as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Civil Protection Bill, as follows:

Your Committee, having considered the subject of the Civil Protection Bill [B. 1—’77] (Assembly), referred to it, begs to report an amended Bill [B. 107—’77] (Assembly).

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by making a statement in connection with the surcharge on imports. Subsequently I want to say something in connection with food subsidies, and then I want to refer to specific arguments and statements made by hon. members in the course of this debate. Then I shall try to give a brief account of my own view of the budget at this stage and also to say a few words about the economic and financial prospects of the country as I see them.

As far as the surcharge on imports is concerned, as in the case of the introduction of any new indirect tax, there are certain anomalies and problems in the case of this surcharge as well, because it was not possible to have consultations with commerce, industry and the public before the duty was levied. These problems are being actively investigated at the moment by the departments concerned—the departments of Commerce, Industry, Finance and Customs and Excise—and I trust that some of the problems, if legitimate, will be removed. One of the more serious problems that are being experienced by industry is that the surcharge is also payable on imported goods which are destined to be re-exported in some way, or which form part of an article intended for export. This means that exporters will probably have to increase their prices, as a result of which it will not be possible in the future to market their goods abroad at competitive prices. Since this would harm the export trade of the Republic, it has consequently been decided to provide for a refunding of the surcharge on the imported components of articles intended for export. Where there is no specific provision for this in section 5 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, the necessary provision will be made for a refund of surcharge under certain circumstances to exporters registered with the Secretary for Commerce as approved exporters. Provision for this will be embodied in the second Customs and Excise Amendment Bill which will come before this House later during this session. If it is approved by this House, it will be given retrospective effect from 30 March 1977.

As I mentioned in my budget speech, it is essential for the base of this surcharge to be as wide as possible in order to obtain the necessary revenue. The concession relating to exports which I have already announced will result in a loss of revenue although it is not possible at this stage to give any meaningful estimate of this loss.

Reference has been made during the debate to certain aspects of the subsidies which are payable on foodstuffs. I also want to refer to them now. In the first place I must express my thanks to our farming community for the attitude adopted by them. I have great appreciation for the way in which our farmers accepted the reduced food subsidies.

Where is the Minister of Agriculture? Why is he not present? [Interjections.]

When I speak of “reduced subsidies”, I must point out that generally speaking, the total subsidy has in fact been reduced, from approximately R172 million to just under R130 million. However, if we consider the figures for the past few years, we shall notice that R130 million is still a fairly high figure for this purpose. As far as wheat is concerned, the appropriation has been reduced from R90 million to R60 million. This reduction is largely attributable to the increase in the price of bread in August 1976, an increase which reduces the subsidy paid on bread by the State, and therefore also the total amount required for this purpose during 1977-’78. A further saving will be effected by means of a change in the method according to which the subsidy will henceforth be paid. At the moment, flour is subsidized, so the subsidy is also payable on flour used by bakers for the purposes of confectionery. In the future, the subsidy will be payable on the bread itself and the use of flour for confectionery will therefore not be subsidized. For this reason, the present appropriation of R60 million does not in itself imply any increase in the price of bread, although this will in fact be possible if the price of wheat, which has to be fixed in August or September this year, rises any further, and if the State decides at that stage not to take upon itself the increased burden. However, this is something which still has to be decided.

As regards dairy products, mainly butter, the subsidy is being reduced from R7,9 million to R7,5 million. Because butter is not an essential foodstuff, the Government decided some time ago—after yellow margarine had appeared on the market—to reduce the subsidy with an amount of R1 million every year. Therefore the appropriation for 1976-’77 was already R1 million less than that for the previous year. The appropriation for the year 1977-’78 is being reduced by a smaller amount because of the granting of an interest subsidy on the State-guaranteed loan to the Dairy Board, a loan which has enabled this Board to lower the prices of butter and cheese, which were increased in October last year.

Thirdly, I want to refer to maize products. In this respect, the subsidy is being reduced from R74,9 million to R60,9 million. The transport subsidy on these products is lower for 1977-’78 because in future, the State will no longer pay a higher subsidy on railway transport than on road transport.

As regards the subsidy on the price of maize, I just want to mention that during the discussions in connection with the 1977-’78 budget it was decided that in the future the State would no longer subsidize the total cost of the Maize Board. The assumption was, therefore, that the reduction of the subsidy would mean that a part of the Maize Board’s costs would henceforth no longer be borne by the State. What is actually going to happen now is that the storage and milling margins of millers will not be paid by the Maize Board from the global State subsidy, but will in fact be paid by the consumer. In addition, a smaller amount per ton—R2,50 instead of the R3,00 which was paid last year—will be used from the State subsidy in order not to lower the producer’s price to the consumer.

I want to add that of the total indicated price increase to the consumer of R12,50 per ton, only 50 cents is due to the reduced State subsidy; R3 per ton is due to the fact that the Maize Board does not make any contribution from its Stabilization Fund and export profits to the price paid by the consumer, and R9 represents the increase in the price of the producer. [Interjections.] I just wanted to explain this to the House.

The third statement I wish to make is in regard to the Reserve Bank. I want to inform the House that the term of office of the president of the Reserve Bank, Dr. T. W. de Jongh, will expire later this year, and I am glad to announce that the State President has appointed Dr. De Jongh for a further term of office. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my own and the Government’s appreciation for the extremely capable way in which Dr. De Jongh has performed and is still performing his important duties at this difficult point in time.

†I want to come now to the specific points raised in the budget debate. I shall return to the hon. member for Constantia a little later when I talk more generally, but at this point I want to refer to two statements he made. The first one is when he said a budget should be an instrument for regulating the economy and that he did not believe this budget was in any sense such an instrument, except possibly coincidentally. I think, with respect, that the hon. member could not have read the budget very carefully, because all the informed comment shows very clearly that the budget was deliberately designed and developed to handle the problem of the balance of payments and the inflation problem. If one looks at the budget one will see how in fact, that follows logically right through the budget. In fact, the budget is expressly aimed at that.

The hon. member also said that the cuts in capital expenditure were mainly in the nature of postponements of expenditure, rather than real reductions. Well, I do not know why the hon. member does not want to see that. Some of the economies in expenditure are, of course, postponements. Some of the budgeted expenditures are essential. But we cannot afford them all in one year and it therefore surely makes a great deal of sense if we can phase them over a longer period. I am not sure what the point of the hon. member’s criticism was. In the future we will have to see what we can afford, and we have already said that we have no intention of prejudicing or jettisoning any of the important projects which we have planned or on which we are engaged.

*The hon. member for Florida raised an interesting point. In regard to monetary measures he said that we should distinguish between commercial and general banks. This is an interesting point, and I just want to draw his attention to the fact that there is already a difference today—even if it is a fairly small one—between the requirements in respect of commercial and general banks. However, there are more important considerations. Firstly, there is the fact that some general banks are large and that in practice it is difficult to tell them apart from commercial banks. In the second place, the reserves required, i.e. the liquid assets, etc., are laid down in respect of various categories of deposits, and therefore they will in any case be less heavy in respect of a general bank with a relatively large number of long-term deposits than in respect of a commercial bank with a relatively large number of deposits that are payable on demand. However, we can go into that matter at a later stage. For the present, I am just referring to the factual situation as I see it at the moment.

The hon. member for South Coast issued a very kind invitation to me to visit the South Coast of Natal. I said that I would certainly come, but I was disappointed to hear that he would not be attending my meeting. I want to invite him once again to come along. [Interjections.] We shall enjoy ourselves. In any case, the hon. member for South Coast referred to the use of company cars and expense accounts and asked me why people were allowed to persist in these practices quite openly.

He also referred to the exorbitant cost involved in the sponsoring of sporting events, exorbitant advertising expenses and the cost of overseas tours and seminars at expensive resorts, and asked whether these items formed part of expense accounts, whether they were tax-free benefits, and if so, why nothing was being done about it. It is gratifying to find that the hon. member takes such an interest in these matters and would like to put an end to malpractices where these occur. I think he may rest assured that the Department of Inland Revenue is equally keen to ensure that these so-called fringe benefits are taxed when they are in fact taxable and that the department is continually looking for methods to combat abuses. If the hon. member is aware of any specific abuses, I would appreciate it if he would bring them to my attention.

The hon. member for Yeoville advanced several arguments. He suggested that the building of flats should be encouraged by, for example, granting devaluation allowances in respect of flats. It is clear that if a devaluation allowance were to be granted in the case of flats, the Treasury would have to give up a considerable amount in revenue, something which simply cannot be afforded under the present circumstances. In any event, it is not deemed advisable to interfere any further with the sound principle of not allowing devaluation in respect of immovable property. As the hon. member knows, a number of flats in White areas are at present unoccupied. Consequently it is not really necessary to encourage the building of flats for Whites at this stage. If the hon. member is referring to non-White areas, it must be pointed out that housing in such areas is usually provided on a subeconomic basis, with the result that these are not areas in which private enterprise could operate at a profit, even if the allowances proposed by him were to be granted. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that the Income Tax Act already contains provisions in terms of which generous tax concessions are granted to employers to help their employees in obtaining homes.

The hon. member for Yeoville also said that I should have stimulated labour-intensive, export-orientated business enterprises and that I should have made allowances available for the use of additional labour, as in the case of the initial and investment allowances for the purchasing of equipment and machinery. I want to say at once that this matter has been receiving our attention for quite some time. I can also say that this matter has been raised in the co-ordinating committee of the Economic Advisory Council and that this committee has given the matter its full support after a thorough investigation of all facets involved, matters which should preferably be dealt with under the guidance of the departments of Industries and Inland Revenue. I may also add that the Department of Industries has already conducted research in connection with the matter.

†The hon. member for Yeoville said that he did not think enough was being done to attract overseas capital and expressed the belief that a tax haven situation should be created in South Africa. He suggested that there should be no withholding tax for five years on new equity issues for approved public companies in order to attract this kind of capital. The hon. member was clearly referring to the non-resident shareholder’s tax which is withheld from dividends paid by South African companies to those of their shareholders who are non-residents. While South Africa imposes its taxes on the source basis most other countries do so on what they call a world basis. This applies to South Africa’s main trading partners, and under the agreements for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with them, the South African tax which the foreign shareholder pays, is allowed as a credit against the tax which he pays in his country of residence. If South Africa were to discontinue its withholding tax, as the hon. member suggests, the shareholder would still have to pay the full amount of tax claimed by his country of residence and he would usually receive no relief whatsoever. The relief sought would benefit the foreign fiscus and not the shareholder. It is for this reason that I do not favour the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville in that respect.

And the countries with which there are no double taxation agreement? [Interjections.]

We can deal with those countries on an ad hoc basis.

The hon. member also suggested that there should be a tax concession for foreign-controlled companies who are not themselves liable to pay the undistributed profits tax as an incentive not to declare dividends which, if declared, would be expatriated, but to retain their funds in South Africa instead, such concession to take the form of a 10% credit on company tax. In this regard the hon. member was clearly referring to those companies which enjoy exemption from undistributed profits tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Not only is the fact of the existing exemption in itself a considerable inducement to such companies not to distribute their profits, but in addition the fiscus sacrifices the non-resident shareholder’s tax which it would receive if dividends were to be declared by such companies. It is clear that what the hon. member is asking for is a still further sacrifice of revenue which, I am afraid, cannot be entertained at the present time.

The hon. member for Von Brandis raised some interesting matters as well. He said amongst other things that in respect of new investments, the money coming from abroad should not be blocked. This could clearly be considered. I merely want to add that it might be said to be unfair on the long-standing foreign investor in South Africa. One has to look at the existing position, but we can investigate the further possibilities of that.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made what I thought was a thoroughly responsible speech. In one particular respect he made what I thought was an admirable statement on the whole thrust of the budget when he said the following (Hansard, 12 April 1977, col. 5022)—

I entirely agree with the hon. member’s sentiments. After having discussed the Franzsen Commission’s report on the introduction of the sales tax as presently in force, the hon. member asked me certain specific questions with regard to the new idea of a more general sales tax, a sales tax sometimes loosely called a turnover tax. The hon. member asked whether I was prepared to make the argument upon which these recommendations are based, available to the House. He asked whether we should not immediately go straight from the existing to a value-added tax rather than a so-called turnover tax. He also asked that the House be given some idea of the cost to the Treasury of the proposed changeover to the new system of a more universal sales tax. I mentioned in my budget speech that this was a matter which required very careful study; it is a difficult tax to administer, it requires a good deal of additional trained staff and the implications thereof are very thoroughly being studied. I might, however, perhaps just mention to the hon. member some of the main advantages of the new tax, as I see it. Firstly, the wide range as well as the higher level—that is the final consumer level—gives this type of tax a natural growth with rises in prices and as consumption expenditure expands without the rate of tax necessarily having to be increased.

This can result in stabilizing the rates of tax. That is a point in its favour. Secondly, escalation will be eliminated to a very large extent. In a study made at the time when the new tax was researched it was found that the so-called average escalation factor of the present tax was, in fact, 41%. Thirdly, the proposed tax will be more effective in the sense of being more of an economic regulator than the existing one. The possibility of introducing a value added tax was considered but we rejected it at this point on the grounds of complexity and the volume of additional work involved for both the private and public sectors. The system envisaged for South Africa should be relatively uncomplicated and should not require the same number of staff to administer as the value added tax would necessitate. That is a very complicated administrative procedure. I cannot give hon. members the cost of the change-over today. It is being gone into very thoroughly and I can say that the preliminary estimate of additional staff required is something of the order of 400. These people have to be trained. It does not mean that all 400 need to be taken on additionally. We will, where possible, try to obtain staff from existing departments.

I have tried to summarize the main argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North and I would summarize it in three parts. Firstly, he said that we were not getting any more foreign capital. Secondly, he said that without foreign capital we were doomed to a period of no growth, growing unemployment and eventual economic collapse. Thirdly, he said that under a different Government we would apparently get foreign capital. I think that is a fair summary of his views on foreign capital. As I said on Friday, we are still attracting foreign capital to this country. Only today I had the opportunity to interview two leading American bankers. When one talks to people of that calibre, one realizes the credit standing of South Africa in the world’s capital markets at this very moment. This persistent, sustained, utter gloom and pessimism on the part of some of the hon. members on the other side is something which I think is quite unrealistic and it is something that has no effect on the world’s capital markets. These are people who know what is going on.

Did they lend you any money?

The hon. member asks whether they lent me any money. We are getting money into this country every week. Today I signed two guarantees for very substantial sums of capital which are coming into this country within a week or two.

If that is so, why do you not give us the figures?

We are getting extremely satisfactory amounts of foreign capital for project financing, as it is called, and in the form of export credit. These are available on an extensive scale. We are also getting direct investments by foreign firms established in South Africa and this continues all the time. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North ought to know that the prices of our bonds have improved overseas. We can look forward to a revival of foreign in vestment in all forms in the near future.

In regard to the second point, it is perfectly true that if the inflow of foreign capital is perhaps a bit more modest at the moment than it was a year or two ago …

That is what is called meiosis!

In 1975 it was a record inflow under this Government. In 1976, under difficult conditions, it was something like R1 000 million, under this Government. It certainly will not stop. I have complete confidence on that point. To say, however, that if another Government were in power we would obviously get foreign capital, is so hypothetical and so unrealistic that I do not think the House requires an answer from me. For nearly 30 years this Government has been in power, and the inflow of capital to this country over those 30 years makes South Africa one of the most important investment outlets of all countries in the world—big or small. This is what the overseas bankers tell one. They all say that they regard South Africa as of the greatest possible importance as an investment outlet.

The hon. member for Worcester referred to the shortage of capital in the underdeveloped countries, the developing countries, and the hon. member for Johannesburg North immediately interjected to say that he was talking nonsense, or something to that effect. It is quite astonishing! One wonders where the hon. member for Johannesburg North obtains his information on these issues. Why, may I ask, has the International Monetary Fund gone to such great lengths to auction gold every month if it has not been specifically, as they themselves have said, to set up a fund of capital for the direct use of the developing countries? If capital were so freely available, why would the IMF go to these lengths to sell gold? Secondly, why are the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the International Development Agency—IDA as it is called—and all the other international agencies—of which there are a large number—at this moment doing everything possible to think up ways and means of mobilizing capital specifically for the developing countries? We get letters from them putting forward suggestions and asking us for our views. And what it all comes down to is the fact that they are trying to mobilize capital for the LDCs—the less developed countries. If the hon. member for Worcester is incorrect, why would these world organizations be spending all this time on efforts to obtain more capital for the very countries to which he has referred?

I want to refer further to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He has said the Government has seen fit simply to set the private sector up as the next sacrificial lamb, and that it has done so simply by rape, namely the transfer of no less than R1,32 billion from the private to the public sector in one hit. The transfer from the private sector to the public sector is not Rl,32 billion. It is R8,785 billion. If there were no public sector, we would not have needed any of this money for the Government. That is the total of State expenditure. Let me ask where else, apart from foreign loans, is the money to come from? Surely it is quite wrong to criticize the amount transferred, as distinct from the method by which the transfer is effected, unless the hon. member is arguing that Government expenditure is too high. My point is that I have not heard any critic, inside or outside this country, who has suggested that Government expenditure in this budget is too high. In fact, all of them have said that here we have the clearest evidence of a Government holding Government expenditure down to the absolute minimum. That being so, how can one then criticize the transfer of funds to the public sector if it obviously follows as clearly as night follows day that the Government is economizing wherever possible?

Now I should like briefly to look at the budget in general. I think it is true and fair to say, in the first place, that the Opposition have fallen into a trap. They have fallen into the trap of seeking to look at this budget in isolation when, clearly, they should look at it against the background of the South African economy and, of course of the world economy in which we trade and of which we form a clear part. That is what I tried to do in my survey with which I prefaced the financial statement itself. I thought I had dealt with those matters at some length. As regards the arguments of the hon. member for Constantia and those which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned on Friday, viz. that the budget would apparently put up the cost of living, I tried to reply to that immediately on Friday. I should merely like to say that if the hon. members say that on the strength of the increased customs and excise duties on liquor and on cigarettes, the sales duty and the revenue duty on imports, they must remember that they are looking at a total figure of about R540 million out of a total gross domestic expenditure approaching R30 000 million in this country. As I said on Friday, it is not simply a question of customs and excise duties going up, which means that prices must necessarily go up. The consuming public clearly has the discretion to decide how much they will buy of anything they want and, in fact, whether they should buy the article at all.

And the sales tax on essentials?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is still of the opinion that the devaluation of the rand did not lead to lower living standards?

Sir, I think that one of the best things we have done in this country in many years was to devalue the rand … [Interjections.] I stand absolutely unchanged on the grounds I gave for that at the time.

But has it lowered living standards?

That this budget is called inflationary, is a very remarkable criticism. I shall, however, give the Opposition this credit: They were at any rate original in that respect. They are the only critics who raised that particular criticism. They are the only critics who said that this budget is inflationary.

Were we not right?

Everybody else has said it must be deflationary. So, Sir, we shall leave them with that satisfaction.

Then there was a further criticism. The hon. member for Constantia put it in this way. He said the budget carries the country one big step further down the slippery slope to socialism.

Hear, hear!

Of course the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will say “Hear, hear!” He repeated this statement on Friday. Therefore he must say “Hear, hear!”

Because that is what is in fact happening.

He committed himself on Friday. I think he has regretted it by now. I asked him to analyse this over the weekend. It is a pity he is not able to give us the answer today. There will be other opportunities, however.

We shall see in a year’s time.

Sir, the hon. member for Constantia has heard of a book called Assault on Private Enterprise. I do not know whether he has read it, but he has heard of it. However, I think he has completely misread the signs, even if he has read the book. If one looks at what is going on in the world around one, one will find that every country, one after the other—I am talking of the Western World—does exactly this. Every country uses part of the funds of the savings institutions through the medium of prescribed investments and the purchase of Government stocks to help finance the public sector. If one looks at the percentages, one sees that many of these countries are well ahead of us in the size of the percentages concerned. That is the first point. It is a matter of fact.

Which countries?

There is one very interesting exception to this. That exception is Great Britain. And what is Great Britain’s tax position? It is not prohibitive, but punitive. Great Britain’s tax position is such that it has long since killed all incentive. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggesting we should follow Britain’s example in this respect?

Of course not.

You see, Sir, it is very easy to say we are sliding toward socialism, but in quarters which look at these things objectively—that goes particularly for the international financiers and bankers—this country is regarded as one of the last bastions of private enterprise today. [Interjections.] I want to suggest that this measure which we have taken, of, as it were, canalizing some of these funds from the savings institutions, for example the insurance companies, the pension funds, the banks and the building societies, in the form of prescribed investments to the public sector is not only in the national interest—because it is helping to finance absolutely essential development for the whole economy and to the benefit of all our people—but it is also in the interest of these savings institutions themselves. These institutions are building up huge funds and they have to invest them. What must an insurance company and particularly a pension fund look at more than anything else among the criteria for investment? Number one is security.

What is more secure than Government stock? This is generally accepted everywhere. Therefore, if it were not for Escom, Iscor, Sasol and the other big public or semi-public corporations, into what form of investment would all these big corporations put their money? Surely this is a very important outlet for them, especially when we guarantee a fair rate of return.

It is not at a fair rate of return.

Not a fair rate of return? Eleven percent over a period of 21 years?

What is the inflation rate?

What is the inflation rate at the moment?

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of discussing this issue with the insurance companies, the pension funds and the building societies, with top-ranking representatives of these institutions, and if the hon. Leader of the Opposition were to compare the attitude which his party is showing on this issue and the attitude they show, it is like chalk and cheese. Their attitude is constructive, it is helpful … [Interjections.] … I do not know what that hon. member knows about finance. I would suggest that he listens to see if he can learn something.

It is quite clear you know very little too.

I am not talking to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am talking to that hon. member at the back. One hears this sort of shout from the back. It is, of course, asinine, because the hon. member knows very little about finance. If one looks at Saturday morning’s paper, one will see that one of the top executives of the S.A. Mutual said that this was a correct decision and that it was in the country’s interest that it be done. It was in The Cape Times of Saturday. That is what I am referring to. These are the people who know what it is about. These are the people who have the responsibility of finding the best investments for the funds of the institutions which they serve and these are the people who are supporting us hands down on this policy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister is replying to financial arguments which hon. members had four days to put to him. It is therefore only fair that the hon. the Minister be given a chance to reply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition are unable to see that these are exceptional times, as I have said in my budget speech, and that they call for exceptional measures. This is precisely what we have done. We have done this to mobilize capital for essential development, development which could not be postponed or be put off. In a previous debate when I was told we would not obtain sufficient foreign capital to finance all our essential affairs and I replied that we would, and that we would mobilize our own resources more effectively, the hon. member for Constantia tended to ridicule me. In a previous debate he asked: Have you not mobilized them effectively already? Well, this is part of the effective mobilization of our resources and it has the support of 99% of the country at the moment. The Opposition criticize me for asking, as a temporary measure, for a reasonably small additional investment in prescribed investments by these savings institutions. If I had not done that—where I am asking for R760 million—where would I have found that money?

From your overseas investors; those you are boasting about.

Where would I have found the money? I would have had to increase income tax and I would have had to increase company tax. But the Opposition do not look at these things. They simply offer a criticism and there the matter ends.

Finally I would like to look for a minute or two at the prospects which lies ahead. I have great confidence in the future of the South African economy. I have great confidence, first of all because this Government has shown, throughout its period of office, that it knows how to maintain, political stability in this country. Secondly, it knows how to maintain law and order, something which is a very essential part of the first requirement. Thirdly, there is economic stability in this country, which is the envy of most countries in the world. Look at our economic institutions. Are they sound or are they unsound? Are they well founded or are they founded on shaky foundations? That goes for all of them, whether they are public institutions or private institutions. These are the issues that are at stake. Are our priorities wrong or are they right? How is it that even our most hostile critics say to us that our priorities are right? I have not seen any serious criticism of our priorities in the last year or two. We have had the very serious problem of the balance of payments, particularly the very serious and large deficit in the current account, but we took the bull by the horns. In good time we took the necessary measures, and we have managed to control that deficit in the current account of the balance of payments. We have converted a very big deficit into a very moderate deficit at this moment. Surely, that shows that our financial policies must be correct.

Then, if we look at a few of the positive things, we see that with our industrial potential and development, our agricultural development, our mining development, we are an extremely versatile economy.

We do not depend on one or two activities. We can depend on five or six major activities. I think that, of all the so-called plus factors in the economy today, the brightest star, one might say, in the economic firmament is the mining industry. I foresee a tremendous development in the mining and the mineral industry of this country in the next few years. It might interest hon. members to know that metals and minerals and gold coins—I am excluding gold bullion now—last year accounted for something like R2 600 million in exports. That constitutes 50% of our total exports.

During the year, it is quite clear that exports of minerals and base minerals are going to rise much more strongly still. The prices of platinum, copper, uranium, silver, tin, lead and zinc have been advancing. I would like to state—and I believe that the Government can take credit for this—that the mining industry, and indeed our entire economic activities, are fortunate that the completion of major capital projects has enhanced our ability to capitalize on the rising demand for these crucial minerals throughout the world. The very big Sishen-Saldanha project, with the new harbour at Saldanha Bay, the new railway link to Richards Bay, and the deep-sea harbour at Richards Bay, as well as all the other developments, including the roads which are being developed in the Northern Cape and everywhere else, and the development in communications, I believe, are now showing what foresight the Government had. We are now able to take full advantage for the large-scale export of iron ore at Saldanha Bay, coal at Richards Bay, and all the other minerals, the export of which is increasing every day of the week.

Then we come to gold. Despite the lack of faith in gold from some quarters that we find from time to time, I stand by my own view that I have expressed throughout, that whatever the immediate short run position and the harm that has been done particularly by the psychological onslaught of the IMF and the Americans in the last year or 18 months, I think gold has shown its intrinsic strength as never before. Despite the unfavourable climate that is deliberately being created, gold has come right back into its own and the gold price is somewhere around $150 per fine oz. Although I am sure that the gold price will obviously fluctuate a little from time to time, because there is always speculation involved, the longer term trend is very clearly upwards and I have the greatest confidence that this commodity, which has the confidence of millions and millions of people throughout the world, is going to stand fast and is going to mean a very great deal to our economy.

In this connection I would also like to refer particularly to the position of coal. Coal’s performance in South Africa is particularly strong and I can foresee an enormous increase in coal exports in the years ahead. I have already referred to Richards Bay. As far as Richards Bay is concerned, it is not just coal which is involved. There is already advanced planning for the bulk export of products such as phosphoric acid, phosphates, titanium, zircon, rutile, chrome ore, steel products, asbestos, copper and fluorspar. You can name about a half a dozen others. This shows the versatility of the country, and it is the underlying strength of our economy which leads me to feel very proud to be a South African at this moment and to be absolutely certain of our economic future.

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

The hon. the Minister has already resumed his seat.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—106: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. G; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

Tellers: N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 and 2:

Vote No. 1.—“State President”, agreed to.

Vote No. 2.—“Parliament”, agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the commencement of the Merchant Shipping Act, No. 57 of 1951, on 1 January 1960, the principal Act has been amended a number of times to keep pace with progress and to provide for changed circumstances in the field of merchant shipping.

Since South African ship owners are sometimes dependent on finance from other sources, it is essential that the rights of such financial institutions be protected as far as possible. In the light of the fact that the present legislation is not entirely satisfactory in this regard, rectification of the matter by way of the proposed amendments is envisaged.

All interested Government departments and shipping interests in the Republic have been consulted and have voiced their approval of the envisaged amendments.

Clause 1 envisages the amendment of section 29 of the principal Act and is aimed at providing that ownership rights in a South African ship or a share in such ship subject to any unsatisfied mortgage may not be transferred to any person without the written consent of all the mortgagees. My department has been requested on more than one occasion in the past to insert such a provision into the Act in order to afford better protection to the interests of mortgagees. Up to now, the representations have been rejected; on the one hand because such an amendment could have an adverse effect on the interests of ship owners in that an owner would not have full control over his property, and on the other hand because the Act already protects the interests of mortgagees to a certain extent, inter alia in sections 29(1), 36(3) and 61.

These sections do not, however, authorize the proper officer to issue a warning—a caveat—in accordance with which the permission of mortgagees, obtained in advance, is demanded, but only to enter the mortgagee’s interest. As a result, because foreign finance companies also insisted on such legal provisions before they would grant loans to build ships and because the established shipping concerns in the Republic are well-disposed towards the idea, such an insertion is now deemed desirable.

Clause 2 provides for the insertion of a new section 51A into the principal Act aimed at making it clear that the holders of certain maritime liens on a South African ship have priority over the mortgagees of the ship. These rights are in respect of: (a) damage caused by the ship; (b) wages; (c) disbursements or liabilities incurred by the master on account of such ship; and (d) salvage. It is considered reasonable and fair that the liens mentioned in the proposed section, ought to have priority.

In this regard, too, the support of the established shipping interests was obtained. It is a codification of acknowledged common law principles and it will eliminate some of the obscurity which, up to now, has been experienced by those not familiar with the South African legal system.

Clauses 3 and 4 merely contain consequential amendments arising out of the envisaged amendment in clause 1.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed in this Bill appear to have the support of the shipping owners. Those we have consulted had no objections to the amendments and assured us that these measures would be an improvement on the existing Act. The provision in clause 2 is, in particular, one that was needed. Cases have occurred where persons and companies have provided services such as salvage or looking after the crews of ships that have been stranded or crews who have abandoned ship. In such cases persons have spent money or have guaranteed payment of money, but have then found themselves landed with no means of recovery because the bondholder on the ship or some foreign interest has had full claim on whatever was left of the salvage. A specific case where this occurred came to my notice recently and in this case a firm expended a considerable sum, but found itself so low down on the list of claimants that there was nothing to recover at all once the ship had been salvaged. This Bill ensures that South African interests will be recognized and that there will be a basis for claim by those who are involved or who have an interest in South Africa. We will therefore support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are pleased that the hon. member for Durban Point supports the Bill because I believe that as far as our merchant shipping and shipbuilding industries are concerned, the Bill is a step in the right direction. Whilst we are discussing the Bill in this calm atmosphere, one wonders, since we in South Africa have all the potential as well as the technological knowledge at our disposal, whether or not the time has come for us to give serious thought to developing a major shipbuilding industry in South Africa.

I just want to refer to the Bill very briefly. Only two cardinal principles are expounded in the Bill. The first principle is the protection of the financing of shipbuilding programmes. That in itself, as the hon. member for Durban Point has indicated, is the first major principle contained therein. The second principle is protection of the lien holders. About a year ago, it was my pleasure and privilege to be able to go to England together with my colleagues; the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Rustenburg. We went to see how the shipbuilding industries of the world had undergone a revolutionary change as far as containerization is concerned. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport and his entire department this afternoon on the fact that as far as containerization is concerned, South Africa need not take a backseat to the rest of the world. I was in Southampton and there I saw how the entire shipbuilding industry had been swept by revolutionary change. A considerable number of workmen had, of course, been laid off. After we had come back, I was in Cape Town harbour on one occasion and on another occasion it was my pleasure and privilege to be in Durban harbour. I want to say once again that I believe South Africa need by no means take a back seat to the rest of the world as far as containerization is concerned.

This legislation comprises two facets, firstly technological changes, as I indicated at the start of my speech—as well as the attendant financial implications in respect of the legislation as a whole. South Africa continues to be involved in the shipbuilding industry, to such an extent that the technological skills, as I was justified in saying, and the facilities in South Africa have reached a level—and I want to say this once again—at which we have the skills and will be able to obtain the financial assistance from abroad to boost our shipbuilding industry in South Africa to greater heights. The greater the financial requirements become, the more important it is that the interests of the foreign financier of a ship be protected. That is what clause 1 is about. Clause 2 is aimed simply at codifying existing common law to ensure security of justice in respect of foreign sources of finance. I believe both of these aspects could further the shipping industry in South Africa, and that is why it is a pleasure for me, on behalf of this side of the House, to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, clause 1 stops owners and shareholders from transferring ownership of a ship or a share in that ownership without consent of the mortgagees. We have no quarrel with that at all. However, I listened to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech, and in consequence I am very worried indeed about clause 2. This creates a lien when damage is caused by a South African ship and accords priority to this lien, amongst other priorities, over mortgagees. We are less than happy because I am advised that the whole field of shipping liens is extremely complicated. It seems strange that only these particular liens are being dealt with. As the hon. the Minister no doubt knows, the existing position under our common law on the one hand, and under admiralty law on the other, is uncertain, and as a result of this complicated and uncertain position, which exists at present, the effect of this amendment, I am advised, will be extremely uncertain indeed. I am told that it will further complicate the situation. Could I ask the hon. the Minister whether clause 2 has been considered by the S.A. Law Reform Commission, and has the hon. the Minister consulted the legal profession, the General Bar Council, for example? I am told that in the field of liens the Supreme Court has a dual role, sometimes overlapping the jurisdiction covered by admiralty law and common law. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is here intending to deal with common law liens or admiralty law liens. These are points which the hon. the Minister may be able to answer. Does the order in which the four priority liens are placed in the proposed new section 51A(2) indicate an actual order of priority? In other words, does the damage lien mentioned in the proposed new section 51A(2)(a) have priority over the salvage lien in the proposed new section 51A(2)(d), or do they all have equal priority? The hon. the Minister, I am sure, must realize that if this clause were passed, it would have an important effect on private rights. The hon. the Minister has said that he consulted shipping interests about clause 1 but he did not clarify the position in respect of clause 2. My own information leads me to believe that some shipping interests have been consulted in regard to clause 2 while others have not been consulted. This leads me to believe that perhaps a particular interest has been pushing this legislation.

The rights of mortgagees are no doubt adversely affected because an additional priority lien, viz. the damage lien which adds a further risk not contemplated by the mortgagee in the first instance, has been effected. In respect of clause 1 the hon. the Minister talked about looking after the interests of financial investors, of mortgagees, but under clause 2 he is doing exactly the opposite. In terms of that clause he is saying to them: “There are further things that are going to have priority over your mortgage. There is for example the damage lien which will have priority over your mortgage.” Why should the damage lien have this priority? I do not believe that damage should necessarily have priority over a mortgagee. I think the mortgagee’s rights should be protected.

As I have said, I am unhappy about the speech of the hon. the Minister. He did not in fact make clear what this is all about. The field appears to be very uncertain. I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister will be able to reply at this stage and give me fuller details, but I will be very distressed indeed if the hon. the Minister should want to push this measure through at this stage. Short of a satisfactory reply to this, we shall be unable to vote for this measure at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we do not see the spectres that the PRP sees. We do not share the hon. member’s fear. We have different advisers to his and for that reason we are prepared to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the hon. member for Orange Grove the assurance that all the established shipping concerns were consulted about this clause. Allow me just to repeat what I expressly stated in my Second Reading speech—

This provision that liens have priority over the interests of mortgagees, is no novelty in our legal system. The provision being made in this clause, is the provision that will apply. It is in line with our common law system. If it is essential for there to be a provision of this nature and if it is incorporated in the legislation, then this is the provision that will apply. I am also told that in the nature of the matter it is clear—in fact, that is how I put it—that the object of clause 1 of the Bill is to protect the interests of lenders; money lenders who advance loans to shipping concerns for the building or purchasing of ships.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I go along with clause 1 completely since it does look after the interest of mortgagees. I want to ask, however, whether the hon. the Minister does not feel that the new lien created in clause 2, viz. the lien of damage, actually prejudices the interest of mortgagees because of the additional risk involved?

It is true, of course, that any lien, whether it be in respect of damage caused by the ship, work done on the ship, or wages, as stated in this Bill, is detrimental to the preferential rights of the mortgagee, because it has priority over the rights of the mortgagee. This, of course, is what is entailed by a lien. It has priority over other rights. Indeed, this holds for this legislation as well, but for liens of this nature to apply, by no means clashes with our common law system in South Africa. This can be seen in the other field of our legal system as well. I am told that the foreign concerns I referred to in relation to clause 1, viz. the money lenders who advance loans for the construction of ships, insisted that the position in respect of liens be formulated expressly and clearly in the legislation so that they would know exactly where they stood and what type of liens enjoyed preference over that rights.

This further confuses the issue.

This is, of course, a field in which very few of us have expert knowledge, but after very thorough consultation, it is felt that not only on the grounds of the priority of the mortgagee that is required on registration and of the consent required when selling, but also that the mortgagee has to know exactly where he stands in respect of liens and that for that reason, it must also be expressly incorporated in the legislation. All this has been done after discussions with established shipping concerns. I honestly do not think that the hon. member for Orange Grove ought to have any problems in that regard.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the moment, the provision of water by the Rand Water Board is limited to its area of jurisdiction, but the proposed amendment to clause 1 became necessary with the view to the supply of water to consumers outside the limits of supply and to territories outside the borders of the country, for instance Bophuthatswana, which is being supplied with water at the moment and which will become independent later this year.

Legal authorization to supply water to these areas outside the limits of supply—Bophuthatswana in particular—is largely aimed at allowing the supply of water in these areas to continue without interruption until such time as an area like this can take over the existing supply itself.

Section 49 of the Rand Water Board Statute provides for the levying of differentiated tariffs in regard to three different types of consumer. Consumers outside the Republic cannot be placed under one of the three existing tariff structures and therefore slight changes are proposed in this connection in clause 2, while provision is also being made in clause 1(3) for the levying of a tariff by way of agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of this Bill has already been accepted in other legislation which was recently before the House and it was also a matter which was considered by the Select Committee. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to detain the House for long, but merely to say that we support the principle of the Bill. It is designed to allow a procedure to continue which is already in operation and it is designed to give the Minister and the Government concerned with Bophuthatswana, once it attains independence, the ability to reach agreement on tariffs which shall be levied on water supplied to that country. The same would apply to other countries, should such other countries come into being. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we are already accustomed to not making a political issue of water and therefore we are grateful that the Opposition also supports the amendment Bill. The Republic of South Africa has already given evidence of its co-operation and goodwill in several spheres to states in Southern Africa and in Africa. For instance we call to mind Onderstepoort with its influence in Southern Africa, in Africa and even in the world. We call to mind agricultural, scientific and technical knowledge which we make available to our neighbouring States. But the lifeline of every person in every state is water. That is why this amendment Bill is further proof of the Republic of South Africa’s sincere wish to co-operate with our neighbouring states and the homelands. According to this amendment Bill the Rand Water Board will be able to make water available to the homelands in terms of an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me if I tell you that if one gives water to a person, an animal or any being which is thirsty, one cannot give him anything better under the sun. Consequently I want to say that the influence, the goodwill between our neighbouring states and ourselves which this little law will bring about, will be incalculable. This is a small amendment Bill that packs a powerful punch. That is why it is a special privilege for us to see the amendment Bill being placed on the Statute Book and we trust—indeed we know—that it will have a strong and beneficial influence between our neighbouring states and ourselves. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, we have Bophuthatswana in mind in particular, where this service will be in existence from the outset, and where water will be supplied to the homeland. We support the amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are prepared to accept the principle of supplying water to neighbouring States at any time. We will, consequently, support this Bill at all stages.

Mr. Speaker, this Amendment Bill facilitates the activities of the Rand Water Board and legalizes the supply of water to Bophuthatswana until provision for this can be made in other ways. Therefore we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the support which this Bill has received from all sides. As the hon. member for Meyerton correctly indicated, this legislation is very important. However, I do not want to elaborate on this. I just want to say thank you. It is pleasant to deal with legislation which enjoys such wide-spread support. I also thank hon. members because they did not speak too long in giving their support to the Bill, and therefore at the same time made their support for the Bill more effective.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Publications Act was piloted through Parliament in 1974, I said that I would not hesitate to come back to the House to make amendments to the Act if it should be deemed necessary. The Act has now been in force for two years, so it has been possible to watch its operation carefully. I am pleased to be able to report that the Act is functioning very well. The committees and the directorate are functioning well and the prestige and status of the appeal board are exceptionally high. However, a few problems have arisen—mostly of an administrative nature—problems we want to rectify by means of this Bill. I want to give a full explanation of the specific amendments, with a view to possibly shortening the discussion in the Committee Stage. For this reason my Second Reading speech will unfortunately be somewhat lengthy. However, I should like to explain the legislation as fully as possible.

†Mr. Speaker, this Bill is mainly designed to improve and supplement the procedures provided for in the Publications Act, 1974. Only three new principles, with which I shall deal later, are introduced into the Act.

Section 35(3) of the Act provides that the State President shall designate five persons for a period of five years from whom the chairman of the appeal board shall from time to time, as it may be necessary, appoint an appeal board to examine and decide appeals lodged with the clerk of the appeal board.

The said section 35(3) further provides that the Director of Publications shall include the names of these five persons in a list. The first of these lists was compiled for the five year period April 1975 to March 1980.

It happens during seasonal holiday periods that the five persons whose names were included in the said list are all out of town, and that the chairman of the appeal board cannot then constitute an appeal board for the examination of appeals.

It is true that under section 35(4) of the Act the chairman of the appeal board may appoint persons other than the five persons included in the said list for the examination of an appeal. The said section 35(4) however, is designed to be applied in the case of appeals which require a special knowledge of the particular matter, and the persons designated by the State President do not have that knowledge.

It is therefore proposed in clause 19 that the number of persons to be designated by the State President and to be included in the list of persons from whom the chairman of the appeal board may appoint an appeal board shall be increased from five to 10. Because the list for the first five year period April 1975 to March 1980 has already been compiled, it is provided—

1. (a) in clause 25(3) that the aforementioned amendment shall come into operation on 1 April 1980; and
2. (b) in clause 25(4) that 5 other persons may be designated by the State President and that their names may be added to the first list already compiled. The period of service of these persons will also end on 31 March 1980.

A number of amendments proposed in the Bill affect the Directorate of Publications. The directorate consists of 5 members. After the death of one of the directors in September last year the work was so divided that the remaining directors can cope with it, even when one of them is away on leave. It is therefore not intended to fill the vacancy in the directorate within the foreseeable future. Because it may happen that whilst one of the directors is away on leave, another is also absent for cogent reasons, it is proposed in clause 1(a) that the quorum of the directorate be reduced from 3 to 2. Because of the financial savings to them a number of film distributors have requested that consideration be given to examining films in Johannesburg or Pretoria since just about all films are imported through Jan Smuts Airport. Films are at present being examined and certificated in Cape Town because the seat of the directorate is here and special preview theatres are maintained by film distributors at great cost in Cape Town. It is therefore proposed in clause 1(b) that section 2(9) of the Act be amended to provide—

1. (a) that the seat of the directorate shall be determined by the Minister of the Interior; and
2. (b) that the directorate may with the approval of the Minister, establish an office at any other place.

The proposed provision that the directorate may establish an office at some other place is necessary in case it should after investigation prove more expedient to deal with films in Johannesburg or Pretoria and with publications in Cape Town, where most publications are imported. This matter will, however, only be decided after a full investigation and careful consideration as to what is in the best interests of the film industry and the book trade.

The proposed addition by clause 2 of a new subsection (2) to section 3 of the Act is necessary to authorize a procedure which may at present not be legal. By this procedure members of committees of publications not residing in Cape Town and environment are asked to read publications sent to them and to make a recommendation as to the undesirability or not of the publications in question. The publications and their recommendations are then submitted to the film committees in the afternoons for examination and a decision. This arrangement is necessary because film committees cannot continually view films for eight hours a day, and with a view to economizing. If this arrangement were not followed it would double if not treble the expenditure on examination of publications.

I may add that the said arrangement is only followed in the case of light reading matter. In the case of all other publications committees are appointed in Cape Town and other centres depending on the availability of members of committees. The arrangement is also applied in the case of publications in foreign languages. Such publications are referred to persons with a knowledge of the foreign language concerned for examination of the publication, a summary thereof and his advice. This arrangement is based on section 3(b) of the Act which provides that the directorate shall at the request of a committee ask an expert for his advice on any aspect indicated by a committee.

There is, however, no specific provision in this section whereby the directorate may of its own accord refer a publication to an expert for his advice. It is for this reason that it is specially provided in the proposed new section (3)2 that the directorate may submit any matter relating to its functions to any member of committees or any other person who is an expert on such matter, for his advice.

There is one amendment affecting the committees of publications. In terms of section 5 of the Act the Minister shall compile a list of persons yearly from whom committees are appointed. The compilation of this list entails much work. More than 500 applications must be processed annually. It is necessary to re-appoint most of the existing members every year, firstly because of the knowledge and experience they have gained in their work and from a study of the decisions of the Publications Appeal Board; and, secondly, because it takes some time to train members of committees, especially in the examination of films. For these reasons it is proposed in clause 3 of the Bill that the said list of members of committees of publications shall be compiled every three years instead of annually as at present.

In terms of sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Executive Committee of the S.A. Indian Council shall each annually appoint an advisory committee to advise committees of publications on the exhibition of films referred to them. It is proposed in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill that these advisory committees, too, shall be appointed every three years instead of annually as at present.

Because the list of members of committees of publications and the aforesaid advisory committees have already been appointed for the present one year period, April 1977 to March 1978, it is proposed in clause 25(2) that the amendments proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 5 shall only come into operation on 1 April 1978.

There are a number of amendments proposed in the Bill that concern the decisions of the former Publications Control Board under the repealed Publications and Entertainments Act, 1963. The first of these amendments is contained in clause 6(a) of the Bill whereby it is proposed to delete subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) of section 8(2)(b) of the Act. The said provisions provide that the Publications Act, 1974, shall not apply to the printing and publishing of any matter in any publication of a technical, scientific or professional nature bona fide intended for the advancement of or for use in a particular profession or branch of arts, literature or science or of any matter in any publication of a bona fide religious character. Similar provisions were contained in the former Publications and Entertainments Act, 1963.

A case in point is the publication Naked Yoga. The Appeal Court recently set aside a decision by the former Publications Control Board, that the said publication was undesirable, on the grounds that it did not fall within the provisions of the 1963 Act because it was a publication bona fide intended for use in a particular branch of a science, in this case the science of yoga. The publication was thereupon once again imported into and distributed in South Africa in great quantities. Once again the public complained, at times vehemently, about the distribution of this publication in South Africa because the publication, which contains 46 photographs in colour of two nude women practising yoga, was obviously not used only for the advancement of yoga. It has been reported that the publication is being displayed in bookshops in an offensive manner. In some cases all 46 photographs are displayed in the window. The publication is also advertised and distributed by post to persons who obviously have no interest whatsoever in yoga. It is because of this misuse that is being made of the relevant provisions to import and distribute in South Africa publications professing to be for the advancement of arts, literature or science, or to be of a bona fide religious character, that the deletion of the provisions is proposed in clause 6(a).

Publications which are obviously intended and used for the advancement of arts, literature or science, such as university textbooks, or which are obviously of a bona fide religious character, could hardly be considered to be undesirable in terms of the Act and can therefore be freely imported and distributed in South Africa. And if it so happens that any one of such publications is found to be undesirable by a committee of publications and such publication is bona fide needed for the study of or research in arts, literature, science or religion, application may be made to the Directorate of Publications for an exemption from the provisions of the Publications Act, 1974, which would enable the applicant to import and use the publication.

The insertion in section 8 of the Act of a new subsection (4A) by clause 6(b) is designed to ensure that the decisions of the former Publications Control Board regarding publications that have been found to be undesirable, shall stand and that such publications shall be deemed to be undesirable for purposes of the corresponding provision in the new Publications Act of 1974. Doubt has been expressed whether, without such a specific deeming provision, the declarations by the former board that certain publications are undesirable, are still binding in view of the fact that the former Act was repealed by the Publications Act of 1974.

It was on the strength of this reasoning that the Attorney-General of Transvaal refused to allow the prosecution of persons who distributed publications declared undesirable by the former board. Such specific deeming provision was not regarded necessary when the Publications Act was passed in 1974 because provision was made in section 15 of the Act that publications previously found to be undesirable by the former Publications Control Board may be reviewed after the lapse of two years from the date on which the publications concerned were declared undesirable.

The proposed new section 8(4A) is designed to put the matter beyond all legal doubt. It is provided for in clause 25(1) of the Bill that the proposed new section 8(4A) shall come into operation on 1 April 1975, i.e. the date on which the new Act was put into operation.

Sections 14, 24 and 32 of the Act provide that the Minister may direct the Publications Appeal Board to reconsider any decision of a committee of publications whereby a publication or object, film or public entertainment has been declared to be not undesirable.

These provisions are being applied in cases where it would appear from complaints received from the community that in respect of a particular case the committee of publications concerned may possibly have misjudged the community view. In such cases the Minister directs the Publications Appeal Board to reconsider the publication or object, film or public entertainment in question with a view to deciding whether the publication, etc., is indeed acceptable or not to the community view.

The proposed additions to sections 14, 24 and 32 of the Act by clauses 8, 14 and 17 would enable the Minister to direct the Publications Appeal Board not only to reconsider the decisions of the committees of publications under the present Act, but also to reconsider the decisions of the Publications Control Board under the old Act.

This extension of the Minister’s authority is necessary because it often happens that publications or objects, films and public entertainments which were declared not undesirable by the former board, are reissued. Some of these publications then raise a protest from the community about which nothing can be done because there is no authority for the reconsideration of the publication, etc.

A further motivation for the extension of the Minister’s authority in this regard is the fact that the community view is changing. It is for this very reason that publications, previously found to be undesirable, may be reviewed after a lapse of two years from the date of such decision because the community may no longer view a particular publication, etc. as undesirable.

In like manner the community may after a lapse of time view a publication as undesirable which before may have been regarded as not undesirable.

You are not serious?

Why must we only move in one direction all the time? Surely there are two directions in which we can move? It is for this reason that the Minister should be able to ask the Publications Appeal Board to examine a publication, etc. if there is at any point of time an outcry against it. That we shall do.

A number of amendments proposed in the Bill affect the procedures followed under the Act in respect of publications or objects, films and public entertainments.

The first of these amendments is contained in clause 7 of the Bill whereby section 12 of the Act is amended to provide that the reasons for a committee’s decision in respect of a publication or object may also be furnished to any person who has a direct financial interest in that publication or object.

This amendment is necessary because section 13 provides that any person who has a direct financial interest in a publication that has been declared undesirable, may appeal against that decision.

The appellant in such a case needs the reasons of the committee of publications for its decision to enable him to appeal against that decision. Although appellants have in the past been furnished with the reasons of committees in such cases, there is in fact no clear legal authority for this procedure.

Any person may in terms of sections 15, 25 and 33 apply for the review of a publication or object, film or public entertainment that was previously declared to be undesirable. There is however no specific provision in sections 15 and 33 for furnishing the reasons for a committee’s decision on review to the applicant who submitted the relevant publication or object or public entertainment for review. In the case of films such reasons may only be furnished to the applicant who submitted a film for review if his application was refused, or if the relevant film was approved subject to conditions. The amendments proposed in clauses 9, 15(c) and 18 are designed to overcome these shortcomings in the Act.

There are a number of amendments proposed in the Bill which concern the examination and certification of films.

Amongst the conditions that a committee of publications may impose on the exhibition of films are the following age restrictions—

1. (a) children in the age group of four to 12 years unless they are accompanied by a person or persons who are 18 years of age or older; and
2. (b) children in the age group of four to 18 years.

Children in these age groups may be prohibited to view a film. A number of psychiatrists have indicated that at the tender age of three years children are already able to observe violent and awesome scenes in films and such scenes can be harmful for the child’s mind.

In a number of its decisions the Publications Appeal Board expressed the opinion that the mental capacities of children should not be underestimated and that at the age of ten years they are already able to digest in their own minds the dialogue and scenes in films. In a number of appeals the Publications Appeal Board therefore removed the age restrictions imposed by the committees on the relevant films. It is for these reasons that it is proposed, in clause 12, that the aforementioned age restrictions be reduced to—

1. (a) children in the age group of two to ten years, unless accompanied by a person who is 18 years of age or older; and
2. (b) children in the age group of two to 18 years.

The Publications Appeal Board interpreted section 25(5) of the Act to mean that on appeal the appeal board may only decide upon the deletion or retention of an excision or age restriction imposed by a committee in respect of a film, and that it may not in its examination of the film order any other excision or age restriction, however necessary it may consider this to be. The position is therefore that notwithstanding—

1. (a) that the purpose of the Act is to prevent the dissemination of undesirabilities in South Africa in publications, films and public entertainments;
2. (b) that the Publications Appeal Board is the final arbitrator as to what is undesirable or not; and
3. (c) that it is a basic principle that all laws must in their application serve the public interest,

the appeal board does not have the authority to order the excision of any undesirability in a film missed by a committee of publications, or to impose a more suitable age restriction.

By the proposed amendment of section 23(5) of the Act, by clause 13(a), the Publications Appeal Board will be able to impose conditions other than those appealed against. It should be noted that in such cases the appeal board may not reject a film, this being contrary to the interests of the appellant.

Section 25(5) of the Act dealing with the review of films was interpreted on the same lines, namely that in the case of an application under this section for the deletion of a condition or conditions subject to which a film was approved, the committee of publications may only decide upon the deletion or retention of the condition or conditions in question and may not order excisions or impose another age restriction, even if it could thereby in the interests of the applicant approve his application for the deletion of a condition.

For the same reasons as stated above in the case of appeals, it is proposed in clause 15(b) that committees of publications be authorized in the case of applications for the review of the conditions subject to which a film was previously approved, to impose other conditions. Here again, it should be noted that in the case of such applications the relevant film may not be rejected.

When an applicant submits a film which was previously conditionally approved, for review, he is obliged by section 25(4) of the Act to submit the certificate that was originally issued in respect of that film. This requirement is unnecessary because the information contained in the certificate is available in the records of the Directorate of Publications and can be made available to the committee which has been appointed to consider the relevant application. Clause 15(a) is designed to remove this requirement.

The police report that some home movie dealers hire out films in holders on which the name of a film appears that is different from the name of the film contained in the holder. In this way films that have been rejected or not examined, in some cases pornographic films, are hired out and the police are misled as to the real contents of the relevant holder.

The proposed amendment of section 29(5), by clause 16 of the Bill, will help the police in combating this evil because home movie dealers will be obliged by the amended section to display on holders the names of the films they contain fully and correctly.

Doubt has been expressed whether amounts may be prescribed for the issue of copies of certificates, because the enabling section 44(1)(e) does not specifically mention the word “certificate”. By clause 23 this omission is supplemented in the said section.

*There are a few new principles which are being proposed by the Bill for insertion into the Act. It sometimes happens that remarks are made about matters being considered by the directorate or by committees, and that such remarks are published in newspapers. Remarks such as “the committee would be crazy if it banned the book”, etc., have appeared in newspapers from time to time while the book was being considered by the specific committee. After such remarks, sometimes made by prominent persons, it is almost impossible for a committee to remain absolutely objective in examining a publication.

For this reason, it is being proposed in clause 20 that a new section 37A be inserted into the Act to provide that no person shall prejudice, influence or anticipate any decision of the directorate or any committee. This provision is only applicable when a publication or object, film or public entertainment has been submitted to the Directorate of Publications for examination by a committee of publications, and does not apply when a publication, etc., has not yet been submitted for examination.

How is the public to know that?

It is known.

Clause 21 inserts two new sections 42A and 42B and new principles into the Act. The new section 42A is to the effect that if any edition of a periodical publication has been declared undesirable, the number of copies of such edition shall not be taken into account for the purposes of fixing the amount payable to the publisher or owner of that publication in respect of the publication of anything, such as advertisements, in any subsequent issue of that periodical publication which has been declared undesirable.

The motivation for this new section is that in determining the tariffs for the placing of advertisements in periodical publications, the circulation figure of the periodical concerned for a specific period is taken into consideration and is reviewed from time to time on the same basis. It is not justifiable that a publisher who has produced and distributed an undesirable edition of a periodical publication should derive financial advantage from it in this way. It is in order to combat this abuse more effectively that the proposed new section 42A is being inserted into the Act. The fine that can be imposed for the production and distribution of an undesirable publication is not a sufficient deterrent compared to the financial advantage to be derived from it.

The new section 42B which is being inserted into the Act by clause 21 provides that it shall be an offence to publish in any publication any advertisement which relates to anything which in terms of the decision of a committee is undesirable. This provision is necessary in order to combat the practice of advertising in South African media the presentation in neighbouring states of, for example, a public entertainment which has been declared undesirable and banned in South Africa. The motivation, as in the case of the new section 42A, is that publishers should not be allowed to derive financial advantage from anything which has been declared undesirable in terms of the Act.

Section 43 of the Act provides for the penalties which may be imposed in respect of offences under the Act. Because the insertion of the new sections 37A, 42A and 42B into the Act by clauses 20 and 21 respectively has created new offences under the Act, the penalty provisions of the Act must be supplemented as proposed in clause 22. Subsections (1) and (2) of section 43 of the Act contain penalty provisions in respect of major and minor offences, respectively, in terms of the Act. This is the reason for the respective insertions of sections 42A and 42B—the major offences—into subsection 43(1) and of section 37A—the minor offences—into subsection 43(2).

The amendments proposed in clauses 10 and 24 of the Bill are related to the Newspaper Bill which has in the meantime been withdrawn. For this reason, the deletion of these two clauses will be proposed in the Committee Stage of the Bill.

In the light of the fact that the amendments to the Publications Act that are being proposed in the Bill are designed to improve and supplement the procedures provided for in the Act, and that the small number of new principles which are being proposed for insertion into the Act are intended to prevent the producers of undesirable material from deriving unfair financial advantage from it, I trust that the House will be prepared to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hope the hon. the Minister expressed in his concluding remarks was expressed with his tongue in cheek. Let me assure him immediately that that hope will not be fulfilled so far as this side of the House is concerned, because this measure does not have our support and will not have it at the Second Reading. Admittedly, the measure introduces certain improvements—for instance, the fact that reasons must be given for decisions taken—but the improvements are so minimal that they certainly do not eradicate the objections we had to the provisions contained in the original Act.

The whole tenor of this Bill is to extend the office of the directorate into some more expansive complaints bureau to receive complaints from the public at large so that the hon. the Minister and the directorate can busy themselves investigating those complaints.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. I shall deal with it. The hon. the Minister knows full well that when the original Act was introduced as a result of a commission report, the powers under which he could institute investigations, lodge appeals and so on, were circumscribed. So, too, the powers of the director to initiate actions were circumscribed. In this Bill we find an extension of the very powers which were recommended to be so circumscribed by the commission whose report led to the original Act being introduced in 1974. The hon. the Minister said at the time when he was trying to excuse it, the 1974 Act had the object that the people themselves should control their publications.

That is right.

The machinery the people were to use in exercising that control was to be introduced in the 1974 Act. I warned in the debate at that time that the machinery was impractical and would lead to chaos in that it would inhibit literary endeavour and frustrate the arts in this country.

How wrong you were!

The machinery so established has been most active. What we feared that legislation would cause, has in fact happened. The hon. the Minister must be far removed from the realities of the literary and art circles in this country of ours if he feels there is joy, happiness and complete satisfaction at the way in which publications are controlled at the present time. We also indicated at the time that the present Act would lead to a further and more extensive application of restrictive measures so far as the publications in South Africa are concerned. Again we have been proved correct. In the period between April 1975 and 31 December 1976 more than 2 400 publications have been restricted and banned. That is very nearly double the number of publications restricted in the previous period under the 1963 Act. Apparently, the speed and scope of this activity did not satisfy the hon. the Minister as a result of which we now have this Bill before us with its objectionable provisions with which I shall deal.

We have said, and I want to repeat, that the way to deal with objectionable publications which offend in being blasphemous, subversive, pornographic, seditious and subversive to good order, is to do it through the courts of law by way of prosecutions. I want to repeat that the only effective way to do this is by means of a prosecution with a fine, a second prosecution with a heavier fine and so on. What are we doing at present? Publishers have publications or books banned. Up comes the next one and they try again.

I want to recall the attitude we adopted in 1974 so that there is no query as to our attitude in regard to the question of pornographic or undesirable publications. Mr. Speaker, with your permission I want to repeat what I said in August 1974 (Hansard, 12 August 1974, col. 494)—

The hon. the Minister must realize that what is happening at the present moment is that a good deal of the activities relating to the control of publications is not being effectively directed towards the stopping of the spread of pornographic literature in profusion, but is being directed towards expensive publications, expensive books, which are read by a limited number of people, but then regarded as being easily accessible to the public at large. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would, and whether he would if he has not, walk into one of these small cafes—as he referred to them—and would look at what is exposed on their counters in the way of books, paperbacks. No amount of operation under the Publications Act will stop that sort of distribution. What will stop it, is that the proprietor of that shop be taken by the scruff of the neck to the court and charged with publishing pornographic literature and be heavily fined. He will then soon put an end to displaying that sort of literature in his shop. But it then becomes a decision by the court.

Now we have the hon. the Minister coming before us today with this particular measure, and I wish to deal with some of the provisions to show how ludicrous the position is. Let me first of all deal with the status of the director himself. The hon. the Minister has said, correctly, that the directorate can be reduced in numbers. He says the quorum can be two. The director himself has a casting vote. What we are doing in effect is that by bringing it to two the director is now the man in charge and directs the whole works. That is the sort of thing which is happening. The matter is clouded and cloaked so that it appears as if there is a quorum sitting and that there will be a full discussion while in actual fact the director is one of them and has a casting vote. This type of thing becomes inherent in this type of legislation.

Let us consider the next point. The hon. the Minister suggests that it may be necessary to open a film-viewing centre in the Transvaal, in Johannesburg. This is quite a reasonable suggestion. So why not transfer it there? However, what we have in the Bill before us, is that the Minister can open offices, sub-offices, the very thing which he said the Act in 1974 was against. There will now be a proliferation of offices of this department throughout the Republic in terms of the amendment incorporated in this Bill.

You are seeing ghosts!

I hope the hon. member for Mossel Bay will tell me that I can read the clause in another way, where it now states that offices and sub-offices may be created at will anywhere.

The next matter with which I would like to deal is contained in clause 2. The new subsection (2) of section 3 provides—

This, again, is breaking down the whole basis of the 1974 Act. The whole basis of the 1974 Act was that we would have continuity within certain groups of people from whom there could come some guide or standard for the public at large to be able to judge how these publications were considered. This, again, is more power in the hands of the director.

The next clause to which I should like to refer is clause 6. The hon. the Minister gives as an explanation that because the Yoga book was ruled to be a scientific publication, it justifies his repealing one of the very safeguards which—limited as it is—is contained in the Act at the present time, namely the deletion in section 8 of the Act of subparagraphs (3) and (4) of subsection 2(b).

What is the present position with regard to the provisions of section 8(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Act? The provisions of this section deal with the production, distribution, importation or possession of certain publications or objects prohibited. Section 8(2) says—

What the hon. the Minister now says is that these books which are basic to the sciences, to the arts and to literature—which are not cheap publications—are all to become subjected to the decision and the approach which might result out of somebody complaining to the hon. the Minister and saying, for instance, there is something obscene on page 1200 of such a book.

But that is the case now.

No, it is not. That book is now not subject to the Publications Board at all. It is not subject to the Publications Act. How it can be suggested that the publication of any matter of a bona fide religious character should be made subject to the Publications Act, is beyond me. It is absolutely beyond me and I hope the hon. the Minister will give the House some explanation as to why that should be so.

Clause 8 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 14 of the Act, is one which, I believe, is wrong. I believe the principle is wrong, and I want to quote what the hon. the Minister himself had to say in this regard. I want to remind him of what he said and I want him to understand why I take up this attitude in regard to clause 8 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister indicated that it was necessary for him to be able to take action because of people who might feel that the decision of a local committee was wrong and that they wanted somebody to be able to take action in appeals.

Therefore the hon. the Minister is going to be there—as I said at the beginning of my speech—as a sort of glorified complaints office. If anybody at large, and the public at large, feels that the committee has passed something which should not have been approved, the Minister will take up the complaint and refer the matter back for further action in terms of this legislation.

That is the case now.

Yes, but now the hon. the Minister goes further. He is now taking unto himself the power to have matters which were approved under the old Act, referred back for appeal.

On complaints from the public.

Yes, on complaints from the public. That is exactly what I have said. Let us now take this position. Can the hon. the Minister really believe that he should seriously apply himself to a decision taken before April 1975, when somebody comes to him in 1977 or even in 1978, and says these people were wrong back in 1973 or 1974?

In this case there has been a reissue.

Yes, very well. The hon. the Minister knows that there has been an approval. The book is there, and has been in circulation. After all, if it is a reissue, it must have been fairly extensively read and published for it to have a second edition. If there is a further edition or a republication it must have been fairly widely read. Now the hon. the Minister is going to involve himself in a decision as antiquated as that which, during this time, has not corrupted the public of South Africa. That is the sort of attitude which is creeping back into the legislation before us. It happens every time that we have another of these Bills introduced.

There is something else I want to ask the hon. the Minister. He made an interesting observation in regard to the proposed clauses dealing with the NPU. Will a registered newspaper, when the proprietor is not a member of the NPU, become subject to control under the Publications Act? Will any newspaper published in South Africa by somebody who is not a member of the NPU be subject to the provisions of the Publications Act? Is that the position?

That is so.

So that is the position the hon. the Minister wishes to revert to. The newspapers in that category will have to have regard to their status.

I want to refer to the extraordinary provision about the protection of the Publications Appeal Board from influences and so on which might affect it in coming to its decision. I was rather interested to read in the report of the Publications Appeal Board and of the Directorate of Publications the extraordinary interpretation that can be placed on words which are not in themselves clear. I refer to the attitude of the members of the Appeal Board as to what the hon. the Minister wants to put into the particular Bill now. On page 3 of the report it is stated—

That is for the board to consider—

The Minister is now placed in a position that he is an appellant, because it is he who is directing the matter to the Appeal Board. However, if he puts his reasons before the Appeal Board as to why he thinks they should investigate the matter the board will regard that as an action which is directed towards influence. What does that mean? Is there any reason whatsoever why the members of a board of this nature should have more protection and a higher status in so far as outside comment and influence is concerned than the Supreme Court has? That is what the hon. the Minister is doing. One has only to look at any action which takes place in preludes to criminal cases before the Supreme Court and the extent of comment that takes place. There are comments about company transactions and about the necessity of prosecution. The judges of the Supreme Court are not influenced by comment of that sort. Why must it suddenly be assumed that the chairman of the Publications Appeal Board is going to be so easily influenced by comment as to what action he should or should not take?

On what clause are you speaking?

The clause that I am referring to is clause 20 which proposes a new section 37A(1) which reads—

That has nothing to do with the Appeal Board.

I am coming to that. [Interjections.] I have shown to the hon. the Minister the interpretation which is placed on a similar provision in so far as the Appeal Board itself is concerned. That is an interpretation which places the Appeal Board in a more sacrosanct position than a court of law. Now the hon. the Minister wants to have that same position extended to the directorate and the committees. That is what clause 20 of the Bill implies.

The whole motive of the legislation as stated by the hon. the Minister in 1974 was that the people should judge their own publications. Now, when there is a voice from the people expressing an opinion on a matter which is to go before the directorate or a committee, that voice must be silenced. The critics must not be heard. The critiques of books published overseas must not be published in South African papers because they will be influencing or attempting to influence the committee and the directorate. The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways.

That is only while it is being considered.

When does one know it is being considered in any case? Who knows?

Any informed person will know.

It is very difficult to be informed, no matter in what circles one moves, when one sees that nearly 9 000 publications were submitted over a period of just over two years to this board. It takes one enough time to try to keep control over those that have been published in the Gazette as prohibited. It is surely a ridiculous situation that there must be this stony silence because a book has been imported which may well be in the hands of a committee or the directorate. I think the hon. the Minister must realize—as he has with some other legislation which falls under his portfolio—that there are certain things in life that one cannot regulate by laws. One has to set standards and those people who do not comply with them must be dealt with by the courts. Once one removes that in the case of a matter affecting a man’s career, business, or financial interests and one places it in the hands of a bureaucratic body, there are interminable problems to try to make effective what never can be effective. It is for those reasons that we oppose this Bill. Other hon. members on this side of the House will elaborate on other aspects of our reasons for our opposition to this Bill. We certainly cannot support it at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously did not have enough objections to this Bill and thought it necessary once again to drag in the principle which has already been discussed and which was accepted in 1974 in the case of the existing Act, with the argument that we should rather take the matter to the courts. I shall refrain from doing so and begin by attempting to reply very briefly to the specific points of criticism which he raised. He began with a very sweeping statement and all his other statements were of a like nature. Once again he tried to conjure up spectres and to tell the public outside that we were making even greater inroads into freedom of speech and that individual freedom is being undermined even more by large-scale extension of the existing system aimed at in this Bill. He said that the powers of the directorate were being extended a great deal. However, he failed to advance a single argument upon which he could base such a statement. In this Bill there is no amendment whatsoever of the functions and duties entrusted to the directorate. The only provisions concerning the directorate are to the effect that their place of office can now be arranged differently and that the quorum is reduced from three to two. That is all. Their functions remain the same and I think that for the sake of the record I must repeat what those functions are. This directorate has no decision-making function. It cannot ban a publication, film or book. It is only an administrative organ, an organ which acts in connection with the composition of committees. It is the committees that take decisions. The directorate acts in connection with the administrative aspect of appeals. It is the appeal board which takes decisions, and the function of the directorate closest to decision-making, is that it too has the right to appeal. If we look at the statistics, we shall see that since this Act came into effect, the directorate has exercised this right, often in favour of admitting a publication in a case where a committee banned a publication and the board appealed against that decision so that that publication could be legalized. They look at both sides of the matter and their powers are like a double-edged sword, viz. by means of an appeal to the appeal board to select, on the one hand, those things which a committee lets through and which in the opinion of the directorate should not be let through, and on the other hand to allow those things which a committee wants to disallow unnecessarily and which in the opinion of the directorate should be read and published. It is the appeal board which has to take the decision in this connection and not the directorate. The argument that because the quorum has been reduced to two, this constitutes a tremendous extention of the functions of the directorate, is not worthy of the hon. member’s experience and intelligence. [Interjections.]

As regards the repeal of subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) of subsection (2)(b) as set out in clause 6 of the Bill, the hon. member alleges that in future every scientific work will be banned if a naked woman appears in it or if a breast or anything similar appears in it. Of course this is absolutely nonsense. The committees function as always and apply the norms, as laid down in the Bill, as they have always done. At the moment anyone is free to submit any scientific work and the committee must consider it, because the appeal board has developed a sufficient norms.

A pattern has been developed by means of a network of decisions so that there is no question of a purely bona fide scientific work, which is presented as such being affected by the legislation. When science is abused for financial gain or where a book is marketed under the cloak of science, while it is sold by people who do not give two pins for its scientific value, it is another matter entirely. If this type of circumvention does not take place, every publisher of scientific works can rest assured that no amendment contained in the Bill will have any negative effect whatsoever on his right to publish. A spectre is now being conjured up in this connection and we must put it very clearly that authors and scholars who publish scientific works, need have no fear that, as a result of the repeal, there will be a clampdown and that there will be snooping in all kinds of scientific works in order to inhibit science or to exert a far-reaching influence upon it.

Thirdly, the hon. member said that the power which the Bill seeks to vest in the Minister to refer decisions taken two years previously to the appeal board for consideration when he receives complaints from the public, amounts the vesting of immense powers in the Minister, and also the extending of the scope of the principal Act by means of the Bill before the House at the moment. However, the power has always existed and the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out by means of an interjection that a book which is presented quite innocently now, can be presented in a new edition with the addition of all sorts of photographs etc and that it may be a totally new publication, although the book may appear under the same title, the wording may be the same and it may be written by the same writer. It is to plug this type of loophole …

The existing law is strong enough to cope with this.

What the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Sandton simply do not want to realize, is that the publication of pornography, for example, is a paying concern and that there are certain forces at work that are always trying to find loopholes by which to make money from pornography [Interjections.] The various powers are there, but there are no powers with regard to decisions taken before the new legislation came into operation. The hon. the Minister mentioned the example of a publication which was declared undesirable before the legislation was made applicable, and is now being distributed.

Why do you repeal the religious and scientific aspects?

Because the rest of the Bill and the decisions of the appeal board give absolute protection to bona fide works concerning religion and science. Therefore there is no risk that other decisions will be given.

As regards clause 20 which provides that there can be creation of an atmosphere in advance concerning the decision of a committee before it has given its decision, the hon. member is trying to link it to a sinister ulterior motive as if—to return to their old arguments—we are once again forcing decisions back into backrooms so that the public may have nothing more to do with them, whereas we originally argued that this was a Bill in terms of which the public had a particular role to fulfil. In this sphere, too, there are people who create an atmosphere in advance, within the framework of the legislation as it is at the moment without the amendments envisaged by the Bill, especially when a publisher knows that he is going to publish something very risky, in order to anticipate a possible future committee decision. When a man wants to place a book with a dubious content on the market, then as the Act reads without the amendment, it would be technically possible for him to maintain, through channels which may be put at his disposal, that a complaint against the book emanates from the narrow-minded section of the population. Then, when the complaint arises, he can argue that the committee should not take any notice of the narrow-minded section of the population because the book has a special value and they would be ridiculous to take any note of the complaint. The clause is added in order to prevent the anticipation of decisions in that way. It has nothing to do with the question of criticism, because the right to criticize decisions of committees and the appeal board has already been established. I can quote from a recent decision of the appeal board. According to the report before me the following was said about this decision—

This refers to criticism concerning the existing systems. Nor is there any limit at all to the right of criticism of findings. However, it is the influencing which is done beforehand which this Bill seeks to prevent and it is an extension of the same principle which is applied to the appeal board. The speech of the hon. member and the weak arguments which he raised, are an indication to me that the words which they used during the debate of 1974, will catch up with them. That is why the hon. member hastened to quote his statements from the debate of 1974, before we did so, his statements that the machinery was impractical and would result in chaos. In column 49 of Hansard (Hansard, Vol. 50) he asked whether the House with any sense of responsibility could approve of legislation which was so blatantly unenforceable. After all, he knows that it has become apparent over the past two years that the present Act functions much better in practice than the previous Act did. In the two years in which this Act has been applied, it definitely has not given rise to the creation of this immense machinery which they predicted in the debate at that time. His hon. colleague, the hon. member for Von Brandis, said that the whole scheme was mind-boggling and that it would be impossible for qualified people to have sufficient time to do this work properly. Nevertheless the work has been done and it is being done without fuss. It is being done so effectively that the hon. the Minister can say that he can manage with one fewer member in the directorate. This is instead of the immense machinery which they predicted. The hon. member for Durban Central, who is not here at the moment, said that we would have thousands of super snoopers who would go around the country snooping around at all sorts of things. He said that we would have a sort of inquisition for publications. Where is it? What author of any stature feels in any way threatened? A moment ago the hon. member said that there was some inhibition to be detected amongst our people. I know of no inhibition to be detected in any artists except those who are misinformed about the Act or those who are so close to the bounds of decency that they know they are going to clash with the Act. The latter do not agree with the moral philosophy on which the Bill is based. I want to mention an example to the hon. member. During the recess a very respected man of letters said in a speech to a ladies’ club in Johannesburg, that in terms of the Publication Act, serious scientific works, works on theological subjects, for example, and picture-stories for children are judged according to exactly the same norms. This is an absolute misrepresentation due to a complete lack of knowledge. The people to whom the hon. member is referring, who are afraid that this Bill will impinge upon their freedom to publish and their right to write what they feel, are people who have been frightened by all the terrible insinuations ascribed to us, whereas all we want to do is keep the country clean and decent and safe against the infiltration of all kinds of wrong influences.

Another hon. member who made such great predictions at that time about how the Act would undermine our whole system, was the hon. member for Durban Central. He said—

Today we have a report by the hon. the Minister to the effect that the directorate functions so well that he could streamline it further. The same hon. member also said—

After two years we can testify that the people at our congresses and in our constituencies, where we are in contact with our voters, are quite satisfied with this legislation, and with its effective application in particular. Those who are interested in the arts, too, and who are seriously concerned about them, can freely testify that this legislation has not inhibited the production of good work in South Africa at all.

If with a view to all these predictions we test the legislation in practice, we see that the directorate gets its work done with ease, in contrast to the predictions which were made, that the committees and the advisory committees function outstandingly and that the three-leg system is a great success and a great improvement on the old system. We see that the decentralization of panels and committees throughout the country, which was criticized at that time as an uncontrollable bureaucratic monster, is working very well because there may be certain differences in feeling on a regional basis. How that party, which pleaded for decentralization to the municipal level in regard to the banning of the presentation of films on Sundays, can now say that the fact that this legislation will authorize a second or perhaps a third office of the directorate, can lead to chaos, is quite beyond me. After all, they said that every municipality should decide which films it was going to allow and which not and whether it would allow them on Sunday or not. No, it is apparent from this Bill that the present legislation is being complemented in a positive position. That is the purpose. The purpose is not to create new bottle-necks and bring about extreme entanglement, as the hon. member tried to make out.

Looking at the Bill itself, I can state with conviction that it is complementary in a positive way. I want to mention a few examples. In the first instance, it aims at greater effectiveness and streamlining by eliminating red tape. For instance, a panel no longer has to be appointed every year. It only has to be done every three years, because it has been found that a period of three years is practical and eliminates a great deal of administrative work. The decentralization, which the hon. member mentioned as a negative point, is a sound development. It saves costs in these times, since films no longer have to be conveyed up and down from Jan Smuts to Cape Town and back again. Therefore in this way we can save costs in this regard too by applying decentralization effectively. Secondly, we are extending the procedure here since many more people will now be entitled to request reasons for the decisions of committees. Anyone with a valid interest will be able to approach the directorate for reasons after a committee has given a decision. Then he will receive the reasons in writing and this will enable him to determine his position and to decide whether he wants to appeal or not. A third positive factor is the right which the directorate receives to obtain outside advice. The hon. member also saw this as a negative factor. The directorate has a function inter alia of deciding whether it is going to appeal against a committee’s decision or not. Of course the directorate is not infallible. Sometimes they have to decide on matters which are of an entirely technical nature. Giving them the power to make use of advice enables them to improve the quality of their administrative decisions. As soon as a matter becomes at all technical or involved, and they feel that they could make good use of outside advice, they have the right to obtain that advice so that their decision will be more well-founded as a result of the advice they obtain.

As regards films, the appeal board is now also being given the right to make certain cuts etc. This will mean a very much more flexible handling of film appeals. The provisions of clause 12 of the Bill will enable the appeal board to help the film distributors in certain cases and in other cases to ensure the logical application of the norms of the Act. Finally, the expansion of the appeal board will ensure more rapid decisions because there will almost always be sufficient members available to arrange a sitting of the appeal board. It will also entail a greater variety of knowledge in the panel of appeal board members. The chairman will be able to rely on this when he appoints a board concerning a particular matter. I certainly do not wish to intimate thereby that the knowledge of the existing appeal board is not sufficient. It is just that none of us, nor anyone else, can be an expert on everything. Whereas the number of experts on the appeal board is now being doubled, this must lead to improved standards, in respect of the knowledge and advice available too.

In view of these positive aspects and in view of the fact that the criticism is absolutely transparent, I do not have any doubt in my mind about supporting the Bill. I want to allege that I think it will ensure that it will be possible to apply the legislation more effectively while it will in no way derogate from the fairness inherent in the Act or the justice of the existing system. It does not make any inroads on the rights of anyone who strives for decency and normal average moral standards in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the contribution of the hon. member for Vereeniging to this debate is on the basis that he believes that the Bill makes a positive contribution to the better working of the machinery of the Act. He commends the fact that the hon. the Minister has proposed in the Bill certain technical improvements such as compiling a roll every three years; increasing the number of those available to the appeal board; decentralizing to enable films to be reviewed and shown at different centres instead of this being confined only to Cape Town as the Act provides. These technical improvements, which are the result of practical experience, may well be positive improvements. These are possibly matters which the directorate suggested to the hon. the Minister in order to make the workings of this machinery a little easier or more comfortable. Whether that suggestion is a positive recommendation to improve the general situation under the Act and is of any value, I cannot see. The only other contribution which the hon. member made was to decry the remarks of the hon. member for Green Point to the effect that the hon. member for Green Point was merely maintaining that this Bill was a Bill which would tighten the control and frighten the public that control would be tightened and that the directorate wanted to expand its activities and incorporate as much control under its wing as possible. That, he says, is a negative approach. If I may be permitted, with respect to the hon. member for Vereeniging, I would like to say to him that his contribution in support of the Bill is completely negative, because he has said nothing at all to support any of the matters which are the crux of the Bill, viz. the provisions with which the hon. member for Green Point dealt and with which I shall deal now.

The first matter I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that if one wishes to look for this particular Act in the statutes and one looks under titles, one finds it listed under “Censorship” and this particular amending Bill is perhaps the worst example of censorship which one can find. The Act itself was bad enough. It prompted this side of the House to move that the Bill be read this day six months, which is perhaps the most severe condemnation that this side of the House could express. This particular Bill goes even further and makes censorship in this modern age a complete mockery.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to particularly clause 6 of the Bill. In this clause he takes away something which constituted a little glimmer in the Act itself, whereby books of a religious nature, books of a bona fide scientific value and literary value, particularly books and publications which are of value to universities, to students and to those who prepare textbooks, etc., are exempted. These are technical matters and it is not becoming to have to deal with every one of these publications in detail, because, normally, a publication can only be dealt with when a complaint is received from the public itself. But now even that provision is being taken out and placed under censorship. We might even reach the stage one day, perhaps in a year or two, when the hon. the Minister having had a chance to review the situation and having listened to a few more representations might declare a day for the burning of the books. That might be the meaning of declaring that every publication at any time must be subject to the censorship of the State. That is the worst form of censorship possible. I am not trying to exaggerate the situation. That is the exact feeling which one experiences when one reads clause 6(a), viz. the deletion of subparagraphs (ii) and (iv) of subsection 2(b) of Clause 8 of the Act. Why is it necessary? This is what I cannot understand. Even in the report of the Publications Appeal Board and of the Directorate of Publications, on page 22, it is stated—

It goes on to say, and this is from where I think the hon. the Minister took his cue—

This is another qualification of the words bona fide, another qualification of exemptions. And so this merry business can go on. The stage can be reached where every form of freedom of expression, of thinking, of study and of consideration can be whittled away. Whilst I fully agree that pornography and other forms of obscene literature should be wiped out of our society, wherever we can, at the same time I do not accept that the freedom of expression should be inhibited. I also do not believe that it is necessary to inhibit the right of human beings to be aware of what is going on in this world. This is the vital factor. People have got to know about communism. They have got to know what it means. They have got to know what Marxism means in order to defeat it, in order to take action against it and in order to get an opposing opinion on it. One has to understand what it means and what these people want. One cannot hide it as one did in the old days, like a Mother Grundy hiding everything under a tremendous covering of clothing. People then begin to become inquisitive and begin to think that there are things which really matter. The whole thing is silly. An hon. member just reminds me, perhaps one of the reasons why the hon. the Minister seeks to talk a little bit of “other powers in the East”, is because he has learnt a little of what they express when they talk about communism in some parts of the world, as opposed to soviet Marxism and their form of communism. People have to know what is taking place. More particularly have students got to know what is taking place. I believe the very fact of these restrictions—that, if this is brought under censorship in the criterium of general censorship that exists in the country—is an absolute insult to the intelligence and to the intellectual standard of the people of our country. We have dealt before—it was last year—with the question of norms. In fact, I am very well supported here, when one of the views expressed by the appeal board, says the following. It is an excerpt from page 22, saying the following—

A median. The average point of view. That is what the word “norm” means. I explained that by reading the definition from a dictionary. I believe that we have no right, in dealing with this whole subject, to interfere with this particular aspect. After all, if one takes the Bible … I do not want to impinge what is sacrosanct. I do not want to quote things and then to possibly regret having brought a matter like this into the issue. There are even chapters of the Bible that one does not read to little children. The hon. the Minister is aware of it. There are religious books which give expression to the conception of human existence. Obviously, one does not read it to little children. That is parenteral control. That is the wish of the public. However, that is part of the religious life of the community. One reads that and all sorts of expressions crop up, expressions pertaining to one’s religion and cultural approach and manner of thinking. I think it was Martin Luther who was pilloried for his reading and studying books which he believed mattered in the thinking of those days. We have to be very careful when we come to the question of technical works; and hiding away from the public what we think, and what the hon. the Minister thinks, by his directions to the appeal board, is not good for me and is not good for you. I think that is an arbitrary approach.

That is any way a stupid argument!

The hon. the Minister may think it is a stupid argument, but I want to tell him, with all respect, that I have not heard anything here that is less stupid, if that is stupid. I have heard nothing yet to convince me of anything that is less stupid. I want to go further and to state that this question of closing up all the gaps is what makes me apprehensive about this particular Bill. All the gaps are now closed. The hon. the Minister finds that there are various gaps where the decisions of various committees might possibly be a little bit too liberal for the hon. the Minister. He says himself: “I have to watch how conditions change.” I do not refer to the hon. the Minister in person, but to whoever occupies his office. That is the designated post of the person in charge of this Act. When the Minister, in a year or two, finds a complete change in the thinking of people in the country, he will come to the conclusion that there is a new approach by society and that he therefore must review the previous decisions and direct the appeal board to re-examine them. He will do it because these are decisions in respect of which he is entitled to ask for a review, and in respect of which he is entitled to direct the appeal board to reconsider. It is all very well for the hon. member who spoke before me to merely say that he finds nothing wrong in this Bill, and that he finds positive facts in increasing numbers and in having the venue changed from Cape Town to Johannesburg. For the rest, he says, he finds it excellent. However, he says nothing at all in support of it. I believe that this is an indication of the tight, super-sleuth control which the hon. the Minister of the Interior wants to hold with regard to censorship in this country.

We have a board, a directorate, committees and so many lists which are so difficult to compile that it is better to do it every three years because it saves time. We also have an appeal board headed by a former judge and provision is made for a man well learned in the law. All these things the hon. the Minister has been able to achieve, but despite all that, the hon. the Minister himself must come into the picture on every occasion. In respect of every committee or every directorate that operates the hon. the Minister must come into it with the right to have that decision reviewed by the appeal board. His power is not merely to ask for a review. It is to direct the appeal board to reconsider a decision. His action is not that of reviewing; he issues an edict. That is what it amounts to. I have studied the words of the Bill very carefully. The hon. the Minister has the right to direct the appeal board to reconsider the decision. [Interjections.] The words that are used amount almost to a command, a Royal command. It is a very important aspect in regard to an appeal board which has a quasi judicial standing and which, in fact, the Government has tried to raise to the highest possible level of legal standing. There is no question about that.

You are overstating your case.

I am nor overstating it. The hon. member is entitled to disagree with me as I disagree with him. It is my privilege as well as his. [Interjections.]

I want to point out another extraordinary aspect of the Bill. I hope I am wrong in this respect, but clause 25(3) states that the provisions of section 18 shall commence on 1 April 1980. Clause 18 of the Bill deals with reasons for a decision and states that these reasons shall be given “if requested by that person to do so”. What I think the hon. the Minister really intended was that the provisions of clause 19 should commence on 1 April 1980. If I am correct I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me. In my copy of the Bill it refers to section 18, but I think it must be referring to the wrong clause. I hope the hon. the Minister will look into that.

What clause in the Bill are you referring to?

Clause 25(3) of the Bill refers to section 18, I presume of this Bill when it has become law, unless it refers to section 18 of the Act, but it does not say so. In all other references it talks of the Act, but here it merely refers to “the provisions of section 18”. I am presuming that that refers to the appointment of an additional five people to bring up to a total of 10 those designated by the State President under paragraph (b). If so, it should refer to clause 19. I have made this particular technical point and I, in this case, align myself with the hon. member for Vereeniging. I hope it is a positive point. I tried to put this particular view as positively as I could. [Interjections.]

I do believe that this is not a Bill which we can support at all. I feel that in the present context of reviewing and censorship of publications, we have to try to approach the matter from the point of view of the public. As the hon. the Minister correctly said, it must be looked at from the point of view of the public and not from the point of view of any particular part of the community that one wants to satisfy, because many people have objections to many things. I know, that works of art for instance, are objected to by certain people because they do not like the artists’ conceptions. I have seen plenty of art—as has the hon. the Minister—art which we do not believe means anything. But to artist it means a great deal. To us it means absolutely nothing. The trained eye may see magnificent lines and contours. I do not want to repeat what I have said before, but we are a young country where people have imagination.

We have produced some brilliant playwrights, playwrights who have been condemned in our own country, but have won plaudits and fame in other parts of the world and whose works are now being shown in our own country and who have won acclaim in many parts of the world. For a young country to have exhibitions of sculpture by local artists in the Royal Academy in London is, I believe, a very high achievement for South African artists. We have produced some of the greatest artistic exponents in this young country of ours. However, this particular Bill is going to place a further loodoo upon art. I do not want to frighten the public. I do not think that they are easily frightened, but I do believe that one has to be reasonable in one’s approach to this whole question of censorship. Already we have a law which has tightened up the whole situation considerably. I believe this is a redundant amendment of the Act and that this is a Bill which no one of us on this side of the House can support. We believe it to be completely inconsequential, save in the hands of those who wish to administer it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppe, who has just sat down, did not advance any new arguments of any significance. He merely echoed his master’s voice, in this instance that of the hon. member for Green Point, who has spoken on behalf of the Official Opposition.

*Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate on the Publications Bill on 12 August 1974 the hon. member for Green Point put the standpoint of the UP in respect of the measure. I quote from Hansard (Vol. 50 of 1974, col. 491)—

I think it is important for us to take note of this—

The hon. member for Green Point was obviously and for sound reasons worried about the impression the voters had already received or were about to receive in regard to the UP’s attitude to permissiveness. I think he had good reasons, because during the 1974 election I personally spoke to more than one supporter of the UP and it was put to me unequivocally that they could not but vote for the Government simply because of the strong stand the Government had taken on the question of permissiveness. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that the sort of lip service which he paid to the combating of permissiveness that day, and which he has repeated here today, will not restore their good image in the eyes of the voters as long as they continue to oppose every measure which is necessary to combat permissiveness as they are doing again today.

They have again made pious speeches in this debate on the need to combat pornography, but again they refuse to support the inclusion in the Bill of provisions which will close the loopholes which have come to light in the interim. The hon. member for Jeppe has just put it in so many words. The hon. member said: “The closing of the gaps makes me apprehensive. ’’ What is it that makes the hon. member apprehensive when we are anxious to close the loopholes in existing legislation? It just shows up their approach in regard to this whole matter. One can really not understand the inability of the official Opposition to realize that the voters can no longer be mislead by such an obvious manoeuvre. In terms of section 8 of the principal Act which places a prohibition on the production, distribution, import or possession of certain publications or objects, the printing or publication of works of a technical, scientific or professional nature and intended bona fide for the advancement of or for use in a particular profession or branch of arts, literature or science, as well as of publications of a bona fide religious character, is expressly excluded from the prohibition. However, this exclusion created a loophole which the publishers and distributors of pornography were quick to seize on and exploit. Under the guise of art, science and even religion, the most shocking publications are freely distributed and published in a form and at a price which makes them readily available to the masses but they are certainly not limited to a certain group of artists, the literary fraternity or scientists as the hon. members for Jeppe and Green Point have tried to make out. In the paperback issues of so-called scientific works one finds a host of examples of undesirable literature which can quite simply be obtained by anyone prepared to pay 50 cents for the paperback book. It has therefore become necessary to repeal the general exemption for publications of this nature and to subject them to control as well. It is not because the Government wanted it that way—it was not framed that way originally in the Act—but because those who prey like parasites on the baser inclinations of human beings have made it necessary. In other words, if the hon. Opposition objects to the repeal of this provision they must not direct their reproach to the Government but to the people who have abused the provision as contained in the Act.

Section 37 of the principal Act protects members of the appeal board and the appeal board itself against contempt and prejudice. However, no such protection for members of the directorate and of the various committees is contained in the principal Act. Clause 20 of the Bill now places a prohibition on the prejudicing or influencing or anticipating of decisions of the directorate or of a committee. The hon. member for Green Point makes the assertion that the hon. the Minister wants to afford the same protection to members of the committees and the directorate that is afforded to members of the Publications Board. But that is not true. I should like to refer to the wording of section 37 of the Act, which reads as follows—

Clause 20 of the Bill is in no way consonant with section 37 of the Act. It does not provide the same protection either. There is absolutely nothing in clause 20 …

It goes a bit further.

No, it does not go further.

It goes much further.

It does contain some of the same provisions as section 37, but section 37 goes further and also provides that it shall be an offence to insult members of the board or to belittle them, and that is not included in this clause. If any control system is to function effectively it has to have the confidence of the public. How can a control system enjoy the confidence of the public when the actions of its organs are continually disregarded in the most contemptuous fashion? I personally should have preferred to see the provisions of this clause consonant with those of section 37 so that disparaging comment, such as the examples I have quoted, could be prevented. Because of the time factor I do not want to make these quotations now, and so I leave it at that.

It is an unfortunate fact that there is a great demand today for indecent publications and that pandering to this demand has become an enormously profitable undertaking. It is therefor naïve in the extreme to think that the publishers and distributors of pornography will be deterred by the threat of the imposition of a fine of a few rand of even a few hundred rand. It is also true that the seriousness of the offence is often linked to the extent of the circulation and distribution of the objectionable publication. But it is not always easy or even possible when imposing a prohibition on the distribution, for instance, of a particular issue of a regular publication, to ascertain what the actual extent of the distribution of the publication was or is.

Clause 21 of the Bill makes provision for more realistic fines. The fine is brought into direct line with the extent of the objectionable publication. The greater the circulation of the particular publication, the greater the material harm resulting from the prohibition of the publication without having to determine the actual circulation or distribution of the publication. The prejudicial consequences become effective automatically.

In regard to overseas periodicals especially, instead of a prohibition more often than not being placed on certain issues of a particular periodical I should like to see a total prohibition being placed on the import of all the issues of such a periodical. Why should any welcome be shown a periodical when it is known that issues of that periodical contain offensive material from time to time? After all, prevention is better than later action to repair the harm done.

In the world and time in which we live, which is characterized by the elimination of space and time, it is also not sufficient merely to guard against the undermining of the morals and virtues of our people within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. We cannot allow our people to be led astray within our borders and encouraged to seek forbidden fruit beyond our country’s borders. It has become the practice within the Republic of South Africa to publish advertisements of films and types of entertainment which are forbidden in the Republic but which are shown or offered in one or other of our neighbouring states. In terms of the proposed section 42B these advertisements will now be forbidden. Having regard particularly to our independent homelands and the relatively free traffic between the Republic of South Africa and those states this provision is in my view not only timeous but also essential.

I should like to conclude by replying to the question which the hon. member for Green Point put to me when I told him by way of interjection that he was seeing things. The hon. member alleged that clause 1(b) of the Bill authorized the setting up of offices of the directorate throughout the Republic of South Africa, and then he said that this in fact was the aim of the provision. He then asked me to show how the clause could be otherwise interpreted. But I want to put a counter question to that hon. member. If it is necessary to establish only one single office, for example in Johannesburg—and the hon. member himself conceded that this would be reasonable—how can this be done in terms of the existing Act? Can the hon. member tell me how it can be done in terms of the existing Act? The Act in fact lays down specifically that its seat shall be in Cape Town. In other words, the hon. member says by implication that it is reasonable that there should be an amendment to the Act in this respect. But one has to amend the Act to make provision for one additional office, it has to be amended as presently proposed. I am afraid the hon. member has again been frightened by his own phantoms but I must admit that the phantoms which that hon. member conjures up are enough to give anybody nightmares.

I want to content myself by agreeing with the hon. member for Vereeniging and saying that I have absolutely no qualms of conscience either. I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I hope that the House will accept this measure without much further opposition.

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise us in the least, of course, to hear that the hon. member for Mossel Bay supports this Bill with the greatest confidence. I should have been very surprised if that was not the case. However, he will not be surprised, either, to hear that I oppose this Bill with all the confidence in the world. I hope to be able to indicate, too, why I am doing this. In the meantime I just want to say something to the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He asked why there were objections from this side of the House to the plugging—I believe that is the word he used—of loopholes in the law. I shall tell him why. As far as I am concerned, such plugging means only one thing and that is the tightening up and therefore also, in a certain sense, the extension of censorship, and I am uncompromisingly opposed to that. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will give me an opportunity later on to motivate that argument.

†Besides introducing a few new principles, as the hon. the Minister has told us, basically this Bill before us simply makes a number of alterations to the mechanics of the prevailing system of censorship. We in these benches abhor the whole principle of arbitrary censorship such as is embodied in the legislation we are now being asked to amend. We do not believe in this kind of arbitrary censorship because we believe that the ordinary laws of the land are sufficient to take care of such excesses as do undoubtedly occur. As I have said, we abhor this principle of arbitrary censorship and therefore we find it difficult if not impossible to become excited about changing the mechanics, even them, as in this case, some of the changes are in fact an improvement on the present situation.

Our main criticism of this Bill is simply that in one respect at least it takes the process of censorship even further than the measure it is amending. I refer, of course, to clause 20 which adds a provision to section 37 of the Act which reads at present—

Section 42 has to be read together with that provision. That section reads as follows—

The proposed section 37A contained in clause 20 of the Bill reads as follows—

This in effect bans comment on any publication or film upon which a committee may decide, not so?

For a certain period.

Yes, for a specific period; but it does emphatically ban it. As we have indicated, this already applies in the case of the appeal board, but now it is being extended to the directorate and all its committees all over the country. Once it becomes known that a committee is in fact investigating the desirability of a particular publication, all public discussion of that publication is virtually prohibited. As The Cape Times pointed out at the time of the publication of this legislation, committees all over the country, wherever they are, will therefore be free to make fools of themselves—with great respect, heaven knows they are not above making fools of themselves—while no one will be allowed to say so with any kind of impunity. In other words, what is happening is that a purely subjective issue or question of taste, for instance, will become as sub judice as any matter being heard in a court of law.

How far can we take this process? What is being taken away from the people in this amendment is the basic, democratic right to discuss, let alone to see, what is being withheld on the strength of complaints. Let us not forget either that very often the complaints sent to committees come from a curious set of Mother Grundies. Quite correctly, it has been said that this new provision in effect amounts to double censorship. Not only is the object of the committee’s attention in jeopardy, but any publicized debate on the merits of the case will now automatically be blue-pencilled. How much further can we go in stifling legitimate criticism of matters which are of vital public concern? This really amounts to pulling down the curtain and ushering in what can only be described as a new twilight era in which people can only discuss what the Minister or one of his agencies decides is fit for discussion. This, I submit, is censorship running wild.

Oh, come on.

Sir, with great respect, this is in fact closing up a whole area of public discussion and putting it beyond the law. As a Transvaal writer put it the other day: “One wonders why they bother to make laws at all, since obviously any opinion expressed about the matter of whatever these publications people are considering, could be said to influence the decisions.” That is in fact how far this clause goes. I have a feeling, and I hope hon. members opposite will take some cognizance of this, that this clause which we are discussing now is in fact primarily aimed at the Afrikaans Press.

Nonsense!

The hon. the Minister must please give me an opportunity of explaining why.

But you are talking such nonsense.

I may be talking nonsense, but let me explain to the hon. the Minister why I am talking nonsense. This legislation is aimed at the Afrikaans Press because sections of the Afrikaans Press—and let me put this on record—have been commendably frank, in some ways more frank than their English-language counterparts, in showing themselves to be only too aware of what is at stake in legislation of this nature. They have said so forthrightly, not only Sunday after Sunday, but throughout the week. Is this perhaps what we are getting at? Are we trying to stop that kind of discussion? If it is not, the hon. the Minister must tell us whom he has in view. Whom is he wanting to stop from having this kind of discussion? This is where the most intelligent discussions of this kind of issue have been going on over the last twelve months. If it is not those people he is aiming at, whom is he in fact aiming at? What kind of discussion is he wanting to stop? It must be of some consequence, otherwise he would not have introduced this legislation.

There are other objectionable features in this legislation with which my colleague, the hon. member for Sandton, will deal in due course. This might surprise the hon. the Minister and certainly will surprise some of his backbenchers, but I would like to welcome clauses 7(1) and 18 of this Bill, because they now entitle interested persons to ask for reasons for decisions taken by the directorate or any one of its members. At present, if I understand the position correctly, it is only the appeal board which is obliged to motivate this kind of reasoning. This extension will now at least give those who are affected an indication of the thinking in what I might call censorship circles—which, I am sorry to say, are an ever-increasing group—and act as some kind of guidance for the future. This, I think, is something positive, or to use the modern terminology, this is a plus factor. This, one hopes, will help to build up some body of “laws”, and in that way hopefully, one thinks, will help to bring about a little more uniformity than exists at the moment. As hon. members know, each local committee at the moment goes gaily along using its own standards of judgment and laying down its own norms. This is what is called giving effect to the public will, I gather. No matter what the standards and norms may be which are used in other centres, each committee acts on its own. It is a hopelessly inefficient and arbitrary system in spite of anything that anybody may say to the contrary. The point which I would like to make is that what is really implicit in all this legislation we are looking at the moment, is that it is the system which is at fault. I fear that this amending Bill will do nothing to improve this system of censorship, a system which in the words of the author Mark Swift, “has tom the guts out of our literature”. This is also a “deel van die stem van die volk daarbuite”, or in the words of the Afrikaans author Etienne le Roux, it has made writers “ontsettend bang vir sensuur”. The hon. the Minister told us this afternoon—

*The hon. member for Vereeniging, who is not present at the moment, said: “Die volk is dood tevrede met hierdie Wet.’’ The nation is almost dead as far as literature is concerned! Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to reply to that, and also to reply to the hon. the Minister’s statement.

Order! The hon. member should not digress too much.

No, Sir, but in the past you were good enough to allow one speaker on each side some leeway and to allow them a little scope. I hope you will allow us to reply to the arguments raised against us. I want to reply by pointing out that this Act is not functioning well, as the hon. the Minister maintained. What does a newspaper like Rapport say about the actions of one of the hon. Minister’s committees? The report reads as follows—

I have a fairly good idea where the Government’s failure to appreciate this has landed us, but I will spare you the details, Mr. Speaker. In spite of this, after the very far-reaching judgment of Mr. Justice Snyman recently in the case of Jack Cope’s novel, The Dawn Comes Twice, the situation is in my opinion now very much darker as before, for one reason more than any other. That is that literary merit is now being completely ignored in the judging of a work of art. That is what the hon. the Minister could perhaps have written into this Bill. He could safely have mentioned something about this. We have now finally put literary merit aside. What is going to happen now? What will become of censorship now? Now it is going to be bedlam. The nation might be satisfied, as the hon. member for Vereeniging remarked. However, let us look at what someone like Dr. Ampie Coetzee of Johannesburg has to say—

It is this Act that is being amended now.

… en daar kan geen kompromis wees nie. Die skrywer moet heeltemaal nugter en heeltemal realisties wees. Dit is totale oorlog en die Staat wen altyd. Maar die oorwinning sal nooit soet wees nie.

† A legal man said to me that this decision of Mr. Justice Lammie Snyman was the most serious threat to writers since the Nationalists came into power. [Interjections.] I am prepared to show the hon. the Minister that view. It is a perfectly legitimate legal opinion. The hon. the Minister quoted what was said in 1974. I will not quote what I said at the time. I can recall that I described this legislation as a “gemors”. I have absolutely no reason to change my mind. It remains a “gemors”, it will remain so even after this amending legislation has been put on the Statute Book. I am afraid it will be put on the Statute Book with, unfortunately, the mindless assistance of people who ought to know better. They order people around.

*They bow and scrape. They give orders right and left. It is tragic. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Opposition regards this amending Bill as a godsend, because for almost two years they have not been able to get their teeth into this Act which is now being amended. Now that it is being amended, they can suddenly jump up and once again talk about all aspects of it. They are really relishing in it, as the hon. member for Parktown has proved just now. I refer to certain phrases used by the hon. member for Parktown, such as “tom the guts out of literature” and “a most serious threat to writers”. What absolute emotional nonsense!

That is what writers say. Do you not understand?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown relishes in being able to quote such things, because … [Interjections.] The important thing is that this legislation does not determine any norms whatsoever. This provides merely for amending machinery. Even the previous Act, which was passed three years ago, did not provide norms. It provided the machinery.

The norms are being provided by committees who are representative of decent public opinion. It is the committees and the appeal boards that provide and determine the norms. As far as written comments and comments by people like the hon. members for Parktown, Green Point and others are concerned, they should note that this legislation merely provides machinery. There is not the slightest doubt whatsoever that, the improved machinery instituted by the passing of the principal Act in 1974 and implemented when the Act became applicable on 1 April 1975, has been accepted to a far greater extent by the public and the Press.

*The newspapers, too, alleged quite recently that the method being implemented now and the methods of hearing appeals where reasons must be clearly stated, are much better methods than those applicable under the previous system. The fact that amendments are now necessary to rectify certain loopholes in the present Act, loopholes shown up by practice, is something quite logical and I am actually surprised that the Opposition is again raising Cain to such an extent about the whole principle of the original Act. In reply to certain statements made by the Opposition members, I want to point out that decisions made in terms of the Act, the machinery for which is being amended to some extent by the Bill, are not only in regard to pornography. They also relate to political matters. The hon. member for Green Point and other members indicated that the amending Bill permits of decisions which may perhaps have allowed certain things in the past now being reconsidered. The Opposition tries to ridicule the fact that it is now being made possible for such decisions to be reconsidered. Allow me to use a rather far-fetched example now which, because it is far-fetched, may perhaps indicate clearly to the Opposition that something of this nature is in fact possible. During the period 1939 to 1945 South Africa was involved in a war and one of the allies of South Africa was communist Russia.

That is not sol You do not know your history.

At that time South Africa, together with America, France and Britain, was an ally of Russia. [Interjections.] Allow me to make my point clearly. During that period, from a political point of view, the Government of the day may perhaps have had no reason to prohibit communist literature. Circumstances have, however, changed and now, 30 years later, communist literature is prohibited. So this also applies to decisions taken in the past on the strength of the circumstances prevailing at the time. It is now necessary and desirable for such decisions to be reconsidered—not necessarily definitely, but possibly. I trust, therefore with the example I have mentioned—an example which was specifically far-fetched—that I have been able to explain to the Opposition the principle of the desirability that previous decisions be reconsidered. If the Opposition still cannot see this then I cannot help it because then they are either stupid or completely incapable of understanding anything.

The hon. member for Jeppe made a fervent plea that certain publications of a political nature should not be prohibited. He wanted to know how people would ever learn what communism was if they did not have the opportunity to read that type of literature. That was his point of view. Am I to deduce from that that the hon. member is arguing that political censure should not be enforced and that inflammatory communistic literature should openly be allowed? Am I to deduce from the standpoint of the hon. member that he is actually arguing that that type of literature should be overtly permitted?

Not to be disseminated as propaganda. [Interjections.]

It is clear to me that he is simply trying to satisfy certain people because he can now get up and tell them that he spoke in their favour. He does not impress anyone in this House. He does not impress any of the reliable people in South Africa with this kind of plea.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member entitled to allege that an hon. member of this House is talking to please a certain section of the community only? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Klip River may proceed.

I asked the hon. member a completely legitimate and parliamentary question. If he draws that conclusion, I can only say: If the cap fits, wear it.

No publication which gives a purely scientific interpretation of communism is prohibited for that reason. However, if publications are prohibited because they are of an inflammatory nature and incite violence, it is desirable for us to be able to prohibit such publications in these times. If other publications are not openly inflammatory but are simply subtly subversive of the national spirit and the authority of the government which represents the whole nation and was elected to maintain law and order in the country, it is desirable in such circumstances to make such a revision possible. It really surprised me that the hon. member for Jeppe even went so far as to say that there are certain texts in the Bible which are not meant for children. To my mind the fact that he can become so emotional and say such a thing is absolutely the lowest form of debating.

Reference was made to certain shows or films which were prohibited in South Africa and then advertised in magazines and also in newspapers with great publicity. They have even gone so far that special tours have even been arranged for people to attend these film shows in neighbouring states. I am glad that the proposed section 42B will now be included in the Act to prohibit this. I am also glad that press interviews were arranged and that the Press apparently indicated that they would not publish such advertisements again. This type of action, namely that promoters take such shows or publications prohibited in South Africa just across our borders into a neighbouring state to put them on or sell them there, with great publicity in South Africa, causes severe prejudice to the status of that neighbouring state because it causes that neighbouring state to become a sort of Reeperbahn of South Africa. This lowers the status of that neighbouring state.

What do you know about that?

I do not know as much as the hon. member for Yeoville because I understand that he is quite informed on these things.

You mean you saw me there or did I see you?

No, I did not see him because I was not there. This type of action by promoters and the Press by means of which they contribute to the misuse of the neighbouring states in order to show certain films or plays there, is instrumental in harming the relationship between that specific State and South Africa. That relationship is now being harmed because of the reduced status given to those countries by such promoters. I should like to know from the Opposition, and specifically from the hon. member for Yeoville, whether they would advocate the showing in our neighbouring states, and with great publicity, of films or other shows that were prohibited in South Africa. I should specifically like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he would advocate such a thing. The hon. member has the opportunity to participate in the debate and I want to express the hope that he will in fact do so.

Certain other provisions of a purely technical nature appear in this Bill. I refer, for instance, to the amendment of the age restriction. I should like to point out that the lowering of the age restriction to two years came about because psychological advice was obtained in that regard and it was thought desirable to introduce new age restrictions. Although the principal Act lays down certain age restrictions there is a provision that the committees have the right to make their own classifications in regard to specific age groups or for specific categories of people. In other words, the classifications they make are not restricted to age groups specifically mentioned in the principal Act. To my mind it is a good thing that when it hears an appeal or revises any matter the appeal board should not necessarily be bound by the provisions imposed by a committee. In other words, if the appeal board were of the opinion that a provision laid down by the committee was too strict, the provision would not be abolished completely but the appeal board should in my opinion have the right to impose its own restrictions which may perhaps be less restrictive. This provision is also being included now by way of this amending Bill.

Generally this amending Bill is certainly an improvement because it improved the machinery by means of which the legislation can be effectively enforced. There is no question of other norms being introduced. I want to comment on the fact that hon. members carried on so much about the possibility that decisions in regard to magazines such as Naked Yoga could now be reviewed. In a country such as South Africa where reasonably conservative norms prevail and where committees, the appeal board and the previous machinery which existed deemed it advisable to prohibit Naked Yoga at one stage, it can be accepted that if it were again to be allowed because of a loophole and displayed in every café to be sold and also advertised as a popular type of literature and offered at a price of R2 or R3 in newspapers such as the Sunday Times, there would be a reasonable market for something of that nature among inquisitive people. In countries such as Europe where other norms prevail there will probably not be an exceptional market for a magazine such as Naked Yoga because almost every magazine over there abounds with what we regard as pornographic photographs and verbiage. The norms in those countries are different and I am surprised that the Opposition are appealing for something of this nature to be allowed. I should not like the norms of the countries in Europe to be applied in South Africa. Where a loophole exists which enables a magazine such as Naked Yoga to be sold to the general public as a popular magazine, it is desirable that this be changed in view of the norms of the decent public of South Africa, and that is being done by means of the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened, as usual, with close attention to the hon. member for Klip River because, on occasion, he can be quite amusing. This evening, I am afraid, he filled me not so much with amusement as with fear because he promoted a philosophy which would lead not to less censorship in South Africa and to less State control in the field of the intellect, but to more of it. He wants bureaucratic control to be extended increasingly over the intellectual life of this country. It is quite clear that the hon. member feels that this Bill, and the Act that it amends, do not go far enough. What he would like is a new definition of what is undesirable in terms of the Act.

When did I say that?

I am going to quote what the hon. member said right now. What he wishes to have prohibited as undesirable is what he describes as “iets wat subtile ondermynend van die volksiel en van die owerheid is”, that is to say anything that can be seen as subtly undermining the soul of the people, whatever that may be, and, indeed, the Government of the day. Anything of that kind is an undesirable intellectual activity. This is the only deduction one can make from his words, which I wrote down. He also dealt at some length with the question of a neighbouring State and the danger of allowing them to advertise in South African newspapers the entertainments …

Not them.

… the promoters, then. Very well. Let us presume that the promoters of entertainment in our neighbouring States …

Not in the neighbouring States; in South Africa!

… to advertise in South Africa entertainment which will take place in a neighbouring State.

That is interference in the domestic affairs of other countries!

I do not know whether I will have time to use the simplistic language necessary to make myself entirely clear to the hon. member for Klip River. We are dealing with the advertising of undesirable entertainment. Within a reasonable number of years, if this Government remains in power and carries out its policy, there will be a number of independent States in and around South Africa. The present relationship we have with Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland will be multiplied by four, for instead of having three neighbouring States we will have 12—three plus nine! However many there may be adjoining South Africa and within the borders of South Africa, we will have this large number of States. Because of the nature of the communication links which already exist there will be many control points, many roads and railways intersecting these States, running backwards and forwards between South Africa and these States. How on earth is South Africa going to maintain an Act of this nature with the amendments proposed today, apply it systematically and in an effective and watertight manner when, in fact, we have hundreds of control posts, hundreds of roads intersecting these areas…

What control are you referring to?

I do not know whether I should not take the hon. member aside and talk to him individually because he is having a great deal of difficulty understanding me.

He might understand if you use words of two syllables.

The position is that these States—and I am bringing this news to the hon. member—are going to be independent; it is the policy of his Government. They will therefore have their own laws on publications …

Who wants to control the States?

Oh, belt up!

… and those laws will not be the laws we are discussing today.

Who wants to control those States?

Therefore those infinitely accessible States will, in fact, be administrating laws different from this one, and how on earth are we going to keep the purity of our own people in terms of the concepts of this publications legislation when, all around and within us, there will be other countries with free access, maintaining other laws, other standards and other norms? That is something I should like the hon. member to reflect upon. I shall now refer back to the time when we considered the Act which is now being amended. I had something to say about it then which I believe we are receiving proof of today. I said then—

Just by way of illustration I should like to refer to what has happened in the field of literature. I am not referring to commonplace literature but to literature of quality. Recently there have been published …

Order! The hon. member must not discuss the administration or maladministration of the principle Act.

Very well, Sir. What I wish to discuss with your permission, Sir, …

The hon. member may do so only in the light of the clauses of the Bill.

I shall observe your injunction, Sir. What I am trying to show, perhaps in too expanded a manner, is that the legislation we have before us today is, in fact, evidence of what was predicted some two-and-a-half or three years ago when the original legislation was brought before us. We said then that that legislation could not be effective, that it could not be competent to do what it purported to do, and we made the prediction which I should like to quote with your permission, Sir. It is a very brief quote—

We went on, in some detail, to explain why it would have to be amended. We showed up its imperfections. I shall go no further with that argument, but I merely wish to say that we have before us a Bill with amendments justifying our expectation that the law is inefficient and cannot be made efficient and that we shall be faced continually with an increasing number of amendments such as those we have before us today.

If we look at the report of the directorate we find that, indeed, the Act has not been efficient. I want to make it quite clear that in our view the amendments that we are considering today will not succeed in making it efficient. The reason why they will not succeed in making it efficient is that the deficiencies in the Act will persist. We have a situation where important writers are being banned from this country and where the country is being deprived of its very important access to fields of intellectual and academic activities. Then the hon. the Minister comes with a Bill to amend deficiencies in the Act. However, this Bill does not in fact amend those deficiencies at all. He brings before us a Bill which in fact increases the controls, extends the ramifications of the Act and does nothing to remedy the damage which the Act is doing to the country at the present time.

Can you whisper a bit louder?

This is in fact a grave deficiency in the legislation before us today.

To quote one example, we were reassured, if “reassurance” is the word, at the fact that there would in fact be a directorate consisting of a number of persons who, since they purport to represent the broad view of the norm of attitudes in this country, would at least represent various points of view. There is a provision in the amending legislation whereby, if there is a deficiency of members in the directorate, the director with another person or, in the absence of the director, the chairman with another person, viz. just two persons, constitute a quorum and can in fact act with authority in the directorate. This means in effect that, if there is disagreement between those two persons, the director, or the chairman acting in his place, in fact has a casting vote, the effect of this being that one reverts to a situation where there is practically a one-man decision. One man can decide what is to be done. I do not know—the hon. the Minister did not explain it—why it is that the vacancy has not been filled. Is it more convenient, is it more expedient, is it more efficient to have fewer members on the directorate, to have a lesser degree of conflicting opinions?

It is not necessary.

If this is the intention, obviously the hon. the Minister would do even better to discharge the lot and simply have a director, to have one single member.

Oh, do not be stupid.

This would surely add to the efficiency and streamline the activities.

What, Sir, is the purpose of this amendment? The hon. the Minister has not given us a reasonable explanation. The only deduction one can make from the explanation he did give the House today was that there is virtue in smaller numbers. It is quite clear from the nature of the amendment that an attempt is being made to extend the authority of the directorate. If the powers were circumscribed before, they are now being extended. The scope of control is now being extended beyond matter that is seriously pornographic, obscene, offensive and so on.

As the hon. the Minister explained it, it is being extended to deal with a matter that is merely repugnant to the taste of the people. There is an important difference between these things. What is the intention of a Publications Act? Is it in fact to impose itself as a censor over the morals of the people in the sense of controlling their taste, of sitting in judgment on the way people should think, speak and write? This is the question before us today. We take the strongest exception to the amendment contained in clause 6. Here we have a provision whereby the exemption in respect of bona fide scientific and professional publications and also in respect of bona fide religious publications is being removed. Those exemptions, I would have thought, were one of the virtues of the original Act.

One of the few virtues.

If the original Act has virtues, and it has precious few, then at least one can point to those exemptions and say that here at least there is a serious indication of the Government’s intention not to interfere with bona fide technical, scientific and religious publications. “Bona fide” has particular meaning. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister or others attach a different meaning to the words “bona fide”. “Bona fide” means “in good faith”. If a man publishes scientific matter in good faith, if a man publishes religious matter in good faith, this surely excludes the publication of material such as the hon. the Minister described. He referred to a book called, I think, Naked Yoga. How can the words “bona fide” be applied to a book which is used for pornographic or prurient ends? It may well be that the words “bona fide” might apply to the original intention of the writer, but if the book itself becomes abused for other ends, the words “bona fide” surely do not hold any longer. I believe that in the exemption of bona fide material, bona fide is in fact its own guarantee.

That is exactly what has been done.

Let us take the alternative. Let us assume that the words “bona fide” can be given an interpretation such that, despite the bona fide intent of the original writer, the subsequent perversion of that good faith is not sufficient to overcome the bona fide exemption. In other words, it has been suggested that because perversion has taken place, that does not constitute grounds to rebut the presumption of good faith. If that is the case, the question still remains: Does a single book of that nature justify the removal of the exemption which applies to a very wide field of very serious literature? Quite clearly, what the Act contemplates—and I refer to the clause in question—is bona fide technical, scientific and professional publications and bona fide religious publications. This obviously covers a very wide field of literature. These particular subparagraphs which are now being removed, by their removal expose to the interference of the Publications Control Board a whole field of perfectly respectable, serious literature. I cannot see what the advantage can possibly be and how this can be justified in terms of the experience which the hon. the Minister had with the book Naked Yoga. If there were many such books, if it were in fact a prevailing disease, if the market was being flooded by pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious books with sexual pictures inside, books containing pornography, and one could identify a new trend, then one might say: This matter is now serious; the threat is so serious that we cannot even maintain this important provision in the Act which exempts professional, technical, scientific and religious literature from the purview of the Publications Board. I do not believe that any such thing has happened. I do not think there is any question of such a flood of skilfully presented literature purporting to be bona fide—I stress the words “bona fide”—religious, scientific, technical literature, yet conveying in its covers and between its lines this dangerous pornographic intent.

I should now like to deal with the new section 37A, inserted by clause 20, in terms of which—

1. (1) No person shall prejudice, influence or anticipate the decisions of the directorate or any committee.
2. (2) Any person who contravenes any provision of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.

I want to take the point that this new provision is completely incapable of implementation. We have, in any given year, something like 1 944—that was the number last year—publications being considered by something like 245 committees. This is in respect of publications and objects. 1 944 publications and objects were examined at various times throughout the year by 245 committees constituted out of 215 committee members. Let us now assume that one is a critic dealing with serious literature, with books being sent for review. Criticism is being written for the information of the serious reading public. How on earth can the critic who is writing about a particular book which has appeared on his desk for review, discover, at any given moment of time, whether, in fact, the directorate or any committee—of which we now hear that there will be many, and the directorate itself may be expanded—of this proliferating body is considering this particular book and, where, in any of these committees, in any of these places, among all these members, this particular book is being considered? It is not only the directorate, but also the committees, who are protected by this clause. How on earth is it possible for anyone seriously engaged in the pursuit of literature, or studying literature, to anticipate whether anybody is reading the book or may be performing a judgment on it at any time?

We know, for example—we have heard it in evidence before the Publications Commission—that the time taken to read a single political book might be as much as a week or more by a member of one of these committees. The member reading this book—who gave evidence to us—explained that he did a lot of this work in his spare time, because he was also serving as a member of a film panel. This book, unknown to anyone else, has been sent to this expert to read it. At the same time it comes into the hands of a serious reviewer, shall we say, of political literature, a reviewer writing for a serious journal. He reviews this book. It might take him a week or more, working at intervals, to do his review. He publishes it. Unforeseen by him, the publication of his article takes place at a time when, in some purely unprecedented fashion, one of the committees is actually looking at this book.

That is very far-fetched!

It is entirely possible. I will tell the hon. member for Rissik why it is entirely possible. It is possible because we are not dealing with one book and with the coincidence that one critic will be writing about one book which will coincide with one committee. There were 1 944 books examined last year by all these committees, of which there are over 200. The coincidence is greatly reduced when this is so, particularly since the kind of books which would attract attention, would obviously be those which have some particular merit or some particular significance. The possibility that in only 52 weeks of the year a man who writes reviews should, in fact, coincide with the work being done by the committees, is highly probable.

It is highly probable and not a coincidence or far-fetched at all that they will coincide. Critiques are published at a time when work is being done although at a time not always known to the writer, but at the whim of the publisher, the journalist or the editor of the journal or the newspaper. I do not need to labour the point any more.

It is perfectly obvious that we are dealing with a completely nonsensical situation. If the hon. the Minister thinks that by introducing clause 20 he can actually strengthen the Act and make it more effective, he is making a very great mistake. It merely strengthens my conviction that the whole of the Act, in spite of the amendments being introduced in an attempt to improve it, will remain unworkable and that the amendments now introduced will not improve the quality of the Act. We will continue to have embarrassed and frustrated people even under the Act as amended. We will find books of the quality of Kennis van die Aand, those of Kurt Vonnegut, one of the leading American novelists, of Iris Murdoch, a leading British novelist, of James Baldwin, a leading American writer, of Anthony Burgess, described as the best living English novelist, banned by the workings of the entirely inept, complicated, anti-intellectual legislation on our Statute Book. It is not improved by the amendments which we have before us today.

Mr. Speaker, so far the debate has indicated that the Opposition spokesmen are simply conjuring up illusions about the existing Act in order to judge the amendments now before the House in the light of those illusions. True to this tradition, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, charged at his illusion like a Don Quixote. The hon. member alleged that the Act was not effective and that the works of distinguished authors were being banned. He went on to say that the harm which the Act had done to the country, could never be rectified. I do not think it is conducive to good debate simply to make statements that cannot be proved. The hon. member discussed the proposed repeal of section 8(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Act and he kicked up a great fuss, saying that the intention of the Act would now be simply to ban scientific works and works of a religious nature merely, as he put it, as a consequence of the fact that—as in the case of a book on anatomy—illustrations of naked people appeared in them. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that such books are already subject to publication control. Section 8(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) relate only to points of defence. It is advanced as a defence that these books are of a bona fide scientific or religious nature. Subsections 8(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) as they stand on the Statute Book and as they are applied, are completely superfluous, however. I want to ask the hon. member whether a work of a bona fide scientific or religious nature can be banned in terms of the provisions of section 47(2) of the Act. He must furnish us with the answer. I want to read to the hon. member what subsection 47(4) of the Act states. That subsection reads—

The bona fides, therefore, do not relate to the author, but to the work as such.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned, I was dealing with the hon. member for Von Brandis’ criticism of the repeal of subsection (iii) and (iv) of section 8(2)(b). I want to leave it at that. The hon. member raised quite a few other points as well, which I shall deal with in the course of my argument.

Before I go onto that, I just want to refer briefly to two arguments that were advanced here by the hon. members for Green Point and Jeppe. These hon. members—and the hon. member for Von Brandis as well—kicked up a tremendous fuss on the question of criticism; that the activities of the committee may not be influenced by criticism. The hon. members tried to create the impression that in future no one would be allowed to criticize the activities of committees. There is a similar provision in the present Act relating to the activities of the Appeal Board. In spite of this, there has never been any objection to it. To tell the truth, the Appeal Board expressly welcomed it. I want to refer hon. members to a statement made by the Appeal Board through Mr. Justice Snyman in one of the first cases that was decided under the new Act in July 1975. The case was fought over the publication Die Brandwag, and related to certain articles and photographs to which objections had been raised. On page 8 of his judgment Mr. Justice Snyman had, inter alia, the following to say about criticism—

The hon. members tried to make a spectre of the whole matter. The interpretation of the clause in the Bill and the said provision in the existing Act in respect of the Appeal Board is simply that the sub judice rule as we know it and as it is applied in our courts, will now be applicable on the same basis here, too. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Jeppe kicked up a tremendous fuss about the mandate that the Minister will now receive in accordance with the proposed provisions of this Bill and because the Minister would have the authority, as it were, to prescribe to the Appeal Board what to do if people were to come and complain to him and he agreed with them.

I want to refer once again to the decision made by the Appeal Board in the case of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. In this regard, the whole question of the mandate was raised. Hon. members will remember that the Rocky Horror Picture Show was approved by a committee, whereupon the exhibition of this film continued. The hon. the Minister received complaints, however, whereupon he issued a directive so that the matter could be considered by the appeal board.

Is that the one everybody saw before it was banned?

The finding of the Appeal Board was as follows—

Where did the hon. member get that copy?

I got the copies from the Publications Appeal Board. If that is the case, then what is the fuss about? The Minister is not interfering. When the existing Act, which is now to be amended, was placed on the Statute Book in 1974, we said that what we envisaged was that the people should be given control over their own publications. This is exactly what has happened. If the people then approach the Minister, the Minister can use the existing procedures in the Act to obtain a decision.

I have already said that hon. members have conjured up all kinds of illusions from the legislation. The hon. member for Green Point made a most remarkable statement in the House this afternoon and I would never have imagined that a senior member of the House, and a lawyer to boot, could say such a thing. The hon. member said we should drop the legislation and that the courts should make the decisions. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to all types of publications that are offered for sale in cafès. Now the hon. member for Green Point is not listening to what I am saying. The test he wants to apply is to take the café owner to court if he displays such articles. Would the hon. member for Green Point care to go and announce this to the electorate? The hon. member is thus placing the onus on the café owner, no matter how illiterate or ignorant he may be, to decide for himself whether or not what he has on his shelves is undesirable in terms of the provisions of section 47(2) of the Act. The poor café owner would have to read the publications and if the court were to decide that they were, in fact, undesirable in terms of the provisions of the legislation, he would be guilty of an offence. The hon. member for Green Point is a senior member of the House and I have great esteem and respect for him, but I cannot understand how he could advance such nonsensical arguments in the House.

I am prepared to argue with hon. members about the principles contained in the Bill but then I want to do so on the basis of technical legal arguments that are already involved in the interpretation of the existing Act. I want to investigate the following example thoroughly. All hon. members on that side of the House have objected strongly to the fact that according to the principles of the Bill now before the House, the hon. the Minister may also direct the Appeal Board to investigate a matter that has already been decided according to the provisions of the old Publications Act. I want to discuss the matter specifically because hon. members are carrying on as if this were a terrible thing. When the 1974 legislation was placed on the Statute Book, one of the points of departure was that the people themselves would control their publications. Pursuant to the report of the commission of enquiry that preceded the legislation, the following was said—

This applies in respect of people who have to decide on this. “Eerder berus dit op die waardes en op die skatting van waardes.” If this is true, then the point of departure of the legislation was completely different to the point of departure of the repealed legislation. In other words, the point of departure of the repealed legislation was other norms and other standards according to which an opinion had to be formed; it therefore laid down different procedures. This meant that under the new legislation, there would have to be new interpretations and decisions. Section 5(2) of the old Act of 1963 provided that a publication or an object was considered undesirable if it complied with certain requirements and the requirements that appeared there, were, in the main, expressed in the same terms as the present section 47(2) of the principal Act. Therefore, after the Publication Board had given a decision under section 5(2) of the repealed Act, people who had submitted works could appeal to the Supreme Court of South Africa. That was the situation. Therefore the decision of the Publications Control Board was, in the final analysis, subject to the ruling of the Supreme Court of South Africa. In the case of films another criterion applied, for in that respect the Minister of the Interior was the final authority to whom an appeal could be made.

Which of the two do you prefer?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point does not know what this is all about because he was not here earlier this afternoon. Whenever the Supreme Court had to decide on a matter under the repealed Act, there was an additional definition in section 6(1) of the repealed Act. This additional definition was to a certain extent limiting in nature, and in other respects it was expansive. The peculiarity of these provisions may be clearly seen, for while the Publications Control Board had to decide in an unspecified manner whether a publication was indecent or obscene or whether it was objectionable or harmful to the public morals, the Supreme Court had to test the material in a specific way. One of the consequences of this was that a conflict had to arise between the two bodies. This is understandable. Section 6(1) created a further problem …

That was Mr. Justice Snyman’s approach.

Yes, that is the interpretation that must now be attached to it. There was a further problem attached to section 6(1), namely that the test as to whether the material would result in the depravity or corruption of the minds of those people who were likely to be exposed to its effects or influence, turn this into a relative or variable concept, depending on the person who is likely to read or see it. Section 5(2)(a) did not make such a demand on the Publications Control Baord. The board had to decide, at its own discretion, whether the material was indecent or obscene or offensive or harmful to public morals. Under those circumstances, a conflict of viewpoints had to arise between the particular judge in the Supreme Court who adjudicated the case—because he had to pass judgment in terms of section 6(1);—and the incidental appeal before the Publications Control Board. That was the position under the old Act. The new Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1974 and the Appeal Board then had to interpret the new Act in terms of the Publications Act, 1974. It was a new Act that had to be interpreted in a different way to the old Act. After all, it is obvious that under the new dispensation, a different form of publication control with different rules and norms of evaluation had to be set up than was the position under the old Act.

What is the difference between the two?

I shall demonstrate this on the basis of the decision of Mr. Justice Snyman in, inter alia, the Brandwag case. In that case Mr. Justice Snyman was concerned with the interpretation of section 47(2) in respect of the question of what is indecent or obscene in regard to public morals. He said the following—

This is an important point of differentiation.

Order! Is it necessary to deal with the norms of the old Act in such great detail in order to decide whether the decisions of the old board may be repealed?

I am now dealing with the new Act and present decisions, Sir.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am now discussing the state of affairs under the new Act. What is at issue here, is the fact that the hon. the Minister may direct that cases that were decided under the old Act appear before the present Appeal Board. Mr. Justice Snyman went on to deal with the words “onbetaamlik” and “onwelvoeglik”—in English “indecent” and “obscene”. He said—

He went on to say—

After he had analysed all these various aspects, the judge arrived at the following conclusion—

Here, then, is the essence of the decision in respect of which the present Act is evaluated. All the definitions that were contained in section 6(1) of the old Act, have now fallen away and public opinion is now being gauged and these are the criteria according to which the present Act is to be evaluated. Current public opinion, as gauged by the committee and/or the Appeal Board, may differ substantially from the position in relation to the decision made by the Appeal Court three or four years ago. This is true. The hon. member cannot deny this. There was also another case involving Scope. It was very interesting. Here we have an actual case that can be evaluated on the same basis as the one I have just discussed. [Interjections.]

Order!

Certain photographs that were published in Scope were banned by the Publications Board in terms of the old Act but they were allowed by the courts. When the new Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1974, the publishers tested the new dispensation, as it were, and all those photographs that had been rejected by the Publications Board at that time, but which had been approved by the courts, were republished. When the case came before a committee, the committee approved the photographs because it thought it ought to endorse the Supreme Court’s decision. The Director of Publications, however, lodged an appeal in accordance with the present Act and the committee’s ruling came before the Appeal Board. Here we have an actual case, then, in which the Appeal Board made a decision on matters that had been approved by the courts in accordance with the old Act. They were the same photographs, however. That judgement is clearly relevant. The Appeal Board stated—

The judge then went on to say—

He continued—

He also said—

It cuts both ways.

… aangesien die gewone betekenis van “onbetaamlik” of “onwelvoeglik” nie verderwing of ontaarding insluit nie.

Order! I do not believe that what the hon. member is now discussing, is relevant. It seems to me that he is trying to prove that there are different norms today than there were before, but he is going into too much detail.

Sir, I have only one more short quotation, but I shall allow what I have already said to suffice. The point is that the present Act is interpreted by the Appeal Board in terms of the relevant concepts. That interpretation of the Appeal Board works through to the committees because the committees or members of the panels receive those decisions made by the Appeal Board and then try to apply them.

The hon. member for Parktown said this afternoon that the Bill now before the House really represented only an intensification of the expansion of censorship. We do not have censorship system in South Africa. I think hon. members might as well stop using that word now. We have publication control in South Africa; we do not have censorship. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown described this Bill as “censorship running wild in South Africa”. He referred to certain works that had been banned under the present Act. He referred, inter alia, to the recent judgement made by the Appeal Board in relation to Jack Cope’s book. In that regard, he said: “It has tom the guts out of our literature.” He went on to say that literary merits had now been completely pushed aside. I want to accuse the hon. member of having made extremely irresponsible statements in the House. They are just as irresponsible as the statement made by Hogarth in yesterday’s Sunday Times in which, under the heading “Ominous”, he said, with reference to the same judgement as the one the hon. member for Parktown referred to—

Then he puts the question. This is a far-reaching insinuation. It is a wilful, deliberate distortion of the Appeal Board’s judgment. The hon. member for Parktown advanced the same type of argument. What did the Appeal Board have to say about truth? Allow me to read it to you. It appears on the same page of yesterday’s Sunday Times. I quote what the Sunday Times said about the verdict of the Appeal Board—

There is no question whatsoever of a deviation from literary standards. I have here other decisions made by the Appeal Board in relation to the whole question of when literary works as such are at issue. The merits of literary works are never at issue. What is at issue, is whether the median I spoke of, the public opinion, is in conflict with the provisions of section 47(2) of the Act. If it is, the Appeal Board has to apply the Act. I want to conclude by reminding hon. members of a very well-known decision given by the late Chief Justice Steyn in the Heinemann case in 1965, when he spoke on this very question of literary works. He said the following—

Mr. Speaker, I realize that a number of speakers have preceded me in this debate and that there is the likelihood of repetition, but I sincerely hope that as the first speaker of this party you will allow me a certain measure of latitude. On the other hand I shall endeavour not to repeat arguments which have already been used.

The hon. member may repeat arguments as long as he confines himself to the Bill.

Having listened carefully to the debate in 1974 and having listened carefully to the debate on this amending Bill one would imagine, having listened to the speakers who have taken part in the debate and to the language used, that the whole of English-speaking South Africa is totally opposed to this measure. I rise to be the exception to prove the rule. I rise to represent hundreds of thousands of South Africans who speak English and Afrikaans who believe that this sort of thing is necessary in the world in which we live. We in South Africa realize that there is a physical onslaught on this country and we realize that there is an onslaught of words on this country. The purpose of a Bill such as this is to control the onslaught of words, and I believe it is absolutely necessary that this sort of onslaught should be controlled. We believe that it is perhaps a little late for the English-speaking world and for English-speaking people to realize the onslaught which is being made on the civilized world. I can quote from a very great author, one Douglas Reed, who wrote books such as Insanity Fair and Disgrace Abounding before the last war and published this particular book Far and Wide in 1951. After dealing with the cases of Mr. Algar Hiss and Drs. May and Fuchs, he said—

Mr. Speaker, any hon. member who doubts the veracity of the late Mr. Douglas Reed, who regretfully died last year, should read Insanity Fair and Disgrace Abounding and they will see the history of the second world war written chapter and verse before it happened. They should also read his books The Onslaught on Southern Africa and The Battle for Rhodesia. Hon. members object very strongly to the deletion by clause 6 of subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) of subsection (2)(b). The hon. member for Jeppe dealt with great passion with religious publications and with how they would be obscured. All of us in this House earlier this session received a publication called Torture in South Africa. It is now banned and therefore I may not quote from it. However, in the same envelope we received a letter under the heading of the Christian Institute of Southern Africa, stating—

Then it goes on saying—

Mr. Speaker, I do not wash my hands of the suffering Lord, but who is to judge whether this document is a religious document or not? It is sent out under the auspices of a religious organization, with a religious persuasion using the tragedy of Easter. It is sent out under the cloak of religion. Meanwhile, it is a purely political document. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

It is already so.

Why do you not ask for an inquiry into it?

I do not believe that a document like that does any good for our race relations in South Africa.

It has all been published before!

It has all been published before, but it is formulated in such a manner and with such a questionmark that it can only do harm to race relations and to good fellowship in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that it is necessary that the section of the legislation under which such practices are protected should be withdrawn in order to enable the Publication Board and the directorate to control this sort of thing. One does not know what comes in under the cloak of religion. One has seen, disguised as Bibles, Mao’s little red books which would be regarded as bona fide religious books if one had not opened them and looked inside. I believe that, in the times in which we live, the control of things like this is absolutely necessary.

Now, who must decide?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown asks: “Who must decide?” Not a single argument has been raised by my hon. friends of the official Opposition and of the PRP that puts a positive factor as to how this should be done. All we hear is that State censorship, as they call it, will fail.

But of course!

We regard this as regulation. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

There is an objection here, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Parktown has raised an objection to saying that the Board or the directorate or the committees may not be influenced by anyone. There are arguments raised here that a critic writing a review on a book could possibly get into trouble for writing his review. That is not the purpose of the clause as I see it. It is where deliberate attempts are made by people or by other media to influence the board—and if one listened carefully to the hon. the Minister’s speech, one would realize it—by saying: “You, the Board or the committee, shall not ban this book or object because it is a wonderful masterpiece …’’A mere review of a book or of a piece of art, I do not believe for one moment, would be affected by the clause.

But it says so!

It does not say so. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech, which is before him in any case, he would have realized that that was so. This is the problem, Mr. Speaker, which we in these benches have found over the years. That is probably the reason why we are here. The hon. official Opposition looks for tiny little legal points in order to chase up hares and to frighten the whole public of South Africa. [Interjections.] We do not believe that we can afford that sort of thing any longer in South Africa. [Interjections.] They want no censorship; they want to throw everything open and to let all the pornography come into the country … [Interjections.] They never put forward a single argument to tell us what alternative must be followed. I hope that hon. members of the Opposition will tell us …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member has alleged that we wish all the pornography to come into the country. In making that allegation … [Interjections.]

Order! I expect hon. members to remain quiet while I listen to a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has alleged that we, the members of the PRP, wish every form of pornography to come into South Africa. My point is that wishing that and advocating that is in fact illegal in terms of the law. Such an allegation is not permissible. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Albany may continue.

If it displeases the hon. member, may I put it another way? The hon. members on my right do not wish to have legislation to control the coming in of pornography. [Interjections.] It is not just pornography; it is important as far as our youth is concerned. An important aspect is the infiltration of political matter through publications that come in from outside and publications which are published inside Southern Africa itself. I am amazed. Hon. members of this House served on the Schlebusch Commission …

Order! I think the hon. member is going too wide.

Every member who served on the Schlebusch Commission should realize full well that these methods are used.

The hon. member for Green Point states that the provisions of clause 20—the proposed new section 37—give the directorate a status above that of the Supreme Court. I cannot see that that can be the case, because if a case is being heard in the Supreme Court, it becomes a sub judice, as the hon. member for Parktown rightly pointed out in his criticism of the same clause. One feels that it is necessary that the committees and the directorate should not be influenced. When one finds contradictory statements coming from the two parties on my right one wonders…

Are we on your right or on your left, Billy boy!

You are far from our right. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis advanced the strange argument that the Act could not be applied with the hundreds of control points that would exist all over the country. He said the system would never work and that hon. members are wrong if they think they have found a fool-proof system. Instead, it would become a bureaucratic monster which would never be effective. However, the point is that until we can be told of a more effective system of applying measures to control publications and films in this country, we feel that this Bill is necessary, as a supplement to the principal Act. As we believe it improves the principal Act, we have no reservations whatsoever about supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I feel constrained to say a few words about the speech just made by the hon. member for Albany. He said that he and his party were the exception which proved the rule. He said that they represented hundreds of thousands of English-speaking people who, he said, were in favour of censorship. I think those were his words. [Interjections.] He intimated that these people were in favour of the sort of censorship that is being implemented by the Government. It is all very well for him to say that, but the last time hon. members of his party debated this matter in the House, they did not feel that way. [Interjections.] They did not feel that way in public or in private, and certainly never stated a view of this sort.

This hon. party sitting to the left of me have tonight taken once again a viewpoint in respect of a Bill before the House which is identical to the viewpoint of the National Party. [Interjections.] It is identical in its thrust. Very briefly I want to ask these hon. friends of mine once again, to please join the Nationalists. [Interjections.] They must not pretend to be a party in Opposition, people who have been elected to oppose the Government. Mr. Speaker I am not going to take it further than that. [Interjections.] The hon. member alleged that nothing positive had come out of the arguments of Opposition members to the right of me. In this allegation he joined forces with hon. members of the NP. The IUP is wont to do this. He said that no counter-suggestion had been made by this side at all as to what form of control of publications should be exercised in South Africa. That is not true. The hon. member for Green Point, who kicked off the debate on behalf of the Opposition, said that the courts and law of South Africa were sufficient to ensure …

… more money in the pockets of attorneys.

That is an absolutely facile and childlike comment. [Interjections.] In fact, I want to ask this party a question in relation to that particular argument. Does the IUP think that the courts are not qualified to deal with matters such as these? I get no answer. What is the attitude of the IUP to the courts of South Africa? The hon. member has said that tiny legal points have been offered in opposition to this Bill. Are freedom of speech and the right of the public to judge for themselves upon publications tiny legal points?

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

I shall come back to the Bill, but I want to say one last sentence if I may. I want to address it to my hon. colleagues on the right, i.e. the UP. If there are any members in the UP who want to get these people back into the UP, I beg them not to do it, because they will ruin the Opposition in South Africa even further. [Interjections.]

I want to react for a moment to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please be more quiet.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort said that we must get away from this word “censorship” and that we should call it “publications control”. Is that correct? While the hon. member was talking, the hon. member for Yeoville told me that it was Shakespeare …

Order! That is not a principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am reacting very briefly; it will be exactly one sentence.

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

I shall not react to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. I hope that if hon. members of the Government make allegations which are not relevant to the Bill, you will stop them, Sir, so that we shall not be prevented from reacting to things like that.

There are 26 clauses in the Bill. I think the majority of them are unexceptional. They are largely patching up and amending the mechanics of the Act. I think the hon. member for Vereeniging was quite right in some respects when he said that the trouble with the Opposition is that they have a particular attitude towards legislation relating to publications, and that therefore the Opposition find it very difficult to react positively to any measure relating to publications control as it applies to this legislation. I think the hon. member is correct, because we have here a piece of legislation being amended which is so bad and which is so undemocratic in its concept that nothing that is introduced to change it, can bring from us the Opposition any enthusiasm at all

It is a heartily disliked Act and therefore I shall not echo the welcome of certain of the improvements that have been brought about. I find it very difficult to be positive at all. In fact, I believe that most of the clauses in the Bill are not an improvement and that they make the original legislation even worse. One has to look no further than clause 6 for the first example of a major deterioration. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 8(2) of the principal Act and section 8(2) is one of the very few redeeming features of the principal Act, providing for the exclusion from the Act of the scrutiny of certain publications, the two types being the scientific publications—the technical ones—and religious publications. These two exclusions, in terms of section 8(2), are now deleted. This specifically means that from now on, once the Bill is accepted, any publication of a technical, scientific or professional nature or any matter in any publication of a bona fide religious character will come under the beady eyes of the censors. So, not only does file Government insist on controlling the publication of an censoring of films, controlling the literature which comes into the country and the arts, but it now wishes to bring under control the bona fide professional writings of scientists, academics, religionists and perhaps even lawyers. We have to look no further than section 47 of the Act to find an example of what may now come under scrutiny. Section 47 generally states the reasons for finding a document or publication undesirable. It says here—

It is an established fact that writings of one religious school are entirely unacceptable and may well be offensive to individuals and groups of another religious school or conviction. I want to know whether it is the intention of the Government—I hope the Government will deny it—that the censors, the committees will now adjudicate on these disputes of religion to sort out the truth from heresy. If so, who is remotely qualified to do this sort of work? If it is not so, can one good, solid reason be given why bona fide religious material is now, by the deletion of this section, included within the workings of this Act? One wonders whether, if this system of censorship had then prevailed, Darwin’s theory of evolution—heresy as it was years ago—would ever have seen the light of day. Mention was made of Naked Yoga. Naked Yoga is a publication which has enjoyed a certain amount of notoriety and publicity in this country over the past several months. Not one other example, however, has been quoted in justification of the deletion of the provision which I am now discussing. Let us look for a moment at the example which is quoted, namely Naked Yoga. I assume the hon. the Minister has seen this publication. I have seen it and therefore believe I can mention it to the hon. the Minister. I believe this is a technical publication. It contains photographs and instructions. I want to say that in my view the photographs are not even very good. I do not believe they are salacious or, quite frankly, erotic or even remotely exciting. That is my personal view. I honestly think that it is a publication of no real consequence. That is how I feel about it. I say that this publication should never been banned in the first place. That is where the error lies and not in what subsequently happened. The banning of this publication by people who I believe read dirty things into innocuous pictures, and the consequent publicity brought about by this ridiculous action, is what made this publication best-seller. It was made a best-seller by being presented after the banning in the worse possible light for monetary gain by the people concerned, to a public which is starved of anything controversial and anything out of the ordinary. That is the only example that has been given, and because of this one example, which was brought about by this restrictive system itself, we now have to suffer the scrutiny of the censors of all matter bona fide relating to science, religion and the like. It is the application of sledgehammer tactics to kill a fly.

There was the argument that undesirable literature crept in in the guise of religion and science in one form or another. I think it was the hon. member for Vereeniging who advanced that argument. However, I say the law is sufficient to deal with this. Such publications are in fact not bona fide publications, and the Publications Act then applies. But where it is a bona fide publication, I believe the Act should in fact not apply.

Let us go further. There is another example of the deterioration in this legislation in clause 8, which adds a further paragraph to section 4 of the existing Act. As we have heard, section 14 provides for an appeal by the directorate or the Minister to the appeal board against a decision of a committee to approve a publication or object. This new paragraph now broadens the scope of this appeal and allows the Minister to resurrect long dead and buried approvals made and given under the old Censorship Act. What is the benefit of this? We have heard the argument of the hon. member for Koedoespoort when you, Mr. Speaker, in a most gentle way, if I may say so, had to interrupt him on no fewer than three occasions. I think that hon. member forgot that he was in the Parliament of South Africa and not in a technical court of law. He has argued that there are certain instances in terms of the old Act which are not covered by the terms of the new provisions, or vice versa. I forget which, because his argument was so tortuous. As a result of that, he argued that there was a gap in the law and the hon. the Minister should now have the right to interpose and to refer the matter to the tribunal. In answer to this I say: So what! In which direction is South Africa moving? Are we moving towards a more restricted society? Do we want to resurrect things that have been decided upon years ago? Are we, as the hon. the Minister gave us to believe years ago, to wipe the slate clean and as from 1974 have a new era, a new set of values and new legislation?

All of a sudden, however, we find brought into this legislation the acts of a body which is long dead and buried, unsung, unheralded and, thank the Lord, a body which will never be seen again. Surely enough time has elapsed since the repealed Act was in force. What bolts from the blue are contemplated? That is really what I want to know. What bolts from the blue are contemplated to plague those whose works have long been considered “not undesirable”, to put it in censorship parlance? It is a wrong principle that authors, publishing houses and the like, years after they have fought and won legal battles in regard to the desirability or otherwise of their publications, should now find that the law has changed and that the particular publications are once again open to attack at the instance of the hon. the Minister referring a decided case for appeal and thus involving the publisher once again in further expense and uncertainty. There seems to me to be no justification for this and I do not believe there is even any justice in this type of measure.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that one of the reasons for this provision was that times change, that values change and that sometimes it was necessary, years after the original approval, to look again at something which might, in fact, be offensive. Times do, in fact, change, but times should be changing for the better, not for the worse. Even in South Africa, even in this cloistered society, public attitudes should be broadening and not narrowing. I therefore believe that this is a retrogressive step.

Clause 14 contains a similar provision, the only difference being that it relates to films. This means that films, finally approved years ago, will now be open to re-examination. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now merely wish to mention clause 17 in passing, without going into detail. It deals in the same way with public entertainments.

It is clause 20 of this Bill, however, which causes us the greatest concern. I think it has been debated fairly heavily here today. It is a clause which provides for the further cotton-woolling of an already overprotected system. Apart from being in some respects repetitive—and I believe that it is repetitive because section 42 of the Act already contains the stipulation in regard to “influencing”—while a matter is being considered by a committee or the Directorate, and this may cover a period of a month or two or more, this clause will have the effect of stultifying public debate and comment on any matter which is before a committee. The committees already deliberate in what I would term a shadowy form of secrecy. They are now, however, required to operate in an atmosphere not only of secrecy but also of literary silence and isolation. Here I must cross swords with the hon. member for Albany who said that a review of a matter may not be relevant. It could, in fact, be relevant. A review might be a controversial review. It may be a review which could influence the reader in regard to whether the book is a proper book for publication or not. No reviewer or newspaper, however, will take a chance, if it is aware of the fact that a book, a document or a film is before one of the committees, on writing a review for fear of clashing with this clause. So any public debate on, praise of or criticism of any matter which is before a committee could, in fact, be construed as prejudicing, anticipating or influencing. Obviously the hon. the Minister is very much against the public influencing such a committee. I read, however, in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech what I would term a Freudian slip. Perhaps he meant it, perhaps he did not. I want to quote, however, what he said today—

I would regard that as a Freudian slip. What sort of training do these people need to read books? Obviously, one does not have to teach them to read. I assume they can read. What sort of training is then given to them? One does not teach them to watch a film, because they can see the film. They simply sit down and watch it. What I want to know is whether they are trained in regard to the Government’s norms. Is that what the training consists of? Are they trained to look for certain things?

Do you know what case law means?

The hon. the Minister says he trains them in case law. I am pleased to hear that that is one of the aspects. I believe, however, that just a little glimmer has come through of what goes on. The hon. the Minister does not want the committees to be influenced in any way. I wonder whether in fact those committees are influenced by him or his department before they are set loose on books and films in the first instance.

The result of the provisions contained in clause 20 will be that these committees will now not have the benefit of the criteria enunciated by public opinion. They will consult in anything but splendid isolation, guided only by the somewhat, as I see it, peculiar Government norms and the training they receive, according to the hon. the Minister’s speech. Sir, this is really an abominable provision. I believe it is not a democratic provision. I believe that not only literary work is the target, but also freedom of speech and criticism of the workings of this legislation and of the committees.

The hon. member for Von Brandis, I think it was, made a very valid point which has not been replied to yet. I do hope the hon. the Minister will in due course reply to it. How is this provision going to be capable of enforcement? The hon. member said that there were 245 such committees. I am not certain whether that is the correct figure. It sounds a very high number to me.

Members, not committees!

I thought that that was probably the case. Let us, however, assume that there are several committees operating simultaneously throughout the country, committees consisting of large numbers of members, and further that books are sent to experts who are not part of an on-going committee. Will it be the task of the reviewer, or the journalist, or commentator, to contact the directorate in Cape Town, or in Pretoria or wherever else it is set up in terms of another amendment to this Bill, to establish whether the subject matter he wishes to review or discuss is under the scrutiny of a committee or not, and, if that is the case, is this not a further instance of more expense to the private sector, more time wasted, more bureaucracy and so on?

The argument was put that this is nothing more than a sub judice clause. Sir, sub judice operates in certain circumstances. It operates particularly where there is an open court which has the right to hear all sides of an argument, to hear cross-examination and to listen to evidence. In such a case the open court should not in fact be subject to outside influence at all because all the facts are brought before the court. That is not the case in a committee. A committee does not work that way. It takes the book and reads it and makes its recommendation. Then it could be referred to appeal, which would take months and cost a large amount of money, to take the matter further. I say that this clause has no relation to the sub judice law.

Clause 21 is just as bad. There are two legs to this clause, both of them restrictive and one of them, at least, a little nasty-minded in my opinion. The first leg is strictly a punitive measure. That is all it is. It seems to have no other rationale at all. What does clause 21 provide? It provides, roughly, that if any edition of a publication is banned or declared undesirable—

Basically it means that if a given periodical publishes 12 issues per year and one of those issues is banned, in calculating the rates for advertising purposes that periodical may not take into account the circulation for that one month.

That is as I understand the provision. What does it mean? It means that one’s advertising rates are going to be lower as a result of an artificially lowered circulation of the magazine or periodical concerned. I say that this is a double punishment. First there is the banning and the possible loss of revenue and if one takes Wits Wits as an example, R17 000 was lost in that case. Thereafter, as a punitive measure one is restricted in relation to the circulation figures which one can quote and the advertising rates which one can set. Surely this double punishment is unacceptable by any standards to a fair-minded person? The second leg, if I may say so, is not so punitive as it is bloody-minded. That is all it is; it is bloody-minded. Not satisfied with say banning a film in South Africa, now the hon. the Minister wants to see that a Swaziland cinema—let us assume we are dealing with Swaziland—cannot advertise in a South African newspaper if that particular film is showing in Mbabane, or wherever it is. The hon. member for Klip River says this is to protect the neighbour States. It is to protect their dignity, status, etc. That is the argument which he put forward. I do not know why he puts forward an argument like that. In the first instance, he knows and I know that it is not so. That is not the reason for this provision at all. The reason for this provision is only to ensure that the South African public remain blinkered and unaware of the freedom available to them over the border. It is also to save this Government from the embarrassment of being shown up as the literary and artistic clots which they are. However, if the purpose is to protect the other States, and I take the argument of the hon. member for Klip River…

If we are clots, you are a thrombosis.

That is a very, very cerebral remark. If the purpose is to protect other States—and that is the argument which was put forward—then I say that those other States can protect themselves. In the case of a book or film, for instance, if Swaziland have not banned that particular book and think that it is fit for public consumption, what right have we in South Africa to offer them a so-called protection? They have not sought this protection, nor did they want this protection. This attitude, if that is the purpose—and I doubt it—is in my view rank interference in the affairs of another State. That is all that it is. The Government’s attitude as explained so far, I believe is a patently nonsense argument. So, although this Bill is explained as being merely an amending measure improving the mechanics of the Act, it is in fact, in my view, nothing of the sort. It is an amending Bill which appreciably worsens—if that is possible—the already tight rein which the Government keeps on what the South African public may read, may see or may enjoy. It means a further centralizing of power. It represents a further judgment as to what is good or bad for us in this already cowed and somewhat ascetic society. I believe it is a sick Bill. I think it has been proposed by a sick Government and the whole dam thing makes me sick.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Houghton should be a very worried member because the bigger her party becomes, the weaker they become. We have had the privilege of listening to two Opposition speaker, the hon. member for Albany and the hon. member for Sandton. The contrast between these two is very great. I want to put it to the hon. member for Albany that there are many English-speaking people in my constituency, voters who do not vote for the NP, but who, as I know them, would give a majority vote to the hon. member for Albany tonight. I am thanking the hon. member for Albany for his support I do not want to create the impression outside that he and hon. members of his party are about to become Nationalists. As far as I am concerned they are the last hon. members at whom the reproach can be levelled that they do not attack the NP when they feel they should. From the other two opposition parties—the hon. member for Albany must pardon me for not being able to refer to his party again during the rest of my short speech—two attitudes have emerged. That was very clear to me this evening. On the one hand there are hon. members of the Opposition who want absolutely no control and on the other hand there were arguments simply for the sake of argument. Hon. members of the UP have one thing in common with Mike Schutte and that is that they can take a beating.

The hon. members for Green Point, Jeppe and Von Brandis advanced various arguments. I want to reply to them briefly. One of their arguments was that this legislation would create chaos. Furthermore they asserted that the Government, especially in clause 21, was imposing unfair provisions. That argument was also advanced by the hon. member for Sandton. As far as I am concerned, hon. members of the Opposition are making a big mistake in regard to clause 21 by arguing either that the NP is interfering in the affairs of a neighbouring state or that the Government is adopting the approach that the Governments of neighbouring states are trying to promote these offences. I want to put it very clearly that those hon. members are underestimating the ethics of our neighbouring states. They will undoubtedly realize in future that the states bordering the Republic of South Africa will decidedly not welcome the permissiveness which has arisen in the Western world, in the White world. Already there have been the clearest signs of this. I think that some hon. members of the Opposition should learn this. They could learn something from the ethics of the Bantu who live round about us.

The criticism of clause 6—and this is the only clause on which I shall speak—which amends section 8 of the principal Act, amounts to this, that hon. members of the Opposition suggest that the Government, by virtue of this particular clause, wants to stifle science and research and everything with which the universities are concerned. However, that is a very old argument of those hon. members. I want to assert that neither the existing Act nor the new provisions to come will in any way impede the genuine scientific researcher in the practice of science in the responsible way in which we want science to be practised in South Africa.

A further proposition advanced by the hon. members is that art in South Africa will simply die; there will be no more prose, no drama and no poetry. They allege that there will be no more exhibitions of paintings and no more sculpture exhibitions. Nothing, of course, is further from the truth than the particular allegation. In the third place hon. members allege that by abolishing the old provisions the Government is going to handicap the practice of religion in South Africa. As a theologian—albeit an ex-theologian—I can say that I have seen many things come into the country under the guise of religion, particularly the Christian religion. I want to give hon. members just one thing to think about. I am aware that through funds established by so-called Christian churches, money has been supplied for weapons which have killed priests and nuns.

I realize that I have added no new arguments. I support the hon. the Minister and I am confident that this amending legislation will help to prove that there is a preparedness on the part of the Government as well as on the part of certain members of the Opposition to govern and to exercise control in our modern world which will be to the advantage of everybody who is concerned about good order and responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am disappointed in the speech made by my friend, the hon. member for Rissik. We have been friends for a long time. He came into the House at the same time as I did. We started as new boys together, but I think I progressed a little bit. After his speech this evening I do not think that he has progressed at all. Why did the hon. member allow himself to be misled by the hon. member for Albany? I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Albany is not in the House to take his medicine as well. There is nothing in the Bill and there is nothing in the attitude of the people outside which provides that English-speaking South Africans think any differently from Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. To impute to the official Opposition the motive of protecting or of speaking on behalf of the English-speaking South Africans is totally false. The hon. the Minister will agree with me, because he will be the first one to claim that he has got English-speaking people who support him in his attitude.

Of course I have!

I am glad to have the hon. the Minister’s support. Therefore I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Albany that they are totally wrong in their assumptions. The hon. member for Rissik did not have the privilege, but those of us who served on the Select Committee, which ultimately was converted into a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of the present Minister of Justice to investigate the whole question of the Publications and Entertainments Act, had the privilege of hearing that there is no division on English or Afrikaans-speaking lines in this country. That is contained in the report. If the hon. members for Rissik and Albany had taken the trouble to read the report they would have known it. Let us now clear the deck and state that this has nothing to do with a division between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to make that point. What we do have is simply a difference of opinion between those who want the form of sectional State interference which this Bill personifies and which, in fact, the Act provides for in the guise of the hon. the Minister of the Interior together with his deputy and the Director of Publications, and those who want control to be kept in this country by the courts.

The hon. member for Albany said that the official Opposition chased up tiny hares and produced legal points because it wanted no censorship. I want to put it quite clearly that if the hon. member for Albany had thought a little and had considered his own past, he would have known that what he was saying was incorrect and untrue. He ought to have known because in 1974 he was one of those who voted for an amendment to the original Bill, asking that the Bill be read this day six months. The hon. member was one of those who voted against the Bill and who supported the minority report in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Publications and Entertainments Amendment Bill, AB 61—’73. Because of this one would have expected that he would have known what was contained in the minority report. If he had taken the trouble to investigate he would have known and would not have simply stood up to further his own aim of joining the NP. If he had taken the trouble to do a bit of homework, instead of trying to further that aim, he would have known that in that minority report this party committed itself to the fixing of norms and penalties and to leave it to the courts to decide whether those norms have been exceeded. In terms of that attitude the courts would punish the transgressors; they would not be punished administratively by a Minister who administers a sectional Bill in the interests of a section of the community, whether that section be English or Afrikaans speaking.

That brings me to what I want to say about the Bill. I believe that this Bill is nothing more than a further manifestation of the intention of this Minister to impose the will of a section of the community—as represented by the hon. the Minister and the NP—on the whole of South Africa. They tried it with the commission of inquiry on which I served in 1972 and 1973. They failed because they did not get an Act which was adequate for them to impose their will on the people of South Africa. They found that that Act which they passed, did not provide for all eventualities. As was said by my friend, the hon. member for Von Brandis, who also served on that commission, they had to come with amendments. What is happening in this Bill? We have a Bill which allows the hon. the Minister more power to do this very thing. It gives the director more dictatorial powers. The hon. the Minister will have even more power and he will have the right to have “positive” decisions of the old board under the old Act altered by reconsideration by the present appeal board. The Bill provides that there shall be no influencing of the directorate or of a committee in any of its decisions, except by the hon. the Minister himself. He is the only one who will in any way be allowed to influence the directorate, a committee, the appeal board or any other body involved in this particular Act.

Why?

Because he is the one who shall direct them to reconsider a decision when it has been taken. I believe that is nothing more than a motion of no confidence in the committees he has appointed himself. He appoints the committees and the directorate. Then he says that he does not accept the decision they have made and that he now directs the appeal board to reconsider it. What is the implication of this? It means that they must alter that decision because the hon. the Minister does not like it. This has the effect of banning all comment whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister goes further. He repeals the exemptions which have been granted to publications or objects of a scientific, technical and professional nature, publications which are bona fide intended for the advancement of professions, the arts, literature and science. He now takes away the exemptions which were given to them as recommended by the majority of members of the commission. Every member of that majority was a member of his party. Today those members are supporting this Bill. Were they wrong in 1973 or are they wrong today?

Where are they?

Where are they? The hon. member for Klip River is the only one I see who was there at that time. Was he wrong in 1973 when he submitted that report and said that these publications and objects should be exempted? Was he wrong then or is he now prepared to support the hon. the Minister in the fact that he has to meddle and impose his will on the people?

Even worse is that the Bill repeals the exemptions granted to publications of a bona fide religious nature. [Interjections.] I shall deal with those matters a little later. The hon. member for Koedoespoort furthermore spoke about the Scope case. Why do we have this amendment today?

Why?

Because the pictures to which that hon. member referred in the judgment which he read at such length, have now been considered four times. Four times the decision has gone against the hon. the Minister. The original decision in 1975 was that the pictures were not objectionable. What was the latest decision? After the fourth time they have been considered at the instance of the hon. the Minister and the director, the decision has been again that they are not objectionable. This is why we have gone right back to square one. We have this Bill because the Mother Grundies are still unhappy. They will continue to try and try again. That is why the hon. the Minister, with the power he takes in this Bill—I shall discuss it at greater length in a moment—puts no limitation on the time in which he can act. Once this Bill is passed, a decision taken in 1963, and even before that, will be able to be reviewed. I refer to a positive decision which was then taken to the effect that a publication or object was not objectionable. The hon. the Minister can now say to a committee or the board to go and have another look at it. What is the implication of telling them to have another look at it? It is that he does not like it, that it is objectionable and that therefore they must have another look at it. That is the implication of it. I believe the whole intention behind the Bill is to force the will of the NP, as represented by that hon. Minister, on South Africa in exactly the same way as his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, forced on South Africa the “Never-on-Sunday” Bill.

You have got the Scope case all wrong.

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about. Those same photographs have been considered four times. Does the hon. member deny that? The hon. member does not deny it and that is the whole point. We are now right back to where we started when they looked at them for the first time.

When we look at the provisions of the Bill and at the points that I have made, we find that the directorate was established as an administrative organ in 1974; that was all it was to do. Gradually, after the commission reported the directorate was given further powers and today they have the power to appoint committees, to grant exemptions, to appeal against decisions of committees. Whether a matter is considered by a committee to be desirable or undesirable it may refer matters to experts, it may submit matters for consideration, it may submit matters for review and now this board, with its vast administrative power, is being reduced to a quorum of two with the director having a casting as well as a deliberative vote. He is made a dictator to impose his will and the will of the hon. the Minister on the directorate.

The provisions of clause 6 of the Bill repeal the exemptions which have been granted for works of a technical, scientific and professional nature which are bona fide intended—this point must be stressed—for the advancement of or for use in the professions, arts, science, etc. How can such a work be undesirable?

I ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us in his reply how a work which is intended for the advancement of or use in professions, arts or science can be undesirable. The only example the Minister has mentioned is Naked Yoga. Naked Yoga was considered by the commission after a copy was sent to me while I was serving in the commission, by someone who said: “Here is this work; it is not only a scientific work dealing with the practice of yoga, but it is one of the most beautiful works which I have ever seen.” That is how the letter which I received with the work read. I still have that copy of Naked Yoga and I am very pleased and proud of that because it is one of the most beautiful books I have ever seen. Two beautiful women … I see the hon. the Minister nods his head. He agrees with me …

I do not agree. [Interjections.]

Has the hon. the Minister of the Interior seen the book?

Yes. [Interjections.]

There is no need to acknowledge that he has studied the book. The point that I want to make is that this is a beautiful work of art which could pass as a work of art not only because the two ladies concerned are beautiful—and beautiful in their nakedness—not pornographic, not lascivious, none of those epithets can be applied to it, but they are simply beautiful, in the beauty of God’s creation. In addition, the technical detail of the production of the book and the nature of the photography is excellent. Those people who have taken the trouble to read what goes with the photographs will realize that it is, in fact, not only intended to be, but that it is a work of scientific merit. What happened to the book? We got the following kind of report. A certain Dr. Louw Albert, who heads a group called Action Moral Standards, went running to the hon. the Minister and to the Government saying: “Do you know what has happened? Every single African in every compound in every mine in the country has got a copy of Naked Yoga stuck up on the wall next to his bed and when you find that a White woman has been raped what are you going to blame?” That is what happened. After that another Minister, who was working with the African mineworkers, went to investigate the matter and found not one copy of that book. He found no lascivious photographs, no dirty pictures and no dirty postcards. What he did find was plenty of Bibles.

The hon. the Minister is aware of this because this was also evidence before the commission. When the hon. the Minister therefore today comes with an amendment such as this and justifies it by the single fact of Naked Yoga, I want to say that he is out of court before he starts. That is why I believe that it is completely wrong for him to say that he must ban these works simply on the grounds of Naked Yoga.

Let us have a look at the evidence that we received regarding the censorship of scientific works and matters that were required by the universities. We found that the strongest complaints about censorship, and particularly political censorship, came from the universities. They pointed out that university teachers in the faculties of history, philosophy, anthropology, economics, sociology and political science were prevented from studying and interpreting the full intellectual context of current studies in these fields; that omissions or unsubstantiated references in their own research work weakened the reputation of South African scholarship. I hope the hon. the Minister will pay attention to this, because this is important. They pointed out further—

And worst of all—

So much for what the hon. the Minister intends with his amendments in clause 6. I want to say that it is no good the hon. the Minister saying, as he did in his introduction to this debate, that there are exemptions and that exemptions can and will be granted and have been granted to all universities. When we read the report of the director, we find that they have been granted. But why should the universities have to get exemptions? Surely, matters of a scientific nature to further the arts and those sort of things, do not require to be passed by a committee, a committee of laymen, very few of whom are experts such as you have at a university.

We then come to perhaps the most iniquitous part of the whole lot, and that is that he now takes away the exemption which has been granted to publications of a bona fide religious nature. I ask the hon. the Minister as a God-fearing man—and I know he is—whether he sincerely believes that anything which is of a bona fide religious nature can be pornographic. Does he really believe that?

Nobody said so.

But why does he then put it into the Bill, if he does not say so? If he does not believe it, why is it in the Bill?

The Bill says so.

This is what the Bill says and he is the author of it. I want to ask him whether it is his intention perhaps to submit the New English version of the Bible to a committee for consideration?

Now you are being silly.

There is a work of a bona fide religious nature which in the past has been exempted. I want to ask whether he perhaps wishes to refer Ezekiel, chapter 23, to a committee, or perhaps other passages in the Bible? Is that his intention? Is that why he applies this? Does the hon. the Minister really wonder why we oppose this Bill when I put questions like this to him? Surely I make it clear to him what our opposition to this Bill is and I want to say to him now that it is not too late for him to withdraw the Bill. I think he has heard enough here this evening and this afternoon to know that we are totally opposed to it. I do not believe that he can justify it in the face of the arguments that he has heard.

Clause 6(b) deems that a decision under the old Act that a publication is undesirable, shall be a decision under this Act. It has retrospective effect and we do not like retrospectivity clauses. We accept, however, that this has got to happen in this case. It is something that should have happened in 1974 when he forced the other Bill through, which we opposed and which we did not want. It should have happened then, so we shall not oppose that particular provision. When, however, we come to clauses 8, 14 and 17 which provide that declarations under the old Act shall be decisions under this Act, then it is a different story. Here we have the situation where a board which was appointed by this hon. Minister’s predecessor before him and by himself, because he was the Minister at the time when this Act was passed, is now going to have its decisions taken into review. This is a motion of no confidence in the people that he appointed, in exactly the same way as the provisions in the Act today are a motion of no confidence in the committees which he has appointed. I do not like this. It means that the Minister may now direct the appeal board to reconsider not only the decisions of present committees, but also those of the old board.

I want to repeat that when the board has decided that a matter is not undesirable and he directs the appeal board to reconsider that position, he is saying to the appeal board: “I consider it undesirable and that is why I think that you have to look at it.” The hon. the Minister smiles. What other construction can be placed on that? I also want to repeat that he has no time limit and that he can do it in 20 years’ time. He can do it 20 years after the decision was taken. For 20 years thousands of people can have seen it, but because one or two Mother Grundies come to him and say “Mr. Minister, I was shocked at what I saw,” he can then tell the appeal board to ban it because there are one or two people who do not like it. He said in his speech that there was a public outcry about this. He said—

What is the “community view”? This is something we argued about in 1974. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Justice is here. He was the chairman of that commission of inquiry. That is something we argued about on that commission of inquiry. Let me refer to the recently banned film, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I think we must also refer here to the report of the director in which mention is made of this. Thousands of people had seen The Rocky Horror Picture Show and thousands of people had derived enjoyment from seeing that film. All of a sudden, however, there were a few complaints and the hon. the Minister then directed that it should be reconsidered. He speaks about the “community view”. What, however, is the “community view”? Is the “community view” that of the thousands of people who saw that film, enjoyed it and derived some pleasure from it, or is the community view that of the half a dozen or more people who lodged complaints with the hon. the Minister regarding that film? I believe that it is the view of the thousands of people who saw it without any public outcry. There was no public outcry! It was a few Mother Grundies who came to the hon. the Minister. I wonder if those involved were members of organizations such as Die Genootskap vir die Handhawing van Sedelike Norme. The hon. the Minister of Justice knows all about them. He knows how we had to disregard their evidence. Or was it the Action Moral Standards and the Rev. Mr. Louw? I quoted earlier what he had to say about Naked Yoga. Is the hon. the Minister perhaps asking for this power so that he can re-submit the book Black Beauty?

That was a shocker!

That is the sort of thing that can happen if he gets this power. The community view must abide, according to the hon. the Minister, but we have had no evidence at all that the community view does abide. As I say, there were thousands of people who say The Rocky Horror Picture Show and they were happy, but the view of the few who did not like it is going to abide. It seems as if the community view is becoming that of the director and that of the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Von Brandis has said that the Act will continually be amended. The hon. the Minister appointed the old board but he has no confidence in them; neither has he any confidence in the new committees he has appointed. In fact, he has no confidence in anything with which he does not personally agree. The community, I submit, is being subjected to his standards, his ideas, his interpretation and his will, and this Bill goes even further in allowing him to impose his will.

What happens, then, when the green light is given? We must think of the practical implications involved when someone submits something for approval and it is approved. If he is an importer, publisher or a distributor, he starts to advertise the book, the publication or the object, whatever it may be. He spends money on that. He orders stock and he starts a promotion campaign. It all costs money and it takes time, which is also money. Having done all that, what does he then find? The hon. the Minister says that he does not like that decision and that it should be looked at once again. Bang goes everything that has been set in motion. A producer books halls, employs actors and starts a publicity campaign. He advertises, and then at the last minute the hon. the Minister comes along and says: “Aikona! I am sorry, my committee was wrong. They misjudged the community view.” Has he got no confidence whatsoever in his committee? Has he no confidence in that board that went out in 1974? Here we have a situation quoted by the film industry—

That is what happens when the hon. the Minister has a rethink because he does not like a decision of a committee. No, I am sorry, I believe that this fruitless expenditure is totally unnecessary. I repeat that this Bill is simply to impose the will of the hon. the Minister.

Then we come to clause 21, the proposed new section 42A. The hon. member for Green Point did mention this, but I think we should get a little more detail from the hon. the Minister concerning exactly what he intends with this. This is where he provides that in fixing the rates or fees for advertising, based on circulation, the parties concerned may not take into their calculations the circulation of a banned issue of any periodical.

Sir, if I have interpreted this attitude correctly, I do not believe we can support it. I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that I have interpreted him correctly. I believe that, as the hon. member for Sandton has said, this is a second penalty.

No.

Who said “no”? Oh, it is the hon. member for Mossel Bay. That makes it all right, because we know he knows nothing anyway. I want to say that this is a second penalty which is imposed only on a periodical, because it does not apply to a book or to any other publication that is banned. What is involved is not the loss of the issue concerned, but also the loss of a percentage of future advertising revenue. As I have said, this is not the case in respect of any other publications.

Then we come to the proposed new section 42B which the hon. the Minister intends to introduce. This for the first time brings within the purview of the Publications Act the question of advertisements. We have had established recently in this country a council on advertising standards. I believe that that council is doing a pretty good job of work in cleaning up advertising in this country, particularly advertising in the newspapers. This prohibition which the hon. the Minister is now introducing, is not the prohibition of an undesirable advertisement. This is where I think the hon. member for Sandton was a little bit off beam with his argument. This is not the prohibition of an undesirable advertisement which displays a lot of violence, a naked woman or something of that sort which is offensive to the people. It is the banning of an advertisement which relates to anything which in terms of the decision of a committee is undesirable. In other words, if a film has been banned in the Republic by a committee and it is subsequently shown in Maseru or Mbabane or in one of the other neighbouring countries, or even in Umtata in the Transkei, what the hon. the Minister is saying is that no advertisement of that film may be shown or published in the Republic. Is that right?

That is correct.

Sir, he is going further: He is saying that that film may not be advertised in a periodical or on a poster. If we accept the assurance the hon. the Minister gave us at the Second Reading, it may however be advertised in a newspaper.

This Bill has no control over newspapers.

That is right. That is the very point. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for making my point for me. If we accept the assurance the hon. the Minister gave us when he introduced the Second Reading, viz. that he is going to omit or withdraw those provisions which applied the Act to the newspapers of members of the Newspaper Press Union, this will therefore not apply to newspapers.

On a specific undertaking from the NPU in this regard.

Right, accept the undertaking of the NPU. The point here is that this banning of advertisements referred to in the proposed new section 42B shall apply only to periodicals including Scope, the favourite periodical of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, but not to newspapers. Newspapers will be able to publish advertisements of a banned film being shown in Mbabane, Maseru, Umtata or wherever, but no periodical may do so. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he is making a laughing stock of the House if he expects us to pass that sort of provision which will ban an advertisement not because it is undesirable but because it is advertising a film, a show, a picture, an article or something which a committee has considered undesirable in the Republic; what is more, it will be banned only in a periodical or on a poster or in some publication other than a newspaper which is a member of the Newspaper Press Union. This is not only unfair, but it also makes the whole Bill ridiculous. I say again that this Bill is only to give the hon. the Minister more power to impose his will and norms on the people of South Africa and therefore, like the hon. member for Green Point, I shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate since early this afternoon and time and again I tried to write down what the actual reason is why the Opposition wishes to vote against the legislation. I honestly want to say that it has been a long time since I last heard such a futile debate, such an uninformed debate and such a poorly studied theme as the one I heard here this afternoon. Many of the arguments were based on a complete misconception and on erroneous concepts, and many were based on a pure lack of confidence in or a suspicion of bodies, when nothing of thé kind was necessary or need have existed. Time and again they set up their own straw men and voluntarily shot them down again. I find it very interesting that there are four members on the Opposition side who served on the original Select Committee, the Select Committee which was subsequently converted into a commission. These four members—and this is very interesting—agree unanimously with the PRP that this is a bad Bill and that it should be shot down in flames. This is strange, particularly if one considers who these four members are. In the first place there is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is not here this evening. The second is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the third is the hon. member for Von Brandis. It is three of these members, together with the hon. member for Edenvale, who according to newspaper reports are in fact the members who wish to go over to the Progs, and also happened to have served on the committee. The fourth member was Mr. George Oliver, who is no longer a member of this House. This is a very interesting phenomenon. The last hon. speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, kicked up a great fuss, but had extremely little to say.

What is the date of the minority report?

I am not certain. But it does not matter.

It was 1973. What has it to do with the present reports?

It so happens that the people who then formed the opinion they did, are now kindred spirits of the Progs. That is what it has to do with it. No one is denying it.

I want to begin by saying, and I think I should make this very clear, that I want to pay tribute here this evening to the bodies which are at present involved in the application of this legislation, in the implementation of this Act in practice. I want to pay tribute to the Appeal Board, with its chairman and members. They have imparted an excellent status to this entire organization through their correct behaviour and decisions from time to time, which meet with general respect and confidence. To date I have received no criticism of the Appeal Board from any quarter whatsoever. On the contrary. The greatest critics of the Bill, also have the highest esteem for the Appeal Board as such, and I want to thank them for that.

I also want to thank the Directorate for the outstanding administrative work which is being done in order to implement this legislation in practice. It is so efficient that when Mr. Kruger died last year it was not necessary to replace him because it was possible, with a redistribution of the work, for the remaining members to do the work very well indeed, which they are at present still able to do with the greatest efficiency. In that sphere as well status has been given to this organization.

Finally, I want to say that excellent is also being done by the committees. The hon. member for Sandton, whose argument was that these committees allegedly took instructions or orders from me, was casting a very ugly reflection on the integrity of people who make themselves available for a public service and whose names are published in the Press. The hon. member was reflecting on their integrity by saying that they were being trained with blinkers to see exactly as the Minister sees. I think this was a base attack, something which was not fitting in respect of people who wish to serve their community with integrity.

What we are now doing with this Bill is to eliminate loopholes after two years of application of the Act in practice. Most of the loopholes are of an administrative nature, with a few minor amendments to the principle. Now I fully understand that because neither the UP nor the PRP wanted the original Act, none of them want this legislation. This is clear and obvious to me, and I therefore expected them to argue as they did. The question is: Should there be an Act? Should it be adapted, and its application made watertight? The UP says “yes”, but want control to be exercised by the courts. I do not want to deal with that argument now, Mr. Speaker, because you will not allow me to do so, although I should very much like to do so. The PRP states, as usual, that no legislation of any kind is necessary. They do not want the Act. They do not want any Act. The hon. member for Parktown even said that the Act was a mess.

There are enough other laws for this purpose.

The hon. member said that there are enough laws and that we consequently do not need this legislation. Yet it is strange that I was able, on a previous occasion—and I could do so again now if I wanted to—to quote the father of that party, viz. Mr. Justice Kowie Marais, he who as a judge recommended that such a law was in fact necessary. The PRP listen to him politically, but in this sphere they do not listen to him. I find it very strange. But that is the position.

I want to except the hon. member for Albany and his party. They support the Bill. In my opinion they are adopting a standpoint which one can respect. When they agree with the Government on a matter, they have the courage of their convictions to say so, and when they differ with the Government they have the courage of their convictions to differ, and to vote against the Government. Such an Opposition is a worthwhile and positive Opposition. But an Opposition which simply opposes everything, quite arbitrarily, is not worth its salt, and is, in fact, not worthy of the name of Opposition. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to a few of the arguments which were raised here. The first argument to which I want to refer was that of the hon. member for Green Point. He said that one of the clauses of the Bill provided—and I am not going to deal with each one of them separately now—that offices may now be opened at other places for certain practical administrative purposes. The hon. member objected to that. He made an exaggerated statement at the outset and alleged that the Minister was now going to open a tiny office at every possible place, from here right up to the northern parts of the country, establish an administration, and build up his own empire. What an absurd statement! The fact of the matter is that if the Minister were to define that an office has to be opened in Johannesburg and realized in a year’s time that there was also a need for an office in Pretoria, or in Bloemfontein, he would have to amend the Act again. He would thus have to keep on amending the Act every time, and in that way afford the hon. member another chance to raise all his arguments all over again. Therefore the Bill is now providing that the Minister is given the power, when it is necessary to do so for administrative reasons, to open offices at other places. Should I now include the name of every place in the legislation? What kind of legislating is that? Surely it is a completely absurd administration.

The hon. member for Jeppe made a statement to which I must definitely react. He asked whether I meant clause 18 or 19. It has to be clause 19. I concede that the hon. member is correct on that score. But because clause 10 is being deleted—I have already announced that clause 10 will be deleted because it relates to the Newspaper Bill—clause 19 now becomes clause 18.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Opposition advanced an argument on the matter of a quorum. The fact remains that there is now going to be a smaller directorate, owing to the fact that one of the posts is not being filled. Because some of the people are absent from time to time, it therefore means a smaller directorate. For practical reasons there can and must therefore be a smaller quorum. There is no sinister ulterior motive of any kind whatsoever behind this. There is no sinister purpose behind this. In any case, what powers does the director have in regard to this matter? In regard to a decision on the desirability or undesirability of an article or publication, the directorate has no powers of any kind. The board has no powers, none whatsoever, concerning the matter which this fuss is all about. The directorate may decide administratively how a committee should be constituted, who its members should be, when an appeal may be lodged and when not, but on the desirability or undesirability of a document the directorate has no power of any kind. And yet this is what all the fuss is about—a complete error of judgment in regard to the function of the directorate, because hon. members of the Opposition know nothing about it. This shows how uninformed the Opposition is in regard to this matter.

As an example I could mention that the power of the board, seen from the point of view of the Opposition, may work both ways. I know of three recent cases in which the directorate lodged an appeal against a decision of a committee, because the committee, in the opinion of the directorate, had been too harsh in its judgment, and had also been wrong, and that the work in question ought to be found desirable. Consequently the board uses its powers both ways, in this case very effectively.

I want to refer to the argument in regard to clause 6, the tremendous argument from various hon. members on the Opposition side that the protection which applied in regard to the works of a scientific, technical, technological, professional and religious nature, or works genuinely displaying those characteristics, is now being removed. What are the facts, however? Originally we were all of the opinion that works of this nature, when they were bona fide works, should not be subject to the provisions of the directorate of the committees at all. That was the case. That was what we thought, and they were therefore left out of the original Act. But two years of experience have demonstrated to us that publishers were taking advantage of this, to such an extent that the Act was being circumvented. What should we do about it now? Should we throw our hands into the air and say that we can do nothing about it? Or should we do something?

How many cases were there?

It does not matter whether there was only one case, or whether there were more. How am I to deal with such a case? Let us consider the Naked Yoga case, which hon. members regard in such a serious light. What are the facts in regard to this case? Originally Naked Yoga was submitted to the old board by the publisher. The publisher defended it as a purely scientific work. He alleged that only devotees of the Yoga cult would be interested in it and that it should, on those grounds, be regarded as a scientific work. Owing to this approach and to the assurance that it was a scientific work which would be made available only to people who were interested in Yoga, the old board approved of the publication. By their very nature scientific works are not published for the general public, but only for a select circle. And then? To what extent was this concession in regard to such a highly moral matter not abused? The publisher immediately caused a few hundred thousand copies of the book to be printed and distributed by means of every café in South Africa. Is a scientific work offered for sale in every café in the country if it is really a scientific work, or was this concession used purely as a fig-leaf to shelter behind in order to circumvent the Act? Should the Government now stand by helplessly and say: “Sorry, it is a scientific work?” It is very clear that we were dealing here with an abuse of a provision in the Act. There was a strong reaction to this from the public. If I were to tell the hon. members how many letters I received about Naked Yoga they would be astounded. These letters were not from “Mother Grundies”, but from all sectors of the community. The letters came from Afrikaans- and English-speaking persons from various parts of the country. There was no question of an organized campaign. It was a spontaneous reaction on the part of many people, and ultimately I had to react.

In terms of the existing provision there are no powers in terms of which I could react because the provisions of the existing Act give me no power to issue directives to the appeal board on decisions of the old Publications Board. For that reason I had been forced, up to that stage, to say to the public: “I am sorry, but as the Act reads at present, you will simply have to tolerate it.” Subsequently the case was referred to the Cape Supreme Court, which found that the book was in fact undesirable. After that the case went to the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein, which ruled with a majority decision of three to two that the book was scientific to such an extent that it did not fall under the provisions of the Act. What happened in practice therefore? The Appeal Court accepted that the publisher had been bona fide in his standpoint that it was a scientific work, but the publisher himself immediately took advantage of the court decision, not by presenting the book as a scientific work, but by immediately printing a new edition of a few hundred thousand copies and again distributing the book by means of every café in South Africa. The result is that at present I am again receiving letters from many quarters, many of which read: “Sir, last Saturday I went to buy a pound of butter and was given my change on the photograph of a naked woman. ” That is the type of letter I am receiving. The book is in paperback form, but it is supposed to be a scientific work.

Are you saying that the Appeal Court was wrong?

I said nothing in regard to the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court is not under discussion now. [Interjections.] The standpoint of the Appeal Court was that it was a scientific work. However, the publisher is not distributing the book as a scientific work. Do hon. members know of any scientific works which are distributed to and sold in cafés?

It is only a few people who are complaining.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not know what he is talking about … [Interjections.] What all the fuss is about now is that scientific, technological and works of this type are now under control. The fact of the matter is that under section 8(3) of the existing Act, exemptions may be granted in regard to these works. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that a blanket exemption has already been granted to all universities in respect of all types of publications except those dealing with communism. This arrangement is already in operation at present. The hon. member did not know this, for three-quarters of his speech was based on the supposition that this was not the case. The hon. member may as well discuss the matter again during the Committee Stage. I have already granted an open exemption to all the universities in respect of publications of this type. Three-quarters of the hon. member’s speech was therefore so much idle talk, because he was uninformed.

Clause 20 deals with the protection of the directorate and the committees against prejudice, influence or anticipation, and here hon. members kicked up a great fuss and said that this was a measure which, in practice, was something terrible.

Like the Schlebusch Commission.

Yes, like the Schlebusch Commission. The hon. member may link the two together if she likes. The fact remains that these provisions only apply as long as a publication or some matter or other is still being considered. The committee has to form an opinion on the facts before it, i.e. the contents of a book, or a film which is being exhibited. What must the committee assess? They must assess what the public opinion is as they feel it and as they represent it. Hon. members can imagine for themselves how this situation could be abused if it were not laid down in the Act. The moment a publisher, or anyone else for that matter, wants a book approved and realizes that it will probably be referred to a committee, he then begins, by means of speeches and newspaper reports and so on, to create such a climate that the committee ultimately feels that they cannot form a complete objective judgment and would look like a lot of fools if they rejected that book. In this way a climate is created in favour of the specific work. What I am now asking is that just as one cannot anticipate the sentence of a court, so it should not be possible for anyone to anticipate the decision of a committee while it is considering the matter.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

In a minute. But after a committee has arrived at a decision the standpoint which has been adopted may be freely discussed. It may also be freely criticized before it is submitted to the committee, but while the matter is under consideration, however, it is not correct to level criticism because the committee must be able to form an objective opinion without influence from any quarter. This is my point of departure; and I shall adhere to it. The hon. member may now ask her question.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how an ordinary member of the public, other than those who are directly concerned with the book which has gone before a committee, is to know that a film or book is in fact before a committee?

Do you mean any committee?

Yes, any committee.

The hon. member wishes to raise unnecessarily aggravating circumstances. The fact remains that in theory the hon. member has a point, but in practice those matters which are being argued about and in regard to which a climate is being created, are usually current news. In the newspapers it is news long before the matter is brought before a committee. I am not referring to the hundreds of cases which are simply intercepted at the ship and considered immediately. The public is not aware of these matters, and no one discusses them or creates any climate in regard to them.

It could happen in theory.

Anything can happen in theory, but in practice it happens that as soon as a case is brought before the court, publicity is usually given to it, and the public will in fact know about it. However, it is very clear to me that we are dealing here with an unnecessary attempt to try to influence the committees. Eventually it could lead to members no longer being prepared to serve on committees because they could be influenced from all quarters.

I want to raise two other matters. The hon. member for Sandton raised these two matters, and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also referred to them. The first is that no person may take the circulation figures of a publication into consideration in determining advertising tariffs if that publication has been banned. The argument put forward by these hon. members was that this is a double punishment which is being imposed. What we have to deal with in numerous cases is that by the time such a publication is banned, many copies have already been sold, for many publications are already being distributed in the streets a week before the actual date of appearance. In other words, the publisher loses very little in that respect. Secondly, there are certain periodicals that say that it is a good thing to have a periodical banned occasionally, because that means that all the other editions sell so much better because they come so close to contravening the Act. This is done for the sake of sensation, and is in reality an advertising trick. Therefore I say that when a person contravenes the Act and a publication is banned, he ought not to receive any revenue from that publication. He should not be able to derive any benefit from an offence. For that reason this provision has been included in the Bill, and will be applied.

It is a double punishment.

The first is in a certain sense a punishment and in a certain sense an advertising campaign. As an ex-publisher that hon. member knows that this is sometimes publicity. If a periodical is banned, the next edition will come very close to contravening the Act.

The next case I want to raise, deals with the question of advertisements of banned entertainment in our neighbouring states. The hon. members for Sandton and Pietermaritzburg South kicked up a great fuss about this. What is the essence of the matter in this case? A film or stage performance is banned by the Publications Board. The person responsible for the manufacture of the film or for the stage performance, who wants to make money from it, is therefore unable to exhibit or stage it in South Africa and he crosses the border to Maseru or to one of our other neighbouring states …

Umtata.

Certainly. It is an independent State and the same may happen there. The manufacturer then approaches one of the neighbouring States and presents his film or stage performance. He then places advertisements in South African publications and newspapers on a large-scale, advertisements to the effect that the specific film or performance which may not be seen in South Africa, may in fact be seen in the neighbouring State. All that any person who wishes to see that specific film or performance has to do is to dial a certain number and pay a certain amount of money. The transaction usually includes a bus trip to the place concerned, an overnight stay in an hotel, a little pocket-money for the Spa or the gambling casino there, and a free ticket to the film or show.

This is, in other words, an invitation to South African citizens—what the Swazis and the Sothos do does not concern me—in a South African publication to contravene a South African Act in another country. I object to that.

For the information of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South I want to make it very clear that the provisions in the legislation relating to the Press have now been withdrawn on the grounds of the express assumption and undertaking on the part of the Press Union that they will apply the same principles to their newspapers. That is why the provision was withdrawn. The legislation therefore makes provision for the periodicals and the Press Union will, of their own accord make arrangements to prevent such cases occurring in the Press. That was the undertaking they gave the hon. the Prime Minister and myself.

Another aspect I wish to discuss is the question of directives by the Minister. The hon. member for Jeppe referred with righteous indignation to the fact that the Minister may now issue directives on a matter approved 10 years before, and direct that it be reconsidered. The hon. member for Park-town raised an objection to this, and even said that the entire system is a mess. The hon. member for Sandton alleged that it was a “retrogressive step” on my part to rake up such an old matter again. The most interesting aspect of this entire matter is that one of the people who made representations for this provision to be included in the legislation was the hon. member for Sea Point; the leader of the PRP. By implication, the hon. member for Parktown also asked for it. [Interjections.] I shall now explain why. When the film Africa Addio appeared in the old days after it had been approved under the old Publications Act—the hon. member for Parktown should not shake his head so vehemently; I can hear the noise it is making from where I am standing—the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Sea Point raised a serious objection to the exhibition of a film which in their opinion was so cruelly disruptive of race relations. My reply to them was that the film had been approved by the old board, and that I had no power to reconsider it in any way. The matter was out of my hands, unless I amended the Act to give me the necessary authority to subject a film that had been approved by the old Publications Board to another close scrutiny. Will the hon. member deny that?

Of course I deny it. All I said was that if there was an Act, you should use it.

It is correct. But there was no Act which made provision for that. [Interjections.] As the Act reads at present, it is not possible for me to reconsider Africa Addio in any way, and the hon. member felt that the film should in fact be reconsidered. The hon. member felt that the circumstances were so completely changed that it should be possible to reconsider it. The hon. member for Sea Point addressed representations to us to the effect that we should please do something about it. He was disgruntled because we were powerless in this regard. He said that if the Act was worth anything, it should be able to ban such a film. The fact remains that this is one of our considerations in coming forward with this provision. There are other considerations as well.

Let us now consider the question of directives. Let us look at the provision in regard to directives. How is this provision applied in practice? During the 21 months from 1 April until 31 December 1976, the 21 months in which the Act was applied in practice, the committees in various ways considered 3 338 publications, 3 231 films, and 26 entertainments, i.e. a total of 7 095 considerations. In terms of the Act the Minister may issue a directive in respect of each one of them that an appeal should be lodged. In reality the Minister issued precisely five directives during this period. Out of a total of 7 095 decisions there were only five directives: one in regard to a publication and four on films. How is a directive issued? I shall sketch the normal procedure. I am making no apology for this. It will have to remain the Act because it is the only way in which this matter can be implemented in practice. What is at issue is not the Minister’s standpoint or what his standpoint is. It is not concerned with whether the Minister likes or does not like a film. I did not see the films in regard to which instructions were issued, except for one—which I just happened to see. Nor did I want to see them; it makes no difference whether I see them or not. What is involved here is not my opinion, or whether I agree with it or not. What is involved here? What is involved is that my office is of course a sounding-board for public opinion, and that my office is inundated with letters, etc. I am now being criticized for allowing The Rocky Horror Show to be exhibited for so long before an instruction was eventually issued in regard to it. What are the facts? That film began to be exhibited at a certain place and subsequently I received organized—and I am putting it mildly—objections to it. I could see that they were organized. Consequently I did not react to them. I saw that it was an organized objection and therefore did not represent the honest opinion of the public. Then a few weeks passed, and eventually, when the venue of the film was changed, there were spontaneous objections from all quarters. As it was exhibited throughout the country, the objections poured in.

It was immediately clear to me that this was not nearly an organized objection, but an objection from John Citizen to the actual contents of this film. I never saw the film myself. Nor do I want to see it. I only reacted as a sounding-board for the objections of the public. On this ground I directed the appeal board and the Publications Board to take another look at the specific film. What is the purpose of doing so? The directive of the Minister does not mean that the film should be banned. It is: Look again! Did the committee which approved of it assess public opinion correctly, or did it perhaps make a mistake?

What was the outcome of the various directives? The publications which were referred to it were rejected by the appeal board. Of the four films, three were rejected. One of the directives, a film entitled Tommy, for which the Minister issued directive after a reaction, was considered by the Publications Board, one cut was made and it was approved. This is how the instructions work in practice. In other words, they are a safety valve, so that John Citizen is not eventually confronted with a fait accompli in that a committee has decided that the decision is final and that nothing can be done about it. We must therefore have this opening so that if, by chance, a committee incorrectly assesses the public opinion, the general norm, the norm of John Citizen, and the period in which the directorate may lodge an appeal has expired—this period has in fact been laid down—there has to be a method by means of which John Public may say that the committee was wrong in its assessment and may ask for it to be reconsidered. The Minister gives no reason for referring it back. Nor does he issue any instructions which have to be considered. He simply says to the appeal board: Take this film into consideration again, decide whether the committee assessed it correctly or incorrectly. If the committee assessed it correctly, then confirm its decision. On the other hand, if it assessed the work incorrectly, take another decision. This is therefore a safety valve which is built into the Act. Therefore I am not making any apology. It will be passed in this form because we have to implement this Act in practice.

I now want to conclude. I have replied in general to the questions which were put to me. I want to say at once that this legislation is working very well. I am happy with the course it is taking, and I think the general public are also satisfied. We have received the support from all quarters for this Bill, and I want to assure hon. members that the people of South Africa want to decide for themselves what they wish to see and what they do not wish to see, and to make that possible we require a certain instrument and certain machinery. This is being created by this legislation.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—89: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A.J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, C. V. van der Merwe, W. C. van der Merwe and P. C. Roux.

Noes—30: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.