provisions of this legislation. However, where they simply say that a certain club will be holding a dinner at a certain place on a certain evening and everyone is welcome to go and eat there and to watch a film, such a case would be excluded from this Bill. The courts will set it out restrictively by saying that membership requires that somebody stands at the door and asks to see membership cards before people are allowed to enter. However, if this is not done and the public are also at liberty to enter …

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member want to make a speech or does she just want to cackle from her bench once again? That provision is obviously intended for the cases that I have just mentioned, namely people belonging to clubs for which only a membership card is valid. If a club only has a name and does not require a membership card for entry to be gained, and a person is able to eat there while a free film is being shown, that will not fall under this legislation. Does he understand it now, or does the hon. member still not understand it?

[Inaudible.]

Just wait a minute, let me first struggle with that hon. member. I shall struggle with you later. You know, Mr. Chairman, there is none so blind as he who will not see, and there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. Would the hon. member prefer me to say it in English?

[Inaudible.]

It is quite simple. The Bill provides for this.

You do not say the same thing every time.

No, I say precisely the same thing. Let us take the case of rugby club A. No membership is required to attend functions at rugby club A. Membership is not required. One is not told that there will be a film showing on a particular evening only for members of the club.

But if they are licensed

Forget about its being licensed. If one is told that one has to show one’s membership card if one wishes to attend a film on any particular evening, that is obviously an offence against this Bill. However, if it is said in the name of the club that there is going to be a social on a particular evening, that meals are going to be served and that a film is also going to be shown, that does not fall under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, just by way of explanation: Every time the hon. the Minister comes back and he says that if the club states that everyone can attend a function, that it is a public function and that everything is free, he will allow it. Then it will not fall under this legislation. On the other hand, he puts the situation where only members of the club can obtain admission. My question dealt with a sporting club having licensed premises. No person can go there on a Sunday or on any day at all if that person is not a member.

Then it falls under this legislation.

In other words, every club of that type is covered by this legislation and has no chance at all of getting out of it.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to accept the hon. the Minister’s courteous invitation to make a speech. I am still not clear as to the answer to this question and I doubt whether many hon. members are. The hon. the Minister has given two or three different answer. He told us that in instances where a club shows a film and its members have to produce membership cards at the door, it falls under this legislation. However, if they opened it to members and friends, as I understood him to say, it would not fall under the legislation.

That is before they brought in this additional liquor licence …

I want to quote one specific instance, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give me a clear answer. One such club, which happens to be in my constituency, is the Transvaal Automobile Club. That is a straight sporting club, despite its name. It is a golf club, it has tennis courts, bowling greens, a swimming pool—the lot—and you have to be a member of that club in order to enter its premises. If you are a guest you have to be accompanied by a member and you must be signed on when you go to that club.

Then it falls under this legislation.

It does? They have film shows regularly and have done so for years. Every Sunday night there is a film show. People go along, pay for a meal and see a film. You are not asked to produce your membership card, but you can go as a member and you may take guests with you if you like. Does that club therefore fall under this legislation?

If you can only get in there because you are a member then the answer is “yes”.

And if you go as the guest of a member?

But you say that one has to sign on as a guest. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton now comes in at this late stage of the debate. So far she has shown an apparent disinterest in the whole debate.

Well, Sunday observance does not affect me.

Of course, Sunday observance does not affect her. I only request the hon. member to do two things. Firstly, before she starts asking questions she should simply first read the Bill …

I have it here and I have read it.

… so that she may know what she is talking about and, secondly, she must find out what they do in Israel. One cannot get into a film show in Israel on a Saturday at all.

And a lot of people object to that.

Nobody objects to it whatsoever. Does the hon. member object to the Israeli attitude?

Of course I would object. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and I seem to be in a difficult situation. The hon. the Minister tells the House that he is not trying to tell people what to do on Sundays, that he is not telling people to go to church. I want to confess to him that I am not trying to tell people to go to cinemas on Sunday because I cannot remember when I last went to a cinema myself. I have not been attending for a long time. What I am concerned with, however, is the problem the hon. the Minister has raised and highlighted at this late stage when we have crystallized the issue into a single position, i.e. admission by virtue of membership of a club. That is the very problem the hon. the Minister has dealt with now. This is an intolerable interference with the genuine association of people. Does the hon. the Minister really feel justified, in view of the fact that he wants to stop commercialism and interference with other persons …

I told the hon. gentleman I would give a general exemption. We are only after the “slenter” clubs. That hon. member knows that as well as I do. I have said that on how many occasions now. We are only after the spurious clubs.

Will a club which is licensed under the Liquor Act be a club which the hon. the Minister will exempt?

I will give a general exemption to genuine clubs which do not abuse the situation at all.

I see. So every genuine club in South Africa must now apply to the hon. the Minister.

They must let me know and we will have a look at their situation.

In the meantime they must stop their Sunday cinema shows until they have a permit from the Minister? What I am trying to emphasize is that the hon. the Minister is trying to legislate for moral conduct, a thing Parliament cannot do.

Order! The hon. member must observe my ruling given at the commencement of this debate. I am not going to allow a repetition of the Second Reading debate.

I shall endeavour not to do so, Mr. Chairman. I am merely endeavouring to get a little clarity from the hon. the Minister. I have asked him how he is going to apply this permit system. He has told us now in Committee that he is generally going to exempt all genuine clubs. That is the first point. To what other persons is the hon. the Minister going to give permits in general? The hon. the Minister must, after all, give the country some guidance. To whom are the permits going to be granted in general? Could he perhaps help us with that?

Mr. Chairman, I told the hon. member that we would investigate the situation. We know exactly what has to be done, and during the debate I gave a precise indication of what our aim is. I indicated what we would like to put a stop to. Cases we do not wish to put a stop to, we will investigate. We will give general exemption to certain people. Those we are uncertain about, we shall inform clearly in a Press statement, etc., that if they wish to have exemption, they should please apply for it, because we should like to take a look at their particulars.

You are fond of work.

No, I am not fond of work, but neither am I afraid to work; that is the point.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Earlier on he said he did not want to interfere with groups of people who want to get together on a Sunday to show films in their homes, a club-house or something of that nature. I should like to ask him what happens if people have made a prior arrangement to sign a register as they enter to see the film and then are afterwards debited for attending it. If I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister said he did not mind as long as cash was not paid at the door.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members can continue to present me with specific examples all afternoon. The hon. member has the Bill. Let him ask the law adviser to read it. He must take this legislation into account. I cannot elaborate on this any further. After all, it will not be worth my while to give them legal advice all afternoon.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. L. G. Murray put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment negatived.

On amendment (2) moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. C. 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 amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

The hon. member for Durban North had to leave the House to catch an aeroplane and asked me to move the amendment which stands in his name. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

1. (2) This Act shall not apply to the Province of Natal without the consent of the Natal Provincial Council.

Order! I regret that I cannot accept the amendment because it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the proceedings on this Bill, where we are dealing with the Short Title and the date of commencement of the Act, it is apparent, although it is not written into this particular clause, that this Bill when it becomes law, will apply to all the residents in all the areas of the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, you are aware, as is the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House, that we have consistently maintained, throughout the debate on this Bill, that the wishes of each local community should be considered. We have maintained that the central Government should not force or enforce conformity on all those communities.

Order! I must direct the hon. member’s attention to Standing Order No. 63 which requires him to confine himself to the details of the clause.

With respect, Sir, I was leading up to moving an amendment. I believe that I am conforming to the rules in doing so. I now move as an amendment—

1. (2) This Act shall not apply in any area zoned in terms of the Group Areas Act, 1966 (Act No. 36 of 1966), for occupation by non-Whites.

This is in line with what I have said …

Order! I am not prepared to accept the amendment because it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman …

Sit!

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that point?

The hon. member may do so.

Mr. Chairman, we have here a Bill which is designed—in the words of the hon. the Minister—to keep the Sabbath quiet. The Sabbath as we see it is a particular day; it is a Sunday and is specified and defined in this particular Bill. It is the Sunday which must be kept quiet. There are, however, communities in South Africa who have a different Sabbath and to whom, we feel, this should not apply on that particular day, i.e. the Sunday. I believe that it would not be in conflict with the spirit or the principle of this Bill if we were to exclude from the provisions of this Bill those areas where the people concerned are basically and overwhelmingly non-Christians and hold a day different from a Sunday as a Sabbath. I do not believe that it would be destructive of the principle of the Bill.

Order! It is true that amendments which limit the scope of a Bill have in the past been accepted, even, for example, when they have had the effect of introducing a new and important principle. However, all amendments are subject to the basic rule that no amendment which is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time, may be proposed. As I consider that the proposed amendment does conflict with the fundamental principle of the Bill, viz. that the Minister of Justice is to exercise control throughout the Republic over the exhibition of films on Sundays as prescribed in clause 2, I am not able to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must accept your ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I am only rising to point out to the hon. member for Green Point that this Bill will only commence on a date proclaimed by the State President. The reason why this clause is formulated in this way is to give us an opportunity to examine and investigate the various clubs to which reference was made here to see in which cases we can grant a general exemption. That is why we shall not put it into operation immediately after it is promulgated.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned I had dealt with the two main benefits of the Bill before the House, i.e. the removal of the annual renewals procedure and the licensing of companies, and also the three main weaknesses, i.e. that the old National Liquor Board, now the Liquor Board, had achieved its objective of becoming an empire controlling all liquor affairs, the delays in finalizing licence applications and, in particular, the question of the duties which will fall upon the hon. the Minister of Justice if this Bill becomes law. This is the hon. the Minister who, in the Bill we have just handled, is taking upon himself more work in granting exemptions and permits letting people off the provisions of another new Act. He is the Minister responsible for the safety of South Africa, for the combating of terrorism, for the controlling of our police, for the maintenance of our judicial system and for the control of our prisons. However, this Bill before us places the following further duties on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister. He must authorize wine-tasting functions and impose or amend the conditions under which wine-tasting functions can be held.

[Inaudible.]

This power he can at least delegate, however, but to do so takes six clauses and one section of the old Act. That is what is needed to give the hon. the Minister the power to regulate and control wine-tasting functions. He must grant producers’ authorities and he must grant transfers of producers’ authorities. He may withdraw producers’ authorities without giving any reason. He acts as a court of appeal, he grants new licences and grants transfers of licences. The latter function he can delegate but the others he must perform himself. These I now mention are all powers he must himself exercise. He must grant off-sales to winehouses, authorize additional business to be carried on and grant hotel off-sale, ladies bar and barmaid privileges. He personally must consider every application to employ barmaids in any of South Africa’s 1 300 or 1 400 hotels. He can extend the classification period, he regulates sports ground licences and he authorizes late hours for wine and malt licencees. He personally—the hon. the Minister of Justice—must authorize late hours for wine and malt establishments, and he cannot delegate that authority. He prescribes special hours during which liquor may be served and he authorizes extra hours for wine and malt licencees. He authorizes the hours for sports ground licences and he can delegate the authority—though he himself is responsible—for exempting sports grounds from restrictions. He himself authorizes sales by wholesalers direct to the public and he authorizes a separation of premises and wholesalers’ hospitality rooms. If a wholesaler wants a room to entertain customers in, the hon. the Minister is responsible for considering the matter—but he may at least delegate that power. However, he cannot delegate control over authorizing multi-racial hotels, granting special authority to brewers, granting section 100bis authority licences, imposing prohibitions on bottle stores, granting section l00sex authorities and imposing prohibitions on non-European on-consumption. These are all personal responsibilities of the Minister, whose job it also is to keep South Africa safe from terrorism, to run our Police and Justice departments, and so on.

That is why you must treat me kindly!

He must authorize the employment of females on licensed premises. He authorizes ladies’ bars. He authorizes delegated management. He appoints liquor inspectors. He nominates the vice chairman of the National Liquor Board. He imposes restrictions on bottle stores. He authorizes financial interest by producers in the retail trade and vice versa. He makes regulations. These are all responsibilities of the Minister of Justice.

Just look at the licences he must consider: Wholesale, foreign, brewers, bottle, wine farmers’, grocer’s wine, restaurant, hotel, wine and malt, club, theatre, sports ground, mealtime wine and malt and wine-house licences. All these he must consider in terms of this Bill—plus authorities under sections 100bis and l00sex. If this Bill goes through, that hon. Minister will have to deal with every one of these different types of licences. There is not even a Deputy Minister to help him. What is more, although he as Minister grants the licence, he at the same time has the final word. Previously licenses were granted or refused by the Board and people could appeal to the hon. the Minister. However now each one of these licences has to be considered by the Liquor Board. It has to consider all the facts, and then it makes recommendations to the Minister. The hon. the Minister in turn cannot grant a licence unless the Liquor Board tells him he can do so. He can veto a licence application, but he cannot grant any of these licences, not even the most unimportant of them, unless the chairman of the Liquor Board informs him that the board recommends accordingly. Therefore the hon. the Minister is in fact to this extent a rubber stamp. But in terms of the Bill we are now considering, the hon. the Minister has to read all the relevant papers—I refer to the proposed new section 31 and particularly to page 34, line 30, of the Bill. The hon. the Minister is expected to read all the documents concerning an application. Although he has no power to grant a licence if it is not recommended, he must then proceed to consider those documents. He can only approve recommendations of the Liquor Board, but he is the final authority. He can also impose, amend and withdraw conditions in a whole range of fields and he is the man who must deal personally—he cannot delegate these powers—with all the powers I have listed. The hon. the Minister becomes nothing but a glorified super de luxe licensing officer, but a licensing officer without the power to grant a licence unless the chairman of the Liquor Board recommends that he grants such a licence. I think this Bill goes much too far towards the centralization of power.

What are some of the side-effects? The side-effects are that any of the decisions taken with regard to licence applications are taken in secret in the Minister’s office. This Bill does away with local boards, which had become a farce anyway because the National Liquor Board made the final recommendations. However, by doing away with local boards, there is no local knowledge involved in taking a decision. The decision is taken in the Minister’s office in Pretoria without the benefit of the local knowledge which a local liquor licensing board could provide.

But there is an open hearing on the spot.

I am coming to that. There is an open hearing in each province by the National Board which can sit locally. That board then makes a recommendation, but the decision is taken by the hon. the Minister in his office, and the person taking the decision does not hear the evidence that was led, nor does he get the impact of the local circumstances. So for the Minister, who makes the final decision, there is no access except through the board to any local information.

And the full record.

The full record is a long record, and it takes him a long time to go through it. The decision is not taken by those who hear the case and who have the knowledge fresh in their minds, but long afterwards, by the Minister. The applicant appears before the board, but not before the person who makes the final decision. There is no appearance at the point at which the decision is made by the Minister. The appearance is before the board, but the Minister’s decision becomes final because there is no appeal from the Minister. I believe that we should seriously consider making provision for the National Liquor Board, or the Liquor Board, as it is to be called, to take the decision instead of the Minister. The Minister should then be a court of appeal, so that an applicant can go to the Minister with fresh facts on appeal. In any case, the hon. the Minister is only a rubber stamp, except as far as a veto right is concerned. The hon. the Minister cannot be expected to have the detailed knowledge and to deal in detail with all the responsibilities which we are placing on him.

There are other aspects of this Bill, especially some of the side effects, which I think need looking at. The conditions which can be imposed can vary from licensee to licensee, from place to place, and there is no certainty in those conditions, because at any time the Minister may amend, withdraw or impose conditions and restrictions on a licence, whereas at least under the old annual system a condition was imposed annually and the licensee knew where he stood for at least a year ahead.

I want to return to this aspect, but let me in passing refer to some of the other aspects which are not cleared up by this Bill. I refer, for instance, to the question of objections. Provision is still made for individuals, associations or licensees to object to and request the withdrawal of a licence. I believe this was the time to do away with the annual gramophone record, the stereotyped objections made each year. These come from perfectly sincere people, but I believe one should provide that objections, once lodged, are disposed of, and that unless there are new grounds for objections, you cannot re-submit an annual objection every year on exactly the same grounds. The associations and organizations, which in all good faith come forward with the same arguments every year, will then not be able to bring them up year after year and oblige every licensee to appear, and to go to the expense of briefing an attorney or counsel to see that his interests are protected.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer is that of election days. Here I take issue with the hon. the Minister. This House, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, amended the Electoral Act.

I would like to see that recommendation.

It was a majority recommendation from the Select Committee.

What does it say?

The recommendation was that the prohibition on the sale of liquor on election days should be removed as an experiment. That was the spirit of it; I do not have the report in front of me. Nevertheless, it was a recommendation and this House …

I challenge you to show me that recommendation.

… whatever the recommendation, however it was worded, Parliament took the decision to delete that proviso.

From the Electoral Act, not from the Liquor Act.

Yes, from the Electoral Act. But this hon. Minister is not content to accept the decision of Parliament. He comes with his Act, which he controls, and says: “I am going to ignore that and I am going to impose my restriction because I am more important than the Minister of the Interior. I am not going to be dictated to! I am the big boy! I am the ’Nkosi ’Nkulu. I am not going to have the hon. the Minister of the Interior interfering. I will tell him what to do. I am the Minister of Justice!” He is thus overruling, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and this hon. House supported that hon. Minister. This, I believe, is a reflection on Parliament’s decision.

There are some other aspects; for instance the retention of the voters’ roll figure publication—one licence per 2 000 voters— serves no useful purpose now that liquor is available to all races. The clientèle is not determined by the number of White voters. It is determined by the number of customers available, and I believe that is another proviso which could go.

Then we come to one of the new measures, slipped in quietly by the hon. the Minister between last year’s Bill and the present one, as though it were a routine matter. That is the proposed new section 118—the power to appoint inspectors and to give powers to those inspectors. In terms of these new proposed powers the designated police officer is removed …

It was in the 1928 Act.

It was in the 1928 Act, yes. But it had fallen away, and is now being re-introduced.

It never fell away. It remained in the Act.

It was not operative. There were designated police officers doing the work. Now the hon. the Minister is creating his own inspectorate, which has complete power to enter, search, question, inspect records and to remove and make copies of any records without warrant…

How could the inspectorate do its job without these powers?

That is correct. They could not do the job without powers but they could do this with a warrant in cases where there was a suspected offence. However, these inspectors now will have total power without a warrant to enter and investigate and to question any person they like: Any licensee, any firm, any bottle-store, any hotel, or whatever the case may be. Why does the hon. the Minister want a new inspectorate when he has his designated police officer, and when the Hotel Board has its inspectors? Why must we now have a fourth inspectorate poking its nose into a licensee’s business? There are already Hotel Board inspectors, the police who do the classifying, and the designated police officers—already three groups of inspectors who inspect licencees. Why now a fourth classification to perform exactly the same functions as a designated police officer? Or is the hon. the Minister not satisfied with the three arms of power which at the moment can interfere in the affairs of the liquor industry? So, that too, Mr. Speaker, is a provision which, I believe, needs looking at.

I want, in passing, to mention which appears to be the tremendous importance placed on the “chocolate soldier” raids— raids which take up the time of a police force which is already overloaded with work. Police have to go round poking into chocolates in cafes and in supermarkets in order to establish whether a chocolate liqueur contains more than 2% alcohol. Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that at this time in South Africa’s history the police have time to go around—I know of one place where there has been three raids—and take away a box of chocolates to have it tested by scientists to measure how much alcohol it contains? It is unbelievable that we can be asked to approve this sort of legislation in 1977 with all the other things, which I do not want to refer to now, which should be occupying the mind of the hon. the Minister.

Let me look at another one of the things which I think we should consider more carefully. On page 14 I want to refer to the sense of justice of the hon. the Minister of Justice. This deals with the question of applications which were not lodged in due time and in the prescribed manner. This is one of the new provisions—the proposed section 9(4)(a)—and states that if the Liquor Board is of the opinion that the late submission—

So here we find that when it is “just” to condone something you fine the person R500. That is the Minister’s sense of justice! Surely, if a thing is just, if it is beyond his control and it is found to be just and reasonable that relief should be granted, you do not then go and impose a penalty on top of that. I quote that as one of the many anomalies, one of the many aspect of this Bill which I believe we in this House cannot properly consider.

Let me look, for instance, at the emperor of the liquor empire’s power to overrule the courts of law. In one clause we find that if there is an appeal to the court and the court rules in favour of the appellant, the court rules that a new hearing shall be held. Another provision lays down that the new hearing shall be held by the Liquor Board, while another clause provides that if the chairman of the Liquor Board has refused to hold a hearing, he need not hold it. In other words, that clause—I refer to clause 12— inserting inter alia a new section 14(2) and a new section 25(1) and (2)—provides that if a court of law, the Supreme Court, finds infavour of an applicant the chairman of the Liquor Board can refuse a hearing on those grounds and is then not required to carry out the decision of the court.

I can go on with example after example. We have, furthermore, the procedure whereby licences are granted, which, I believe, is clumsy and unwieldy in the form in which it is set out in this Bill. The procedure is that the Liquor Board recommends, the Minister decides and then a whole series is laid down—separate procedures for each of the innumerable licences which I quoted earlier on. Why not one simple provision saying “These are the following licences which may be granted” and then list them? Then in one clause you can say “Upon the granting of a licence the necessary licence shall be issued by the Receiver of Revenue”. You can do it in three of four lines, but instead of that we have here page after page of repetition and of conflicting approaches, some put positively, some negatively. Let me take just one example, viz. the issues which the Liquor Board may consider. These items, which the Liquor Board may consider, are listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the new section 15(2), but then there is also a paragraph (f), which says—

Why list all these items and then say, “any other application, except two”? Why do you need more than that the chairman of the board may, if he thinks fit, refer any application made to him to an interim meeting of the board, except these two? Instead there is a long rigmarole, a list of what it may consider, as well as “and anything else”.

Let us look at some of the other Powers. I refer to clause 61 and the restrictions laid down in the proposed section 75(1). This goes on for eight pages, from page 84 to page 100, repeating over and over again conditions and restrictions for each type of licence. All these eight pages could be summed up in a simple clause which sets out the common provisions and then states that for the following type of licence: “the hours of sale shall be … and the days on which liquor may be sold, shall be … etc.

That would create a lawyer’s paradise.

Yes, it would be a lawyer’s paradise, because it would be so simple that even the lawyers would not be able to find back-doors and ways of evading it. It would be straightforward and would not be an involved, unintelligible jungle through which the normal licensee does not have a hope of finding his way. I have spoken of all this, because we are now considering consolidation after this amendmending Bill. What are we going to consolidate a clumsy, wordy and often unintelligible creaking tangle of bureaucratic red tape, because what has happened is that every time somebody has seen a ghost or some clever bloke has found a back-door, another clause has simply been added to the 1928 Act, until now you have the situation to which I have referred. It takes you eight pages to list the conditions, hours and days on which liquor may be sold, whereas it could have been done with one simple clause covering all the different types of licences and the different times during which they can operate. What has happened is that we still have the original 1928 legislation but every time there has been a problem, a new amendment has been passed and simply added to the law, with the result that it has grown disjointed. I believe that before consolidating it is now our duty, as Parliament, to look at this whole Act, as it will be, if this Bill is passed. For every ghost, as I say, and every official’s nightmare there has come a new addition of sections.

We have separate provisions covering a multitude of things, for instance the auctioning of deceased or insolvent estates and the release of liquor in the case of ships. I have mentioned wine-tasting functions, vinegar manufacturers, wine producers and then there are all the licences I listed, exemptions for every military, police, prison or railway mess, every race group authority and every Government agency. Each one has its own little chapter and section because each one has been added at a different time and each addition has meant simply adding to the original Act of 1928. This could all be streamlined into a much simpler and much more understandable and, I believe, a much more effective Act.

Let us take a look at one last example of what I call “gobbledygook officialese”. I refer to clause 7 on page 12 where, first of all, I take the example of sportsground liquor licences with which the hon. the Minister himself must deal. This is how section 8(2) of the Act is proposed to be worded after being amended—

So one starts off there, with a reference to section 67, and then one has to turn to a completely different section of the Act to find the proviso which controls it. This is to be found on page 66 of the Bill, in clause 47. It states here—

It goes on to list his disqualifications. So, in the first place it says that one cannot issue a licence to someone who may not have a licence. In a separate clause it is stated who may not have a licence and then one has to refer back to another clause to find out that certain licences will not be granted to persons other than bona fide agents carrying on business outside the Republic. Therefore, one has to turn to three clauses, scattered throughout the Bill, in order to establish the simple provision that one cannot issue a licence to a person who is not entitled to a licence. The hon. the Minister has to approve a licence and the National Liquor Board has to recommend it, but one has to go through this whole gobbledygook procedure in order to establish that you must not issue a licence to someone who may not have it. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not issue a licence to someone who may not have it. If he has prohibitions which he must apply, then they are overriding.

Therefore I believe it is our duty to look at this Bill with a view to modernizing, streamlining and simplifying the legislation. We cannot shirk our task. It is impossible to debate this Bill clause by clause during a Committee Stage. I do not at all pretend to be an expert on the liquor laws, but I have studied them a fair amount. I am sure that in this whole House there are not five or six people who have the slightest idea what it is all about. If there are five, it is a lot, and they have minimal knowledge. I certainly do not pretend to have any legal qualifications and there are very few qualified legal people who can deal with this Bill with any certainty.

You are exaggerating.

No, I am not exaggerating. It has become one of those specialized things where one attorney specializes in it and eventually becomes an expert in it. It is far too complicated for general understanding by the legal profession itself, let alone the licensee. I would like to hear members on the Government side deal specifically with the contents of the Bill to show their knowledge and deep understanding of it. I would like then to tell this House how clearly they understand each of the 150 clauses in the Bill and I want them to explain to us exactly what the proviso is that is attached to, for instance, a wine licence.

That can be debated in the Committee Stage.

You cannot do it, because not enough people understand what it is all about or have any knowledge of the working in practice of the Liquor Act. Furthermore, this House cannot deal in detail with a matter where—and I have given examples—one issue is dealt with in different parts of the Bill, because we can only discuss in Committee the clause which is before us. When one is trying to simplify, as I suggest, and to streamline, one is allowed only to deal with the clause before us and not with the other clauses, clauses which, I submit, should be concertinad into simpler, more understandable provisions. Therefore, I believe, that the correct thing to do with this Bill is to send it to a Select Committee, where people can sit quietly around a table and where the advice of experts can be called for. Here I would exclude the hon. member for Houghton, who has just joined us, because I am sure she knows as little about this as most of the other members of this House, including myself. I think the advice we would need would be a little different from that which I perhaps will be able to give to the Select Committee. But then we could look at all these issues I have raised, some not vital, but others important, issues which affect the livelihood of people. We can then produce a Bill which will be a credit to this House and not something which will, for the years ahead, continue to be a nightmare of difficult interpretation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, last year the hon. member for Durban Point talked about “this tiny little Bill” with its 151 clauses. We know of course that he was referring to it jokingly. I want to point out that it is fortunate that some of these clauses do not have many (sic!) subdivisions. I am thinking, for example, of clause 147, which has only 34 subdivisions! Clauses 85 to 88 take up only 20 of the 217 pages of the Bill! I am mentioning this for one purpose only and that is to put a feather in the cap of the Department of Justice, together with its co-workers, for this enormous task which they have performed in connection with the amendment of the Liquor Act. We are aware of the fact that it is probably one of the most difficult laws to deal with and I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that it is no easy task. One can sit for hours and hours but the further one progresses, the more confused one becomes. I agree with him. It really is legislation for absolute experts. However, there are people who have been concerned with the legislation for years now and who are at least conversant with certain practices and tendencies here and there which arise from the legislation. Consequently they are able to discuss them. It is true that the Bill now before us has been improved considerably in order to make the legislation easier for us to read, to understand, to deal with and to implement. For that reason I am pleased that these amendments have been introduced at this stage with a view to the consolidation of the Liquor Act next year. I think it is going to make our task a lot easier next year when we have to deal with that consolidation legislation.

However, I now want to turn to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Durban Point. In the first place, he asked that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, but I do not understand that hon. member’s reasoning or how he makes sense of the matters in hand. Last year he expressly stated in this House that his side of the House would be permitted to exercise its own discretion when voting on a Bill of this nature. In other words, every member would be allowed to decide for himself.

I repeated it today.

The hon. member repeated it today. In other words, it is left to each member to think about these clauses and about the Bill as a whole. What he had in mind, therefore, was not that a Select Committee should decide about this legislation. He thought that each of his people could make his own decision on the matter. Even if the Bill were to be referred to a Select Committee of the House, we would not, according to him, be qualified to deal with the legislation or to make decisions about it. This is legislation for lawyers. Consequently I feel that the Department of Justice with its experienced experts who drafted these amendments, was the body qualified to submit these amendments to us and to make things easier for us.

However, there was another matter on which the hon. member had a lot to say. I want to quote what he said yesterday evening. According to him, he tried to pick out a few weaknesses in this Bill and he said (Hansard, 7/2, p. VV. 2)—

This is his first objection, i.e. that all the powers are in the hands of the hon. the Minister. In the second place, he said the following, and here he was talking about the Liquor Board—

Surely these are conflicting statements? In the first place he said that the hon. the Minister had all the power, but then he said that the Liquor Board had total control over everything. Surely this is a total contradiction and I cannot imagine how the hon. member is able to reason so inconsistently. Furthermore, the hon. member stated today that the hon. the Minister was merely a rubber stamp. Three times he said that the hon. the Minister had all the power but subsequently he said that the hon. the Minister was simply a rubber stamp. Surely this is another case of conflicting statements? Then the hon. member came along and said that the hon. the Minister might as well delegate a number of his powers to other people. But I shall return to this point later.

In my opinion, the hon. member again tried to score a lot of political points from this Bill.

What political points?

I shall show the hon. member now which political points I mean. The hon. member talked about supposed delays which occur in the issuing of liquor licences whenever applications are made. Yesterday evening, the hon. member said the following—

In other words, it is again a matter of guesswork and nothing else. He only thinks so, he only suggests; it is nothing more than guesswork. I quote (Hansard, 7/2, p. VV. 3)—

In this instance he again said that the Minister had to take all decisions.

He is obviously saying this simply to place the hon. the Minister and the Government and the Liquor Board in an unfavourable light— that is why I say that he is scoring political points from this Bill—with this guesswork of his about the delays which, according to him, frequently occur. I want to point out to the hon. member that as a direct consequence of the improvements brought about by this Bill there will now be far fewer delays than there were in the past. In this regard, one thinks in the first place of the 56 local liquor boards which will disappear. This will bring about a considerable decrease in the work load. Everything will now be computerized and the computer will also deal with annual renewals. All this will cause the work to decrease. In other words, the Liquor Board will be able to dispose of its work sooner. I think that this will greatly simplify the procedure.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that many safety-valves have been built into this Bill. I shall come back to this a little later on. These safety-valves ensure that neither the Minister nor the Liquor Board has full power and control. In reality the Bill before us differs very little from the existing Act. The hon. member has been talking for many years now about our liquor legislation. In passing, I must admit that I have heard him make better speeches in the past than the one he made today. Today he appeared somewhat uncertain in respect of most of the matters which he mentioned. It appeared that he had not studied the Bill properly.

You did not study it at all.

The experience we have gained since 1928 has, after all, taught us which is the most practical way of controlling and administering liquor and liquor distribution in the Republic. The changes which are being introduced by this Bill are simply improvements in order to deal with the administration of the Act.

Moreover, I want to point out to the hon. member that the Bill actually brings about a better distribution of functions in accordance with the Liquor Act. The functions are divided among the Minister, the National Liquor Board which, in terms of this Bill, will become the Liquor Board, the chairman of the Liquor Board and finally the magistrates who will also have certain functions to perform. In other words, the division of labour implicit in this Bill is much better. Consequently I can tell the hon. member that the functions will no longer all be concentrated in one body, a body which, as he puts it, has control over the entire liquor industry in our country.

Last year the hon. member also mentioned the possibility of nepotism which could arise in that the 56 local liquor boards will now disappear. In this regard too, the hon. member is making a political issue out of this Bill. For he makes insinuations and they are insinuations which are inappropriate in respect of a department such as the Department of Justice, the integrity of which is above all suspicion. The very fact that 56 local boards are going to disappear, could in fact remove any possibility of nepotism. If there had been any chance of nepotism existing in the past, the disappearance of these 56 boards would serve all the more to eliminate it by virtue of the fact that everything will now be vested in one board, a board which will be objective towards local conditions and which will not be personally acquainted with interested parties. This board will be able to deal with matters more objectively because it will not be acquainted with the local people. Consequently, I think that since the applications will no longer be dealt with by an intimate circle in each district, this could totally eliminate any bias. It was actually a general statement which the hon. member made, and I think that a safety-valve has now been built into this. In addition, the National Liquor Board has not always had the final say whenever they have dealt with an application and I want to stress yet again that what the hon. member keeps on forgetting is that the hearing of the Liquor Board will take place in public, before the six members of the Liquor Board. They are expects; they are lawyers. Even they do not always have the final say. When they have gone through the applications, they make a recommendation to the hon. the Minister who may approve or reject their recommendation.

Why not a ruling?

That is precisely the safety-valve which is built into this, that no ruling is immediately given by one body, that the hon. the Minister must also see the applications. That is precisely what we want. There must be no bias of any kind.

There is a very good division of functions. A moment ago the hon. member mentioned a whole range of functions, types of licence, alterations, renewals and so on, but I, in turn, may tell the hon. member that if we investigate the matter thoroughly, the division of functions, we find in the first place that the Minister of Justice has a few functions to perform. He must screen new licences, i.e. any new applications in terms of clauses 100bis and l00sex as well. He must also confer international status on hotels. There are also the renewals. He must grant special privileges to hotels, special privileges in respect of ladies’ bars, late hours and so on. Then there is the transfer of licence authorizations as well as the controlling of the right given to the police and prison canteens as well as those of the Bureau for State Security. The hon. the Minister has these powers.

In the second place, the Liquor Board has just as many powers. The Liquor Board considers all new applications for liquor licences, not applications for provisional licences. It considers all applications in terms of sections l00bis and l00sex. It considers the applications dealing with the removal of non-White facilities in terms of section 78(3). The Liquor Board also deals with cases which are referred to it by the court. These it must consider and investigate. It must also consider police reports. All those types of general matters are in the hands of the Liquor Board.

In the third place, the chairman of the Liquor Board also has certain powers. He deals exclusively with the transfer of licences, also in accordance with sections 100bis and 1000sex.

In the fourth place, there is the magistrate. He issues temporary licences and he also deals with late hour licences. I think this Bill simplifies the whole question of liquor. In the past, the hon. member for Durban Point has spoken specifically from the viewpoint of commerce. I wonder, now that commerce, as the hon. the Minister said yesterday, has agreed to the amendments included in the Bill, on whose behalf the hon. member is speaking now. Is he now going to speak on behalf of the consumer? Yesterday the hon. the Minister referred to the wine institute, the K.W.V., the hotel industry and all the other parties that agreed to these amendments and I wonder, therefore, on whose behalf the hon. member is speaking today.

There is a specific point to which I want to return and this was also mentioned by the hon. member. It concerns the sale of liquor on election days. I do not think that the hon. member’s argument is very clear. The hon. member did not go into the matter very thoroughly. It is true that the Select Committee recommended unanimously that section 181 of the Electoral Act—Act No. 46 of 1946—be repealed. Act 78 of 1973 is the Constitution and Elections Act and was passed by this House. Section 79 of this Act provides that section 181 of the Electoral Act be repealed, i.e. that the sale of liquor on election days may be permitted. Now we come to the point. What did the hon. the Minister of the Interior say during the discussion of that recommendation? In the first place, during the Committee Stage there were three members—I think they were the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Houghton and hon. member for Umbilo— who all felt that liquor ought not to be made available on election days. The Minister then said the following (Hansard, vol. 44, col. 8973)—

The hon. the Minister went on to say—

The hon. member for Durban Point should kindly listen to this very carefully because he has apparently forgotten it.

Therefore, what the hon. the Minister said, was subject to the Liquor Act, which would have had to be amended. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the options were held open by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, depending on the discussion which we are holding today and on the amendment before the House today being passed. This hon. House must now decide whether the status quo is going to be maintained or whether it should be changed. The hotel industry has no objection to continuing to consider election days as closed days. The Bill was published after the hotel industry had been asked whether there were any objections on their part. There was no objection on their part to the termination of liquor sales on election days.

Mr. Speaker, practical politics in this country do not require liquor be supplied on election days. We must also remember that we only hold elections once every five years—only one day every five years, particularly now that provincial elections and parliamentary elections take place together on the same day. It will surely have no appreciable effect on the country and it is a good thing that liquor is not supplied on election days.

If we look at some of the most important recommendations in this amendment Bill, I want to call your attention in the first place to the centralization of the licensing system. The fact that from now on there will be a computer to deal with the annual licence renewals, is something which, in my opinion, will eliminate a tremendous amount of work. It will mean a great improvement in the whole process of the administration of licences.

Which renewals will the board deal with?

The annual renewals which up to now have always been dealt with by the local boards: Bottle store licences, liquor licences for hotels, etc.—all the licences which were dealt with each year by the local liquor boards. The computer can make those renewals available to licence holders in September every year.

Mr. Speaker, this is a definite improvement which is now taking place. I can still remember—and many other legal practitioners will remember this—how one had to go to the local liquor licensing boards every year, how the forms had to be prepared for submission in August … I am sure that any attorney will agree with me that it was a nightmare. One went through those forms about ten times for fear that there might be a mistake somewhere. I am also pleased with the amendment which places the Liquor Board in a position to condone mistakes. This is a very great improvement on the old system, and all attorneys will welcome it. Every year we had to go to the local liquor board, where we had to wait our turn and this involved enormous costs for our clients. This was the case in the rural areas in particular where there was no liquor board in our immediate vicinity with the result that we had to drive perhaps 30 or 40 miles to a central point. This cost our clients a lot of money and I think that the new dispensation will entail a very great saving for them.

There are a great many other amendments which I could discuss. I am particularly grateful for the extension of the period of prescription for liquor debts, because I think that our liquor merchants have had many problems in collecting their debts within the short space of time of three months. A further month’s grace has now been granted. I think all the minor amendments of this type are a very great improvement.

In conclusion, however, I would like to raise one little matter with the Minister, a little matter which also originates in this Liquor Amendment Bill, and concerns our quota system. I am wondering whether or not the time has come for the quota system to be thoroughly revised and reviewed, particularly in view of the Consolidation Act which is going to be introduced. Today, hotels have their off licences and if one keeps in mind the purpose for which those off licences were granted to hotels at the time, I think it was right The quota system which we have today, however, rules out applications for private bottle stores, and I feel that this is unfair to the members of the public who are not hotel owners. Furthermore, I think that this could also be conclusive to a monopoly for breweries, hotel groups and hotels in that they obtain off licences whilst new applicants for liquor licences are, to a great extend, debarred. For this reason, we ask whether one cannot take another look at the quota system under our Liquor Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can but agree with the hon. member for Durban Point when he spoke of the incredible centralization of power afforded to the Minister in terms of this Bill. On a purely objective basis, I think, that the tremendous and differing number of powers being given to the Minister is going to make it a very onerous task to administer the provisions of this Bill [Interjections.] Many of these powers have been delegated, but the Bill should reflect this. It seems that there is one point in this 50-year-old legislation now being amended, for the 14th or 15th time, all members of this House can agree upon and that is that there are very few people in the country, let alone in this House, who fully understand all the provisions of this Bill. I include myself in that number—I am not at all brash. Those who do profess to understand it, or actually understand it, do not necessarily agree with each other upon what they understand.

On one aspect in particular there is to be found in these benches unanimity, and that is that the racial character of the Liquor Act as a whole creates a web of discriminatory rules and regulations which make abnormal those things which, in any other society, would be normal. This racial character is abhorrent to us. Through this morass of legislation, even in this amending Bill, South Africa’s hoteliers, licensees and the like have to thread a very wide, weary and expensive path, particularly when it comes to the question of which race may allow members of which race in what area and in what premises to do what. This means that a licensee needs a good legal representative, a clear head and a pretty fat cheque book. Now, the object and in particular the racial contortions of the Liquor Bill are lost on us. Therefore, if we were to vote in principle on a newly constituted, newly constructed and racially discriminating Liquor Bill, we would vote against it in toto at the Second Reading. On the other hand—except for one or two exceptions—this particular Bill which is before us today does not raise new racial issues and is largely a technical Bill, providing in some instances for improvements in the present set-up. Before I mention specific clauses—and I would like to deal with several clauses specifically—there are a few general aspects I would like to touch on briefly.

This is a long Bill and has, as has been mentioned, 151 clauses, covering 219 pages and changing in one important aspect and in many small aspects an already extremely complex piece of legislation. The liquor laws of South Africa, of which this Bill forms part, are probably the most comprehensive and wide-reaching laws relating to liquor to be found anywhere in the world. They ensure an excellent income for lawyers all over the country and provide a veritable minefield of rules and regulations to confuse and baffle businessmen and customers. We have been told that the purpose of the Liquor Bill—I think I read it in this or last year’s Second Reading speech—is to facilitate the orderly distribution of liquor.

The question I want to ask in relation to the Act and this Bill is this: Has it and can it succeed in its objectives? I believe that there is an element of doubt in trying to answer that question. Indeed, the Act achieves—and the Bill perpetuates—effective separation of the races, both individuals and groups, with regard to liquor; it prescribes the most incredible rules relating to the consumption by and the sale of liquor by females; it has the most complicated procedures relating to the transportation, the sale and display of liquor and the premises in which it may be stored or sold, etc. Closed shops are still perpetuated in this Bill and licensees are made rich by the very fact that they obtain a licence. Controls are so rigid and so varied that in 1975, for instance, there were over 800 different applications alone dealing with liquor and which were dealt with under 18 different headings. What is the result of all this? What is the projected result of even this new Bill? I would like to quote two sentences from the annual report of 1975 of the Department of Justice. Paragraph 2.2.10 states—

Despite all our liquor legislation, its concepts and what has been brought forward today, we look at the most recent report of the Department of the Police and see that in 1973 and 1974 there was a 15% increase in the number of people brought to trial as a result of driving under the influence of liquor— totalling over 16 000 cases. There were 27 000 cases that year of illegal possession of Bantu liquor, 42 000 odd cases of other liquor offences, and, finally, a 26% increase from 1972 and 1973 to 1973 and 1974 of drunkenness, resulting in over 181 000 cases of drunkenness being brought to the courts. These are alarming figures. They tend to suggest to me that the answer to the problem of liquor does not lie in this type of liquor legislation which has governed the trade over the years in South Africa and which is now before us once again. Many other countries where liquor legislation is virtually nonexistent or, at least, more limited, have far lower incidences of drunkenness and of alcoholism than we have, and that is why I welcome the thought, as expressed by the hon. the Minister, that in the not too distant future it is the intention of the Government to consolidate this law. I want to support the words enunciated by the hon. member for Durban Point on this aspect, namely that when a consolidating Bill comes I hope that it will not merely prove to be a single consolidation, but that it will be a Bill which will evidence a complete rethink in regard to the use and supply of liquor.

Sometimes, in reflective moments, I question the need for this type of Liquor Act at all. Our legislation does not really help the farmer and it has not prevented the abuse of liquor. It has caused separation and it has created a protected breed of licensees, but I maintain that a Liquor Act and amending legislation in a normal society should deal with the prevention of the abuse of liquor, the question of the supply of liquor to minors, provisions relating to the closing times and the maintaining of high standards. It should not have to deal with the enforcement of racial bigotry, with the expansion of the bureaucracy and with the confusion of the public.

Having made that general point, I should like, if I may, to deal with some of the more real provisions of the Bill itself. The first major matter which I should like to refer to relates to the new chapter III, which sets up the new procedure relating to the obtaining of licences. It relates to the centralization of the licensing system, the abolition of the annual renewal of licences and the abolition of local liquor licensing boards. This new provision will no doubt make life a great deal easier for licence-holders. It will obviate much legal expense—I see the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is upset at that thought— and time wasting. It does mean, however, that liquor licensing loses irrevocably its local bias. Although the applications are to be heard locally, I am not certain that centralization in regard to decision making, relating to local matters, is a good thing. I think there should be a far greater bias towards local bodies making decisions relating to their own local areas. What worries me in particular about the new chapter III, is the procedure relating to appeals. If we look at clause 24(1) on page 30 of the Bill it states—

1. (a) gives a decision on a question of law; or
2. (b) cancels, withdraws or suspends any licence or written authority or any right or privilege pertaining to any licence or written authority,

it shall not be required to give any reasons for its decision.

As I understand it, this means that the applicants for new licences may never know why their application has been refused, not withdrawn or cancelled, but refused.

What is the position at the moment?

I shall come to that in a moment. These people may, in fact, year after year re-apply for a licence, and be refused again and again without ever knowing the real reason why the licence was refused. This could involve a vast amount of legal costs and surely when a licence is refused and reasons for the refusal are requested, there is in fact no prejudice to the licensing board or to the State to provide those reasons. This could ensure that in future either the applicant knows that he is not in a position to make an application and does not apply again, or he finds there is a major defect in his application which he is then able to rectify so that he can make an application in the proper form rather than go through this same refusal year after year and perhaps only be successful in the fourth or fifth year.

The second point relating to this procedure is that the appeal relating to a decision by the board to cancel, lies only with the hon. the Minister. This is the new section 15(4) on page 24. This subsection provides for appeal to the Minister, the person who appointed the Liquor Board in the first instance …

Does that appear on page 24?

Yes, and provides that—

This is the subsection I am referring to. This appeal against the withdrawal or cancellation of a licence, is only to the Minister, the person whose servant the board is. Some years ago—I think it was in 1974—when the Publications Bill was debated in this House, the hon. the Minister of the Interior took cognizance of this problem and created in the Publications Bill machinery for an appeal board, which is functioning today. Whether hon. members like the functioning of the appeal board or not, the least we can say about the appeal board is that it is a body which is at arms length from the hon. the Minister and the department. I believe that appeals to the Minister, who does not have to give reasons—as I have already mentioned— for his final decision, is not a procedure which ensures that justice must be seen to be done. The courts should be available to aggrieved parties, and failing that, at least an independent body of judicial standing.

The third point relating to appeals concerns the new section 26(1) on page 32, which provides that an appeal on any question of law lies with the courts. We must realize that appeals in regard to a question of law are very limited in number as they do not often crop up. There is in fact no right at all of any appeal in respect of refusals of new applications on their merits. This is not a new principle, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, but it is a bad principle which is being perpetuated by this amending Bill. The only rights of applicants relate to reviews, with their very limited application, where only grounds such as mala fides and gross unreasonableness are taken into account. I remember a case some years ago in which I played a very small and minimal role. It was during the late 1960’s when the Johannesburg city council, after a thorough investigation, decided that it needed a new power station. It applied in terms of the proper provisions to build the new power station. Escom objected to the power station being built, and the Administrator accordingly refused permission for the building of this power station. There was no right of appeal. The only right that was available to the Johannesburg city council at that time was to take the Administrator, in considering the matter, on review. The Johannesburg city council accordingly took the Administrator on review, and because of the overwhelmingly strong case of the city council, the court found that the Administrator had not applied his mind to the matter and that he should deal with the matter again. As a result, the matter went back to the Administrator, who blithely refused it again. The point that I want to make is that there should be an independent body to which appeals are directed on the merits of the case. We believe that the only and correct independent body are the courts, the high courts of South Africa. Failing that, and despite the fact that this is not a new principle, if there are to be no courts there should at least be the right of appeal to an independent body. As a result of what happened in Johannesburg the people of Johannesburg were not able to build the power station and today have to pay higher rates for their electricity. I am therefore not at all happy that the scope of appeal to an independent body is so truncated as to ensure its impotence, particularly as such large sums of money are often involved.

I notice that the hon. the Minister is not interfering with the status quo in regard to the supply of liquor on election days, but that minor amendments, relating to the inhibition of these provisions, are proposed. I do not entirely share the view of some hon. members, as I hope that South Africa will some day, in the eyes of the Government, be mature enough so that it will not be necessary to have to close all the bars when we have an election. I am hoping that the Government will before long regard South Africa as mature enough to have open days in those circumstances.

I refer next to clause 99, which sets out the new section 111, the section which extends the three-months credit limitation in regard to suing to four months. What in effect happens is that if a bottle-store owner, having sold liquor on credit to a person, does not sue and does not issue summons—in other words, breaks prescription—within the time period afforded in the Act—roughly three months—his right then prescribes. It is proposed by the hon. the Minister to increase that period to four months. I agree with the hon. the Minister that this will probably help the trade, from whom he has received representations. This provision extends credit granted for the purchase of liquor for a further month. It provides for a further month within which a summons may be issued if an account is not paid. I must say that I am not in favour of this provision. I believe the old provision should remain. I would, in fact, go so far as to say that credit on liquor sales should not be allowed at all, because I believe that credit in South Africa is at the root of many of our ills and that liquor credit in particular is at the root of the ills of many families. I believe that liquor is not an essential commodity for any family. It is not a food that has to be taken and is not required by any family as an essential item. Therefore, since we have had a credit restriction in the Act over the years, I find that it is not in the interests of the public of South Africa to extend that credit, and I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude in regard to that clause.

In relation to sports grounds I do not want to make too broad a comment because I am not quite certain what the hon. the Minister is getting at. Could the hon. the Minister please explain what seems to me to be back-pedalling on the issue of liquor consumption on sports grounds, and here I refer the hon. the Minister to page 198 of the Bill. What representations have been made to the hon. the Minister and how does the hon. the Minister intend to implement this clause? Also, what is his motivation in allowing applications for exemption? What sort of exemptions will be granted? Does it mean, for example, that those who want to do so can apply to take their hip flasks into Newlands for a Currie Cup cricket match, or what is behind it?

[Inaudible.]

Well, could the hon. the Minister please tell us a little more about that clause when he replies? In passing I want to mention that I notice that it is no longer an offence to be drunk and disorderly on any trekpath, outspan or commonage. I see that it is quite all right to be drunk, as long as one sticks to the path. There are not many of these trekpaths, outspans and commonages left, if any.

To what part of the Bill are you now referring?

I am referring to clause 139(g) on page 198 of the Bill. There the words “trekpath, outspan and common-age” have been deleted. Now it seems we can get drunk on trekpaths, outspans and commonages, but I foresee in this new amendment …

That is to make up for no films on Sundays.

… an opportunity for profit for an enterprising young author who should write, in my view, a Jose Burman-type book on the Cape. I would like to suggest as a title “The Drinker’s Guide to Trekpaths, Outspans and Commonages in South Africa for Tippling Tourists”. Talking of up-dating language, I notice that ounces and gallons are out and that litres are in. I note that pounds are out and rands are in. I also note that Dutch is out—that will please some members around here—and that the official languages are now in. I am most interested to note, however, that at last the hon. the Minister and Government members have divorced themselves and us from Europe and no longer consider themselves to be Italians, French and Portuguese, as evidenced by the substitution for the word “European” in various sections of the Bill.

We are now White Africans.

This is a matter I raised some little while ago in this House, I must say that I have an instinctive antipathy for debating legislation which deals with the pigeon-holing of people into watertight, defined classes and categories. I am referring here to the amendment of the definitions in clause 147 relating to the words “Asian”, “Bantu”, “White”, etc. Whether or not these particular new definitions assist the working of the Act is arguable but to me, and I believe to all my colleagues, the very concept of racial definition and exactitude brings back repugnant memories of the Europe of 40 years ago and is to me out of character with, and abnormal in, a modem society such as the one we live in today.

Finally, I should like to refer the hon. the Minister and hon. members to page 206, line 13, in the English version. There is an old saying which states: “Jy moenie jou languages mix nie want anders word dit later ’n habit en dan kan jy dit glad nie avoid nie.” I ask the hon. the Minister to uphold that principle by amending that line in the Committee Stage.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, last week in particular, I often heard the remark—fortunately made by people outside this House: “You will probably have a very dry week next week because legislation is on the programme now.” However, the subject which we are dealing with in this hon. House this afternoon is a very wet one. Because it is also a warm one, one wonders why interest in a wet, warm subject is not greater today than it seems to be, judging by the gallery.

It is probably not an easy task to draft a bill on liquor affairs. There are so many conflicting interests to be reconciled when a liquor bill is drafted and there are innumerable facets which must be taken into consideration. The law must continually keep up with developments in all spheres of our national life, and must be related to human existence. It is therefore the duty of the legislator, too, to make, change or amend laws in such a way as to ensure that it will contribute towards the maintenance of good order and also provide for the requirements of the community from time to time. Looking back at legislation relating to intoxicating liquor since 1928—the Act known as the Tielman Roos Act—we find that amendments continually had to be effected, and the amendment which definitely brought about a revolution in liquor legislation, was the Act of 1963. I could describe that Liquor Amendment Act in brief as an Act which made provision for the classification of hotels and their subsequent grading, grocers’ licences, mealtime licences, the principle that the off-sales of hotels can be separated from the hotel itself and that all hotels would be entitled to an off-sales section if they complied with the requirements of the standards laid down in the legislation.

Similar amendments are once again being effected in the Bill before us. The Liquor Act is being amended to such an extent that once again we could virtually say that the Liquor Act is being rewritten.

Personally, I look forward to the envisaged consolidated Act. Such an Act will make it much easier for the practitioner as well as for every liquor licensee in South Africa to look things up. Furthermore it will definitely make it very much easier for us to find the references. I, as a practitioner, am now thinking of the existing legislation. How often did we not have to refer to Act after Act in order to find the original provision. I think we can all look forward to the consolidation of the Liquor Act which, if possible, will occur next year. It will also be a very appropriate year for this because it will be just 50 years since the original Tielman Roos Act was placed on the Statute Book.

I think we can justifiably refer to the Bill at present before the House as the Bill which emphasizes the idea of centralization. That is to say, the Bill does away with the annual applications for renewal of liquor licences. I want to dwell on this for a moment. The hon. member for Potgietersrus has already referred to the nervous tension which attorneys had to endure every year due to the applications for renewal of licences. It was just that the Liquor Act was drawn up in such a way that if there was a small technical oversight on the part of the attorney, it could easily result in his client losing his liquor licence and therefore not being able to open his doors to trade on 1 January the following year.

That is why you must support my proposal of a Select Committee.

The teachers of today apply a system known as “look and say”. Let me say that if ever there was a period in my life when this applied to me, it was when I dealt with no fewer than approximately 16 or 17 applications for the renewal of liquor licences every year. Sir, I can assure you that I considered those applications over and over and read them over and over to make sure that there would be no oversight on my part which would result in the liquor licence perhaps not being renewed. However, this problem is eliminated entirely by this Bill.

There is another reason why I am pleased that this Bill has been introduced. Why inundate the record, if I may put it that way, with applications which are practically the same every year? It is only the same stereotyped information that is provided in the applications year in and year out. I very seldom came across alterations or necessary changes which resulted in the licence being non-renewable. I am tempted to say that the safes of our courts and magistrates’ offices are packed with these files which simply repeat stereotyped information every year. Now the information will be fed into a computer and I take it that in September, if no adverse information has been fed to the computer in the meantime—i.e. if there are no black marks against the licence of such licensee—the computer will send out the accounts by which the licensee will know that he will be able to carry on his business in the coming year and that he need have no fear of his application meeting with difficulties. In this way he will be sure that he will be able to carry on his business in the coming year. I therefore welcome this requirement in particular.

I want to say at once that it is of course with a certain wistfulness that I look back, because my home town was one of the central points at which the local liquor licensing board met. On such an occasion, the attorneys of no fewer of seven or eight towns gathered there. Usually there were two or three attorneys together with their clients. This meant that we always looked forward to the first Monday in November of each year. Believe me, Sir, the applications as such were not the only matter on the agenda, because these were usually disposed of very soon. After that everything was on the house.

†Everything was on the house of the liquor licensees and our accounts, of course, were not on our house but also on the house of the licensees.

*That is why I say that I look back on those days rather wistfully. We were very sociable in those days. I do not know how healthy it was, although I often heard the words “your good health” on those occasions.

I also welcome the provision concerning companies in the Bill. I am sorry to bring up personal experience again, but I want to say that it only happened once in my whole career as an attorney that I came across a case where the licensee of a company was deceased. Sir, I wish you could have seen the fracas which ensued before I could really determine what I had to do in order to have a new nominee appointed to represent the company. I am very pleased that this Bill now provides that the licence can be issued in the name of the company and longer in the name of a nominee.

I should like to dwell on the question of election days. It was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. He is definitely opposed to it and I accept that, as chief spokesman on that side, he expounds the policy of his party. Our bars and liquor stores are not open to serve liquor on Sundays. I refer to this because a little while ago we discussed other legislation in respect of Sundays in the House. Sunday is a special day. It is a different day. As far as the hon. members on this side of the House and I are concerned, an election day is also a special day. It is a day when the people of South Africa are expected to re-elect their Government and their representatives in the House of Assembly for the following five years. I do not believe that the Government should put anything in the way of the voter which could befuddle him on that day and influence his choice. [Interjections.] Sir, I hear a remark to the effect that this is the only way the UP will ever come into power. I say that we, as the State, must be careful not to open bars and liquor stores on that day, thus causing people’s minds to become befuddled when exercising their choice. Therefore I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has stuck to his guns as far as this provision is concerned. I want to repeat, for the edification of the hon. member for Durban Point in particular, that if it was the intention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior for this provision to go through in the Bill, that they should be thrown open in pursuance of the recommendation of the Select Committee, that legislation would already have been introduced. This indicates to me that it was the intention of that hon. Minister that this matter first be dealt with in the department where it belongs; in this case the Department of Justice.

As a result the final decision will depend on what the hon. the Minister wants to do and what the House is going to do in terms of the Minister’s recommendations. I therefore say to the hon. member for Durban Point that it is not a question here of the hon. the Minister of Justice wanting to be cock of the walk, of him wanting to lord it over another Minister, but merely that the hon. the Minister of Justice is here choosing what is right and sound in the life of a nation. We are therefore adamant that we shall not allow businesses to be open for the sale of liquor on that day.

Now I have heard the argument: What is wrong with that? After all, people can keep their drink outside in their cars. I have in fact seen this happening on election days. And I have also seen election agents who by 12 noon, were no longer capable of promoting their party’s interests. I am stating this clearly.

In Aliwal too?

Since my town is being referred to: I have not seen it amongst my people. I do not want to be acrimonious here, I am saying this sincerely. If it is an argument that one can have a drink in one’s car, then why introduce legislation providing that public bars and liquor stores may not be open? Then I should like to put the question in a nutshell: Why then, should any law be made? If it is an argument that, because a law can be circumvented, that law should not be made, and if it is an argument advanced by that side, I am afraid that we are heading for chaos in South Africa, as sure as two times two is four. Laws are made for the maintenance of good order and it is with this in view that this provision has also been included in this Bill.

A great deal has been said about the dictatorial power which the hon. the Minister of Justice would have in this case. However, I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members who spoke about this, that full police reports would naturally be presented to the National Liquor Board when new applications were decided. This brings me to new applications. The procedure will be just as it was in the past. An applicant may have his attorney or advocate to put his case. He will be able to present all the facts as to why he should be provided with a liquor licence. Only then, when the National Liquor Board has taken its decision, is the matter referred to the Minister. Now the hon. member for Durban Point asks us: Why not make a decision immediately. I shall tell him why. I think that, in matters of this kind, it is very much better that the dust should first settle completely and that the hon. the Minister should subsequently have the opportunity to consider all the facts as presented to him. He will receive a full report on everything. There will be arguments for and against. He must be able to decide in an objective, cool atmosphere whether the applications should be granted or not. That, I think, is why—and I am very pleased that this provision is now wider in scope—that apart from the National Liquor Board, the matter will first be referred again to the Minister, who will then make his final decision on the matter.

In my experience, and this is no reflection on hon. members as such, a local liquor board is always concerned with local interests to a certain extent when applications for liquor licences are made. I am not saying that this concerns a specific hon. member; I am speaking of local interests in general. Since it is now a National Liquor Board which sits during certain months in every province in order to hear applications, I know and believe that that National Liquor Board will act objectively, and we need not have the slightest fear that there may be local interests which could influence it, rightly or wrongly. Therefore I believe that it is far better that the Bill makes provision for centralization, and that it is no longer the responsibility of a local board, apart from the other points I mentioned at the beginning of my speech concerning this matter.

The hon. member for Durban Point also asked for this matter to be referred to a Select Committee, where evidence could be heard and where various aspects could be submitted to the Committee before the matter is decided. A great deal of publicity was given to the Liquor Amendment Bill. The matter was specifically referred to various public bodies which have an interest in the liquor trade. Fedhasa, which is there to protect and promote the interests of all the liquor dealers, retail and wholesale, went into this point very intensively. Fedhasa testified to its unanimity on this Bill, except on certain points, but one will always have this. There is no law that can satisfy everyone at all times. One will always have differences. I maintain that it is absolutely unnecessary for us to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point now, namely that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. There was adequate opportunity for the public and for public bodies to go into this matter. They were quite prepared to give their opinions. These were given a hearing. The Bill was duly published, duly distributed and I therefore believe that there is no need at all for us to require the decisions of a Select Committee on this matter.

I also believe that the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Sandton cannot be serious in wanting to convey their sincere sympathy with the hon. the Minister today, by saying that the poor Minister is now being overburdened with duties he did not have before.

It is just false sympathy.

That’s it, Sir. I believe that the hon. member is quite correct. It is sympathy which is not intended sincerely. The hon. the Minister would not have allowed certain of these provisions to be included in the Bill, had he not known that he could carry out those duties, had he not known that except where he can delegate, he can see to them himself. Therefore I believe that there is no need for the Minister to be treated with sympathy. On the contrary, I believe that the hon. the Minister will ensure that it is carried out absolutely correctly.