moved, as an unopposed motion—

I object.

I hope my hon. friend will not object. I have not very strong feelings on this matter, but if anything I am against it, considering all the measures that have been brought before this House in regard to the matter. It will not, however, serve his case by objecting.

I would also like to appeal to the hon. member to withdraw.

And I should also like to add my appeal.

After all we do not want to defeat the thing without debate.

I should also like to add my appeal to those which have already been made.

Op ’n punt van orde, Mr. Speaker, het die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) nie reeds gespreek?

Die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) het sy voorstel gemaak, maar ek versta, dat hy nu ’n beroep maak op die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) om sy objektie terug te trek en ek is van oordeel, dat ek hom in alle billikheid moet toelaat om sy beroep te maak.

When the adjournment was moved yesterday afternoon there was strong opposition to it, and I was pressed by supporters of mine, not to consent to it but to make the House sit late in order to come to a decision. But in order to meet the position of hon. members who had difficulties regarding the Bill and desired to lay those difficulties before the House, I consented to the adjournment. I expect similar courtesy from the opponents of this Bill. Let us have a fair fight and a clean vote. If we are beaten we are beaten; if we win we win. I suggest that tactics such as these really amount to hitting below the belt and that they will not advance the cause of the opposition in this matter. I join with other hon. members in urging the appeal that the opposition to my motion be withdrawn.

Ek wens net dit te sê. Ek kan goed verstaan, dat edele lede ’n Ontwerp voor die Huis volledig bespreek wil hê, maar ek wens hierop te wys, dat wanneer ’n Ontwerp voor die Huis gebring is jaar na jaar, en wanneer die geleentheid gege is aan lede om die Ontwerp herhaaldelik te bespreek en wanneer daar ’n gevoel is, dat ’n Ontwerp van jaar tot jaar te veel tyd opneem en te veel van die andere kwessies voor die Huis te verdring, dan behoor so ’n Ontwerp uit te val, en ek kan sien dat daar sterk redene is vir die lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) om hier te objekteer. Maar in hierdie geval, wil ek tog ’n beroep op die edele lid doen om sy objektie terug te trek, nie omdat ek meen, dat daar veel meer o pdie Ontwerp gesê kan word nie, maar omdat ek meen, dat dit beter sal wees om die Huis hier toe te laat om tot ’n stemming te geraak, maar ek kan goed insien deur herhaling van al die argumente op die Wetsontwerp daar ’n gevaar is dat die gevoelens van die Huis verlam sal word. Maar ek doen tog ’n beroep op die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) om sy objeksie terug te trek.

Ek wens dit te voeg by wat reeds deur die laaste spreker gesê is. Ek wil nie op die algemene kwessie ingaan wat ek denk, dat betwisbaar is en betwis kan word, maar die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) sal onthou wat hier gister aand gebeur het. Die voorstel was gemaak om aan te gaan met die debat, en daar was ’n tamelik sterk gevoel om met die debat aan te gaan, en dit sou ons vir ’n goeie deel van die aand aan die gang gehou het. Die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell), wat die Wetsontwerp onder sy leiding gehad het, het toe self voorwaarts gekom en het self die verdaging van die debat ondersteun met die verwagting en goeie vertroue, dat hy later ’n kans sou kry. Met alle billikheid het hy aan die wens tegemoet gekom van edele lede en onder die omstandighede meen ek, dat hy reg het op die goedgunstigheid van edele lede. Ek hoop, dat die objeksie terug getrek sal word. Edele lede weet wat my posiesie is op die Ontwerp—ek het die Ontwerp altyd bestry en wanneer die weer voorkom sal ek dit weer doen, omdat ek meen dat dit ’n onwenslike stap sou wees om die Wet aan te neem, maar ons sal daar geen voordeel uit trek om die skyn op ons te laai dat ons probeer om die Ontwerp te versmoor, of die stemme wat voor die Ontwerp is te versmoor, en as daar ’n kans is om die wat voor die Ontwerp is, ’n verder geleentheid te gee om hul opinies uit te spreek, laat hul dan die kans kry. Ek hoop derhalve dat die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal) homself totaal verslaë sal gevoel en dat hy sal gevoel, dat deur te objekteer hy sy standpunt meer kwaad sal doen as goed.

Mr. Speaker—

No, I think the matter has now been sufficiently and fully discussed. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) objects.

moved, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

laid upon the Table—

Memorandum referred to the Select Committee on Pensions.

laid upon the Table—

laid upon the Table—

When the House adjourned on Wednesday, I was endeavouring to explain just why the good wine makers of Constantia so strongly oppose a Bill that does not on the face of it refer to “good wine.” I laboured the question on Wednesday and must labour it again because from their point of view it is so vital to understand their position if any solution is to be found. Good wine growers are not very numerous. Their views are in essence represented by the good wine makers of Constantia, but they are few and scattered all over the place, and it is only in Constantia that you find makers of good wine in a compact body and it is only there that they are in a position to make their voice heard. I really think there is a way to be found out of this dispute between the good wine makers and the association, and I think if it was adopted it would lead to a better understanding between the people who make good wine and the association. Surely, everyone will agree that it is desirable to put an end to all the friction and all the dissension that has been going on in the wine industries camp for so many years. I believe too that this solution which I propose to discuss in a few minutes does offer a really lasting foundation upon which the commencement can be made for the rebuilding of a good wine industry. That object I am sure will have the sympathy of every hon. member in this House. That is what we are looking for, and for the development of expanding that part of the wine industry which makes a high class wine. I will just recapitulate what the nature of the dispute is between the makers of good wine and this association. The good wine makers will not submit to the control of the association unless they are forced to do so, and they refuse to submit to that control for two reasons. Firstly, because they say this association is essentially a body which governs by and for the makers of wine for distillation, and secondly, because they have to submit to the constitution and rules of this association, and in doing that they are compelled to submit themselves to what is known as the “surplus contribution.” It is this surplus contribution which lies at the root of all this trouble. I can best explain the meaning of the “surplus contribution” by showing what happened a couple of years ago. The year, I think, was 1921. The association ascertained at the commencement of the year that the output was going to be 150,000 leaguers, and ascertained that the needs of the wine merchants amounted to 50,000 leaguers. So that the surplus was 100,000 leaguers, i.e., two-thirds of the total crop. Under the provisions of the constitution everybody who was subject to that constitution was bound to hold the amount of his surplus at the disposal of the association. The price that was fixed for distilling wine in that year was £9 per leaguer, and if you had to hold two-thirds of that for the association you must hold £6 a leaguer for their disposal. The association will use that money for its own purposes, and this year it has paid £3 a leaguer to those who had their wine destroyed. In many cases the farmers were paying £3 a leaguer for absolute muck—there is no other word to describe it. If these people have to pay for this surplus contribution they have to pay for the distribution of muck, and they are fighting that. In that particular year I am dealing with, the price for good wine was £11 a leaguer, and if they were liable for surplus contribution they would have to pay two-thirds of that which would have left the maker of “good wine” £9 per leaguer. People I represent in Constantia say it is almost impossible to make good wine at that rate. They say their cost is very much higher than elsewhere, and in some parts you get three times as many leaguers from a given number of “sticks” as you do at Constantia. They say there are other expenses which make it a very serious matter for those who make good wine that they cannot afford to make good wine at that rate, and if they are to be liable for surplus contribution they had better make distilling wine. That is their objection to this surplus contribution; they say it is a tremendous handicap to the making of good wine, and they fought this question in the Cloete case and are fighting it now tooth and nail. They joined the association in 1918, when it was formed, and under the constitution the association endeavoured to hold them bound to surplus contribution. But they said “No,” as it was never intended that the people who made good wine should make that contribution. The association took them to the courts, but the courts upheld their attitude and said they were not liable; but then the Co-operative Society Act was passed in 1922 and under that Act the association has proceeded by a majority to make a new constitution, or to amend the constitution, and they have amended it on the actual point upon which the court decided against the association. I saw a statement in the Cape Times that counsel had advised the association that the makers of “good wine” werp bound, under the altered constitution, to this “surplus contribution”. The makers of good wine dispute that position, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the legal dispute, that does not very much matter, but what does matter is that if this Bill goes through in its present form these farmers will be killed as they will be completely in the power of the association. They now ask that they should receive the help and sympathy of this Parliament in the fight they are making. Of all people they are the people who should be helped by Parliament and encouraged, for it is their product which we want to see multiplied in this country, and not distilling wine which is made into brandy. Is there any way out of the difficulty? I think there is a way out, and I hope that in the Select Committee, to which I understand this Bill is likely to go after the second reading, I hope that the way out I suggest will be considered very carefully indeed and very sympa thetically from the point of view of those wine makers I am representing. I think the way out is this. Put a provision in this Bill that good wine is not to be subject to what is known as “surplus.” Treat good wine as wine for consumption, and whatever wine you make for consumption treat that as good wine. I think in that way you will get rid of the whole of this difficulty between the two sections of the wine people in this country. After all why should there not be a complete separation between good wine and distilling wine. They are two entirely separate and distinct things. There is a definite market for good wine. Why not leave good wine entirely free to find its own level in that market? Surely that would operate in no way except for the good of the production of that article in this industry. The law of supply and demand in that case would operate, and there would be every possible inducement to improve the quality because the poorer stuff would not be able to face the competition. It would be forced out of the market, and the people who made it would have to go and sell it as distilling wine and they would be liable to the surplus.

Good wine needs no bush!

Exactly, and in that way you encourage the production of good articles, and you discourage the production of bad. If you do that you can leave alcohol absolutely to the association, and that is all that it says it is concerned with. If it is given the control of that by this Bill that is what it is working for. Very well, take off that and leave the makers of good wine to make their own bargains with the merchants. That, I suggest, is the way in which you will find a way out of this great difficulty. I am only concerned with the trouble of my own people and the method of finding a solution for that trouble, so I suggest that the way to deal with this question is to make a provision in this Bill that good wine in the sense of all wines sold for consumption as wine should not be subject to any surplus contribution whatever, but should stand quite outside of that surplus contribution. Then I suggest that there also ought to be a provision that the association is not to be allowed to self wine for consumption. Now this Bill before the House, does not deal with that, but there is another Bill coming before the House called the Liquor Laws Amendment Bill, and under that Bill the association will be entitled to take out a wine-grower’s licence, and to sell wine for consumption as such. You want to make it perfectly clear that the association is not to be put into a position to sell wine as wine because if you do so it will have absolute control of distilling wine and also can sell wine as wine. It will be put into a position which will have an absolutely fatal effect upon people who are making wine absolutely for consumption. The association will be able to compete with fatal effect, because take the case of the association which is dealing with the merchant who goes and says “I want 10,000 leaguers of wine and I want very easy terms.” The association says “Yes, we are quite happy to deal with you in that way, but here are some of our members who have got a large quantity of wine for consumption and they are very anxious it should be disposed of and we also are very anxious to dispose of it.” Very naturally that merchant is going to deal with the association in preference to the outside individual seller? That is one way in which a fatal advantage can be given to an association in competition with the outside maker of good wine. I suggest that if it is possible in Select Committee to deal with the matter on these lines certain definite advantages will result. The first advantage would be that the association would be left with absolute control of the distilling wine and that is all they say they want; and all that the Bill purports to give them. Secondly, it would leave the market open to wine fit for consumption; it would leave the market open to free competition and there is market enough for that class of article. Thirdly, in that way I suggest that the man who goes in for marketing good wine would be encouraged to raise the standard and improve the quality of his article, which is what everybody wants. The man who makes the best article is certainly going to be the man who will find it most easy to deal with the merchants. He is certainly the man to whom the merchants will go. On the other hand, the man who claims that the article he is turning out is good wine in the sense of wine really fit for consumption is going to find that if his article is really not fit for that class he will be forced back into other branches of business; he will have to sell his wine for distilling purposes and be subject to the “surplus contribution.” I suggest that that would be a great spur and encouragement to the people who go in for making a really good article. Another advantage is that if it is found practical to adopt this method of avoiding existing trouble it will avoid any difficulty we have in setting up any standard as to what constitutes “good” or “table” wine. The market will determine that, because if the article is really not good wine it will not be sold, people will not buy it, so you need not trouble to set up an artificial standard of what constitutes “good wine”—a thing upon which I suppose it is very difficult to find many people to agree. A further advantage will be that it will settle this old and long-standing dispute which has created so much bitterness and division among the growers and makers of good wine in this country. Lastly, I would suggest that really no good reason can be found for urging that good wine should be subject to this “surplus contribution”; good wine will make it own price on its own merits. There is no reason whatever why it should he made subject to this “surplus contribution,” and why good wine should be made to pay for the destruction of stuff which in very many cases, not in all cases, but which in many cases is the merest “muck.” I put that suggestion forward in all earnestness in the hope that in it perhaps the germ of a solution of this longstanding dispute may be found. I put the suggestion in all humility; it is not my idea but that of those who really do thoroughly understand this industry from one end to another, and they do believe it offers a way out to a solution. If the Select Committee will embody alterations in the Bill on these lines the Bill will then meet the difficulty which has been disturbing their minds and will make enormously for the advancement and prosperity of this industry. If it is found that this suggestion I have put forward has in it sufficient good to merit acceptance, I hope that out of all the feeling and turmoil this Bill has aroused good may eventually come for this wine industry in the expansion of which we are all so vitally interested.

Mnr. Speaker, ek verwelkom die Wetsontwerp, want daar is niemand wat beter die toestand van die wynindustrie besef as ’n verteenwoordiger van wynboere. As ek sê wynindustrie bedoel ek dit van die kant van die boer, die produsent. Ek weet nie of wynkopers ook vind dat die industrie in ’n benarde toestand verkeer nie. Hulle verteenwoordigers het getoon bang vir die Wetsontwerp te wees. Dis vir my aanleiding om die Wetsontwerp te verwelkom. Ek wil nie ’n lang toespraak hou nie, maar net sê dat ek tog hoop dat die Wetsontwerp, wat die hoog-edele die Eerste Minister ingedien het, deur die twede lesing sal gaan voordat dit na ’n Komitee verwys sal word. Dit kan geen vertraging ly nie. Die wynboere is vandag besig om te pars. Hulle het geen vate en kuipe om die wyn te bewaar, en moet voorsieninge maak, as die Wetsontwerp na ’n Gekose Komitee gaan voordat die twede lesing aangeneem word en voordat die beginsel van kontrôle aangeneem is, is ek bang dat dit re lang sal duur en dat die wynboere wat nou nog getrou is aan die ko-operasie, gedwing sal word om ontrou aan die ko-operasie te word en dat by die tyd wanneer die Wetsontwerp terug sal kom van die Gekose Komitee, dit te laat sal wees om die lede wat getrou gebly het, te red. Ek verwelkom die Wetsontwerp, want dies die eerste voorstel van gesaghebbende syde om die kontrôle van die wynindustrie is Suid-Afrika te bring in hande van die boer, die produsant. Die kontrôle was totnogtoe in hande van ’n klein getal wynkopers in plaas van in die van die produsant. Daar is gesê, dat daar vandag in Suid-Afrika nog sewentig tot tagtig wynhandelaars bestaan, maar die sewentig of tagtig wynhandelaars is so goed georganiseer, dat hulle vandag gekontrôleer word deur ’n paar maatskappye. Ek hoef geen name te noem nie, maar wil net een voorbeeld aanhaal, omdat die feite so duidelik aantoon dat die wynindustrie vandag deur ’n paar huise gekon-trôleer word. In my distrik is daar mense wat wyn maak. Hulle het in die goeie tyd ’n kontrak gemaak met die wynkopers, om hulle wyn teen ongeveer vier pens per bottel vir ’n seker aantal jare te lewer. As jy daardie wyn wil koop in ’n bottelstoor van die koper, die firma E. K. Green & Ko., dan moet jy 2s. per bottel betaal, dat is sesmaal soveel as wat hulle betaal vir dieselfde wyn. Dis van die bekende Drostdy wyn. Maar dis nie al nie, Mnr. Speaker. Ons weet almal van die poginge deur Sir Meiring Beck, om die wyn te verbeter. Hy het groot belang gestel in die “Drostdy” ko-operatiewe kelder en hy het gedoen wat helaas nie alle wynboere doen nie. Hy het goeie Wyn gemaak en goeie wyn help maak. En nie alleen het hy sy wyn verbeter, maar ook andere aangespoor dit te doen. Die gevolg is dat die Witzenberg wyn van die Drostdy ooral in Suid-Afrika gunstig bekend is. Vir die Witzenberg wyn betaal E. K. Green & Ko, vier pennies per bottel en in ’n bottelstoor van die firma moet jy 2s. betaal. ’n Vrind op hierdie banke het my gesê, hy moet in die hotel seifs tot 5s. betaal. Waarom tot 5s.? Omdat jou wynkopers en wynhandelaars vandag so effektief georganiseer is, dat hulle die kontrôle het oor elke hotel en elke kantien. Ek is een van die wat op sy tyd van ’n kelkie wyn hou. Maar deurdie doeltreffende kontrôle wat deur wynkopers word uitgeoefen, kan ek dit nie bekostig nie om my wyn te koop van die handelaar nie. Ek koop my wyn van die boer en kry in my huis in Kaapstad goeie drinkbare wyn gelewer van die boer teen 3d. per bottel. Dieselfde soort van wyn kos by die wynkoper 3s. of 4s. per bottel. ’n Rukkie gelede het ek by ’n vriend gewees, wat ’n wynboer is en hy het wyn uit sy kelder gehaal. Ek het hom toe gevra wat sy prys is vir die wyn en sy antwoord was vyf pond per legger. Ek wil dit net ’n bietjie uitreken. Drie pond per legger kom op een pennie per bottel, dus vyf pond per legger kom op iets minder as twee pennies per bottel. As jy vandag daardie wyn in Kaapstad wil koop betaal jy 1s. of 2s. per bottel. Nee, dis nou tyd dat die kontrôle kom in hande van die produsent, die boer. Dit het lang genoeg in hande gewees van die kopers. Hul moet nou die ander kant ’n kans gee. As jy om jou heensien in die land, dan sien jy dat die getal wynkopers word minder en minder. Wie ’n bietjie belang stel in die wynindustrie, sal hom herinner, dat daar ’n paar jaar terug ’n groot wynhandel was, die firma Bosman & Ko. Waar is die vandag? Hulle het moet likwindeer, omdat ander maatskappye te sterk geword het. Hier in die gange van die Huis is twee mense, wat wynkopers was, maar dit vandag pie meer is pie. Hul is opgekoop deur die “Castle” Kompanie. Langsamerhand word die wynkopers minder en dit word baie gemakkelik vir die wynkopers wat oorbly om hulle te organiseer. Dis veel gemakkeliker vir die wvnkopers om te organiseer as vir die boere. Die wynkopers kom saam en maak planne. Maar dikwels maak ’n boer wat ver van andere afwoon ’n kontrak en as hy dan naderhand met ’n buurman boer saam kom, dan vind by uit dat dit te laat is. Daarom hoop ek, dat die hoog-edele die Eerste Minister die twede lesing van hierdie Wetsontwerp sal deurbring en ek doe ’n beroep op die ander lede wat die boere verteenwoordig. Ons weet, die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Haven) (Maj. van Zyl) verteenwoordig vier wynkopers, maar ek doen ook ’n beroep op ander lede van die Huis, om tot stemming te kom. Want die posisie vandag is so, dat as ons nie gou help, sal hulp te laat kom. Ek verseker die edele lede wat ook graag ’n kelkie wyn drink, die wyn gaat nie duurder, maar goedkoper word onder die nuwe Wet. Vandag word die wyn-drinkende publiek ge-eksploiteer deur die wynkopers as gevolg van hulle kontrôle oor die industrie. Ek wil nog ’n paar woorde sê in verband met die kritiek deur sommige lede uitgeoefen op die direksie van die ko-operasie. Dis moontlik dat enige kritiek aangebring kan word. Maar die wynboere het dit in hul eie hand. Die meeste van ons hier dink, dat die hoog edele die Eerste Minister ook dikwels nie die regte ding doen en dat hy ook vandag nie op die plaas moes sit nie waar hy sit. Maar die meerderheid van die bevolking van Suid-Afrika het hom daar gesit.

En sal hom daar hou.

Maar die volk het die hef in sy eie hand. En as die direksie van die ko-operasie die belange van die lede nie behartig nie, kan hulle hom by die eerste beste geleentheid uitskop. Jaar na jaar kom daar geleentheid om verandering in die direksie te bring. Maar ek wil net daarop wys dat dit ’n punt is wat gebruik word deur die teenstanders van die ko-operasie. Dis ’n aas, ’n lokaas, ’n versoeking, wat deur die wynkopers gebruik word. Tog kan vandag die lede van die ko-operasie nog geskat word op neentig persent van die wynboere. Nietteenstaande al die versoekinge, die magtige gebaar van die bose, is daar tog nog 90 persent van die wynboere lede van die ko-operasie. Ek maak ’n beroep op lede om hierdie Wetsontwerp so spoedig moontlik deur die Huis te kry, want die nood en die ellende buitekant is groot. Mense moet hul produkte gaan verander in ander soort produkte. Daar is sommige mense wat sê “laat hul vate koop,” maar ek wens nie hierop in te gaan nie. Dit kos baie om vate te koop om leggers van wyn in te berg wat miskien net ’n paar pond werd is. Ek maak ’n beroep op die Huis om tot stemming te kom en die Ontwerp aan te neem.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult for a prohibitionist to give his vote on this motion without saying anything and as I propose to vote for this Bill, I wish to offer a few reasons and I will put them concisely. I do not sympathize with the industry but one would be worse than heartless if one did not sympathize with the individual who for many years made a livelihood from the industry. We who wish to see the maximum diminution in the drink habit and a complete and early disappearance of drunkenness feel about this Bill that it deals more in practice than in theory. Wines and brandy have been made in South Africa and if I know South Africa they are going to be made and sold here for many more years. As far as wines are concerned, I am not speaking as an expert, I am not convinced by the speech of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Bisset) because it does not seem to me that the real trouble between Constantia and the people for the Bill has anything to do with good wine, as good wine is not mentioned in the Bill. I am compelled to come to the opinion from my experience that a man who makes good wine often sells worse wine to the people in his neighbourhood. In so far as that is correct, and it is the result of my own personal observation and belief, I must confess I have more sympathy with the hon. member than with his constituents. The advantages of this Bill seem to be that if a man is going to drink brandy it is going to be a better drink; the more dangerous forms of distillation will be destroyed and there will be a unification of control and distillation. I do not think that anybody who has followed this question with sympathy can view Clause 6 with anything but enthusiasm. When a man can not sell brandy in South Africa until it is matured—

Have you drunk it?

No, but I have watched the hon. member and others. It is now proposed that after 1928 no brandy shall be sold in South Africa unless it is three years old. I think that is going to do a great deal of good. A man will have a reasonable chance of not being poisoned at sight. If he takes the chance of being poisoned it is up to him. One of the greatest problems about the liquor question on the Rand is that you can never tell the source of the supply. With the assistance of the control in a Bill like this that trouble will in time disappear. For that reason I welcome the Bill. I also welcome the Bill for two other reasons; one is that in the hands of a central organization there will be an opportunity to assign different fields for the development of the industry. The industry itself is to my mind a secondary industry; the main industry—the agricultural industry being the producing of God’s good grape. In so far as God’s good grape can turn into God’s most excellent raisins I am delighted to see this Bill. More than that there is a future before this industry connected with alcohol fuel and I hope it will have an enormous future. To get a suitable alcohol fuel means concentration of effort and capital. Speaking generally the world has to go back to the things which grow, but they have to mature and they have to be controlled. For that reason I am glad as a temperance man that we will have an organization which can control the industry and develop it along those lines which will take away the greatest practical objection to the growth of temperance in South Africa. It will ultimately give the farmers a chance of earning their living in other ways and of doing that in a way in which nobody will be injured financially, and in these circumstances even as a temperance advocate I am prepared to support the Bill.

Dis aangenaam vir my dat ons die debat tot ’n einde kan bring op hierdie stadium. Ek dink die Wet is tamelik bepraat en ons kan tot ’n stemming kom en tot ’n beslissing. Die Wetsontwerp behels maar weinig biesonderhede. Die Wet bevat maar één groot beginsel met baie weinig masienerie en baie weinig biesonderhede. Die beginsel is ten voile bespreek. Sommige van die kleinere puntjies en biesonderhede is ook bespreek geword, virnaamlik deur die edele lid vir Kaapstad (Kasteel) (de hr. Alexander) en die edele lid vir Piquetberg (de hr. de Waal). Nou wens ek nie vandag op enige van die biesonderhede in te gaan nie. Dis nie gepas om by ’n twede lesings debat op biesonderhede in te gaan nie eh ek sou te ver gaan in my repliek en ek sou die Huis te lang ophou as ek op al die kwessies sou ingaan. Die ernstige kritiek op die Wet is gelewer deur my vriend, die edele lid vir Suid Skiereiland (de hr. Bisset), en ek weet dat my edele vriend in ’n moeilike posiesie is. Hy het ’n aantal kiesers wat groot belang het by die Wet, en ek neem hom dit nie in die minste kwalik dat hy, soos hy hier gedoen het tamelik grondige kritiek gelewer het op die Wetsontwerp; maar ek verstaan, dat my edele vriend versag is in die skerpe veroordeling wat hy gister op hierdie Wetsontwerp gemaak het. Hy het vol stoom begin en het begin die Wet van begin tot eind te veroordeel, maar nou het my edele vriend, net soos verskeie van ons, oor die posiesie gedink en hy sien die moeilikhede aan die Wetsontwerp verbonde, moeilikhede aan die hele saak verbonde wat opgelos moet word—die gaos in die hele wynindustrie, en vandag het hy vorentoe gekom met ’n houding wat in alle opsigte veel vredeliewender is en veel meer bevredigend, en waarin ek, as ek hom van enige nut kan wees, hom seker sal help. My edele vriend het twee versoeke gemaak om aan sy moeilikhede en besware tegemoet te kom. Dit skyn dat hy sy moeilikheid prysgee omtrent die beheer; maar sy argument vantevore was dat die wynboere vereniging deur die Wet in so’n magtige posiesie geplaas is, dat seifs die boere wat uitgesluit is, en die wyn wat uitgesluit is, onder die magtige invloed sal moet kom wat deur die Wetsontwerp opgesit word. Dit was sy kritiek, maar vandag het sy skerpe kritiek tamelik afgekoel, en hy sê dat hy tevrede sal wees as sy konstituente en die makers van goeie wyn op ’n paar punte tegemoet gekom kan word. Die eerste punt deur hom aan die hand gegee is, dat vandag die lede van die vereniging onderhewig is aan die kontribusie vir die surplus, en hy wil dit neergelê hê in die Wet by wyse van amendement dat die makers van goeie wyn, dit is, van wyn wat as wyn gedrink word en nie gedistilleer word in spiritualië of brandewyn nie onderhewig sal wees aan die surplus kontribusie. My moeilikheid is dit: Ek wil my edele vriend help, en die boere agter hom vir wie ek die grootste simpatie het, want hul het hul bes gedoen om die wynindustrie te verbeter en om die wyn te verbeter en ek wil hul help sonder afbreuk te doen aan die groot beginsel van die Wetsontwerp. Die moeilikheid is dit: die wynboere vir wie hy praat is lede van die vereniging. Hul is gebonde, nie onder hierdie Wet nie, maar onder ’n vorige Wet, die Wet oor kooperasie, onder hul eie konstitusie. Natuurlik, as die Wette van die land anders beslis, dan is dit ’n kwessie wat deur die Howe van die land in orde gemaak kan word. Maar argumentshalwe neem ek aan, dat die wynboere as lede gebonde is die kontribusie te maak vir die deel van die wyn wat vernietig is. Die Huis sal die moeilikheid sien waarin ons is. Hier word ons gevra dat ons by wyse van amendement in die Wetsontwerp ’n verandering sal maak in die relasies van die vereniging, dat ons ’n verandering sal maak in die ander Wet, in die posisie van die bestaande Wet, dat ons die posisie van lede onder die bestaande Wet sal verander. Hierdie Wet handel glad nie oor die kwessie. Dis ’n kwessie wat met omsigtigheid behandel moet word en nie wat aanleiding kan gee tot allerhande konstitusionele moeilikhede. My edele vriend (de hr. Bisset) skud sy hoof; ek sal bly wees as hy reg is; ek kan hom die versekering gee, dat ek simpatiek gestem is jeëns sy doel, die doel om die makers van goeie wyn tegemoet te kom. Ek is die edele lid sê doel simpatiek om die maker van goeie wyn tegemoet te kom en as ’n weg gevonde kan word, dat daar geen konstitusionele moeilikhede sal verwek word nie, sal ek hom tegemoet kom. Dit geld hier ’n beginsel om die industrie te red en as die weg gevonde is, moet ons die industrie se belange simpatiek behandel. My vriend sal sien as ons by die komitee stadium kom, dat ek sy standpunt nie vyandig gesind is nie en vertrou dat my vriend met die versekering genoeë sal neem. Op sy twede punt is dit moeilik om hom tegemoet te kom. Hy het gevra die vereniging moet nie in die toekoms wyn verkoop vir gewone drank nie en moet dus beperk word tot wyn wat later verstook moet word tot brandewyn. Ek moet daarop wyn, dat van die beste wyn-soorte soos Witzenberg b.v. so verkoop word en dis wel die vraag vir die minderheid om te sê: julle moet daaruit; die vereniging mag nie meer Witzenberg verkoop nie en moet sig beperk tot wyn vir brandewyn. Ek kom terug tot die toespraak van die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) en ek verwelkom die houding, deur hom aangeneem. Hy voel soas ek voel en soas die meerderheid van die Huis voel, dat ons in ’n posiesie staan, waar gehandel moet word, en die beginsel is miskien die enigste die uitredding sal bring en ons moet die daarom passeer. Maar nou sê my edele vriend: waarom ons eers bind aan ’n beginsel voordat die saak na ’n Selekt Komitee gegaan is? Daar dink ek is hy verkeerd. Toe hy die voorstel gemaak het om af te stap van die twede lesing en eers te ondersoek, het hy daardie moeilikheid vergeet. Die Wet is van krag vanaf 1 Februarie, d.w.s. dit het terugwerkende krag en slaat op die teenwoordige oes. Die gevolg is dat solank dit onder behandeling is, is die hele wynhandel dood; geen boer kan verkoop nie, behalwe deur die vereniging en selfs daar is hy nie seker nie. Geen handelaar kan wyn van hierdie oes koop nie en die handelaar wat wil verkoop, weet nie waar hy staan ten opsigte van die Wet nie—hy weet nie of dit Wet sal word nie. Dus daar is onsekerheid en stilstand van die hele wynhandel. Ek stem met die edele lid vir Ceres (de hr. Roux) saam dat dit wenslik is dat so spoedig moontlik ’n einde gemaak word aan die onsekerheid. In die gewone loop van sake vat dit langer tyd en indien ons nie versigtig is nie, word die tyd van ondersoek fataal. Indien ons die beginsel nie wil aanneem nie en alles oorlaat aan ’n Selek Komitee, weet ek nie wat sal gebeur nie. Hulle het geen leidraad nie, moet van die begin af alles ondersoek, nie slegs met die oog op die kontrole nie, maar eenvoudig alles. Daar sal ’n poging tot ’n oplossing voorgebring word deur verskillende persone en op dit alles sal die Selek Komitee moet ingaan, tensy hulle gebonde is aan ’n leidraad. Waar die Huis en beide kante van die Huis eenparig is ten gunste van kontrole, daar dink ek moet ons nie langer draal nie maar dit deur ’n Selek Komitee laat ondersoek, nadat die twede lesing aangeneem is, en dan met die voorbehoud dat hulle die ondersoek soveel moontlik moet bekort. Ek dink dat 14 dae genoeg is. Ek kan verklaar dat ek reeds ’n begin gemaak het; ek het die boere en die handlaars bymekaar gebring en hulle sit reeds van vanmore af om te sien in hoever die Wet hulle belange affekteer, en om te kyk of hulle nie tot ’n skikking kan geraak nie. Ek hoop dat waar beide kante se belange, sowel die van die boer as van die handelaar, verteenwoordig is, dit moontlik sal blyk om tot ’n redelike kompromis te kom en sal die ondersoek ons werk bespoedig. Ek hoop hulle sal sê: goed, ons sal op daardie basis te werk gaan en alles doen om te voorkom dat die verkwisting verder aangaan. Ek stel voor dat die twede lesing aangeneem word en die saak na ’n Selek Komitee verwys en dat hulle binne 14 dae rapport sal uitbring. Dan het ons die tyd die Wet te passeer sonder onnodige tyd te verlies. Onder omstandighede ag ek dit nie nodig verder op die besonderhede in te gaan nie. Ek hoop die leier van die opposiesie sal sien dat my houding nie in teenstand teën sy voorstel is nie, maar dat dit gebiedend is, soas die sake nou staan, om haas te maak en geen tyd te verlies nie. Laat ons die twede lesing aanneem, dit sal ’n leidraad wees vir die Selekt Komitee.

Ek ondersteun die voorstel van die Eerste Minister tot verwysing van die Wetsontwerp na ’n Selek Komitee, en ek mag sê dat ek bly is dat na my voorstel om die twede lesing nie aan te neem nie voordat dit verwys was na ’n Selek Komitee, my gebleke is, hoe almal dit daaroor eens is, dat daar kontrôle moet wees en daarom ag ek dit nie nodig om die twede lesing teen te hou nie. Ek moet, egter, verklaar dat die Eerste Minister ’n paar belangrike punte onder my aandag gebring het, nl. dat die Wet terugwerkende krag sal hê en dit wys die belangrikheid om dadelik te handel. Die saak is spoedeisend en hierdie kant van die Huis voel wel deeglik dat dadelik opgetree moet word, maar tegelykertyd is daar ’n heel party belangrike kwessie aan die saak verbonde. Ons moet oorweeg wat sal die indirekte gevolge van die Wet wees, en hoewel die Selek Komitee geen tyd sal verlies nie, mot ons oorweeg in welke moeilikhede hierdie stap ons miskien kan bring.

Amendment proposed by Gen. Hertzog, viz.—

put and negatived.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

moved—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I trust the Minister will make a statement on this clause with regard to the Public Service and Railway Associations. Some correspondence has reached members in regard to how this Bill is going to affect the organizations of members of the service. I know the Minister will probably say that they do not come directly under this particular Bill. For instance the railway people have their own conciliation board. Now, here we are making certain provision in regard to conciliation and a proviso has been put in to that effect. I do, however, think that the Minister should make some statement to indicate exactly in what position the ordinary associations and ordinary boards will be placed under this Bill. Will the ordinary conciliation arrangements that exist with regard to the service, and will the conciliation board which exists with regard to the railways be completely outside this Bill or will they be affected by its provisions? If they are to be affected by the provisions in the Bill, I would like to have some amendments introduced, but if this Bill is not to apply to them, it may not be necessary to move the amendments. If the Minister will make a statement on that point it would considerably help us.

The object of this clause is to exclude public servants altogether. There is one small exception, and that is where public servants belong to an outside union like the printers. And this exception was made very largely with a view to the printers. They may, with the consent of the Minister, join in the Printers’ General Council, but all public servants, whether day servants, salaried men, or post office men, will be all excluded from the provisions of this Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I have brought to the notice of the Minister that there is a strong desire on the part of the municipal employees in Johannesburg that some provision should be made whereby if an agreement cannot be arrived at between employer and employee with regard to the appointment of an industrial council, he should be empowered at the request of one of the parties to appoint an industrial council. The clause provides for the formation of an industrial council where both parties agree to it, but what I propose now is to give the Minister power to appoint an industrial council if approached by one of the parties. The employees in question have given good reasons why this should be done. Possibly it will serve to explain better if I quote the actual wording of their resolution. I move—

It seems to me that if this proviso is inserted where parties cannot agree to the formation of a council it will tend to the preservation of peace and quietness, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.

Personally, I would be very glad to see these words put in if I thought they would work, but I do not think they would. As the hon. member knows, the Whitley Council principle exists entirely on a voluntary basis. Where on the one side the employers are organized and the employees are not, or vice versa, where the Minister will get an industrial council which can function I do not know. It would be a good thing if people in industry in this country would help in building up these bodies. What is wanted badly is for those in authority to exert themselves in South Africa to get these Whitley Councils set up in every industry. Take the mining industry! I think it is a matter for real regret that there has never been established a national council or an industrial council to deal with that industry and for making proper working agreements. If the Government had given them a lead in that matter, then we should have benefited greatly by an absence of disputes. If the hon. member who has moved this amendment has that end in view, I do not think he will secure it by the amendment. It is because I am afraid it will become a dead letter in the law that I do not see much use for it.

I think that this amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) is based on a misunderstanding or a misconception as to the objects of council and boards contemplated under this Act. First of all, you have got a Whitley Council or an industrial council which is a permanent body, and which will meet regularly whether there is a dispute or not, and discuss the affairs of that particular industry from time to time. Unless both parties come willingly to a council of this kind, what is the earthly good of bringing them together? They will simply meet and disperse again and nothing useful will be done. If you force them to it, it will do no good. If a local authority is willing to appoint such a council for their employees I will welcome it, because I think it is the right thing to do, but if the employers or employees do not want it, it is no use putting up a machine which will not work. The position of the conciliation board, as provided for in this Bill is quite different. This board is connected with only a particular dispute that has arisen. If a dispute has arisen in an industry, and if there be a Whitley Council or industrial council in that industry, the dispute, of course, will be considered by them. But if there is no such council, then a conciliation board can be established ad hoc. We go so far as to say that we compel people to go before the conciliation board, but not a Whitley Council. We say, before you strike you must give notice and go before a conciliation board. We cannot force you to come to an agreement before the conciliation board, but you will have to meet and discuss before you actually strike and declare an industrial war. Municipal employees are particularly interested because by an Act of Parliament we have taken the right to strike out of their hands. I think the whole misconception has arisen because it has not been understood that the industrial council shall be voluntary. To introduce the idea of compulsion by forcing the parties against their will to form a council of this kind would be useless, and I therefore regret that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan).

It is felt by the Municipal Employees’ Association that the Minister has taken away from municipal employees the opportunity of striking, which is depriving them of the final weapon that workmen have for bettering their conditions. At Durban, when there was a dispute with the municipal authority, the employees wanted an industrial council formed, but the Municipal Council refused to do this. There is a possibility that if you take away the right to strike from these people and the Municipal Council refuses to form an industrial council, the same position as occurred at Durban may arise under this Bill. You may have in the future such a case, and I think that the Minister should remove any misconception as to his powers under the Bill.

Under the Bill now the Minister will have the power to say whether a conciliation board is necessary. If the board fails to come to an agreement, then the parties must appoint an arbitrator, and if they fail to appoint an arbitrator then the Minister can appoint one. That is the principle of compulsion introduced into this Bill, but it is dealt with under another clause.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like to move the deletion of the proviso in sub-section (1), lines 7 to 12, page 6—

Hon. members will have seen in Clause 12 that the right to strike on the part of the workmen is taken away. They have no right to strike on account of any dispute whatever until a conciliation board or an industrial council has discussed the matter and reported thereon. I do not disagree with that principle. I am not a syndicalist. The syndicalist would disagree with that entirely. We believe in the principle that there ought to be negotiations in the public interest before a strike takes place. Well, the right is taken away from the men to strike on every occasion, but the Minister has thought fit to insert a proviso that he shall not appoint a conciliation board for the matters I have mentioned. But these matters are very fruitful sources of dispute, and although they may only directly affect one individual the whole of the members of that workshop, or factory, will make common cause about that grievance. In self-protection they will have to interfere. They nave then got to get the Minister’s ruling as to whether a principle is involved. That is ridiculous. If the employer did not want a conciliation board, he would go to the Minister and say no principle was involved. The consequence would be that the Minister would have to side with one or the other, and one or the other will blackguard him. Is a strike any the less harmful to the community because it takes place in regard to wages than in regard to these matters? What we are trying in this Bill to do is to settle all cases of dispute without resort to striking, but here you strike out matters which might very easily be responsible for disputes. Such questions as contract prices and those chiefly affecting piece-workers are entirely cut out. My point is, it is utterly ridiculous to do this. The assessment of contract prices is a constant and fruitful source of disputes. These things are not laid down in an agreement; they have to be laid down mine by mine and working place by working place. Only one individual would be concerned in many cases, but the others would soon make common cause with them. I do not think it would apply to the printing trade, but from my knowledge of that trade I can picture hundreds of instances where the question of whether process blocks is included in the price given per page for setting up of type and all that sort of business would cause disputes. The trade unions as a whole have grouped themselves together for the purpose of making representations on this Bill, and asked me to delete this proviso and make the Act cover all disputes. It has no bearing whatever on Clause 10, although the same words occur there. When we come to that clause I shall deal with the matter, which is quite separate from what I am dealing with now. I am quite sure we are not doing justice to the men if we say to them “you cannot strike on account of any dispute until negotiations have taken place or a conciliation board has been appointed,” and then deliberately omit the other machinery. Under this proviso you deliberately say that there shall not be a conciliation board appointed in regard to certain classes of dispute. That is what in effect it amounts to actually—the right to strike is taken away without other means of redress. I do not blame the Minister, but I want to say that I notice there are a number of amendments to this Bill which are connected somehow or other with the trouble which has taken place between the men engaged on the mines and the Chamber of Mines over this very matter of the appointment of conciliation boards. Generally speaking, other employers and employees have welcomed conciliation boards, but the Chamber has taken up the attitude of trying to induce the Minister to turn down the application. There are a number of other amendments which have a very strong bearing on the subject matters of disputes on the mines which have taken place of late. We want a clear mind in regard to this. We are not passing a Bill for the mining industry alone, but for the whole of the Union, and if we remember that, we shall get a much better Bill. We know very well from what we have heard that representations were made to the Minister to insert this proviso. It is a curious thing, but the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce asked for exactly the same amendments to be made. I do not think they would like to be labelled as satellites of the Chamber of Mines. It would be a very hard thing to say that the Chamber of Commerce is connected with the Chamber of Mines.

Allied.

It does seem strange that exactly these amendments in the Bill were foreshadowed by the Chamber of Mines and Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg. I want to say this: that the Chamber of Mines has ceased to represent the individual mines or groups of mines in regard to industrial matters, and I ask the Minister not to pay too much attention to any representations on these matters from the Chamber. We have evidence almost every week through the papers that the mines themselves are dealing in all those industrial matters with their employees direct, and not through the Chamber. Last night we were informed in the Argus—

That is conciliation!

No status quo maintained while the dispute was under consideration!

That happened only yesterday. That is the position. As far as industrial matters are concerned, the Chamber of Mines is just about as representative of the individual mines and groups of mines to-day in these matters as a certain labour body in Johannesburg which poses as an authority on trades union matters is of the workmen. Just about as representative. We have got to forget these undue influences which have been brought to bear upon the Minister in the recess, unless they are based on more solid arguments than I have heard. I would ask the Minister to delete this proviso, and let the Bill stand as it was, and refer to all forms of disputes, no matter what the causes from which they arise.

I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. If this amendment is carried it will be impossible to carry on any industry, office, trade or occupation without continually appealing to conciliation boards upon the most trivial matters.

What harm will they do?

Remember that this Bill applies not only to the mining industry, it applies to every attorney’s office, every shop, every occupation or trade of any kind.

Yes, well?

If we are going to have disputes as to the rank of an official and to the pay of an individual person, whether he should be de-graded or not, in each office, in every industry in this town or in this country, referred to a conciliation board, then it will be impossible to carry on any business whatever. You may know the state of affairs that existed in Johannesburg before the late strike. It was impossible for the manager of a mine to tell a man that he was not fit for the post he was then occupying, and that he must go somewhere else without having an appeal to a conciliation board. The time of the managers and the officials was taken up with the most trivial disputes and with attending on conciliation boards for the settlement of them. It was impossible to carry on any occupation at all in the circumstances that then prevailed. What was the consequence? The consequence was that there was bound to be a strike; it was impossible to continue in that way, and a stop had to be made. A strike took place in consequence. If we move this proviso out we will have a similar state of circumstances arising. The hon. member who has just spoken has said that you take away the right of the men to strike on this question. I do not think that is a right interpretation of the Bill.

Why?

I will explain why. Clause 12 of the Bill provides—

That prohibition can clearly not apply to any matter which is prohibited from being placed before the conciliation board. Any one of these matters mentioned in the proviso can form the subject of a strike, because those matters cannot be referred to a conciliation board, and consequently the prohibition against a strike until it has been referred to a conciliation board falls to the ground. Therefore that argument of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is, I think, unsound. I think it will be impossible to maintain any state of discipline or organization in any trade in this country if that proviso is moved out. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has referred to the Chamber of Mines and to some other bodies in Johannesburg. I think that this matter should be discussed without any appeal to prejudice against such bodies. There is probably no other occupation in this country, except perhaps the occupation to which the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) himself belongs, which has set up a better system of conciliation between employers and employees than the building trade. I think the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) will agree with me there. The National Federation of Building Trade Employers in South Africa have just issued a circular in which they say that they are very strongly of opinion that this clause should be retained, as otherwise conciliation boards may be appointed upon matters which only concern the employer in a trade and the individual employee. They say—

Who is that communication from?

I mentioned from the National Federation of Building Trade Employers in South Africa.

And by whom?

It is officially issued.

Who was it signed by?

It is signed by no one.

The general secretary, J. Moore.

It is signed officially by that association which, I think, it will be admitted, has established more desirable relations between themselves and their employees than any other industry in the Union. They say, and I think their words ought to be weighed, that if this proviso is withdrawn then it will without doubt seriously effect the discipline and efficiency of this industry and that speaks for itself. If any individual employee will have the right upon any personal disputes between himself and his employer to call for a conciliation board it will be impossible to maintain discipline in any industry and proper discipline is as desirable for the employer as for the employees. Unless discipline is maintained, no good work can be done in any industry, and the interests of the employees will be as severely effected as that of the employers. I hope therefore that the Minister will not consent to this proviso being deleted.

I support the amendment. I do not see any danger in conciliation, all that we want as I understand it, is that every possible subject which may give rise to industrial warfare should first be considered round the conciliation table. What is the good of keeping certain subjects away from it? You may just as well prohibit peace conferences. Peace conferences are good and conciliation conferences are good, even if they do take up a little time and cause a little delay. Surely it is better that in every case for possible friction they should have the case settled round a conciliation table. The wider you make the area of conciliation the better. The more the subjects that can be settled by conciliation instead of industrial warfare the better. What possible arguments can there be for limiting the subjects? What they want is conciliation. Why not? All these things mentioned in the proviso have led to strikes in the past. There is no doubt about that. Some of them have led to industrial warfare, and if you take this proviso out it means that before industrial warfare begins there will be a chance of conciliation round the table. There should be every effort made by Parliament to avoid the trouble and make them meet round the table. That will be all that the omission of the proviso will do. If they are not prepared to settle it round the table, then they will have to go to industrial war; the very last thing anyone wants them to do, and the improvement, the omission of this proviso makes is that you definitely say that if there is no agreement on these subjects, can you go to industrial war. There is no other method by which we can settle the matter. For this reason I would like to see this proviso go out, and I would like to see the area of possible industrial conflict treated in as wide a manner as possible by methods of conciliation. Time enough for the warfare to begin when the conciliation board has failed, but do let us give every opportunity to the conciliation boards to settle things in the best way they can.

I like to look at this matter as impartially and as objectively as possible, not from the point of view of the employer or employee, but from as impartial a point of view as possible. Now, what is the position? The danger of which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) is afraid is that if you put up a conciliation board for small things you bring your conciliation machinery into contempt. People afterwards say that for little disputes of this kind you are going to put a big machine in motion. It undermines discipline. You cannot act on the spur of the moment, because if a man misbehaves himself, or if the necessities of the case require it—under Clause 10 you must give them a month’s notice. The result is that with this month’s notice and a conciliation board, before you can do anything, before you can dismiss a man, although it may be for very flagrant misconduct—discipline is undermined. That is the danger. It is so clearly felt that in all industrial Acts of this kind I have seen, a number is stated of men that must be effected before a conciliation board can be asked for. That is the case in the Canadian Act; that is a case in the present existing Transvaal Act, which says that at least ten employees must be effected before a conciliation board can be asked for, and when they apply they must give the names of ten employees that are affected. If there are only nine, although it may be a typical instance and lead to a tremendous big dispute, if there are not ten employees of the employer interested in this matter, no conciliation board can be put up. If you limit it to a number, as has been done in the Canadian and Transvaal Acts, you make it too stereotyped, and my experience in administering the Transvaal Act for a number of years is that the party that does not want to go to the conciliation board always looks for technical objections and employs an attorney to point out all the pitfalls in the Act. One objection is taken one way or another, and it leads to friction and trouble. That is one of the reasons why the Transvaal Conciliation Act is not more popular than it is and has not been used more frequently in the past, because the men have felt that they are up against a technicality of this kind. The figure “10” was one of the many reasons which led to difficulties. The Brace Committee that investigated this matter, the industrial board that sat after the 1922 disturbance on the Rand, felt this, and they said that they saw the mistake in the conciliation machinery which acted during the war; they went too far by bringing disputes of a personal character into the complicated machinery of the conciliation board. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said that these things led to dispute and were not alone to be dealt with under a standing council. If you get an industrial council under Clause 2 it means that from time to time there is a body engaged in discussing these points which are more important. The conciliation board is for disputes, something much larger than the ordinary matters carried out by the industrial council which is provided for in Clause 2. I feel at the same time that having deleted the word “ten” that you cannot leave it at that. You leave it in the hands of any individual to put the law in motion by having the Minister to introduce a conciliation board under the Act, which is not possible. Here we exclude individual oases unless the Minister is satisfied that a matter of principle is involved. If the matter is so big and if the Minister is satisfied on a thorough investigation that it might lead to trouble, he can give a conciliation board even if the number involved was only two or three, and not wait until ten. I think the safeguard of leaving the discretion to the Minister in the circumstances ought to meet the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). I know there are people who want this out, and considerable representations have been made to me to leave it out. I say no. Let it be left to the discretion of the Minister, because although it only effects two or three and not ten, if it is a matter of importance it might lead to a strike. If the dispute happens in Cape Town or Durban or elsewhere and the local representative of the Minister says: “This may appear to you, sir, to be a matter affecting only two or three individuals, it is a matter on which you should have a conciliation board.” In the circumstances the Minister can say: “You can have a conciliation board although not a large number of men are affected.” I propose this in the nature of a compromise. If I were to listen to the employees only, I would leave it to the discretion of the Minister, but I have tried to be fair to both sides. Certain individual cases shall be excluded, and the Minister shall have discretion in certain circumstances to give a conciliation board. I hope the good sense of the House will support me in these proposals as they appear in the Bill.

I would like to answer the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber). I want to refer him to the information given by Mr. Adams, the President of the National Federation and other representatives who appeared before the Committee, and I want to show you from their evidence that they asked for conciliation boards to deal with all matters that might cause disputes, and not to be limited in the manner now proposed in this Bill. They have come now again and made opposite suggestions.

The same organizations?

What I would point out to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) and the Minister is this: the Minister is not forced under the clause to appoint a conciliation board; he is given a discretionary power.

That is in the provision.

No; he will be unable to appoint a conciliation board if he wants to for these matters. What appears to be unsound is not to make provision for the sort of thing which has led to many strikes in the past: an employer engages a non-union man in a place where all trade unionists are employed. The men refuse to work with him and come out on strike, and the strike extends right throughout South Africa. There is no provision in the Bill at present to meet such a case, and the power of interfering is practically taken out of the hands of the Minister.

That would be a matter of principle.

It is not easy to suggest that you can have a round-table conference when you have taken away the machinery. When the Industrial Disputes Act was introduced in the Transvaal the Minister was told that he should not allow the Bill to apply to “less than ten.” It was a silly provision; and when three men were affected at the Kleinfontein mine in 1913, he could do nothing but look on at a strike which spread all along the Reef. The Bill should deal with any sort of disputes. The Industrial Disputes Act of the Transvaal was a failure as it only became operative when ten men or more were affected. You are trying to make this Bill ridiculous in the same way. Another point is, are men debarred from striking if only an individual employee is concerned and they cannot have a conciliation board. Do you propose to amend Clause 12 so that they may strike in a case where no provision is made for a conciliation board. I can assure you that the principles which are involved under these exceptions are matters which have led to the biggest strikes in this and other countries. If provisions are not inserted in the Bill covering these points I say we are wasting our time here. Not alone in the interests of the employers and the employees but also in the interest of the country in general, it is necessary that you should provide machinery to deal with these questions.

I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment. The Minister has double discretion here and he should be amply satisfied. There are people living in the neighbourhood where there is no council under Clause 2. I take its application would be made in the ordinary way where there was any dispute before there was a question of conciliation, so that the Minister would know what was the nature of the dispute before there was a council at all. What is the object therefore of putting in the provision? I take it that in exercising his discretion, in the first instance, he has decided the second question which he was called upon to decide under the provision. In the exercise of one or other of these discretions, he has decided the same question, and says that in any area where no council exists any number of employers or employees may apply for a council. I take it that when marking the application the statement will show what the nature of the dispute is, and if the Minister in his discretion do not think they should have a conciliation board, it goes no further. I do not see the necessity for double discretion at all. All he need say is, I am not going to give a conciliation board, as a matter of principle is not involved here. Objection can be taken as to the decision of the Minister in the exercise of his discretion; the Minister may be of the impression that a certain matter which involves only a few men is not a matter of principle, but the labour people might possibly be of a different opinion. How often in the past have people not belonging to the Labour Party gone wrong when a question of principle was involved? They often said there is no question of principle involved here, and they often found that they were wrong at least from the labour point of view. It is not very easy to state whether a matter of principle is involved, but what we should be most concerned about is whether or not there is a danger of a strike. We have seen great strikes take place about a matter of personal quarrels, and thought that no matter of principle was involved, but I may point out that the world has often been involved in war over personal matters. In conciliation matters it is not for us to consider whether a matter of principle is involved, but whether the quarrel between the employer and employee is such as will develop into a big industrial trouble and which will bring the country into trouble. As the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has pointed out, that where no question of principles have been involved, men have gone on strike and have caused considerable trouble. Are we going to assist the Minister only where matters of principle are involved. He has got double discretion in the Act under section 4; he can appoint a board and he can also decide whether to grant the board in other certain circumstances. I think the Minister will be well advised to accept the amendment. I appreciate the spirit in which he has introduced this Bill for the purpose of trying to create machinery to settle disputes. We in the countryside are not concerned whether Johannesburg and other towns strike on points of principle or not, but we are concerned when the strike causes an industrial upheaval through which the whole country suffers, and we want machinery created to settle these matters. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to meet the hon. member in his suggestions. The Minister has absolute discretion, and I hope he will accept this amendment in the spirit of the Bill. I hope the House will support it.

The right hon. the Minister has satisfied me on one point: that the proviso should remain in the Bill. I would ask the Minister, however, to alter a few words in line 11, page 6, and I would therefore move—

because in that case it would be made quite clear that the assessment in question was not of a general nature.

I take it, sir, that the object of the Government in bringing in this Bill is to eliminate strikes in South Africa as far as is humanly possible. I feel the desire of every member of this House who is supporting this Bill is to eliminate strikes, otherwise why introduce the Bill at all? Now, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) states that we must have discipline. I agree that we must have discipline. I quite agree that under any system, when we try to run any country that we must have discipline, but we must not confuse that with victimization. Then when we say we must have discipline, I say that we must guard the employees against anything in the nature of injustice. In the past we have had trade union officials or men taking part in trade union movements victimized by the employers and discharged without any slur having been cast upon their character as workmen or as private individuals. I had that personal experience myself when I was discharged from the East Rand Proprietary Mines because I was an agitator, although I got first-class testimonials from the consulting engineer and from my own engineer as being a first-class workman. I was an agitator, and perhaps I was an extremist, and therefore deserved all I got; but in many cases men are victimized. In addition to the trade union, an honorary official or a man taking a leading part in the movement or connected with the Labour Party might be discharged, and he feels that he has been victimized. Before you know where you are you may have the whole of the Witwatersrand in an uproar. That is one of the greatest causes of friction as between employees and employers, that the workmen dare not call their souls their own. If they act as the mouthpiece of men labouring under a grievance, the employers discharge these troublesome individuals, and so they would not come under this Bill. In other words, that dispute would not come under this Bill. That is one very important point. If hon. members of this House really want a conciliation bill they will agree with the conditions put forward by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) If you want to see the country go on in the future as it has gone in the past then you will vote against the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). In the past we had a great upheaval and it cost a great deal of money, also valuable lives in the 1913 strike. I also suffered through it and I was deported over it. I was not deported over what I did in 1914, as on that occasion I only made one speech. I was deported over the 1913 strike. You had all the expenses of the deportation in connection with the 1913 strike and in calling out the troops, and valuable lives were lost, because you had a strike there which affected less than ten men. It was merely a question of extending the hours of the men on the New Kleinfontein mine underground. The labour movement felt that it was a question of principle, and if the hours were increased for those one or two men the conditions would spread along the Reef. They therefore took up the cudgels on behalf of those men, and you had the 1913 strike which was followed by the 1914 strike. Do you really want conciliation? If you do, and if you are to get the best possible Bill, let it be made as wide as possible. You do not want all sorts of petty disputes. The Minister has confused the work of the shop stewards with the work of the conciliation boards and the Conciliation Bill. It is the shop stewards that the Minister has fallen foul of. In connection with the shop stewards’ movement when the workmen’s organization became strong a great many of them came before the shop stewards who should not have come at all. But that had nothing to do with the question of the bigger issue of conciliation. Now, in connection with the contract price, I would tell this House that during the recess and within a month or two of coming down to this House, I was approached by mines on the Witwatersrand to go down there and start an organization and create a rumpus. The men wanted to strike. A month or two before I came down to this House you were perilously near a big strike on one of our East Rand mines. I advised against the strike and I told the men to hang on and pointed out that legislation might be introduced at this session which would avoid trouble. The working classes do not want strikes, but the fact is that they are driven to strikes. They are only human beings the same as other men. They have their wives and their families, and they are citizens the same as you are and all they want is a square deal, and they feel that they are not getting a square deal. They say to-day that in order to avoid them coming under the old conciliation board they are being discharged and they are cutting up these men piecemeal, so that there will not be a sufficiently large number of men affected to give them the opportunity to obtain redress under the Act. If you pass the clause as it stands to-day you will have a tremendous number of disputes, and you never know when you start a dispute over one or two individuals what it will lead to. You never know when South Africa will be in for a tremendous upheaval over this question. The workers feel that if the thin end of the wedge is thrust in in one locality it means the spreading of these conditions throughout the length and breadth of the country. The people who have the greatest brains in South Africa at their disposal from a legal point of view to advise them on these matters are the employers. In the 1913 strike the Minister will remember that his Industrial Disputes Act largely became a dead letter because it was the Chamber of Mines which first broke the Act. I ask the Minister when he puts an Act upon the statute book to see to it that the employers observe the conditions of the Act as well as the employees. If you really want conciliation I appeal to every member of this House to give this matter his earnest consideration and to vote in favour of bringing as many people as possible under the Bill so as to give them the opportunity of arbitration first and war afterwards, instead of having the war first and arbitration afterwards. This may prevent the whole country being upset and a considerable number of lives lost and a considerable number of people put in gaol. If we have a Conciliation Bill let us have a Conciliation Bill, and let every one pull his weight in order to secure justice instead of having the position that we have had in the past.

I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) that we are all desirous of preventing disputes and of promoting better relations between employers and employees. The only difference between us is the means to be adopted towards that end. Personally, I said on the occasion of the second reading of this Bill that I am satisfied that no compulsory conciliation will ever make for better relations between employer and employee; but as the principle of the Bill has been passed, we must now see that the provisions of the Biif are as little harmful as possible. It is no good talking in generalities. The points excluded from the conciliation boards are these: engagement, suspension, discharge, promotion, transfer or the de-rating of the individual employee or the assessment of the contract price. Take the suspension, discharge, promotion or transfer of the individual employee. If these are not excluded from conciliation boards, how will it be possible to carry on? Under Clause 10 it is provided in general terms, of which I will give the effect, that no employer shall make any change in the terms of employment of any of his employees without giving a month’s notice, and then, during that month, a conciliation board can be called, and the award of the conciliation board must be awaited before any such change can be made. Consider the position of a shopkeeper in Cape Town. He wishes to promote one of his men. Promotion is not excluded from the venue of the conciliation board, and if any employees object to it they can call for a conciliation board, and the employer cannot make a change without giving a month’s notice. He must then await another month for the award of the conciliation board. He must wait a further month before promoting the man against whom the employees have taken objection. How is it possible to carry on business like that? Take the word “discharge.” Supposing he wishes to discharge a man. He cannot do that without giving a month’s notice, and during that month the man can apply for a conciliation board, and it may sit a month, and the man must remain for a month before being discharged.

No, no.

The hon. member says “no,” but the employer is not allowed to make any change in the terms of employment under Clause 10. I would ask the hon. member to read Clause 10 in connection with this proviso. It prohibits any employer from making any change whatever in the terms of employment of any employee unless he first gives a month’s notice.

It does not apply to such a case.

Why not?

Must everybody give a month’s notice?

He cannot de-rate him.

Rubbish!

I would ask the hon. member to exercise a little courtesy and allow me to continue my address to the Chair. I think the hon. member ought to retain a certain amount of courtesy.

If the hon. member talks rubbish, I shall say that he is talking rubbish.

Under Clause 10 it is impossible to de-rate or transfer a man without notice. A wholesale merchant in Cape Town would not be able to transfer a man from his hardware department to the soft goods department without giving a month’s notice, during which time resort may be had to conciliation. It is impossible to do away with this proviso. It is essential to the working of this Bill, otherwise you will bring the conciliation board into disrepute and no one would pay any regard to it, and the whole object of passing the Bill would be defeated. Unless the conciliation board retains the respect of both sides it can do no good whatever. If you do away with this proviso it will be impossible to have any trade or business properly carried on in this town or in the Union.

I think the hon. member is really an alarmist. The hon. member has mentioned the case of a wholesale merchant who wanted to promote a man and could not do so under this Bill. We all know perfectly well, that whatever the views of some hon. members, it does not mean that promotion cannot be made. Then it is said that in carrying on any organization you must have discipline. With that I thoroughly agree. I would point out to the Committee that the hon. member says that when a man is dismissed or transferred he can ask for a conciliation board, and if the Minister considers it to be a matter of principle then under this proviso he will be able to appoint a conciliation board. I would like to draw attention to this: How many strikes have taken place in Great Britain and here over cases where a particular act against an individual was regarded as an injustice? Is not that a matter of principle? The hon. member will reply that it is and the proviso does not exclude it. Yes, but it is the circumstances under which it has taken place which determine whether it is a matter of principle and these must be thrashed out by the conciliation board. It is really a question of the arbitrary use of power. I strongly urge the Minister not to allow this piece of very useful legislation possibly to be made unavailing. The hon. member has cited one case, and I will cite another, because it came directly under my notice, and it would be difficult to say that it was a matter of principle that was involved. I dare say that most hon. members from the Transvaal remember that, after the 1913 strike and the tremendous turmoil and rioting, there was a suspended strike. A certain small and anonymous body of men had the power of saying whether that strike should take place. It was a most dangerous position. I remember a gentleman, at that time a member of this House, Mr. Andrews, and myself exerting ourselves very much indeed to try and get it stopped. If you have a suspended strike placed in the hands of an anonymous committee selected by ballot, whether a strike shall take place it is possible that someone might say, “This strike is to go on.” He might be an unauthorized person and the whole show would be in the fire. I went to a meeting in connection with it and succeeded in obtaining a cancellation of the whole thing and so that tremendous tension was relieved. As they were coming out of the meeting a man drove up to the Trades Hall in a cab, and said that he had just got information that Mr. Andrew Watson, the president of the Federation, who had been absenting himself all this time, had received information that when he had returned to his department he was to be dismissed. The secretary of the Federation then said that all their men would come out the following morning. Put yourself in the position of an employer. You may have a man who is quite a good workman, but for some reason or other it is more convenient to get rid of him. Is it not futile to deny—for none of us are perfect, we all make mistakes—is it not futile to deny that the employer who wants to get rid of a man cannot find some pretext to bring that about? I expressed on a public platform a couple of years ago that a good deal of trouble on the Rand was due to inexperienced officials in trades unionism and too much worrying with frivolous complaints. Leave that proviso out, and trust to some extent to the experiences of the past. Trust more to the establishment of a more cordial relationship with the trade unions, which have a long record of trade unionism behind them. I do look with great mistrust upon the efficiency of the machinery of this Bill if you stultify it. In nine cases out of ten one little act—the cutting down of contract prices, the dismissal of a man, promotion through favouritism—in every one of these things the significance of them must be unknown to the Minister, whereas a conciliation board could deal with them. In regard to the cutting down of contract prices, no fellow likes his contract cut; but there are occasions when it may be the beginning of a policy of general cutting down, which the men have a right to object to. The broad fact which we have to face is to prevent a dispute getting to such an acute stage that a strike takes place. One other point I want to mention is in regard to Clause 12. Clause 12 makes it unlawful for any men to strike unless a conciliation board has investigated their case. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) has said you cannot enforce arbitration awards upon the men, and that is why he objects to it.

You have not put my objection correctly. My opposition is that you want a spirit of conciliation first of all.

I disagree with the hon. member because I think there are occasions when the Minister should bring them close together. I thought the hon. member’s objection was the making of arbitration compulsory. You must widen the power of the Minister to form a conciliation board. If both sides are desirous of being conciliatory, then naturally they will come together themselves; but if they cannot see eye to eye, then I think the proviso should not remain in the Bill, for it destroys the real usefulness of the measure.

I would also appeal to the Minister to delete the second proviso. If we read the clause in the Bill, we find that, after stating the pretexts upon which conciliation boards may be set up, it states that upon receipt of an application the Minister may take immediate steps to appoint such a board. It does not say that the Minister must take, but that he may take. It appears as if the Minister is taking a double-barrelled shot gun to shoot this bird. The second portion of this proviso as it stands here is certainly directed against the conciliation board as one would like to see it constituted. It states here that only these conciliation boards should obviate trivial matters; but why the Minister has introduced into these trivial matters the assessment of contract prices I cannot understand, because the assessment of contract prices is one of the most complicated of questions. Every question of this assessment is a question of principle, so why this has been introduced as a second barrel into what the Minister alleges to be trivial matters, I don’t know. I think the whole spirit of this mutual bargaining which he has tried to introduce into this clause for matters of pay and contract prices is entirely eliminated by the second proviso. The Minister says distinctly he may appoint, and now he introduces a final proviso, which will make this spirit of conciliation entirely useless and futile. It will detract from the Bill as a measure of conciliation. Why introduce the second contentious clause into the Bill at all?

Ek voel dat ons almal begerig is om die wet so doelmatig as moontlik te maak en so te kry om met soveel sekerheid as kan wees, enige staking te voorkom in die toekoms. Nadat ek die argumente gehoor het, dink ek die Minister sal onwys handel deur die voorsiening in die wet te behou. Ek verskil van die edele lid van Troyeville (de hr. Webber). Toe ek sy rede hoor, dag ek eers dat daar heelwat in was, maar by nadere oorweging kom dit my voor of sy vrees dinkbeeldig is. Terwyl die gevaar, wat ek sien wat sal ontstaan, as die voorsiening behou word, heeltemal iets anders sal wees. Ons het in die verlede verskeie gevalle gehad, waar stakings ontstaan is deur die grief van een persoon en waarby hy dan ondersteun werd deur sy medearbeiders, omrede van bykomstige omstandighede; en verder omdat die gevoel daar is: daar is iets verkeerd en ons moet die man bystaan en dit sodoende bring tot ’n punt. Wanneer die Minister die klausule behou is hy in die posiesie, dat die wet hom spoedig in so’n geval plaas dat hy sig sal moet bedien van die arbitrasie liggaam. Ek reken dit sou fataal wees, as die Regering sig deur wetgewing verplig om so’n stap to doen. Wat my nog meer laat voel, dat dit verkeerd is: dat die Minister sal dadelik, as die voorsiening daar is, sig dit as reel moet oplê dat sekere voorstelle ver die daarstelling van ’n Versoenings-Raad, nie toegestaan sal word nie deur te sê as dit geen punt van verskil is nie, dan bemoei ek my nie daarmee nie. Dit is vir my en my kantoor die reel. Hy sal so handel en vind dat miskien ’n paar jaar sal verby gaan, sonder enige las, dog na vyf of tien jaar sal ’n uitsonderlike geval voorkom en hy sal sê goed, ek het altoos daardie gedragslyn gevolg as reël, maar nou dat dit nie sal help nie, sal ek my beroep op ’n liggaam van arbitrasie. Dan sal hy uit vind hoe hy die hele land in moeilikheid kan dompel, had hy die reg nie. Die edele lid vir Troyeville (de hr. Webber) het beswaar daarteen en sê onder andere dat as dit so staan dat enige een uit my kantoor of enige kantoor kan sê: “gee my of gee ons ’n Versoenings Raad.” Maar ek wil vra of ooit iemand in die posiesie sy toevlug sal neem tot die Minister, behalwe in uitsonderlik ernstige gevalle. Wat hom sal weerhou is twee dinge. Die eerste is dat iemand wat in ’n kantoor hom sou lastig maak, voel dat die werkgewer hom nie graag daar sal hou nie en dit sal hom terug hou. Maar die Minister sal sê maar kyk dit betref net jou en jou diensheer; jy kan nie verwag dat ek jou daarvoor’n Versoenings Raad sal gee nie. Ons het hier te doen met persone wat nie georganiseer is nie. Hy sal eers met sy maters moet gaan raadpleeg, want tot ’n staking kan dit nie kom nie. Die uitwerking sal wees dat hy sal sê die Minister kan my die raad nie gee nie omdat dit net my en my werkgewer betref, en hy sal hom dadelik buig want hy kan nie dink dat hy iets sal bereik deur ’n poging om ’n staking te verwek nie. Maar wat meer is, ons mag nie; die Minister mag nie, dat wat ’n redmiddel kan wees in sekere ewantualiteite uit sy hand laat val nie.

Ek het die edele lid vir Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) nie gesien nie, toe ek my toeligtinge gegee het.

Nee jammer, ek was nie hier nie.

Die teenwoordige Transvaal wet en alle konsiliasie rade waarvan ek weet het bepalinge dat sonder dat ’n seker aantal employees geaffekteer word, nie ’n konsiliasie raad kan word benoem. In die Transvaal is dit tien. Die rede is om te verhinder, dat jy jou hele organisasie opskort, jou hele industrie. Een maand moet kennis gegee word en dan kan ’n konsiliasie raad ingestel word, voordat enige verandering gemaak word. Maar wie kan nou vraag vir so ’n konsiliasie raad?

There is one point which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) referred to, that the Minister must be satisfied that the men who ask for conciliation boards are sufficiently represented. The hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) also rather stressed that point, but what is the alternative? If one belongs to a trade union or an organization of employers, his trade union or organization can apply for him and therefore although only one man is affected, you put the whole machinery in motion. That is just the danger which you run. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Van Hees) and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) also raised this point. They give a double discretion. The first part of the Bill says they may appoint a conciliation board. Why give him the discretion, why not leave it in the discretion of the Minister? For this reason, that you will have a large number of applications on purely trivial matters merely for the purpose of getting a month’s notice. Under Clause 10 no alteration in the terms of employment—that is to say dismissals—can be made and no strikes can take place until a conciliation board has been laid down. I think it is fair enough to say:“Give a month’s notice before a strike takes place on an important matter,” but to say that all these comparatively trivial matters and things which arise in an industry without any previous notice, even if a man misbehaves himself in one way or another, and you find for the purpose of discipline it is necessary to deal with that case at once, if you delete this proviso, the trade union will say: “before you can dismiss this man for very serious misconduct, you must give a month’s notice and go to the conciliation board and his trade union or organization can put in the application for him.” But it seems to me that is going too far. At the same time I recognize that matters of principle may be involved and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) asks how will the Minister know when a principle is involved?

Not me.

I mean the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Creswell). I say that the case which he cited will arise in any case. I say that you cannot legislate against circumstances of that kind. If something happens in the middle of the night and the men don’t go back to work on the following morning you must take your chance of that; no conciliation can prevent that, but what does happen is this. An application is made to the Minister, and he meets a deputation of the men. The Minister says that before he can decide this they must come and lay their case before him. As a matter of fact, during the recess I have had occasion to do that. If the Minister cannot go there himself he telegraphs to his representative to go and find out, and the representative, whether he is an inspector of labour or someone else, must go and investigate the matter, and report to the Minister. If he is then satisfied after reporting, and he will certainly not decide without having the report on the matter, and then he can, even in an individual case, and that is what I want to impress upon the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog), that I can even go further in the direction wanted by our friend there, the mover of this amendment, than the committee found it advisable to go. If I were to listen to-day to what the employers say I would leave out these words altogether. I mean this latter part, and leave the discretion to the Minister. It is a discretion I have purposely inserted for the purpose of meeting that point of view. It is with the honest intention of doing what is fair and reasonable. Under the circumstances, I am sorry I cannot go back on my decision. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member of Denver (Mr. Nixon) I am prepared to accept it. It has been pointed out to me, and quite rightly, that the term “assessment of contract prices” is essentially a mining term, and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) interpreted it as such. Yes, it is so, but it applies to all piece-work, and in the case of piece-work, if it is of an individual case, unless it affects a larger number, and therefore becomes a matter of principle, it would be a mistake to have every little contract of piece-work the subject of an application. Leave these smaller things to settle themselves, but when there is a matter of importance or principle involved a conciliation board should be set up.

Those who support the Minister in inserting this proviso, as against the claim that this proviso destroys half the utility of this Bill and, to a great extent, its usefulness accept a big responsibility. It is a distinct injustice to employees in that it takes away the right to strike in regard to certain matters and has not provided the round table conference which the Minister promised.

They can strike on these small things.

The question is should there he a strike on any account without negotiation. You are not carrying out that principle if you put in the proviso. You say in Clause 12 that there shall not be a strike under any circumstances. This destroys the balance of the Bill, because there is no quid pro quo that you can give the employees as against these changes in the conditions of service which an employer can effect without any reference to a conciliation board. The rest of the Bill is well balanced. Wherever it says the employees shall not do a thing it says likewise the employers shall not do the alternative—all through the Bill. Here you come along and say the employees shall not strike on account of these things, but where is the quid pro quo? As against that argument, you pin your faith entirely to the one argument that the Bill may be misused for trivial matters. Now I am going to concentrate on that. I believe the law in this land requires an employer or an employee, according to the custom of the trade or profession, to give proper notice of the termination of contract. I also believe there is nothing in the law to prevent a termination of contract by common consent. Did the Minister hear that? Would it not simply be a matter of common consent in nine cases out of ten in regard to the matters which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) quoted and ridiculed. He knows very well that a matter agreed to by common consent could not give rise to a dispute, and a board is only appointed when there is a dispute.

It might be objected to by the employers.

We are assuming that the aim of the employers in effecting this alteration could not be gained by common consent. Am I wrong in saying that, when a thing cannot be gained by common consent, reasonable notice of the alteration should be given?

It may be objected to by the other side.

Does the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Webber) suggest that an employer who effects an alteration in the terms of the employment of the men under these headings should be allowed to enforce them without giving some notice of the change? Surely not! Now the hon. the Minister might have quoted the whole of Clause 10. He knows well enough we dealt with this matter of trivial grievances, and that in committee we discussed the report and provided that, where a complaint which cannot be settled by common consent, then in those cases there ought to be notice given of the alterations, as we laid it down that no alteration shall be made without a month’s notice, is that unreasonable? Surely not! But we say that if no action is taken to have a Conciliation Board appointed within a fortnight, that is the second section, then whatever change the employer wants shall have effect. A fortnight is not unreasonable. If it is a thing which the employer wants to force on me without my consent, an alteration of the terms of my employment, then I am entitled to say, “ Give me a fortnight’s notice of that,’ and that is all that is required. You have opened the door wide for the employer to deal with men individually instead of collectively, but the trade union is not going to stand in the background. It would be a fool if it did so, and allow individual employees to be dealt with separately. The trade unionist will be with the first man affected, and they will say it is either a strike or a round table conference. When you go to the Minister, he will say: “This matter is excluded.” I say that employers are safeguarded fully by the permissive nature of this clause; the employees are not. As a matter of fact, they want the word “shall” inserted in place of “may.” What employer is not safeguarded under this clause by the use of that word “ may,” by which the responsible Minister may refuse a conciliation board if he considers the persons applying are not representative, or if he considers the matter a trivial one? There is ample safeguard there, but this proviso destroys the balance of the Bill. It is a very serious matter to the country, and will make this House a laughing-stock. I say it sincerely. It will make a laughing-stock of this House if some big strike arises in the future out of any of these matters proposed to be excluded, and somebody points back to the fact that the Act originally provided for a conciliation board, but Parliament inserted a proviso which made it ineffective. I say very clearly that this Bill, as it stands, does provide for trivial complaints. It does not prevent any alteration being made by common consent, and it is only when a dispute occurs that it requires notice to be given of a longer duration than a fortnight.

The Minister addressing himself to the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog) says if this proviso is eliminated a man in employment who behaves very badly cannot be dismissed until the matter has gone before a conciliation board. That is an entire misrepresentation. There is nothing in this Bill to say that the Minister must appoint a conciliation board, it simply says there are conditions under which the Minister may appoint a conciliation board, and in the case suppose I should think it a case of gross misconduct the Minister would decline to appoint a conciliation board. I do not know any trade union or any body of men sufficiently representative who are going to take up such a case. I think the Minister is rather unwittingly misleading those of the committee who have not given the utmost study to the Bill as many of us have done. Certainly there is no interference whatever with the ordinary discipline which, as much as any man in the House, I know to be necessary to carry on any industrial organization. The test is whether or not the Minister thinks it a matter of principle. The subject in dispute is likely to lead to a large number of men sympathizing with the man and lead them to make up their minds to drop their work. It is just those situations which the Bill is going to control. I hope the Minister is going to report progress now, and will take this matter into earnest consideration.

On the motion of Mr. R. H. Henderson, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed.

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on 11th February.