The Committee has to consider the taxation proposals on income-tax and customs and excise duties.

Income Tax (normal tax).

I move—

(1) That, subject to the provisions of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) and of an Act to be passed during the present Session of Parliament amending that Act and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Acts, there shall in respect of every financial year of every company ending on or before the thirty-first day of December 1963 and, in the case of a person other than a company, in respect of the period of eight months ended the twenty-eighth day of February 1963 or the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June 1963, whichever is applicable, and the year of assessment ending the twenty-ninth day of February 1964, or the thirtieth day of June 1964, whichever is applicable, be paid as from the first day of March 1963 on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or to have accrued to or in favour of all companies and other persons from sources within or deemed to be within the Republic, a tax (to be called the normal tax); the rates of which shall be—

1. (a) in respect of the taxable income (excluding so much as is derived from mining operations carried on in the Republic by any company but including so much as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income derived from mining in the Republic for gold of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962—
   1. (i)in the case of all companies, for each rand of the taxable income, 30c;
   2. (ii)in the case of persons other than companies, as proscribed in the tables below: Provided that there shall in respect of the year of assessment ending the twenty-ninth day of February 1964, or the thirtieth day of June 1964, whichever is applicable, be deducted from the amount of tax calculated in accordance with the said tables a sum equal to five per cent of the net amount arrived at after deducting the rebates provided for in Section 6 of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended) from the amount of the tax so calculated;

TABLES.

1. (b)in respect of so much of the taxable income as has been derived by any company from mining in the Republic for gold (but with the exclusion of so much of the taxable income as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in the gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962) on each rand of the taxable income, a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

   

   in which formula (and in the formulae set out in the proviso hereto) y represents such percentage and x the ratio expressed as a percentage which the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) bears to the income so derived (with the said exclusion): Provided that if the taxable income so derived (with the said exclusion) does not exceed R40,000, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with the formula:

   

   and if such taxable income exceeds R40,000, the rate of tax shall not exceed a percentage determined in accordance with a formula arrived at by increasing the number 20 in the formula

   

   by one for each completed amount of R2,500 by which the said taxable income exceeds R.40,000;

2. (c)in respect of so much of the taxable income as has been derived by any company from mining in the Republic for diamonds, for each rand of the taxable income, 45c;
3. (d)in respect of so much of the taxable income as has been derived by any company from mining operations (other than mining for gold or diamonds) carried on by such company in the Republic, for each rand of the taxable income, 30c;
4. (e)in respect of so much of the taxable income of any company, the sole or principal business of which in the Republic is or has been mining for gold and the determination of the taxable income of which for the period assessed does not result in an assessed loss, as the Commissioner for Inland Revenue determines to be attributable to the inclusion in its gross income of any amount referred to in paragraph (j) of the definition of “gross income” in Section 1 of Act No. 58 of 1962, for each rand so determined to be attributable to the inclusion of any such amount, the amount by which the average rate of normal tax exceeds 25c: Provided that for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, the average rate of normal tax shall be determined by dividing the total normal tax (excluding the tax determined in accordance with this sub-paragraph for the period assessed) paid by the company in respect of its aggregate taxable income from gold mining for the period from 1 July 1916 to the end of the period assessed, by the number of rand contained in the said aggregate taxable income;
5. (2)That the rates fixed by paragraph (1) shall be the rates required to be fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Act No. 58 of 1962 (as amended): Provided that, subject to the provisions of any law providing for the payment of moneys into the Transkeian Revenue Fund, one-sixth of any amount of tax determined in accordance with item (i) of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) shall accrue for the benefit of the provincial revenue funds of the four provinces in such proportions as may be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette and shall in the said proportions be paid into the said provincial revenue funds in accordance with the laws relating to the collection, banking and custody of provincial revenues as though it were a tax imposed by the provincial councils of the said provinces on the incomes of companies;
6. (3)That, for the purpose of the normal tax referred to in paragraph (1), an amount shall be deemed to have been derived by any person from a source within the Republic if it has been received by or has accrued to or in favour of such person by virtue of any services rendered by such person to or work or labour done by such person for or on behalf of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, notwithstanding that such services are rendered or that such work or labour is done outside the Republic, provided such services are rendered or such work or labour is done in accordance with a contract of employment entered into with the Council.

The Minister’s taxation proposals contain schedules which are on the same lines as the schedules last year and we do not propose to debate those schedules at this stage. We may debate them when we come to the Income Tax Bill. But I think this is an appropriate time for the hon. Minister to give us some indication as to the taxation he has received up to date. We had his Estimates for the past year and we had his Budget speech in which he indicated what he expected to receive, and we think by now the hon. Minister should know the total amount he did receive as compared with the Estimates and when we have that information we will be able to say whether or not the present rates of taxation are justified and whether there should not be any reduction. I hope the hon. Minister will give us that information now.

I regret very much that the latest information has not yet been finalized and is not in my possession.

I submit that the hon. Minister should have done his homework. Surely the Minister should at this stage of the Session be in a position to indicate what amounts he expects to get by way of taxation under these various headings for the current year?

Motion put and agreed to.

Customs and Excise duties.

I move—

1. (1) the Customs duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown:

1. (2) the Excise duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown:

1. (3) the Excise Act, 1956, be amended by the insertion of the following provision:

   1. “(1) Whenever it is necessary, for the purpose of determining the Excise duty payable on any goods manufactured in the Republic, to determine the value of such goods, the value thereof shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be taken to be the market price (before deduction of any discount) at which, at the time of sale, such or similar goods are freely offered for sale, for consumption in the Republic, for purposes of trade in the principal markets of the Republic in the ordinary course of trade, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the condition and the usual packing ready for sale in the retail trade, plus the cost of packing and packages and all other expenses incidental to placing the goods on rail for delivery to the purchaser, but excluding the Excise duty on such goods.
   2. (2) When any such goods are sold or otherwise disposed of in the Republic under such conditions that the value thereof cannot be calculated in terms of sub-section (1), the Commissioner may determine a value which shall, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister, be deemed to be the value of such goods determined in terms of subsection (1).

   3. (3) The Commissioner may, in respect of any such goods or any class or kind of such goods—

      1. (a) specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1) the quantity which shall be deemed to be the usual wholesale quantity;
      2. (b) specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1) the packing which shall be deemed to be the usual packing ready for sale in the retail trade;

      3. (c) determine, for the purposes of sub-section (1) the cost of packing or packages or any other expenses incidental to placing the goods on rail and his decision shall, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister, be final.”;

   4. (4) in terms of Section 9 of the Excise Act, 1956, unfortified wine which, at the time this Notice is given, has not been delivered from the non-duty-paid stocks of manufacturers, be liable to the increased Excise duty and in terms of Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1955, …. wines which, at the time this Notice is given, have not been entered for home consumption, be liable to the increased Customs duties;
   5. (5) the Customs duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown:

1. (6)the following paragraph be substituted for paragraph (7) of the General Note to the First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1955, except in so far as the terms mentioned in the said paragraph relate to goods described in tariff items 7, 20 (a), 21 (b), 22 (b) and (e), 158 (a) and (b), 159, 168 (1), 169 (1) and (4), 170, 175, 176, 177, 194, 199, 202 (b), 205 (1) (a), 213 (c), 214 (a), 215 (3), 217, 221 (a), 225 (b), 227 (1), 228 (a), 230, 234, 237, 239 (5), 241, 244 (c) (i) and 247 of the said Schedule:
   1. “(7) The terms ‘in bulk’ and ‘not in bulk’ where they appear in the tariff mean ‘not packed for retail sale’ and ‘packed for retail sale’, respectively.”
2. (7)the Excise duties on the articles set forth hereunder, be increased to the extent shown:

1. (8) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 9 of the Excise Act, 1956, and Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1955, the proposed duties and amended tariff provisions in respect of beer brewed in or imported into the Republic be deemed to have come into operation on 3 June 1963:

I think it may perhaps be a good thing for me to make a few observations in regard to the Customs and Excise proposals. There is not really much that I can say in this regard except that with one exception they deal either with concessions or the removal of anomalies. The amending of the duty on unfortified wine in terms of which it will be taxed according to the various price brackets, is a matter that I explained during my Budget speech. I just want to add that a value formula has been worked out in terms of which one value for one particular type of wine is determined throughout the country irrespective of the various packagings or quantities. The proposed formula has been in operation since 20 March and no difficulty has been experienced in this regard nor has any complaint been received.

In connection with the new duties on beer I want to explain to the Committee that the existing Excise duties on beer have been giving us trouble for many years now and have led to the position where the protective margins in regard to various types, particularly stout, have shrunk with every increase in the duty until they have eventually completely disappeared.

I assured the beer industry last year that I would have the matter investigated and try to rectify this matter. The industry also made representation in regard to the disadvantage at which they are placed because in their case Excise duty has to be paid in advance while other manufacturers of dutiable products in most cases only pay the duty after the sale of their products. There are also other problems connected with this matter—international obligations under G.A.T.T. and the Brussels tariff formula, adequate control measures and so forth and that is why the proposals that are now before this Committee have been drawn up after consultation with the industry.

The proposals amount to this: That duty will be levied when the finished product is sold. This means of course that the industry will enjoy a short tax holiday which will mean that during the current financial year the State will suffer a loss in revenue of R1,250,000.

Apart from this concession, which places the industry on the same basis as other manufacturers of dutiable products, the revenue from beer will remain unchanged. The industry therefore as a whole will pay the same duty as previously except that this duty will now be paid a month or two later.

Besides this, the tariff formula has been simplified and placed on such a basis that a change-over to the Brussels tariff formula can be easily effected.

The other taxation proposals are chiefly intended to eliminate anomalies in preparation for the change-over to the Brussels tariff, formula. Most of the tariffs are of a protective nature. Imports of these goods are therefore in most cases so small that they do not justify the avoidable subdivision of the tariffs and administrative expenses involved in this regard. In other cases the goods in the Brussels tariff form are classified on a different basis from that under the present tariff, and it is necessary to change it in such a way that the change-over to the Brussels tariff can become possible. The amendments of this nature were all submitted in advance to the Board of Trade and Industries.

There is, however, one case, as I said, in which there is a deliberate increase in Customs duties. This is an increase of 20 per cent in the duty on luxury cars. Hon. members are aware of the fact that because of the large number of applications for import permits for this class of motor-car, the position of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has become almost untenable. It has now been decided to relax import control slightly in regard to these cars and to use instead the automatic brake of a higher tariff in order to restrict the uncontrolled importation of these luxury cars.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister for the reasons for the increase in regard to two particular items, one of which I think the Minister will agree hardly falls in the category of products of which there is over-production in South Africa. I refer to the items on page 862, Item 10 (2), chicory and substitutes for it, and Item 15, rice in the grain packed for retail sale. There is a considerable increase. Both of these are commodities in daily use and I would be glad if the Minister could indicate the reasons for the increase.

I agree with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that we should have some explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to these two items, chicory and rice. It is true that the rise applies only to rice packed in 1-lb. packets, but there does not seem to be anything on the face of it to indicate why there should be this jump from 215 cents per 100 lbs. to 330 cents per 100 lbs.

There are also one or two other items I should like to deal with. There is Item No. 172, chinaware and porcelain not being table ware or other articles commonly used for domestic, toilet or laboratory purposes, where the tariff has gone up from 5 per cent to 20 per cent. I should like some explanation from the Minister as to what type of goods this increase in tariff is really meant to be applicable to.

Then there is Item No. 290 on page 867, photographs, which are presently imported free, but now there is to be a duty of 20 per cent. Perhaps the Minister can give us some explanation of this.

I can give this information to hon. members. Item 10 (2) chicory—the amendment is intended to remove the anomaly that chicory, and particularly substitutes for chicory, carry a different rate of duty from substitutes for coffee. The amendment will facilitate transposition of the present tariff to the Brussels nomenclature. The imports are negligible. Item 15 (d): Pre-cooked and other rice packed for retail sale, can be imported at the same rate of duty as rice in the grain in bags. The amendment seeks to adjust the position and to bring rice more into line with other foods.

Item 172, chinaware: The item in question covers china and porcelain statuettes and other ornaments and the duty is being increased to the same level as the duty on earthenware ornaments in order to eliminate administrative problems and to facilitate transposition of the tariff.

Item 290, photographs: The present tariff is incapable of administration and the duty is being increased to the same level as the duty on the reproductions which are excluded from the item to eliminate the present problem. Imports are not significant.

What did the Minister mean by bringing rice into line with other foods?

Other foodstuffs of a similar type, like breakfast foods.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions on income-tax and customs and excise duties reported and the resolutions adopted.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up a Bill to give effect to certain of the resolutions adopted by the House.

I move as an amendment—

As I said in my second-reading speech, the object of this amendment is to make it clear that there is no question of alternative membership in the case of the Secretary for Information and Tourism and the Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation. All of these people mentioned here will be members of that board.

At the end of the second-reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister did not reply to any of the points I made in my speech, but merely attacked me as being “beterwetend” and “irriterend”,

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I want to make the point that had the Deputy Minister been good enough to give an explanation in regard to his attitude on the points raised, this amendment might not have been necessary.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I wish to move as an amendment—

In moving this amendment, I want to point out to the Deputy Minister that in Clause 3 (c)the Bill provides for the appointment by the Minister of five persons of whom one shall have experience in commerce and industry, one shall have knowledge of science and technology, one shall have knowledge of and an interest in religion and social welfare, one shall have knowledge of and an interest in art and culture, and one shall be representative of the public Press. We have already said that this Bill is in many respects very vague indeed, and here is an opportunity for the Minister to be more definite than he is in this particular clause, by appointing people who will carry out their functions in regard to the interests mentioned in the clause, because they will have been appointed specifically by such interests or organizations. If the Minister wants a person who has experience in commerce and industry, it must be completely logical to appoint someone who has been nominated jointly by those bodies which are recognized as representing those interests, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the South African Federated Chamber of Industries. The interests of those two bodies are not identical, but obviously they lie in the same field. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that one of the difficulties he hoped the board would overcome would be to establish a board which could deal and negotiate with commercial interests. Then surely a nomination by these two bodies jointly would completely serve the purpose the Minister has in mind. Then, in regard to his desire to place on the board someone who has knowledge of science and technology, the obvious body from which to draw such a nominee is the C.S.I.R., again a fully representative body of the affairs of all the organizations interested in that field. In regard to the person who should have a knowledge of and an interest in social welfare, the Minister has created a certain, difficulty by lumping religion and social welfare together. I put it to him that those interests are not necessarily complementary, and seldom even parallel. What the Minister apparently wants is someone who will be able to speak authoritatively in regard to the welfare of the community as a whole. There, I think the best body is the one which speaks for the welfare of children who will be greatly influenced in the years to come not only by the films shown in South Africa, but by the activities in that field of this board. For that reason, and with no disrespect to religion, and because there is no recognized body which speaks for all religions in South Africa, I suggest the Minister should accept a nomination from the Child Welfare Society.

Then the Minister, in his desire to appoint someone who shall have a knowledge of and an interest in art and culture, has again embarked upon a rather difficult undertaking, because there are the performing arts and the plastic arts and all kinds of arts, which as far as I know can only be found to be co-ordinated in one body, and that is the South African Association of Arts, which is a non-political and non-sectarian body, and which can speak authoritatively for all the art forms. Hence the suggestion that this particular field of interest would be adequately covered by the nomination to the board of a person by the South African Association of Arts.

Then in regard to the appointment of a person who shall be connected with the public Press, I put it to the Minister that the public Press is fully represented by the Newspaper Press Union of South Africa, and if he seeks in all seriousness not to appoint anyone by the pleasure and the whim of the Minister, but a person nominated by the only authoritative body in the field, he can surely not disagree that the obvious nomination should come from the N.P.U.

For these reasons I would ask the Minister, aside from his personal views about how I irritate him, to give very serious consideration to this suggestion.

I shall be pleased if the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. It is based on a principle accepted by this side of the House for years already, that such a board should to some extent, if not wholly, consist of people nominated by the various bodies. Here we have a fine example of what could be done to secure the necessary cooperation. In sub-sections (a) and (b) we have the nominations by the Minister, but we feel very strongly that as regards (c) there are these various associations and societies which should be given an opportunity to accord their active co-operation by nominating the persons to serve on the board. I do not wish to detain the House. I merely wish to appeal to the Minister to consider this matter well. Of course I know he will do so if he sees his way clear to doing so. I should like to know, if he refuses to accept the amendment, on what grounds he does so.

I am afraid it will not be necessary to accept this amendment. It is a provision of this Bill which flows from the De Villiers Report. They recommended that these five unofficial members should be appointed by the State. The consideration is that this board will operate with State funds. I have said we are going to make a loan of R600,000 to the board in order to enable it to perform its functions. It is a big amount, and for that reason it was felt that the Minister ought to have the right to appoint people to that board so that there may be proper supervision of the manner in which the money is spent.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), I am sorry it excludes the representatives of religion, because in this country it is a group to which we attach great value and whose voices we should like to hear on such a board. The proposal of the hon. member that we should allow bodies to make nominations makes it unpractical, because once one starts indicating bodies, it may be asked whether other bodies should not also rightly be included. If one, e.g., thinks of the numerous organizations in the country concerned with promoting art, apart from the one mentioned in the amendment, it is unfair to those other organizations that will then be excluded. But an important consideration with us for the non-acceptance of this amendment is that the hon. member wants us to include amongst others the South African Film Association. Superficially it seems there is much to be said for it, because they are people who ought to have knowledge of films, but it means that people who have private interests in films are being given representation on the board, and that might make the resolutions of the board suspect. If we make this concession, people may ask what about the film distributors, and there may be a demand to give them representation too. So I am afraid it is not possible for me to accept this amendment.

I find the reasons which the Deputy Minister gives for not accepting the amendment from this side of the House most extraordinary. It is the first time that I have ever heard that a Minister cannot accept the constitution of a board, which is a statutory body, which contains nominees from other bodies, because he feels he cannot trust them in the spending of money. The Minister says he must control the nomination of these people because this board will spend about R500,000. Our Statute Book is dotted with legislation dealing with various boards where powers are given for the Minister to accept the nominees of representative bodies, and those boards spend large sums of money. Now we must hear that the Minister cannot trust the Chambers of Commerce to nominate somebody because this board will spend money. He cannot accept the nominee of the C.S.I.R. because he may not be trustworthy in regard to spending the funds of the board. What an extraordinary argument! Are we to understand then that the nominees of the Minister are merely going to be ministerial stooges to carry out the whims of the Minister and to spend the money of the board as the Minister wishes it to be spent? Because that is what the Minister said; that is the logical deduction from his argument. Sir, it is a most unheard of suggestion. If you look at the clause as it stands and you relate it to the provisions of Clause 10, this in fact is not a statutory board but a board of ministerial stooges. It has no powers of its own. The board can do nothing without the approval of the Minister, in terms of Clause 10. Our amendment, by giving the widest possible representation to the broadest interests possible, is aimed at having a board which can do something to develop the film industry. But this board, as constituted at present, can do nothing without a directive from the Minister, and they can hardly use their initiative in any way, because you have five heads of State Departments who have to carry out Government policy. The other five will be nominated by the Minister because he can trust them to spend the money as he wants it spent, and they will be there only in an advisory capacity to the five heads of Departments, and the only man who will sit there—and he will be the biggest ministerial stooge of all—is the chairman nominated by the Minister. But the chairman will not be a head of a Department. I do not want to traverse the ground again of the suspicion attaching to such a board, but when the Minister says there must be a member with a knowledge of religion, I do not recall any statute providing for religious interests to be represented. If you include somebody to represent religion, it leaves the way open for other religious denominations to ask why they are not represented. It is most unwise to put such a provision in the clause. It is better to look to the social interest, as indicated in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital. In the light of the arguments advanced and the suspicion that may be created by the appointment of such a board, I ask the Minister again to reconsider this amendment.

I should like to deal briefly with some of the points raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister in reply to my amendment. First of all, he gives as a reason why he cannot accept the proposition that certain organized bodies should be called upon to nominate members to represent certain interests, that if he appoints one nominee of a particular organization he will have excluded the other organizations. But he is in a far worse position when he tries to nominate on the basis of persons who shall have experience in commerce and industry, because what happens then is that he makes an arbitrary choice and appoints one man out of possibly 500,000 experienced in commerce and industry, any one of whom might reasonably claim that he should be appointed; whereas if he accepts a nomination from the only federated or associated body… [Interjections.] Yes, I am sure there is only one in this context. I know there is the Handelsinstituut and the Suid-Afrika Sakekamer, and I would be very glad if that hon. member would get up and ask the Deputy Minister to agree to the principle that a member should be nominated by all these bodies. [Interjections.] Once the board is set up it will have vast powers, and we would like to see it set up in such a way that no one can reasonably point a finger to it and say it is just a facade. Once the board is set up it will have very vast powers, and in all seriousness we would like to see a board set up in such a way that whether we opposed it at the outset or not, no one can reasonably point a finger to it and say, “this is just a façade for a ministerial power, and these people are no more than stooges”. We would like to avoid that—hence the expenditure of time and energy and breath in order to convince the Minister, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in ignoring this amendment and carrying on as he apparently proposes to do by making personal nominations, will then get into an infinitely worse position than he would if he were to accept this proposal. He also, in a gentle way, took me to task for having disregarded religion, but I said specifically that in the first place the Deputy Minister himself, in the Bill, had grouped social welfare and religion together. I said that those two were not always parallel, let alone identical, and I went on to say that of all considerations, between these two at any rate, welfare was the more important and more practical one in this context. But let us assume that the Deputy Minister is right; he is going to appoint a minister of religion. Does he not realize that if he appoints a minister of, say, the Church of England, he will offend every other religious denomination in South Africa?

Why?

Because then the Dutch Reformed Church would say, “we have an equal right to have that seat on the board.”

There are four Dutch Reformed Churches.

There you are; there are four Dutch Reformed Churches! Sir, these people do not know what they are talking about. If he appoints a nominee from one of the four Dutch Reformed Churches, he creates a rightful grievance amongst the other three.

Nonsense.

Sir, the moment that hon. member says “nonsense”, then I am convinced that I am right. Now, in regard to the question of the Motion Picture Producers’ Association, which I omitted to mention, unfortunately, I would like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is an Association which purports to represent all those persons and companies producing films in South Africa. The Deputy Minister has said that he wants to establish liaison with the commercial interests, which is the present difficulty of the separate State Departments trying to make films and then trying to release them. Sir, here is an opportunity. There is, of course, a consequential amendment which eliminates the question of disqualification by virtue of an interest, but I say that any possible danger arising from the fact that there is on the board a person who is associated commercially with a production company is surely eliminated completely when, firstly, the Minister has supreme power; secondly, the chairman is appointed by him; thirdly, there is an executive which he appoints, and fourthly, at the very worst, this particular representative would be one of ten; he would be heavily outweighed and outvoted.

Now I come to my final point. If the hon. the Deputy Minister persists in his attitude, which is that only the Minister will make appointments and on a purely Whimsical and personal basis, then he has certainly at the same time demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that the worst fears outside of this House, and on this side of the House, about the composition of this board, have been realized in advance; that he wants no more than a facade behind which the Government through a Minister of State will do exactly what it likes in connection with the film industry, and in regard to certain opportunities that derive from certain controlling forces. Therefore, before he plunges into this for reasons which, with great respect, are tenuous—completely tenuous—let him try to apply himself to the amendment in such a way as to find some merit in it, or alternatively to find better reasons and better answers than he has given us up to now for rejecting the amendment.

Since the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) came into this House, we have a person here who on his birthdays surely sends a telegram to his parents congratulating them on their eminent son. The hon. member should have gone into the history of various bodies in South Africa before he spoke. Numerous bodies operating with State funds have been established by this Parliament. It is the policy throughout, not only of this Government, but of all previous Governments, that such bodies are constituted by the Minister. Here we have a body which is going to operate with State funds. As a body they will be responsible to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There sits the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman); he will be able to tell the hon. member that in appointing members to those bodies there is no such thing that private persons from outside may nominate people and that the Minister has to accept those nominations. There are such instances where the Minister is compelled to accept nominations only in the case of boards marketing certain products, and even there the Minister has a big say as regards appointments. But those boards operate with the money of the people whose product they are marketing, not only with State money. The capital of this Film Board will be derived from the State; the State is going to make a loan to it and it is virtually going to be a utility company. For instance, take utility companies such as Iscor and Escom and others. Who appoints their directors? Must we now allow a group of people who hold steel interests to nominate the directors of Iscor? Where are we going to end up then? Mr. Chairman, I take the strongest possible exception to the utterance of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that these people are going to be a lot of stooges of the Minister. I think that is a tremendous reflection upon prominent people in the country, because I am assuming that the Minister is going to appoint prominent people, and the hon. member comes along with the insinuation that these people are such weaklings that they will not be able to do anything for themselves. No, that will not be the type of person appointed to boards by us. We do not appoint the kind of Railway Board that was appointed under the United Party regime. Mr. Chairman, take this list mentioned by the hon. member from which the Minister should make appointments, or not even the Minister but those bodies themselves. That list may be multiplied ten times and then you will not yet have covered all the interests that may be concerned in this industry. For instance, there is the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, and the various Chambers of Commerce in the country, to mention only one category, and you have numerous other bodies with commercial interests. The hon. member for Turffontein asks what is wrong with these people being nominated by the Minister. There is nothing in this Bill to stop people from submitting names to the Minister. It may even happen that the Minister will ask them to submit names to him. There is no provision in the various regulations under the Marketing Act, for instance, that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing must ask bodies to submit names to him, but he nevertheless does so. Of course, one consults such bodies when one wishes to make appointments from among their members, but that is not provided in an Act. There is no legal recognition of these bodies. The Chambers of Industries and the Chambers of Commerce have no statutory recognition. They have no statutory right to nominate persons for appointment to bodies. There is just no such thing.

I rose in the first place to take the strongest exception to the insinuation of the hon. member for Turffontein against the persons who may be appointed, namely that they will be a lot of Government stooges. I think that is extremely deplorable, in the case of persons who are appointed to bodies in purely honorary positions, or where they may perhaps be receiving only a very small remuneration, in other words, people who are economically independent, to say here that they are going to be a lot of Government stooges, and particularly in the case of a body such as this which is going to be an archive on the one hand, and a business undertaking on the other. I think the hon. member for Turffontein ought to be ashamed of himself. If that is the point of view of the United Party, namely that when a Government appoints people to a body, then it appoints them only to say “Yes sir”, then I say it is a great pity that that mentality prevails among their members.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not reply to what he has just said.

Why not?

Because he has said nothing, I should like to say how disappointed I am with the Deputy Minister’s reply. He is a scientifically trained man, and he knows there are in fact bodies where this principle applies. I am sorry he raised the financial aspect of this matter. I do not think he intended it that way, but it merely shows what suspicion there may be or could arise if he were to constitute his board as provided in this clause. That is why we asked that even if the François de Villiers Commission recommended that he should nominate members in this manner, he should not accept that recommendation, and we are confining the request to (c). But the hon. the Minister goes further and that is where I do not understand him: He says that if he adopts our suggestion, it will mean that other groups will come forward and ask for representation on this board. That reminds me of an argument used by the hon. the Minister of Education last year in regard to the Education Advisory Council, when he used the same kind of argument, but in the case of the Education Advisory Council the Act did not refer to a particular number of groups. In this case, however, the various bodies are mentioned in the Bill. The Deputy Minister is the one who is in trouble when another body asks for representation. If our suggestion were adopted, that difficulty will not arise; the difficulty is here already because he mentions specific bodies. For that reason I feel he has done himself an injustice by using the argument that other bodies will now come forward. Why will they ask for representation when our amendment is accepted, and not if this clause remains unchanged? We on this side feel there ought to be the greatest confidence in a body of this kind, and furthermore that if all the members thereof are nominated by the Minister concerned, it will only create suspicion, with the result that the body will not enjoy the confidence it ought to enjoy. We have examples of that. We have the example of the Education Advisory Council. We suggested in all sincerity last year that this principle should be followed, and had he done so the Education Advisory Council would not be regarded with suspicion as it is in fact regarded to-day.

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause.

I am merely mentioning a parallel instance. The hon. the Minister could even provide that he must appoint members from a panel to be submitted to him. We do not insist that he should use the very words proposed by us. For instance, he could say: Very well. I shall accept it if you propose that I should make the nominations from a panel of three or four names. We will agree to that, but we are pleading for the principle here, and I am sorry the hon. the Minister is hesitating to accept our amendment.

I think the fundamental point in this matter is not appreciated by the Opposition as yet, and that is that this Film Board will be a board to coordinate the film activities of the State. That is the crucial matter: the State’s film activities are being co-ordinated here. We are not concerned with commercial film activities here; we are concerned only with the requirements of the various State Departments and the Provincial Administrations and because that is so, the State is providing the funds for it. For that reason also the State has the full right to appoint the members of that board, who have to see to it that the State’s interests are properly looked after. There is nothing extraordinary in the State appointing all the members of a statutory body. I should like to mention three bodies here as an illustration. I am thinking of the Wage Board, and the Industrial Tribunal falling under the Department of Labour.

And the National Transport Commission.

Yes, the National Transport Commission also, as the hon. the Minister of Transport rightly says. These are statutory bodies appointed by the Minister concerned. Then we have the C.S.I.R. also. These people are appointed by the Minister concerned. Those bodies are doing splendid work. I have never yet heard those bodies being called stooges, and therefore I do not intend taking notice of the reference of the hon. member for Turffontein to stooges, because he has a couple of old slogans he throws across the floor during every debate, and I do not intend concerning myself with them.

This Bill, as I have said, is the result of the De Villiers Report. That commission took a good deal of notice of the Canadian example in their investigation of similar undertakings in the world. I do not wish to quote the Canadian example here as being regarded as the gospel by us, but it may be of interest to refer to it in this regard. One of the matters excluded in the case of the Canadian Film Board is in fact private film interests. That is the reason why this amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) cannot be accepted, because if I were to accept that amendment, it means that we shall give private film interests a say in the Film Board. The Canadians have found that it is not desirable, and that happens to be our view too. We think that this board should be a board purely representative of the State, which will not look after private film interests, and for that reason I should like to express the hope that this board, like the Wage Board and the Transport Commission or the Industrial Tribunal, in regard to which we originally received the complaint that the bodies may be Government stooges, and which in the course of time have proved to be boards commanding the respect of the country, will also fall into that class.

As it is not possible, owing to technical reasons, for me to propose my amendment as printed, because the hon. the Minister has already proposed an amendment of his own, I should like to move the following—

I am moving this amendment for three reasons. The first reason is this: I see no reason why it is necessary for the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. to be specially singled out to serve on this particular board. The S.A.B.C. is one of the numerous statutory bodies in the country, and from all these dozens of statutory bodies, many of whom could make use of film services in the future, one is now specifically singled out and preference is given to it, namely the S.A.B.C. whose Chairman is now going to serve on this board, I see no reason for that.

[Inaudible.]

I did not hear the hon. member’s remark, but I am sure it is not worth while replying to. Even the Provincial Administrations are not given representation on this board, and they surely are bodies with very great film activities; they make educational films and they do not get direct representation like the S.A.B.C. through its Chairman. I therefore regard it as undesirable that the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. should be specifically mentioned in this measure as a compulsory member of this board.

The second reason why I propose this amendment is this: I think all of us have the right to ask ourselves what the S.A.B.C. has to do with the production of films. This board is a National Film Board, a board which is going to make films on behalf of and at the request of certain bodies, and one of those bodies is the S.A.B.C. What kind of films does the S.A.B.C. require? I know the S.A.B.C. may ask the Film Board to make a film, e.g. to laud the S.A.B.C. to the skies and to present it in a good light. That is one possibility. Is that the reason why the S.A.B.C. is being given representation on the Film Board? Or is the reason perhaps that the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. is being put on this board because we are going to have television in South Africa? We have heard then that it is something that will never happen; therefore that cannot be the reason. Or is television possibly one of the social evils referred to in a later clause as something on which a film may be made, at the request of the S.A.B.C. to show how terrible it is? I think the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation in regard to this matter. On what subjects is the S.A.B.C. going to make those films? What is the great secret; what is the policy of the Government in respect of this matter; what permission is the S.A.B.C. going to be given in relation to the making of films? If it is for television, then the time has arrived for us to be told that this afternoon. Then we can indeed appreciate why the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. should be on the Film Board. But then again I have serious misgivings about it if it will in any way lead to the Film Board being given too great powers in regard to the making of films for television in the future; if its powers are to be of such a kind that they can virtually lay down precisely what may be made here in South Africa for exhibition on television itself. It may become a dangerous factor. I admit that the powers at the moment are permissive, but it may become a dangerous factor, and I should like to hear more about this from the Deputy Minister.

The third reason why I move this amendment is this: Is it perhaps an attempt to get the person who is the present Chairman of the S.A.B.C. on this board himself? Is it perhaps because the Government wants to get a certain Dr. Meyer on the Film Board and that for that reason they decided to provide in this Bill that Dr. Meyer, who is the present chairman of the S.A.B.C., should serve on this board? In such a case I should say that this is an ominous ad hoc appointment. Hon. members know the feelings of this side of the House in regard to Dr. Meyer. We know he is a prominent member—some say he is the chairman— of a dangerous secret organization in South Africa. We know he is a person who said that he pleads for Africa for the Afrikaners. We think he will be a dangerous person to have on this board. He will possibly become a key man on this board, and he will be able to steer the film industry in the same direction in which the radio is being steered at the present time. It should be remembered that the films that are going to be made are going to be the official propaganda of this Government, and with a person like Dr. Meyer there, and the linking-up thereby with a certain secret organization, I see an ominous new turn in the propaganda the Government could cause to be made in future by means of this Film Board. For these reasons I move this amendment.

I think it will really interest the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to hear what has happened during the past 15 years between the Broadcasting Corporation and the film production division of the State. During the past 15 years the film division has made very good use of the commentators of the Broadcasting Corporation in sound-tracking the films made by the State Film Productions. During the past 15 years the State Film Productions have made very good use of the library of the Broadcasting Corporation for this purpose. It will also interest the hon. member to learn that there is particularly close co-operation between the S.A.B.C. and the various provincial education departments regarding the provision of radio lessons in schools. They also receive what is called radiovision. I do hope this will not cause the hon. member to think at once of that terrible thing called television. The radiovision system is the system under which the departments send to the schools slips of paper with pictures on them which the children will have available in the classrooms when lessons are given over the radio. In other words, there has been particularly good co-operation during the past 15 years, and that co-operation has been so fruitful that we should like to continue it in the new Film Board; hence the appointment of the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. to the Film Board. It is understandable that his membership could be of great value to the board, because through him the Film Board could rely on the technical advice we can obtain from the S.A.B.C. We shall get the publicity value which the S.A.B.C. can offer the films, and it will also have this advantage that we shall be able to make use of the music records of the S.A.B.C. in our film productions, and even of their orchestra when it is necessary for background music. All this is to the advantage of the new Film Board and for that reason I really hope that the hon. member will manage in course of time to rid himself of this obsession of his in regard to the S.A.B.C. The Chairman of the S.A.B.C. will be only one of the ten people on that board; therefore he will not be able to dominate the whole board in spite of all the fears the hon. member has. The Chairman of the S.A.B.C. will be on the Film Board only in the interests of the expansion and development of the State’s film activities.

I should like to support that amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). Not only do I think that the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. should not be included in this board but I think he is one person who should be definitely excluded. We have heard the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs ridiculing television, calling viewing sets little bioscopes and telling us that we should not have them in our homes, that it is a danger to the nation, to the young people of the country. He tells us that television shows small films in the home. Here we are producing films and we have a battle royal taking place between the Broadcasting Corporation and the production of films, because television is only production of films. I should say that 75 per cent of television programmes, as the hon. the Minister has said, consists of films. I foresee in the future, when this Film Board is established and is accepted in the country, that they will come to the responsible Minister, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, and say to him, “The time has arrived now, because of the opposition of the S.A.B.C., when we should have independent television so that we can put our films across to the country”.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

We once again see the attitude adopted that this board is being made suspect even before it has been established. I wish to begin with the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) that the Minister’s appointment of certain persons should be omitted, and that certain bodies should nominate persons. The one point the hon. member completely loses sight of in this whole connection is this: The Minister is not mentioning specific bodies from which he will appoint people. The Minister indicates certain lines of thought in the Bill, in respect of the country’s economy or its culture or its religion or what have you; broad directions in our national life. To appoint a person from one of those spheres is very different from the attitude the hon. member adopts, namely that specific bodies should be mentioned by name, and that they should then have the power to nominate certain persons, and that the Minister will then have to appoint them. If the Minister lays down a few broad lines, he could cover the whole field with five persons. The moment one begins to mention specific bodies, one after another, the five or six mentioned here could be multiplied by ten, bodies interested in and which possibly may have a direct or indirect interest in such a body. We have already mentioned the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and the point of view of the S.A. Handelsinstituut. Those are only two; there are various other organizations you can think of if you wish.

Order! That argument has already been used. The hon. member must not repeat.

I should like to make the point that the hon. member mentions specific bodies. I wish to proceed to the next point of view, that of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in respect of the S.A.B.C. We know the hon. member is obsessed with the S.A.B.C. All of us know that the moment the S.A.B.C. is mentioned, he immediately raises a furore. The hon. the Minister has stated clearly that there are technical reasons why there should be co-operation between the two bodies. Taking as his premise that the S.A.B.C.’s chairman is going to be, and must be appointed to this board, he launched a personal attack on this person. If I were to take the boards of the hon. member for Hospital, and see which of them could be appointed, and I wished to make personal attacks on them, we could have on this board Stanley Uys as representative of the Press Association. He could be nominated as the representative of the Press Association.

No, he cannot.

Stodel could come in on behalf of the film producers or film distributors. Lesley Lulofs could come in for the S.A. Chambers of Industries. I do not wish to be as mean as the hon. member for Orange Grove has been, but if I were to analyse those persons one by one and launch attacks upon them, I could make much political capital out of it. But I shall not do so. I merely wish to state the point of view of the Government briefly. This board should be constituted like all other boards working in this direction. I now ask the Opposition to stop wasting time. That is all they wish to achieve; they really are not serious about the matter.

I have a certain measure of sympathy with the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) because I know he agrees with the viewpoint expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) that there should be a measure of consultation with bodies before the Minister makes appointments such as he proposes in sub-section (b) of this clause. I can understand the difficulty with which the hon. member addressed the House a moment ago.

I think we should realize that whenever we deal with this hon. the Deputy Minister in the matter of films that the Deputy Minister has great difficulty in taking a decision in the matter. We know from previous experience that he had to go and consult the Minister. I am going to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that, if it will assist him at all, I am quite prepared to move that this clause stand over till a later stage. I shall explain why. You see, Sir, in reply a minute ago the hon. the Deputy Minister made a categorical statement that this board was merely a board to co-ordinate State activities and he added these words “it has nothing to do with the film industry”. Let me remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that when he introduced the Bill he said one of the main objectives of the Bill was to encourage a film industry in South Africa. So where do we stand? If this is going to be a board merely to co-ordinate State activities and if it has nothing to do whatsoever…

Order! The hon. member must deal with the constitution of the board.

I am dealing with that, Sir. The Minister gave as one of his reasons for not accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital which suggested the representation of a number of outside bodies that this was merely a co-ordinating board. He associates the representatives of outside bodies with the development of a film industry in South Africa. He says the constitution of the board will not assist in that direction in any way whatsoever. We have had this difficulty with the hon. the Deputy Minister in the past when we have dealt with matters of this nature. If he wishes to go and consult the Minister to find out whether or not the constitution of this board as proposed by us would assist in its broader general functions then I would be prepared to move that this clause stand over to a later date. The hon. the Deputy Minister justifies his rejection of the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital by saying that the De Villiers Commission merely recommended a board to give effect to the resolutions and the findings of the commission. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to read the relevant portion from the report of the De Villiers Commission where it is stated that this board should only be representative of the Civil Service and nominees of the Minister. You see, Sir, we have to accept the Minister’s statement; we have no knowledge of the reasoning of the commission. Had the Minister taken the House into his confidence and tabled that report we would have been able to adopt a different approach to the reasons given by the Deputy Minister for rejecting the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital.

As it now appears that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made up his mind I wish to move the other amendment standing in my name—

Sir, the Deputy Minister wishes to nominate a person, as stated in the clause, “connected with the public Press”. It may be possible that there are persons who have retired from the public Press and who would serve a very useful function on this board. It may not be somebody who is presently active in the public Press. It may be somebody who has retired from the public Press but who has a very wide knowledge of the workings of the Press of our country. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this amendment because it may be possible that he would want to appoint some such person.

Then a final point. It has just dawned on me why the Minister wants to appoint somebody interested in religion because I remember now that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s judgment in the matter of films of what is suitable certainly conflicts with the views of the church. In the light of the church’s recent condemnation of his approval of a certain film against the wishes of the Censor Board I am not surprised that he has taken the step of including that body in the Bill.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is apparently very disappointed to-day that there is not another film which he could advertise as he did the other day. Unfortunately I cannot help him in that respect. I shall rather reply to the two points he raised which perhaps deserve a reply. He wants to know now whether the De Villiers Commission recommended it or whether I just sucked it out of my thumb. Let me now read from page 24 of the De Villiers Commission’s Report the following extract in regard to the members concerned—

I hope it is clear now that the De Villiers Commission recommended it.

The latest amendment really asks that the person representing the Press may also be one who was connected with the Press. This amendment is not acceptable because we want somebody who is actively concerned with the Press; someone who is fully connected with the Press and has the requisite contact with the Press and who could be of the greatest benefit to us. I concede there are retired newspapermen who are exceptionally able, and who could render useful services, but they no longer have that live and active contact with the Press and that unfortunately will not make them the most suitable persons on this board. For that reason I unfortunately cannot accept this amendment.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to once again review the constitution of this board. I am asking him this because I find that he specially wishes to appoint somebody who is interested in religion and social welfare. He takes those two things together. Our amendment asks that somebody be appointed who is interested in social welfare. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister for this reason: As Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science I suppose he has had much experience.…

That question has been put to the hon. the Deputy Minister time and again. The hon. member is repeating now.

I am going to use a new argument, Mr. Chairman. I am merely stating the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps has not received the representations the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science has received. I am mentioning that only in passing. The representations I am referring to are from parents’ associations, from social welfare officials and from women’s associations interested in films exhibited to children. The hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that most of the films at the present time may not be exhibited to children of the ages of four to 18. The difficulty in the past has been to get films for the children as such. This board is constituted for the acquisition, production, distribution, etc., of films. When a person who is specifically interested in social welfare is appointed to this board, that person will particularly have regard to the interests of the children of the country. The difficulty is that most of the bioscopes cannot afford to exhibit two films—one in the morning for children and another in the afternoon and in the evening for adults. The result is that the children suffer. There are very few films in South Africa to-day which can be shown to children with the result that children are idle.…

Order! The hon. member is really going too far now.

Mr. Chairman, I bow to your ruling. I once again wish to urge the Minister that there should be a person dealing only with social welfare so as to fill the gap I have referred to, namely that most films are not for exhibition to children of the ages of four to 18.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) really puts his foot into it every time he opens his mouth. I know it sounds physically impossible, but he succeeds! He tells this House that if the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts the amendment in regard to the composition of the non-official part of the board, more especially that part which refers to a nomination from the Newspaper Press Union, Stanley Uys would be nominated to the board. Does he know how the Newspaper Press Union is constituted? It is relevant to this. Does he not know that it is the one association to which all the proprietors of newspapers, including the hon. the Prime Minister, belong? Does he really believe that they will appoint a political writer, however able he may be, to represent the employers and the proprietors of newspapers? Can he believe that? If he does, Sir, then I obviously cannot stop him from indulging in his own special brand of folly.

I want to say this to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the point he made about the value of the S.A.B.C. representative. He said, inter alia, that because of that appointment the National Film Board would be able to obtain publicity on the radio. Now, Sir, does he really believe that? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister believe that you get publicity on the radio, even on the S.A.B.C., without paying for it? In the nature of things, on the English and Afrikaans transmissions, you cannot get publicity—except if you are a Cabinet Minister, I admit. But as far as publicity in the ordinary sense is concerned, you have to get in on Springbok Radio, and pay for it. With great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, you get it even if you do not know about the National Film Board; you get it by paying for it. He said furthermore that they would be able to use the discs in the library of the S.A.B.C. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister know to what extent discs are used in the sound-tracking of films to-day? How many records are to-day in the control or in the possession of various State Departments, including the Department of Education? Does he know how many discs there are of the kind that will be required? A disc which plays for about 35 minutes will cost two rand…

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the constitution of the board.

I am, Mr. Chairman. The hon. Deputy Minister has given us the reasons why the S.A.B.C. should be represented on the board. May I not deal with that?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the constitution of the board.

I am speaking about one of the members of the board as provided for in this Bill, namely, the chairman of the S.A.B.C. The Deputy Minister has given his reasons why the S.A.B.C. should be represented on this board. I merely want to indicate from this side of the House that there are no good reasons that can be advanced for that appointment. I believe I am entitled to do that. He went on to talk about the use of the S.A.B.C. orchestra. You can only get that orchestra, as I happen to know in another context, if you pay the salaries of the personnel of the orchestra; you do not get the orchestra for nothing. All those reasons are, of course, not good reasons. The Minister relies again, as he has done so regularly, on the Canadian Film Act. In regard to the Canadian Film Act, the Deputy Minister says that they do not allow the appointment of anyone who may be associated with commercial film interests. If the hon. Deputy Minister would tell us at this stage that as far as the other clauses of this Bill were concerned, he is prepared to follow the pattern of the National Film Act of 1950 of Canada, then he must tell us so. Does he want the Canadian Film Act as the prototype of his National Film Board, or does he not? Because apparently, when it suits him, he says no private commercial interests can be represented on the board—the Canadian Act does not have it. Furthermore, the Canadian Act says nothing about a representative of broadcasting; now which is it to be? If the Canadian Act complies with our requirements here, which he said it did about ten minutes ago, then he must obviously follow the Canadian Film Act in regard to the question of broadcasting. The remarkable thing is that they do have television in Canada. Despite the fact that they do have television, the Canadian Act says nothing at all about a representative of the Canadian Broadcasting Company or any other broadcasting interest. One finds oneself in a real difficulty in trying to follow the rather devious route which the Minister’s arguments take. If he wants to appoint a board in such a way that he gets exactly the kind of board he deserves, then this is the way to do it—that is if he wants a board completely amenable to the Minister. But if he wants a board to fulfil the functions which it is purported to fulfil in terms of this particular clause, then he should not persist in his rather obstinate attitude in regard to our amendments on the Order Paper, more particularly in regard to the appointment of the Chairman of the S.A.B.C.

This has nothing to do with my personal relations with the gentleman, which are as good I hope, as they have ever been—but in regard to our amendment to Clause 3 (c) the hon. Deputy Minister says he is not prepared to appoint anybody representing an interest, a known organization. He is heavily supported in this by the hon. member for Randfontein. However, he comes to another conclusion in regard to Clause 3 (b), where he is prepared to appoint somebody who does represent an interest, in this case the S.A.B.C. The Minister objected quite strongly to my suggestion that commerce and industry should be combined, but he seems to have no objection to combining the interests of one body which is mentioned in Clause 3 (b) with the interests of another body which is not mentioned in Clause 3 (b) by the appointment of one person who has an interest in both. He sees no objection to it. Here again, Sir, we have this remarkable mental dexterity which the Deputy Minister finds so easy to exercise; I must say I am impressed by it. He leans to the one side—and the moment you push him slightly over he goes—right over to the other side, and then he uses exactly the opposite arguments! Let me illustrate this. When I pointed out that there was no danger in the appointment of a representative of the Motion Picture Producers’ Association of Southern Africa, which has a vital interest in this Film Board, —I said that at the worst if this person was everything the Minister feared, he would still be outnumbered in terms of the suggested composition by ten to one — the Minister rejected my argument. But when the hon. member for Orange Grove pointed to the fact that it might not be a good thing to have the Chairman of the S.A.B.C. on the board, the hon. Deputy Minister said he would be in any case outnumbered by nine to one! So if the representative of the Motion Picture Producers’ Association of Southern Africa is outnumbered, and that is of no consequence, why will it be of consequence if the representative of the S.A.B.C. is outnumbered by nine to one? I do not follow the odds at all. Sir. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to have indulged, as he did, in the Canadian Film Act, he took another chance there. He assumed that nobody had seen that Act; the chances were 100 to one that anybody would have it. But I have it here, Sir I ask him again to tell us that if that is the Act which is his prototype in respect of the remaining clauses, he will save us a considerable amount of time, as we might be willing to do if the Minister is, in fact, anxious to do so.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science put and agreed to and the remaining amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J, Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (h) upon his election to the Senate, the House of Assembly or a provincial council or to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa.

These amendments are so obviously good and sound that I am sure the hon. the Minister will accept them. I know the legal draftsmen like to say that a man can no longer be a member of a body when he has died, but physically and spiritually he is no longer there, surely, so how he can then still remain a member of a body, goodness alone knows!

I regard my second amendment as being important, namely the insertion of (h). I think the hon. the Minister will agree, as was admitted last year also in regard to another board, that it is not sound policy to have Members of Parliament on such bodies.

It seems to me the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) thought so little of his amendment that he has not motivated it. Accordingly I do not think it is necessary to reply to it. In any event I cannot accept it. Nor can I accept the amendments of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). As regards the first amendment, the wording is what is customary in such cases. Indeed, if it were omitted there, it would have to be inserted in Clause 5. It is no good the hon. member and I arguing about it. The legal people draft it in that way.

How can a man resign when he is dead?

The addition of the hon. member in paragraph (h), namely that he should resign upon his election to the Senate or the House of Assembly or a provincial council, I cannot accept either. As regards the Senate and the House of Assembly, I do not think he need be concerned about that, because the headquarters of this Film Board will be in Pretoria and once one has been elected to the Senate or the House of Assembly, it is practically virtually out of the question to have such persons on the board. They surely will not want to suffer the inconvenience. On the other hand, why should one eliminate a person who becomes a member of the provincial council, and who is particularly interested in film activities, and who has rendered useful services, because he has been elected to the provincial council? By accepting this amendment we may be depriving the board of valuable members, people who may have had some years of experience and who may have rendered useful services. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

It appears that the hon. Minister is disappointed because I merely moved my amendment. He seems even to be annoyed that I did not make a speech in moving my amendment. Of course, when I do make a speech (in the second reading) he is also annoyed! I do not know how to please him. The real reason why I did not make a speech—and the Minister would have realized that if he had studied the Bill in relation to this amendment—is because it is a consequential amendment, consequential on his acceptance of the proposition that nominations shall be made by certain bodies, including the Motion Picture Producers’ Association of Southern Africa, and in that case there would be a person on the board who would have a commercial interest in the making of films, and, therefore, unless I delete the clause which I want to delete by this amendment, he is disqualified. Before I sit down, I must say that I am surprised that the hon. Deputy Minister in his reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) stopped at the appointment of a person to the board who, for example, had become a member of a provincial council. If I am not mistaken, he suggests that whereas a person who has been elected to a provincial council should not be disqualified from becoming a member of the Film Board, he does not apply the same criterion to a person who is elected to the House of Assembly or to the Senate, or to the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. If that is correct, then surely all he need say to the hon. member for Hillbrow is: If you leave out the reference to a provincial council, I will accept your amendment.

Your are wrong.

Apparently the point is that on the pretext—I cannot put it any lower—that a man who is elected to the provincial council should be precluded from serving on this particular body, the hon. Deputy Minister, in fact, wants to open the door to the appointment of persons to the Film Board or the retention of their services regardless of the fact that they have been elected as Members of Parliament. The hon. Deputy Minister talks about “having an interest”. The usual way in which one defines “an interest” is “to vote on a matter”. Can he not foresee the possibility of an hon. gentleman in this House voting, e.g., in regard to the annual Budget for the National Film Board, when such hon. gentleman is a member of the Film Board? Has he not got a direct interest? Is he not getting it both ways? Until the hon. Deputy Minister, who—according to his reasoning, anyway—is far more logical than I can hope to be, gives us an answer on that point, I presume to think, with respect, that he is completely illogical in his attitude to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), the insertion of paragraph (h), that is to exclude members of the House of Assembly, the Senate or of a provincial council from membership of this board. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) this afternoon, emphasized that in these bodies corporate that are appointed by various Ministers no member who is in Parliament or in a provincial council may be included. That is the position in regard to all these bodies mentioned by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). I want to add this second case within my experience: When we discussed the appointment of the Decimalization Board, I suggested to the hon. Minister of Finance that no Member of Parliament should be a member of the Decimalization Board, that we should not have politicians sitting on this board. The hon. Minister of Finance concurred and agreed that that was a sound suggestion. I think the suggestion by the hon. member for Hillbrow is on the same lines and just as sound

I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) which has just been supported by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I think hon. members have made out a case for this amendment. It is true that the precedent has been created in connection with other boards. In spite of my arguments that one does not want to eliminate people who may perhaps have experience, it may perhaps be more in conformity with the practice in regard to other boards to accept the amendment.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel was, with leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Amendment in line 45 proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and negatived.

Remaining amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move as amendment—

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister could accept this amendment also. I am afraid the clause hangs in the air somewhat for it says: “If a member or alternate member of the board vacates his office in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 the Minister shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4, appoint a person as successor to such member or alternate member.” But there is no provision as to the period for which such a member is to be appointed in the place of the vacating one.

I am afraid that in regard to this clause I cannot make the same concession that I made in regard to the previous clause. We considered this proposal of the hon. member thoroughly after the amendment appeared on the Order Paper and we found that administratively it was not possible to accept this amendment. We make the appointment, in the case of a chairman, for a period of five years, and in the case of other members, for a period of three years. This is necessary so that we can have continuity to prevent all of these members retiring at the same time. But as far as the remaining period of time that the hon. member now wants to cover by means of his amendment is concerned, it would mean that we would have to appoint a member, let us say, for three or six months. This is a very short period and it may perhaps be very difficult to find someone who would accept the appointment for such a short period. If a vacancy does arise, we would rather make use of the opportunity to appoint a person de novo, either for a period of three years or five years so that we can have proper continuity. With a view to this fact I fear that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move as an amendment—

The clause reads that five members shall form a quorum at meetings. We on this side of the House feel that this should be increased to seven because it would then include other members than officials in a quorum. If we must have a Film Board, let us have one that is as efficient as it possibly can be. The board will consist of 11 members. The chairman and five others are officials of the Government. This means that the chairman of the board and four officials would constitute a quorum. We feel that at all times this board should so to speak be kept on its toes, it should work to top efficiency. I think if the hon. Minister agrees to make the quorum seven, he will help to prevent the impression being created that this board is one run by himself and his officials. I am sure that the bigger the quorum required at meetings, the better. It is in the name of efficiency only that I move this amendment.

I wish to move—

Here again it is a matter of principle more than anything else, but it is for practical purposes also that we are proposing this amendment. You see, the Minister already nominates the chairman. Because the hon. the Minister has not accepted our amendments on a previous clause, he nominates all the members. We feel that it is desirable that as regards the deputy-chairman, the nomination should be left to the members themselves. I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to that.

May I very briefly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell), for the very obvious reason that a larger quorum will ensure a better attendance, among other things? If you look at the record of attendance of some public bodies, and even certain boards, you will find that the attendance is deplorable, and therefore everything should be done to assure an attendance of at least seven out of the 11 members. In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, I think the hon. Minister should at least concede this crumb of comfort to the board—that it can elect its own vice-chairman. It cannot significantly affect decisions of the board. He is in any case out-voted if it comes to the point, and, finally, the Minister can override any decision the board has taken under the chairmanship of the vice-chairman. But it would make a material difference to the members of the board to know that they have the right to elect their own vice-chairman.

In reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) I would like to say that his proposed quorum of seven is rather high. These boards sometimes find it very difficult to get the necessary quorum if one puts it too high and we would not like to make their job still more difficult than what it is. But if the hon. member wants to propose “six” I am willing to accept the amendment.

*The hon. member for Hillbrow has suggested that the vice-chairman should be elected. I am afraid that I cannot accept that suggestion because the State makes a large financial contribution and it is the task of the State through the medium of its appointed chairman to ensure that matters are run properly. The vice-chairman may often have to take the chair and we feel that it is a matter of principle that these two persons should be appointed by the Minister.

May I point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has in principle accepted my suggestion in his Bill. If he looks further down he will see that if the chairman and the deputy-chairman are absent, the board may appoint its own chairman. What becomes then of the argument of the hon. the Minister with regard to the financial contribution by the State? Then according to the hon. the Minister the board will not be a properly constituted board. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must devise another reason. I think his argument does not hold water in this context. We have no ulterior motives in this regard. We merely want the board also to have a say in the nomination of a deputy-chairman. We have now given the Minister the right to nominate the chairman. Let us give the board the right to nominate the deputy-chairman now. It is done like this in many instances.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Odell was withdrawn.

I move—

I thank the hon. the Minister for his indulgence.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question put: That the word “Minister” in line 72, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp dropped.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

Now that we have reached a stage of sweet reasonableness we may make further progress. Sub-section (1) provides for the appointment of an Executive Committee of the board, to consist of the chairman of the board and two members of the board selected annually by the board itself. The Minister accepted an amendment where the quorum of the board should be six, in order that the quorum should be representative of the two sections of members on the board, namely the permanent officials and the nominated members. I would suggest to the Minister that of necessity those two interests should also be represented on the Executive Committee, and that the executive should not consist merely of heads of Departments, or of the appointed members, as may well happen if the clause is left as it is. Therefore I ask the Minister to accept the following amendment—

In other words, it will mean that the Executive Committee selected by the board itself will be representative of the chairman appointed by the Minister, one of the members appointed by him in terms of Section 1 (b) and one of the members appointed by him in terms of Section 3 (c), so that he will have a representative executive as well as a representative quorum.

In supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, I should like to draw the attention of the Deputy Minister to sub-section (3), which says the board may establish subsidiary committees to assist in the carrying out of its functions and may appoint such persons, including officers of the board, as it may deem fit. I understand that clause to relate to the appointment of persons from outside the board. I want to ask the Deputy Minister to consider that here he has the opportunity of choosing from those organizations which, in terms of the amendment I have already moved and which he rejected; those recognized organizations like commerce and industry and child welfare, etc., would nominate a person who can serve on the sub-committee, and who will be of considerable assistance to the board in carrying out its functions. I have not moved an amendment, nor do I seek to do so, but if the Deputy Minister is prepared to consider it, I think he will be doing something useful in regard to getting the maximum service from these sub-committees, and it may well be that in that way he will get more assistance from such a sub-committee than he may get from the board itself, which is more remote from the matter under consideration by the sub-committee.

I am pleased the hon. member for Hospital did not make this the subject of an amendment because I do not think that one can define in legislation every action that one has in mind. His argument was completely reasonable and I take it that the board will bear it in mind. I say the boa d, because the Minister does not appoint those sub-committees. I trust that in appointing sub-committees the board will make use of the services of people from those organizations.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned, I am quite prepared to accept it Although he so often sees something sinister in our actions, I see nothing sinister in his amendment. On the contrary, I think that its intention is that both of these groups should be represented on the Executive Committee and in order to make sure that this will be done, I will accept his amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move as an amendment—

1. (a) the provision of a centralized service for the supply of technical equipment, apparatus and trained personnel.

I feel that, as the clause stands, its provisions are too wide. As it reads at present, the purpose for which this board is appointed is amongst other things “the co-ordination of the activities of the State in regard to films and photographs”, The word “co-ordination” has a particularly wide meaning and I think that it should be restricted by the amendment that I have moved. Of course, at this stage, we cannot argue that a Film Board of this nature should not be set up because this principle has already been adopted at the second reading, but as far as the aims and the powers of the board are concerned I would like to see more restrictions being imposed upon all that the board may do so that it does not become a bureaucratic body and do all the things that the Canadian board can do. As the hon. member for Randfontein (Mr. Mulder) told us, the staff of the Film Board there numbers more than 600 members. I said during the second-reading debate that it could be argued that there was some measure of overlapping between the work done by the various Departments and that it was a bad thing which could be eliminated by the methods that I suggested then but which were not accepted. But now we have the Film Board and if it is to act it is necessary that one of its tasks should be to eliminate the existing duplication of work. I think for example of a case that came before the Select Committee on Public Accounts a few years ago, a case concerning a head of a Department. He took some film apparatus from his Department. He did this in all good faith but it was against the regulations. He took it overseas with him. This matter came to the notice of the Auditor-General and the Select Committee felt rather strongly about it. This proves that it is necessary to have a central control over the large amount of apparatus and number of films in possession of the Department. That is why I am moving this amendment. I also want to say that my amendment must not be read on its own but together with the other amendments that will be moved at a later stage by hon. members of this side of the House, amendments that will make it clear that we are trying to define the powers more specifically and also to prevent the Film Board becoming a very large bureaucratic body.

Before moving the amendment standing in my name, I should like to support what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said. To put this matter clearly—because it is not very clear to me what the Minister means here or what he desires. It says in (1) “intended for dissemination, in the Republic or elsewhere, of information regarding Southern Africa, its peoples, their way of life, culture, traditions, economic conditions and problems”. My amendment says “the Republic and the territory of South West Africa”. But would it not have been better had the Minister extended the dissemination of information even to people throughout the world? Why does he confine himself to Southern Africa? I drafted my amendment in the form in which it appears in order to learn from the Minister why he has limited it like this.

But now I come to the second part, sub-clause (2). It refers to the scenic beauty, physical attractions and travelling facilities of Southern Africa. Why should we proceed to incur expense in order to disseminate propaganda so as to serve the rest of Southern Africa? Why should our propaganda serve other areas in Southern Africa? This clause is not clear to me, and I shall appreciate it if the Minister will explain it, why these words “Southern Africa” are being used. I move—

I want to reply first of all to the two amendments. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is concerned, the omission of paragraph (a), it may perhaps be a good thing to see what the paragraph provides. It states that the objects for which the board is established are (a) the coordination of the activities of the State relating to cinematograph films and photographs. The hon. member wants this paragraph to be omitted and the following words to be substituted “(a) the provision of a centralized service for the supply of technical equipment, apparatus and trained personnel”. The amendment is not clear to me because my first reaction is, to whom must the apparatus and technical equipment be supplied? After all, it is a State film institution. It is not our intention to supply these things to the trade. If that is not the intention of the hon. member either, I fear that he is not achieving his aim by means of this amendment. The main purpose is after all the co-ordination of the film activities of the State. All the investigations were made in this regard. I fear that to replace that main purpose that is envisaged in paragraph 9 (a) will actually remove the most important aim of the Bill, and I do not see my way clear to accept the amendment.

Does the word “co-ordinate” not mean something else? Does it not mean that there will still be separate departmental activity but that the function of the board will be to co-ordinate it?

I have already stated very clearly that we now have the position where certain State Departments have their own film units. It is not our intention that those units should continue to exist; on the contrary, they must be centralized and the requirements of the Department must be canalized through the Film Board. If one wants to find another word for “co-ordination”, one can use “canalization”. The Film Board will have the apparatus of the other Departments at its disposal. So the main purpose is canalization, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is concerned, it may perhaps be a good thing for us to consider the particular sub-paragraph. It states “intended for dissemination in the Republic or elsewhere…”. In other words, the film can be distributed in any part of the world. That is the one aspect of the matter. Now we come to the other one. It also goes on to say “… of information regarding Southern Africa, its people their way of life, culture.…” and so forth. These are two separate matters. In the one case we want to be free to collect information in connection with Southern Africa on film, whether it is about the Kariba Dam or educational happenings in Rhodesia. But that does not mean to say that we should only distribute that film in Southern Africa. It can also be distributed elsewhere.

I think the Minister has not understood me correctly. We interpret it differently. The object is the acquisition, production, exhibition, distribution and making available of films and photographs intended for dissemination in the Republic or elsewhere. Of what? “Information” with regard to “Southern Africa Why only information regarding Southern Africa? Why the limitation to Southern Africa? I repeat that I have worded my amendment in such a way merely to get the matter discussed, but by rights it should be Southern Africa and the rest of the world, because surely that is where you wish to disseminate it.

Now I come to the second part, which refers to the scenic beauty, physical attractions and travelling facilities of Southern Africa. Why should I disseminate something elsewhere depicting Southern Africa? Surely they can do it themselves? There you have an extension of the borders of the Republic, and I cannot understand that. As regards the dissemination, there is a restriction to Southern Africa. [Interjections.] I object to information about Southern Africa alone being disseminated. Why do we restrict the limits of dissemination to what happens in the Republic? We have to extend it further. In the second place there is an extension again, and we say that what occurs in and is depicted in South Africa we also want to extend to what happens in Southern Africa. For that reason I think the Minister’s interpretation of the clause is not in accordance with the clause itself, and for this reason I should like to know from the Minister what he really means.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

Before discussing it, I wish to refer briefly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The reference to Southern Africa is puzzling in itself, because as far as I know, “Southern Africa” is not a legal term used in our legislation. We know that there is the Republic of South Africa, and the Territory of South West Africa, but what is “Southern Africa”? Can the Deputy Minister say without any fear of contradiction what the phrase “Southern Africa” means in the mind of any person who has to interpret the law? It could, e.g., be Africa south of the Sahara; that is still Southern Africa. Where does it start or stop, and what are its boundaries? With respect to his Department, I do not think even his own officials could help the Deputy Minister to define “Southern Africa”.

You ought to be able to do it, because you are able to define anything.

That is the first tribute the hon. the Minister has paid me, and I am grateful for it! I define “Southern Africa” as that part of Africa which can geographically be described as south of a given line, but if I say that “Southern Africa” is Africa south of the Equator, does that help the Deputy Minister? Does he want to go so far? Therefore I say that in addition to the difficulties pointed out by the hon. member for Hillbrow, there will be a real difficulty of interpretation here if the Minister finds himself with a very ambitious board which wants to range through Southern Africa for the purpose of making films, let alone distributing them.

You may as well sing you swan song.

As I say, we are ad idem obviously about the distribution of films but we are not ad idem about the making of them. Sir, the day that I have to worry about my swan song, the hon. member over there would have left here long ago. If the amendment which I am moving, that is, to omit in lines 62 and 63 “the problems of and social evils present in”, is accepted, the clause would then read: “… giving information regarding the Republic and the services available and the developments taking place in the Republic.” That is a simple statement which, I think, is not open to any misconstruction by anybody. The position is very different when there is reference in legislation to “the problems and social evils”—not just “evils” but “social evils”. The hon. the Minister is looking for a future quibble here, because he knows that there are evils which cannot properly be described as “social” evils. They are evil things or action or attitudes, but they are not necessarily social evils. Does he want to start standardizing this, shall I say, evil situation which may exist in South Africa, by distinguishing “social” evils from other evils? That is the one question. The other is whether in following the Canadian legislation, he has not observed that there is no reference to either “problems” or “social evils” in the Canadian National Film Act, 1950? It says in this Act, very simply, “the board is established to initiate and promote the production and distribution of films in the national interest”, and then in Section 9 where they start itemizing, they say: “and in particular to produce and to distribute and to promote the production and distribution of films designed to interpret Canada to the Canadians and other nations.” There is no reference to “problems” or “social evils”. This is one of the things about which the Government side of the House is inclined to complain bitterly, when somebody gets up on this side of the House and points to something in South Africa which is a problem, which is a social evil, and then they say, as we were told yesterday, “Oh, but this is being cabled overseas immediately; you are destroying something; you are denigrating South Africa”. Why put into legislation the simple statement, which you can never deny, that at this stage there exists many problems and social evils that, as somebody outside this country will misconstrue it, you have to set up a National Film Board in order to combat them! Is that not what you are asking for? Sir, I shall be very interested to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s views on that aspect of the matter.

I want to ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) what objection he has to information being disseminated throughout that part of Africa south of the equator in which our Republic is situated? What objection does he have to the term “Southern Africa” being contained in this clause?

But read it please. It is not the dissemination.

I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) that it is quite clear that the first part of the clause determines the place where the dissemination must take place, “in the Republic or elsewhere”—and beyond its borders as well—of information in regard to Southern Africa. The second portion of it deals with the information that must be disseminated. I think therefore that the hon. member has not made out a case at all in support of his amendment. I want to express a few basic ideas in support of the whole of Clause 9 which is the most important provision in this measure, and I want to do so particularly in pursuance of the attack of the hon. member for Hospital who in his almost profound wisdom opposed this clause during the second-reading debate and tried to prove that even in a large film country like America there was no film institute or film board at all, and also that there was no need for such a body. He quoted at length from some or other document in order to prove his point. He devoted quite a few minutes of his speech to doing so.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I want to emphasize the aims of this Clause 9 and I also want to say that the same policy is being followed in America to-day. In contrast to the arguments of the hon. member, we find that leading film authorities like Arthur Knight and Colin Young not only advocate the setting up of an American film institute, but are already working along those lines. Colin Young who is the editor of the Los Angeles Film Quarterly recently wrote in an enlightening article in that paper that for years he had been advocating the establishment of an American film institute. As far as its aims are concerned he says amongst other things—

This proves that what we are trying to do and the provisions contained in this clause are already being done and advocated in America. He says in the article that the tracing of archival films should be one of the leading aims of the film institute, just as it is also one of the aims of this Bill.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

But what I am saying is relevant to the clause.

Order! The hon. member cannot tell me what is relevant to the clause. The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

The point that I am emphasizing is one of the aims of Clause 9. I also want to point out that while the hon. member for Hospital and other hon. members opposite have said that there is no need for a film board of this nature, we on this side of the House consider this Bill to be a very timeous measure and we welcome it wholeheartedly. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member who has just sat down finds himself in some difficulty and he knows why, but I shall not pursue that. I want to move the amendment standing in my name, but before doing so I would like to put one question to the Deputy Minister in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I would like to ask the Deputy Minister in view of the very difficult situation in which our country finds itself at present, whether he has consulted with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in regard to the wording of this clause. We do not want any misunderstanding. This clause may be completely misinterpreted as it stands, and I think the Minister should bear that aspect in mind. We have had a great deal to say about interference in our internal affairs and I think it would be a great mistake if by legislation passed in this House we created the impression that for State propaganda purposes we think that we have some prerogative to do as we like and to film the activities of any one of the countries in Southern Africa south of the Sahara. I think it will create an entirely erroneous impression and I hope therefore that the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend.

I now wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

This sub-section of Clause 9 is probably the most important sub-section of the whole clause. As I view it, it will probably be one of the most important functions of the new Film Board. The Deputy Minister has made it quite clear that one of the recommendations of the De Villiers Commission was the development of a film industry in our country. We already have a temporary measure in that regard. We already vote on the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs an amount of R200,000 as a subsidy to the film industry, and incidentally I think the Deputy Minister should tell us whether it will be one of the functions of the board to advise the Government in regard to this aspect of encouraging the development of the film industry by having some say in the expenditure of the moneys which are voted under the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs. But, Sir, the wording contained in this clause, “the promotion of the development”, is a ridiculous sort of English. In Clause 10 (j) the Deputy Minister himself says that one of the functions of the board will be to encourage the production of films in the Republic. Well, let us use the same word here: let us say that one of the functions of the board will be to “encourage” the film industry and photography in the Republic. I think it would be better English and it would set out more precisely the functions of the board. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to accept the amendment.

In actual fact, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) contradicts the speech that he made in connection with the matter. The hon. member created the impression that the material that is to be filmed should not be collected throughout the whole of Southern Africa but should be confined to the Republic of South Africa and to the territory of South West Africa.

I gave my reasons for saying so.

In other words, it should be restricted only to that area. But in his speech the hon. member said that he wanted it to be put more widely. In other words, his amendment contradicts his speech and his speech contradicts his amendment. If he wants to achieve what he said in his speech, then this amendment cannot be accepted.

You did not understand what I said.

I was here and I listened to the argument of the hon. member. The hon. member had no objection to the question of the dissemination of films in South Africa and elsewhere but when he came to the filming of material and history and traditions for a certain purpose, in his amendment he moved that the words “Southern Africa” should be omitted and that the words “the Republic of South Africa” should be substituted. In other words, that we should not do this film work beyond our borders. I think that there is a contradiction there that the hon. member will have to explain before we can consider the matter finally.

I want to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I would like to be assured that provision is made elsewhere in this Bill in this connection: In Clause 9 (e) provision is made for “the acquisition, preserving, storing, adapting and making available of cinematograph films of archival value”. As I see it there are two tasks that have to be undertaken by this body. The first is the production and co-ordination of State films and the second important task is the storing, the adaptation, the making available, the preserving and the obtaining of films of an archival value, but in my opinion this concept is being put in a very restricted fashion by only using the words “cinematograph films” I want to mention an example. In the Burger of this morning I read the opinion of Colonel Richter in connection with the film “Moedertjie” which he apparently saw at some special function or other last night. I also understand from the report that medallions were presented to quite a few people for this first Afrikaans sound film, which is not a documentary film, and that the possibility exists that those medallions which were presented on that occasion may perhaps be handed over to the film board or to the film institute when it is set up. My question now is just this: If this Bill is based simply on the “making available of cinematograph films” and nothing more, will things like these medallions or things like décor that may perhaps be used or things like old film material that has perhaps been used or old cameras or whatever the case may be, also fall under the Bill? Can these objects be included or should we perhaps amend the Bill in this connection and use the words “cinematograph film and related material”? I simply feel that the wording “cinematograph films” is rather restricted in connection with this matter. I will be pleased if the hon. Deputy Minister will give me a reply in this regard.

I do not wish to go further into the matter I have already raised in regard to the first portion of my amendment, that is to say Clause 9 (b) (1) or Clause 9 (b) (2). I have explained why I moved the amendment, namely to invite a discussion and to point out the restrictive content of the first part and the extended content of the second part. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why he framed it in those words. Should he as a result of our discussion here wish to reconsider this matter, he may propose an amendment in the Other Place.

Then I wish to come to the last amendment, that is to say, the use of the words “the promotion of the development” in the English version. I think it is a translation from the Afrikaans version. However, I should like to raise the same objection to the Afrikaans version thereof. What is the meaning of “die bevordering van die ontwikkeling”? I have not used the word “bevordering” (promotion) in my amendment; I have used the word occurring in Clause 10 (j), namely “encouragement”, because the two are related. In order to be consistent I have used the word used in Clause 10 (j). I should like to suggest very strongly that there is nothing wrong with what is written there, save that the language is hackneyed, and I say that with all due respect. One cannot refer to “the promotion of the development”. One can refer to the “promotion of the film industry” or “the encouragement of the film industry I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister will have any objection to that, and I should like to urge him very strongly to accept my amendment.

As far as the wording of this clause is concerned I just want to say that if one is a philologist, like the hon. members for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), one can probably find reasons for a considerable amount of philological criticism as far as the wording is concerned. The intention of these provisions is quite clear. In any case, it is clear to me and I think that it will also be clear to those who have to carry out the provisions of the Bill. The invention of Clause 9 (1) (b) is, firstly, that we want to collect material and information about ourselves. We want to be able to show what we can do both in this country and outside, and if in the collection of material about ourselves we do perhaps have to go a little further afield than our own borders, we want to be able to do so but we do not want to go too far afield. If for example we want to film a project like the Kariba Dam in connection with irrigation, we want to have the right to be able to do so. If we want to film any educational institutions there, we want to have the right to do so. The hon. member for Turffontein need not fear that we will aggravate our foreign relationships or disturb them by resorting to tactless actions beyond our borders. We are not interested in filming the strikes at the Rhodesian copper mines; neither will we send people to film the racial disturbances in Nottingham or in Alabama. We are not interested in doing that. We want to film things of beauty that are relevant in this regard and that is why we want to have the power, if necessary to film something beyond our borders without bringing any country into discredit in this regard and that is why we want to have the power, if necessary, to film something beyond our borders without bringing any country into discredit in this regard. As is provided for in the first part of this clause, those films can be disseminated in the Republic and elsewhere. We will be able to distribute them throughout the world. That is the intention and it is quite clear to me. I am not as much a philologist as the hon. member for Hillbrow but I do think that this will also be quite clear to the board that will have to carry out this work.

We are not referring to things like the Kariba Dam and matters of that nature. But what right do we have to make films outside of our borders interpreting the culture, the traditions and the way of life and so forth of the people in those countries?

The hon. member should read a little further. Sub-paragraph (ii) reads “Depicting Southern Africa’s scenic beauty, natural attractions and travelling facilities”. This is what we intend doing.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) raised the question of social evils. Our State Departments are quite often asked to make films dealing with social evils.

He is one himself.

We are asked to make films in connection with housing and even dealing with soil erosion problems and alcoholism. These are social problems which we can sometimes depict in a striking manner on film with a view to adult education. This provision in the Bill is simply intended to enable us to make such films. As far as the question of “the promotion of the development of the cinematograph film industry” is concerned, I want to confine myself to what is contained in this Bill and the intention of this clause. I am not a language expert and accordingly I believe in the adage “Shoemaker, stick to your last”. We use the term “promotion of the development of the industry” instead of “encouragement of the industry” because we want to do something positive by means of this film board machinery. “Encouragement” is a far weaker form of action than “promotion”. We do not want to confine these film activities to fine weather speeches and express good wishes in the hope that this will develop; we are going to tackle this question with all our might and main. We are making funds available; we are going to make staff available; the board is being appointed and we are going to take positive steps to promote our film industry. Because this is our aim, the word “promotion” is the precise description of what we are doing, and not “encouragement”. For these reasons I am sorry that I cannot accept these amendments.

My regard for the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) is greater than his regard for the facts. He comes here to-day and he says that I told the Committee .. .

He was ruled out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I am addressing the Chair. He says that I have stated —and that I produced a book as evidence— that there is no National Film Board in America. And then he immediately goes on to prove that to his own satisfaction, by quoting somebody called Colin Young who says that he pleads for a Film Board in America, that they need one in America! Does that not prove that they have not got one?

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause.

Sir, hon. members on that side must not waste the time of this Committee with silly statements.

You are the last person who can talk about wasting the time of the Committee.

Sir, the difference is that I have something to say about this Bill, which is more than can be said for the hon. member over there. I want to say this in regard to this question of “South Africa” and “Southern Africa” the Minister has now explained that the intention is to allow the board to make films outside South Africa. That is simple enough. The question then arises whether this board, which is established in and for the Republic of South Africa, should, in fact, have as one of its functions the making of films outside of South Africa. It is a serious question. Let me give you this example, Sir. The South African Iron and Steel Corporation has been set up to make steel in South Africa for South Africa; it exports that steel, but it does not make steel outside of South Africa. Why should this South African Film Board, set up for and in South Africa, have the power to make films outside of South Africa? The hon. the Deputy Minister has at last said that that is the intention of the use of the term “Southern Africa”, but he has failed to explain exactly why this particular board should have the right to go to, say, Kariba or to the Victoria Falls in order to make films?

As an item of interest.

Yes, I appreciate that, but I say with respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must tell the Committee why this board, set up for the purpose for which it is being set up, must have the power to go beyond what we know as the Republic of South Africa. He has not explained it. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he himself is satisfied with his explanation of the presence in Clause 9 (3) of the phrase “the problems and social evils?” He merely touched on that. If it is a question of “giving information regarding the Republic”, then clearly, if there is a strong urge or pressure or need to give information about a problem or social evil, that phrase in itself would provide for it. Our primary objection is the fact that there is this high-lighting of “the problems and social evils”, and if this board is going to do any good, then the first and perhaps only thing that it should not do is to become a collection of do-gooders, to make films about social evils, films which nobody will release, which nobody will look at and of which nobody will take the slightest notice. The hon. the Deputy Minister should know that. There is emphasis in this Clause (b), as it is, on “the problems and social evils”; we on this side of the House believe that it is in the interests of the board and of the Department by which it will be controlled to eliminate this emphasis, and to say, “information regarding the Republic,”; and if or when a problem or a social evil has to be dealt with by making a film, I say that the amended sub-clause would provide fully and amply for it.

Finally, under this particular clause I think it would be advisable to delete “promotion of the development”. As the Deputy Minister admits, that wording is clumsy. I have a further objection. “Promotion”, as we know the word, lends itself to other meanings, such as “company promotion”, for example, which is not quite the sort of “promotion” that the board will have in mind. The Americans use the word “promotion” and we have used an Americanism here, inquiry into the “motion picture” industry by the Board of Trade. The word “promotion” in America means something quite different to what it means in South Africa. The use of the word “promotion” here may create a false impression. Sir, we would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize that we are not trying to be obstructive with these amendments. We are trying to be helpful. I hope he will accept that.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) put a question to me which I neglected to answer. He wanted to know about the film apparatus used in connection with a film like “Moedertjie” and others which won prizes, and whether we could do anything to collect film apparatus of this nature. This can be done in terms of Clause 20 (c) which provides that the Minister may generally give such directions as he may deem fit for the carrying out by the board of its functions. In terms of this provision, any apparatus that is still available can be obtained and retained by the film institute.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 10,

This clause sets out certain powers in sub-sections (a) to (o), powers which are given to the board in order to achieve the objects envisaged in Clause 9. I therefore wish to move—

The reason is very clear why we are doing this. If you study the various powers it becomes clear that the Minister has all those powers. It says for example “with the approval of the Minister” they can acquire or produce a film; “with the approval of the Minister” and “with the approval of the Minister of Finance” they can do certain research work. It is in fact only a board in name. The board has no power at all. It can do virtually nothing without the approval of the Minister. [Interjections.] Sir, I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) would go and play with his sheep in the lobby somewhere. I find it difficult to carry on with my speech with all this mumbling.

Order!

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Cradock entitled to say “ek sal jou neuk”? And is the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) entitled to say “jy lieg”?

Did the hon. member for Cradock use those words?

What words, Sir? I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.

Did the hon. member say “ek sal jou neuk”?

I know nothing about it, Sir.

On a point of order…

On a point of order…

Order! Two members cannot speak at the same time. Both the hon. members for Edenvale and Krugersdorp must resume their seats. I am still busy with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). What other point did the hon. member for Yeoville raise?

The hon. member for Cradock…

Order! That has been disposed of; the hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Cradock. What was the other point the hon. member raised?

I asked whether the hon. member for Krugersdorp was entitled to say “jy lieg”.

Did the hon. member for Krugersdorp say that?

Said what. Sir?

“Jy lieg”.

To whom? I definitely deny that I said anything like that. I just want to add this…

Order! It is quite sufficient for the hon. member to deny it without adding anything.

On a point of order. The hon. member for Turffontein attacked the hon. member for Cradock, who had not done anything, and he called him a sheep-bleater.

The hon. member for Turffontein must try not to be so personal.

Mr. Chairman, I said nothing of the sort.

Did the hon. member not use those words?

I shall repeat the words that I used, Sir…

Order! The hon. member may continue with his speech.

We feel that this should be a board that should be able to exercise its jurisdiction in an adequate manner for the purposes for which it is to be established. We feel that some latitude should be granted to the board. I should first of all like to know what the Minister’s reaction is to the amendment we have moved. We feel that it will be better to give the board powers in a wider orbit. That is why I am moving that it should render any such services as are referred to in Section 9, leaving the proviso in the clause which the Minister has inserted in regard to the board’s activities as far as the spending of funds is concerned. I hope therefore that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment. I should like to know the Minister’s reactions because I do not want to discuss all the individual provisions of this section before knowing what his reaction is. I have tried to put the matter as briefly as I could and I hope the Minister will see it in that light.

I rise to reply immediately to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) so that other speakers may keep my reply in mind. The hon. member wants us to delete paragraphs (a) to (o). Unfortunately, I cannot comply with this request for the simple reason that it is our practice to specifically define the powers of a board in legislation. A board’s powers have to be specifically determined so that we know what powers it does not have. The purpose is that there must be no doubt in regard to what its powers are. This is the general practice in legislation. In spite of this fact, if we nevertheless accept the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, it will mean that we will, for example, completely exclude the obtaining of land or buildings or equipment. This will mean that the right of advising the Minister will also be excluded. That is why I cannot accept his amendment. I thought it very strange that the hon. member for Turffontein should allege that this is actually an impotent body; that this is a body that has no powers; that the hon. the Minister has all the powers. It is difficult for me to reconcile this statement with the argument that was raised in connection with Clause 3. When we discussed Clause 3 just now, we heard from that side of the House what a dangerous institution this board was. We were told then that it was a dangerous and sinister institution. Now that we are defining its aims, we are told that it is a useless body; that it is not necessary for a body of this nature to be set up because the Minister does all the work! I fear, Mr. Chairman, that one does not always know to which statements of the hon. member one should attach value—whether one should attach any value to his present arguments or to his past arguments.

I do not see how the hon. the Deputy Minister can now use arguments advanced in connection with our amendment to Clause 3 when we are dealing with Clause 10. The amendment we are moving here is perfectly in keeping with the arguments we presented under Clause 3. Under Clause 3 we sought to set up a board that would do an effective job and would be as representative as possible of the widest interests to develop a film industry in this country. Having got such a board, we are quite prepared to entrust to it the functions for fulfilling its objects. We did not get the board which we on this side wanted. We have to do with second best. The second best is the board the Minister wants. But that still does not mean that we are prepared to throw overboard our prime objective to see to it that an adequate and efficient film industry is developed in the country. I therefore fail to see the logic of the hon. gentleman’s argument.

If the Minister looks at Clause 10 (b) he will see that it reads—

It is quite clear from Clause 9 (b) that the board is empowered, for certain purposes, to acquire, produce, exhibit, distribute and make available films for certain purposes. From the very wording of this sub-clause it is very clear that the board has no power whatsoever to do anything on its own initiative without first seeking the approval of the Minister. In other words, the board can never exercise its own authority in respect of any of its activities. If it wants to make a five minute film on the Orange River Scheme it has to seek the approval of the Minister. If it wants to make a two minute film on a matter of education it has to obtain the approval of the Minister. The wording of the clause is absolutely clear.

I should like to take my argument a little bit further on one or two other provisions. Sub-clause (h) for example provides that the board shall have power “to provide an information service in regard to cinematograph films and photographs and activities relating thereto”. I asked on a former occasion what sort of information this would be? To whom will it give this information? Will it be information to the existing distributing houses of films to assist them in the making of future films? Or is the intention to give information to the general public as to what it has available for general distribution? If the Minister would direct his attention to (k) he will see that it says “to advise the Minister in regard to any matter affecting cinematograph films or photographs which the Minister may refer to it…’’ What subject dealing with films does the Minister intend to refer to the board on which he wants advice? The board is a statutory body. If the board has to advise the Minister what sort of advice does the Minister expect to get from the board because the board can do nothing without the Minister’s approval. The more you examine these objects, Sir, the more confused you become as to what is intended in regard to this board. As my hon. friend reminds me it is possible that the board will advise the Minister that it is a pornographic film. I raised the question on a former occasion. The same Minister who has power over this board, i.e. over the development of our film industry, is also the Minister of appeal in regard to the Censor Board of films which are distributed in this country. If he is in dispute with the Censor Board and the Minister is in doubt about the matter—he told us the other day that he was in great doubt about a certain film and that he had to refer it for a second opinion to his Minister—will he say to the board that he is in doubt about this film and that they must give him a second opinion? Is that the sort of advice he is going to seek from them? We can argue endlessly on these various provisions as contained in (a) to (o). You come up against objections all along the line.

Finally, Sir, sub-clause (b) makes it nothing but a stooge board. In fact, if the Minister were honest about this matter he would stand up and say that this was an advisory board…

Order! The powers of the board are not under discussion now.

I am discussing Clause 10 (b), Sir, which is to the effect that the board can do nothing without the approval of the Minister. My argument is that these powers are no powers at all because all the power will in fact rest in the hands of the Minister. I submit that if the Minister wants to make the activities of the board effective, if he wants the board to exercise initiative, he should accept this amendment because I believe that would be in the interests of the film industry.

The information service which is referred to in sub-paragraph (h) and the advice which is referred to in sub-paragraph (k) deal simply and solely with technical information and technical advice. The hon. member for Turffontein need not be concerned about the question of pornography. The Publications Board will handle the question of pornography as it arises in regard to films for entertainment purposes. That is the function of the Publications Board which falls under the Department of the Interior.

You still have the final say.

That board falls under the Department of the Interior. We are dealing here with an educational measure. This educational measure has nothing to do with censorship. I explained this to the hon. member in my second-reading speech. Is it so difficult to make him understand anything? This advice and information service merely deals with technical matters and in regard to these technical matters it is our intention that an information service should come into being. In my introductory speech I said that one of the considerations was that the Film Board could make 40 per cent of the films and issue 60 per cent of them and not have all of them made by the industry. The reason for this is that we ourselves want to set a standard as far as the cost and the standard of the films are concerned. That is why we want to make some of them ourselves, even though the percentage we make will be the smaller percentage. The State wants firsthand knowledge about the making and the cost of these films. In the course of this process we will gain a great deal of technical knowledge and experience, as we have done over the past 15 years. The State is prepared to make that technical knowledge available to the other film companies that have to make films for us. The information service which we are going to set up to disseminate that technical information can only be to the good of the whole of the film industry. This is a measure that really deserves the support of everyone.

I wish to move the amendment in my name on the Order Paper—

I think he will agree that some people may regard this Chamber as a playroom, but the question is: Can that person reasonably regard this Chamber as such? The word “reasonably” is necessary because otherwise it will mean that the board, unreasonably, can regard, and possibly will regard, some action as complementing and promoting the object of the board. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to make the position perfectly clear, and that is that he seeks to allow the board to do no more than what he expects of it, then he can have no objection to the amendment. Unless and until the hon. Deputy Minister indicates his attitude towards this amendment, I do not want to press this point further.

In regard to the second part of the amendment in which I ask the Committee to delete the words “even though it is not specifically mentioned herein”, I want to point out that it is already stating the case very widely to say that the board shall have power to do everything which can be, reasonably or otherwise, regarded as complementing and promoting the objects of the board. That is a very wide statement, Mr. Chairman. The use of the word “everything” there is very significant. Nothing is excluded, in other words. I therefore want to know what the significance is of the additional phrase “even though it is not specifically mentioned herein”. There could, for example, be the simple intention that as part and parcel of implementing its task, the board can literally do everything which can be regarded as complementing and promoting the objects of the board even though it is not specifically mentioned therein. It means that the board could, by regulation or by some other means, enforce the screening of its productions throughout the Republic. In this way the board can mobilize tremendous private capital for the furtherance of the Government’s objects. If that is the intention of the hon. the Minister, he must say so, and we shall know where we stand. If it is not his intention, we would like to be assured that he does not seek, in this way, to control the private business of cinema exhibitors by way of these tremendously wide powers which he seeks in this particular part of the Bill.

I think the Minister stated that private enterprise would benefit to the tune of some R600,000 per year.

After a period of three to four years.

I appreciate that. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that that is a very large sum of money. I do not know how he arrives at that particular figure. It must be based on some sort of facts.

It is based on the Department’s requirements.

Thank you, Sir. The point I want to stress is that it could be used as a bait for private enterprise in the cinema exhibitors business to show these films in their theatres all at the expense of the taxpayer. If that is the position, we will have one more link (in addition to the existing broadcasting medium under the control of the South African Broadcasting Corporation) to condition the thinking of the public at the expense of the public. If a Government through a board wishes to condition the thinking of the public, it seems completely unfair to expect the public also to pay for it because the public will pay a price of admission in a cinema in order to see a programme, and it may then be found that part of that programme consists of short films which the exhibitor is showing entirely because of the pressure from the board, pressure which the board can apply under the phrase here, “even though it is not specifically mentioned herein”. It is often the case that we on this side of the House are accused by a Cabinet Minister of being suspicious. I am not a suspicious man by nature, but, Sir, if in this case I have, or anyone else, has a suspicion, it should not surprise the Minister. We are here dealing with the business of exhibiting or showing films, and there are several hundreds of cinemas controlled by two major chains, and there are hundreds of millions of rand invested in these cinemas; and if they, the proprietors of these cinemas, come to the conclusion that it is the intention of the board, in a rather subtle and indirect but real way, to control their activities in respect of their own enterprises, then, Sir, that suspicion will turn out to be well-founded. So I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will make these concessions, in the first place by agreeing to the insertion of the word “reasonably”, which I have some reason to believe he will accept, and in the second place—and there I am not so confident—in agreeing to the deletion of the words “even though it is not specifically mentioned herein”. It seems to be going too far altogether in something which is entirely designed, as we are told, to coordinate activities, to put films into archives (the hon. member for Randfontein wants the archives also to take charge of old cameras, which is a job for the museums), but if all these innocuous objects are the only objects to be served, then this phrase certainly must be eliminated. If it is not eliminated, then the hon. Minister has set up a board which I say now—and he can deny it in the years to come, when I am no longer here—is going to be used, and deliberately used, to control the entire business of showing films in South Africa by virtue of the tremendous spending power of this board, by virtue of other considerations, such as the fact that through the same Ministry there is the censorship of films, and, the two tie up so beautifully. I do not want to put ideas into the Minister’s head, but he has got the run of the country as far as cinemas are concerned, through this “innocuous” Bill—if he maintains that he must have this proviso at the end of sub-section (o).

I cannot understand the hon. members’ concern in regard to the possibility that we may perhaps show films in the theatres in our country that have been distributed by our Film Board. One should welcome something of this nature. I have never heard any objection raised by anyone who has seen the information films of New Zealand or Australia or Canada in our theatres, the short films that all of us have seen. On the contrary, I have found that those films receive a great deal of applause in our theatres—the educational films of those countries. There cannot be any objection in that regard. But the hon. member objects to the fact that our theatres will show the films of the Film Board. Mr. Chairman, they will not show the films as a result of any pressure, any force that may be brought to bear upon them by the Film Board or the Government. We have no such powers and we do not want powers of this nature. Nothing of this nature will be done. As I said, discussions will be held between the Film Board and the distributors regarding the possibility of including some of these films in their short programmes, and if they are prepared to do so, we will welcome this fact. If they do not want to do so, that then will be another matter and we will not be able to do anything about it. To try to suggest that we want by some or other means to force them to include these films is completely wrong. As far as the hon. member’s two amendments in paragraph (o) are concerned, I am prepared to accept the first one but not the second one. I am prepared to insert the word “reasonably”. Strictly speaking, I do not consider it to be very necessary because this board will act in a reasonable fashion. We expect them to reveal that good judgment on their part. But because the hon. member and his side have so many fear complexes, we must assist them as far as we can. That is why I will accept the insertion of that word. I am sorry that I cannot say the same for the deletion of the words “even though it is not specifically mentioned herein”. This is quite a common thing in legislation. It is what we call “enabling legislation”. It merely makes provision for some or other unforeseen happening which is not defined in this legislation. A provision of this nature is necessary to cover such an eventuality. Therefore I cannot accept that amendment.

We are indebted to the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting the amendment providing for the insertion of the word “reasonably”. As far as the deletion of the last portion of that particular sub-section is concerned, I would like to ask him in this case too to relax and agree to the deletion.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel in line 62 put and agreed to and the remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause 10, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I want to move as an amendment—

Provision is made in this clause, under the circumstances indicated by the hon. Minister at the second reading, for the Railway Administration to be exempted from the special provisions which call for control by the board under the Minister. The Minister explained the circumstances in that case. In regard to the provinces, I would like to put it to the Minister that really the same considerations apply. Speaking for my own province, there is a film unit, certain special films are made for special purposes by the unit. But, Sir, I want to also put it to the Minister, and I am not throwing any doubt on what he said, that possibly there was some misunderstanding in regard to what he said at the second reading. The hon. Minister was asked in connection with the provincial administrations whether the committee of inquiry had consulted with them, and, if so, what the attitude of the provinces had been. Now I have not got the Hansard report of the hon. Minister, but speaking from memory, the Minister stated that at any rate so far as Natal was concerned—he quoted from a document—they had indicated, that the Natal Provincial Administration in 1961 had indicated that they had no objection. Now I am in this difficulty that the Provincial Administration as such in Pietermaritzburg appear to be unable to find any such reference. There is nothing under the table in this matter, but I am faced with this position that it may be, as it is already some two years or more ago, that search has not been made so far back in the files. It can happen that a bona fide mistake has been made. But without going too much into detail, I am left with doubt in my mind as to whether the Provincial Administration as such was responsible for saying that they had no objection. It would seem, Sir, that there is some objection, and I would like to appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment which I am moving here now. It does not in any way cut across the desire of the Minister to co-ordinate the activities of the various branches of the various state Departments, excluding the Railways, but it will allow the special services which the provinces are providing themselves at the present time to continue, and the matter can be taken into review hereafter. I go further and I would ask the Minister on another ground also to accept this amendment, and that is that once the board is established, he should rather get the co-operation of the provinces by appealing to them to use the valuable services of the board, without placing compulsion on them in this manner I hope that from the point of view of creating that better spirit and understanding he should rather adopt that procedure; accept my amendment, let the provinces have their existing powers, but appeal to them on the basis of co-operation and goodwill to utilize the services of the board when the time comes, and see whether the matter cannot rather be dealt with in that way than by passing legislation in Parliament which will be looked upon as coercion.

As far as consultation with the provinces is concerned. I can only repeat what I said on a previous occasion —that they are consulted. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was doubtful whether the Natal Provincial Administration had been consulted. I have here a copy of a communication from the Provincial Secretary. P.O. Box 389, Pietermaritzburg of 20 February 1961, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, P.O. Box 29, Cape Town, because originally the Treasury dealt with this matter before it was decided that the Department of Education, Arts and Science should be held responsible for it.

That probably explains the misunderstanding.

That is quite possible, but in any case I think that for record purposes I should read this letter from the Provincial Secretary. He says [Translation]—

It appears from this that no objections were raised. The reason why the hon. member could not trace it was probably because they looked for it under Education instead of under Treasury. I hope that the hon. member will withdraw his objection in the light of this fact because we have a very good reason for keeping it as it is. For the past 15 years State Film Productions have been making school films for all the provinces. So the contacts between State Film Productions and the provinces have been built up and those channels already exist. The provinces also contribute towards a joint fund for the making of these films. I think that it would create quite the wrong spirit if we excluded the provinces now. They may interpret it to mean that we expect them to start their own little film units, uneconomic and ineffective institutions, which we are trying to combat by means of this legislation. That is why I hope that the hon. member for South Coast will withdraw his objection. I can assure him that the co-operation of the provinces under this Film Board can only be to their advantage.

I would like the hon. Deputy Minister to know that I did not doubt his word when he gave his explanation at the second reading. There simply seemed to be some misunderstanding, and I think the Minister has given the right clue to that misunderstanding. I won’t go into what has happened in Pietermaritzburg. That is an official letter from the Provincial Secretary and that should suffice. I am not prepared to go beyond that. I still think there has been an error, but that does not concern the Minister and I accept his explanation. However, I still want to appeal to the hon. Minister not to force this on the provinces by statutes. If the existing system has in fact, as he says, proved satisfactory, please let it run, let them follow that procedure. If it is running satisfactorily, why pass a law to say to the provinces, “You shall do this”. Do not create the bad feeling that again something is being taken from them by legislation, particularly when, as the Minister says, things are running well. I am going to say quite frankly that we can take the matter no further. I am putting all the cards on the table. I am not prepared to call for a division or anything of that sort, but I say to the hon. Deputy Minister that at a time like this, when any gesture can create good feeling or can be so badly received, do not disturb a situation which to-day is acceptable to all.

I do not think it is a question of forcing the provinces. On the contrary, they are in agreement with this new arrangement. We have not received any official objection regarding this, and I really think that the hon. member is not interpreting the feelings of the Natal Administration correctly in this regard. We have not received any official indication from them that they are not satisfied with this. As far as we can see all the provinces desire this new arrangement and I cannot interpret it as an enforcement on them. On the contrary.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, we are reaching the end of this Film Bill “epic”, and here is a clause which is of very great importance in regard to the operation of this Board, because it provides for the method of financing the activities of the Board. This Board will have virtually unlimited powers, and it remains to be seen how the Board [and that is the Minister] will exercise this power. I think that the Deputy Minister, who has been very anxious to give this Board far more power than it needs…

The hon. member must confine himself to this clause.

I am. Sir. I am dealing with its finances.

Order! The hon. member is dealing now with the powers of the Minister.

One of the powers of the board concerns the spending of money, and this clause deals with it. If the Minister still regards the Canadian Act as the model for this Bill he will no doubt have had regard to certain financial limitations which are placed upon the Canadian Film Board by their Act. There is first of all a limitation as to the salary of the members of the board. We have no such limitation in our Bill. There is furthermore a limitation on the amount that can be spent on any particular contract. It lays down a maximum of 15,000 dollars in respect of any one contract that the board can award. But more important than that, in Section 18 (4) of the Canadian Act there is the provision that the expenditure incurred by the board should not at any time exceed the income of the board by more than 700,000 dollars or such lesser amount as may be fixed by the Treasury. In other words, there is a limitation on the expenditure of the board by virtue of the fact that in any fiscal year its expenditure may not exceed its income by more than 700,000 dollars. Therefore, I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

I want to emphasize that R200,000, which this amendment lays down as the limit of expenditure over income, is a very large amount. For example, related to the Budget, in the case of Canada where the board spends over $5,000,000 there is this limitation of $700,000 as being the excess of expenditure over income, but there is an annual budget, or there was in the year 1962, of $6,214,000,186. In the case of the Republic of South Africa, the recent Budget was R841,000,000, and the amount of R200.000 which this amendment provides for is, if anything, generous in proportion. Having regard to the activities of the board and the size of our population and the need to make films of a certain type, R200,000 as the excess of expenditure over income is a very substantial amount. Judging by the uproar from that comer of the Chamber, hon. members there are not interested in expenditure, but some of us are vitally interested in the way in which the taxpayers’ money is spent. Therefore I must emphasize that if the Minister seeks in any way to eliminate the possibility, which is a very strong one, of this board entering the film business in a very haphazard and extensive manner, he must surely be prepared to accept this reasonable amendment. There is already a strong possibility, by virtue of certain clauses which have been accepted by the Committee, that the National Film Board in South Africa will virtually control not only the production, but also the exhibition of films, but it does not face the same risks in producing or distributing a film as a private production company does. The State has little to lose as far as the exhibition of films is concerned, because it has no investment whatsoever in regard to the exhibition of films. It proposes to use those cinemas which will be provided by private enterprise. So the position must undoubtedly arise where, if the Minister so decides, the board may make very elaborate and costly films and there may be very costly methods of bringing them to the screens of the country’s cinemas. The only way in which that can be eliminated is by a provision which limits in some way the expenditure of the board. If such a provision seeks to place a ceiling on the expenditure only, the Deputy Minister might rightly say that he is not in a position to estimate what the necessary expenditure will be, and therefore to fix an arbitrary ceiling to expenditure only would have the effect of inhibiting the activities of the board. But in this case, since there is only a limitation on the excess of expenditure over income, that does not apply, and it only places the board under a duty to ensure that it only spends money where it is necessary to spend it, and it will satisfy the Minister and the Government that the country that it is adhering to some sort of budgetary control. We know from experience that that is a simple matter in regard to boards which otherwise would have unlimited expenditure. If the Minister should be heard to say that the board would not have limited expenditure, I must point out that in Clause 20 it is provided that the Minister shall in consultation with the Minister of Finance determine the procedure, etc., and also the system of accounting, and it is provided that the funds of the board will be supplied in terms of an agreement between the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down reminds me of the man I heard about who also did not know when to stop talking. When people asked whether he had not yet finished, somebody said that he had finished a long time ago, but that he simply did not know how to stop!

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

This clause deals with the finances of the Film Board and in terms of the amendment of the hon. member the expenditure should not exceed a certain amount. It is of course a good thing to control finances, but I want to ask that we should not be too tight-fisted in connection with the finances of this board, a board which has a very great task to perform. I want to say immediately that excellent work is being done by museums and large amounts of money are being made available to them. We have no fault to find with this, but they house dead things, such as fossils and mummies from bygone ages. Because this Film Institute and the Film Board are being set un for the specific purpose of recording the living history of our country and people, we must not be too parsimonius as far as funds are concerned. The whole scheme can be ruined if there is too strict a limitation of the funds. There are two ways in which these funds can be used. On the one hand, funds can be used by voting an annual amount for the board, but I want to make another suggestion that will make the budget of this Film Board balance more easily. Some while ago it was the practice to impose a certain levy per foot on films for entertainment purposes. This duty has now been suspended but I want to ask whether it may not be a good thing to introduce that duty again in order to balance the budget of the Film Board. In other words, we must make films for entertainment purposes to assist in balancing the budget of the Film Board. I suggest that the films that provide entertainment and form important sources of revenue to those people should help to pay for this constructive kind of film. There is also another possibility and that is to impose a special levy on seats, but I do not want to advocate that now. I simply say that if this film levy can be introduced once again without the levy being recovered from the public, we will find it more easy to balance the budget of this Film Board.

Order! The hon. member could have discussed that question under Clause 14. It is not relevant to the discussion of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the bulk of the activities of this board will be financed by funds from the various Departments, but I take it that this clause deals directly with the administrative and direct charges of the board for the work the board will undertake itself, and according to sub-section (2) there must be agreement between the Minister and the Minister of Finance in regard to its finances. I want to direct the Minister’s attention to sub-section (3), because it appears to me that there is an anomaly here which should be corrected. If the estimates submitted by the board have to be considered in consultation between the Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance, and there is a direction or an alteration of those estimates, as is provided for in sub-section (3), then I think it is only reasonable that that direction should be after consultation with the Minister of Finance. If the estimates are prepared in the first instance with the Minister of Finance and there is a direction for their alteration, surely that direction can only take place after consultation with the Minister of Finance, and therefore I hope that the Minister will accept the following amendment—

That will make the position completely consequential and I hope the Minister will accept it.

I am afraid that I cannot accept any of these amendments. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is concerned, it is a completely unnecessary addition. Indeed, to use the term that was used on the other side— the word “dangerous”, one can say that this insertion could have dangerous results. The hon. member for Hospital wants us to insert the following provision: “Provided that such expenditure shall not in any financial year exceed the board’s income by more than R200,000.” In other words, in a period of five years the board can pay out R1,000,000 more than it received, and the whole intention is therefore that this board should arrange its affairs in such a way that it should become a self-supporting organization in the shortest possible time. Perhaps the hon. member thinks that there has been no careful planning in this regard. I can assure him that this whole question has been planned very carefully. This is not a half-baked measure, but a very well-considered one. It has been planned that in the first year of its existence the board will perhaps pay out an amount of R50,000 more than it will receive but in order to cover that amount in the first year, and a smaller amount in the second year, this loan of R100,000 has been arranged to enable the board to get its machinery in motion before it becomes self-supporting, as it should be. Accordingly, this insertion of the hon. member for Hospital is quite unnecessary.

As far as the request of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) is concerned that we should not be too tight-fisted in drawing up the Budget, the same argument that I have just used—that thorough provision can be made from that loan of R100,000 to ensure that the board is brought into operation as quickly as possible—holds good. The idea of our being able to transfer entertainment film duty…

Order! That cannot be discussed.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) either because sub-section (3) has been inserted in order to be able to exercise the necessary control over the expenditure of the board. We do not want the board to spend so much money that it eventually increases the cost of the films. That is why this provision has been inserted —so that the Minister can check them at all times and even instruct them to cut their expenses. This is done in consultation with the Minister of Finance and that is why there need be no fear that there will be no proper ministerial control over this expenditure.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made a very startling statement when he said in effect that within a few years’ time he expects this board to earn a profit. Surely if he has studied the position in Canada and if he has read the report of the Canadian National Film Board, he will know that that is not in accordance with the facts. How can this board expect to make a profit in the light of the experience in Canada, where in 1962, 486 films were produced and the board spent $7,490,000 and still showed a loss? Surely the fact that there is provision for a certain excess of expenditure over income, albeit limited, indicates that in Canada, which has much longer experience of film production than we have, it is expected that there will be losses. So it is wrong for the Deputy Minister to say that to accept this amendment, which seeks to control the budget of the Board and to limit the expenditure, is impossible. Any reasonable person would describe it as a safeguard. I have not suggested that the board be limited in its expenditure. But if the Minister is so confident that the board will make a profit in a few years’ time—he says he knows what the income will be and where it will come from, and he gave every indication to this Committee that he knows what the income will be approximately—if he stands by that, and if he stands by the Canadian Act, he cannot be heard to say that this amendment contains a dangerous provision. I ignore completely the suggestion made by the hon. member for Randfontein because it is irrelevant. The suggestion that we ask the Deputy Minister to consider is that instead of setting up a board with wide powers and with unlimited expenditure provided by the Government, certain restrictions should be applied. The people of South Africa should be told that some financial control is envisaged by the Government. If the Deputy Minister does not accept this, I say again that any suspicion that this board will climb into the film business, on both the production and the exhibition spheres, on a large scale and in a completely uncontrolled way, is borne out by the Minister’s own statement. And when we are told by an hon. member here that he does not want the expenditure to be limited in any way, that confirms my suspicion. I urge upon the Deputy Minister the need to follow the Canadian example in this one respect of budgetary control and the limitation of expenditure. If he refuses, I say that the Government is looking for trouble, and that the Bill will not achieve its object.

Canada’s experience was very helpful to us in many respects. We used the Canadian Act as a guide but we also studied the results of the Canadian Act very carefully and this provision has been inserted to overcome the disadvantages that flowed from the Canadian law. The Canadian Film Board found itself in financial difficulties as a result of an arrangement different from what is being proposed here. In the light of the Canadian experience we decided to provide that the State Departments should make provision in their respective Estimates for the films that they wanted made. They have therefore to pay for their films out of their own Estimates. This will be one of the most important sources of revenue for the Film Board. The second source of revenue will be the sale of films made by the Film Board to foreign organizations, as well as the hiring of films for exhibition here and abroad. It is anticipated that a considerable sum will be obtained from that source. That is why there is no necessity to accept this amendment because we have learnt from the Canadian example and we are convinced that in this respect we will be able to make a better arrangement than that existing in Canada.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move the amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp)—

[Interjection ] This clause provides that the Minister shall submit an annual report to the House, but there is one significant aspect of this clause which I cannot find in any other clause of a similar nature in any existing statute, namely, that the board will submit its report to the Minister in a manner to be determined by the Minister. Surely a statutory board like this can be entrusted to draw up its report by itself without the direction of the Minister. I submit that in a board of this nature, consisting of State officials and nominated members. there may be a clash of interests in regard to the activities of the board, and in order that the House may be fully informed as to the activities of the board, if there are members of the board who find themselves in disagreement with the Minister, it is only reasonable that this House also be kept informed of any minority views which may be held in that board when it submits its annual report. I hope that the Minister, in the interest of parliamentary control and democracy, will accept this amendment.

We have nothing to hide in connection with the proceedings of this board and if a minority report is submitted I have no objection to its being tabled as well. Accordingly I am prepared to accept this amendment although I do not think that there is very much in it. But in order to eliminate this ill-founded fear, I shall accept the amendment. It can do no harm to know the opinion of everyone on the board. On the contrary, it is just as well for us to know what transpires on the board.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

This is the definition clause, and in paragraph xiv it incorporates the definition of “Secretary” or “other senior officer”. In this definition it states that this means the head or any senior officer of a department of State administered by the Minister, to whom the administration of that provision has been assigned by proclamation issued under Section 38. Now, when we refer to the Work Colonies Act of 1949, which is being repealed by this Bill, there is merely the definition of “Secretary”. In the present definition it says that it is the Secretary or other senior officer, and it fails to define the other senior officer. Therefore, I will be pleased if the Minister could give us some clarity in regard to the definition of senior officer, because later on, in certain clauses of the Bill, powers are delegated by the Minister to the Secretary or to any other senior officer, and many of these are important powers. In terms of Clause 36, we see that the Minister is empowered to delegate almost all these powers to the Secretary or to any other senior officer.

May I suggest that the Minister allows this clause to stand over, because later on in the Bill there are other matters affected by this definition? It might facilitate matters. I move accordingly—

Agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I wish to move as an amendment—

As the clause now reads, it is possible that a province need not necessarily be represented on the board. The object of my amendment is to put the matter beyond any doubt. It would enable provincial administrations to recommend people for appointment to the board who, by virtue of their local experience of conditions in a particular province, may render valuable service to the board. It is not a question of asking the Minister to make provision for the provinces to have power to nominate people for appointment on the board, but one of asking for provinces to have the power to recommend. I submit that such a procedure will help to create a closer liaison between the provinces and the various organizations and bodies concerned, particularly with the treatment of alcoholics, as well as a closer liaison in respect of the administration of the legislation in general.

The hon. the Minister referred in his second-reading speech to co-ordination, and said that such co-ordination required the co-operation of the State, provincial administrations and private initiative. As one of the most important elements of the scheme, he mentioned the expansion of hospital and other facilities for the treatment of the alcoholic. I submit that basically hospital administration is the function of the provinces. In order to substantiate this, I should like to refer to paragraph 295 of the report, in which it is recommended that treatment facilities for Coloured and Asiatic alcoholics should be provided at provincial hospitals before State institutions are considered for that purpose. Thereafter, certain specific recommendations are made in regard to the treatment of the Coloured alcoholic, namely in a hospital in Cape Town. The report goes on to say that, as far as Indian alcoholics are concerned, both as in-and out-patients, provision should be made at a provincial hospital in Durban.

As far as the report of the inter-departmental committee is concerned, I should like to point out that that committee intimated that the extension of services operated by welfare organizations and public spirited individuals is, to a large extent, dependent upon provincial subsidies. On this ground as well I feel that the provinces should have direct representation on the board, because in that way we will create a closer liaison with those organizations.

I believe that a provincial representative can have a specialized knowledge of local conditions and, as such, can be of great benefit to the board. If further evidence is needed by the Minister for accepting this amendment, I should like to supply that evidence from the report. In recommendation 611, referring to paragraph 543 of the report, it is stated that the Department of Health and the four provincial administrations should serve on the proposed board. The report went further and recognized the right of each province to decide what its attitude should be towards the provision of treatment facilities for alcoholics and others defined in this Bill.

As far as the second portion of my amendment is concerned, relative to the appointment of the other five members, I wish to point out that there is no suggestion that the number of members on the board should be changed in any way. The suggestion is that at least three of the other five members should be medical practitioners. I submit that this is very necessary, particularly in view of the fact that it is not obligatory for any of the members previously mentioned, i.e. the other ten, to be medical practitioners. Much emphasis has been placed on the question of alcoholism being a disease, both by the Minister during his second-reading speech and by the evidence placed before the committee. Consequently, I consider it to be most important that at least three members of the board should be medical practitioners. This is what the amendment asks for, and I move accordingly.

In regard to the first portion of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member, I can tell him that it is the intention to give representation to the provincial administrations. In this connection I should like to refer the hon. member to sub-section (2) (b) of Clause 6 which reads as follows—

It is not, therefore, the intention to ignore any of the provincial administrations. On the contrary, they will all be represented on the board.

When considering this amendment as a whole regard should be had to the fact that this is an experimental measure. In fact, that this is so was said by several members during the second-reading debate. It seems to me that it is not advisable to impose any more restrictions than those already contained in the Bill in regard to the constitution of the board. The committee of inquiry emphasized that alcoholism was a problem with manifold aspects, namely ethical, social and medical aspects, and that in the treatment thereof regard should be had to these manifold aspects. This is done by this Bill particularly in Clause 4 where provision is made for a person to be retained in a retreat or rehabilitation centre with a view to providing for his physical, mental and moral condition. It follows, therefore, that the National Advisory Board cannot function properly unless it is so constituted as to provide for representation of all interested parties, including the medical profession. I am afraid, however, that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment which asks for the inclusion of three medical men or psychiatrists. His proposal is that the board should consist of 13 members instead of 15 and that three of those 13 should be from the medical or psychiatric professions.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how he arrives at the conclusion that my amendment asks for 13 members only?

Even if it provides for 15, it does not matter because my difficulty does not lie here. My point is that there should be some scope in so far as the constitution of the board is concerned. If there are too many limitations in connection with the constitution of the board it may have the effect of preventing persons being appointed on it who are best suited to serve its interests. After all, this is a measure of an experimental nature. Let us, therefore, see how things develop. If necessary, amendments can always be made later on. Meanwhile I should like to ask hon. members to agree to the provisions of the clause as it now stands.

I should like the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards this amendment. We have not brought this amendment forward without a great deal of thought and consideration being given to it. We feel we are not restricting the Minister in any way. He still has a wide choice. We are really only asking him to accept one member from each of the provinces. Each province can at least find one person who will be acceptable to the Minister. In any event, I cannot see in what way that will restrict the Minister. In regard to the suggestion that three should be medical practitioners, I should like to point out that three out of 15 is not such a large number, particularly not in a case like this one where the whole thing is experimental and where most of the people on the board will perhaps be untrained. One or two may perhaps be social workers. Medical men or psychiatrists on the board are important because there are other factors involved than merely socialization of these drinkers. As it is experimental—this I should like to emphasize—it is important that there should be some form of control over the experiment. The only people who are really competent to maintain strict and close control are trained psychiatrists and trained medical men who can hold in leash the enthusiastic amateurs. I hope the hon. the Minister realizes that we are trying to help him.

Before I go any further I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

This need not mean that the board must of necessity meet every six months.

As far as the arguments of hon. members in connection with representation on the board are concerned I want to say that I find it very difficult to accept the amendment. If the Minister is bound by the fact that three of the five members of the board must be members of the medical profession, it means that there is room for only two others. One may have persons who are really interested in the matter, well-trained persons who can make a creditable contribution to this matter and who cannot be given representation on the board because the Minister is restricted. In this connection it is necessary to remember that this legislation does not have medical aims only. The fundamental aim of the Bill is rehabilitation and this does not mean mainly medical supervision or treatment. I am sorry but I must ask hon. members to leave the present provision of the Bill unchanged in this connection. This will enable us to find the best people for the board. All things being considered I feel that the composition of the board as set out in the Bill is very good.

As far as the other part of the amendment is concerned I have already indicated that it is our intention to give the provincial administrations representation on the board. Besides this the Department of Health will also be given representation which in itself means that a person with a medical background will be represented on the board.

We are pleased that the hon. the Minister has moved this amendment of his which means that the board will meet at least twice every year. However, there is an amendment in this connection which I should like to move on behalf of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—

This, as will be observed, deals with the submission of reports by the board. It came as a disappointment to us to see that provision is made for the board to submit a report only once in five years. In this connection I should like to refer to the National Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board which was established by Section 6 of the Work Colonies Act, 1949 (Act No. 25 of 1949) In sub-section (9) of Section 6 of that Act it is laid down that that board shall submit a report to the Minister once every calendar year. Now, all of us have been looking forward with interest to these reports although there have been delays in their submission to this House. In fact, the latest report we received was for the year 1960. However, it is possible for members to get an insight from these reports of the activities at the work colonies and retreats. Furthermore, they contain important suggestions as to the way in which the Work Colonies Act can be amended.

The committee of inquiry into the treatment of the alcoholic took cognizance of certain criticisms which were levelled at the administration of the Work Colonies Act and made the necessary provision therefor in its recommendations. Now, it is being provided, as I have already indicated, that the board to be established in terms of this Bill will submit a report at least once in every five years only. That is far too long a period. The National Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board covers work colonies and retreats whereas the proposed board; which is to replace the first-mentioned Board, will have to deal with the question of alcoholism only. It would appear that on account of this fact the work of the proposed board would be less than the amount of work required from the existing Board.

In terms of this Bill we are now to have rehabilitation centres for those persons not committed on the grounds of drunkenness, excessive drinking or of their alcoholic condition. These will go to retreats. It does appear therefore that the amount of work which will be required from the proposed board has been narrowed down. It may be said that certain information is also supplied by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in this regard. Here I should like to point out that the annual reports of the Department too have been slow in coming forward in the past. For instance: the report tabled in 1960 covered the period from 1952 to 1959, i.e. a seven year period. It is true that in that report a good deal of information is given in connection with work colonies and retreats. The next report of the Department was tabled this year and covers the period from 1959 to 1962. This is the Department’s latest report and it contains very little information in connection with work colonies and retreats.

In considering this amendment, therefore, the hon. the Minister must bear in mind that we shall now have to rely on the annual report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the statistical information which is necessary as a basis for an evaluation of the work at these institutions. The report covering the period 1952 to 1959 did give certain statistics relating to the number of persons admitted to these institutions, the number released each month and the different categories of inmates at these institutions. On the other hand, the reports of the Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board have supplied us with valuable information concerning the inmates and the degree of success achieved with their treatment.

I have already indicated that the only function of the proposed board will be to advise the Minister in regard to alcoholism. However, we do think it should submit a report within shorter periods than the five years provided for in the Bill. Consequently, I should like to ask the Minister to give consideration to the amendment which I have moved on behalf of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). That will have the effect of applying the procedure relating to the submission of reports which was observed in regard to the Work Colonies and Retreats Advisory Board also to the board to be established by this Bill.

I just want to point out again that this proposed board will have many functions. It will meet twice every year. If I accept the hon. member’s amendment it may possibly happen that at its first meeting the board will consider the question of its report and consider the report itself at its second meeting. It will then have had its two meetings without having done any other work. It is said that a conference is a meeting which is convened to discuss the place and date of the next conference! In any case, it is difficult to provide that the board should submit a report every year. The main function of the board will be to draw up a scheme on a national level. That is a continuous function. It has to report on the progress that it is making in this regard. Let us imagine that it is not able to report anything during the first year. What then will be the value of the provision that the hon. member wants to insert? The board also has to undertake research and report on the results in this regard. Besides this the board has to compile statistics embodying the tendencies and the trends that are brought to light by that research.

The hon. member will see that provision is being made for the board to submit interim reports. When it is asked to do so by the Minister, the board must submit a report of this nature at any time during the course of five years. Besides this, Parliament can ask the Minister to request the board to submit an interim report. So I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. If this amendment is accepted, it will greatly hamper the activities of the board, particularly during its initial years.

It is disappointing that the hon. the Minister rejected the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Berea). The Minister has practically told us that he has no confidence in the board he is going to appoint. Any advisory board established under any Act of Parliament should be one that works even if such a board is only of an experimental nature. Consequently, the members of such a board must first of all be interested in the work they have to perform. In short, they must know what they are about. What is lacking in the proposed constitution of the board to be established under this Bill is medical representation. The hon. the Minister has told us that he will see to it that medical men are included amongst those persons he is going to appoint. But that is not good enough. If one looks at the committee of inquiry, one sees that there were no less than four medical men on it at various times. It can therefore be said that the Minister himself has already recognized the importance of medical representation. Therefore it is all the more disappointing to see that no specific provision is made for representation of the medical profession as such on the proposed board.

We must accept the fact that alcoholism is a disease and that it must be treated as such. That alcoholism is a disease is a fact which is accepted all round. Even this Bill suggests that. For instance, Clause 4 (c) provides—

Consequently this Bill too recognizes the fact that alcoholism is primarily a concern of the medical profession. Here in Cape Town there is a hospital dealing with alcoholism during its first stages. This hospital too has an advisory board which does not only meet once or twice per year, and it works. It meets at least once per month, and serves as a link between the public and the administration. It has a psychiatrist who advises it. Now, the work done at this hospital has been more than gratifying. It has been proved at this hospital, which is a research centre under the University of Cape Town, that alcoholism is basically a medical problem. Only when the physical condition of a patient has been placed in good order can you tackle the rehabilitation side of the treatment. You cannot, therefore, just put a person in a home and say that you are going to rehabilitate him, but first you have to see the medical side of the treatment because it is a disease.

Consequently, it is very necessary that this board should have on it trained psychiatrists amongst others. I notice that the Department of Labour is also going to have representation on the board. It is essential, however, that there should be medical men on the board as well and I am disappointed that no provision has been made therefor.

I do not completely agree with the attitude of the last speaker. He adopted the attitude that alcoholism was exclusively a physical ailment. But it is far more than that as far as its causes as well as rehabilitation are concerned. In the first place, it is an indication of maladjustment to society. In the first place, therefore, it is a social problem. Only afterwards does it become a psychological problem, because it is only when a person begins suffering from inhibitions and frustrations that the psychologist can perform his task. It is only in the final stage that alcoholism becomes a physical disease; in other words, at the stage when the body experiences an uncontrollable urge for liquor.

As far as rehabilitation is concerned one will never be able to rehabilitate an alcoholic completely merely by means of medical treatment. It is necessary that he be first treated psychologically and socially. By emphasizing the medical aspect the board loses its balance. That is why I say that the flexibility for which this clause provides must remain. This will make it possible for the Minister to appoint to the board any person who is capable and available, whether he is a doctor or a physiologist or a psychologist. All the emphasis must not be placed on the doctor. He does have his task to perform, but we must not lose sight of the fact that alcoholism is also a social and psychological problem and is not only a medical problem. That is why we must not disturb the balance of the composition of the board as envisaged by this clause.

I do not agree that doctors need not necessarily be also sociologists. The hon. member seems to assume that the medical representatives we ask for are people who do not live a social life like anybody else. We are pleading for their inclusion because we believe that, in addition to the interest which they have in the subject, they will bring to bear goodwill and a wish for the welfare of these people on the problems with which the board will be faced. In addition, they will bring to bear on these problems trained technical minds, trained particularly in the problems with which they are faced. Consequently, they will be in a position to give guidance to the other lay members, who, it seems to me, will be expected to do more in certain ways than they will be capable of. Furthermore, medical men will be in a position to select from amongst these unfortunate people those who should go to other institutions. They will, in fact, be the only properly trained individuals on the board. There may be others trained in social work, or in other similar types of work, but not necessarily so. They may be people who have done good work in one way or another, but there is nothing to show that they will be more than people with goodwill and good intentions. By putting three doctors on the board we feel that then we shall have at least three people there who have been trained in all aspects of physical and mental welfare. I hope the Minister will reconsider what we have asked him to do. We know he will probably do it anyhow, but he will not always be the Minister. There may be a Minister who does not think as he does to-day.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Wood put and negatived, amendment proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pension put and agreed to, and the remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

In the absence of my colleague, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), I wish to move—

Sir, a man may be leading an idle life, he may be able to afford to lead an idle life; he may even be dissolute, depending exactly on what you mean by “dissolute”, provided he does not do anybody any harm there is no reason why he should fall within the ambit of this Bill. It is only when his life becomes anti-social, it is only when his life affects other people deleteriously that we feel that there should be interference with his liberty. We live our own lives. We try to live within the limits of what is considered good and decent behaviour. We try not to interfere with other people. In so far as we do not interfere with other people I think we are at liberty to do as we wish. After all, in some homes it is rather considered bad form to come down to dinner without a tie, but that is not anything very serious. In other homes it is considered a bad thing to be late for meals and to keep up the servants very late, but provided that happens in the man’s own home and he is not interfering with anybody there is no reason why he should not do what he wishes to do. There is always the danger that some person, some relative or malicious person, may induce the authorities to take action under this clause as it stands. This clause is too wide. We do not oppose the clause in general, but we do feel that it can lead to abuse and to people having their liberty curtailed unduly. They should be at liberty to do what they like provided they do not interfer with other people. That is why I move the insertion of these words.

I just want to refer the hon. member to another clause in which his objection is covered. The hon. member is afraid that a person may be brought before a magistrate out of pure malice but provision is made in the Bill to prevent anybody taking such action out of pure malice. Before a person can be brought before a magistrate it must be obvious that he is a person within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Clause 14. This provision is perfectly clear; it reads—

And then five categories of persons are mentioned who can be dealt with in this way. In terms of sub-paragraph (e) the magistrate must be convinced that such a person leads an idle, dissolute or disorderly life. It is clear that if someone leads an idle, dissolute or disorderly life he is a person who has an adverse effect upon the welfare of his fellowmen. It is specifically provided that he must be a person in connection with whom the magistrate is convinced that the training or treatment that he will receive in a retreat or rehabilitation centre is needed by him and will benefit him; that it is in his own interests or in the interests of his dependants, if any, or in the interests of the community that he be detained there. There is a further provision that provides that, before a magistrate can issue an order in terms of Clause 15 (6), he must be furnished with a report by a social welfare officer on the past, the way of life and the general character of that person. Investigations will be instituted therefore. The prosecutor first has to consider the report of the social welfare officer before he decides to have an investigation made. I cannot see therefore that there is any danger of an investigation if the holding of such an investigation is not justified. It appears to me that the fear of the hon. member is unfounded. There will be no trouble in this connection and I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment.

I listened to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the safeguards very carefully. I think they go a long way to meet the needs for such safeguards because it is a serious thing for a man to be sent even to a retreat. Admittedly it is an improvement that it is no longer a work colony. But still he is removed from society and his family and it can be for three years as this Bill reads at the moment. I think, therefore, that we need all these safeguards. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will not consider a further safeguard. I would like to move an amendment to this Clause, 14 (1) (a)—

In sub-sections (b), (c), (d) and (e) there is, I think, inherent some sort of time period. In other words, if a man fails to support his family for some period he can be sent off to one of these retreats. In all these clauses there is some safeguard. The very word “addiction” means a chronic condition and therefore it could not simply be a man who has gone on to drugs or on to drink for a short period, “addiction” means that it has become a chronic condition. So there is that safeguard of a time limit already. The Minister himself says in sub-section (c) “habitually begs for money or goods or induces others to beg for money or…”. And then in (d) “has no sufficient honest means of livelihood” also implies in itself a certain lengthy period of time and to be “idle, dissolute or disorderly” also really implies a length of time. But simply to say, as Clause 14 (1) (a) does that “because of his own misconduct or default (which shall be taken to include the squandering of his means by betting, gambling or otherwise) fails to provide for his own support or for that of any dependant whom he is legally liable to maintain” does not, I think, contain that same inherent time qualification. For that reason, Sir, I should like to suggest the inclusion of the word “habitually” before the word “fails”.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is concerned, I think it is an improvement on this part of the clause. I am sure everyone on this side of the House will support that amendment. Clearly the Minister has not got in mind the person who fails on one occasion to provide maintenance for his dependants. Nor do I believe that a magistrate would make an order where this happened just on one occasion.

So far as the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) is concerned, I think the Minister has begged the question, the question who is going to be dealt with under this clause. This question was posed in various forms on many occasions during the second reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister did not answer the question then and he has not answered it now. Is this clause intended only to deal with alcoholics? If it does then why does it not say so? If it is not intended to deal with alcoholics only who is intended to come within the ambit of this clause? I mentioned that social phenomenon, the ducktail, before. Are they intended to fall within the ambit of this clause as well? Because if they are then I do not think the hon. the Minister has made out a case for them. We have a very thick report from the inter-departmental committee on the question of alcoholism, on alcoholism plain and simple. The whole of the committee’s evidence and its findings, indeed its terms of reference, were confined to the question of alcoholism and the treatment of alcoholics. The Bill which this committee suggested was a Bill intended to deal with alcoholics and nobody else. It was not within their powers to suggest a Bill to deal with anybody else. The Bill which they put forward is identical, except for some administrative changes, to the Bill we have here. This clause is identical to the clause suggested by the departmental committee. The hon. the Minister has not answered that question. As this clause stands at the moment it certainly will cover people other than alcoholics. Clause (a) does not mention alcoholics. The only category of the five which mentions alcoholics is (b). Alcoholics are certainly not mentioned in (e) to which the hon. member for Durban (Central) moved an amendment. I think this is a most serious defect in this particular clause. This clause is the essence of the Bill. It defines the sort of person this Bill is intended for and deals with the manner in which he is to be treated. I hope the hon. the Minister will give an undertaking that it is not intended to cover anybody else but alcoholics. If that is the intention of this clause I think that should be made clear. The hon. the Minister could move an amendment, or we could move one which the Minister could accept, to make the intention very clear.

I appreciate that there are many safeguards. I appreciate that the Social Welfare Department will not make an adverse report unless it is a case deserving the attention of the machinery which is set up under this Bill. I also appreciate that a magistrate will not lightly sentence someone—I use the word “sentence” because it is a deprivation of liberty to be sent to a retreat—unless a proper case has been made out. But I maintain that you cannot make out a proper case in respect of a person such as a ducktail. To subject someone like that to the institution which is provided for here goes a little further than was intended by the committee and goes an awful lot further than is warranted by the evidence or by anything the Minister has put before this House. I ask the hon. the Minister once again to give us the assurance that this is intended only to deal with alcoholics.

The Minister says that our objections are met by the provisions of Clause 15. But I do suggest to him that the very fact that a man is brought before a magistrate is, in the eyes of most people, a disgrace even if he is found not guilty. I know it is not the same as a criminal charge and the Minister says that the safeguard consists in the fact that the magistrate must be satisfied on this matter. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about this clause. We drafted our amendment after a great deal of discussion and a great deal of disagreement. We have told the Minister before that this was a first-class Bill but we fear that the wording of Clause 14 can possibly bring into existence injustices which should not be brought into existence. On the face of it, this clause can apply, for instance, to a prodigal. I am sure that was never the intention. If a man spends his own money why should he not? If he is in disfavour with his relations one of them can make an application to court and have him declared a prodigal and he can be placed under curatorship. He does fall under the provision of Clause 14. The next man who falls under the provisions of Clause 14, as I said during the second reading, is the man who may drink too much but who is not objectionable to anybody. There are many cases like that. He can be brought before a magistrate in terms of this Clause. And I do suggest that that is a disgrace. The Minister is relying on something which does not give enough protection to the individual.

If anybody acts in conflict with Clause 14 a complaint can be made in the form of a sworn declaration. Now that can cover anything. It is of course intended to cover the swine who goes home, full of alcohol, and batters his wife and children around. None of us have any sympathy with him. He will deserve what he gets. But those of us who have had anything to do with these cases know that what happens in most cases is that when this man beats up his wife or children the police are sent for but they refuse to act because they say it is just a family squabble and it has nothing whatsoever to do with them. If Clause 14 can convince me that it alters the position in regard to that man my objections might fall away, but it leaves the position exactly the same as at present. I think the Minister may be interfering with human emotions under this clause, emotions which we should not endeavour to legislate for, although we discuss them on this very high level. We are even opening the door for a man to be brought before a magistrate by an unpleasant neighbour. Many of them do not know what a sworn declaration means but they are quite prepared to make one. Such a neighbour can make a sworn declaration to the effect that So-and-so is in conflict with the provisions of Clause 14 and he can be brought before a magistrate. Our amendment is purely and simply intended to act as a safeguard. We are not trying to be clever. We realize this Bill must go through but we are in great fear that injustices can arise out of this clause which should not be allowed to arise. I do hope the Minister will not just dismiss our proposed amendment as cavalierly as that. The Minister and I have both lived a long time. We know of many cases where men have pulled themselves together. To be put away for three years is a very severe sentence. Our amendment is really only intended to try to stop possible injustices that can arise.

In conclusion I must not be told that this will be well administered. Everything is well administered in intention but the most sincere Ministerial and senior staff instructions sometimes are not carried out. So I do appeal to the Minister to accept our amendment. It does not hamper his Bill in any way; it gives protection to those people who might need it.

I cannot see the difficulty of the Opposition. We have the same paragraph in Act No. 25 of 1949. This clause has been taken over word for word from that Act that has been in operation now for 14 years and has given no trouble at all. I want to say further that in terms of Clause 15 of this Bill the magistrate must hear the witnesses who are called. He must be absolutely convinced that the person complies with the requirements laid down in Clause 14. I think it is a reflection on any magistrate to insinuate that he will give a wrong decision in the case of a person who is brought before him under this Bill. Nor can I understand the objection that the Bill is only intended for alcoholics, because when one reads the preamble of the Bill, one sees that it applies to other persons besides alcoholics. It applies to persons as defined in Clause 14.

I do not like to agree with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) but I do think that if her amendment is accepted, the position will be clearer. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to accept her amendment.

It is the same.

I cannot see that it is the same.

To obviate further discussion may I just say that I am quite prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

In pursuance of the earnest pleas which have also been made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) I would like to remind him that Section 14 of Act No. 25 of 1949 reads as follows—

1. (a) because of his own misconduct or default (which shall be taken to include the squandering of his means by betting, gambling or otherwise) fails to provide for his own support or for that of any dependant whom he is legally liable to maintain: or…
2. (b) has been slightly amended but (c) is the same—
3. (c)habitually begs for money or goods or induces others to beg for money or goods on his behalf; or
4. (d)has no sufficient honest means of livelihood; or
5. (e)leads an idle, dissolute or disorderly life. The provision in this Bill is precisely the same as the above provision that I have quoted from the 1949 Act.

But it was wrong there, too.

There was nothing wrong with the administration of the 1949 Act. The 1949 Act was referred to a Select Committee and it was drawn up by the previous Government. Not one single member has suggested that there has been any abuse of that legislation since 1949. No one has yet said that an innocent person has been caught or that any person has maliciously accused any other person. If there have been such cases, that fact would have been raised at some or other stage in Parliament. The provision in this Bill has been taken over from an Act which was originally referred to a Select Committee. No misuse has ever been made of this legislation. I think that this ought to satisfy hon. members. If there is any abuse of these provisions in the future, hon. members will have the opportunity of pointing out that other people are being committed under the same provisions. If that sort of thing happens, we will give our attention to it at a later stage. I think it would be wrong to do so now under these circumstances.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) also said that I suggested that this Bill merely dealt with alcoholics. I said emphatically that we had all sorts of people at our existing work colonies. Mr. Chairman, this was one of the arguments that we used: We said that we wanted to separate these people from one another. For example, we want to separate those persons who are addicted to drugs because we think it is wrong to allow them to mix with other people who are sent to those work colonies. This is the intention of the Bill throughout and I cannot see why the hon. member should accuse me of suggesting that this measure was intended for alcoholics only. It makes provision for these maladjusted people. I do not want to deal any further with the argument as to whether alcohol is a disease or not. I have already said on a previous occasion that we could argue this matter for days if Parliament was prepared to sit until Christmas. The point is that it is an ethical and social evil, which also necessitates medical treatment. All those things are involved here. We are now trying to rehabilitate this type of person, otherwise we could just as well have referred this legislation to the Department of Health and said: “It is a disease and you must cure these people.” It is because we believe that it does involve social and psychological aspects that, we have come forward with this amendment and have said: “Separate these people and see what you can do; give them the necessary attention, each according to his own needs and see whether you cannot return them to society as full-fledged citizens of society.”

Sir, I appreciate that these provisions exist in the original Act. What I want to point out to the hon. the Minister is that the procedure which is prescribed here is new; the minimum period of three years—it is not strictly a minimum period of three years because it can be changed administratively—is new. That attaches to the category of people mentioned here and it did not do so before. It did not do so in the original Act and to that extent it is different. The placing of this category in this Bill creates a different situation completely from the situation which existed in the original Act. The hon. the Minister has now told us that this is not only intended for alcoholics. When the hon. the Minister replied to the arguments raised by this side of the House, he referred to the report of what he called the Select Committee. I presume the Minister meant the interdepartmental committee.

I referred to the 1945 Select Committee.

I see. The categories of people to be dealt with in the new way was recommended by the inter-departmental committee only for alcoholics. That committee was not entitled to recommend anything else. Its terms of reference precluded it from dealing with anything else but alcoholics, the rehabilitation of alcoholics, the problem of alcoholism and so on. So what we have here has been borne out of a committee whose powers were only to call for evidence relating to alcoholism. And that is what they dealt with. Now the hon. Minister says we must wait till we have had some experience. Surely our function here is not to draft something which we hope will work and to hope for the best, and then when something goes wrong in future, then to amend the Act.

I was replying to the argument that so many strange things are going to happen from now on.

I want to tell the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Prinshof, who did not know what our difficulties were, that if he had a look at Clause 14, he will find that it covers a number of people: Anybody who leads an idle life. No one has got to look very far away to see a number of people who lead idle lives.

Speak for yourself.

It says: “Leads an idle, dissolute or disorderly life.”

Now the hon. member for Heilbron is speaking for himself! The hon. member must appreciate that the commas between “idle” and “dissolute” and the “or” between “dissolute” and “disorderly” indicate three different categories of people. If you are an idle person you fall under the purview of this section, if you are a dissolute person or if you are a disorderly person…

It depends upon the interpretation by the courts. They have interpreted it to mean that the three things have to be proved together.

Perhaps the hon. member for Heilbron will enlighten the Committee and tell us how this has been interpreted. He says it has been interpreted to mean that all these things have to be done together. That is absolute nonsense! And since when has an idle man been a social evil? Since when has even a dissolute man or a man who leads a disorderly life been a social evil? Unless he in doing that endangers the peace or does harm to his own welfare or the welfare of his family. Surely the hon. Minister only means idle, dissolute or disorderly people who endanger the peace or do harm to the welfare of their family. Surely he only intends them to be put inside in one of these retreats for any period at all. I think that if the hon. Minister has any other intentions, perhaps he can tell us why. I do not think that this amendment, as the hon. member for Benoni has said, is going to affect in any way the administration of this Act. But I do think it will make it clear who the hon. Minister wishes to deal with. It will make it clear to the court and it will help the court to know that not all idle people, not all dissolute people, not all people who lead a disorderly life must be dealt with, but only those people who are a danger to the public or to their own family. I hope the hon. Minister will find it within him to reconsider his attitude to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Central) and that he will accept this amendment because, as I say, it does not affect the operation of the Act and I think it will be a great improvement.

I want once again to plead with the hon. Minister to look carefully at this paragraph (e). That it has not done harm since 1949 is I think no real argument. Firstly, all that the hon. Minister can say is that he does not know of any cases, and he asks us if we know of any cases where it has done harm. That is no proof at all. It merely means that no cases have been brought to his notice. Then again he surely does not think that it is right to incarcerate somebody because he is idle.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

It is such a good argument, Mr. Chairman.

Order! The hon. member must now come with a new argument.

Nevertheless, Sir, I do feel that the hon. the Minister if he gives the matter the thought which I think he should give it and which I am quite sure he will give it, will realize that he should include in paragraph (e) some of the effects which can flow from leading the life which he describes there.

Order! That point has also been made before.

Well, Sir, as I said before…

Order! I think the hon. member should resume his seat. I am going to put the clause now.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Radford put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 18 to stand over.

On Clause 19,

I move—

Objection has been raised to this proviso which reads—

Objections have been raised to the second period—that he should be detained for an indefinite period on the second occasion. His detention in such a retreat will then be for an indefinite period and I am prepared to delete this proviso. I think this will remove the objection of hon. members.

I think the hon. Minister has greatly improved the clause by omitting the proviso, but I wonder whether I cannot persuade him to accept a further improvement of this clause by moving the following amendment—

The idea is not to lay down a specific period of three years for which a person has to be detained in a retreat or rehabilitation centre but to make the maximum up to three years. I feel that a statutory period of three years is very hard particularly as modern treatment of alcoholism seldom requires as long as three years. I realize that such a person even though detained for three years initially can be released earlier, but nevertheless the initial sentence has to be for three years as the clause stands at present. I think this is not fair on a person who appears before a magistrate for what after all is now regarded as a sickness, and I think it would be much better to make this flexible and dependent on the type of medical report that is submitted, the type of report that is submitted by the social welfare officer rather than to make it mandatory on the magistrate to make it initially a period of three years.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The detention of such a person in an institution is designed, as hon. members are aware, to rehabilitate that person physically, spiritually and morally in order to enable him to return to society. It is a very difficult matter for a magistrate to say that such a person should be sent to a retreat and receive specific treatment and that he should be released after a period of one or two years. The magistrate cannot determine that period. Each specific case will again have to be investigated. I think the hon. member will admit that it will be very difficult for the magistrate to determine the period. Most of these people are divided into certain categories and are released after about a year, depending on the treatment that they receive in the institution and the progress that they make. In some cases the period may be even less than a year. By that time the people who have to deal with the inmate of the institution will be able to say that in their opinion they have been sufficiently rehabilitated to be released. These people will also be given psychiatric treatment. There will be psychologists who will be able to judge their state of mind and there will be medical men in the institution who will be able to decide in regard to such a person’s state of health. These are the people who will be able to say whether such a person can be released or not. I think it would be placing a great onus on the magistrate to provide that he should determine the period during which a person should remain at such institution and the period necessary to rehabilitate such a person. I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

We on this side welcome the amendment of the hon. the Minister. The proviso that he is now deleting was most undesirable. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton is concerned I do not think that it is any improvement and I agree with what the hon. the Minister has said.

Amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and negatived and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I move the following amendment—

The object of this amendment is to provide that where anyone has been ordered by the magistrate in terms of Clause 14, to be sent to a retreat, and he has to stay there for a period of three years unless some administrative action is taken to release him before that time. It is quite clear from the figures given to this House during the second-reading debate, figures which were not controverted, that we have in South Africa, something like 100,000 alcoholics. I foresee that the retreats to which these people are to go are going to be very full. I foresee that they are going to be as full, or perhaps fuller than the institutions relating to mental conditions. There have been cases that where somebody has been detained in a mental institution for an indefinite period, the person has languished there for years after in fact he was no longer certifiable in terms of the Mental Disorders Act. I do not say that this is going to happen. Obviously the Minister’s Department will do everything in its power to see that something like this is not going to happen, but with these institutions growing more and more crowded, there is going to be more and more red tape, there is going to be more and more office work, there are going to be more files mislaid, and what the amendment which I have moved does is to allow the person concerned to bring his case once again before a court. After all he can only go into this institution by an order of the court and this amendment gives him the right to have his case reviewed. You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment does not allow him to do that at any time. It allows him to do it only after the expiration of six months. I especially wanted those words in the amendment, because I understand from my medical colleagues on this side of the House that a certain minimum period of time is necessary when one is treating an alcoholic. I do not mind if the hon. Minister is prepared to accept this amendment, but wants to make it a minimum period of say a year before he can apply. I would be quite happy to accept that. I have to rely upon my medical friends to say what minimum period is necessary.

But I believe that the great difficulty that we face, and I think the hon. Minister faces, and everyone concerned with this Bill faces is that nobody knows just how long one needs to treat an alcoholic. None of the medical men here apparently know anything about alcoholism, and in the light of such circumstances, we have a provision that unless some administrative action is taken, a man who is suffering from something about which very little is known, is going to stay there for three years. It may well be that he should be out after one year.

I do not think that this will affect in any way the Minister’s administration of the Act. If the hon. Minister wishes to alter the wording of the amendment. I would be happy to accept it, but I ask the hon. Minister to accept the principle that an independent body like the court, which after all has to examine this man and his circumstances before it sent him there, should have the right, or that he should have the right to go back to that same independent body some time before three years have expired.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with penalties on a man suffering from this illness, alcoholism, and next week we are going to deal with legislation giving him more chance to contract this disease. But I do hope the hon. Minister will accept this amendment. Three years taken out of a man’s life to cure him of an illness is a long time, and as the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) said, medical opinion on this is not at one. There are many medical men who do not agree that it will take three years to cure a man of this disability—I am referring only to alcoholics for the moment—and there are other medical men who think that three years won’t cure him. We are coming back to the pleas for the man who has got a chance to be cured. I cannot believe that the number of 100,000 alcoholics is correct, but if it is correct, then I say it is a matter of impossibility for the Department to handle each individual case as it should be handled, namely as a sick man. Therefore I do hope that the hon. Minister will accept that three years is too long and that he will not only leave it in the hands of the management committee, but that he will give the man who is inside a chance after either 6 months or 12 months to go to somebody outside this particular management committee for advice on his case, and that advice could be made available to the Minister, and the Minister should then be allowed to act on it. I do hope the hon. Minister will accept our amendment.