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

Mr. Chairman, when the debate was last adjourned, the hon. member for Sandton had moved to omit the proposed section 42A, and I had been given an opportunity to address the Committee on the proposed inclusion of the proposed new section 42B, which reads as follows—

During the Second Reading debate we learnt that it was the intention of the hon. the Minister to prohibit the publication of any advertisement of any show—be it a live show or be it a film show—or of any book or of any poster material in any publication within the Republic. However, as I have pointed out to the hon. the Minister, in terms of the two amendments which he has proposed to this Bill, this Bill and the Act will have no application whatsoever to newspapers. In terms of this legislation, the hon. the Minister will have no control whatsoever over newspapers. Advertisements today appear primarily in newspapers. That means that if this was passed, it would apply only to advertisements in periodicals and in other forms of publications over which the hon. the Minister will have control in terms of this legislation. However, the prime medium of advertisement will be excluded from the provisions of this clause.

Then it goes further in that it refers only to matters which have been submitted to a committee for consideration, matters which have been found by the committee to be undesirable. Matters which are not submitted to a committee for consideration will not be affected by this provision. The result is that he is asking us to approve of a provision which will not be comprehensive in its application at all. I think it makes a complete mockery of the whole situation.

We have plays like Pajama Tops, The Dirtiest Show in Town, Oh, Calcutta! and the like, plays which have never been submitted to a committee. They can come out next week and be shown in Umtata or in Lesotho or in Botswana. They can be advertised in any newspaper. They can be advertised in every publication, in every periodical throughout the country. Last Tango in Paris, for instance, was submitted to a committee. If that was to be shown, it could not be advertised. I believe it is wrong that we should have such a provision in this Bill, or in any legislation of this nature. For that reason I have moved the amendment.

I commend this to the hon. the Minister. He is not going to achieve the prohibition of advertising of undesirable matter, “undesirable” according to his interpretation and according to the interpretation of the board and of its committees.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. My problem is that we believe it is wrong for anybody to benefit from something which is undesirable in the opinion of a body established by Parliament. As far as the proposed new section 42A is concerned, surely it is clear in practice that periodicals, for instance, build up their circulation on the basis of the number of copies which they sell per week. This is usually based on a monthly figure. If an edition of a periodical is found to be undesirable, it is wrong, in my opinion, to include the copies of that undesirable publication which have already been sold in the total monthly circulation of the periodical concerned and thereby add a higher rate to advertising rates. It would mean that the periodical benefits from an offence. To me that is wrong. That is why I cannot accept the amendment by the hon. member for Sandton in this respect.

With regard to the amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, the position is also very clear. What the hon. member’s objection amounts to is that this legislation will not have control over newspapers. Provision was however made for control over this aspect in terms of the Newspaper Bill which was before the House. However that Bill was withdrawn. In the negotiations which took place between the Prime Minister and the Newspaper Press Union, the Newspaper Press Union gave the undertaking—an undertaking which we accepted and which we still respect at the moment—that they would see to it that advertisements of this nature were not published. The national newspapers will therefore comply on a voluntary basis with the same provisions as are now incorporated in this Bill, although it will be on a voluntary basis in terms of their undertaking to the Prime Minister. This does not mean, therefore, that a distinction is being drawn between newspapers and periodicals. This Bill clamps down on the periodicals, whereas newspapers are doing it voluntarily, as they undertook to do. The question of desirability or undesirability is the issue here. We feel that when a publication, play, or whatever it may be has been declared undesirable, nobody should derive financial benefit or profit from it. Therefore I regret that I cannot accept either of the two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s remarks. He has elaborated on what was said at Second Reading. What the hon. the Minister is really concerned with here is that when an undesirable film or stage show is to be staged in neighbouring territory, he does not want it to be advertised in the Republic. The difficulty which I have is that there are periodicals and publications which will enter the Republic in which there may well be an advertisement for a particular show or film which has been censored or banned in South Africa. The advertisement might innocently appear in a foreign newspaper or periodical. I do not think the hon. the Minister intends that every publication coming into South Africa should be scrutinized as to whether it perhaps has an advertisement for a show in London, Paris or New York, a show which has been declared undesirable in South Africa. Therefore, if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to delete the new proposed subsection 42B I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in my name as follows—

In other words, publications printed in South Africa cannot be used to advertise a banned show or film to be shown in Maseru, Swazi Spa or a place like that. I think the amendment will cover the position. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that if we do not have that restriction, he is going to be faced with an impossible task, the task of controlling publications coming in from other countries into South Africa and containing advertisements not related to a show in a neighbouring State to which South Africans can easily proceed, but purely publicizing a production which is accepted in any other foreign State.

Mr. Chairman, our objection to the clause is that it constitutes a double penalty on the owners and publishers of a newspaper or magazine. The first penalty is to have the magazine banned. That is bad enough, particularly if the publisher has done so inadvertently, without malice. It often happens that a man uses his judgment, but it happens to be the wrong judgment and consequently he has to pay the penalty for this. In addition to that the hon. the Minister now intends disallowing the publisher to take into consideration the sales of that particular issue of a magazine. This seems to me to be harsh and as such I cannot see any justification for it. The advertising tariffs of a magazine are related to circulation, which is calculated over a period of the average for 12 months. It seems to me that one is unnecessarily penalizing an editor or a publisher who might well have overstepped the censorship mark.

As far as the advertising prohibition is concerned, I see the point of the hon. member for Green Point about matter being printed in South Africa. However, what is going to happen if our neighbouring States decide that they themselves want to advertise the prohibited shows in a form which can be sent to the Republic? What kind of machinery are we going to have at the borders to prevent this material from coming in? I do not know. I do know we are going to quite absurd lengths in this provision, and even in any amendments that we may make to the provision, of trying to prevent South Africans seeing some undesirable film or play in a neighbouring territory. How blinkered do we want the South African public really to be? The argument about protecting neighbouring States seems to me to be unconvincing. Surely, these States can look after themselves. It is not our function or our business in any way to protect them. Has the hon. the Minister been asked to take these steps? I find it impossible to believe. I find the whole reasoning behind this clause absurd. The idea that we have to wrap our people in cotton wool to protect them from “undesirable” influences is, in my opinion, a sign of an immature society and of a Government which has no faith in its people to use their own judgment. Therefore I oppose the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown said that this clause was an indication of an immature society. I regard the hon. member for Park-town as perhaps a very mature person and an honest gentleman. But my experience of society is that if anything is undesirable, a certain type of person in society will find out about it without it being advertised. Why should we increase the inflation rate in this country by allowing advertisements pertaining to something which is not regarded in this country as being moral?

I want to say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I do not think we should allow publications—and these do exist—which get themselves deliberately banned or into trouble with the Publications Board or the directorate in order to increase their circulation, and as a result of the increased circulation to put up their tariffs for advertisements. I do not believe we should allow this. Therefore, with these few words we support the clause as it stands—in other words, we do not support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the arguments of the hon. members for Green Point and Parktown. I cannot accept the amendment or the argument of the hon. member for Parktown. The object of this provision is not to protect neighbouring states against standards which we want to maintain in South Africa. That would be tantamount to interference in their domestic affairs, and that is something we do not do. I want to give an example to illustrate what we want to prevent. Perhaps then the hon. member will understand my argument. If a film or play—usually a play—is considered undesirable to be staged in South Africa, it has in recent times become usual for the company or group to cross our borders to one of our neighbouring states, Maseru in Lesotho or Swaziland, where the play is then staged. Our law is not applicable there.

As sure as the hon. member is sitting there, they know that they cannot make a living or justify a performance only by the support which they get in Swaziland or Lesotho. They are dependent on support from South Africa to make a financial success of it. Then they start advertising in our newspapers and periodicals in South Africa that a show which was considered undesirable by the Publications Board is to be seen just over the border in Maseru, that people can book at a certain place and that the total cost includes a bus tour from Johannesburg to Maseru, a ticket for the show, overnight accommodation in the hotel there, and perhaps also a night at the Spa or a casino. In other words, periodicals and newspapers in South Africa are now being used to invite people to go and break South African laws just across our borders. I think that is morally wrong. This is why I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Green Point has a point, namely that publications printed in other countries and in which such an advertisement appears, can cause problems in our country. However, I do have one problem as a result of which I do not want to agree to his amendment. Transkei and others are now independent states. It would mean that a South African firm would be able to open a branch office in one of the independent homelands. That could be made possible with the co-operation of the independent state. These firms can start a printing press there, can accept that kind of advertisement and can then distribute the advertisement throughout South Africa and say that it was not printed in South Africa. I say it is possible. I do not say that it will indeed happen.

What about customs control?

That would mean that I would keep the whole magazine out of the country by way of customs and excise. That I do not want to do. That is much more difficult than to retain this provision. I should like to retain the provision as it is. I want to ask the hon. member to have some understanding of the matter. If the matter gets out of hand, if the provision is misused or if problems arise, we can reconsider it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister might be happy with the position as it is, but the problem we have with the legislation is that the hon. the Minister has introduced in the Bill so wide a restriction in order to deal with the evil of advertisements in relation to “een van ons buurstate” as he puts it. What the hon. the Minister is introducing in the Bill places in jeopardy every publisher, newsagent and every news vendor who receives publications printed in another country which might advertise in it not a show in Maseru or at the Swazi Spa, but the particular play or film which has been declared undesirable in this country. This is the point. Perhaps what the hon. the Minister wants to provide for—he might not feel able to put it in the Statute—is that nobody should advertise an undesirable publication, play or film which can be seen within a range of a certain number of kilometers of the borders of South Africa. That is really what the hon. the Minister wants to do. In other words, they should not be advertised as being available to the public within easy travelling distance so as to make it worthwhile for somebody travelling the distance to go to see the particular show. Such limited publication may even come from Norway or from the USA. Any magazine coming from those countries will cause the publisher who receives it in South Africa to become subject to penalties. The hon. the Minister says that he shall not prosecute in those circumstances. But the newsagent is, however, committing an offence within the wide provisions of the Bill. I am attempting to provide that the publication should have been printed in South Africa and that it was dealing with the showing of an undesirable play or film within easy distance of the borders of South Africa. That is what the hon. the Minister is trying to stop, but he is bringing in a very wide restriction in this clause.

On amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling,

Question put: That the section stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plesss, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.;Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; 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, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S.P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn. D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg J. G; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J,; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Noes—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; 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.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood L. F.

Tellers: R. M. de Villiers and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

On amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber.

Question put: That all the words from “42B.” in line 37 up to and including “object” in line 38 stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toil, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; 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, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Noes—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; 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.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; 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, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, F. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. G. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Noes—29: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R, M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; 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.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.;

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 10, in lines 44 to 48, to omit paragraph (a);
2. (2) on page 10, in line 54, to omit “or 42(2)” and to substitute: 42(2), 42A(2) or 42B(2)

Mr. Chairman, we have just dealt with the clause which provides that a publisher shall not take into consideration the number of copies of an edition that have been banned when he calculates advertising costs. That clause provides further that no person shall publish an advertisement relating to a banned publication which is available in any territory outside the Republic. Provision is made that the contravention of either of those provisions carries a penalty. Section 43 of the principal Act provides that in respect of certain offences there will be a maximum fine of R500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months for a first conviction in terms of those provisions. Section 43 provides further that in the case of a second conviction there shall be a minimum fine of R500 and a maximum of R1 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. For a third or subsequent conviction the penalty is a fine of at least R1 000. Mr. Chairman, you and the hon. the Minister will recollect that at the time we debated this Bill we opposed this particular provision. The official Opposition is totally opposed to the taking away from the courts the discretion to decide what penalty shall be imposed.

You are over-stating your case.

I am not over-stating my case at all. I do not believe the hon. the Minister of Transport knows what I am talking about. However, let us leave the matter there.

Peace!

The hon. the Minister says “Peace!” We are all for peace today; perhaps the hon. the Minister will also accept my amendment. The hon. the Minister nods his head; he is going to accept my amendment. The effect of my amendment is that these offences shall not carry those minimum penalties.

The second amendment has the effect that those offences, the new offences created in terms of the new sections 42A and 42B shall carry the penalty for general offences in terms of the Act, namely a maximum of R500 or a maximum term of imprisonment of six months.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has stated his case so well that I shall accept his amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, this clause, as it stands in the legislation at the moment, has to be amended in view of the fact that we had a Newspaper Bill in which we made provision for the control of newspapers. In view of the fact that that Bill was withdrawn, this clause has to be dropped so as to restore the position to what it was before.

Clause negatived.

Title:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment—

In view of the fact that clause 24 has been negatives, it means that it is not necessary to include the definition of the publication or object in the long title.

Mr. Chairman, I hasten to reassure the hon. the Minister that we shall support his amendment. We are now being asked to vote on the long title of the Bill, which contains all the provisions and all the principles against which we have fought during the Second Reading and which we have opposed now in the Committee Stage. For that reason we shall also vote against the long title. However, before we come to a vote, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another provision in the long title.

I accept your amendment. It is an improvement on the present wording.

The hon. the Minister says he accepts my amendment. Then, without any further ado, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendments agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; E)e Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; 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.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J; (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C. Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—32: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, at Second Reading and in the Committee Stage we from these benches have outlined the undesirable—if I may use the term which applies in this particular piece of legislation—aspects of the Bill. In the Committee Stage we have attempted to achieve some meaningful amendments, but without success, despite the hon. the Minister’s attitude towards some minor amendments at the end of the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister’s attitude is quite understandable to us on this side, even if it is an unenlightened attitude.

There are certain improvements in the Bill as it is now before us, improvements providing that reasons be given in certain circumstances for decisions taken by the directorate or by the court, and the recognition of persons having a financial interest in the publications which are dealt with by the directorate and the appeal board. Nevertheless, this Bill is still unacceptable to us. I noted with some interest that the hon. members of the IUP voted against the long title of the Bill at the end of the Committee Stage. No doubt they will now support us in opposing the Bill also in the Third Reading. The improvements to the Bill are purely concessions which should have been granted in 1974 and should already have been in the legislation. To us the Bill as it is now is still unacceptable because it simply increases the controls and the arbitrary proceedings in terms of the Act itself. The new provisions in the Bill before us will further inhibit literary endeavour and certainly will frustrate artistic expression. It will also inhibit research and objectivity in so far as publications which have up to now been free from the provisions of this legislation are concerned.

The difficulty which now arises is an extension of the problem which has been facing the writers in the country since this form of censorship was introduced. They are acquired to attune their minds, while writing, to what might be the views not of the average reader in South Africa, but to the views of the prude or prudent censor who might get the book or publication in his hands. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. However, under this Bill the powers of the hon. the Minister are extended to enable him to participate in the procedures, procedures which are already extensive and which thus far have, in certain respects, been limited to the directorate. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that he has always said that the people themselves should control their publications. Well, let them do so without the hon. the Minister involving himself in the procedures.

I believe the most unfortunate aspect of this Bill to be the refusal of the hon. the Minister to heed appeals against the proposal to bring in under the stipulations of the Act bona fide technical, scientific, professional and religious publications. It is no good arguing that universities can obtain a permit, because the withdrawal of the exemptions affect the author to whom exemption from the Act of a university by way of a permit has no relevance whatsoever. I believe that this measure is shortsighted. It is an inhibitive step. The role of the author, the artist and the playwright becomes even more hazardous, because the legislation is now extended to the scientific and technical writer, as well as to the religious writer. What is further introduced in this measure is that where a writing, publication, object, book, film or a play in the past emerged with a stamp of approval of the old board, there can no longer be any sense of security that that approval will remain. The Bill will enable the hon. the Minister to exhume all these literary decisions of the past and to have this literary body re-examined to see whether it is not perhaps in a state it was not deemed to be when the censors originally saw it. Can the hon. the Minister imagine for a moment what this means and possibly can mean to the bookseller? Having satisfied the previous censors of the standard of propriety, the author finds himself now in the position that his publication is liable to be reinvestigated, reconsidered and re-censored. The effect of this on a publisher or bookseller can easily be contemplated. When a book is passed or approved the mere fact that it has been to the censors and has been approved is a sales promotion exercise in itself. The bookseller or the publisher, who has had vast numbers of copies printed and distributed throughout the country, may now suddenly find that all these stocks have to be destroyed because another view is being taken of the publication which has previously been approved. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister has introduced this provision with the intention of exhuming past and buried censorship acts and decisions for review, unless he has something in mind. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take us into his confidence at this stage. What is the decision, the object, the play or the book which is causing him so much worry that he has found it necessary to amend the Act in this way? What is it he wants to get at, which has been approved in the past, but which he feels now—or somebody has inspired him to feel—should not have been approved in the past? I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us.

In the past, particularly the fiction writer was faced with the position that as he visualizes a situation and as he constructs a story in his mind he had to think how a censor, in terms of the Publications Act, was going to construe his words. As I have said, that additional burden is going to be thrown also onto the technical writer, the scientific writer and the religious writer. We hope the hon. the Minister will be frank with this House this afternoon by telling us what it is that is worrying him. In the past an author had to be alert enough to believe that if he wrote a book about a horse and named it Black Beauty, it could be impounded by the customs. The same applies to the artist called upon to do a dust-cover for the book The Naked Ape. The author may find his book in jeopardy because of the dust-cover. What is the hon. the Minister after? Why is this necessary? In the past, when the courts had jurisdiction and a decision was taken, the public at large was expected to accept that decision. The publisher, the writer and the bookseller all had to accept their loss, and in the past they have done so. The hon. the Minister is now saying that there is no longer going to be an appeal to the courts. He is now going to make provision so that a publication can be reviewed by the Publications Board. During an earlier stage of the debate the hon. the Minister said that this was not a censorship Bill. I cannot see how the hon. the Minister can argue like that. Webster’s Dictionary tells me that to censor is to alter, delete or ban completely. I believe this is the function and the power of the directorate and the committee members. When one looks at what is happening to the literary arts and to the arts in South Africa as a result of the system which we have …

It does not affect them at all.

It worries me even more when the hon. the Minister says that the restrictions contained in the control laws in South Africa do not inhibit writers, playwrights and artists in South Africa.

I have given you the facts.

I can only say that the hon. the Minister cannot be too well informed as to what takes place when the writers of South Africa meet, as they have met recently, to discuss their problems, particularly their problems in relation to publications control. What the hon. the Minister is doing to the literary people of South Africa might well be described by the words which Bernard Shaw used many years ago—“Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.” We are assassinating literary endeavour in South Africa by measures of this nature. For that reason we oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the Third Reading debate we have had yet another rehash of what we have had throughout the discussion of the Bill. First we had it during the Second Reading debate, then in the Committee Stage and now, during the Third Reading, we have the same old objections from the Opposition to which this side of the House has replied repeatedly and to which the hon. the Minister, too, has already furnished conclusive replies. Apparently, the members of the official Opposition refuse to take to heart the warning issued to them on a previous occasion by the hon. member for Green Point and to which I, too, referred during my Second Reading speech. It will not help hon. members to pay lip service to the maintenance of standards, nor will it not help them to argue that they are not in favour of permissiveness as long as they continue to advance technical arguments of this kind in an attempt to frustrate all possible measures aimed at combating permissiveness which this side of the House tries to place on the Statute Book.

During the Committee Stage the hon. member for Green Point made a great fuss about the limitation which this legislation would place on academic freedom of universities and their access to certain works. It has repeatedly been pointed out to him that universities may obtain a general exemption in this regard and that there is no danger at all in this connection. Nevertheless the hon. member referred once again to this chimera he himself conjured up.

The hon. member talks about “a sense of security” and “the stamp of approval by the old board” “which will be destroyed by the Bill merely because the Bill provides that an earlier finding can be reviewed. However, the hon. member apparently does not take into account the possibility that this provision could also work the other way. In other words, a work on which a restriction had been imposed on a previous occasion, can now be reviewed and released from that limitation. Therefore, this measure cuts both ways, but the hon. member is blinded by the fact that now there is an additional opportunity of subjecting works which had already been cleared to restrictions.

When one reaches the Third Reading stage of a measure like this, at which point one has an overall picture of the implications and significance of the legislation, it is definitely not fair and realistic to emphasize only the adverse side of the matter as one sees it oneself, while knowing that there is another side to the matter too, and being aware of the problems with which the hon. the Minister was faced and which forced him to put the measure before the House.

The hon. member for Green Point talks about “the additional burdens on technical, scientific and religious writers”. What “additional burdens” can there be now, unless a writer tries to see how close he can sail to the wind viz. unless he tries to see how close he can get to producing a work which is going to be affected by these provisions? It is only that publisher or that writer who tries to ride as close as possible to the edge of the precipice, or who tries, like the moth, to fly too close to the flame, who can run into trouble. However, there are no “additional burdens” for the responsible author or publisher.

The hon. member for Green Point himself referred to the fact that the courts also passed judgment in the past and then one all had to abide by the judgments and accept them. Now what basically is the difference whether it is a court which passes judgment or the Publication Board which makes a finding.

It is completely different.

Yes, Sir, it is another body that makes the finding, but for the purpose of the argument of the hon. member, there is surely no difference. It is a norm, a criterion which is being applied and the writer and publisher have to abide by it, just as they had to abide by the decision of the Court. Consequently I cannot see that there is any “additional burden” at all in this legislation for the writer or publisher.

A great deal is also being made of the argument that the new section 42A supposedly incorporates a double fine in the Act. I think it is debatable whether it is indeed a double fine or a double penalty. However, for the sake of the argument let us concede that this is the case. Then I ask myself: So what? If a publisher, writer or whoever, is involved in this type of activity and does it deliberately, why should he not be penalized twice if necessary? He would not be penalized twice if he had not been looking for trouble. Perhaps it is a good thing that people engaged in this type of activity should know that they are going to be hit hard. Merely therefore to come here and say that it is a double penalty means nothing to me. If someone deserves a double penalty, he must get it.

As was apparent time and again during the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage, we are dealing here with a measure which merely seeks, not to satisfy hidden motives—in accordance with the hon. member for Green Point’s insinuation that there was supposedly some work which caused the hon. the Minister problems and that this was the motivation for the legislation—but to establish decent standards and norms and also to ensure that those decent norms and standards are upheld.

If the hon. members of the Opposition argue, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did, that the Bill will not eliminate all possible forms of transgression of those norms and standards, my argument is that if the Bill does not succeed 100% in putting a stop to these unwanted things, it will succeed in its aim in 90% of the cases. Surely, then, it is definitely better to pass the Bill than not to create any machinery at all and to have to make do with even less efficient machinery. The hon. members of the Opposition are consistently adopting the standpoint that if the legislation is not perfect, it should rather not be passed. After all, this is an entirely chimerical argument. One asks oneself: If we were to adopt this approach and look at transgressions and offences of all types, are we simply to legalize all these things now simply because it has never been possible to eliminate all forms of crime or transgression? Must these things all be condoned and legalized because they cannot be totally eliminated from society? One does the best one can with what one has and if there are shortcomings later on, one tries to meet those shortcomings with amendments and additions to the legislation at one’s disposal. That is why I say it is not a sound argument to maintain that since in its present form the Bill may not stop undesirable advertisements entering the country when they appear in foreign magazines, the Bill should not be passed. This cannot serve as an argument by which to dispose of the Bill.

I maintain that in all the stages of the Bill so far, the Opposition benches have not come up with a single argument which cause us misgivings whatsoever as to the desirability of agreeing to the Third Reading of the Bill. I do not believe there is any reason for us to hesitate to agree to the Third Reading. I therefore give my support to the Third Reading and trust that the House will agree to the Third Reading without wasting much more time.

Mr. Speaker, there is one question I should like to ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay: If this Bill is really as innocent as he says, why is it not supported by a single Afrikaans writer of any standing in this country? Why are they all implacably opposed to it?

Which writers are opposed to it? Mention their names.

Are they all wrong? They are professional people and they are implacably opposed to this Bill. There is absolutely no argument that can be advanced in favour of the Bill. One is either for it or against it.

Now that we are discussing the Third Reading, the die is cast. I want to tell the hon. member why we on these benches are going to vote against the Third Reading. The reason is that because of this Bill, South Africa is entering upon a new era of more stringent censorship today. With the passing of this Bill, the whole scope of our censorship has been widened. To the extent to which loopholes in the existing Act have been closed, and in the light of the fact that the State now has the power to reconsider old decisions, the system will henceforth be more stringent than in the past. Generally speaking, the censorship legislation can only have a detrimental effect on our literature and creative arts; indeed, in a long run it can be more than detrimental. In the light of the attitude adopted by the Afrikaans writers and of what this legislation is going to do to the creative arts, I wonder what the hon. members on the other side will say when they are asked one day what they did for Afrikaans literature in this hour of crisis. The answer will be that they did nothing at all. They have been silenced.

The most offensive aspect of this Bill is undoubtedly the fact that it will henceforth be impossible for the public to influence or anticipate the decisions of the directorate or of a committee. Even if this prohibition were only enforced while a matter was being considered by the directorate or one of the committees, as the hon. the Minister said, it would still constitute the gravest interference with the free discussion of topical and crucial problems which are of the greatest importance to the entire community. It would interfere with free speech and restrict the freedom of the individual. None of the 123 members opposite raised any objection to this. In other words, they stand for the restriction of that kind of liberty.

†Mr. Speaker, it was in the Committee Stage when we discussed clause 20 that the hon. the Minister made absolutely no attempt to reply to the criticism that it would be well-nigh impossible to implement the provision which prohibits the discussion of matters before the directorate or any committee. He made no attempt at all. I suggest to him that there is no explanation, in fact, as to how people will do that. I do not expect him to reply now, because there is no satisfactory reply. The idea is simply not viable. It is not going to work and, as I said in the Committee Stage, it will either bring the law into disrepute or it will create such a situation that there will be no freedom in future to discuss issues of this kind. Apart from being impractical, as I have said, this clause also constitutes an unwarranted interference with free speech. I do not know whether that worries the hon. the Minister very much, because his main concern seems to be to determine what the “volkswil” is and to use that as bludgeon to prevent public discussion on matters of direct concern to the public. I suggest this is another light of individual and group freedom that is being dimmed to the detriment of everyone in the country. This recalls to mind the quite astonishing assertion of the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stage that we have no censorship in South Africa. I do not intend participating in any fruitless exercise in semantics in order to argue this matter. It is there for everybody to see. Whatever one calls the directorate and its committees, the effect is censorship. Perhaps that is the reason why I have seen censorship described as institutionalized hypocrisy. That is one definition of it. Another definition is that it is the bludgeon of intolerance. But it does not matter what one calls it, that is its effect.

*Mr. Speaker, another unacceptable aspect of this legislation is of course the fact—the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to it—that technical, scientific and professional works bona fide intended for the promotion of or for use in a specific profession or branch of art, literature or science, as well as works of a bona fide religious nature, will also come within the purview of the legislation. It is true that we have been assured that this provision will only be applicable to exceptional cases, but we know how easy it is for an exceptional case to become the opposite. Why do we have to make laws for the exceptional case? Why is it necessary? Or has it become part of an obsession to make more laws about everything under the sun? We are developing a law-making mania in our country as far as this kind of thing is concerned. It is our universities, as we said in the Committee Stage, that are going to be prejudiced by this clause. Why does the hon. member for Mossel Bay not go to the trouble of finding out what the people at the universities think? In the Committee Stage we quoted from these benches what the university people thought. They are dead against this.

That problem has been solved.

There is not a single university man of any standing who accepts this clause.

Please repeat that?

There is not a single university man of any standing who would support this clause, not one, not even at the University of Pretoria. We could repeat all these arguments and it would get us nowhere.

In conclusion, I just want to say that in my opinion, the hon. the Minister—and I hope he will listen to this—will live to regret the introduction of this Bill and of the Act which he introduced in 1974, because he will eventually come to realize that it does South African literature a disservice; it does a disservice to South African literature and to Afrikaans literature in particular. It also does a disservice to the freedom of the creative artist, a freedom which is, after all, the basis of our whole artistic life. With this legislation we are entering upon a new twilight era in which the curtain of censorship will come down a little further in South Africa, and we shall all live to regret it. For that and for other reasons we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the hon. member for Parktown, I said to myself: “Magersfontein! Oh, Magersfontein!” [Interjections.] I also said to myself “PRP! Oh, PRP!”

What does the author of Magersfontein say about censorship?

Finally I said to myself; “De Villiers! Oh, De Villiers!”

Do not worry about me.

It is terribly interesting to note how the hon. member for Parktown tried to create the impression here of what endless damage this legislation would supposedly cause the writers, especially the Afrikaans writers, of South Africa. The hon. the Minister clearly indicated how many works had been submitted recently and about which it had to be said: “No, this type of work is not a credit to the peoples of South Africa.” Amongst other things, the hon. the Minister referred to Kennis van die Aand. However, for the sake of the hon. member for Parktown, I want to mention a few things that happened in the writers guild. Let us take a look at what the writers of South Africa look like today.

In the world in which we are living, it has become interesting to note how leftist political parties and leftist elements are out to concentrate on certain facets of civilization. There are people in certain professions, people with certain peculiarities, who simply try and generate fame, reknown and honour for themselves by concentrating on the macabre, by concentrating on the strange and deviant, merely because they cannot achieve fame in the normal ways and in a decent manner. They are out to make use of abnormal methods. This is very much like the case of somebody who murders a famous public figure to get his own name written in the annals of history.

Let us take a look at these so-called writers. I say “so-called”. I know many of these people personally. I studied with some of them. As a person who studied Afrikaans as a major myself, and who has also read a little in connection with literature and matters of literary interest, I sometimes think that I as an Afrikaner should rather bow my head when I hear many of the things said by these so-called Afrikaans writers. What do they say about themselves? This is what they say—

Te veel van ons sit rondom tafels. Al wat ons doen, is praat en praat en praat, om dan weer betyds op te hou sodat daar genoeg tyd is om genoeg te drink voordat die kroeg sluit. Hy het ook skrams na die beraad as ’n “literary luncheon” verwys.

Apparently this is André P. Brink. Further on Pieter Dirk Uys says the following—

One gets the impression that the hon. member for Parktown is merely protecting some of these fellows for the sake of his own party-political aspirations. Where are some of these so-called writers?

In jail!

The hon. member for Parktown does not want us to place this legislation on the Statute Book. This will prevent some of his confused little supporters from disseminating PRP politics through their writings. That is why the hon. member is opposed to the legislation.

The hon. member for Parktown is as little concerned about Afrikaans literature as the man in the moon. For the hon. member for Parktown, the issue is merely the politics which these young men are involved in.

That is quite untrue.

I could read several other quotations …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the statement that

Order! I gave the hon. member for Rissik the opportunity to make that statement. I ask the hon. member to confine himself to the Bill from now on.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so with pleasure. The statement I want to make, is that the affect of this legislation will not be that a writer of integrity, skill and talent will be prevented from exercising this talent. The next statement I want to make is that this legislation will not result in the scientist who wants to practise science for the sake of his community and for the sake of world science, Will not be able to practise his subject. The hon. member said that there was no scientist of repute who would support this legislation. It seems to me as if the hon. member does not live in South Africa, but in a little place in Paris together with Breyten Breytenbagh or in a little place in Amsterdam or New York. The hon. member does not know the scientists in South Africa. For many years I was attached to the largest university in South Africa and since I have been a Member of Parliament no scientist of that university has come to me and said that this legislation places him at a disadvantage in carrying out his scientific work.

The PRP gives us and the country the impression that they know so much, but I want to state categorically that they know very little. I cannot understand why the hon. member persists in his false arguments. He also said that we were going to prejudice the people who practise religion and the Christian religion in South Africa because we said that we were no longer going to accept all publications entering South Africa under the cloak of Christendom. I appreciate the strong attitude which the hon. the Minister is adopting, because the devil also has texts it can quote and if we in South Africa want to govern, we must do so and not be afraid to draw up legislation and implement it if it is in the interests of the people of South Africa.

I want to conclude with these few statements. As a scientist, as someone with a love for literature and as a theologist, too, I cannot see how this legislation can bother anyone at all who is interested in these three facets of our society.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik will forgive me if I do not react to his speech in its entirety. I wish to deal with the arguments raised by my hon. colleagues on my physical right and my political left. The hon. member for Parktown earlier on said that one was either for censorship or against it. I would rather put it this way: One is either for control of publications and films or against it. We in these benches stand firmly for the control of publications and films. The hon. member alleged that no university man of standing would support this Bill at all. I have been in close contact over the last few weeks with the university in my constituency and I have not received one complaint about this Bill at all. The persons with whom I have been in contact have been a little bit more concerned about the provisions of a certain licence which is to be granted to the university club rather than about this Bill.

The hon. member for Green Point in his opening remarks remarked that we remained in our benches here while there was a division, on the long title in the Committee Stage. I will deal with this in more detail a little bit later, but I must add that we found our benches very comfortable and sometimes one gets a little tired of walking across the floor in accordance with the way our brains tell us to do. [Interjections.]

We have reached the Third Reading of the Bill, a Bill which will probably go down in the annals of history as the Naked Yoga Bill, because discussion in the Second Reading and the Committee Stage often seemed to revert to this rather innocuous publication. I must express my disappointment with the hon. the Minister in that this is the only example that he could raise during the debate for the necessity of the amendments in clause 6, amendments which we support for very cogent reasons.

This Bill has been opposed at all stages by the official Opposition and by the aspiring official Opposition, the PRP. They are still hoping to pull off a “big steal” with the aid of the Young Turks. It is being opposed for a number of reasons. I shall deal with those of them which I think is most relevant. Firstly, they object to the provision that the hon. the Minister may determine the seat of the directorate and that the directorate may establish offices for the purposes of its functions. Secondly, they object most strongly to those provisions which extend the power of the appeal board and which make provisions for the reconsideration by the appeal board of matters relating to certain publications or objects. Thirdly, they object to the provision that the number of copies of certain editions of certain publications or objects may not be taken into account for fixing the amount payable to the publisher in respect of any subsequent edition thereof. Fourthly, they object to the provision which prohibits prejudicing or influencing the directorate or anticipating the decisions of the directorate. Fifthly, they object to those provisions which remove the open exemptions contained in paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of section 8(2) of the principal Act, those subsections which exempt bona fide scientific, artistic and religious publications.

I believe these are their main objections. I shall deal with each of them shortly. I shall also state the reasons for my party’s standpoint and with more clarity than the negative and destructive criticism we have heard from the other Opposition benches during this debate. Before doing this, there are certain positive aspects of the Bill which should be mentioned. Firstly there is the provision which authorizes the directorate to consult experts in their fields with regard to matters relating to the functions of the directorate. We believe this is of vital importance to the efficient running of the directorate. We also believe that it will certainly obviate any unnecessary mistakes which a non-specialist could easily make, however high his IQ might be.

Secondly, we believe that the extension of the period of appointments for members of committees from two to three years is an improvement and will facilitate better continuity. Thirdly, we welcome the provision which imposes a duty on the directorate to inform certain persons of the reasons for certain decisions, because it is extremely difficult to formulate an appeal when one does not know the reason for the original decision. There are today so many statutory boards and directorates which do not have to give reasons for their decisions. We regard this provision as a break-through and we sincerely hope that other departments will take this up and apply it to those boards and directorates functioning under them.

I wish now to deal briefly with those matters to which my hon. colleagues in the Opposition benches have objected so strongly. The first concerns the seat of the directorate and its right to establish offices for the purpose of the exercise of its function. As far as establishing the seat of the directorate is concerned, we believe that this is a decision which should lie with the hon. the Minister in charge of the department. Naturally, we trust that he will consult with the directorate in establishing its seat. As far as the establishing of offices are concerned, we have heard a concerted cry from other Opposition benches that this will mean the establishment of a proliferation of offices throughout the country, from Pofadder to Pretoria and from Durban to Durban. This really amounts to nothing less than a profusion of protests purposefully aimed at perpetuating constant confusion. It has been clearly stated that there are two main entry points to the Republic of South Africa for objects falling under the purview of this Bill, namely Cape Town Harbour for publications and Jan Smuts Airport for films and objects of a similar nature. It therefore stands to reason that there should be fully staffed offices at both these entry points in order to ensure that the public of the Republic receive publications and films of the world at the earliest possible point in time after arrival. Centralization at one or other point, could only lead to a slow-down of the release of either films or publications, whatever the case may be. The object is not to open offices in every town and village. The object is the expeditious release of imported material, whether it be publications or films. Why is there such a big squeal about this? Let us rather accept the provisions and expedite the release of these publications.

I now want to deal with all the noise and arguments about the extension of the powers of the appeal board and those provisions which make it obligatory for the appeal board to reconsider certain decisions. My hon. colleagues in the Opposition have looked at these provisions through the dark glasses of a censorship syndrome. The provisions, if used in a restrictive manner only, could well cause chaos in the literary, scientific and artistic world. They could also hamstring the academic world. This is the picture which the official Opposition has conjured up. But the same provisions also widen the scope of appeal and, as I have already stated in previous stages of the debate, the directorate are now obliged to give reasons for their decision in certain cases, and it is my belief that these provisions do in fact improve the Act and provide sufficient scope for the rule of audi alteram partem for both the superliberal and the super-traditional. We can see no other way of wording the extension of this provision. We accept the provisions in good faith and reject the negative arguments of the other Opposition parties in opposing them.

I now want to deal with those provisions which prohibit the publisher from taking into account the number of copies of certain publications or objects for the fixing of amounts payable to them in any subsequent edition. In other words, if a publication is banned and because of this its sales to the curious public go up by a few thousand, the publisher may not take this increased circulation into account for fixing the amount payable for advertisements in the following issues. The Official Opposition claim that this amounts to a double penalty and that it should therefore be removed from the Bill. We disagree with them entirely. We regard this provision as necessary in order to avoid the exploitation of advertisers, as it is a well known fact that there are certain publishers in the Republic who deliberately court banning in order to build up circulation and thereby the fees they charge for advertising. This therefore does not impose a double penalty. I believe it is the just deserts for those who wish to exploit the provisions of this legislation for their own profit.

My colleagues in the other Opposition parties objected strongly to those provisions which prohibit the prejudicing or the influencing of the directorate whilst the directorate is considering a matter. I find these objections most remarkable. Some of the speeches that have been made on this subject, leave me stone cold. It would seem that there are many hon. members in this House who would like to see these provisions removed entirely. It is, however, our contention that if one removes these provisions, one might as well scrap the entire legislation, and we know that everyone in the House believes that there should in fact be legislation. After all, we even had complaints from the hon. member for Sea Point and from the hon. member for Houghton in regard to the film Africa Addio. Perhaps those hon. members want to be the sole arbiters, the only people who may prejudice, influence or anticipate the decisions of the directorate. We find these provisions necessary and we shall not waver in our support of them.

Finally, I wish to deal with the provisions of clause 6, which remove certain specific open exemptions under section 8(2) of the principal Act, i.e. those provisions which deal with bona fide scientific, artistic or religious publications or objects. We have had impassioned pleas on behalf of the universities from the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Parktown. The gravamen of their arguments have been that these provisions will inhibit research, art, literature and religious study because academics will have the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads because the exemption under section 8(3) of the principal Act may be withdrawn at any time and may not be renewed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to say that the exemption at present granted to the universities does not cover publication of material of this kind in its entirety and that not all of this sort of material is published by universities as some of it is published by institutions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition amazes me. The University of Cape Town is in his constituency and to the best of my knowledge he serves on the council of that university.

No.

I withdraw that then. Yet he makes that statement as though it was a statement of fact. I serve on a council of a university and I have taken great trouble to find out what these exemptions are all about. Let us test the statement of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, he said that these exemptions do not cover material of this kind in its entirety. What does the hon. member mean by “in its entirety”? I know that the exemption granted to Rhodes University, on whose council I serve, in accordance with the Act as it stands is a blanket exemption covering not only the publication, but also the importation and use of undesirable publications provided that they are for bona fide study and research. This covers all prohibited publications except prohibited publications of a communistic nature. However, even a communistic publication, provided that it is a bona fide scientific work that does not propagate communism even if it is on the theory of communism, can be imported on a special permit. I made specific enquiries and I established that these exemptions will continue to apply under the amended Act as they are exemptions granted under section 8 as a whole. They will not in any way be affected by this Bill. What then is the complaint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Questions were put in the House by the hon. member for Parktown which clearly indicate that a departmental inquiry is being conducted into the matter with the intention of making it even easier for universities. The hon. member for Parktown put a question in this regard last year and again this year. If one had read those questions one would know, and therefore I cannot see any reason for all these complaints.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also maintained that not all this material was being published by the universities. The hon. gentleman should realize that the clause he is speaking on deals with a principle that covers both publication and importation and deals with both individuals and institutions, certainly not with universities specifically. These exemptions are granted to any person or institution, so that even an individual researcher, the Medical Council, a university or a research department of a university can obtain its own exemption. I cannot understand why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not realize this. His argument was that the exemption can be taken away at any time and that this was therefore restrictive. I cannot understand anybody, even the parent of a child, giving a blanket privilege of this nature, without some method of control by saying: “If you go too far, if you do not remain within the limits of bona fide research and study, then I retain the right to withdraw it.” Surely this is the way legislation works throughout the world. If one grants an exemption without any restriction, then there is no need to legislate. We can then forget about Parliament. Hon. members must therefore not come here with that sort of argument.

I now come back to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Green Point. It is my contention that the two other Opposition parties are operating with a common strategy at the present time and that they are purposely producing spurious arguments and amendments in order to force the party which I represent to vote with the Government as much as possible in an attempt to discredit us in the eyes of the electorate. [Interjections.] I wish to conclude by saying that the electorate is not fooled. We are not afraid of supporting the Government in measures which we regard as necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order of society in South Africa. We support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the main I agree with the stand point of the hon. member for Albany. Later on I shall return to certain aspects to which the hon. member referred.

Since we have come to the Third Reading of this highly controversial amending Bill—I must say I cannot understand the Opposition’s standpoint on this Bill at all—I want to say that when we passed the principal Act in 1974, the hon. the Minister pointed out the following cardinal matters of principle amongst other things during his Second Reading speech, on which all our publication control legislation in South Africa rests. He said that the Government seriously wanted to preserve the characteristic religious and conservative character of the South African community and to protect it from the spirit of permissiveness and moral decay. He said that when undesirable things appeared in publications, films etc., which could cause harm to the spiritual welfare of South Africa, weaken our spiritual preparedness and soften the inner values of our nation, we should then take action. Furthermore, he stated the following principle: The key to the legislation lies in one sentence, namely, the nation controls its publications itself within the framework of a Christian outlook on life.

I want to say that this side of the House is absolutely and finally committed to these two principles. We cannot and will not deviate from them by one inch. Anyone who has seen anything of what is entering the country or what people want to publish and distribute in this country and what films they want to distribute in this country, will realize that we in South Africa definitely have a pressing need for control in this sphere. When it becomes necessary—the hon. the Minister also promised this in 1974—for us to guarantee the effective functioning of this Act by making the necessary adjustments and amendments to it, then we shall do so, and then we shall do it as we are doing now with the Bill which is before the House.

The great fuss was made by hon. members opposite about leaving out sections 8(2)(b)(iii) and (iv). In this regard we must be very clear on one point. Section 47(4) of the principal Act reads that in determining whether any publication or object is undesirable, no regard shall be had to the purpose of the person who produced or distributed that publication or object, is not taken into consideration. Then we come to section 8(2)(b)(iii) and (iv) which reads—

The hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members, including the hon. member for Albany, asked what other advantages this entailed except in the matter of Naked Yoga. I shall give hon. members another very good example of a publication which came before the Publications Appeal Board in 1975. I am referring to the case of Marne Enterprises v. Publications Appeal Board. This concerned a series of photographs of naked models sold in packets of eight on the pretext of being intended for artists who could not afford to hire the real thing, a naked model. A packet of eight photographs of a naked model like this was for sale at R2. The publisher of this publication—it is a publication—made out that it was meant exclusively for artists. In other words, the publishers made out that it was for the advancement of a branch of art in terms of section 8(2)(b)(iii). However, they were all photographs of models posing naked in some lewd or provocative way. What is more, that publication was not up for sale in a single art dealer’s shop. Nor were they advertised in any art magazine of repute in South Africa. However, one could buy them in every café and CNA bookshop in South Africa at R2 per copy. It actually consisted of nothing but eight photographs of pin-up girls, if I may use the expression.

When those things were brought to the attention of the committee, the defence was that it was offered for sale in order to promote art in terms of section 8(2)(b)(iii). I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether we should allow this type of thing on the pretext of being art whereas the promotion of art was the very last thing the publishers had in mind?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member please to give the House the decision of the court in that matter?

Mr. Speaker, the case of Mame Enterprises appeared before the Transvaal court before the present principal Act came into operation.

But what was the outcome?

The Transvaal court approved of the publications which were turned down by the old Publication Board. I admit this. However, the hon. member must not think that he has caught me out now. When the case was put before the Transvaal Supreme Court, the defence of section 8(2)(b)(iii) was not raised at all. The point of issue was solely whether that publication was desirable or not.

And the court decided that it was not undesirable.

Some of them were undesirable and others were not undesirable. I shall leave it at that. I can show the hon. member those photographs. I want to tell him that I do not want my son to buy those things. However, they were available in every café at R2 per eight photographs. This is a classic example of what is being published under the pretext of science in terms of section 8(2)(b)(iii).

I want to tell hon. members opposite that no-one on this side of the House is opposed to real bona fide work of a scientific or technical nature for the promotion of science, art or religion. No one on this side of the House would dream of wanting to ban a work like The Nude by Lord Kenneth Clark, because it is a work of outstanding artistic quality—the whole work is crammed with nude studies by artists over the centuries. Nevertheless someone could popularize extracts from that work and present it in such a way, as literature up for sale in cafés, that it could very well be undesirable and banned in terms of section 47(2). If this is the case, we have reached the stage that section 8(2)(b)(iii) is becoming superfluous and this is precisely what is happening now. Today there are many handbooks for art purposes available at our universities and bookshops. For instance, for art purposes there are books like Anatomy for Art Students which contain photos and copies of nude studies for art students. The muscles are shown on the one side and on the other, the skeleton of the human body in various positions. This is purely for the promotion of art and science. No one finds any fault with this or makes any fuss about it. I repeat:

It can however be presented in such a way that it is undesirable in terms of section 47(2). What is interesting, is that it is specifically the photograph which is most misused in this regard. May I quote, with approval, what a Canadian judge of appeal, Mr. Justice Freedman, said in 1970 about the audio-visual effect in contrast to the written word—

This is precisely what is happening here with this type of publication. It is precisely what happened with Naked Yoga. The whole scientific character of the yoga cult was destroyed the moment it was popularized and printed on a large scale throughout South Africa.

The hon. member for Parktown said that we were doing a disservice to literature in South Africa by means of this Bill which we now want to place on the Statute Book to amend the principal Act. He went on to say that no writer or scientist of repute in South Africa would support this legislation.

I want to ask that member in all seriousness today to tell me what writer who calls himself a writer of repute, and what scientist who calls himself a scientist of repute, is afraid to submit his work because it could be banned in terms of section 47(2) if it clashes with one of the following principals as contained in the principal Act. I shall now quote from the principal Act, because I want to put the question forcefully to the hon. member. How does section 47(2) read? It reads—

I ask in all seriousness: What writer of repute is afraid to write with this in mind? The writer who is afraid to do so with this in mind, is a writer who is producing pornography in any event. In any event this is a writer who wants to undermine the Government in this country. It is a writer, in any event, who wants to prejudice the religious morals and morale of the nation. No writer of repute needs to be afraid of the provisions of the Publications Act here in South Africa.

Mention one South African writer who is in favour of the Act!

The other day the hon. member for Parktown made a great fuss about Jack Cope’s book The Dawn Comes Twice. He insisted that in terms of a decision of the Publications Appeal Board, it is now supposedly forbidden to criticize the Government and the laws of the land, because as soon as anyone does so, he is acting in conflict with the Publications Act. What a load of rubbish the hon. member for Parktown spoke here!

What did the Appeal Board decide? The Appeal Board said—

This is the main character of the book—

This is what is said.

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

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. On the strength of the Act and on the strength of what the amending Bill seeks to promote, anyone is free to practise his profession, his literature, his science and his religion in this country. The only limitation which is laid down, is that in terms of section 47(2) of the principal Act. As long as this is the case, no one in this country has anything to fear and the argument of the hon. member for Parktown falls away completely.

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in this Third Reading debate. With a view to the remarks made by the hon. member for Albany, remarks which coincide somewhat closely with those made by the hon. the Minister in replying to me during Committee Stage, I feel it is perhaps right that one should clear the situation. The problem I have is why the two subsections (iii) and (iv) of section 8(2)(b) of the Act is being repealed. The hon. the Minister has given us an example of what the situation was when the courts could take decisions. Now the appeal board has a final decision. Why then repeal these two subsections?

Secondly, one is faced with the situation that the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Albany say that exemptions can be granted to universities and to individuals. I accept that; exemptions can be granted. However, the problem we have is something slightly different. Is the board likely to give exemptions if it regards the sort of publication likely to be undesirable? The appeal board has apparently rejected the relative concept of undesirability or of obscenity. Material is no longer judged as obscene or undesirable in reference to the market for which it is intended.

The appeal board indicated that in terms of section 8(2) of the Act, as it existed before amendment, the market for which it was intended was relevant. Now these two sub-paragraphs have been repealed and therefore this decision is no longer relevant. It seems to me that the position has become uncertain, and the mere fact that material will only come into the hands of intellectual specialists, may not be relevant in deciding whether the exemptions have been adhered to or not. A decision will be taken on average or community standards. Exemption to the universities will not necessarily be granted. The board has the power to grant the exemption, but need not grant it. Who says it is going to grant it in every case? Who says the board is going to grant it to scientific institutions? Who says it is going to grant it to genuine researchers? Because, if the board is going to grant these exemptions, why then repeal these subparagraphs? Why not leave them there?

My answer to the hon. member for Albany is that it would be extremely undesirable if every learned journal in South Africa operated under a sword of Damocles, under the feeling that if it published anything which the Publications Board did not like, its exemption might be withdrawn or the scope of the exemption might be narrowed. What does the hon. member think the effect will be on the standing of universities and research institutions whose publications are read overseas, knowing that they are subject to control of this kind? Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, what are we achieving by it? The exemptions as they existed in the past could possibly be evaded, but the appeal board could have dealt with such cases. It seems to me that this is the type of legislation which gives us a bad name, causes us to be misunderstood, which achieves nothing in South Africa and, with all respect, is what I call bad legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to waste too much time on the hon. member for Albany. [Interjections.] However, I do want to say that it appears that that party breaks ranks very easily if they have been forced by the arguments from this side of the House to cross the floor. I really cannot understand it, particularly when the hon. member for Albany said that he intends voting for the Third Reading of the Bill after having voted against the long title in the Committee Stage. In the long title is contained all the principles, all the content, the synopsis of the whole Bill … [Interjections.]

It was a oversight.

I thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort. For once in his life he is right. I think they were literally caught with their pants down this afternoon. I do not think we need to say anything more about this bunch because we must not attach too much importance to this insignificant group.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort again gave an example this afternoon and quoted at length from a judgment in the Supreme Court. He did exactly the same during the Second Reading debate, and in both cases he quoted examples where the court had decided that the matter was not undesirable. I want to say that that is the whole reason why we have this legislation before us. It is because this Government is determined to remove from the courts the discretion to decide whether or not a matter is desirable. That is the whole object of this Bill. The hon. member also raised the question of Naked Yoga and referred to the provisions of the Bill which now provides that the matter shall not be undesirable. In whose opinion must it not be undesirable? There is an old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I want to add to that and say that what we are concerned with here is not a case of beauty. Ugliness and sin which can also be in the eye of the beholder. The hon. the Minister and the party that he represents is only looking at the ugliness and the sin that they can see in all these publications.

This afternoon we find ourselves in a situation where the cultural desert which has been so carefully nurtured by the Nationalist Government is slowly, but surely encroaching into every facet of our lives. It has already encroached into our cultural life and into our entertainment. With the passing of this Bill this cultural desert is encroaching also into our educational and religious lives. No longer will an author or a publisher of a bona fide publication—I want to stress “bona fide” publication—of a scientific or religious nature be able to act free of the inhibiting influence of this legislation. He will no longer be able to write in the firm belief of the truth of whatever he is writing, whether it be a scientific or a religious subject, because now he can now render himself liable to prosecution for having produced something which is undesirable, should a committee in its wisdom decide that the matter is undesirable. What is the test that committee is going to apply? I am sorry, but I do not see the hon. member for Mossel Bay here. What did the hon. member for Mossel Bay say? He said that the board must not take cognizance of the technical quality of a work; it must only look at the desirability of it. With tears in my eyes, I ask whether, accepting the bona fides of the person who produced it, when a matter of a bona fide scientific or religious nature goes before the committee, that aspect must not be considered at all or that it should be considered, according to the hon. member for Mossel Bay—and I hear no contradictions from that side of the House and I can thus only assume that the hon. member for Mossel Bay has been correct in what he has said—by the committee as to whether it is desirable or undesirable. Then the question arises in whose eyes it is undesirable. I want to come back to the point that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Is it undesirable in the eyes of an eight-year old? Must the committee look at it and say that it is undesirable in the eyes of an adolescent? Must it look at it and ask itself the question whether it is undesirable in the eyes of an adult who is genuinely seeking the truth and learning? That is precisely where it going to fall down. This is precisely where the case against Naked Yoga falls down. If the committee looks at Naked Yoga and asks itself whether it is in fact a work of a scientific nature, a work which accurately propounds the practice of Yoga, the answer must be that it is not undesirable. However, if the committee looks at it and asks itself what a bunch of adolescents will do if they are to look at these beautiful pictures and they do not read the first part of the book, I believe the answer is going to be the opposite. Then the hon. the Minister will have achieved his object and will have the book banned. But I do not believe it should be banned. I believe that as a work of art and as a work propounding the practice of Yoga, it passes as a scientific work. It we look at the price, the hon. the Minister will see that today it is selling at over R10 per copy. It cannot be looked at through the eyes of a bunch of adolescents. It has to be looked at through the eyes of professional adult people who are genuinely seeking something in life.

We can look at the effect of those provisions in the Bill which allow the hon. the Minister to now dig out all the old decisions, to have another look at decisions which have been made in the past. These are matters which have been submitted for censorship, have been passed by the censors and which in good faith—as my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, pointed out—has then been distributed and sold. The hon. the Minister is going to make criminals or potential criminals of thousands upon thousands of people in this country.

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. There are going to be thousands of people who in good faith have purchased books, objects and publications, which have been passed by the censors in the past. Now the hon. the Minister is going to tell the board to have another look at it and the board may decide that it is in fact undesirable. Then everyone who owns that publication will find himself in the position that he can be prosecuted for possessing an undesirable object. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. [Interjections.] Where in the Bill does it say that that is not so?

Only in very special cases …

I think the hon. the Minister has missed the point. I am speaking about the three provisions regarding publications, films and plays. In those three provisions matters have in the past, under the provisions of the old Act, been submitted to the board for approval and have been approved and declared as being not undesirable. I am referring to these publications which have been bought by people in good faith

You are still wrong.

The hon. the Minister says that I am still wrong. I am glad to hear that I am still wrong, because it will put the matter in a far better light from my point of view. But I do not believe it will change my attitude towards the Bill and I shall still vote against it at Third Reading.

I look upon the Bill as yet another step in the control which the Government desires over the minds and thoughts of all our people. They want us to be like the three monkeys, i.e. to see no evil, to speak no evil and to hear no evil. The evil will then be what they decide and not what we shall decide for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of the discussion of the Bill and in my opinion, it is necessary to outline a few matters once again because the debate has showed us very clearly that a large number of hon. members of the Opposition are not really aware of how the legislation functions in practice. That is the reason why they have all kinds of misgivings and question marks in their minds, misgivings and question marks which do not exist in practice. I shall refer briefly to a few examples of these. The concepts “desirable” and “undesirable” are not easily definable. I should not like to argue the principle again, though. In that regard, we are dealing with grey areas in which people feel differently about a particular matter. Because the area is not specifically definable, it is one which, in the nature of things one has to leave in the hands of those people who are able to make decisions on it. The point of departure of the original legislation and of this Bill as well, is that the Republic of South Africa should judge for itself what is desirable and what is undesirable. That is the crux of the matter. It is not the Minister or the directorate that decides on this; it is the South African population at large that decides for itself. The general population is represented on the committees which consist of about 300 members in aggregate who represent a cross-section of the entire population. The constitution of the committees makes it very clear that a very wide spectrum is covered. The committees that have just been appointed are made up of 31 people with a knowledge of the performing arts, drama, live theatre, etc.; ten people with specific knowledge of journalism; 14 with a specific knowledge of the fine arts; 40 with some knowledge of literature and the art of writing. There are quite a few well-known South African writers among the latter group. Hon. members may examine the list of names if they are interested. I do not want to single people out. The hon. member asked me to name one writer who approved of the legislation. Well-known South African writers are serving on the committees which implement the legislation … [Interjections.] The hon. member says there is not one.

Who are they? Anna Louw, and she may not serve on the committee of the writers’ guild. [Interjections.]

There are also people with a knowledge of education, law and psychology, etc. We are trying to obtain the average opinion of the population. We believe in the control of publications, films and entertainments. We do not believe in censorship, however. I want to repeat the argument I put forward a few days ago, viz. that what we apply in South Africa is not censorship. Censorship means that every publication that is published and which enters the country, is subjected to close scrutiny and that every one of them is subjected to inspection and control. The system we are using here, does not work like that, and that is my reason for denying that it is censorship. One has censorship during wartime, because then every letter that enters or leaves the country, is examined. In this case, that does not happen, that is why it is not censorship and that is my reason for saying that it is an injustice to describe that system as censorship. It may perhaps be politically expedient to describe it as such, but in reality it is control. That is my argument against the hon. member.

As far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, he said that this was adding to the problems of South African authors because in terms of the legislation the Minister would now have a say and participate in making the decisions. What are the facts? In practice we find that the Minister’s opinion as to whether a publication is desirable or undesirable does not carry any weight and cannot under any circumstances exert any influence. As a responsible Minister, I am now telling the hon. member that I do not want that responsibility, I do not want to accept it. I refuse to accept it. The Minister’s office automatically forms a sounding-board for public opinion. If anyone is dissatisfied with a publication, film or entertainment, he writes a letter, either to the Directorate of Publications or to the Minister. In this way, then, the Minister’s office becomes a sounding-board for the public. The only responsibility this legislation entrusts to the Minister, is to use his discretion and to determine how widespread the objection to the specific publication, film or entertainment is. He also has to determine whether it is organized or not. One sometimes becomes aware of this, particularly when telegrams and letters with the same wording come from various places. In such a case, the Minister does not react. If it is genuinely spontaneous as a result of opposition to a matter, one can immediately sense this, and anyone with a little insight will realize that he is dealing with a spontaneous reaction. In this regard then the committee failed to interpret public opinion correctly. It judged that public opinion would accept the matter, but it does not, and this is the reaction to it. In cases like this, the Minister has the right to direct that the Appeal Board should also consider the item that was passed by the committee. In such a case, the Minister does not issue any injunction, he does not say that it is to be rejected, he does not even furnish his reasons for referring it to the board. The Appeal Board can therefore consider it entirely de novo and, in the light of the complaints that have been received, the board can judge whether the committee had inadvertently made an incorrect judgment in interpreting public opinion in its initial decision.

That is all that this directive means, and that principle was embodied in the old Act and is therefore not at issue. What is relevant now, is the fact that decisions that were made in terms of the Act of 1963, are now being included in the provisions of the legislation. The reason for this is that certain matters that were passed in terms of the old 1963 Act, were revived after they had been reprinted and one had reactions to this. Certain stage productions and publications that were permitted at that time, have now been revived and republished.

Which one is worrying you?

No, it does not matter which one is worrying me. I shall tell the hon. member what the problem is. Certain films that were passed by the old board, are now being exhibited. I mentioned the example of Africa Addio. Africa Addio was passed by the old board. I am not sure of the year, but it was passed by the old board as a film that could be exhibited. It was the time of Uhuru in Africa and it happened whilst disturbances were being experienced on the continent. At the moment, members of the PRP consider that film to be one which incites racial hatred in South Africa—because complaints have been made to me by the leader of the party and by the hon. member for Parktown. As the present Act reads, the hon. the Minister has no mandatory powers in respect of those publications which have been approved under the old Act. Therefore my reply to the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Parktown as far as their complaints are concerned, is this: I am sorry, but I am powerless and I cannot do anything about the matter because the Act does not give me any powers to do anything. If I get this provision into the legislation they are now opposing, I could give effect to their request, because then I could direct the Appeal Board to see whether in the light of the new circumstances prevailing in South Africa at present, such as better human relations, better understanding and so on, the film is offensive and whether the film is encouraging racial hatred in South Africa. This legislation affords a possibility of satisfying the PRP, but they are voting against the legislation. That is only one of the examples I could mention, I could continue to do the same thing with various others.

The principle of the legislation—it is not concerned with any specific work—is concerned with the fact that whenever works which have been approved in terms of the old legislation are exhibited again or re-released, or if books are re-published, then the sounding-board of the Minister’s office is overwhelmed with complaints. In such an event the Minister has to be able to make a judgment and in the same way as under the present legislation, he also has to be able to refer those matters to the Appeal Board for consideration. After the Appeal Board has made a decision, there is no further opposition, for then there is finality and certainty. The decisions made by the Appeal Board cannot be referred back to it by means of a directive. No such provision exists, because that would impair the status of the Appeal Board. That would then place the Minister above the Appeal Board, because then he could tell the Appeal Board: “Take another look. You have looked at it, but did not do so properly. Look at it again.” This is not done, however, and the moment the Appeal Board has decided to approve or reject a work, such a decision is final and no further directive to the Appeal Board is possible. I think it is essential that it be that way and that it remain that way.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was completely taken aback when I told him that I would not be turning thousands of people into offenders. Surely the hon. member ought to be familiar with the law—I think that in general, he is very well acquainted with the Act—and surely he knows that certain publications are declared undesirable and that the subsequent distribution of that work is an offence. Certain matters are pre-eminently and specifically published in the Gazette, and it is stated that the possession of that work constitutes an offence.

That is being done here.

The argument is as follows: Can you imagine for one moment that a work that has been passed in terms of the old Act could be found so undesirable under the new dispensation where there is a directive involved, that the possession of it would constitute an offence? Surely that is absurd and unthinkable.

If one looks at the attitude of your members, it is not absurd or unthinkable.

Oh, please! The fact remains that it is only by way of extreme exception that a work is branded as so undesirable that the mere possession of it constitutes an offence. It is extremely rare.

Even in terms of section 97(3)?

Yes, it is by way of rare exception. I can assure you that the works that are submitted for reconsideration and are assessed will not be of such a nature that the possession of such works constitutes an offence. That is why the hon. member is incorrect in saying that we are making offenders of thousands of people because they possess undesirable material. It could be that they have bought a book in all innocence and that the book has now been declared undesirable and that they would be committing an offence if they distributed it, but it will not be an offence for them to possess it.

You can have Kennis van die Aand in your possession, if you like.

The hon. member at the back is absolutely correct, and I want to mention the example of the book Kennis van die Aand. The book was prohibited, not only by the board, but by the court as well. The possession of that book was not prohibited. If anyone has a copy of that book, he may possess it, but he may not distribute it. A person may not lend it out to others so that they may read it.

I want to raise another matter, viz. the argument which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also advanced. It concerns the exemption of works of a scientific nature. I just want to explain what the position is, and then I shall turn to the exemption idea which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised here. First of all, I just want to sketch the background and then give him the full facts. Representations were made to the Directorate of Publications by the principals of the four English-language universities. The same representations were also made to the Minister of Justice as far as communist publications were concerned. The representations followed the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Publications and Entertainments Amendment Bill which rejected the proposal of the aforementioned universities that the legislation be amended in such a way that universities would be able to have unhindered access to publications that had been declared undesirable. It was also opposed to the recommendation that administrative adjustments could be made so the publications that had been declared undesirable could, wherever necessary and desirable, be made more freely available to universities. Subsequently, an investigation was instituted into the matter. Certain representatives visited the English-language universities of Cape Town, the Witwatersrand and Durban as well as the University of Pretoria. They subsequently made a report and recommendations to the Minister of Justice and to me. The report and recommendations were also brought to the attention of the Directorate of Publications. The present position is that as far as the present Publications Act, 1974, is concerned, all universities have open exemptions, which were issued to them under the repealed Publications Act of 1963. They may have any work that was issued in terms of the old Act in their possession, because this is an open exemption to all universities.

It is nevertheless subject to the Minister’s discretion, is it not?

We have granted them an open exemption. The Act says we “may” do this, but we have done so.

Nevertheless, it can be repealed, can it not?

Yes, certainly, we can repeal it, but we have given them an open exemption. These open exemptions are to the effect that all universities may procure all publications that have been declared undesirable, except those of a communist nature. That is the only limitation that is imposed. That is the present position. The publications must be kept under lock and key and can only be made available to students for study and research purposes in the library.

They are only in the library?

Yes, only in the library.

Students may not take them out?

No. They have to use them in the library. This is merely a form of control, for if a student were able to take them out, they could lie around all over the boarding house and fall into the wrong hands. This is the measure of control that is being exercised over this matter. As far as the present position is concerned, therefore, it is incorrect to state that universities do not have access to publications that have been declared undesirable. It is only publications of a communist nature that they do not have access to. Even these publications of a communist nature may be procured by means of a special permit if it is a publication of a purely scientific nature and is not aimed at promoting communism. The practical problems universities are experiencing in the implementation of this exemption, were identified by the departmental representatives concerned and, where necessary, adjustments were recommended in order to eliminate these problems. According to my information, the universities are not having any problems with this at present. If there are still any problems, as the hon. member alleges, I should like to hear about them. According to our information, the universities are at present completely satisfied with the arrangement and I shall therefore leave it at that.

Objections have also been raised in respect of the question as to when a work is of a bona fide scientific nature. Let us take one more look—hopefully this will be the last time—at the case of Naked Yoga in order to determine what happened. I am taking this as an example. That publication was initially submitted to the old Publications Board under the chairmanship of Mr. Kruger, in terms of the old Act of 1963. The publisher alleged that it was a purely scientific work for the promotion of the Yoga cult in South Africa. The publisher went on to say that the yoga cult stated that yoga had to be practised naked and that was why all the photographs portrayed naked female figures. That is the argument that was advanced. As the hon. member has indicated, the text of the publication is scientific. It is full of scientific concepts. The old board accepted the publisher’s argument that it was a purely scientific work. Consequently, under those circumstances, they approved it. In my opinion, once the publisher had received approval, he immediately abused it because a scientific work for promoting the yoga cult is surely not sold over the counters of cafés throughout South Africa. What other scientific work of whatever standard or subject matter can one buy in a café? Therefore, the Publication Board’s judgment that it was a purely scientific work was abused. The publication immediately made its appearance in cafés and was sold on a large scale. The result was that the average citizen addressed complaints in this regard to the Minister. The Minister was asked to do something about it. I could not tell them: “I have no control whatsoever over that matter. I am sorry, but it is done.” I could not do that because there was clear evidence that the exemption had been abused. Consequently, we amended the Act so that the Minister could refer a case back to the old board. The old board subsequently reconsidered the publication and decided that it had initially been misled and that the manner in which the publication had been distributed, had indicated that it was not intended to be a scientific work. This had shown them that the bona fides in this case were dubious.

The question is, who is to decide on the bona fides?

At that stage the old board formed an opinion on the matter and the publication was declared undesirable. The case was subsequently referred to the Cape court and that court decided that the publication was not undesirable. Once again the publication was released and once again the publisher printed a new impression and distributed it to cafés throughout the country.

The Cape court did not take into consideration whether it was scientific or not. The court simply did not regard it as an undesirable publication.

That is precisely my point. The Cape court did not consider whether or not it was a scientific work, but simply found that the publication was not undesirable. Consequently, it was once again exempted and a new impression was published. A new, continuous stream of complaints once again poured in from all quarters. The directorate then lodged an appeal against the decision in the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein, and the Appeal Court decided with three votes to two—it was not a unanimous decision—

The Appeal Court, therefore, made a brand new decision. Their decision was not concerned with whether it was desirable or undesirable, but with the question as to whether it was a work of a scientific nature and whether it was therefore to receive exemption. The Cape court did not determine whether it was scientific or not. The Cape court decided that the publication was not undesirable. The Bloemfontein Appeal Court, on the other hand, found that it had no say over the matter because it was a scientific work. That was the decision they arrived at by three votes to two. Since this situation is such a delicate one that judges differ amongst each other and the public is complaining for a third time that they do not want to see or accept the publication and that the way in which it has been distributed indicates clearly that it is being abused, I believe that we have to be able to reconsider the matter. We have to be able to refer it to the appeal board which has specific authority over such a matter. To be able to do this, I have no option but to introduce this provision. This is, inter alia, the reason why it is being done. We cannot do otherwise. The Government cannot tell a multitude of voters who raise objections, that it is sorry, but it cannot do anything about the matter, that it is completely powerless. Then they say that the Government ought to change the law so that it will not be powerless, because, they say, the Minister said the people were to make their own decisions and the people do not want this thing. Therein lies my problem. That is why we are introducing this provision.

I want to conclude because the matter has been so clearly argued by other hon. members that there is hardly any reason to argue it any further.

The hon. member for Parktown alleged that we were rendering South African literature a disservice. He said the twilight era had arrived and that the curtain of censorship was descending. Those words would have sounded fine in a leading article in The Star when he was still writing it. Unfortunately, those words are totally devoid of any reality today. How many times will I still have to ask the hon. member not to noise the untruth abroad that Afrikaans literature is being adversely affected by this legislation?

Ask the Afrikaans authors.

The fact remains that since the implementation of this legislation in 1963, only one book of literary merit has been banned, viz. Kennis van die Aand, and this was banned by the court and not only by the board. One other book was found to be undesirable but when an appeal was lodged, the appeal was withdrawn even before it could be heard. In other words, up to now, Afrikaans literature has only experienced problems with one work. The hon. member must now stop declaiming that South African literature is being crippled by this Act, because it is untrue.

Ask the Afrikaans authors.

The South African authors are divided into two clearly defined camps on this issue. On the one hand there is the Skrywersgilde which objects to and rejects all forms of control. On the other hand, there is the Suid-Afrikaanse Skrywerskring which comprises just as many authors—also distinguished and respected authors—who fully support the legislation, from whom I receive letters, and who are forever telling me that if I give the Skrywersgilde a hearing and listen to their standpoint, then they, the Skrywerskring, also want to come and state their case because they agree with the legislation and they do not want to write pornography. Those are the facts I am faced with. As in all other fields, we have a difference of opinion here as well. There are some authors who want no control and there are others who believe that the aim of literature is that an author should be able to write without restriction, but that he should not produce pornography of any kind. These are the two camps we are faced with. What is the duty of the State in this regard?

In my opinion, the State’s duty remains that which is envisaged by this legislation. Its primary duty remains not to place unbounded restraints on authors, but to ensure that whatever is undesirable, whatever could undermine the spirit, character and morality of a nation, whatever could disrupt race relations, whatever could be injurious to State security and to law and order in the country, is kept out of this country, and in that regard, this legislation is making a contribution.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—95: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Palm. P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; 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.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—27: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Van Cooler, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

The position is that in this clause two of the general powers which are granted to the Minister include the right to determine transportation routes which must be followed in carrying out transportation of different types. These can be determined from the starting point to a finishing point to follow certain roads or streets which are laid down. The other provision is to prohibit the conveyance of goods of any kind, etc., on any specified day or between specified hours of any day, etc. We recognize that these are normal administrative powers which are necessary, but later today we will be dealing with another measure, the Urban Transport Bill, which introduces the concept of metropolitan transport areas with metropolitan transport plans which are initially drawn up at provincial level in consultation with local authorities. They are then approved by the National Transport Commission and then become statutory plans imposed upon an area. Amongst other things such a plan may limit routes, give power to close certain streets at certain times, allow people in them only during certain hours, prohibit vehicles of different types entering particular areas, etc. We are dealing here with the broad picture of transportation throughout South Africa, and with this measure we are placing a power in the hands of the Minister which could conflict with a metropolitan plan and cover the same area and the same type of problem as a plan which the National Transport Commission would be approving in terms of an urban transport area. Although the Minister acts on the recommendation of the commission he is acting in a different capacity in respect of a different purpose and a different field of power. In this measure he is acting in the field of authorizing transportation of a certain type.

In the other Bill, which we will be coming to, the urban transportation boards will advise on and the commission will approve plans dealing, not with the authorization of transport and conditions placed on permits authorizing it, but with the problem on the ground, the road which is used for transport, and the control and co-ordination of traffic on the road. We believe it is necessary that there should be co-ordination between these two powers which overlap and which cover exactly the same field. When the commission studied this, we did not have the Urban Transport Bill before us and unfortunately the matter was not probed at that time. However, now that we have both Bills before us—the second one being next on the Order Paper—we believe that these two should be coordinated. Therefore, I have moved the two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper. The first of these amendments provides that where a route is proclaimed in terms of the Road Transportation Bill, it shall conform with any plan incorporated and approved in a metropolitan transportation area plan. The second amendment provides that where any prohibition on hours, etc., is imposed in terms of this Bill, it shall also conform to similar plans under the Urban Transport Act. Obviously the amendment cannot read “Urban Transport Act”, because it is not yet an Act. It is only a Bill before us, and therefore my amendment is worded “approved in terms of any Act”.

I hope I have made my case. I shall therefore not take it any further at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am not entirely sure of the necessity for these two amendments, but to us it certainly seems to be logical that this Bill should be brought into line with the Urban Transport Bill, which will no doubt be passed. Certainly the hon. the Minister should not have the power to override the National Transport Commission’s decisions as far as national transport plans are concerned. As I have said, I am not entirely convinced of the necessity, but on balance we are prepared to support these two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. member for Durban Point’s enthusiasm in wanting to pilot through the Urban Transport Bill together with this one, without further ado, but I also doubt whether it is necessary to make provisions for it in the Road Transportation Bill. If one listens to what the hon. member had to say about metropolitan areas, one comes to the conclusion that the whole Republic will in due course be divided into metropolitan areas and that there would be no other areas outside those areas. In regard to paragraph (f), the hon. member will remember that the idea was in fact to demarcate and specify the routes and that weigh-bridges would be introduced where inspections would be carried out on vehicles. To point out a good example to the hon. member, I am thinking of the road between Witbank and the Witwatersrand. There are coalmines in the vicinity of Witbank, which are scattered over a very wide area. They do not link up with that road at one point only. They link up with this road almost as far as Ogies. Before the motor trucks reach the Witwatersrand on that road, they turn off onto various side roads. Some drive to Pretoria and others to Heidelberg or Nigel. Those are roads which do not run into the metropolitan areas at all. Therefore, if we want to have it in a metropolitan area, such a checking point would serve no purpose at all, because it could in any case and for all practical reasons not fall under a metropolitan area. In the Urban Transport Bill reference is made to specific times and to specific parts of a city. The idea behind that is that it would be only the central areas of the large cities which are going to be affected in that regard. Such traffic would thus be excluded from it in any case. In this regard I should like to draw the hon. member for Durban Point’s attention to clause 42 which reads—

I think one can accept that the Urban Transport Bill will also be applicable to vehicles as defined in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, to my mind it would serve no purpose whatsoever to accept the amendments. In fact, I think it would result in a greater measure of confusion. The hon. member wants to make certain additions to clauses 2(f) and (g). Paragraph (0 has a positive approach and paragraph (g) has a negative approach to more or less the same matter. In paragraph (f) the hon. member wants to add the following—

In other words, the hon. member uses the words “which traverses a metropolitan transportation area” in his amendment. In paragraph (g) he only wants to add—

In other words, the hon. member does not there provide for a part “or only in so far as it traverses a metropolitan transportation area”.

The fact of the matter is that it is not in any way the intention of the paragraphs to interfere with the traffic. The intention of the paragraphs is to carry out road inspections and to establish weigh-bridges along the road on which vehicles can be weighed, etc. In other words, the activities envisaged by paragraphs (f) and (g), would hinder the traffic rather than promote it. To allege now that we must take these steps on a route which is perhaps already approved by the metropolitan advisory board as an important route for purposes of the flow of traffic, would probably create an obstruction. The purpose of the paragraph is also not so much—I do not say it is necessarily so—that it must just take place in the rural areas. To my mind it is to a greater extent in fact meant to be applied in the peri-urban areas and not in areas inside cities or in the metropolitan transportation areas as defined in the other legislation. As such the intention of the paragraph is to allow the traffic to flow along a particular route completely outside the urban areas and then to have the necessary weigh-bridges available on this particular route, so that the road inspections may be carried out there. Therefore there is two considerations which cannot be compared with one another at all.

What about the routes through an urban area?

What assurance do we have in any case? Say we want to carry out the tests inside a metropolitan transportation area, what assurance do we have at this stage that it will fit in with the activities we want to carry out there in terms of the provisions of the paragraphs? We do not have that assurance and in addition, the activities which can be carried out in terms of these clauses, are meant for peri-urban areas to a greater extent than for central urban areas. In fact, I think that it is desirable that it should take place in peri-urban areas, otherwise it could act as an obstruction in regard to traffic in central urban areas. Under the circumstances I cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in a long argument in regard to this question, but the simple issue at stake is that there are two Bills which will both empower the application of the same restrictions. Clause 2(g) of the Bill under discussion provides that the Minister may—

This is exactly the same power as a metropolitan transport plan will have in regard to the areas within its jurisdiction. The same applies to the declaration of a route. That is one of the things that can be done. All I am trying to establish is that the planning of the metropolitan transport system will take precedence over restrictions imposed for totally different reasons. The hon. the Minister has given reasons as to what is intended by this. All that my amendment seeks to do is to emphasize that the urban plan will take precedence where there is an urban plan. Where there is not, it does not apply. Where there is no urban plan, my provisos do not come into effect at all. Therefore there is no restriction on any of the matters which the hon. the Minister gave as examples and which the hon. member for Boksburg gave, because they are not in metropolitan area plans. All the examples quoted by the hon. the Minister are not in such an area. It would only apply where there is a plan. Therefore I am afraid that the hon. the Minister has given a wrong answer. I am just trying to make this more workable and I have no ulterior motive. I am trying to emphasize that the metropolitan plan should take precedence because that is where one’s bottlenecks and one’s problems are. In terms of this one can find prohibitions which will be in conflict with the planning envisaged by those involved in the city. That is why I moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say the following to the hon. member and I think that this is perhaps the decisive answer. In so far as such a route as is envisaged here would traverse a metropolitan transportation area, all the provisions and regulations laid down in a metropolitan area, would in any case be applicable to that particular route. Therefore no problems could possibly arise.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

Clause 4, as a whole deals with the establishment and constitution of the boards. Clause 4(2) provides that the board shall consist of a chairman and two members who shall be appointed by the hon. the Minister. The clause further provides that one shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Administrator and that the other shall be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the appropriate municipality, or that some other person who possess a thorough knowledge shall be appointed.

Now, Sir, I appreciate that in subsection (4) of clause 4 there is provision for cooption. The provision is that any board shall co-opt at the request of the Minister one or more persons. Provision is also made for consultation with persons of specialized knowledge. I also appreciate that in subsection (7) of clause 4 “whenever a member of the board vacates his office or is removed therefrom or is temporarily unable to perform his functions as such, or has recused himself, the Minister may appoint any person whom he considers suitable to act in place of such member for such period …” But, Mr. Chairman, my amendment to subsection (4) seeks to provide that the Minister may appoint such alternates as and when he appoints the members of the board.

If the Minister were to do that it would mean that there would be no problem. No hiatus would be caused if a member found himself through circumstances beyond his control called away suddenly or unable to attend a meeting through illness with the result that the board would already be functioning at two-thirds of its strength, because this is a board of three persons, excepting for those who are co-opted. I believe that it is desirable under those circumstances that the Minister should have that power. It is a permissive power, not an obligatory power, and it is one which I believe could make for the much smoother working of the boards if the circumstances which I have outlined were to take place and particularly if the Minister did not have the time to use the provisions which exist already. In terms of my amendment I visualize that it would do away with this problem.

Let me point out that numerous examples exist in present legislation where provision is made for alternates. In one case it was necessary to amend an Act only four years after it had been placed on the Statute Book, in order, inter alia, to make provision for the appointment of alternates. I am quoting the example of the Professional Engineers Act, No. 81 of 1968. Four years afterwards, by amending Act No. 52 of 1972, provision was made for the appointment of certain alternate members of the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers. It would appear that with the passage of time, with experience, a position was created where it was desirable to make provision for alternates. I could quote many Acts. I could quote seven Acts straight off the cuff, but it is not my wish to take up the time of the Committee. May I point out that of the provisions in the seven Acts which I have in mind four are permissive and three are obligatory. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one of the obligatory provisions in the Bantu Affairs Administration Act which makes provision for a Bantu Affairs Administration Board. There it is quite definite. It says—

In this particular instance all my amendment seeks to do is to make it permissive so that the Minister may appoint these alternates after consultation, if necessary, at the time that he appoints the members themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea and I myself move the amendment printed in my name, as follows—

I am not going to repeat the arguments used in the Second Reading. I think our attitude is very clear. I only want to place it on record. I do not want to elaborate on it. Our attitude is that if we want to implement the declared policy of the Government to move away from discrimination based on race and colour, one of the best methods for achieving this is to have representatives of the various communities concerned on the different boards and bodies taking decisions which apply to the various communities in South Africa. In this way we shall have joint decision-making. There will be no question of discrimination or domination. Nobody will be able to claim that one community dictates to another community without the needs and circumstances of the community concerned being taken into account. We feel that it is a matter of fundamental importance. The hon. the Minister went so far as to say that it was his policy to appoint Asians and Coloureds to the various boards. That is indeed a great step forward. Therefore he should have no objection to this proposal either, because it does exactly what, in his own words, the hon. the Minister has in mind. The only difference is that we include the urban Bantu.

The urban Bantu is a group which the Minister does not take into account. He said quite clearly, too, that he was not prepared to accord representation to that group. Let us consider the circumstances of Soweto. The million or more people in Soweto have a real interest in transport matters. Is it not a community which should obviously be given the opportunity to state its problems and circumstances to the board and on the board? The position arises where members of other race groups and communities are represented on the board and take decisions while the people who are directly concerned will have no say. If the Government is planning to appoint Asians and Coloureds, we see no justification whatsoever for the exclusion of the urban Bantu. As I said, we regard it as a step forward which will help ultimately to eliminate discrimination. We regard it as a step which is in the interests of South Africa and of South Africa’s image and which is also in the interest of better administration and better relations between the various communities. I shall not take the matter any further or repeat arguments which we advanced in the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point is very much in line with the standpoint he took during the Second Reading debate. We approach the matter from a slightly different angle in that we hope the day will come when it will not be necessary to move an amendment of this sort.

Yes, naturally.

Certainly, we would be naïve if we were to believe that, even if it had been the general rule in the past that members representative of communities were elected to bodies of this sort, it would also happen in the future. Although we have heard a lot of talk about this, it has not actually happened yet. We cannot object to this amendment and consider it essential for the hon. the Minister to appoint additional members to a road transportation board at a time when certain communities are involved. While we are on this subject, perhaps I can draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to clause 4(3)(b) which has to do with the appointment of a person by the Minister “after consultation with the councils of such municipalities within the transportation area in question”. I should just like to mention the fact that Cape Town Municipality has apparently on many occasions suggested to the hon. the Minister the names of people whom they would like to see on local transportation boards, and the hon. the Minister has never seen fit, according to a Press report, to appoint any of them at all. If a clause such as this one is to have any meaning at all, it is important that the wishes of the municipalities concerned are taken into account. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit, at some time in the future, to pay a little more attention to the recommendations of the municipalities concerned, because this is what consultation means.

With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea which, if I may say so, is a hobby-horse of his, it is an amendment which he has moved to lots of legislation in the past and we are prepared to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. In so doing I should just like to say that this Bill—and I think we must all agree—is going to affect the daily lives of a vast proportion of our population as they move to and from work in the course of each day. It is also going to affect the private sector which is greatly involved in the transportation of these people to and from work. For this reason I feel that the area in which this Bill is going to operate is going to be a very sensitive area. As such, this Act, when it is eventually promulgated, must be seen to be as free from any possibility of discrimination based on colour as possible. I therefore feel that it should not be very difficult at all for the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment, because it does not run contrary to any stated policy of the Government. All it is asking is that when the Minister co-opts certain people onto a transportation board, due regard be given to the communities within the jurisdiction of this board. For that reason I cannot see any logical reason why the hon. the Minister should object to it, whereas on the other side, I can see many favourable reasons why he should support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I regard this amendment as being unnecessary and superfluous. I want to draw the attention of this Committee to the fact that this Bill was closely scrutinized, first by a Select Committee and subsequently by a commission, for a period of two years. Therefore I am prepared to accept the Bill, and as a result of that I think one should hesitate to make amendments to the legislation, except, of course, amendments based on policy or principle, such as those in respect of colour, class, etc. That is a different matter. We may still argue such matters and there were differences of opinion in the commission in this regard, according to what I hear, or rather, it is apparent from the minority reports which were submitted. In this case, however, it has been the policy up to now and the position is indeed so, that there is provision for the Minister to fill any vacancy in a board, if a vacancy arises. As a matter of fact I filled a vacancy in a board this morning. Ample provision is made for that in clause 4(7). The power to co-opt which is contained in subclause (4) is not for that purpose. Its purpose is different and I shall deal with that in a moment. I regard the proposal to have alternate members as being superfluous, having regard to the provisions of subclause (7), which fully covers the circumstances of a vacancy arising and the Minister appointing somebody else to fill the vacancy.

I now come to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. During the Second Reading debate I told the hon. member for Durban Point that I was not willing to accept this amendment as it restricted my powers. It is still true today that it restricts my powers, because this power to co-opt, for which provision is being made here, does not relate to the representation of Coloureds or Indians on a board only. It may also be used in other circumstances. It may for instance be used when one wants to co-opt a person who has special knowledge to serve on the board to consider a special matter. In such a case it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the various communities within the particular jurisdiction. That is why I do not want to confuse the question of people being co-opted by adding the words “with due regard to the communities within its jurisdiction”.

I did tell the hon. member to what end provision is being made here for the power to co-opt. May I correct the hon. member? Whereas I said during the Second Reading that I was prepared to stick out my neck and to say that I foresaw Coloureds and Indians being appointed to the board in future, I do not want the hon. member to hold it against me if by next year no Coloureds or Indians have been appointed yet. I by no means meant by that that I would proceed from here and immediately appoint Coloureds and Indians to the boards. I stated explicitly that we were providing for co-option at this juncture. It is only a step in that direction.

We discussed these matters during the Second Reading debate. Of course, and as is usual, it is necessary, however, for us to discuss the principle of the matter once more to some extent. The problem with the hon. members on the opposite side is that it has become an ideology with them …

An obsession!

It is an obsession, yes. “Obsession” is a better word. It has become an obsession with them to have Coloureds and Indians—and now the hon. member also says Bantu—appointed to the board, regardless of the practical and physical circumstances. Whether it is going to work well or not, is not relevant. It is an obsession with them. This is how it must be according to them. My contention is that we have to have regard to the practical circumstances. I want to emphasize once more that the general public, those people for whom we want to create transport facilities by means of this legislation, is not there for our sake. We are there for their sake. Consequently it is correct, so I believe, that when all these matters are being considered, to have regard to the opinion of John Citizen who has to use the transport facilities. We have to give proper consideration to his wishes, his desires and his needs. Here I am making provision for the first time for people to be co-opted to the boards. I am doing so mainly because in the circumstances in which applications are considered, it may be desirable to have also a Coloured or an Indian person on the board. I am making provision for that so that this may be possible in those specific circumstances.

If I want to have a person with special knowledge—knowledge in a specific direction—on the board, the necessary provision is being made to enable me to co-opt such a man. However, this will not happen purely on the grounds of his being a Coloured or an Indian; therefore not only on the ground of considerations with regard to the community to which he belongs. As a result of this it is my intention—I stated it clearly and unambiguously—to create the opportunity here for the representation of the various communities by means of co-option. Why should bits be added now, bits which may play havoc with my other objective, i.e. the procurement of specialized knowledge? In the circumstances I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Orange Grove resented me for apparently not having taken the recommendation of the municipality of Cape Town into account. The hon. member said he hoped the Minister would in future at least consider the recommendations of municipalities. I am speaking under correction, but all these years no persons other than those recommended by the municipalities have been appointed. In the area falling under the Cape Road Transportation Board—Cape Town—there are dozens of municipalities, each making its own recommendation. The hon. member now wants the recommendation to be accepted. That is probably because it was a Prog who was recommended. That is the very man that I would not appoint. The hon. member wanted me to accept the recommendation made by Cape Town. Regardless of the person, we have appointed good people to the board in the past. The boards have always done good work and the hon. member may rest assured that on each occasion where such a board is appointed, recommendations are requested from the municipalities concerned. Provision exists for this, and in the past we acted in this way. The board is appointed from the recommendations by the municipalities. Consequently I shall have due regard to this factor, but the hon. member must take it into account that a great many recommendations are made to the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. the Minister chose to use emotive words like “obsessions” and so on, when we are dealing with a matter where we believe, if the hon. the Minister does not, the proclaimed policy of the Government is in the interest of South Africa. We are simply trying to incorporate into the legislation what the Government says it wants to do. We want to show South Africa that this is what the Government wants to do. That is all we ask. I am not suggesting we circumscribe the hon. the Minister’s powers. We have not said that it can only be people representing communities. We have not limited the hon. the Minister’s powers in any way. We simply want to add a consideration to which due regard should be had. By rejecting this proposal, it is the hon. the Minister who has an obsession. The hon. the Minister is showing an obsession against any indication that he is going to do the right thing. The hon. the Minister says: “I am going to do it, but please do not say so. Do not put it in the Bill; the HNP might object.” However, what about the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs? What would his view be on this? The hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member must not discuss the matter on too wide a base.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that. I will not bring in the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will deal with this hon. Minister. We are here dealing with a positive proposal which—and I want to emphasize this—does not limit the hon. the Minister’s powers. It simply says: “with due regard to the communities within its jurisdiction”. The proposal is not compulsory or mandatory and it does nothing that the hon. the Minister himself says he does not want to do. Yet, he rejects it. Why does the hon. the Minister reject something which he says he is going to do? In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister did not say that some time in the far distant future he was going to do it. He said: “Dit is my plan. Dit is waarvoor ek voorsiening maak.” Now he says: “Do not blame me if it is far, far in the future.” What are we getting from the hon. the Minister? One minute he gives us an indication that he is going to do the right thing and afterwards an indication that it is something that may not happen for years.

The one is in regard to co-opting. The other deals with the appointment of a member. There is a difference.

I am talking about the co-opting.

That we shall do as soon as it is opportune.

Why then does the hon. the Minister not want to indicate, as we ask in this amendment, that when he does it he will pay due regard to the communities? That is all we are asking, but the hon. the Minister refused to do that and wants us to accept his word. However, he refuses to put his own words into the Bill. I am sorry, but that I do not understand. It is far from being an obsession; we are trying to help the Government and we are trying to get the hon. the Minister to do what we believe will be in the interest of South Africa because it will be in the interest of better harmony between all our communities.

Mr. Chairman, the first matter the Committee should realize, is that subsection (4) of clause 4—which is the subject of this argument—was not recommended by the commission after the commission had considered it for two years. If I am not mistaken, the hon. the Minister introduced it of his own accord. The commission never considered the need for such a provision. I believe the hon. the Minister advanced substantial reasons for introducing this specific subsection. I am prepared to support him in that regard.

Now, the hon. member for Durban Point does have a point, however. He asks why the hon. the Minister, if he is in earnest, and he wants to appoint a non-White to the board, is afraid to include a provision to this effect in the Bill? The matter seems very simple to me. Let us assume that the hon. the Minister does not keep his word, and we find in two, three or four years’ time that he had not yet appointed a person of colour to the board. It seems to me as if it would then be the bounden duty of the hon. member for Durban Point to stand up in this House during the discussion of the Transport Vote and to take the hon. the Minister properly to task in this regard. I think, however, that the Bill does not need a provision of that kind. I am quite prepared to accept this new clause, which we as a commission never considered, as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the hon. member for Maitland who is supporting my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] I should like to refer the Committee to Hansard of 2 May 1977. I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to what the hon. the Prime Minister said. I want to quote from col. 6633.

Order! I cannot allow such a wide discussion now.

With respect, Sir, it is one paragraph and it refers to opinions on joint boards. I feel it would be of interest to the hon. the Minister. With your permission I want to quote just one sentence.

Order! That is a repetition of the standpoints expressed by several hon. members. The amendment has been moved, the various parties have stated their attitude towards it, and I cannot allow a wide discussion on something which was discussed by a previous hon. member in the Second Reading debate. The hon. member must realize that we are now dealing with the Committee Stage.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister’s reply to me with regard to my amendment when I put forward a suggestion that there should be alternates. The hon. the Minister drew attention to subsection (7) of the clause under discussion. He indicated that there he was given the power to appoint people in place of someone who was unable to attend. He also indicated that the commission had gone through this Bill with a fine comb. If I may digress for a moment, I want to point out that I served on a health commission. We sat for two years and went through the Health Bill with a fine comb. We found it necessary to suggest that there should be provision for alternates in the Health Matters Advisory Committee. I think the hon. the Minister is being a little unfair when he says the amendment is unnecessary, since I believe in doing that he is going against the very spirit of the Bill as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) of clause 4 because there, when the hon. the Minister appoints his representative under (a), it is “after consultation with the Administrator” and under (b) it is “after consultation with the council”.

Let us be perfectly practical about it. If, for example, the board would meet on an afternoon and an hour before it was due to meet, one of the members was taken ill, would the hon. the Minister really suggest that at such a late hour he would be in a position to appoint somebody? Even if that were possible, would the hon. the Minister have been able to satisfy himself that he would have had an opportunity to consult with the Administrator or the municipality of which the absent member might have been the representative? I suggest that the hon. the Minister will not be in a position to nominate anybody who will be able to serve on the board in the spirit in which the clause has been drafted. I ask him to reconsider the matter. I understand his rights under the provisions of clause 7, but I do not believe that from the practical point of view it deals with the case which I have outlined. In a board with so few members it is, to my mind, necessary to make provision now. Let us make this new Bill as comprehensive, as effective and as practicable as possible.

Amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—25: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Van Collier, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Noes—85: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell me whether it is necessary to legislate to provide that a member shall vacate his office if he dies? I would have thought that if he dies he ceases to be a member! Yet here we are now passing a Bill which provides that a man vacates his office if he dies. Is this as a result of the position applying to the Cabinet where people can be “dead” and not vacate their office?

Mr. Chairman, as far as I know that hon. member was a member of the Select Committee and of the commission, and as such he is co-responsible for what is stated in the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

Clause 11 now provides—

However, if we have a look at clause 24 we find a provision that the holder of a permit shall produce it on demand to any authorized officer. If we examine the regulations clause to see what the powers of a traffic officer may be, we find that they are very broad and stringent powers. For example, clause 30(1)(i) provides that the Minister may make regulations—

Clause 30(1)(i) provides—

There is no provision in the clause that the officer shall have a means of identification such as a certificate identifying himself. Neither is there any provision for this in the regulations. I think that it is the duty of this Committee to point out and to remedy what appears to me to be an omission. Most of the legislation dealing with the question of officers or inspectors has three cardinal points. The first one is that the officer shall have a certificate of identification and that he shall then be obliged either to display it, or to display it on request. There is nothing in this Act, nor is there any suggestion in the regulations that this shall be the position. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a simple question, and I hope that he will be able to give me a straightforward answer. If a road traffic officer went up to the hon. the Minister and said: “Mr. Muller, I want to see your permit; I am an inspector,” or if another inspector saw the hon. the Minister in his car on the road and came up to him and said: “Mr. Muller, I am an inspector and here is my authority. I would like to see your permit”, which one would the hon. the Minister prefer to be approached by if he were plain Mr. John Citizen? I would like him to give me that answer. Because we have this situation, I believe that it is important that the hon. the Minister will view my request sympathetically as it is stated in my amendment. If the amendment is accepted, it will be an addition to clause 11 which will make the position clear. There will then be no fear that regulations will not be promulgated to provide for this, because it will be provided for in the legislation.

I have tried to point out that these traffic officers will have broad powers, quite drastic powers. They will be powers which will be used in respect of all race groups and we can have situations where members of another race group are questioned or apprehended by an inspector. I believe that there is a very sincere desire in the country at the moment not to create any form of racial friction whatsoever. I believe that if it is laid down by law that an inspector shall carry out the obligation of disclosing his identity before he performs any duty under this Act, it will be a means of establishing his bona fides, of creating trust and confidence in the members of the public with whom he has to deal.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to argue with the hon. member for Berea; I simply want to set his mind at rest. The amendment he has moved seeks to oblige an inspector to produce his written authority. I think hon. members will agree with me when I say that it would create a ludicrous position if an inspector first had to come along and wave his certificate in front of one’s eyes saying, “Here is my certificate”. I think it creates a ludicrous ‘ position, and that is why the legislation has always made very effective provision up to now for the inspector having to provide proof of his authority if requested to do so. The amendment which the hon. member has moved differs from this in that the inspector has to produce his authority, not when he is asked for it, but in every case, before he does anything else. Let us consider the possibility of him having to produce it when he is requested to do so. In terms of the old legislation the inspector was obliged in terms of the regulations to produce his authority. The regulations to be made in terms of the Bill which is before this House now, have already been prepared and regulation No. 29(1)—this regulation will be proclaimed, of course, and will be considered part of the Act—reads as follows—

If this is not sufficient, I really do not know what more is to be done. I think this meets the hon. member’s needs in all respects, firstly that the person concerned has to wear the badge of office issued to him by the Secretary, and, secondly, that he is to produce his letter of appointment if requested to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation, but he did not give me a plain “yes” or “no” to my question of which type of inspector he would prefer to be confronted by.

After what I have said here, it ought to be clear that, if a man comes to me and says that he is an inspector and that he wants this and that from me, I shall ask him first to produce the necessary evidence that he is in fact an inspector. Apart from that he must wear a badge and this is prima facie evidence. After that I may still ask to see his letter of authority. I think it will create a ludicrous position if he merely waves a piece of paper around and says that he is an inspector. I do not like it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish briefly to put an argument to the hon. the Minister. I know this applies in various departments, but I want to draw his attention to the fact that this system has been proved to be workable. It has not created a lot of laughs in the Department of Health although all the health legislation makes provision for it. The hon. the Minister said it would be laughable if people had to produce a piece of paper. To me it is a means of establishing communication. It is a means of showing that the State regards the security of the public as being as important as the interests of the State. Let me in this regard quote a specific example. The Department of Health employs almost 540 inspectors. They administer over 7 Acts. I shall not bore the Committee by enumerating the Acts, but in every single instance the Act requires that the inspector shall produce his authority before carrying out any powers under the Act. That does not seem to have created any problem. This provision has been in force since the promulgation of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act of 1965. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister for the sake of good relations between the public and his department to investigate this a little further. If he does so, he will find there are other departments who also accept this principle. The main point, concerning which I think the hon. the Minister can never convince me of the contrary, is that where an inspector is requested to produce his certificate of authority, this may in some way be detrimental to the person who makes that request, because from my own experience I know that some inspectors resent it. Their attitude becomes: “This person does not trust me; I will show him.”

There is a final point I wish to put to the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will reconsider this, in the Other Place if necessary. He is shaking his head in the negative. Let me nevertheless draw his attention to a Bill the First Reading of which has been passed by the House. I refer to the Bill, consisting of two clauses, to amend the Explosives Act. According to the long title of the Bill the amendments are introduced—

What guarantee does the Minister have that people who run the risk of having their cars seized in terms of this legislation may not be the victim of an imposter or bogus inspector if he, the Minister, does not take every precaution to ensure that the public will not be subjected to that abuse? Sir, the Explosives Act has been on the Statute Book since 1956, but it is intended to amend it to provide that people who falsely hold themselves out to be inspectors can be penalized. Surely we should try to avoid that situation here. We should provide the inspector with a means whereby he can identify himself and, indeed, shall identify himself in the interests of the public and of good relations.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I think the main motivation for his amendment is to create a far better relationship between the public and officers of the State. An ordinary police officer can be identified by his uniform and by the number displayed on his chest. As a result, any member of the public, seeing such a person coming forward, knows immediately that he is dealing with an officer of the State. On the other hand, there are CID members and members of the Special Branch who are in plain clothes, and I believe it is incumbent upon such officers of the State, when they approach a person, especially if the person is in the privacy of his own motor-car; or in his own home, as an act of courtesy to that member of the public whom they are serving, to take out a form of identification and, for example, to say: “My name is Bartlett. I am a member of such and such a State Department.” I believe this is a matter of courtesy to which the public is entitled. I believe very strongly in this because the public should become aware that this is a courtesy which is going to be paid to them by officers of the State.

Why I say this, is because of an instance which I read about in the Press this week. A slight altercation arose in Durban where a person in a motor-car happened to be bumped by another motor-car which was being driven by a learner driver. The person who had had his car bumped became extremely angry about this, and it ended up with this person forcing the learner driver’s car to the side of the road at the next traffic lights, stepping out of his car, pulling a revolver on the other person and claiming that he was a Police officer. He was in plain clothes. It turned out that the person he had pulled over was a member of the Police reserve. As a member of the public, if a person in mufti, comes to me on the road, in my home or at my place of business and says that he is an inspector of some sort, I believe that he should in so doing, if he is in plain clothes, produce a form of identification before he does anything else. I do not think that this is unreasonable. In these times it is a safeguard for the public. I think that members of the public should realize that they cannot be stopped by anybody who claims to be an inspector. How is the public to know who these people are? I do not think that this point which has been raised by the hon. member for Berea in a number of Bills is unreasonable at all. I think it is something to which the public of South Africa is entitled. I therefore fully support the hon. member.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

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

The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where a passenger permit or a permit authorizing the conveyance of persons for reward, i.e. by bus, taxi, etc., within a local authority area is granted, the municipality, which in terms of this provision must be consulted in regard to the points between and the route on which that permit may be granted, shall also be consulted in regard to any other condition which may be applied to the permit. I do so because this is consistent with the attitude which the Official Opposition took on the commission in regard to the limitation of the class of passengers who may be carried on particular vehicles or in any portion of a particular vehicle. The line which we took and which we still take is that if there is to be any limitation on passengers or on the specific seating on a mixed-class bus, then the people who are best qualified to determine that limitation are the operators and the local authority concerned. These services are, except in the case of three in the Cape, provided by the local authority, either directly or through a transportation board run by the municipality.

We therefore believe that it is at the local authority level that the people are best qualified to determine where and how limitations, if any, should be put on a permit. Unfortunately, for technical reasons we could not bring that particular amendment in that particular form. Therefore, the best we can do is to move that these municipalities will be consulted before any decision is taken. We could not work out, without major amendments, a form in which it would be possible to say that the decision will be taken at local level. However, that is what we in fact prefer, and, in a later clause, we will move deletions which will remove the power to specify the specific allocation of seating on mixed services.

At this stage, and in this clause, the nearest we can get to what we believe is the right way in which any decisions of this nature should be taken—that is by municipalities—is to ensure that they are consulted. Here, I think, for once I will have the support of the hon. member for Maitland who, like ourselves, shares the conviction that the local authority is responsible to an electorate. The local authority is elected by the ratepayers of a city or a town. He is put there to represent them, and he can be removed by them. A board is an appointed body, appointed by the Minister, and it is not responsible to any public. It is responsible only to the Minister. The board can take decisions based on a policy which is laid down for it. That decision is then simply imposed without regard to the wishes either of the people being conveyed or of the local authority in whose area they are being conveyed.

It is my frank opinion and we on this side of the House are totally opposed to the sort of policy which has been applied by boards and the commission over recent years. We believe that this is a field where the hon. the Minister can now implement, in a meaningful way, the proclaimed policy of the Government, because the attitude has been one of minimal relaxation of class restrictions, whereas, we believe, the tendency should be to move away from restrictions.

However, we do not go the whole hog—and we will get to other clauses where we will deal with this—and pretend that there is no need for any sort of restriction. What we believe in is a movement—and a movement as rapid as possible—away from racial discrimination. This clause gives the power to impose conditions and to consult with local authorities. At least, if there is consultation we will get the voice of the local authority, which is responsible to an electorate, heard on this point. I believe it will be more appropriate to argue the restrictions themselves when we come to clauses later in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches regard it as eminently reasonable for a local authority to submit suggestions in regard to other conditions apart from route and stopping places. Therefore we support this amendment. I intend discussing this matter further when we come to clause 21, which deals particularly with the sort of conditions which can be applied by a board or the commission. However, we will probably go further than this amendment, because although we believe that this is a good amendment, it does not go all that far. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he must go a long way towards meeting the objections that we shall raise later when discussing clause 21, without in any way affecting the ideological standpoint which tended to prevail in the past. If he accepts this amendment it will really just allow local authorities to make representations on this matter. I think this is reasonable, and I would suggest that it could not do any harm should the hon. the Minister accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I expressed my feelings on these matters before, namely that the interests of the public making use of public transport, are predominant and have to be taken into account. During the Second Reading debate I said that I personally believed that the applicant would know in the first instance what the need was that existed. He must submit his application according to that. The fact is, and it is correct to argue like this, that apart from that, the local authority, the municipality, through its elected members, is responsible for the voters within that municipal area. The members of the local authority must inevitably take the interests of the voters in their area into account. Where an elected member does not do so, his period of office as a town councillor will probably not be too long. That is why I conclude that a town councillor should be acquainted with the needs and desires of the people in his community who make use of a public bus service.

In this particular instance it is provided that in the case of a new concession or in the case of a route being changed, the municipality is afforded the opportunity to make representations in that regard. Therefore, if certain conditions and provisions are laid down and the municipality is afforded the opportunity to make representations in that regard at the same time, it will not give rise to any further trouble for the board in any event, nor will it affect the time limit for disposing of the application. In view of these circumstances and in accordance with my own philosophy that the interests of the user must be taken into account by anyone who has the opportunity to make representations, I think it is a reasonable amendment and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, clause 15 deals with matters which have to be taken into consideration when disposing of an application in respect of a public permit. One of the matters which have to be taken into consideration is outlined in subsection (1)(j), which states—

The attitude which I expressed during the Second Reading debate and my first amendment to the clause on the Order Paper deal with this provision. We do not believe it should be incumbent upon the board to take into account the class of persons to whom the applicant belongs. I would remind the House that when we talk about class, in terms of the definition in clause 1, we are, in fact, talking about a population group and by that we mean race. This clause is directly concerned with the race to which the applicant belongs. We do not believe race should be a yardstick in this matter. We believe persons who can provide the most efficient transport service whatever their race, are the people who should receive consideration. On the other hand we must accept that in present-day circumstances in South Africa many people of colour have not had the advantages, as far as capital and other factors are concerned, that the Whites have had and that they should be given an opportunity. However, we feel that clause 15(l)(m) would quite adequately cover this aspect. It reads—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the dinner adjournment I was talking to an amendment to clause 15, a clause which prescribes matters to be taken into consideration when disposing of an application in respect of a public permit. My first amendment pertains to the omission of paragraph (j) of subsection (1). This paragraph perpetuates race classification. It concerns the class of persons to whom the applicant belongs. It indicates that the commission shall—it is therefore mandatory—take into consideration the class of person. I have indicated that that in effect means race. This is a racial provision, nothing more and nothing less. I should like to refer—I have already referred to it—to a paragraph in the report of the commission which was looking into this Bill. I quote—

I think this speaks for itself. There is no question about this at all. I do not believe that clause 15(1)(j) does anything, apart from its ideological racial angle, towards setting up the most efficient system for the country. If for ideological reasons one is going to be tied to race, efficiency becomes a secondary consideration. We do not believe that this should be so. Therefore I should like to move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

The next amendment proposes the omission of subsection (3) of clause 15. I quote subsection (3)—

When we talk about class here we are in effect again talking about race. Before the adjournment I indicated that I was quite prepared to accept that there were disadvantaged communities in South Africa. It would be naïve of us not to accept that. It is my feeling that it might be necessary in the circumstances in certain respects to give preferential treatment to those communities. I felt that clause 15(1)(m) adequately meets the situation in that it stipulates that the board or the commission can take into consideration—

I do not think we should necessarily be tied to a system where Whites provide the transport for White commuters, where Blacks provide transport for Black travellers, where Coloureds are committed to provide a transportation system for Coloured communities and where Indians do the same for Indians. I think the criterion must and should be the most efficient service at the most economic cost. Therefore I should like to move the following amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper—

My next amendment to clause 15 has to do with an association of persons or a body corporate or unincorporated, including companies and the race of that company. In this case the commission and the board become their own race classification tribunals in that they decide whether or not a body corporate or incorporate, or an association of persons shall be of a particular race group. I frankly do not believe that a road transportation board or the National Transport Commission can possibly be regarded as a race classification tribunal. I think it is unrealistic to think that they have any special qualifications which would allow them to become such a tribunal. In any case, I regard clause 15(5)(a) as ideologically incorrect, because I do not believe that the race of the people involved in a corporate or incorporate body should influence the situation at all. Our attitude is that the most efficient transportation service should be provided at the lowest cost, and this has nothing to do with the race of the applicants concerned. Any standpoint that puts forward the principle that a person of a particular race group must get preference, perpetuates the whole principle of race classification. Who is to judge? Once it is decided that a Black man or a Coloured man is to receive preference in a certain set of circumstances, the whole principle of race classification is being perpetuated. The Government is, in other words, saying that because a man is a Black man, a Coloured man, or a White man, he should receive preference in these circumstances …

Because you are a Prog!

Because I am a Prog? In this instance the definition of class is so wide that it could mean that preference could also be given to Progs in Prog areas or Prog constituencies. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper—

I hope I shall receive the support of the Official Opposition in this instance. I am not so sure about the support of the IUP. I would urge the hon. the Minister to accept the view that the National Transport Commission and the road transportation boards are not the bodies where racial decisions of this nature should be taken or ideological considerations judged. They are not tribunals which can sit in judgment, and I would regard it as being highly undesirable that they should be put in a position where they had to make racial judgments.

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

I do not intend to argue the matter at length. The paragraph proposed to be omitted deems any railway tariff to be reasonable, and we are not prepared to accept that anything which the Railways may desire to charge must, automatically, by law, be deemed to be reasonable. We are not satisfied that all rail tariffs are reasonable, and we believe that a board or the commission, in considering an application, should decide for itself whether a particular rail tariff is reasonable or not. It should not automatically be assumed that, simply because the Railways has fixed a tariff that it is in fact a reasonable tariff. If a person can produce proof that the tariff is unreasonable, in the same way as he could prove that a private transport contractor’s tariffs were unreasonable, he should be entitled to bring evidence and have that evidence considered. The matter should not be closed by a presumption that railway tariffs are reasonable. It is after all a responsible body which hears the evidence, and if someone can make out a case to indicate that in particular circumstances the railway tariffs cannot be deemed to be reasonable, he should be entitled to bring the evidence, and a decision should be made on merit and not on a presumption.

I now come to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I am afraid we cannot go along with the hon. member in this regard. Clause 15 provides, amongst a whole group of factors, for attention to be given to the class of an applicant and the class or classes of persons to be served by a particular transportation service.

Not attention, but preference.

No I am dealing with the first amendment. The provision says: “shall take into consideration”. One of the factors mentioned in clause 15(1)(a) to (m) is that the class of the applicant and the classes of the persons to be served, shall be considered. It is a matter for consideration together with 13 other factors. Others are whether a service is desirable, whether a good service will be provided, whether co-ordination and an economically sound basis is involved, the ability of the applicant to provide the transportation in respect of which a permit is being sought, convictions of an applicant, any limitation imposed by law, and all the others relating to the question whether a service is, in fact, efficient or not, whether it will be a satisfactory service and whether the person applying will be able to provide that service. Only one of these factors—and there is no preference given in this clause—deals with the class of the applicant. By the time the decision has been made all the factors will by law have been considered.

We then come to amendment (3) which deals with the provision that—

The next amendment he moved is consequential as it applies to companies in the same position. The view of the hon. member for Orange Grove and his party is quite clear, and they are entitled to hold that view. Their view, as expressed during the Second Reading debate, is that the race of the applicant should not influence the situation at all. We in these benches do not believe that the race of the applicant should be an overriding factor. In other words, we do not believe that the person offering an inefficient, an unsatisfactory or an inferior service, should have any preference. Equally, we do not accept the view of the hon. member for Orange Grove, viz. that the race of the applicant should not influence the situation at all.

We believe there are in South Africa as a reality in fact different groups and that some of these groups have not had the same opportunities as other groups to develop economically. Therefore if an application is made by, let us take a White man, an Indian and a Coloured man, for a service serving a Coloured community and all other aspects are equal—in other words, they are offering equal services and are able to provide the service—then we believe it is not discrimination to say that the person belonging to the class which is to be served, should, other things be equal, enjoy a measure of preference. We are not seeking a measure of preference for the man who provides a less economic, a more expensive or a less satisfactory service, but if all the conditions stipulated in paragraphs (a) to (m) of subsection (1) have been met, we believe you simply cannot close your eyes and say: “We are not going to take any notice at all of the class of person to be carried, because that is not realistic.”

Now you are talking.

No, we have always said this; this has always been our point of view.

† We recognize that there are some realities which one has to take into account. If we do not recognize this, we are in fact in practice discriminating against the other races, i.e. races other than Whites, because clearly the White group has had a greater opportunity to build up know-how, to build up capital, to build up experience. Therefore, if you are simply to say that there shall be no consideration given to the group or class of person involved, then you are saying that for a long time to come there will be practical discrimination against the lesser privileged, the lesser developed and therefore the lesser capitalized and experienced population groups. We no more believe in discrimination in favour of privilege than we believe in discrimination against people who are under-privileged. This is the test: Is discrimination inequitable if it is applied in favour of a person who is underprivileged? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point in a moment.

First of all, I should like to refer to the amendments of the hon. member for Orange Grove. To begin with I want to say that the hon. member can just as well show us evidence, if he has any, which was presented to the commission and supports the standpoint which the hon. member is adopting here this evening. A witness did give evidence in this regard, but as far as subsection (3) which the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to delete is concerned, the witness in question admitted that his evidence was aimed at maintaining an absolute monopoly as regards passenger transport. This is actually the dilemma of the hon. member for Orange Grove and his party. The hon. member also admitted this evening that there were certain lesser privileged people, as he put it, who should also have an opportunity in the transport industry. He says: “There are certain preferential treatments to be given.”

The hon. member is now also moving that clause 15(l)(j) be repealed and goes on to say that this requirement which the Road Transport Board must consider, is covered by clause 15(1)(m). In clause 15(1)(j) it is provided that the class of persons to which the applicant belongs and the class of persons to be served by the transportation service for which a permit is sought, must be taken into consideration. The hon. member wants to drop this requirement and say that the board can consider the factor in terms of clause 15(1)(m) which provides that the board must take into consideration any other factors which, in the opinion of the commission or the board concerned, may affect the question whether it is desirable to grant such application or to attach or vary any such condition or requirement. The hon. member also used the same argument in connection with subsection (3). I can assure the hon. member that we are not afraid of saying frankly what we intend doing with this law. However, the hon. member is faced with the dilemma of also wanting to break a lance for the lesser privileged. He wants their own people to provide a service to them. On the other hand, he is concerned about the fact that the moneyed transporter may be placed at a disadvantage in the process. I do not believe that he can accommodate both those ideas in his standpoint. Clause 15(1)(j) puts it very clearly—and the hon. member and his party also say this—that this concerns a very important matter. At the same time, however, there are 12 other requirements which must also be taken into consideration.

Then there is another matter which must also be borne in mind. In the Erika Theron Report it is specifically stated in connection with this question that the Coloureds want a share in the transport industry. The hon. member’s amendments are in direct conflict with that. The present wording of clause 15(1)(j) and clause 15(3) makes specific provision for giving the opportunity to businessmen in the specific industry. If the hon. member is serious about his amendments, all he is doing is thwarting the opportunity for non-Whites to enter the industry. His proposed amendment to clause 15(5)(a) is purely a consequential amendment to his own amendments. Now I want to ask the hon. member on what grounds he is arguing for the retention of clause 15(2)(a)(iv). This clause provides that anyone who applies, he shall have to prove certain things, amongst other things that—

It seems to me as if the hon. member wants to leave an opening hereto so that expectations can be aroused in a person who maintains that he belongs to a specific class of people. Then, however, the hon. member wants to render the other facts which the commission must take into consideration, insignificant by putting them in a clause with a general wording concerning a multitude of factors. I do not believe that there is really very much in the hon. member’s amendments on this basis. I also believe that he is not consistent.

As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to say that no evidence was submitted in which anyone objected to this specific wording. The hon. member will remember that the commission debated this specific part for about half a day. The members of the commission agreed on the wording of clause 15(2)(a)(ii), which the hon. member now wants to have removed from the Bill. In fact as it is printed at the moment, clause 15(2)(a) makes things easier for applicants. It establishes security of justice for them. People who applied in the past, in fact applied “blind” and did not know what factors and facts they should submit in order to put a case to the transport board.

Basically, an applicant need only comply with one of four requirements. Firstly, he must be able to prove that the existing transport facilities are not satisfactory or sufficient; or secondly, he must be able to prove that the tariff charged by the existing transport facilities is unfair; or else he must be able to prove that granting a permit to him will be in the public interest, or that he is in the same class as provided in section 15(2)(a)(iv) and last but not least, that he has the ability to provide the transportation for which he seeks a permit, in a satisfactory manner.

However, the hon. member’s problem is that he will never succeed in accepting that a railway tariff is a fair tariff. If he only wants the section which concerns this to be removed from the Bill—in any event that is what he argued—the first section of it still remains, and that is that—

Then follows the proviso, and this is actually what the hon. member is opposed to. This is the part which he really wants removed. However, now he has moved that clause 15(2)(a)(ii) be deleted in its entirety. If this is done, the rest of the clause will be left hanging in the air. Of course, the hon. member also sees that problem. I should like to put it that clause 15(2) represents a considerable improvement and that it will be to the advantage of applicants, and also that it will afford them the opportunity to enter the industry. I believe that the hon. member for Durban Point will agree with me that he should not persist with this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that in one respect I agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and that is that in a sense a dilemma is facing hon. members in these benches. In the words of the hon. member for Durban Point, we are faced with a question of practical discrimination against less well-endowed groups. But the hon. member for Durban Point is still left with a dilemma himself, i.e. does he or does he not accept race classification? In principle that is something which we in these benches cannot accept. We are not prepared to accept race classification, and we are not prepared to believe that consideration should necessarily be given to the population group an applicant belongs to. The ability to provide the most efficient service at an economic rate should be the yardstick. I should like to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp for drawing my attention to one thing in respect of clause 15(2)(a)(iv). He points out that it would be inconsistent of me to leave that paragraph in. Accordingly, I would like to move a further amendment—

Throughout this Bill one is being continually subjected to a barrage of the expression “class”, which I would again like to point out means “race”, nothing more or less than race. There are many other clauses which are discriminatory, just as this one is. I am afraid that I must stand by my viewpoint.

There is one other matter on which I would like a reply and that is the question of the Theron Commission report. The hon. member quite rightly suggests that that report puts forward that Coloureds should have the opportunity to run bus services. The contention of hon. members in these benches is that Coloureds should have the opportunity to run bus services for Whites as well. We go even further than that and say that they should have the opportunity to run mixed bus services. We do not believe in separation on buses. We believe that buses should be for the use of all races. We stand absolutely four square behind the policy of integration of transport systems.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Klerksdorp was correct in saying that my amendment in effect removes the whole question of unreasonable tariffs, whereas what I was aiming at was simply the elimination of the presumption that Railway tariffs are reasonable. I would therefore like to ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw my amendment as printed on the Order Paper in order to substitute another amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

I now wish to move the following amendment—

That, in fact, is what I should have moved to remove the assumption that railway tariffs are automatically reasonable.

If I may return to the point I was discussing when my time expired, there are three points that I should like to make. The first is that identity of population groups, whatever you like to call them—we prefer to use the term “communities”—is not something which has been discovered recently.

The factual identity of population groups or communities is something which has existed since the beginning of history in South Africa, and we continue to accept this factual identity and not the population register, the stud book to which we are opposed. There was factual identity long before there was a Nationalist Government. Throughout the years there was a factual identity of communities. It was determined by appearance, acceptance and convention. It was a factual identity, and whether one accepts or rejects it or thinks it is good or bad, it is a fact of South African history. We have always accepted the factual identity of the different communities. We do not support, nor do we believe that one needs to have, a population register for this conventional manifestation to be recognized. [Interjections.] The hon. members over there are laughing. May I ask them what Immorality Act or what Mixed Marriages Act kept them White so that they could sit in this House today? There were no such Acts when they were born or conceived. Let us not have that kind of nonsense.

It was an accident of birth.

As the hon. member for Orange Grove says, it was an accident of birth that they happened to be born White. There were no laws but the system worked. That is the thing—the system worked! It worked in practice because there was such a thing as factual identity. Where it started to go wrong was where this Government institutionalized it in legislation. That is when we began to get problems. We did not have problems before that. Granted, there were odd border-line problems …

Order! The hon. member must not carry that argument too far.

Mr. Chairman, I agree. I was misled by an interjection.

There is a second point I think I must make. I accept without question the bona fides of the hon. member for Orange Grove and his party. They reject anything to do with race as an identifying factor. They say that they recognize that groups exist but that that recognition—I have quoted the relevant passage and shall not repeat what I have said—should not be taken into account in the granting of permits, and here we are dealing particularly with this clause. Therefore they remove, by their amendment, the word “class” wherever it appears. However, “class” does not only mean race though it includes race. I prefer the term “population group” now used to the term “race” in the old legislation. I would have preferred it even more if we could have persuaded the commission to accept the word “community” because that is even less offensive. However, the word “class” does not only involve race. A “class of passenger” can mean school children. A permit for a school bus can therefore be limited to a “class of passenger”, i.e. school children and teachers. The word “class” can include employees of a particular industry or commercial undertaking and can be defined. They can be of all races, i.e. multiracial. Therefore we do not accept that simply because the word “class” includes the concept “race”, we must vote against it wherever it appears. In a later clause we shall criticize very strongly aspects which flow from this, but at this stage, Mr. Chairman, you would rule me out of order if I dealt with anything other than the granting of permits, because that is the issue that is before us now. Let me quote from the Erika Theron Commission to which the hon. member for Klerksdorp referred, a reference which was later questioned in debate. I want to quote on page 131 paragraph 6.114 which is one of the findings of the commission—

We have accepted the Erika Theron report. This is an expression of opinion based on the evidence and we are not prepared now to say to the Erika Theron Commission that we reject this basic finding that the Coloured people feel that they should have an effective control over the transport which serves a particular community—“wat die gemeenskap(pe) bedien”. Therefore it will be quite illogical for us who are committed to the concept and the philosophy expressed in the Erika Theron report now to say that, despite the views of the Coloured people, we reject the findings. It will be the same for the Indian people. Believe you me, if one suggested that a Bantu or a White man or Coloured should run the bus services to Chatsworth in Durban, one would be shouted down, because to us it is logical and, in the same way, the Indian community would expect that their people should enjoy the permits to serve a place like Chatsworth or Phoenix. Therefore, we as the responsible Official Opposition cannot go against the people themselves who feel they are excluded because they cannot compete fairly for economic and other historic reasons against existing operators and therefore require some advantage. We cannot support a proposal to remove what little consideration, not even a compulsive but a permissive consideration, is given to the class of the applicant in respect of the class he is applying to serve.

Mr. Chairman, obviously I cannot accept the amendments of the hon. member for Orange Grove. We have already discussed the merits of the matter fairly thoroughly during the Second Reading debate and I do not intend to enlarge on this any further, especially not in view of the debate which has already taken place. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he is doing a disservice to the people whose interests he apparently wants to promote. The hon. member and his fellow party members are well known for never championing the cause of the Whites in the House, but doing exactly the opposite. Therefore I expect that there is something in his make-up which moves him to promote the interests of the non-Whites. I want to give him credit for this. However, I think that he is doing his own people a disservice by suggesting that the provisions in question be deleted.

Clause 15(1)(j) is actually the provision which gives authorization for taking the classes into consideration. Obviously it follows that the non-White groups, especially the Coloured and Indian groups, may benefit from the provision which the hon. member wants to delete. Whatever the case, our whole approach differs from that of the hon. member for Orange Grove. We feel that these things are necessary and I personally differ with the hon. member in feeling that a transport service can only be effective if the people who use that service are happy and content. Since we take note of the fact that there are various population groups and that there is a great difference in the level of development of certain population groups, and since we are aware of the fact that possible areas of friction must be eliminated, we know that it is an effective service if a service like this limits areas of friction to a minimum. That is why I believe that this is one of the matters which must be considered.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, I actually suspected that it was not his intention to have the first section of the clause deleted, because the provision deals with an application to introduce a service where one already exists. That is why I think it is of cardinal importance for the possibility to be established of proving that the existing service and transport facilities which are being paid for, are not reasonable. That is why I think it is desirable for the clause to remain as it is. The only aspect to which the hon. member objects, is that railway tariffs be considered fair for the purposes of this clause.

I am informed that the Van Breda Commission discussed this matter very thoroughly and at great length and that it came to the conclusion that the position was as it should be. The main reason which was taken into consideration here is that the Railways are under parliamentary control. The railway tariffs are based on railway expenditure and as such they are therefore under parliamentary control. How, then, can one possibly consider whether the railway tariffs are reasonable and fair while they have already been approved as such by Parliament? I am not really referring to the rates as such, but to the fact that the rates are based on railway expenditure. That is why the conclusion was reached that the railway tariffs should not be called into question, but that the railway tariffs should be considered as reasonable in any event in view of the circumstances. This is what the commission, in its wisdom, and after due consideration, recommended. I am prepared to abide by this. Indeed, I think it is right that we should abide by it.

Are you speaking as Minister of Transport or as Minister of Railways?

At the moment I am speaking as Minister of Transport. It may be argued that I am not as objective as others. However, I believe that in this case the hon. member is not quite so objective either, because he sits on that side of the House.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (2), (3) and (4) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

It is interesting to note that at this stage we come to another use of the word “class”. For example, we also find it in clause 21(2)(a) where reference is made to the class of road transportation. Obviously this has nothing to do with population groups. It deals with the nature of road transportation, etc. In regard to the first amendment which I have moved, I believe that any permit should specify the nature of road transportation in respect of which it is granted as well as the class or classes of goods which may be conveyed under such permit. I would regard that as being eminently reasonable. If the hon. the Minister is going to refer to goods which belong to a class or to classes of persons, he is again bringing in a racial connotation. I think we have made our point of view quite clear in this regard. We believe it is unsound to refer to the owners of the goods as being of a specific class. We cannot understand how anybody can contend that in this day and age one should give consideration to who owns goods when the goods are transported. If one listens to the fine sounding words which have come from specifically the other side of the House, and to a lesser degree from the hon. member for Durban Point, one wonders whether one should not carry this through as far as the Railways are concerned. If the hon. the Minister is really so serious about giving these poor underprivileged people the opportunity to transport their own goods—although obviously the Coloured population group cannot provide their own Railways—how about giving them the opportunity of running their own road transportation in opposition to the Railways? Are we keeping the Railways in our own White hands and in the hands of the White Parliament? Let us be consistent. If we are going to ensure that every race group gets a decent opportunity to run its own affairs, let us be consistent and give them a chance to transport the so-called Coloured goods or the so-called Black goods in transport services run by their own people.

I now move the second amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In this regard we are referring to the employment of personnel in the operation of a motor vehicle, for example, bus drivers and bus conductors. What we are saying in this paragraph is that the road transportation boards or the commission shall have the say as to who shall be employed to drive a bus and I am afraid that we cannot go along with that provision at all. We believe that this sort of job should be available to anybody, whatever their race group, and we believe that anybody should be allowed to drive any bus. I remember, in days gone by, listening to a gentleman who was very much to the fore in local politics in Johannesburg, a certain Mr. Oberholzer, who told me very seriously indeed how the UP was not in favour of job reservation and that they believed in equal pay for equal work, but that I had to accept that driving a bus for Black people was not the same as driving a bus for White people and that therefore one was entitled to pay a Black bus driver less than a White bus driver. This principle is equally unacceptable to us. The whole principle of being able to dictate who should drive the bus instead of finding the best person available for the job is anathema to us and we cannot accept it.

I now move the third amendment printed in my name, as follows—

The third amendment has to do with the division of a vehicle for different classes. In terms of clause 21(5) the local Road Transportation Board is entitled to specify how buses should be subdivided. They are entitled to say whether there should be a little sign two-thirds of the way up the bus saying: “Whites only in this section” or “Coloureds only in that section” or whether it should specify “Whites upstairs and Blacks downstairs”. They have the say-so, and I am afraid that we in these benches cannot accept this. We do not believe that a Road Transportation Board necessarily has the background, knowledge or qualifications to dictate the employment of a bus driver of a particular racial group or the enforcement of racial separation on buses. Bus operators should have greater latitude to bring about integration on buses. I accept—and this is a point the hon. the Minister raised during the discussion of the last clause—that this is potentially an area of friction, but again I must refer to the old days of the Cape Town bus services when very happily integrated bus services were carried on.

Not happily.

The hon. the Minister says “not happily”, but for years it went on quite happily enough. I do not believe that there was any justification for separation on those buses. We believe that there is a good case for integration on buses and it can be done progressively and on an ever-extending scale. Not only do we plead ideological considerations, but we also plead economic good sense. We are in a situation where we are prepared to run separate bus services at double the cost purely and simply for ideological reasons. South Africa cannot afford this sort of thing. I raised the matter during the Second Reading of this Bill and I asked what it is that threatens that hon. Deputy Minister from Potchefstroom. He said he was not going to fall into a trap. I asked what it was that was threatening his identity if he sat next to a Black man on a bus.

Tell us what Harry Schwarz thinks about this. [Interjections.]

That sort of nonsensical interjection has nothing to do with the argument I am raising. I am getting no answers to the argument I am putting forward. [Interjections.]

Order!

As the hon. member for Parktown says, it is a diversionary exercise because they are embarrassed by the question and they cannot answer it.

I want to plead for a little realism when we come to transport services in South Africa. We are inevitably going to have integration on an ever-growing scale on our transport services, and all I ask is that members on the other side accept the reality of the situation. I would like to hazard a prognostication. I am not competing with Madam Rose, but I suggest that it will not be all that many years before we do have integration on our transport services. It is going to happen. All I can suggest is that we relax and enjoy it because it is going to come.

Even in Potchefstroom, Louis!

Even in Potchefstroom. Perhaps that hon. Deputy Minister does not know it because it is a long time since he travelled on a bus and it is likely that he does not know what the bus services are like. I believe that the Government and the hon. members on the other side should accept that bus integration is going to happen. They must set their minds to working out how to do it in the best possible way. We believe that if it is going to come about the local authorities are the people who can bring it about and ensure the least possible friction. One should accept in principle that it is going to happen and one must do it quietly and as best one possibly can for the economic good of the country even if they do not accept our ideology.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which stands in my name, as follows—

Before I speak on that amendment I would just like to say that in respect of the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove to subsection (3)(c) we in these benches cannot support him in his amendment, for reasons which I think have been fully covered in the comments made earlier on by the hon. member for Durban Point. I would like to say that we in these benches feel that when it comes to the issuing of a permit and considering the merits of an applicant in his application for a transportation permit, recognition or consideration must be given to the group he represents and also to the group which will be using the transportation service for which he is applying for a permit. We in these benches believe that South Africa is a plural society and that we do consist of many various ethnic and racial groups, and as such cognizance has to be taken of this. As members have already said, the Theron Commission clearly gives evidence that there is a need for such recognition to be given. I personally feel it would be rather impertinent of my group not to give recognition to any other group in this plural society of ours in South Africa.

In the case of subsection (4)(b) we have a provision which clearly smacks of what I would like to term job reservation. Here is a provision which will give the power to a board to determine or state what class of person should operate a particular bus service. This to me, as I have said, smacks of job reservation as we know it. I have asked myself why the Government should see fit to include this particular clause. The first reason is to reserve this type of work for a particular class of person. This is a thing of the past and the sooner we forget this type of thinking the better. The second possible reason for this is to prevent incidents which might arise in a particular area where you have different classes of people using a bus and where the driver may not necessarily be a member of that particular class. In respect of job reservation I believe that we have got to accept the new spirit which is afoot in South Africa today and that is that South Africa is moving away from a period where discrimination based on colour was found in many work situations. I believe that this is borne out by the fact that the hon. the Minister of Labour himself, just last week, said that he was appointing a commission to look into the entire business of work reservation as it is written into a particular clause in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

He did not express it in those terms.

I do not really believe that there is any need for this type of legislation at the present time. Already we find that in certain cities such as the city of Durban, Blacks are driving buses and taxies which are reserved for the White class.

Even in Pretoria.

An hon. member tells me that this is already the case in Pretoria. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that South Africans have accepted the fact that a member of one particular class can drive a bus or operate a bus which is reserved for another particular class. I therefore do not believe that there is any need for this type of legislation to try and meet the old call for some type of job reservation.

Now, with regard to the areas of friction which might arise should a bus be driven by a member of a different class to that of the passengers, I think that the fact this is in fact happening at the present time shows that this problem does not bother people any more. There may be the odd person who may object to the fact that the bus in which he is riding may be operated by a person of a different class, but I believe that the vast majority of the people in South Africa would not be bothered by such a fact. I feel that we should encourage this trend among our people, that is to say that they are not concerned about the fact that the driver or the operator of the bus may not be of the same class as they themselves are. I believe that it would be wrong, in this new Bill concerning road transport, to perpetuate this kind of thinking which has occurred in the past. Therefore I am totally opposed to clause 21(4)(b).

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper has already been moved in the same terms by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I do not know whether I should formally move mine or whether mine now falls away. For purposes of the record, though, I move it, as follows—

Obviously, since the hon. member and I have moved the same amendment, we agree that the person best qualified to know and to apply any sort of distinction which is required is the man who is running the service and the local authority. This was the point towards which I moved the amendment in an earlier clause, an amendment to the effect that there should be consideration as to the views of the local authorities. I said that we would prefer the local authority to have the final decision.

This is the clause where, by deleting subparagraph (v), the board or commission would no longer have the power to determine specific seating on a particular bus. By deleting the clause the board or commission would then have to leave the matter open to the operator who would, in most cases, be the local authority.

Here again, the hon. member for Maitland, I am sure, will support us because he took the same line, namely that the local authority was the person responsible to the local electorate, and therefore the one who knew best what should be done. Naturally, we support the amendments moved by both the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, amendments aimed at omitting the job reservation clause, a clause to which we have always been opposed, and which I do not intend to discuss any further.

Next we come to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove. It is an amendment which has the effect of deleting a class or classes of persons and class of goods and the class or classes of persons whose goods may be conveyed. Here, I do not know whether the hon. member really means what he has proposed. I am with him if he takes our view of class. However, let me just put the problem I have here. When we talk about the class of person who owns certain goods, that person could be an industrialist, a trader, a farmer, a building contractor, or any other sort of person. The vehicle concerned could be a school bus. The class of persons conveyed could be school children. As I said earlier, it could be employees, I do not believe that, simply because one wants to remove anything referring to discrimination, one should throw the baby out with the bath water. This is what we would do if we adopted this amendment. Here again, I completely agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove. He said during the Second Reading debate—

In other words, it means moving away from separation, and I agree with him entirely. We are 100% behind the concept of moving away from discriminatory or separatory provisions where it is possible to do so. That is why I said, whilst discussing an earlier clause, that we believe that the commission and the boards have taken an over-rigid approach to the question of separation on buses and that they have enforced total separation or forms of separation which were not necessary in the circumstances. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister—he has the power; he is the Minister—to set the pattern and to say to the commission and to the boards that he is the one who appoints them and that he wants them to follow a policy which will remove unnecessary restrictions where they are not needed. As an example I refer to the suburb in which I live, Durban North.

Umhlanga.

In the Umhlanga constituency, yes. I shall go to my member of Parliament about it. In a suburb such as the one in which I live there are single race buses running on certain routes, but during the course of the day buses are running completely empty. There is no reason why the handful of Black house servants and other individual Black entrepreneurs should not be allowed to travel on those buses at the discretion of the operator, which is the Durban city council. Instead of that they may have to wait an hour or to walk five or six blocks. The White person may have to walk four or five blocks to get to the nearest White bus service and have to wait while other buses are travelling empty or half-empty in the same direction, and where there would be no problem created. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to get across to the people who take the decisions, and ultimately to the commission, that the time has come that we must get away from this utter rigidity. But at the same time I do not accept the view expressed by the hon. member for Bryanston, who takes the line that—

He goes on to emphasize that once you move at all, you must move totally and there must be no recognition whatsoever which can lead to differentiation between race groups.

What about the Bantu Reserves?

I want to come to that. Does this mean that we must ignore the Bantu Reserves, the homelands, and open them up to everyone so that there is no more differentiation? Therefore the White entrepreneur can go in and buy land.

Order! The hon. member must return to his amendment.

I am dealing with the question of removing or recognition of identification.

The hon. member must not go too far.

However I agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove who says we must move away from discrimination. Let us look again at the Erika Theron report. This expresses the view of the Coloured people. I quote from paragraph 6.111 as follows—

Here we have Coloured people saying that to travel with other non-White peoples leads to dissatisfaction. Let me say again that we have committed ourselves to supporting the views of the Coloured people as reflected in the Erika Theron report, and here we have Coloured people objecting to travelling with other non-White races. If we are therefore simply going to close our eyes and say that there can be no differentiation, what are we doing? We are, in fact, voting for forced, compulsory integration, and that is contrary to the policy of my party. We are opposed to forced apartheid and we are opposed to forced integration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to do the hon. member for Durban Point an injustice by saying that what the UP’s policy, as he stated it here, amounts to is that because they are in favour of moving away from separation on the buses, they are therefore in favour of integration on the buses. I do not want to do him an injustice. Is it their policy? He said that we must move away from separation and that they are in favour of integration on the buses in which people of various colours should be able to travel. That is also how the PRP put it. The hon. member for Durban Point put it very clearly and unequivocally. They are in favour of integration on the buses. They are in favour of the buses being thrown open to White people, Black people, Asiatics and Coloureds so that they can travel wherever they like and in whatever way they like, i.e. all together. I want to say at once, however, that we on this side of the House have repeatedly stated our policy very unequivocally, and that is that we are in favour of separate facilities for the various population groups where this is possible in practice. However, where that is not possible, where it is in the public interest and where it is justified, facilities can be shared. That is our statement on the matter, that is how it is implemented in practice and that also applies as far as buses are concerned. Provision is also made for that in this legislation, in fact specifically in this particular clause. It is stated that more than one population group can travel together in one bus, on condition that there are separate seats for them. This is consequently implemented in practice, as I have said. It is implemented here in Cape Town and it is also implemented in Port Elizabeth and Durban. However, now the UP and the PRP come along and ask that the bus services should be thrown open. I therefore want to put a question to those hon. members. On whose authority are they speaking here this evening? On whose authority are they asking that those bus services be thrown open? I concede at once that the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Orange Grove both asked, in the minority report, for integration on the buses. Their request was for the elimination of separation.

That is absolutely untrue and you ought to know it.

I shall prove it in a moment. The hon. member for Durban Point must not run away from his own words. He has just said that we should move away from separation on buses.

Yes, move away from it.

Then what they are asking for is surely nothing but integration on the buses. What do they really want? Does he not understand what he himself is saying? This Bill was circulated throughout the country and there is not a single body which made representations in support of the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban Point or that of the hon. member for Orange Grove. No single witness came to the fore in support of that standpoint. I therefore ask them on whose authority they are speaking here this evening about moving away from separation and saying we must therefore have integration on the buses. That is their own political view they are trying to propagate here. However, what are the actual facts? Randburg is a constituency represented by the PRP in the House, even though the representative is a political squatter who is only here temporarily. The Randburg Municipality conducted a survey on public facilities in Randburg. According to The Star of 14 January 1976 it appears that 69,5% of the inhabitants were opposed to mixed buses. The hon. member for Orange Grove is not listening now, however, because now that he hears what the true state of affairs is, in a constituency represented by the PRP, he does not want to listen.

The hon. member for Durban Point’s MP advocated the same thing earlier in the debate. In 1976 the Durban Transport Management Board applied for certain buses to be thrown open to all race groups. The application came before the Road Transportation Board and the board rejected it. An appeal was then lodged with the National Transport Commission, but the commission also rejected the application. The application was in no way rejected because it was contrary to Government policy but because 893 bodies and individuals lodged a protest against such an arrangement. [Interjections.]

Name the bodies!

The objections came from bodies and individuals in Durban. I can give the hon. member the assurance that it was not the NP.

The municipal elections held in the Transvaal recently have chiefly been fought on the basis of separate facilities. Mr. Chairman, you know what the results were. Those parties, which are such staunch advocates of bus integration this evening, were both given sound thrashings. In Randburg the PRP was completely wiped off the map, and in Johannesburg it was even worse for them.

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

I just want to point out that the question of separate facilities on buses does, in fact, have a bearing on the clause. What is at issue here is specifically mixed buses—the fact that various population groups must be able to travel on the same bus—and those municipalities gave their verdict on this matter. Mr. Oberholzer is not merely an ordinary UP man; he is a great Induna of the UP in Johannesburg. He expressed himself as being very strongly opposed to buses being thrown open. The UP even had a large advertisement placed in The Citizen in which it was stated, amongst other things, that the UP is opposed to mixed buses. The advertisement concluded with the following words—

It was under the leadership of the erstwhile leader of the UP in the Transvaal, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that this advertisement was placed. [Interjections.] I now want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he regards as important a personality in the UP as Mr. Oberholzer, who said he was not in favour of mixed buses, as a good UP man. The hon. member only has to say “yes” or “no”.

I shall give him the answer. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Chairman, my time has almost expired. The hon. member may have his turn to speak.

Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member sits down, I wonder if I could just get clarity from him on a point … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has said he does not want to answer a question.

The hon. member may take the floor later. There is enough time available for him to make a speech. I want to ask him under whose leadership that municipal election in the Transvaal took place. That election also involved the question of integration on buses. Does the hon. member for Durban Point regard Mr. Japie Basson as a good UP man? He cannot reply! Those are the people who must give effect to the UP’s policy and expound it. Here I have a cutting from The Sunday Tribune of 28 October 1973. Under the heading “UP pledges to abolish forced race separation”, the report reads as follows—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I regret the level to which the hon. member for Boksburg has sunk. [Interjections.] He maintained a level of debate which is unworthy of this House and which stamps him as an individual who finds it very difficult to stick to the facts. During a speech I disagreed with the hon. member for Orange Grove and the PRP. The hon. member, however, had the temerity to stand up—I shall not say that he “distorted” my words, because I am not permitted to use that word—and give another interpretation to my words. He accused me of the fact that we agree with the total abolition of all racial separation on public transport. That was the very argument I was putting forward when my time expired.

†When my speech was interrupted when my time expired, I had specifically made the point that whilst we did not agree with the total removal of all recognition of classes—as the amendments of the hon. member for Orange Grove propose—and whilst we recognized that there were circumstances in which certain factors had to be recognized, we believed we should move away from discrimination. To that extent I agreed with the hon. member for Orange Grove. However, I specifically said that I did not agree with the hon. member for Bryanston, who said that one could not partially move away from discrimination, but that one should totally remove all recognition and all differentiation based on race. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. member to look at Hansard, that hon. member who runs so hard from the truth that one cannot see him when one throws it at him. He must look at Hansard and he will find that at the point my time expired, I was saying that we rejected the total removal of any sort of qualification, because this side of the House opposed forced integration as much as it opposed forced separation. That is our policy.

Our policy has always been that one should provide separate services where they are required for separate communities. That has been our policy as long as I have been in politics. We have always stood for separate services where they are required, where they are necessary and where they are desirable. Where these services cannot be supplied, there can be common services, services such as the hon. member for Boksburg accepts. Where does the hon. member disagree with me? He is an integrationist! He stands for forced integration, because he says that where there cannot be separate services, there must be common services. He is a liberal! [Interjections.] He is one of these weeping liberals, the do-gooders, these queer animals that he likes to talk about. He must be one of them, because he says he accepts common services where separate services cannot be provided. Our policy is that there can be separate services and I have quoted evidence to indicate that the Coloured people themselves want separate services rather than to be thrown into a “mengelmoes met ander Nieblankerasse”, as the Theron report states. This remains our policy, because we recognize the realities of South Africa. Therefore we are not prepared to support a policy, amendments or legislation which attempt to force integration on all or on any of the people of South Africa. To remove all considerations of class, as is proposed by the amendment, will in fact to be impose forced integration, and we are not prepared to vote for forced integration. The only way in which one can avoid it, is to have the three possibilities which are provided for in this legislation: separate facilities, joint facilities or partially separate and partially joint facilities. That is all provided for in this legislation. By removing recognition of class, one removes the opportunity to have those three options and one leaves only one option, i.e. that all transport must be totally open and therefore totally integrated, which means forced integration. That principle we cannot support, because we believe that forced integration in the reality of South African life today, would not be in the interests of harmony, of peace and of better race relations. We want to move away from forced separation which creates friction and resentment. Therefore we believe that the Government must provide the machinery for doing so. Earlier on we voted that all communities should be represented on the boards which are to take the decisions.

We believe that in the application of those decisions, we should move away from those things which are hurtful. That does not mean, however, that the only alternative to removing inequitable discrimination is to apply forced integration. That is as unacceptable as unfair discrimination. We shall continue to oppose any unfair discrimination, and I hope the hon. the Minister will respond to my appeal in this regard. We will not be found for forcing integration, and I resent the attempt which the hon. member for Boksburg made to try to indicate that we stood for forced integration. That hon. member referred to “800 persone en instansies”, but any agitator can get 800 signatures. The hon. member ought to know that. Does the hon. House believe that the hon. member for Boksburg could not get 800 people to sign a little piece of paper? I want to know to what “instansies” the hon. member referred. He cannot name them; neither can the hon. the Minister. Anyone can go around and get 800 people to sign a piece of paper if they are told that by doing so they are asking that forced integration should not be imposed on them. They will, however, not sign if one puts the facts to them and lets them make a clear choice. The Government is doing as much harm by imposing unfair and unequitable separation as it would do if we were to remove all recognition of the realities. Therefore we cannot accept the removal of all reference to class as proposed in the first amendment. We ourselves have moved, and we agree with the removal of job reservation because it is unnecessary; thirdly we believe that any restrictions imposed should be at municipal level. Therefore we shall support the deletion of subsection (5).

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point accused me of running away from the truth. The fact of the matter is, however, that he is running away from himself. He is scaring himself. The hon. member said very clearly that they were going to move away from separation. I asked him very expressly if he was in favour of mixed travelling on the buses. He nodded his head in affirmation.

That is untrue.

The hon. member must not think I did not see him nodding his head. There are also other hon. members here who heard him nodding his head. However, I want to come back to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said during the Second Reading debate when he was speaking about discrimination. The hon. member said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 2 May 1977, col. 6611)—

He is referring here to the hon. member for Maitland—

That is the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who is actually the hon. member for Durban Point’s MP. I want to take my argument further to embrace the “petty apartheid” policy which the UP has introduced. As far as buses are concerned, according to a newspaper report their policy is as follows—

The report warns—

Is that still their policy? I ask the hon. member for Durban Point if the policy stated here is still their policy?

Ask your leader, Albert Hertzog.

No, the hon. member cannot get away with that egg-dance of his because it does not suit him.

He breaks the egg.

As he said here a while ago when he was defending himself, after the egg had shattered under his heels, that is exactly what their policy is, i.e. mixed travel, but—as it is stated here—at a price. We have always said that in the long run the UP is in favour of apartheid on buses, but on condition that one must be able to buy one’s apartheid. Those “exclusive buses” can be bought. For whom are they intended? Those “exclusive buses” are only intended for the rich from those urban constituencies that they represent. The hon. member is opposed to the notices that have to be placed in the buses and the seats that have to be singled out. When they have those “exclusive” buses, are there going to be notices on those “exclusive” buses to indicate that they are “exclusive”? Those buses are meant for certain rich White people. How are they going to identify such a bus? I am waiting for an answer because someone must tell us how those “exclusive” buses are going to be designated. Are they going to designate them “For Whites only” or are they going to have a notice that reads “Only for Houghton’s and Parktown’s rich people”?

Like Pik I said that I did not want to be hanged for notices.

During the recent municipal elections Prof. Geyser—he is actually one of those liberal UP men, and I think the hon. member for Orange Grove licks his lips when I mention Prof. Geyser’s name—said, inter alia, that he was in favour of mixed buses even though the UP was opposed to it. He added that at least the bus route to Soweto did not run through Parktown. What would their attitude have been if those buses to Soweto were to have run through Parktown? Would they then still have been in favour of bus integration? Now the hon. member for Orange Grove may tell me whether his party would still have adopted the same standpoint that he is adopting here tonight if those buses to Soweto were to have run through Parktown and Houghton. It just so happens that those buses to Soweto do not run through the wealthy Parktown and Houghton residential areas, but in fact through Fordsburg and Booysens where less well-to-do people live. There, however, it makes no difference to them, because Soweto’s buses do not run through Parktown and Houghton. The people in Booysens and in the less well-to-do residential areas cannot buy their apartheid. I think I could best sum up the Prog policy by quoting what Mr. Oberholzer, that UP induna in the Transvaal, said of the Progs. According to Die Transvaler of 14 March 1977 he said—

That is exactly what we find them doing in practice. That is why we reject these amendments moved by members on the other side.

Mr. Chairman, may I, for the sake of interest, tell the Committee that this matter we are discussing this evening was apparently also discussed in our country about 80 years ago. I have here before me a copy of a notice in the Government Gazette, Extraordinary, 18 July 1900. Under the heading “Regulations for Cabs and Vehicles plying for Hire in the City of Pretoria.” The notice begins as follows—

Regulation No. 7 reads as follows—

It is therefore clear that the matter we are discussing this evening is a matter which has apparently been discussed since the beginning of the century.

Be that as it may, with reference to the standpoint I adopted in the Second Reading debate, it goes without saying that I cannot accept these amendments. Here one has an interesting analysis of the position. The hon. member for Durban Point agrees with the hon. member for Orange Grove about the removal of subclause (5). They moved two amendments to that effect. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also agrees with the hon. member for Orange Grove about the removal of subclause (4)(b), but with regard to the amendment of subclause (3)(c), the hon. member for Orange Grove is all alone. It is a fact that subclause (3)(c) deals with the permits when only one class is transported in the relevant vehicle. The hon. member for Orange Grove even wants that removed completely. That is literally the last straw—I am not making a joke about that—because that is as far as one could possibly go. Further than that one cannot go. If one were to acknowledge that he was right in his amendment to subclause (3)(c), it would mean that even the Putco buses in Johannesburg and Pretoria could not be used only for Bantu, but that they would also have to be open to all classes. The White buses, wherever the case may be, in Johannesburg or Pretoria, could then not be reserved for Whites either, but would have to be used by all classes. That is the implication of the deletion.

The hon. member for Durban Point does not agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove about that. The hon. member for Durban Point submits that the hon. member for Orange Grove is now going too far. The hon. member for Durban Point concedes the point up to subclause (5), but no further. How the hon. member can justify to himself that he advocates separate buses, whilst not wanting separate facilities within the same bus, is something I cannot quite grasp.

But that would already be the case in terms of subclause (3)(c). Subclause (5) deals only with seats.

Subclause (5) makes provision for the permits relating to a situation where more than one class of person uses the bus.

And subclause (3)(c) also makes provision for that.

In other words, in terms of subclause (5) the board or the commission is empowered to provide …

Read subclause (3)(c).

Subclause (5)(c) reads—

No, I am referring to subclause (3)(c) at the top of page 34.

But subclause (3)(c), at the top of page 34, makes provision for buses which are only used by one class.

“ … and the class or classes of persons … ” The Afrikaans wording states: “ … en die klas of klasse persone …”

Clause 21 (3) reads as follows—

And then in subclause (3)(c)—

In this case the classes can obviously only have a bearing on the separate vehicles. On what else can they have a bearing?

Mixed buses.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member alleges that provision is being made here for mixed classes, why is he not opposing this clause? The hon. member is not in agreement with the hon. member for Orange Grove about his contention that this clause should be amended. He nevertheless requests that subclause (5) be amended. In that clause specific provision is made for various classes in the same bus. That makes no sense at all, however. Be that as it may, there is no use my arguing about the particulars of these amendments. The fact of the matter is that we have stated clearly that in our view the commission must have the freedom, in accordance with its needs, to make the necessary adjustments. I want to agree to a large extent with some of the things the hon. members have said.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said—I do not agree with him, of course, that this should happen as quickly as he would like to see it happen—that a gradual process of integration will take place in buses. To put it another way, what it amounts to is that apartheid on buses will gradually be eliminated. I can find no fault with that. I believe, as a matter of fact, that it will happen. In my Second Reading speech I said that the operator is free to go to the commission—the commission from which he received a permit for his bus which is used by more than one class—with a request to do away with apartheid on his bus, if it exists.

I specifically referred to certain parts here in the Cape where developments, as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act and other factors, have been such that needs are perhaps—I emphasized the word “perhaps”, because it is a matter for the commission to consider—no longer the same as they were previously. I also said the hon. member for Sea Point was free to make representations and ask for apartheid to be done away with completely. If such representations were to be made, we could determine what the feelings and the reactions of the people are. Bearing all this in mind, I again want to emphasize that the bus services are there for the users of the bus services and not to satisfy the ideological desires of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Therefore, in my opinion, the correct test that must be employed involves the feelings of the people and the needs of the people with regard to the use of the buses. I am therefore saying that we must leave the commission’s options open so that it can, in accordance with the needs of the users of the buses, arrange things, in terms of this provision, in such a way that the users of the buses will be best served.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Orange Grove proposed the deletion of paragraph (d). There, too, there are only a few instances where there are such provisions with regard to the driver of the vehicle, but in some cases it is also necessary for those facilities to be there. Here, too, I am therefore not prepared to accede to the proposal to delete this subparagraph.

Order! I just want to point out that the principles involved here have already been discussed exhaustively in the Second Reading debate. I have now given hon. members a further opportunity to put their party’s view, but from now on they must please not repeat arguments.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your guidance. I had not intended to take part in the debate. However, I just want to say that I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister. His logic quite misses the point. He says the correct test, when it comes to the use of buses, is the feeling of the people. My argument is that if one wants to test the feelings of the people, one must not, with all due respect, ask the commission; one must ask the people down at ground level, particularly those people responsible for local needs, i.e. the municipalities. I do not want to become involved in a philosophic debate. As far as I am concerned, it is a simple matter. It seems to me as if the correct test lies, as nearly as possible, with those people who use the buses, and the nearest one can get to them is the Cape Town municipality, the Parow municipality and the Bellville municipality—i.e. the local authorities of Greater Cape Town where use is made of the buses.

Are there no buses outside the city limits?

The matter, of course, is not without its problems! I can see the problems.

Surely they have access to the commission.

But that is specifically my problem, i.e. that at most they can only make representations. That in itself is a very good thing. What actually bothers me, is why the municipality must be subject to the view of the road transportation board. In this matter, I believe, quite the opposite should apply. When it comes to the driver of the bus, I also believe that matters should be arranged by those who are involved. The hon. the Minister is correct. Bus transport is not there to satisfy the ideologies of the individuals in this House; it is there to satisfy the user of the buses. The feelings of those who use the buses must be gauged. I stick to the standpoint I expressed in the commission; I cannot relinquish it. I think we must bring this matter back to the local authorities, and I believe that the commission must be guided instead of the commission guiding the local authority.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member for Maitland has brought this subject back to what we should in fact be talking about now. I am also glad to see that we are having a certain degree of unanimity here. What we are talking about under this clause is whether or not it is the road transportation board or the National Transport Commission that should have the say as to whether or not there should be integration on buses and to what degree integration should be carried through. Our point is that those bodies do not have the special expertise to do that and that the people living in the area are the people who know how best that can be done. I am glad that the hon. the Minister and I find ourselves ad idem about the fact that bus integration will come gradually. The acceptance in principle that it will come about on a larger scale means that we have travelled some distance along the path together. All we are saying, as far as this clause is concerned, is that we do not believe that the road transportation board or the National Transport Commission should decide. They just have not got the special expertise to do so. They cannot decide about whether or not it should be integration or segregation. We ask that it should be the people concerned who should bring about what the hon. the Minister himself has said is inevitable, and that they should bring it about in the best possible way.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett,

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—78: Albertyn,. J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grober, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J; (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—27: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Question affirmed and amendment, with amendment (2) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer, dropped.

On amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw,

Question put: That the subsection stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F. Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J; (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—27: Aronson T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V. Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Question affirmed and amendment, with amendment (3) moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer, dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24:

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to clause 24 pertains to the omission of “class” and substitution therefor of the word “nature”. From the contents of subsection (2) it is not clear exactly what it meant by the word “class”. This subsection specifically deals with local authorities, laws, ordinances and regulations. I believe the amendments would clarify the situation, because “class” could have a diversity of meanings as far as this Bill is concerned. I think it would clarify the position if one removed the word “class” and substituted the word “nature”. For example, it relates to no-parking areas, to no-parking in loading zones, to no double parking etc. I think the word “class” gives a wrong impression and that is why I think the word “nature” will be a better word. Accordingly I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment, for the word “class” as it is printed here refers to both goods and passengers. The word “class” is used here in terms of a definition contained in clause 1(l)(xiv), which we have not yet dealt with. Therefore I must insist on retaining the word “class” in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s attitude clarifies our attitude to this. It means that the word does relate to passengers and as such specifically to integration or segregation. We therefore oppose the clause on these ideological grounds. I shall not go into the arguments we have already advanced this evening.

Amendment negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31:

Mr. Chairman, clause 31 deals with the offences and prohibitions relating to road transportation. Clause 31(3) specifically deals with the situation where a person enters a vehicle when he does not belong to the race group which is allowed to use that vehicle or where he refuses to get off when told to do so. In practice this clause makes, for example, every bus conductor his own race classification board. It puts a responsibility on somebody who is operating a bus, in that he must make a decision as to whether somebody is Chinese or Japanese, Coloured or White. We regard this as undesirable. It is part and parcel of the racial orientation of this part of the Bill. We do not regard it as the sort of offence which should be punishable. In clause 32 the punishment for this sort of offence is outlined. We believe it is ridiculous to expect anybody to demand from anybody else proof of their racial identity. One can walk down a street in Cape Town on any day and one will see many faces and I would not like to say which is White or Coloured. Even looking around in this Chamber, it is a decision which I would not always like to make. I therefore suggest that this provision should be removed entirely, because it is ridiculous in this day and age to try and enforce this sort of situation. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the subclause follows from the provisions of clause 21(5). The hon. member for Orange Grove moved that clause 21(5) be deleted, but the Committee decided that it should be retained, and because it is to be retained, it must also be implemented. That is what this provision is aimed at, and therefore it is not possible for me to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the official Opposition cannot support the amendment because the subsection proposed to be deleted does not in fact create the offence; it deals with the defence of a person. When a person is charged with an offence in terms of another clause, it shall be a defence to the charge to prove certain matters. This provision therefore enables a person to defend himself more easily, and we support the existing clause and not the removal of provisions which make it easier for one to defend oneself against a charge.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 32:

Mr. Chairman, this certainly has to do with the offence and not with the defence …

We shall support you on this one.

The hon. member for Durban Point says that he is going to support me on this one. I move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This is in line with the arguments which I have advanced in relation to the last clause. It is stated here that it would be an offence for anybody for example to enter a motor vehicle which he is forbidden to enter by law or to enter the wrong part of a bus. If he is convicted of such an offence, he will be liable to a fine not exceeding R50 or in default of payment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. Apart from the fact that the penalties involved are unnecessarily severe and quite ridiculous, we disagree in principle that this is being made an offence at all. The hon. the Minister will no doubt reply that once clause 21 has been accepted, this is a natural corollary thereof. But we shall vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, the same remarks that I made with regard to the previous clause, clause 31, are applicable to this one as well. This clause, too, is consequential upon the content of clause 21(5), and under these circumstances I must insist that the relevant provisions designed to give effect to that clause be retained.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 1 (standing over):

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

Here again we are indulging in the use of words, in semantics.

What is really meant by “class” is “race”. We tone it down a little by calling it a population group. The hon. member for Durban Point has said that he would prefer it to be “community”. He feels “community” is best, is a little more uncertain when it comes to “population group”, but believes that one should not pay too much attention if it becomes “race”. In essence, I do not think that we should be hypocritical about this. I think that we must accept that this definition must be included because we are talking about race. There is a decision in our law that says that one cannot pay attention to race if it is not specifically stated in the definition. However, one does. Therefore, when one is defining class, if one is going to pay attention to race, it has to be so defined. I am not going to repeat the arguments already brought forward this evening. We made our view quite clear, namely that we do not believe that consideration should necessarily be given to race when road transportation boards or the National Transport Commission have to make decisions of this nature. We do not believe that they are qualified to do so, and accordingly we shall vote for the omission of this particular definition.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the Committee. It is quite logical in the light of the view of the hon. member for Orange Grove that if one rejects “class” or “population group” as a consideration in any matter, that one will vote against the definition. We believe that we must move away from discrimination, but that there are occasions where the applicant and his own group may be benefited and occasions when the interests of particular communities requires the recognition of class. For that the definition is necessary. Whilst we would have preferred “community”, we will nevertheless support the definition in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, it will help me in assessing my attitude to what the hon. member has said if he can answer a question I asked him earlier concerning race classification. How will he get away from the necessity for race classification in regard to the attitude he expressed on behalf of his party?

Mr. Chairman, I thought I made that clear. There is the question of factual identity, which has always existed. Before it was institutionalized by legislation it was determined on the basis of appearance and acceptance. On that basis communities themselves, by repute and by acceptance, sorted themselves out. There were border-line cases, but these also sorted themselves out, and somehow South Africa survived for 300 years without race classification and the Population Registration Act. We believe that these are things that sort themselves out and that it is not necessary to have the sort of population register that we have now. That does not mean, however, that there will be no distinction, that there will be total integration without regard to natural existing and identifiable differences and that one has to take no account of those differences and those community groupings.

Mr. Chairman, may I extend my question? If the applicant makes a written submission to a road transportation board and says in the submission that he is White or Coloured or an Indian, would the hon. member for Durban Point be prepared to accept that or would he need a yardstick to define it just a little more? Is he going to argue with somebody who says he belongs to a particular race group?

Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether this is relevant, but I will answer the question. It is not simply a statement of intent. I said that appearance was taken into account, repute and acceptance by a community. Acceptance is possibly the most important. Certainly a pitch-black man cannot come along and say he is a White man and a White man cannot say he is a Black man if he is not accepted as such.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance regarding the provisions of subsection (2)(a). This provides that the conveyance of farm products by a farmer in his own vehicle shall be exempt from the provisions of the Act, with certain exceptions. These exceptions are contained in clause 2(e) which stipulates that for the purposes of section 1(2)(a) the Minister may, by regulation, prohibit the conveyance of a specified processed farm product. Generally, in terms of subsection (2)(a), the conveyance of a farmer’s product by himself in his own vehicle is exempt from the provisions of this Act. The hon. the Minister may, however, by regulation, decree that certain processed farm products, like biltong although—it is arguable whether biltong is processed or not—shall be subject to the provisions of the Act. The point I would like to make with the hon. the Minister is that there are products in respect of which an argument has gone on for many years as to whether they are in fact processed products or whether they are still primary products. I refer to timber, for instance. When does timber become processed? When it is chopped into log lengths, when it is sawn, when it is planed or when it is shaped? When does it become a processed product? These are matters with which I believe only the industry concerned can assist the hon. the Minister. All I ask the hon. the Minister is an assurance at this stage that before he will proclaim a processed farm product, he will consult with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, possibly with the S.A. Agricultural Union and certainly with the particular sector of farming industry concerned. I believe that this is important. Think for example of the tremendous amount of meat which is transported. Now, is meat, in that form, a processed product or not? I am thinking also of chickens. I have mentioned timber. All these things are important to the agricultural sector. My hon. leader points out that the question of whether it is frozen or not also has relevance. When does meat in fresh form or in frozen form become a processed product and when is it a primary product? I ask the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that he will consult with the relevant sectors of the agricultural industry before he passes any of these regulations.

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that we shall be very careful in laying down what is to be regarded as a processed product. I am prepared to give that undertaking. I think it goes without saying that the Minister who has to take the decision will ensure that the necessary consultation takes place. In fact, I do not think that any of these examples mentioned by the hon. member would be regarded as a processed product. I think that processing goes a little further than merely making biltong by drying meat, for example and then saying that this is a processed product.

And the freezing of meat?

I do not think that by freezing meat, one turns it into a processed product. It is a different matter if the meat is processed into a completely different form and then marketed in that form. Then one may argue that it is a processed product.

Like sausages.

That is probable, and polonies and things of that nature.

The motion before the Committee is the deletion of the definition of “class”. Now that we have worked through the whole Bill, with the words “class of persons” occurring in several clauses, the hon. member for Orange Grove comes along and proposes that we omit the definition of the word “class” from the legislation. If the hon. member’s amendment were accepted, there would no longer be a definition of the word “class” in the Act. That would mean that in interpreting the word “class” where it occurs in the legislation, the popular meaning of the word would have to be accepted. The popular meaning of the word is very likely to be the same as the meaning which is given here. Suppose it went to the courts and the courts had to decide what was meant by “class of persons”. Well, if I had to investigate the meaning of “class of persons” in the spirit of this legislation, I think that I would most probably come to the same conclusion, i.e. that it refers to a population group. However that may be, I believe that it is conducive to good legislation that we should know the meaning of the word “class”. Since the House has already given its approval to the retention of the word in so many other clauses, I do not think it would be wise to delete it from this clause.

I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 8, in lines 50 to 59, to omit paragraph (h) and to substitute:
   1. (h) the conveyance by or on behalf of any person, by means of a motor-car insured in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1972 (Act No. 56 of 1972), of persons for the benefit of any other person, as a consideration for a similar reciprocal conveyance performed or to be performed by or on behalf of such other person, if no other reward is received for such conveyance;
2. (2) on page 8, in lines 60 to 67, to omit paragraph (i) and to substitute:
   1. (i) the conveyance by or on behalf of any person, by means of a motor-car insured in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1972 (Act No. 56 of 1972), of any other person as a consideration for a similar reciprocal conveyance of the first-mentioned person performed or to be performed by or on behalf of such other person by means of a motor-car so insured, if no other reward is received for such conveyance;
3. (3) On page 10, in line 10, to omit “motor vehicle” and to substitute “motorcar”.

During the Second Reading debate I explained that this amendment was designed to encourage lift clubs. The second amendment merely makes a correction. The substitution of the word “motor-car” for “motor vehicle” is merely intended to rectify a printing error.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendments moved by the Minister of Transport agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we have stated our attitude quite clearly during the previous stages of the debate on this Bill. I do not intend to repeat it. During the Second Reading we stated our basic approach, which was that one could remove the criticism of inequitable discrimination by incorporating in the Bill qualifications which would ensure that all communities were represented on road transportation boards. This was rejected by the hon. the Minister. We also opposed certain other provisions which, to us, were objectionable, reservations such as job reservation and the determination of seating by a board rather than by a local authority.

Since these are factors which are material to the impact this measure can have on race relations and on harmonious co-existence, we will be consistent and stand by our objection to the Bill at this stage. However, I do not believe there is any need for taking the argument any further. We oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have stated our position in relation to this Bill very clearly in the Second Reading. Very briefly, if I may summarize, we believe that the Bill is an improvement on the existing Act, that there are certain areas where the red tape which goes right through our transport legislation has been cut down and we stress that this Bill can only be of a temporary nature because the protection for the Railways cannot last forever. We therefore suggest that this Bill must be reviewed again within four or five years. We also pointed out that such matters as the empty-leg traffic had not really been solved. We pointed out too that the Railways Administration still tended to protect traffic which was not profitable, for example livestock. Livestock is transported by the Railways at a loss all the time, and this could well be traffic that road transportation could handle, but still the Railways Administration insists on protection.

We voted against the Bill at Second Reading mainly because of the racial provisions which are anathema to us, but the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to change any of these. We believe that they are ideologically wrong, that they are economically unsound and hence, that the country cannot afford them. So, we too must be consistent and vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the small number of objections which my colleagues and I have to the Bill are important, but not important enough to make us vote against the Bill. As in the case of the Second Reading, therefore, we intend to support the Third Reading of the Bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me either to discuss the merits of the Bill again, except for saying that the hon. member for Durban Point believes that what he wants to do would be conducive to better race relations, while I think that what he wants to do would not be conducive to better race relations. The hon. member for Orange Grove conceded to me tonight that the buses used by different classes of persons very easily led to friction between the various race groups. It is precisely in order to eliminate that potential friction that we are taking these measures. Therefore we, too, believe that what we are doing here will be conducive to good race relations in South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—23: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. T. Webber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.