This year, 1928, will see the conclusion of the first decade since the armistice, and we would be unduly optimistic if we did not recognise that to-day the world is in a state of unstable equilibrium. There can be no doubt that there is much in the state of current politics throughout the whole world to give grave cause for anxiety to those who study foreign affairs. I would recommend hon. members who are inclined to doubt this statement of mine, to read a book that has recently been placed in our library, by Commander Kenworthy, and called “Will Civilization Crash?” They will find there a review of foreign affairs extending throughout the whole of the world, and, though the picture may be too blackly painted, I do not think any member can rise from the perusal of that book without a feeling that any day and any time in the most unexpected manner we may be called upon to face another world crisis. And therefore I do not think we can dismiss this question raised by the Prime Minister, this question of South Africa’s neutrality in the event of Great Britain being at war, lightly. It is one of the most momentous pronouncements ever made in this House and one that should be fully discussed. This question is not an academic issue, it is a live and vital issue and one fraught with the very gravest possibilities, so far as South Africa’s future is concerned. War between Great Britain and another power, say France, could arise in one of two ways, either by Great Britain declaring war upon France, or France declaring war upon Great Britain. In the event of Great Britain declaring war on France, it is unthinkable that she would take that step without prior consultation with all the self-governing dominions, and they would have the right to participate in those discussions as to whether that step should be taken. If such a step were taken without our knowledge, without consultation with us, then it would be perfectly free for us to stand on one side as regards our participation in that fight. But take the other case I have mentioned, namely, the case where, without choosing on Great Britain’s part, war is declared against her by some other power. What is South Africa’s position in that regard? Two views would be taken of her position, that is, two views may be taken of her position if, as the Prime Minister says, we can be neutral. The first is this: that automatically, ipso facto, she is neutral, and the second is that she may become neutral by issuing a declaration to that effect. I put a question to the Prime Minister on Thursday night as to which of these views is the view which he urges; if South Africa is neutral automatically, ipso facto, or is his contention merely that she has a right to issue a declaration of neutrality? In spite of my putting this question, I was unable to get any answer by the Prime Minister. His silence is explainable by one of two hypotheses. The first is that it was a piece of deliberate and calculated rudeness to myself in view of the fact that he answered all the other questions put to him by hon. members; the second is, that he cannot answer the question. Though I know the Prime Minister fairly well, I hesitate to believe, in fact I cannot believe, that in a debate of this character when a question of such importance is put to him, that he would allow it to go out to the world that he refused to answer a question of this sort because he did not happen to like the particular member of the Opposition who put that question. I cannot believe that, therefore I must reject that hypothesis and assume he has not answered the question because either he cannot answer it, or because it is not convenient for him to answer it. Yet that stands at the very forefront of any pronouncement of his on the question of neutrality. Let me examine what would happen to South Africa on either basis. If our neutrality is automatic, that is to say, if on the declaration of war by France against Great Britain, we are, ipso facto, automatically neutral, certain very extraordinary consequences will follow. In the first place, when the Minister of the Interior two years ago introduced the British Nationality and Naturalization of Aliens Bill, we were told this—

If, automatically, when Great Britain goes to war, we are neutral, what becomes of our common British citizenship? Can you have Great Britain at war with France, under which every British subject in France is liable to internment. We were told, as a matter of fact, that the empire had ceased to exist, that there was nothing but a number of separate and independent units, and that there was a mere entente cordiale existing between them, and yet this very same Government introduces a Bill which assumed as its basis a common British citizenship. You cannot have citizenship hanging in the air. It must be fixed to something. What is that citizenship of? It is a citizenship of the empire. Another consequence would be that we could not give harbour to British men-of-war, when we told the British Government, two or three years ago, when they gave us their war property in this country, that we would, in repayment or partial repayment, erect oil tanks at Simonstown. Did we think then that at a time of war we would be neutral? Surely not. If we were neutral we would be able to supply money and munitions to France. We would have the same right of assisting France in a war against England as we would have of assisting England in a war against France. Every right that we have to help England we would have in an equal measure to help France. There is this further aspect. If we are neutral, ipso facto, when Great Britain is at war with France, Great Britain is equally, ipso facto, neutral if we are at war with, or attacked by, any foreign power. We have been accustomed to live under the shadow of the Union Jack with the knowledge that the British fleet and all the resources, not only of Great Britain herself, but of the sister dominions, are behind us, but if we are automatically neutral, so also is Great Britain in the event of our being attacked. Let there be no mistake about that. It cuts both ways. If all these consequences flow, I ask the Prime Minister how and in what way is our position differentiated in the slightest degree from that of Denmark or Holland or any other continental power. The Prime Minister must have made his speech with the full knowledge and concurrence of his Cabinet. He must have issued this declaration of neutrality having carefully thought the matter out, and yet I find that the next in the hierarchy to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, when put a question on this very point, only six months ago, at a place called Antelope Park, said this—

The Minister of Justice said, “That is my opinion as a jurist and a Minister.” I find it somewhat difficult to understand how these divided opinions exist in the Cabinet on this momentous question. Here is a Minister coming next to the Prime Minister in the Cabinet, and certainly equal to the Prime Minister as a jurist, saying it is his considered opinion that if Great Britain is a belligerent, so is South Africa. I would like the Prime Minister, in his reply, to tell us how he reconciles the statement of the Minister of Justice with his own. The other point of view is that we are not automatically neutral, but automatically a belligerent. The Prime Minister claims that when the occasion arises we have a right to issue to the world a declaration of neutrality. [The hon. member resumed his seat owing to conversations proceeding.]

The hon. member may proceed.

I will, if I can get a hearing. [The hon. member resumed his seat.]

As far as this particular question of equality is concerned, the question of our being equal partners and equal nations is an ideal to-day. We must admit it is an ideal rather than the reality, and as far as I am concerned, instead of hearing this debate carried on the lines as to whether the Prime Minister and his party are out for neutrality in a time of war, or otherwise, I am very sorry that this House is not getting down to the real problems which to-day confront the British commonwealth of nations. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether anything has been done towards carrying out an investigation of the problems which lay ahead if the British commonwealth of nations is to continue to exist, and if any endeavour has been made to find a basis of common action which will be effective, and leave each partner of the British commonwealth of nations as free as possible—with as much liberty as possible. Imperial conferences are merely adopting a formula, which is the easiest thing in the world to-day. I am not trying to belittle the work of the Prime Minister, and of the late Prime Minister, but it is the easiest thing in the world where people have differed to draw up some formula which achieves nothing and leaves the realities of the problems of the empire untouched. Are we, in South Africa, as well as in Great Britain, at the time of the imperial conferences, avoiding the real issues? We are, in spite of what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said, having an academic discussion in connection with neutrality. We are carrying on a discussion to-day what we may do in South Africa provided so-and-so is the position. If we are equal partners in the British commonwealth of nations, of course we have the right to remain neutral in time of war, that is, as the Prime. Minister has said, because South Africa possesses that right that does not mean to say we are going to exercise it; not for a moment. We have to discuss these questions, but we have to remember that while every section of the British commonwealth of nations has certain rights, with these we carry certain responsibilities. We cannot have rights unless they carry certain responsibilities. The real issue is, if we are to continue as a British commonwealth of nations, are the partners to trade within the empire; there is the question of defence and various other problems with which I intend to deal. First of all, the question arises here, as it does in Canada and Australia, have we a real, healthy desire to co-operate, one with the other, and carry on a common policy? If we have not, of course we cannot co-operate. Is it to our common interest to co-operate with the other sections of the British commonwealth of nations? If yes, how are we to create the machinery, and how is that machinery to he worked in connection with our mutual policy in internal and external affairs? Some people suggest that we shall have a commonwealth Parliament. In the past some called it an imperial Parliament. If that is practicable, what representation will that of the dominions be? If on population, the dominions will be swamped. If on any other basis, the people of Great Britain will complain. How are we to co-operate in connection with schemes of defence—military, naval and aerial? What are we to do in connection with communication lines by land and by sea? Have we anything like a commonwealth policy on these questions? What are we to do with regard to the re-distribution of population in that commonwealth? What are we doing to develop the vacant spaces and the natural resources of the commonwealth? Was anything done at the Imperial Conference in connection with these questions? These are the questions about which we want to know, instead of having a debate not carried on for the purpose of convincing anyone on the question of neutrality or otherwise, but one which may create an atmosphere—I do not say it is—favourable to one political party. I do not think that is the proper thing to adopt on a question such as this. I think it is a dangerous policy to try to win votes, because it has a tendency to react. Taking the question of the population problem of the British commonwealth of nations, in Great Britain with an area of practically 200,000 square miles, that area is crowded with a population of 46,000,000; in Canada, with an area of 3,629 000 square miles, there is a population of 10,000,000, and in Australia, with an area of 2,974,000 square miles, there is a population of 6,000,000. The Union of South Africa, with an area of approximately 473,000 square miles, has a population, white and black, of approximately 7,000,000. Therefore, over 46,000,000 people are crowded in an area of 122,000 square miles, and approximately 22,000,000 people are spread over an area of 7,000,000 square miles. We need population in South Africa badly. What are we doing in order to increase it? Then take the question of trade. Some hon. members persistently attack the Government in connection with orders going to Germany, speaking as though this were peculiar to South Africa. It is not, for in Australia New Zealand, Canada and India British trade is on the decrease and foreign trade on the increase. No doubt the position will become worse so far as Great Britain is concerned, as Germany advances in the commercial field. As South Africans is it to our advantage to trade within the commonwealth, and if it is, we should find out how we can do so with mutual advantage to ourselves and Great Britain. England’s declining trade with the dominions is in spite of imperial preference. Is that decline because the British manufacturers do not study the conditions prevailing in the dominions, and simply carry on European lines? As far as the dominions are concerned, it is not a bit of use any politician—as they did at the recent Imperial Conference in Australia—attempting to tell the dominions that they must provide raw material and Great Britain must turn them into the manufactured article. The whole burden of the song of the British representatives at the Imperial Conference was that the dominions should not go in for secondary industries, but should provide the raw material. That policy will not go down in South Africa or the other dominions. As far as we are concerned, our sentiment is that raw materials grown in South Africa shall be turned into manufactured articles by South Africans for consumption by South Africans. This is a natural sentiment.

What about our wool?

Would it not be better to export the wool in the shape of manufactured articles? There must be no question whatever that development is to be carried out in the interests of Great Britain, and not in the interests of the other portions of the commonwealth, otherwise there will be trouble in the dominions. It is a great mistake for hon. members continually to endeavour to show that the Nationalist party is anti-British—I believe it is pro-South African, and there is a vast difference between the two. I am pro-South Africa, and we are perfectly right in taking up that attitude, and if we have to choose between the interests of the masses in South Africa and the masses in Great Britain, we must cast our decision on the side of South Africa. If there is to be any attempt at instituting a system which will seek to provide that the resources of the dominions shall be used to bolster up industries in Great Britain, but not for the purpose of giving a fair deal to every partner in the British commonwealth, that policy will fail. I did not intend to intervene in the debate. My small effort may be very small compared with the great orations of some hon. members, but I, as a member of the common people, speak about things which really matter and affect people more than any question of neutrality in a war which we hope will be hundreds of years away. As far as great masses of the people are concerned, there is another vital question. Is this British connection to be used simply as a goose to lay the golden egg for a few rich men? Are we—as we have been in the past—simply to be exploited for the benefit of a few rich men in Great Britain, who, instead of looking after the interests of their own countrymen, are investing their surplus cash in China, while their fellow countrymen are out of work, or is every endeavour to be made to raise mankind to a higher level? Every time reference is made to the question of higher wages, we hear stories about low wages prevailing on the Continent, and we are told we should ask for lower wages in order that British capitalists may keep their oversea trade. That policy will not build up the British commonwealth of nations. Must we be loyal to the wealthy, or to the people? We say it is the desire of the people of South Africa as elsewhere, to build up men and not money, and we want to see an A1 and not an A3 nation. If the policy of the British commonwealth of nations is to bring men down to the lowest level and to produce profits instead of building up a nation of men and women and children, of whom we should be proud, then they cannot expect too much loyalty from the people. As far as the great mass of the people are concerned it is the answer to that point they would like to get. Is this conference declaration going to be used for a spread-eagled imperialism which grabs up oilfields and other valuable areas to provide a few extra millions for a few within the commonwealth, or to build up nations of healthy bodied men, women and children? I would like to hear that question discussed in the House instead of the question being discussed along these academic lines. The attitude is taken up by hon. members opposite in view of the next election.

Was Creswell doing that?

It was being done by hon. members on that side of the House to try and catch votes, and we want less vote-catching electioneering on this question.

The hon. member who has just sat down has gone rather wide of the mark and covered a wide field of subjects. To bring the House back to the actual matter of this debate may I again read the motion before the House [motion read]. That is the subject matter we are discussing. The hon. member has introduced a great many suggestions with which I entirely agree. He says that the conference should have discussed some method of placing our surplus man power, say in Great Britain, in those parts of the empire not so thickly populated. I agree with him. He also asked why not discuss practical things like a common system of defence and trade within the empire. I again agree with him. But I suggest that he should ask the Prime Minister why these very vital matters were not discussed at the conference where they would have been of practical use and, moreover, where they would have had a sympathetic reception. The only point he really touched upon governed by this motion before the House was the question of neutrality, and he approached that question entirely from its superficial aspect, ignoring the fundamental and practical difficulties. I have tried to find out as far as possible what the feelings of Natal are in respect of this question, and as far as I can gather Natal accepts every word which fell from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in the course of his speech in this debate. We are with him in this, that we are for the report, the whole report, and nothing but the report, and here it is that we begin to join issue with the Prime Minister and with his friends who have so far taken part in the debate. Although we are unanimously for the report we are distinctly not for the interpretation placed on the report either by the Prime Minister or the other speakers who are supporting him. One of the fundamental reasons we are at issue with him is on his interpretation of neutrality. The Prime Minister attaches great importance to our right to be recognized by the world as neutral in the event of the rest of the empire being at war. To assume that the views expressed by the Prime Minister and by members on the Government side during this debate are the real and true interpretations of the inner meaning of this report, is to assume that a large number, if not all, of the dominion representatives who went in to that conference room, went in with the spirit of treachery in their minds, treachery to the life of the British empire. If it were true they went in with the idea of devising an instrument by means of which any section of the British empire could take such action when the opportunity presented itself as would destroy the British empire, then I maintain they went in actuated by entirely wrong motives. But it is unthinkable that any one of the representatives went in with any such idea or intention. The representatives not only, I hope, of South Africa, but certainly of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, went in to devise for the first time in our history some written understanding which would in very fact strengthen the empire by all means possible without weakening the independence of the component parts, the dominions. That was the main object in the discussion. If that was not the object for what purpose was the conference called at all? Why did the discussion take place? Notwithstanding the document we are discussing, which we have read very carefully, and everything said in respect of its interpretation I do not stand alone in saying our position is no whit changed one iota from the position that existed before this document was drawn up and before the Imperial Conference took place. That is not only my view, but the view of many people in this country, and the views of the Home Government. It was some time before the conference took place that a question was put to Mr. Amery in the House of Commons and he replied—

That was before the conference took place. We had therefore in his opinion as Secretary of State exactly the same independence before the conference took place as Great Britain herself had. We are told now that that is not so. I understand from the way my hon. friend opposite shakes his head that in his opinion the position has fundamentally changed. What, then, is the fundamental difference? The Prime Minister gives us to understand we are in a position to make treaties with foreign powers, a matter on which much can be said, that we can declare neutrality in the event of the rest of the empire being at war. If so is that neutrality automatic or conditional? Have we to take definite action to declare to the belligerents that we are actually a neutral people, or does our silence merely convey to a belligerent that such is the position? His colleague, the Minister of the Interior, leaves us in no doubt about this as I see in an interview which he gave “Die Burger” some time ago, he said that “if England happened to be in a state of war, it would not even be necessary for us to declare our neutrality.” So that, automatically, we should be neutral. If that is so, what becomes of our common kingship, because one of the first things that the Prime Minister expressed his allegiance to was this common allegiance to the Crown? That was re-affirmed by our Prime Minister at the last Imperial Conference, and is expressed in this report before us in italics. If we can be at peace while the rest of the empire is at war, what must be the attitude of the Crown? Then what becomes of our flag, the specially entrenched flag of empire? The flag and Nationality Bill passed only last session was the special child of the Minister of the Interior. But for him there would never have been a Flag and Nationality Bill, and under that Bill it is laid down that you cannot be a South African national until you first become a British subject. It is also laid down by solemn Act of Parliament that the flag of empire shall fly at every port within the Union and yet, automatically, we are now told, by the same Minister who introduced this Bill and was responsible for passing it into law, that if the rest of the empire goes to war, in spite of our common kingship, in spite of our common flag, in spite of our common nationality, that we are neutral. The thing seems to me and to all reasonable people to be an impossibility. Of course I cannot say what was in the mind of the Prime Minister when he signed this document at the Imperial Conference, and I cannot say what was in his mind when he said we were “an autonomous community within the British empire.” If he signed it with reservations he should say so. There is no doubt, however, that in certain circumstances we can become neutral in the event of an empire war, but quite a lot of things have got to happen before we become an effective neutral. There is much to be done before a belligerent will recognize us as a neutral power. We have got first of all to get rid of the Crown, our common kingship. The next thing we have to do is to repeal the Flag and Nationality Bill. Then the next step we have to take is to secede formally from the British empire. Having taken those three steps, it follows that we must then devise some new form of Government, some new constitution, whether republican or otherwise, and then, and then only, will we be recognized by a belligerent as a duly constituted neutral power. Before we have done that, it is well for hon. members opposite to realize that half the white manhood of our population will have perished in a civil war, because those three great steps can only come about after a tremendous amount of bloodshed in this country. There is, however, one alternative to this. If we are not prepared to take all these steps—these essential steps, I maintain—to bring about such a position, which will enable us legally to declare our neutrality, then we can approach it from a different standpoint, and that is to place ourselves in such a state of strength from a military and naval point of view, acting entirely on our own, as will enable us to say with safety to any power that comes to attack us “We are neutral and we are prepared to defend our neutrality by force of arms.” Now I hope the farmers of the country will see that this is not altogether an academic subject. If there are any hon. members opposite who are interested in the farming community, it is well for them to consider for one moment what actual neutrality will mean to South Africa in the event of a general upheaval. I have indicated the various steps which would have to be taken to bring into a condition of neutrality while the world is at war, and, having declared our own neutrality, what is the first thing to be done? The first step you have to take is to order the British fleet out of Simonstown, and, according to international law, they have to be outside your harbours within 48 hours, and are not free to re-enter a South African port for a period of three months. Not only is it laid down that they may not re-enter your port or any neutral ports for three months after they have once coaled, but they can only re-enter then for the purpose of executing necessary temporary repairs and taking such coal or fuel as will carry them to their next port. But you are not allowed to supply them with any fuel to enable them to put to sea and engage in battle. Together with the British fleet, of course, disappears every British ship that trades with this country. Not an English ship will come into your ports. You will become dependent upon neutral bottoms for your trade, and the trade you will carry on in these ships will be very closely controlled and defined by the belligerents, each belligerent laying down his own conditions. This rules out straightaway the whole of your wool trade. Hon. members opposite know exactly what happened to the farmers after they lost their ostrich feather market. In spite of the lavish assistance given by the Government, many of the sons of these people who were once so affluent are to-day employed on relief work. Exactly the same position will arise if a prolonged war takes place and the farmers are compelled to burn their wool, for wool will not keep indefinitely. Not only will wool be contraband of war, but cotton will be also contraband of war. Food for the troops, including grain, will be contraband and you will be unable to ship your animals or anything in the way of food likely to reach a belligerent. Practically in a very short time we shall be in the position of a dog which is compelled to live on its own tail. These are the points which hon. members opposite should take back to their farming constituents in the backveld, and explain exactly what neutrality means in the event of a great war. It means the collective and personal ruin of every farmer in this country, when once goes the protection that we have had free, gratis and for nothing. We are not, of course, very thankful for it, but it is the one thing which enables us to carry on our trade with security and in peace. Lastly, goes our tremendous prestige, and it is the prestige of the British empire which keeps South Africa in the forefront of the younger nations of the world to-day. Although we may, in our boastfulness, say we are going to declare ourselves neutral—and there is a vast difference between neutrality and refusing to assist, we of course refuse to assist; we may still remain within the empire and refuse to assist by sending a single sovereign or a single man—it’s a mean line to adopt, we can still do it—but if we decide to be neutral, really neutral, then the decision of the conditions under which we shall remain neutral will not rest with the Prime Minister and his friends, will not rest with the people of this country, but with the enemies of the empire. They will indicate the conditions and we shall have to conform. In the case of a small people like ourselves if we adopt that attitude it may eventually lead us into the position of being forced into a war on the wrong side. I have nothing more to add, except that this other view of the subject appeals to me: We have been told by the Prime Minister of the privileges that arise from acceptation of this document, but we have not been told one word of what our obligations are. Are we to get all this for nothing? Are there no obligations? Is it to be all take and no give? If not let the Prime Minister, when he replies to this debate, tell us exactly what those obligations are, and in what way he proposes to give effect to them.

One could have wished that the hint which was given had been acted upon, that after the big guns had gone off, after the Prime Minister and the right hon. the leader of the Opposition had spoken, the question would have been simply allowed to drop. That would have been the most sensible and most dignified proceeding to adopt. Now the smaller guns are set going, raising questions which will do no good; yet the inevitable has happened, and we must just face it. But it does not get us any further with the settlement that has so far been accomplished and now stands signed, sealed and delivered. The interpretations of that agreement that come about will follow naturally in the full course of time. We could well leave any vexed questions to international lawyers, who have made them their life study and have learned, indeed, to pull things to ridiculous proportions, and amongst those who dearly love that meticulous industry is the Prime Minister. There is no knowing how far the useless analysis is going, and where it may end. I remember, as a small boy, listening to a lengthy dissertation by a Scottish divine on the difference between faith and belief, and this debate reminds me of that incident of my early days. What does it all come to? I was amazed at the Prime Minister, when all is said and done, admitting that neutrality was not mentioned in this historic document at all, and yet he himself deliberately dragged it in, apparently knowing full well that it was one of those controversial things that would lead to endless discussion, misapprehension, and perhaps some bad feeling. Why then did he drag this matter in? Was it because something had to be done to play up to the backveld, and the backveld had to get its chance of revelling in the senseless controversy? Some of my hon. friends seized on the opportunity at once, when this subject was dragged in (one which the conference itself left severely alone). It was perhaps to satisfy the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). The hon. member had to have a chance to say that he would have none of this great agreement unless he enjoyed the assurance that it would always be interpreted exactly in terms of the Prime Minister’s neutrality statement. He might then be satisfied, but if it were not he would—

What?

Then we had the hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) declaiming in very fierce language, if the interpretation was not put upon it that we had the perfect right to be neutral in any war then he would—

What?

They would “bust” the British commonwealth of nations! They would advocate secession; they would leave the commonwealth! They would wash their hands of us all, possibly go away to Angola? That was the little trifle flung out to keep the backveld agitators busy, to keep the platte-landers bemused, and to satisfy them that they must be very alert indeed to see that nothing inimical to their peace of mind happened. What does all the irritation come to? The Minister of Defence again put it very clearly, just as the right hon. leader of the Opposition also put it; and as it has been put from these benches time after time. There is nothing new in this written document that we have before us, and which has given such extreme satisfaction. The Minister of Defence is a very good parliamentarian and logician, and he stated very decidedly indeed that there is nothing new in it whatever, and that we have even the actual right to declare war! I do not want to go beyond what my leader has laid down. He pointed out that the only difference is that all the liberty we already had has now been carefully written down. We always had the right of neutrality, and we always had the right even to declare war. As an actual fact, the Prime Minister himself in 1914 laid the principle down very clearly, and voted for neutrality. I quote from Hansard of September 14th of that year, when the motion of a loyal address to the king was under discussion, and Gen. Hertzog moved the adjournment of the debate, and said—

I am only pointing out what is perfectly clear—the hon. gentleman had a right to vote on neutrality, then, and did so. Twelve apostles of peace, led by himself, challenged a division, and voted against the war; in other words, they voted for neutrality. There was no accusation of high treason; they were not arraigned for it; there was no impeachment. They exercised their full privilege in voting whether this country should remain neutral or go to war, and were overwhelmingly outvoted. I am instancing this to show we always had the right, an undisputed right, to declare neutrality if we so desired. I admired at the time, and I admire still, even though I differed, the astonishing magnanimity of the Prime Minister, for I was in Pretoria in 1900, and remember well the hearty curses on Germany I heard in good wholesome Afrikaans; and it is a language which lends itself to gentle expletives of relief for an overburdened mind. It has future possibilities in regard to the ventilation of vituperation. The way the Boers cursed Germany for letting them down, and breaking its promise in regard to preserving the independence of the republics was something I shall not readily forget; and, therefore, I admire the magnanimity of the hon. gentleman who himself took a brave part with his people in defending their freedom. Yes, he and eleven other apostles of peace voted, and registered their considered vote, in regard to war or no war. I come now to the protection of the League of Nations, which was remarked upon by the Prime Minister, and also by some other members. It is referred to specifically in the Prime Minister’s introductory speech. At the back of the heads of many of our hon. friends is always the idea, “We are going to be a nation, and we are going to be a nation under the protection of the League of Nations” that is, they say, “what we are going to do if we are offended or slighted in any way.” But the League of Nations is no security. Much good work as it has tried to do, and much as we have admired its attempts to further peaceful progress, we know that when America refrained from taking part in an institution it had assisted to create, the position of the league became very precarious. It is practically resting to-day on the might and on the goodwill of Great Britain, and if that goodwill were withdrawn, the League of Nations would vanish as all other historic combines for peace have passed away. Of itself, the league can be only a great moral influence, and can never be a substitute for the British commonwealth of nations. It can never be a body of force, and must always depend on some one or other Power to enforce its decisions. It has cost this country £150,000 and Great Britain an enormous sum of money, and many partners in it have not paid up their subscriptions. “Friendly Germany,” which let the old republics down so badly in 1900, is attempting to obtain dominance in the league, and if it proved successful that is what might possibly bring about a downfall. Germany is attempting with some success to get more than a mere foothold in that league. What is behind that move? Germany really makes no secret of it; it wishes to get back the mandated countries for itself. That is the never-dying object. Is this country prepared to see the league dominated by a Power which proclaims her object to be the “return of mandated but conquered countries”? The hope of my hon. friends is founded on a chimera. It is provided in this agreement that we may have treaties under the League of Nations. Well, that is very interesting. Will anybody tell me what value in security a treaty is? We had a striking illustration of it in the great war, when it suited a Power to scorn a treaty. The solemn treaty with Belgium became merely a scrap of paper, and Germany exercised its powerful military strength to steam-roller little Belgium. Those who considered an honourable agreement more than “a bit of paper” stood by Belgium, to their everlasting honour. With regard to power to enforce a treaty under the league, what actual power have we ourselves in regard to that essential? None. The acid test of this question of optional neutrality has been very well put, first by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts), and secondly by the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt). Will the Prime Minister send a notice to the admiral at Simonstown to clear out so as to ensure Union neutrality? The acid test of neutrality, as far as we are concerned, is the existence of Simonstown on the high road of the seas. Just imagine any country which has within its borders an important base for the British fleet thinking it could remain neutral. What nation at war with our commonwealth, or any portion of it, would allow South Africa to remain neutral. I was very much struck by a dialogue between “Mr. Dooley” and “Mr. Hennessey” in one of those remarkably able articles in “The Cape.” “Mr. Dooley” and “Mr. Hennessey” were discussing the empire and neutrality, and the House will perhaps permit me to read the concluding portion, with apologies for my poor Irish pronunciation—

That, I think, hits the mark. It is very interesting to know what is permissible in regard to neutrality, and I have given notice to my half-section that if a burglar enters our house I am going to retire to my part of the domestic establishment and remain strictly neutral. “Mr. Dooley” has put it perfectly rightly—we are not going to decide neutrality, the enemy determines that. What do we look to for our security? I picture to myself in a bad dream the Minister of Defence, as minister plenipotentiary and ambassador extraordinary, in all the panoply of war, probably with an extra pair of veldschoens in his old kit bag, going to Tokio to demand justice. I picture to myself, in these days of activity on the part of Chinese pirates, our battleship the Protea and the Minister of Defence being seized and he held to ransom. Would the Minister of Defence cable “Send the Zonnebloem and the Immortelle.” I am afraid not. I think he would rather say “I am a British subject, I would like to appeal to the nearest British ambassador or consul and ask him to cable to South Africa to see if the Labour party will put up the price of my ransom.” What does the whole question boil down to, apart from the levity which is really natural to it? It boils down to this, that we enjoy the utmost freedom of action consistent with our obligations and our oath of allegiance. I am perfectly sure hon. members on these benches do not take that oath of allegiance with their tongues in their cheeks, or with any mental reservation, or with the idea of getting £700 a year. I credit them with something far beyond that—I credit them with honesty and sincerity. The question of neutrality, so far as South Africa is concerned, would be decided entirely by men who have taken this sacred oath—

I do not think that oath is taken in any flippant spirit, and when it comes to standing by the British commonwealth of nations, those who are going to decide that question of assistance or neutrality are men who have taken that oath of fidelity sincerely. There is no necessity whatever to divide the fine hairs split in this country with all the enthusiasm of very energetic lawyers. That obligation of loyalty is not to any League of Nations—it is an obligation to the British Crown, which stands for constitutionalism in this country. So we come by easy steps to what I think was the key of the whole puzzle, if it could only have been realized, when the Prime Minister interjected in the speech of the leader of the Opposition, “Why trouble about it?” and the leader of the Opposition answered, “That is just my point.” I put to the Prime Minister his own interjection, “Why trouble about it?” Why, when we discuss in a friendly way this inter connection, trouble about neutrality? The Prime Minister, in the query, gave the answer, too. Leave this hair-splitting futile controversy to lawyers, and adopt the very homely old adage, “Don’t cross the stream until you come to it.” We might look rather to getting down to the practical politics mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston)—to doing the things that ought to be done in this country. We recollect a great pioneer, Mr. Rhodes, who on his deathbed said “So much to do, so little done.” The Prime Minister may have to echo that regret. We have given time, much valuable time, months, aye, almost years, to the discussion of sovereign independence and neutrality and things which do not matter. In the meantime, we have a country full of disappointed men, with expansions sadly delayed, and we ask why? We have accomplished unity, and we surely can finish with all these vexing disagreements, and say with Australia’s national poet—

I did not intend to speak on this subject, but it is so important that I want to say a few words to explain my views. I trust that what I shall say will not be wrongly interpreted as if I wanted to find fault or accuse persons. I want to express my honest opinion of what has been said here. The question is involved and troublesome. The Prime Minister has very clearly stated his point of view and the statements of the hon. leader of the Opposition and of other hon. members in the House were clear, but their views differ in many respects, and are very conflicting. The country is very thankful to the Prime Minister for what he obtained, and especially for obtaining sovereign rights for us in South Africa. Those rights are now agreed to and acknowledged in the report. There can be no doubt, and it is incontestable that we now have a sovereign right to secede. It has not only been constantly said, but it is now acknowledged in writing also and is so construed by all experts. I want to assure the Prime Minister that the people are thankful to him for this very thing because they rely on that written declaration. I agree with him that for the present no separation is possible with the people who are divided on that point and also in view of the great problems requiring solution by us. If a State has sovereign independence it goes without saying that its people must decide whether its neutrality is in its interests or not. That right of deciding as to neutrality is thus bound up with the right to sovereign independence, even if there was not a word said about it at the Imperial Conference. Sovereign independence cannot exist without the right of neutrality, otherwise it is not sovereign independence. But then the question arises whether, if the State has obtained a right to sovereign independence, it is then an accomplished fact that the State is independent and sovereign, because if it is, then it follows automatically that the right to remain neutral is included in it. Or must the sovereign rights first be exercised and the sovereign independence declared by Parliament on behalf of the people, and then the right of remaining neutral is not included before the sovereign independence is an accomplished fact.

On a point of order, Rule 61 says an hon. member shall not read his speech. I do not know if the hon. member is reading his speech, but if he is, he is breaking the rule.

The hon. member points out that an hon. member may not read his speech.

I know it just as well as the hon. member. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) does it himself all day. I am just looking at the paper to deal with the points in order. If rightly reported, the Minister of Justice, in reply to a question at a meeting, said—

I quote this to show how views on that point conflict. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) made a comparison between our position and that of William of Orange, who was King of England, and at the same time Stadholder of Holland, but I just want to point out that it was not the same legal position that we have to-day. The hon. member must not forget that England and Holland were both acknowledged sovereign independent states, while we possess the right to sovereign independence as the Prime Minister has explained. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) said we must insist on clarity and he asked certain questions. I agree with him that we must have clarity, but about the question of the sovereign right of independence and the right of remaining neutral there can surely be no doubt. This has already been said on various occasions. The Prime Minister, years ago, said at Stellenbosch that we have the sovereign right to secede. Lloyd George confirmed it in Paris to the South African Independence Deputation, and now also Mr. Amery, inter alia, said so when he was in South Africa. Various other people also confirmed this after the Imperial Conference. The sovereign rights, therefore, exist. We thank the Prime Minister for what he obtained for us.

What did he get?

I am resting for the present on the report of the Imperial Conference, and shall, without the slightest hesitation, vote for the Prime Minister’s motion.

In all seriousness do not the members of this House believe that this debate has gone far enough? We have had statements from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Defence on the Government side, and we have had statements made, after all deliberation, by the leader of the Opposition (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), and I think it ill becomes this House to go into trivial matters on a question like this. I would appeal to the hon. members of this House not to treat this matter in the trivial way in which it has been treated by previous speakers, and to consider whether we should not now allow the Prime Minister to give his reply. I believe that would be in the interest, not only of the friendship and goodwill of the people of this country, but also of the commonwealth generally.

I am afraid I cannot respond to the appeal of the hon. member (Mr. Pearce), because there are still some points which ought to be brought out in this debate. I want to express the hope, at the outset of my remarks, that this will be the last constitutional debate we shall have in this House for many years to come. I am sure that feeling lies deep in the breasts of the majority of the people of this country. The acclamations which greeted the Prime Minister on his return from Europe from the Imperial Conference were expressions of joyous relief at the thought that the Prime Minister had achieved finality in a contentious constitutional dispute which had deluged this country with bitterness, and prevented all social and economic advance. We have had a relapse since those days, but I hope that in the quieter atmosphere which now prevails, the debate in this House will put an end, for many years, to all the high politics to which we have been accustomed during the last few years. I want to say, for my own part and on behalf of those for whom I speak in this House, that I accept this report of the Imperial Conference to the fullest extent. I accept it with all its implications, although I do not agree with the partial interpretation which the Prime Minister put upon it of a negative character. My leader (Gen. Smuts) pointed out what was true, that, in order to understand this report, it was necessary not to lay emphasis in any particular direction. The Prime Minister laid the emphasis in one direction only, and the report itself specifically warns us against doing that. Thus, on page 6, it says—

I put it to this House, did the Prime Minister do anything else but lay emphasis upon our negative relations with Great Britain? Throughout his whole speech he treated only with one subject, and that was the independent status of the Union. He introduced the question of neutrality solely with the purpose of lending emphasis to our independent status. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the Prime Minister should have found this to be necessary. No one disputes it. Every responsible person in this country agrees with the independence of our status within the empire. It has been repeatedly stated in Europe and elsewhere by British statesmen who were themselves at the Imperial Conference. It has been accepted throughout the whole press of this country, and there is no dispute about it. We are all agreed that in every aspect of our national life we are as free as the air. As the report itself says, we are complete masters of our own destiny, subject to no compulsion whatsoever from outside. Why was it necessary, then, for the Prime Minister to labour this point since it is a matter upon which there is common agreement everywhere? By throwing into very strong relief this question of our independent status, the Prime Minister showed the whole constitutional position of the empire a little out of focus. Yet the Prime Minister must be aware of a very strong desire amongst the majority of the people of this country to stress rather the positive ideals of empire than the negative ideals which the Prime Minister himself stressed. How then should we interpret this report so as to express the whole truth about our empire relations? Should we not begin by asking ourselves: “What was this conference called for; why was it held; what did it set out to accomplish; what, in fact, did it actually accomplish? The sole purpose, as the report sets out, and as those who took part in the conference have explained to the world, was to further the common cause of empire. That was the primary object of the Imperial Conference. It, was called together to remove any misunderstanding which exists in any parts of the British empire regarding our independent status, and by removing all suspicion of outside dominance to provide a firm and sound basis of freedom for future cooperation. To understand this report fully it is necessary to go straight to the definition formula. This is printed in italics in the report. It is the most pregnant sentence under consideration, upon which the whole report hangs. It reads—

How should that be interpreted? The Prime Minister has interpreted it entirely in one way by laying stress on the negative portions. Let us go to the report itself for guidance as to how it should be interpreted. What does the report say? In the very next paragraph to the formula are these words—

It is clear then that the object of this report was to make mutual co-operation within the empire easy, and not merely to make mutual interference impossible. Yet, with this clear warning, how did the Prime Minister interpret it? The whole of his remarks were intended to show that, as far as he was concerned, this report was intended to make mutual interference impossible. That is what we take exception to. The essence of this declaration is that we are a unity of members in common allegiance to the Crown. That is admitted to be common ground by all British statesmen. Let me go to Mr. Amery and ask what he said on this question. Mr. Amery, who took part in the Imperial Conference, has gone round South Africa explaining to the people what he thinks about it, and what his interpretation is. What does he say on this very formula? He says this—

What the conference declared was that working in free and equal partnership we remain united together, because underlying all our diversity, underlying all our individual freedom, inherent in each of our constitutions, is that common Crown which is the symbol of all our loyalties, which by our loyalty to it, binds us to be helpful to each other, and which embodies in a single institution all the traditions and ideals of our associated peoples. That is the interpretation of the present Secretary of State for the dominions of this formula we are to-day discussing. That interpretation explains the positive aspect of empire. That is the aspect of empire, as explained by the statesmen who drew up this very report. That is what Lord Balfour himself meant when he wrote the words of this formula. I put it to this House: Did the Prime Minister refer to that positive aspect by one single word in his long speech? He was concerned only in showing how he had succeeded in making mutual interference impossible. Yet the basic fact of this report is the unity of empire contained and expressed in this very formula. To me, and to those I represent, that is the fundamental truth about empire. I take it the object of the Imperial Conference and the object of this report was to make mutual co-operation easy by removing all doubt and uncertainty which might remain in the minds of our Nationalist friends regarding any form of Downing Street interference. The common cause of empire was to be strenghtened by recognizing amongst the associated nations of the empire the utmost freedom. There is a British tradition that in British communities custom always hardens into law, while in other communities the law is first made and must wait for custom to develop before it can be enforced. That is precisely what happened in the framing of this report. Custom had set up certain conceptions of our empire constitution and practice, and they were crystallized in this report. And it was the insistence of the Prime Minister which caused this conception to be committed to paper. I believe that the Prime Minister reasoned he would get a common acceptance of the empire in South Africa if he could only remove from the minds of many people in the countryside the idea that the empire was still some kind of super-State. This report should give the final death-blow to any such conception in South Africa and, in that way, will serve a useful purpose. But this report has done something more than that. It has, because of the intense international interest which it has aroused, placed the empire constitution in a new light before the whole world. That is one of the striking results of this report. I think we shall find that besides satisfying the natural desires of the dominions for their self-expression, and their natural pride, this empire declaration has increased the prestige of the empire, and contributed in no mean degree to the peace of the whole world. There is a perceptible change come over the continental conception of the British empire. The European statesmen gained an entirely different aspect of empire since the Imperial Conference sat. The representatives of the European states, when they met in the League of Nations last year were still filled with the old idea of a super-state. They still thought of the British empire in the terms of old empires of Austria and Germany. That attitude was very strongly revealed during the discussions which took place in the assembly of the league last year. There was a general hostility displayed towards Great Britain, because it refused to take any part in the exhumation of the buried protocol. It will be remembered that the protocol sought to commit the empire to obligations in the guarantee of the status quo in Europe, the extent of which nobody could foresee. Sir Austen Chamberlain found it was necessary to speak plainly on this matter, and to dispel from the minds of the statesmen at Geneva the idea that the British empire was still dominated by an aggressive imperialism. He used these words—

In another passage he said this—

These are sentiments which I commend to the notice of the Prime Minister, who still feels that if the league should demand of South Africa to declare its neutrality in a war against Great Britain, he would feel compelled to do so. The effect of this declaration by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain has cleared the air. I believe the continental statesmen are beginning to perceive that the British empire, instead of being what they thought it to be, one of the old super states working in the old channels of continental diplomacy, there is no greater guarantee of peace in the world to-day than the British empire, since to obtain the unanimity amongst all its associated nations, necessary to wage war, the cause would have to be both a just and a righteous cause. I, therefore, think this declaration of the Imperial Conference has served its purpose outside the empire as well as inside the empire. I think the Prime Minister, by insisting upon this declaration has contributed very largely to the peace of the world. As one of those who formerly expressed my suspicions of the motives behind such a declaration, and as one who objected to such a declaration being made, let me now say I think the empire and the world have gained much by this report; always, with the proviso that the object of the Prime Minister in having this declaration made was to further that mutual co-operation in the empire which is the common cause upon which the Imperial Conference deliberated. I do not want to enter into a discussion upon the Prime Minister’s academic arguments on neutrality, but I do want to express in a few sentences what is felt about this matter by the people who acclaimed the Prime Minister on his return from Europe. They are not to be moved by academic arguments, and, in any case, academic arguments are a very poor substitute for practical statesmanship. The average man in the street, the English-speaking man, interprets the position in this way: War is not made in the name of a State or in the name of its Parliament, but in the name of his Britannic Majesty, if the country concerned belongs to the British empire. As Mr. Amery has said, the Crown is inherent in our constitution. It is the symbol of our loyalties. The average man cannot understand how a lawyer can argue that under certain circumstances when the empire is at war South Africa can be neutral. But ignoring all academic arguments, what would be the practical results of such a declaration? For me, and for those I speak for, who I believe number the bulk of the people of the Union, such a declaration would constitute a revolution in our constitution. Ipso facto, a declaration of neutrality would dissolve the Union whether this Parliament declared it or the Government. Since the four States of this Union is only a legal entity under the Crown, we should split asunder in the same way as the Austrian empire when it lost its Crown. Legally, the Union would cease to exist. It could only be held together illegally—and constitutionally all who considered themselves illegally torn out of the British commonwealth would have the right to resume their allegiance to the Crown. We cannot, therefore, be held together by negation. The report states—

Free co-operation then is the sole instrument by which this empire will be kept together.

Free.

Without the use of this free co-operation this report is worthless. This report is dedicated to these positive ideals, which can only be maintained by the fullest co-operation. If this co-operation is absent and these positive ideals are ignored, this declaration becomes merely a sham. What this House is agreeing to is to maintain these positive ideals by ensuring the greatest co-operation within the empire in order that we may attain these blessings of peace, security and progress. That is what I stand for, not because I am an Imperialist, but first and foremost I am a South African, because I see a greater and more glorious destiny facing this country within the British empire than one can conceive without it. The finest statesmanship that could be shown is to stretch out and seize that great heritage which is ours for the mere taking. We, as British citizens, have inherited not only the freedom of this Union, but that of the whole of British Africa. Our citizens are scarcely admitted into the Belgian Congo, and they do not like us there. We have no part and parcel in the development of that territory. Our admission is hedged about with difficulties. Our citizens are knocking at our borders in Angola asking for permission to return because they feel themselves strangers in the land they pioneered. But in all British Africa we have equal rights with any son of Britain to carry on anything we wish to do. The sons of South Africa have a greater civil service in the regions beyond our borders than they have in the Union. There is no post a son of South Africa cannot occupy, from Governor to ganger on the railways. A son of South Africa occupied the post of Governor of Kenya, and a son of South Africa occupies to-day the post of general manager of the Kenya railway. There is no industry and undertaking in British Africa which we may not undertake, and no market and business into which we may not enter. I was told that Mr. Amery, when he was here, said he had vacancies for 200 engineers in various territories in British Africa, and he informed the principal of the University of Cape Town that he would place 20 annual vacancies at his disposal, 20 sons of South Africa could go out every year to take up posts beyond the Union in the sphere of engineering drawn from one university alone, and probably other universities would be offered these posts in the same degree. I believe most firmly, from my knowledge of other territories on the African continent, that South Africa can never achieve its destiny without the cordial co-operation and mutual friendship of the territories of the north. It is only within the last few years that we have begun to consider our economic life at all. We have in our acrimonious high political discussions forgotten about our economic life. Gold and diamonds offer us no permanence. All parties in this House are agreed that the policy must be protection of our industries. Protection in itself is no good unless we are setting out to satisfy only our own needs. Outside markets are needed to keep the people of this country employed in order that we may live on a civilized standard, and these markets have to be fought and planned for—they are not to be obtained simply by sitting down and crying for them. Where are our markets if we close the doors of the north? We have a second United States here in British Africa alone, equal in extent to the United States of America and equal in extent in natural resources, and the eyes of the whole world are upon the rich stores of British Africa with its immense potentialities. Here are the opportunities and the responsibilities which are ours; high politics have unfortunately generated suspicion and antagonism in regions where we should have been seeking to establish the closest ties of mutual respect and regard. Those are our natural markets—not Milan, where we sell a few quarters of lean beef, or the U.S.A., where we sell a few skins. We can find a market in our own country for all we produce agriculturally if only we create our industries to supply the needs of the developing north. Our population is not the seven millions of the Union, but the hundred millions from Cape Town to the Nile—on British territory. All that is required to set out on this voyage of destiny is to realize our national aims by the fullest co-operation under our British citizenship. If the Government turns its face steadfastly towards the positive ideals set out in this declaration, the future children of our race may have cause to look back upon this day as one of the greatest in their history—when we finally achieved that unity of purpose necessary to remove all the obstacles to our advance upon the continent of Africa.

I have really listened with the very greatest interest to the speeches which have been made on this subject of our national status as declared by the Imperial Conference. If we may have reason to regret—and deeply regret—certain things which have been said in the course of the debate, still I am confident that they will all serve a practical purpose if only we are wise enough to interpret these things as they should be interpreted. I have just listened to a very eloquent appeal pro Imperial Britannica. I can assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nicholls), that I feel very strongly with him in what he has said as to the advisability of co-operating with that empire, and I give him the assurance that never before in my life, at any rate as a politician, have I been more strongly in favour of that co-operation. Why? May I ask hon. members whether they were not struck by the few words dropped by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). We all know what the sentiments of my hon. friend are. He has never hidden his opinions under a bushel, but I thought it was one of the most remarkable things to hear him say in this House that having heard from me what our position is as to our status of independence as declared by the Imperial Conference, he could reconcile himself to the British empire where he could not do it before. We may all feel very grateful, and if things have been said in the debate which may go, I am afraid, a considerable way in causing a re-action, then we can only regret it. But let us hope that after all it will eventually serve a good purpose in making us feel more and more at one. I fully agree, but why was that said by the hon. member for Winburg? Only because I feel, and we on this side of the House especially feel, that in that report from the Imperial Conference, there came a message of our full independence. It is only on the basis of the full independence of South Africa that South Africa—or any other dominion—will ever consent to continue to co-operate in the British empire. I again say what I said in my opening speech—co-operation is the governing principle of empire existence. Take away that co-operation and there is no empire. Co-operation is not only co-operation in time of war—let hon. members just think of that—it is not only a co-operation in time of war. If we want the empire to be an empire in the real sense of the word, it must be a co-operation of free people, and that co-operation in the first place must be a co-operation in time of peace, and you cannot get that co-operation except on the basis of independence. May I take the opportunity of pointing out, or rather of quoting, the words I used before the Imperial Conference when asking for a declaration of our status. I then said—

I quoted words used at this conference by men like Mr. Lloyd George, that the dominions are—

These words I quoted from what the Prime Minister at the previous Imperial Conference said. I went on—

I see the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), is so afraid of independence that in his speech he has not once used that word, but always “freedom.”—

Further on I said—

I continued the following—

To which Mr. Bruce immediately said “amen.” I went on—

It was upon this request that the Imperial Conference decided to consider this question and the result was this report which I am now asking the House to adopt, and it is in view, I submit, of what I requested and stated to be the object of that investigation that this report shall be considered. May I say this? I am going to ask that the debate be adjourned here, and I do it for this purpose, that I feel, as I have said, this is a very important question, and various members have spoken and have spoken in such a manner that I feel thankful to them for what they have said, although I regret words that have been used and arguments that have been used which really can only prove to be very injurious to what hon. members on the other side are so anxious to see accomplished, namely, better co-operation or rather, sound co-operation. I do not want here, this afternoon, in a hurry to say anything by which I may perhaps make the same mistake and add to that injurious action. I would rather that I go carefully into all that hon. members have said and come later on and make my reply to them. For this reason I ask that the debate be adjourned.

On the motion of the Prime Minister, debate adjourned, to be resumed on 22nd March.

We have now reached Clause 111 dealing with tied houses. The Minister’s clause in terms prohibits all tied house agreements. In other words, he goes back to what was in the Act originally before reference to the select committee. The hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) has down on the Order Paper, page 220, the clause which was substituted by the select committee for the original clause in the Bill. In the absence of the hon. member for North-East Rand, and as one who helped to draft the clause and put it in the Bill, I would like to move it, but that can only be done if the committee agree to the deletion of the Minister’s clause. Originally, the Minister proposed in the Bill to delete the tied house clause in any circumstances. Members of the select committee will agree that no section of the trade had asked to go so far as the Minister went in the original Bill, or in this particular Bill. They all admitted that some modification of the tied house system would have to be made, but agreed that the system itself was a necessary part of the machinery of the liquor trade. Having listened to their representations we drafted a new Clause 111, which really steers a middle course between no ties at all and the present system without any interference or hindrance whatever. For some reason the Minister did not agree to that middle course, and has gone back to the old clause, which forbids ties entirely. The Minister is doing something which no section of the trade has asked for, and which is essentially a matter of domestic internal regulation of the liquor trade, and so I ask the Minister to accept the deletion of his clause and accept, as a basis of discussion, the clause which the select committee moved. It says you may have ties, but these ties must be subject to certain restrictions. In the first place the ties between a brewer and licensee shall only be in respect of malt liquor. Sometimes a brewer will take a tie from one of his tenants, not only for the buying of beer, but he says: “You must give our friends, the wine and spirit companies, a tie to buy their wine and spirituous liquors.” We have laid down a tie between a brewer and a licensee shall only be in respect of malt liquor, and between a wholesaler or foreign liquor licence shall only be in respect of liquor other than malt liquor. Then a time limit is fixed to all ties. There are some that exist in perpetuity, and the period of six years is laid down, or three years after the discharge of the obligation in respect of which the tie was created. Then we lay down, in a proviso, that where a tie was given in consideration of the right to occupy premises the tie will terminate when the occupation of the tenancy terminates as well. In other words, if a brewery has given a lease with a tie to one of its tenants, and has taken from him a tie, and that tenant gives up his tenancy, then as far as he (the tenant) is concerned, the tie ceases to operate. It will be necessary to move an extra Clause 112 which is found there, which prohibits the insertion into a mortgage bond, or a contract of loan, of any condition forbidding the repayment of money before the time. A man before the period of the contract is completed may have the money to repay the loan, but finds himself precluded by the actual terms of the loan itself, from paving it back. Normally, a borrower is always entitled to repay money to the lender as soon as he has it available. Conditions were put in forbidding him from repaying the money before the end of the term simply in order to extend the tie. We have laid it down in Clause 112 that that practice shall not be continued. If any person who has raised money finds himself in the position to repay the loan, he shall be allowed to do so at any time, and then the tie shall come to an end. This is a matter of the domestic concerns of the trade, and I think the Minister will realize that this clause which he has drafted goes too far. I think there is one flaw in this clause as drafted. If the Minister will look at sub-section (a), a tie between a brewer and a licensee shall not exist, except in regard to malt liquor. But, supposing the brewery says to the licensee: “We do not want the tie given to us, but give it to our friends, X or Y, some company in which we are interested,” then, because it is not in terms a tie between a brewer and a licensee, it can be a tie for anything and everything. The Minister will see that apparent loophole. The same in regard to sub-section (b). To correct that, I would suggest for the Minister’s consideration beginning that paragraph with this sub-section: “No tie may exist, save as between a brewer or the holder of a wholesale liquor licence or a foreign liquor licence on the one hand and any other licensee on the other.” That would restrict the existence of ties to the trade itself. I move the clause, as printed.

The hon. member can, of course, only move it after this clause has been deleted.

I think I should say what my ideas are at once. I think that Clause 111 is ideally correct for this reason, that your man who lends money to a licensee is getting a fair rate of interest and, therefore, anything additional that he gets makes it very high indeed. There are two facts that I want to emphasize, the first is that I think it is impossible to get that clause through the House, and the second is that in practice, if there is no tie, there is a considerable class of people who will have very great difficulty in raising money. You do not raise money to buy a licensed business or capitalize it from the ordinary people who lend money. You are compelled to go to the trade to get that money, and the trade takes a smaller margin of security than that taken by the ordinary person who would lend money to carry on the ordinary commercial concern. Therefore, a clause of this kind is going to make the financing of businesses of this description difficult. These two reasons impel me to the course of asking this House as soon as possible to vote down Clause 111, and let us go into the question of the amendments. The real difficulty is going to consist in finding out what is the best middle course that we should steer. We shall not be able to pass Clause 111 into law as it stands. I would ask this House to delete that clause as it stands at once, and allow us to go into the new clause, otherwise we have the difficulty that we are constantly discussing on this clause all the proposed amendments before those amendments are moved. I would, therefore, ask this House to delete this clause as soon as possible, and let us get on to the new clause.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in his amendment. I was always under the impression that he was one of the great temperance protagonists in this House. I believe the general feeling is that this tied house principle is not only pernicious, but it is not in the interests of temperance, nor is it in the interests of the liquor trade. The amendment moved on behalf of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) is practically watering down the Minister’s clause to such an extent that it perpetuates the tie in future. What the committee has to decide this afternoon is whether it is in the interests of the trade or in the interests of temperance that the tie shall be perpetuated. It is unnecessary for me to go into the evidence laid before the select committee as far as these tied houses are concerned, the desirability or undesirability of them. I have an amendment on the Order Paper which I intend to move in the event of the Minister not accepting the proposition which he has put forward in his clause. I maintain that the original clause as it stands is a clause which the committee should accept. It amends the whole position, as far as the tied house is concerned. It gives these people reasonable time to get out of their ties. In moving this amendment one of the reasons which have actuated me is to terminate the tie. These tied houses in the Peninsula at all events have got into the hands of the big brewers, and the big brewers are dominating the liquor trade as far as that is concerned. As far as my information goes—and my information principally comes from the northern trade—the licensed victuallers of the north are practically fighting the licensed victuallers of the south on this question. The brewers in the south have accumulated considerable funds, and a large number of the evils of the tied house system arise out of this fact. I want to give the House some figures so that hon. members may have some idea of the danger if the amendment which is moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is carried. The principal brewery is the South African Breweries. I have an extract from the “Cape Times” of the 1st of August, 1927, from a statement published by that company. They say—

One of the conditions of this Bill is that in future these bar licences terminate if there is nobody to build extensive buildings at a cost to the extent of £10,000. The northern licensed victuallers are afraid of this position, that the only people who will get these licences in future will be the big people. You will probably get the position where one big brewer will dominate the whole of the position as far as the liquor trade is concerned—

That is a very unhealthy position as far as the trade is concerned. With regard to the amendment itself moved by the hon. member for North East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz) if the committee will look at this amendment they will see it is not so simple as it looks. I think the hon. member has given us to understand that these ties will terminate. The recommendation of the select committee can be circumvented in a variety of ways—

It is quite clear the object is not to determine the tie as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) led us to believe. Let me just point out with regard to the evidence that was given before the select committee that the evidence of the Western Province Licensed Victuallers’ Association was entirely given in the interest of the tied houses of the brewers. The statement itself was prepared by the lawyer of the brewery. I want the committee to look at it from the point of view that it was a prejudiced document. I would appeal to the committee to support the Minister’s Clause 111, as it stands, as being an equitable measure and terminating the ties definitely within a specified time, and giving these people an opportunity to get out without any loss, failing which, if the committee does not accept the clause as it stands, I propose to move the amendment standing in my name, which has this advantage that it is a halting place between this amendment and that of the hon. member for North East Rand and the clause as it stands. The hon. member’s clause goes too far in the direction of perpetuating the tie. In my amendment I have the restriction which the trade in the north entirely stands by. They say that if we are not going to terminate the tie, there must be some responsible body who can supervize these ties and that body must be the licensing board itself, and that, without the licensing board, there will be no confidence in the trade to enter into the liquor trade unless there is someone to supervize these ties. On the other hand, the licensed victuallers take exception to this clause. They say they do not want their business supervized by any licensing board because it is their private business, but I submit that legitimate business should not be objected to, and there is another clause in the Bill which gives the licensing board the right of calling for any papers with regard to a licensee before such licence is granted. I would like to submit to the House that we should accept the Minister’s clause as it stands as being fair, equitable and reasonable, and in the interests of both the liquor trade and temperance, and if the committee are not prepared to accept that, I will move the amendment in my name.

I agree with the Minister that this clause as it stands is too drastic. There is no doubt at all that a licensee who wishes to raise money either to extend his premises or to improve the amenities of the hotel, very often finds it difficult to raise money from a private individual or one of the usual loan companies. As the Minister has said, the companies, breweries and others are disposed to run the risk that the ordinary investor will not run in lending money to a licensee on licensed premises. But the system that has grown up, no doubt at times worked rather hardly on the licensee, because in the past ties have been taken far beyond the necessities of the case. A hotelkeeper who wants to borrow one thousand pounds, for the purposes of his business, very often unwittingly binds himself for a large number of years, or an indefinite time, to take his supplies from a certain brewery company, and even after the debt is paid off, owing to his obligation being recorded against him in the title deeds, he is bound for years to come, and any person who buys his premises is also bound. We want to avoid hardships of that sort, and while legislating to protect the licensee, at the same time it must be made reasonable and possible for brewery companies and others to carry on legitimate business. There is nothing inherently or morally wrong in lending money to a licensee. This clause is unworkable as it stands, and that is one reason why I shall vote against it. There is nothing in the clause to prevent a licensee borrowing money and binding himself to repay on one week’s or one month’s notice, so that the brewery company that is lending the money, if it says it is not getting a fair share of the business, can immediately call up the loan, and the condition of the licensee will be worse than ever. Nothing in the clause could prevent a brewery company saying to a licensee: “Yon have been in the habit of buying from us £30 or £40 worth of malt liquor every month; in future, you can buy anything you like from any other person, but you must buy this quantity from us.” That also is not legislated against in this clause; so any company that wishes to get round this clause, as it stands, can easily do so, and comply with the law. Is it not better to substitute for this clause a clause such as the one moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)? I think the committee would do well to delete the clause and debate the pros and cons, the advantages and disadvantages of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and whether we shall also consider the advisability of adopting the amendment of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik).

I wish to move to add at the end of the clause proposed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—

The clause of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has not yet been put, and the hon. member can therefore not yet move an amendment to it.

Can I not bring up a motion?

No, the hon. member can discuss the point, but be cannot move an amendment. The hon. member can move his amendment when the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is put after the original clause is deleted.

I want to appeal to hon. members to keep the clause as it is. It was one of the nicest things that the Minister said when he spoke on the Bill for the first time and declared that he was going to abolish the compulsory purchases. It is of great importance to abolish them, because if there is one thing that creates monopolies, then it is these compulsory purchases. It happens to-day that people go into an hotel and want a particular brand of liquor, and the hotelkeeper says that he cannot supply it. When one enquires the reason, one learns that he is tied to a wholesaler or brewer. The retailer’s hands and those of the public are bound. I cannot understand how hon. members who talk so much about freedom can favour such obligations. It has been said here that the brewers run a risk if they lend money to persons who cannot give proper security, but if the brewer or wholesaler lends money to a hotelkeeper who buys from various people, then they can call up his bond. Why must these people be bound for ever? The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) argued that if the clause was passed as it stands, the hotelkeeper would have to buy a certain amount of liquor from the dealer. In my opinion, that argument does not hold water, because it is here stated—

I think the clause is sufficiently drastic to stop agreements like those mentioned by the hon. member for Dundee. Another point I want to refer to is that there are quite a number of small wine makers and some co-operative societies in which the farmers hold shares. I know of cases where the farmers send their produce to a central place to be turned into wine, and when they send the price lists round the country they get few orders. What is the case? There are, e.g., two hotels in a village. Hotelkeeper A is bound to wholesaler X, and hotelkeeper B to brewer Y, and they may not buy from anyone else. That is the position throughout the country. A large number of the hotels are in the bands of the wholesalers or brewers, with the result that they may not buy anything but the goods of a certain wholesaler or brewer. I appeal to the Minister and to the House not to permit such a thing. The Minister said originally that he would abolish the system. The select committee made other proposals. The Minister nevertheless had the clause printed as it is, and now he agrees to its being altered. Why should the Minister surrender to-day? I appeal to him and all members who support liberty and who do not want to allow the trade to become a monopoly. I hope hon. members will vote in favour of the existing clause, so that the small wine dealer and farmer may have a market for his goods.

I do not wish to continue this debate on the clause, as I would like to see it deleted, but in view of what the last speaker has said, I would ask the House to remember that the clause confiscates rights and property which people have acquired perfectly legitimately. Unless there is grave evidence of very considerable abuse, we have no right whatever to take away these facilities. Every manufacturer and wholesaler has the right to support his retailers by financial help, and in doing so in many instances they make it a stipulation that their products shall be sold by the retailer. In this, the liquor business differs in no way from any other business. I submit there is no evidence that there are abuses. If you go to a bank and obtain an overdraft, they insist that all your exchange business shall go through them.

They don’t reduce that to writing.

It does not matter amongst honest men, whether it is reduced to writing or not.

It depends on circumstances.

What the manufacturers and wholesalers do is perfectly legitimate. Many a prosperous hotelkeeper has started life through the support he has obtained from the wholesalers and manufacturers, which support has enabled him to build up a very valuable business.

Which he could not have done otherwise.

If we want large up-to-date hotels in South Africa, we must have large finance to erect them, and the only people who are likely to supply the money are the wholesalers and manufacturers. South Africa would benefit very considerably if we could get these men to invest their money in this way. But they will do that only if they are given reasonable security. Under the Bill country hotels will have to have at least five bedrooms, and town hotels at least ten bedrooms. The money to supply these rooms will, in many instances, have to be obtained from the brewers and wholesale wine merchants, and they will not advance the money unless they know it is secure. I quite agree with the restrictions suggested in some of the amendments. By all means restrict the right so that there shall be no abuse, and the necessary restrictions are contained in one of the amendments. Therefore I hope the House will delete the clause, so that we can get on to real business.

It is most peculiar that all the people who have communicated with me on this particular clause happen to be brewers. I have had no representations from men who are supposed to benefit so largely from facilities provided by the brewers. If the brewers supply good liquor, they will not lose any business. I think the inevitable result must be that when the breweries supply the money, you will have bars and not hotels, as the more liquor that is sold the better it will be for the brewers. I cannot see that the brewers are interested in the food or general accommodation of an hotel, or that they are interested in the erection of good hotels. If we are going to depend on the brewers for good hotels, then it is a very poor look-out. According to the information I have received, they have not done very much in the past in that direction. I was approached some years ago by a gentleman connected with the liquor interests, to make an application for a licence for a club in a town in which I lived on the East Rand. He was prepared to do everything, but I had to buy all the liquor I wanted from him. Of course, I did not touch it. I hope the House will stand by the clause as it stands, and not be influenced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) who, since he has been a member of the Liquor Commission, has run away from a few of his temperance principles. He has not worked so well for temperance as he would have done on this Bill if he had not compromised himself with the Liquor Commission. Temperance members of the House should not be led astray owing to the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has moved a particular amendment.

I just want to say a few words about the support which the small man is getting in this connection. Small men are supported to-day, and if we pass the clause as it is they will be deprived of the support, and people like the Witwatersrand Licensed Victuallers’ Association will get hold of all the licences of the small men. The system is not only applied to-day to the drink trade, but also in other businesses. I know of various small business places on the countryside where the owner is supported by the wholesale merchant, even with money to put up a building, and they are bound to buy from the wholesaler all goods which he can supply. In some cases such people will have to pay a little more, but it is surely quite right that if a man cannot help himself and another person or body assists him, that that person or body should expect something in return. The position is that the existing agreements are voluntarily entered into. I say that no one will undertake a compulsory purchase if it is not absolutely necessary. The man merely has the choice of going under or of accepting support and carrying out the conditions of his supporter. And surely it is not so bad? If a wholesaler lends me £2,000, is he not entitled to expect my support? I think it is a wrong tendency to constantly interfere with existing contracts and in private business. The result of this clause would be, not that the big man would suffer, but that the small man would not be assisted. We have received telegrams, I have received six from my constituency in one flay, and they came from the various small hotels and liquor dealers in my constituency. One of them now sends me a letter with a telegram of the kind we have received. It was sent to him from Johannesburg with stamps on it and the request to send it to his representative signed by himself. Those telegrams were sent on pressure by people interested in the matter and who want to get hold of the licences. They were all more or less the same. The Liquor Bill has now reached a critical stage for every licensee. I have here a letter from a business man who says that if the clause is passed as drawn his business will be entirely ruined, because he cannot exist without support. He now gets support and is quite satisfied. I hope the House will agree to the motion of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz). I also hope that the House will not follow the policy of always meddling with the business of private people. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) proposes that the licensing courts must approve of it. Why should I expose my private business to a licensing court? Are they under an oath of secrecy? Will the farmers be prepared to agree to such a thing?

Books have also to be submitted to the Land Bank in connection with income tax.

It must be paid to the State, and the Government officials are under oath. The officials are not going to approve or disapprove of your business.

After all, this is a confiscatory clause, and what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), urged is an argument which requires attention. I do not deny there are cases of hardship. On the question of dealing with existing rights, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), referred to the question of perpetual ties. It seems to me when hon. members refer to perpetual ties they are inclined to think there is something very terrible about them. I do not profess to know the history of them, but I am informed there are a certain number down in this part of the world, and that they have been registered as servitudes against properties. If they are to be terminated in a certain number of years, it is likely to cause considerable hardship. We have gone quite a long way in this Parliament in dealing with the destruction of rights rightfully acquired, and we should pause and give the matter serious consideration before going further in that direction. There will be opportunities of discussing this question later on, and, if necessary, of moving amendments to the clause put forward by the committee, but I think the existence of these ties, which have in several cases been paid for, and in some cases very highly paid for, is not a question which should be dismissed airily as if of no importance.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and negatived.

New clause to follow Clause 110,

I move—

III From and after the first day of January, 1929, no tie shall be of any force and effect save in so far as it complies with the following conditions and limitations:

1. (a) A tie between a brewer and a licensee shall not exist in respect of anything whatever other than malt liquor;
2. (b) a tie between the holder of a wholesale liquor licence or a foreign liquor licence and any other licensee shall not exist in respect of anything whatever other than liquor which is not malt liquor;
3. (c) no tie shall be binding for a period exceeding six years from the date of its conclusion or of the commencement of this Act, or three years from the date of the discharge of the obligation which formed the consideration for the tie, whichever may be the longer, nor shall any agreement for the renewal of any tie be entered into until after the expiration thereof by effluxion of time:
   Provided that where the tie was given in consideration of the right to occupy any premises, the tie shall terminate with the termination of the occupancy of such premises by the licensee concerned.

I have not said anything on this clause. I would like to say a word or two as a member of the select committee which sat on this Bill. I would like to tell the House that I have no interest whatsoever in this liquor trade except so far as it concerns the natives. The people who represented the interests which it is desired to protect in this clause were those who gave evidence which, I think, was the least reliable of any evidence given before the select committee. They impressed me throughout as people who were incapable of running their own businesses, and who object to that control which the breweries give. I came to this conclusion that the country does gain immesureably by a certain amount of control which is put upon these premises by the breweries, for this reason that if there is any misconduct at all in the carrying out of the duties under the licence, the police immediately inform the breweries that this is happening, and the breweries send a caution to the man that he must conduct his premises in a right manner and consequently the drink traffic is more under control. I know my hon. friend (Mr. Waterston), does not agree with me. He is out for the poor man without any regard—

I say it is a weak argument.

He is out for the poor man without any regard whatever to what the poor man may do to the general public when he is incapable of running his own business. It seems to me that the country is getting hotels better run by that small modicum of supervision which this tie gives to those that hold it. The shebeen keepers and those people who are evading the law and creating a lot of trouble throughout the country object to any kind of supervision. I would remind the House what the Board of Trade state in their report on “Business practice and public regulation” on this very clause [extract read]. The Board of Trade say that there should be no discrimination in these matters, that it is quite unfair, and therefore I personally am going to vote for the exclusion of this clause.

The hon. member who has just spoken has quoted from the report of the Board of Trade, but he does not suggest, I suppose, that the board is in favour of these ties or restrictions. They simply refer to uniform legislation. They do not say that ties are a good thing. I wonder whether the hon. member read the report which on the second reading I quoted of the Department of Public Health. I will read the last sentence—

I hope my hon. friend is not going to suggest that the Department of Public Health is connected with shebeening. It is suggested that the opposition to this came from the shebeen people. The opposition to this came from the small man in the trade. The objection that is raised is that they are perpetual. A man may pay back, say the £500, in six months, but that tie is perpetual. I am speaking of the present position. The Minister is asking us to delete his clause, for which I am very sorry. I think his clause is a far better way of dealing with the evil than the suggested amendments. All sorts of things are going on. There are times when the brewery simply acts as a house and estate agent. Sometimes they let it to a subtenant and impose the tie. In some cases they guarantee payment of the rent and for that they get a tie. It is because after a man has paid off the consideration for which he was burdened with the tie, the tie remains perpetually, that it is so iniquitous. Some of the amendments make the position much better; that of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. Reitz), makes the position better. It is a compromise, but I would rather see the thing in the position in which the Minister placed it. It is undoubtedly an evil thing that has grown up. It creates monopolies as against the interests of the small man engaged in the trade. Here is a golden opportunity for the Minister to get rid of a monopolistic system and to start on a new basis. He would have been well advised to stick to his clause, because I believe there is a majority in the House in favour of it.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the view of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), who says that we must vote for the clause as it stands. Before I go further I want to point out that I have no interest in any beer brewery, wine manufacture or other undertakings of the kind, because there are sometimes members who look for all kinds of motives behind the arguments of an hon. member. I care little about breweries, but am a supporter of the use of light wines. It is easy to argue that the poor man should be freed from the tied houses. Respectable hotels have been mentioned. How can there be, in the South Peninsula, e.g., an hotel worth £50,000? Where will a man wanting to build such an hotel get the money? As things are to-day, a man can get financial support for an hotel from a wholesaler or a brewery. We can take another case, that of a man who wants to buy a hotel for £20,000. He possibly has £5,000 cash. Will there be anyone in a board of executors who will advance him the shortage of £15,000? An ordinary person will not advance it to him, because there is a great risk attached to it. If a man, e.g., wants to buy the Regent Palace Hotel, he can get support from the wine merchants to buy the place. I hope that hon. members are now clear that the man who wants to run a decent business can get no support other than from the brewery or the wholesaler. With regard to the argument of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), I want to point out that we have already passed a clause which says that the wine dealer has the right to sell to a farmer or any person who applies for the right, directly. Why, indeed, should the law bother itself about the business of the wholesaler? It is a great evil in South Africa that people so often put their noses into matters that do not concern them, and in consequence our sons get less opportunity of making a start The Wine Farmers’ Co-operative Society, to which the largest part of the wine farmers belong, have studied this clause in conjunction with the dealers, and although there were a number of wine farmers who were in favour of the clause, they finally came to the conclusion that it would injure viticulture. There were many of them who were opposed to the tied houses, but they now see that it is really a good system. In the select committee we took the evidence of Colonel Trew, the chief magistrate of Pietermaritzburg, and Maj. Trigger, inspector. [Quotations read.] They say that it is in the interests of the trade and of preventing drunkenness that the houses should be tied. The difference that now exists between the motion of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), and that of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Dr. H. Reitz), is that the hon. member for Vredefort wants to permit the system for six years, while the hon. member for North-East Rand wants it to exist for ever, because according to his motion a renewal after six years is possible. I only said this because there are possibly hon. members who do not understand it. Sub-clause (f) has already been passed, because it is in Clause 31. I hope my hon. friends will vote for the amendment of the hon. member for North-East Rand.

I cannot allow the statement of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) as to the nature of the evidence given before the select committee on this point to go unchallenged. I want to tell him who his witnesses are The evidence was prepared by the solicitor to the breweries, and the witnesses were Mr. Sidney Millar, salaried manager to the South African Breweries in the Standard Bar; Mr. Isaac Miller, tied to Ohlsson’s; Mr. B. Slessing, tied to Ohlsson’s; Mr. C. Finch, salaried manager for the South African Breweries in the Grand Hotel; Mr. S. Bernstein, tied to Ohlsson’s; Mr. J. Cohen, tied to Ohlsson’s; Mr. Ernest Alexander, son of Mr. J. Alexander, of the Queen’s Hotel, not tied, but reported to be heavily bonded to a particular knight whose name I am not prepared to mention. The other witness, Mr. G. Koenig, of the Royal Hotel, gave independent evidence. These are the witnesses who so impressed the hon. member for Zululand as being thoroughly impartial.

If the committee is not prepared to vote, I shall move to report progress, as I shall not be here this evening. There is an amendment which will clarify this amendment, and I move—

1. (a) No tie shall be entered into save between a brewer or the holder of a wholesale liquor licence or foreign liquor licence on the one hand and any other licensee on the other.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee on 21st March.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I move—

This Bill is to amend the Factories Act which was passed by this Parliament 10 years ago and in the main, it brings the Act up to date and, in the light of the experience which we have had of the administration of the Act, simplifies the working. There is nothing in it that can be regarded as contentious. One of the main principles of the Act is to introduce into the factories of South Africa the 48-hour week, instead of, at present, the 50-hour week. At the present time, the main Act provides for a 50-hour week, after which overtime is paid if work has to be done, and, as a matter of fact, more than half the factories in the Union are actually working less than the 50-hour week provided for. About 1,400 of the factories are working a 48-hour week, and over 1,000 are working between 45 and 48 hours, so that more than half the factories in the Union are not taking advantage of the 50-hour week which is laid down in the present Act, but are actually working considerably less than that number of hours. The Bill also brings the factory legislation in South Africa into line with the 8-hour convention which was passed at Washington in 1919, the first convention held under the International Labour Office at which the 8-hour day, or rather 48-hour week was provided for, and this amendment will bring South Africa, as far as its factory legislation is concerned, into line with that convention. Provision is made so that those factories that want to work a 48-hour week of 5½ days can work nine hours a day and three on a Saturday, and it has been pointed out to me that it might be advisable to make provision for a 5-day week, to work the 48 hours in a 5-day week, because some factories, some industries are adopting the 5-day week. At any rate, that is a matter we can discuss in committee, and I would have no objection to doing that so long as the total number of hours per week are not exceeded. The present Act makes provision for children between the ages of 12 and 14 being employed in factories by special exemption granted by the Minister, but these exemptions have been very few and far between. In 1926 the total number of exemptions, I think, was only 12, and in 1927 it was 8, and I propose to abolish this exemption clause and make it prohibitive for children under 14 years of age to be employed in factories. That is the age laid down also I believe by international understanding, and it is the age provided for in the Wage Act, and as so few are affected apart from the main principle, I propose to do away with the power of granting exemptions for children between the ages of 12 and 14. A further provision in this Bill is that under the powers of the various factory inspectors, where it is possible for females to have rest periods in connection with work at which they have to stand, then seating accommodation ought to be provided. Officials of the department say there are a number of occupations in which females have to do their work standing all day, and it frequently happens that in the course of their work they would, if seating accommodation were provided, be able to rest awhile between the different processes, and at the discretion of the inspector provision is now made so that adequate seating accommodation, if necessary, can be provided. A further provision is that suitable accommodation should be provided for clothes which the employees desire to leave off while they are working. Many employees change their clothes or put on slips, and so on. At the present time most factories make good provision. They have cloakrooms and restrooms for their employees, but there are other factories—in the minority, I am glad to say—which have very little regard for the social welfare of their employees in matters like this. Anything that is going to cost money must not be considered if it can possibly be done without, and this provision enables the inspector, where he considers it necessary and advisable, to order the employer to provide suitable accommodation for the clothing of the employees. Another provision is that protective garments, overalls and so on, shall be provided in those occupations where they are working with acids or liquids likely to damage the clothing. Again, in most cases—certainly all the good employers in South Africa—they make provision and have done so without any power being used against them, because they have felt it was in the best interests of their industry and of their employees that they should be provided with protective clothing when they are engaged in this particular kind of work. In order to bring others into line, powers are taken here that on the recommendation of an inspector it can be made compulsory for employers to provide protective clothing. There is a mistake in the English version of the main Act with regard to municipalities who have to submit their plans to the chief factory inspector. Plans of new factories and new buildings must be submitted to the chief factory inspector under the Department of Labour for approval before they can be passed by the municipalities, and in the main Act the word “alterations” is used instead of the word “plans.” In the Dutch version the correct term is used, and this amendment is merely to put the Act straight on that particular point. A further provision is that to-day if a contravention of the Act takes place then proceedings must be instituted in some cases within seven days of the contravention, and within fourteen days of the contravention in other cases. The department report that in many cases the time allowed in insufficient, that the seven days have expired before they can get the necessary evidence or reports dealing with the matter, and it is then too late to take action against the offenders. It is now proposed to take out the time limit of seven days and fourteen days and to make one time limit of 30 days.

Does this Act apply to natives?

The Factory Act makes no distinction as to natives or whites. It has to do mainly with the hours and the conditions and the accommodation and the general welfare of the employees, whether they are black or white. An important clause in this Bill is the one which gives power to factory inspectors to inspect machinery in factories. To-day the factory inspectors do not inspect machinery in factories. The machinery in factories is inspected by machinery inspectors under the Mines and Industries Department. The Mines and Industries Department administers the Mines and Works Act which was passed in 1911, and in that Act power was taken to inspect and examine and approve all classes of machinery, whether in a mine or in factories, or wherever they were. There was no Factory Act then. It has developed into this position, that we have two sets of inspectors, each belonging to a different department, inspecting the same factories, some inspecting for one thing and others inspecting for another. In some cases there have been conflicting reports made; employers have protested and said: “Why cannot we have all our inspections in the factory done under one department?” While one certainly could not put an unqualified inspector to inspect machinery, at the same time, under the Factory Act, as amended by this Bill, there will be nothing to prevent us having in our department a machinery inspector who will be termed a “factory inspector,” and will be fully qualified to do the work they are now doing under the Department of Mines and Industries. It has been arranged in collaboration with that department, which has agreed that it is unsatisfactory to have two sets of inspectors, each under a different department, inspecting factories, whether for machinery or for anything else, and it is with the consent and co-operation of the Department of Mines and Industries that a number of fully qualified machinery inspectors are going to be transferred from that department to the Labour Department. They will function as factory inspectors, specially qualified to deal with the work they are now dealing with under another department. It is also largely in response to representations which have been made from time to time by employers that they would prefer to deal with one department instead of two departments in regard to inspections; this will make for greater efficiency and co-ordination, and will prevent overlapping. These are the main provisions of the Bill, which I think it will be agreed are non-contentious. The regulations dealing with machinery inspections are taken over with the necessary changes as approved by the law advisers and which are now provided for under the Mines and Works Act, 1911. This Bill also provides that the Act in future shall be administered by the Minister of Labour, instead of the Minister of Mines and Industries, because to-day we are actually administering the Act, although in the Act itself it is provided that the Minister of Mines and Industries should do so. I have had no objections of importance of this Bill from any section of the community. I think it has the support of those engaged in industries, and I hope it will be regarded in this House as a non-contentious and necessary measure.

From what the Minister has said, it would appear that most of this Bill should be regarded as non-contentious. He has had no objection from people interested in factories. I presume it is not necessary for those not so interested to go into much detail. There are some points, however, upon which the Minister might throw light. There is the deletion of the word “average” from paragraph (e), sub-section (1) of Section 9. Section 9 prescribes how the registration of a factory is to be obtained, and “average” appears therein in regard to the number of employees. “Average” is taken out, so it appears that the exact number must be stated, and what I do not understand is how when a man starts a factory he is able to specify the exact number of employees in his employ. As for the hours, the reduction of hours, I suppose, is in accordance with modern legislation. In some cases it will throw a burden on the employer, but I suppose that cannot be helped. In section 7 there is provision for certain facilities for female employees; there can be no objection to that. The alteration of Section 37 contemplated by Section 9 is not altogether satisfactory. It is perfectly obvious that if there are 100 prosecutions under the Factory Act, 95 per cent. will be those of employers, and in certain cases it may be hard for an employer to have a prosecution hanging over him for as much as 30 days. In the Act, as it stands, it is seven days if the fine for the offence with which he is charged does not exceed £5, and 14 days if it exceeds £5. All this is swept away. A good deal of inconvenience may be caused. The Minister did not give any reason why this is necessary; perhaps he will do so when he replies. As I understand it, factories are defined in the principal Act, which makes it plain that mining is not a factory. Under this clause I see that, notwithstanding that, the provisions of this could be applied to mining operations. Further, it says it might apply to any other class of machinery specified by the Governor-General by proclamation in the “Gazette,” as machinery to which the provisions of this section shall apply. I do not see the necessity for that. What is a factory is defined in the principal Act, and I do not see why it is necessary to extend the meaning of factory, and why the Minister should be allowed to decide whether any particular machinery shall he machinery to which the provisions of this section shall apply. The matter is perfectly clear in the Act, as it stands, and to give discretionary power to the Minister is going a good deal further than we understood from what the Minister said. There can be no objection to putting it under one department, but as it is worded it is giving more discretion to the Minister than is necessary. Personally, I think it is a bad tendency to give more such discretion, and I should like to hear the reasons for it.

I think the Bill will be welcomed generally, and I am glad to see that a start has at last been made to bring South Africa into line with the conditions laid down at the Washington Conference nine years ago, but even when the Bill is passed some of the workers wilt still find that their internets have not been safeguarded. The provisions of the Bill are already generally in force so far as workshops and factories are concerned, but there are some unfair competitors who have to be made to toe the line. I am glad that the age at which children start work is to be increased from 12 to 14, for children cannot receive a proper education even if the school leaving age is deferred until 14. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) must be aware of the fact that the provisions of the Bill are contained in the Mines, Works and Machinery Act, and when that measure was passed by his party I never heard any question raised in the House against the Minister of Mines being given discretionary powers. I suppose that the fact that a different Government is now in power makes a difference to the hon. member’s point of view. It will be more convenient to factory owners to have the regulations carried out under the Labour Department, and there is other legislation—the Miners’ Phthisis Act, for instance—which should more properly come under the aegis of the Labour Department. This is not an important Bill, although it is a useful one, and does not warrant long, contentious speeches.

I hope my farmer friends on both sides of the House will realize the full purport of this amending Bill. The principal Act in its definition of factories states that any premises in which is carried on for the purpose of gain any manufacture or the making or preparation of goods for sale or transport, or in connection therewith, in which three or more persons are employed on whole time work shall be regarded as a factory. Agriculture in South Africa is progressing rapidly, and many farmers, especially in Natal, where the wattle tree is extensively grown, purchase steam engines and circular saws with which to cut timber to be supplied to the mines or to be sold as firewood. All these engines come under the provisions of the Factory Act. Then in the Free State, where a large amount of grain is grown, engines are used for shelling the grain. Under the Bill the hours of labour are reduced by two per week.

Read Section 2.

You have inspectors imposing irksome conditions on farmers, and under the amending Bill the Minister will have even greater power, and we all know the tendencies of the Minister of Labour. He will be justified in employing more inspectors who will harass the farmers until their lives are not worth living. It will be a distinct hardship to restrict the hours of labour on farms to 48 a week. At times the principal labour employed on farms is that of native hoys under 14 years of age, but if this Bill is passed farmers will be liable to prosecution for employing boys under 14 years of age. I hope the Bill will be rejected. I cannot understand the inconsistency of the Minister and the Government, and they are the largest employers of labour, wanting to impose on private individuals not doing more than 48 hours work a week, when the Government will not give an eight-hour day to their own employees. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has stated that a written pledge was given by the Prime Minister that an eight-hour day would be introduced on the railways. Why has that not been done? The Government are careless and indifferent in regard to the hours of labour of their own servants. Some of them who drive motor lorries in the country sometimes work 60 hours a week and receive no overtime.

I should like to say a few words on this Bill. I think it is very desirable and advisable that the alterations which are being proposed in the Bill should be applied, especially in relation to factories where white girls are employed. I know by experience in Pretoria that it is necessary that there should be seats for girls who work from morning to night. The second point that I want to call the Minister’s attention to is that if a person does not work more than 48 hours a week, he will want to work 9 hours a day on some days. I want to warn the Minister to be careful, because it may happen that a person will work 9 or 10 hours a day in order in that way to get off one or two days, and then it is no use introducing the eight hours’ working day. Then I want to call the Minister’s attention to the language of the Bill. The Bill commences in Afrikaans, goes on with high Dutch, then it proceeds in French, and finally it reverts to Afrikaans. It commences with the following sentence in Afrikaans—

And goes on in Clause 4 as follows—

And Clause 5 reads—

For exhibition, or what? Clause 7 mentions—

What is meant by “zetels”? “Zetels” are usually spoken of in connection with kings and Ministers. Then the expression—

is used. Why is that? It sounds as if it is a covering against fire by a gun in time of war. And then in the same clause we arrive at French. It reads as follows—

If I were to ask anyone what “nat procédé” was, I wonder what the reply would be. The Bill ends with Afrikaans. May I ask the Minister if he will see that the Bill is drafted in proper Afrikaans for the committee stage?

I must point out to the hon. member that where an existing Act which is in Dutch is amended, the phraseology of the amending Act must be drafted in Afrikaans, but any words, sentences or clauses which have to be incorporated into the original Act must be in Dutch.

I hope then that the phraseology will be improved. As for the Dutch, a Hollander reading it would collapse from fright and not rise again, and as for the Afrikaans, it is scandalous. I should like the Bill to pass, but I hope it will be clothed in better language in committee.

I want to elaborate the argument of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and call the attention of the farmers in the House to the actual meaning of the clause read by the hon. member. Where the farmer has a factory on his farm, he is exempt from this Act, but to-day we have embarked on the principle of co-operation. We are working together on the farms and we are forming co-operative societies, where two or three farmers are standing in together to manufacture certain products, and we are going to be caught every time under this Act. Whenever they join together for the purpose of making cheese, packing fruit, or working creameries, then the farmer comes under the Act at once. I think there was carelessness in drafting the original Act. I do not think that it was ever intended that these small farm factories should be brought in under the Bill. I have no faith at all to-day in the goodwill of labour towards the agricultural community. They will get all they can from agriculture, but they have said many times that industrial and wage legislation should apply to the farmer. Bearing in mind that this is one of the principles of the Labour party, and that the Minister for Labour is now to be charged with the supervision and control of this Act, I ask this House, is it likely that we shall get any special exemption or sympathetic treatment from the Minister of Labour? I doubt it. You have also laid down an eight hour day; I see the Minister of Defence is smiling, probably thinking this is one more spoil decorating the cap of labour. Once you start a co-operative factory, it will immediately be brought under the provisions of this Act with possible exceptions or exemptions under Clause 13, and the eight hour day will apply. You will have your European farmer and your farm labourer working from sunrise to sunset, for those are the farmers’ hours—I hope they will never be changed in this country—and you will have your factory workers limited to an eight hour day. It is going to create dissatisfaction, trouble and agitation. You will have the native saying that the Government has laid down an eight hour day, and that would be taken up by the various agitators, and it is going to make the position on the farm very difficult indeed. Let us apply the acid test to the Minister. Does he want this legislation to apply to the small co-operative factories? The Minister will not answer; he has too many farmers sitting round him to answer. He does want them to apply to the small factories, which are ever increasing on the farms of this country. I hope before we have finished with the Bill the Minister will accept an amendment, and if the Minister will not accept it I hope all the farmers on both sides of the House will lend their support to an amendment making it abundantly clear that it has not only to exclude the individual farmer running a small factory on his farm, but any co-operative society or small company of farmers operating under the provisions of this Bill. That was intended when the Act was passed, and I hope we shall make it clear at the committee stage. Let us have a perfectly plain statement from the Minister in his reply, whether he wants to see the co-operative factories on the farms excluded, or whether he intends that they shall be roped into the net of this Bill with its eight hour day, and its 14 years of age limit, and many other disadvantageous provisions.

It is quite evident that the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) and the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) have not read these Acts, and if so, it has been in a very superficial manner. They are suggesting that this amending Act is going to apply detrimentally to the farmers. The Minister, in his amending Bill, proposes to delete subsection (1) of Clause 13, and sub-section (2) of the same clause specifically excludes the farmers from the Act. Provision is made for seasonal industries, and the clause says that it shall not apply to raw material that will deteriorate by being held back. There are a number of factories in this country that are run on ideal lines, which have ideal employers and in which the workers have ideal conditions, but there are others—and I am glad to say they are in the minority—where the employers require constantly to he held up by bit and bridle, tied up by very stringent laws, and these laws have to be made to meet what I may term the bad employer.

I suppose you know the clause you quoted only applies to an age limit of 16 years?

I do not know what the hon. member is trying to get at. The Act of 1918 makes it clear that the occupations he spoke of are excluded. I want to congratulate the Minister on one thing, and that is in connection with inspection. There are factories which scarcely require inspection. Other factories require close inspection, but a complaint that has been made by manufacturers in the past has been the number of inspectors that called in at their places, one day the inspector of machinery, another day the inspector of factories, and other inspectors also come along. Now the Minister has taken the right step, and by this amending Bill he is going to make the one inspector that calls at that factory responsible for the machinery and all the other things in that factory. For that alone this is a very valuable amending Bill that the Minister is bringing before the House. Some minor points were mentioned by, I think, the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin.) These minor points can easily be discussed and amended in committee. Experience has shown that there are weaknesses in the principal Act, and this Bill is an attempt to remedy those weaknesses. The Minister has provided for the 48 hour week. It has been asked why should the eight hour day be provided in this Bill so far as private employers are concerned, while no such provision is made as regards employees in Government service on the railways. We all know that if such a proposal were made in regard to the Government service, the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) would oppose it, and so would the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I hope the House will not lose much time in passing this Bill through its various stages.

I must say I was rather surprised that the Minister did not touch in detail on the effect of Clause 10. I want to know from him what the effect of Clause 10, subsection (1) really is. The reading of sub-section (1) of this clause is that the Minister takes to himself power to exclude all factories or any factory from the operation of the Colour Bar Act. I would like to know whether that is correct.

It has nothing to do with it.

I will read it to the Minister. Apparently he does not realise the effect of this clause as it is at present drafted. Clause 10 (1) gives the Minister power to exclude the Mines and Works Act of 1911 or any amendment thereof, and any regulation framed thereunder, from any machinery in a factory. It says that the Mines and Work Act of 1911 “shall not apply in respect of any machinery in a factory or in respect of any other class of machinery specified by the Governor-General by proclamation in the ‘Gazette’ as machinery to which the provisions of this section shall apply.” If the Minister does not intend what I have said this sub-clause means, then he will have to redraft it.

I will explain it.

If you read sub-section (1) you will find that it says in very clear language that the Mines and Works Act shall not apply in respect of any machinery in a factory.

As for the rest, it does apply.

It says “shall not apply in respect of any machinery in a factory, etc.”

Only in respect of machinery. In regard to the rest, I do not touch it.

The colour bar Act applies in respect of machinery. I submit that as the clause reads now, the Minister has the power to exclude any factory from the operation of the colour bar Act. The Minister tells me that this is not so. I thought, when reading this clause, that the Minister specifically intended to do so. I am surprised that the Minister, under this Bill, is forcing the private employer into the eight-hour day, whereas so far as the railways, which is a Government concern, are concerned, the Government is not agreeable to apply the eight-hour day, notwithstanding promises made at the last election by members on the Government benches, that the eight-hour day over the whole railway system would be reverted to if they were returned to power. It seems to me that the position is this, that the Minister realizes that it is impossible economically to apply it so far as the railways are concerned, but he is quite prepared to force it upon the private employer. I would like to say this in reply to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), that the section which he quoted in regard to seasonal occupations only applies to boys under 16 years of age. It does not apply to the ordinary worker over the age of 16.

Over 16.

No, under 16. Oh yes, I see it is over 16. It does not apply to the others. I would like to point, however, that the dairy industry cannot be described as an intermittent industry, nor can the cheese industry be described as an intermittent industry. I submit that if this particular clause is to be applied to any farmers’ co-operative concerns, it is going to have a very serious effect. I support the hon. member for Umvoti in his remarks on wattle industry. I hope the Minister will accept an amendment when the Bill comes to committee stage, which will exclude the wattle industry, as carried on the farms from the Factories Act.

Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), has pointed out that the principal Act defines a factory and farming operations are excluded therefrom, I can readily see the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), careering round Natal during the coming Parliamentary recess, and telling the people that this Government is forcing an eight-hour day upon the farmers. The hon. member for Umvoti will tell the good folks in his constituency that the Nationalist Government, pressed by their Labour-Socialist colleagues, are forcing an eight-hour day on the farming community, and the regrettable part of it all is that many of them will believe it. Industrial legislation in this country is considered to be fairly good, but the various provisions can still be tightened up considerably, and I am pleased the Minister of Labour has made a start in that direction. There are loopholes whereby our industrial legislation can be evaded in many respects, and the amendments to the Factory Act provided for in this Bill are very necessary indeed. Surely we ought to get away in this country from the conditions that existed many years ago in England. I have read that in some of the factories these young children used to work as “half timers” and attend school the other part of the day. They had a large tub full of water in which they used to dip the children when they fell asleep at their work. I am almost inclined to think some of the hon. members on the S.A.P. side of the House would not be altogether averse to seeing conditions of a similar kind in the factories of South Africa. There is one new clause that I specially welcome in Section 7. In several factories girls are obliged to stand all day at their work. This fact came out very prominently at Durban when the Wage Board members were making investigations into the baking industry, and, by the way, the Natal Chamber of Industries endeavoured to get the board to conduct the proceedings in private, but the chairman of the board told them the Act provided that the proceedings had to be conducted in public. A Mr. Baumann gave evidence, in the course of which he said he had a staff of about 700. Girls were employed in the weighing and packing department, and while packing were able to sit down. One of the girls employed in the weighing and packing department gave evidence, so the report says, that on some occasions the girls had to stand all day in doing weighing, but at other times they could sit down. They had to stand all day on Mondays. Continuing her evidence, she said—

So we are gradually and surely improving matters with regard to the conditions in factories, and I welcome this Bill, which should further assist in making the conditions in factories more favourable to the unfortunate people who have to work therein.

I do not want to meddle with factories in towns because I think it is necessary for provision to be made and that something should be done in that connection, but when the Bill becomes law it does not only apply to the big towns, but also to other places. I should, therefore, be glad if the Minister would explain what the position of the small villages on the countryside will be. They are so small that there is not a constant pressure of work. I am thinking particularly of smithies and wagon-makers’ shops. The farmer sends his cart to the station. It breaks en route somewhere or other and if the smith or wagon-maker may not repair it in a fixed time, and the farmer has to wait, then it would cause much inconvenience. Now I should like to know if the law will apply to such places. Such establishments will, according to the Bill, fall under factories, and I should like to know if they are also restricted to a fixed time. I may be holding meetings, e.g., and possibly break one of the springs of my motor car. Shall I not be able to have it repaired to continue my journey? There is much good in the Bill. The introduction of the 8-hour day is, however, a thing that easily catches on, but of course the farmers are completely excluded. Indeed, it is impossible for farmers to fall under the provisions.

My attention has been drawn by some manufacturers to Clause 4 of this Bill which lays down that no employees in a factory shall work for more than 48 hours, excepting meal times, in any one week, or more than eight hours, excepting meal times, in any one day. These manufacturers say they have hitherto so arranged their working hours that the workers can get off for Saturday afternoons. They work a little longer on five days a week, in order to work only a few hours on Saturday, but if they are now limited to eight hours a day—

That is provided for.

Where is it provided for?

Read the proviso to that clause.

Does this Bill allow them to work nine hours on five days of the week?

Yes, it says so.

The Minister will remember that on the 13th of April, 1926, I raised the question what the position of the wattle farmers was. It is true that the Factories Act excludes the farmer if he uses mechanical power in connection with the production of food. But a farmer grows timber and wants to cut up the poles. If he uses some mechanical power for the production of food he is exempt, but if he also uses that power to cut up timber, he comes under the Factories Act. I drew the Minister’s attention to that in great detail, and also drew attention to the concrete case of Mr. T. Mackenzie, who said he had received visits from factory inspectors who had given directions as to safeguards to be taken with regard to protecting workmen from machinery, to which he had no objection; but the inspectors also stated he had to provide specified quarters for his workmen employed, in timber cutting, special books were to be kept, and there was to be a separate time sheet for men who worked at this job. If such men worked overtime they had to get extra payment. The Minister informed the House on that occasion that there were some cases on the border line, or you could not quite say they were factories, or that they were not. On that occasion the Minister did not give me a reply, although I went very lengthily into the subject, because the debate was closured. I would like to know from the Minister to-night, definitely and explicitly, in what position the wattle farmers stand. I want farmers to appreciate that the production of timber is a very important thing. The time may come when more of them will find it a profitable farming pursuit. Cutting up timber by hand-power is too slow, and the progressive farmer will use mechanical power, and will then fall under the Factories Act. Do not let farmers be lulled into a sense of false security by sub-section 2 of the Act. Mr. Mackenzie was astounded when told he fell under the Factories Act as soon as he used machinery for cutting up timber. I think the Minister stated there would be certain exemptions, but that is very unsatisfactory. All farming operations should be exempted from the provisions of the Factories Act.

In reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) I want to say there is nothing whatever in this Bill which will prevent any work being done after 48 hours, or after eight or nine hours a day, provided overtime rates are paid for that work—unless there is some other arrangement. There will be nothing to prevent a motor-car being repaired such as the hon. member drew attention to. To-day a man can work only 50 hours, and if he works in excess of that he has to get overtime. In the Bill he must get overtime after 48 hours.

And if a man himself works?

He is not touched at all. It is only when he employs people that he comes under the definition of “factory.” As far as he himself is concerned, a man pleases himself how long he works. A deputation came to see me with regard to the conditions under which a particular firm was working in a country town, and the conditions are precisely those for which I am providing. It was not very clearly put in the press, and the way the Bill was put in the press rather alarmed the gentleman who came to see me. When I asked him the hours and the conditions he was working his place, I found he was not working under those in the present Act, but under the conditions I propose bringing into force in my amending Bill. With regard to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and the taking out of the word “average”, he stated that the number of employees must be stipulated. When persons want to register their factory, they have to state the maximum number of persons who will be employed, or whom it is intended to employ. On that information depends whether they will obtain registration, because if they are going to employ people in excess of the cubic space allotted, then they will not be given registration. The expression “average number” has landed the department into difficulties. A man will say he intends to employ about 20 persons, but sometimes he employs only 10 and at others 30 or 40, but his average for the whole year brings him within the limit originally stated. This was a fault in the original Act, but under the Bill a man must state the maximum number of persons he will employ. We could not get a conviction to-day, no matter how overcrowded a factory may be, if the employer could prove that he had not exceeded the average for the year. Then the hon. member for South Peninsula wants to know why the threat of punishment should hang over a man’s head for 30 days, in the event of his contravening the Act. In some instances, under the Act, it is very difficult to obtain evidence in time to institute proceedings, but no one will be put to inconvenience by extending the period to 30 days. It does not follow that the department will delay instituting proceedings for 30 days as a rule. The main point raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula, was why provision was made in Section 10 enabling the department to handle any other class of machinery specified by the Governor-General. This was inserted at the request of the Department of Mines and Industries, and the idea is that when we take over machinery inspectors, we shall deprive the Department of Mines and Industries of their services. These men inspect boilers and heavy machinery on farms. The Department of Mines and Industries say it will be very expensive if they have to send men to inspect boilers and heavy machinery in places adjacent to large towns, and that it would be preferable that this work should be done by the factory inspectors.

Will these men perform a dual purpose?

Their main work will be factory inspection, but 10 per cent. of their work will be outside inspection.

Will they be qualified to do both?

Yes, they are certified inspectors, and are doing the work to-day. The change is to be made solely for the purpose of economy and more efficient administration. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) wants a clear cut definition as to when a wattle factory is not a wattle factory. All I can say is that the test is this—any premises in which is carried on for the purpose of gain or profit any manufacture or the making or preparation of goods for sale or transport or in connection therewith, three or more persons are employed on whole-time work, fall under the Bill, except those mentioned in sub-section 2. We are not altering the definition or the interpretation contained in the old Act, and the same applies to cooperative societies.

It was never applied to the growing of wattle until the present Government took office.

If a man employs three or more persons under the conditions I have specified, he comes under the Act. We have administered the Act very sympathetically. There have been very few complaints which we have not been able to meet, and no one can say we have administered the Act harshly. The same officials who administered the Act before we took office are continuing to do so to-day. The chief inspector of factories under the late Government is still chief inspector. Co-operative societies come under the Act, and I do not see why hon. members opposite should take exception to a man who runs a factory for the purposes of gain, coming under the terms of the Factory Act. Farmers will be no more affected under the Bill than they were before. I am glad to see the farmers on this side of the House have not allowed themselves to be stampeded by the efforts which have been made from the other side to spread alarm amongst them.

You brought about these difficulties.

You will admit it is an anomaly.

It may be an anomaly, but you have these border-line cases. You cannot have 100 per cent. perfection, and we treat these border-line cases on their merits. In the main the Act is working well. It is a good Act for the country, and it is one which I think should have the wholehearted support of both sides of the House, especially the Bill I now have before the House, which brings it up to date and improves it considerably in certain respects.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 21st March.

I move—

I think we have come to a Bill which is, perhaps, likely to cause more discussion, as a number of the provisions can be regarded as ones upon which certain differences of opinion might be strongly held. In the first place, let me say I think the country ought to realize this legislation has been of tremendous benefit to South Africa, to the industrial peace and progress of South Africa during the last four years. With this machinery South Africa has been able to go along and progress peacefully because machinery has been set up whereby you can have self-government in industry, and you have your machinery for settling disputes almost before they arise, and after they arise, roundtable conferences have taken the place of upheavals and strikes. There are, under this Act, 20 industrial councils functioning to-day with wage agreements and awards under the Act, and they affect 41,000 employees in South Africa and about 2,500 employers. 41,000 employees have their conditions of labour and wages regulated to-day by this Act, and 2,500 employers are also regulated and controlled with regard to the terms upon which they employ these employees. The more experience we have of the working of the Act the more satisfactory it has become to industry and to the country generally, but there are a number of defects and anomalies which I now seek to try and remove by the introduction of the Bill now before the House. In the main the Bill before the House is a Bill which has been framed in the light of four years’ experience of the working of this Act. I hope that hon. members on the other side, when they come to criticize the provisions in detail, will remember that, although they passed the Act, we have had the administering of the Act and in consequence of the difficulties which have proved inherent in the Act, we now come before the House to ask them to remove some of those difficulties. One of the first provisions in the amending Bill is where an industrial council is set up, and, if for any reason it decides to dissolve, then any wage agreement which that council has made shall continue to have full force and effect until the date of expiry laid down under the agreement.

Where is the Labour party to-night?

It shows the confidence it has in the Minister and the provisions of the Bill. The members are not far away, and if the hon. member causes any trouble they will soon be here, and they will not be long in arriving either. We have had experience where industrial councils have disagreed after the promulgation of a wage agreement, and attempts have been made to get it cancelled. We say that is wrong, and we now provide if a council does lay down a wage agreement it shall continue to have full force and effect until it expires by the time allowed, in spite of anything that might happen to the industrial council.

Even if the council thinks it has made a mistake?

No. In that case it can be amended. It is only where the council fall out, and then want the agreement cancelled. I say no, it must stand. If they made a mistake, of course then we shall amend it, although we do not encourage the amending of agreements until new agreements have to be drawn up. The second provision lays down the rules industrial councils shall provide as to the procedure for dealing with all disputes within the industry or undertaking concerned. That was the intention, but the present Act states: “Those disputes that come within the consideration of the council,” but it is intended that any dispute taking place within the industry shall be dealt with by the council administering the agreement and shall be disposed of by the council. If they cannot dispose of it they can then refer it to the Minister or the department, and we shall deal with it. We had one case where an industrial council was in existence, but the industry applied for a conciliation board to settle the dispute, and I said: “Certainly not, you have your industrial council and they must settle it,” and they did settle it, but it made it clear that we should have a specific rule to deal with it. Section 4 of the principal Act is amended by the deletion of the proviso. It reads as follows—

What I am concerned about, and I think what the country is concerned about, is whether a dispute which is likely to lead to trouble can be dealt with by means of conciliation. Whether a principle is involved or whether a principle is not involved, the main thing for the country and for the industry is whether there is a dispute which is likely to cause serious trouble and you want to deal with that dispute by means of conciliation. I may say that I have had as Minister applications for conciliation boards from trade unions dealing with individual cases which I have refused. I have had other applications dealing with individual cases, where I could see that if I did not appoint a conciliation board to thrash the whole thing out and deal with it properly there was likely to be serious trouble, and I have had, in order to defend my action in setting up the conciliation board, to try and prove that a principle is involved. A Minister should not be put in that position. The test is whether you want your disputes settled by conciliation or whether you want trouble. Most of the big disputes in industrial history have been caused by very little things. Many big disputes have been caused by small things, in some cases affecting perhaps only one person. I say that no Minister should be handicapped in his administration of an Act like this by having to grope round and try and find some principle, whereas he knows full well that he has not to look for some principle, but what is wanted is a safety valve. Another point is this, that to-day, although it is not generally realized or not generally known, a strike can take place in connection with any of these disputes. In any dispute which concerns an individual and in which no principle is involved, a strike can take place to-day, because if hon. members turn to Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, they will see that it says that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare a lockout, or any employee to declare a strike only where there is no industrial council, and when the matter giving occasion therefor is one upon which a conciliation board may be appointed it shall be submitted to and considered and reported upon by a conciliation board. If the matter is one on which a conciliation board may not be appointed—and those are the things in the proviso—then there is nothing whatever to stop strikes taking place and such strikes would not be illegal. It would serve to promote industrial peace and the better working of the Act if that proviso were taken out. I know the objections to it. The objections to it are that it would subvert discipline, give cause for applications for conciliation boards on all sorts of frivolous things and individual cases, etc.

Could there be a strike without a principle being involved?

Yes, quite easily. I could quite conceive a strike without a principle being involved. I have had to administer the Act in such a way as to use my own discretion. Where I could see that it was essential and necessary that a conciliation board should be set up, I have had to drag in a principle.

You are showing how necessary that proviso is.

No, because I act as though the proviso were not there, showing how absolutely unnecessary the proviso is. I say that any person administering this Act must act in that way, and I say that it will not give rise to the fears, dangers and apprehensions that have been submitted to me by certain employers, that if this proviso were taken out, it would provide an opportunity for conciliation boards being set up on all sorts of things. I say it will not. I say no Minister is going to set up a conciliation board unless he thinks it is necessary, whether the proviso is in or it is not in. Today, with its being in, it constitutes one of those cases in which a dispute may arise and no conciliation board may be appointed, and for that reason it is lawful for the men to go on strike or for the employers to embark upon a lock-out. I say that, as the Act is to-day, it not only makes it difficult to administer, but it leaves a loop-hole for strikes which can take place, because no machinery is provided for a conciliation board being set up in respect of those strikes. The next amendment is in Clause 7 (3), where the inclusion of the words “or take part in” after the word “declare” is provided for.

You have not dealt with subsection (b).

I will come to that next. The next amendment is the deletion of the words “employers” and “employees,” and the substitution of the word “person” in each case. The effect of that is that where a conciliation board is being set up, the Act lays down to-day that only employers or employees in any particular trade or industry can be nominated to sit on a conciliation board.

Quite right too.

And trade union officials.

Yes, and trade union officials. It was only when this point was challenged in the Cape courts here that we discovered that the members of a conciliation board were confined to the employers and the employees of that industry. We had not been working on that principle up to then.

What is the disadvantage in that?

I am coming to it. It restricts the membership to persons engaged in the industry or their officials when perhaps they might want to get the services of somebody who understands the business, but who is not connected directly with the industry and does not come under the definition of employer or employee. Up to the time this court decided as it did recently, all the conciliation boards which had been set up and had functioned satisfactorily, had not had these restrictions imposed upon them. Quite a number, I suppose anything up to 20 conciliation boards, had been set up and had dealt with various disputes and dealt with them satisfactorily. On some of those boards were members who had nothing to do with the industry and who had functioned satisfactorily and done good work, and there was no difficulty raised whatever. It was only when the point was challenged in the Cape court that the judge’s ruling was given and that principle was being departed from. I might tell you of a case where one of the employees’ representatives nominated on the conciliation board was actually nominated and appointed chairman by the employers’ representatives, and this person had nothing whatever to do with the industry, but he had been nominated because the employees had confidence in his ability and fairness and common sense and thought he would be an exceedingly useful member on their behalf, and so much did the employers agree with that, that they actually appointed him chairman of the board and everything was fixed up quite satisfactorily, so that we have been working, until this Cape court decision, as though the employers or employees could nominate who they liked to represent them on a conciliation board, I see no reason whatever to depart from that policy and principle. It has worked very satisfactorily and that is why I am putting it in the Bill. If that goes in, then subsection (3) can come out, because they can appoint him if they like, but if we cannot get this amendment in—which I hope we will—then of course, sub-section (3) must remain. The next section in Section 4, and I am inserting after “declare” the words “or take part in.” As the Act stands to-day, a strike is not unlawful or a lock-out is not unlawful unless the employers or employees not merely take part in it, but declare it. As long as either side does not declare a strike, the law advisers say it is not a strike, although they might be taking part in it. That is the reason for these words being put in. The next clause is really just a small amendment. As the Act stands, any members or persons who come to give evidence before a conciliation board or industrial council, who are subpoenaed and so on, are only entitled to the ordinary court witnesses’ fees, which are exceedingly small, and the policy of the department has been to pay them £1 a day or 10s. for a half-day, and we have had to get special authority to do that. Section 6 provides that where there is under payment of wages and an employer comes before the court and the court finds him guilty for not complying with the wage agreement then, in addition to the fine the court may order the employer to pay to the employee the amount of money which has been underpaid. That is provided for in the Wage Act, the same principle is now taken over. To-day an employer can be fined or proceeded against for underpayments according to the agreement, and he can be found guilty and fined a small sum, say £1 or £3 as many of them are, and they get away with large sums by underpayment, and the employee who has suffered if he wants to recover that money has to institute civil proceedings against the employer. Now we give the magistrate power as part of the sentence to order that the amount the man has been defrauded of shall be paid. The next section makes provision for the exemption of native areas from the operation of any agreement or award. This has been put in because in some cases of wage agreements, in the building industry particularly, attempts have been made to apply these agreements in native locations and native areas which were covered by the terms of the agreement, and it was generally felt that that was very undesirable. Now if the Native Affairs Department approached the Department of Labour for any special exemption for any native area or location, I can, under this clause if I consider the circumstances justified, after consultation with the Council concerned exempt such area from the operation of the agreement.

If that had been done last year, the Langa location would have been more popular than it is.

As a rule the industrial councils meet us. I have taken it up with the councils many times, and secured exemptions, but here I take power to do it.

Why didn’t you do it at Langa?

That I cannot say. It must have been some time ago. That is the intention of this clause. Now we come to the next section. Sub-section 5 is a very important provision. As the Act stands to-day, wage agreements can be made and pass-carrying natives are exempt because they are exempt in the definition of employee. What has happened has been this, that many of these industries have set up wage agreements for occupations which may be regarded as skilled and semi-skilled—and I am not referring to unskilled work—and a certain type of employer without any hesitation has taken advantage of the loophole which that definition of employee in the Act afforded and dismissed white employees and substituted pass-carrying natives. So much so that the industrial councils, not one but many, have been to me and the department time and again, saying that unless they are going to be assisted to protect themselves against these evasions, then they are going to dissolve the councils as they cannot possibly function, because, they say, it is hopeless for any employers to try and do the right thing if another class is going to take advantage of that loop-hole and employ pass-carrying natives at lower wages than provided for in the agreement for the particular class of work. We have had cases, especially on the Witwatersrand, in the baking, furniture, leather and other industries, where wage agreements have, to a certain extent, been undermined by these employers bringing in pass-carrying natives to do this particular work, and paying them the native wage. This is being put in on the representation of employers and employees who want protection against this sort of thing. The only way I have been able to protect them up to now is to ask the Wage Board to make a supplementary determination in respect of those particular industries. Most of the Wage Board determinations have been to do two things—to cover up the defect provided by the pass-carrying native evasions and making provision for the single employee, as against what the Act provides—two or more employees must be engaged before the Act operates. It will not be necessary for the Wage Board to make a supplementary determination, as they have to do to-day, if this Bill goes through, which provides that where there is a wage agreement in force, any person, irrespective of the definition of “employee” engaged in that particular work, for which the wages and conditions are laid down, must receive the wages and conditions imposed. If they like to employ natives, Asiatics or others, all right, there is no objection, but they must be paid the wage laid down for that particular class of work. Native wages, as a rule, are not provided for by industrial councils, because those councils have no natives on them, and no representatives representing native interests, and the agreements are confined mainly to occupations semi-skilled or skilled, and the natives who continue in employment in these occupations are so small in numbers that they need not be represented on the council. When it comes to the protection of the interests of natives as such—I am glad the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), is here—I would like him to realize it is not the intention of the Government at this stage of native development to allow the native to participate fully in the industrial councils and counciliation boards and function the same as the better organised and skilled workers. We have the Wage Act, which is designed mainly to deal with wages for the unorganized or disorganised and the lower ranks of industry, and we have the Industrial Conciliation Act, which is designed for those industries in which the employers and employees are fairly well organised and can meet round a table, more or less on terms of equality, and lay down conditions which are mutually satisfactory. The natives’ interests have not been neglected where there has been a wage agreement set up, and the wage board have made a supplementary determination in respect of an industry, they have laid down wages which would be applicable to the native, although the term “European” or “native” is not used—to the lowest class of work, so that the natives are and will continue to be protected in that way. In those industries in which the wage board has made a determination, where there is no industrial council functioning, in every case the natives’ wages have also been provided for.

What say do the natives have?

In some cases they have made direct representations; for instance, the wage board is now considering an application made by the natives themselves in Bloemfontein for a wage determination for all unskilled labour in the Bloemfontein municipality, and they are being joined by the Bloemfontein Chamber of Commerce, the Bloemfontein Chamber of Industries and the Bloemfontein newspapers; in fact, the chairman of the joint board or committee, which has made the application, is Mr. McKenzie, the editor of “The Friend.” It is one of the most influential and representative joint committees yet set up in South Africa. It was in consequence of the disastrous happenings some time ago which led to trouble.

Is that the only case?

There are other cases. There are natives employed on commercial work in Durban who have made application, and it has also been done with regard to those employed on fishing boats.

Is that the I.C.U.?

No, not the I.C.U. They have made the application on a petition signed by each individual worker in the industry, and the Wage Board under the Act cannot refuse to consider the application made in this way.

You do not allow the natives to organize?

There is nothing to prevent natives organizing a legitimate trade union under the Act as it stands. As regards the I.C.U., as it is constituted at present, they are a heterogeneous collection of workers, organized for anything at all—whether it is political, economic, social, or whatever it is.

You therefore do not approve of the I.C.U.?

I am not stating whether I do or not. I say that the I.C.U. cannot function under the Industrial Conciliation Act any more than any other body, the chamber of industries, for instance, but the units composing the chamber can, if they are properly organized, to regulate their conditions of employment. The Government has considered the whole question, and it is not unmindful of the interests of the natives—

You brought the colour bar Act into force on Saturday.

The hon. member has the colour bar Bill on the brain, and if he has there is not much room for anything else.

That is very cheap.

What a courteous man you are.

While pretending to be mindful of the interests of the natives.

So we are. The mere fact that all Wage Board determinations have made provision for the wages of natives shows that we are not unmindful of their interests. But what we are not prepared at the moment to do, is to allow the natives to organize and function under the Industrial Conciliation Act, the same as carpenters, joiners, and other organized trades which have had many years’ experience in trade unionism, and which can be calculated to hold their own with the employers. The time will come, possibly, when the natives will reach that stage of advancement, and something on these lines will have to be done; but that time has not yet arrived.

Don’t you shut out all possibility of growth?

No; meanwhile I do not allow industrial councils composed of Europeans to lay down wages for natives on unskilled work who are not represented on those councils. The only exception is that rates of wages laid down by industrial councils shall apply to any person, native or otherwise, employed in those specific occupations. The natives themselves are making applications direct to the Wage Board, which is considering them, and native interests are being safeguarded and looked after in that regard. Another change has been made by inserting after “agreed upon” the words “or existing.” The terms of employment might be altered and cause serious trouble, but the employer says those terms were not formally “agreed” upon. The employees retort that although there might not have been any formal agreement these were the existing conditions. You can have just as big a dispute over disturbing existing conditions as disturbing conditions formally agreed upon. The next clause compels trade unions to supply the department with certain statements showing their membership.

Do you apply that provision to the Labour party?

In the meantime, we are only dealing with trade unions; if they are affiliated to the Labour party we will apply it to them too. When a new organization applies for registration, it has to state to what extent it represents the industry, and whether any other body also functions in respect of the same interests. If the new body proves that it is more representative than another existing body, then registration has to be considered. Then there is the right of entry and inspection. To-day the department has to use inspectors authorized under other Acts. As a rule, wage agreements are carried out by the councils themselves by local agents. We have no authority under the Act for inspectors to examine the books. Complaints have been made that a certain type of employer tries to evade the Act by entering into bogus partnerships with some of his employees, and the definition has been altered to prevent that. The definition is practically the same as that in the Wage Act. The alterations in the definition clauses are to secure better administration, and have no great significance. I think that covers all the points, and there is quite a good deal of matter which will no doubt give rise to discussion.

I agree with the Minister that many of these clauses will give rise to a good deal of discussion in committee. Some of them, however, embody principles of considerable and far-reaching importance, and justify discussion at this stage. I was glad to hear the Minister pay tribute to the Industrial Conciliation Act passed in 1924. He said it had been of the greatest possible value in preventing and settling disputes when they had arisen, and I cannot help thinking if the Minister and his colleagues had had a little more experience of the working of the Act before they passed the Wage Act, they would have found it unnecessary to make such a far-reaching departure as they did when they passed that Act. I hope they are not above learning from experience, and that they will find the really effective and proper method of settlement of industrial disputes is by industrial councils and conciliation and agreement, and not by the arbitrary decisions of a Government board. I know provision has to be made for unorganized trades and workers not sufficiently advanced in organization to promote their own interests as against the employers, but I think that could have been provided for without making such a wide departure from the principles of conciliation as was done in that Act. That is by the way. Now the first point I propose to deal with of those mentioned by the Minister is the alteration made by Section 4 of the Act, by the omission of the proviso in sub-section (1). I know there is argument to be used on both sides in regard to that, but I think the Minister will remember at the time the Act was passed very careful consideration was given to this question to limit the powers of trade unions or workers’ representatives asking for a conciliation board in regard to matters affecting individuals. The proviso in Section 4 was in the nature of a compromise, so that where a dispute arose over something that happened to an individual it could be made a subject of a conciliation board, provided the Minister was of opinion a matter of principle was involved. Why was it thought necessary to exclude from the scope of conciliation boards disputes over matters affecting the individual? It was for the same reason as that stated by the Minister, namely, that if every grievance suffered by an individual in the course of his work could be made the subject of a conciliation board, then the authority of a manager over a large establishment has largely gone.

We didn’t agree with you on that.

I know, but events have proved there was a lot in the theory. The Minister will remember the commission which sat after the unfortunate events of 1922 definitely came to that conclusion, that is, that one of the things that led to the trouble was that the authority of the managers had disappeared owing to the fact that every grievance of an individual was taken up by over-zealous officials and conciliation boards were demanded, and authority was gone.

There was no Industrial Conciliation Act at that time, so these conditions do not apply.

You took that view in 1924, but we took the opposite view.

I know, and now the wheels have come round.

The true view will prevail in time.

I have no doubt, but which is the true view? There is a great deal to be said for the contention if a conciliation board can be demanded on account of every individual grievance of an employee, it would have the effect taking away the authority of the management.

I quite agree.

Then the wording of this goes too far, but it can be dealt with more fully in committee. The other matter in Clause 3 I do not feel very strongly about. Some people do, but I cannot say I do about leaving employees free to appoint any representative they approve of. They are now allowed to appoint a trade union official to represent them, and if they find they want some special person to put their case before the conciliation board, it does not seem to me likely to lead to serious harm. Perhaps there are other opinions about it. The next point I want to come to is that dealt with in section 6, which adds a new sub-section, sub-section (5), to section 9 of the Act. This reads—[extract read]. That section, taken in conjunction with the alteration in the definition of “employee,” has the effect of making the pass-bearing native subject to any wage determination which may have been made by any agreement or award, not merely for the future, but in the past. It seems to me that we might be getting into serious trouble for that, because awards certainly have been made in the past, and I was thinking of the award made in the mining industry which prescribed minimum rates of pay for underground men, the Lucas award, and of course at that time there was no contemplation that the native labourers on the mines were being considered at all. They were entirely outside the scope of the thing, and could not be brought in. Now if this amendment goes through as it stands, it seems to me that award will be made applicable to them, and that was not in the contemplation of either of the parties to the arbitration or the arbitrator himself.

Not if they fall under the Native Labourers Act.

Oh, yes, the definition of “employee” says the definition does not “save in the application of sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9.” and that is the one I am talking about. It does for those purposes include the pass-carrying native. Therefore I say I would like the Minister to look to that, because it may lead to serious trouble. Now on the general question of natives and trade unions, the effect of this new sub-section, taken in conjunction with the amendment of the definition of “employee,” will be to make the pass-bearing native subject to any wage determination arising under an agreement or award, although, as the Minister admitted, he has no means of having his interests represented before that agreement or award is come to. That certainly seems to me to raise a very difficult question. It may be that the intention of the Government is to exclude these pass-bearing natives from these industries altogether, and not allow them to come in. That is not contained in the Bill. But if that is not so, then it does seem to me to be rather a difficult position to maintain that native employees are liable to have their wages fixed by some body before which they have no representation, and no means of having their interests brought up. I do not see why the Minister should by statute exclude natives from forming a trade union, as he is doing in this Bill. It is quite true, no doubt, that a body like the I.C.U., which seems to be bulking very largely in public attention at present, would not be suitable for registration as a trade union, but his amended definition of trade union specifically excludes, at any rate, the pass-bearing native from forming a trade union which could function under this Act. If the Minister will look at the old definition of “trade union” in section 24 of the Act of 1924, he will see that it reads—

The words I call attention to are “any number of persons associated together either temporarily or permanently for the purpose of regulating the relations between themselves and their employers.” There is no doubt that includes everybody without restriction, but the amended definition is quite a different one. The amended definition of trade union is—

“Employee” by the new definition does not include the pass-bearing native or the native under the Native Labour Regulation Act, except for certain purposes.

It did not before.

“Employee” was not in the definition of trade unions before. They have now imported employee into the definition of trade union. The definition contains two alternative branches. I suppose a person can have an employer, although he is not defined as an employee. The definition of an employer is not comprehensive. The word “persons” is used in the new definition, I agree, but to what end? Persons associated together for the purpose of furthering the interests of the employees. That is the difference. It is clear to my mind, whether the Minister has intended it or not by this new definition, and I do not know why else a new definition was inserted, if not for that purpose.

The department say better phraseology.

I cannot admit the department’s right to have the last word on the subject. My reading of the definition is that it is intended to exclude—

Do you prefer the present definition?

Yes.

Would you be satisfied with the present definition?

I cannot see the reason for amending it. But perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us in committee. Whatever the reason, that seems to be the effect of it. I quite agree that the great majority of native workers, in their present stage of development, are not competent to form and manage successfully trade unions in the ordinary sense of the word for functioning under this Act, but I do say that they ought not to be prohibited by law from forming them. You are going to do no good by making it impossible for these natives to form unions for the protection of their own interests and have those unions registered under the Act. If you are going to bring these natives into your industries, you must treat them as ordinary workers in industries. You must keep them out of the industries altogether, or, if you bring them in, you must allow them the ordinary rights of workers, as and when they are capable of exercising those rights by combining together for the protection of their own interests. The Minister, in regard to section 10, said this was consequential, but I do not see what it is consequential upon. It seems to be out of place in this Bill altogether. I can understand in a Wage Act, where a Government board is set up for certain purposes, provision being made for compelling employers to supply all sorts of information to Government officials and making it compulsory to produce books and that kind of thing, but what has that to do with a Conciliation Act? Why, for a Conciliation Act, should it be desirable to put employers under this sort of inquisition? I cannot understand why it should be necessary for the Minister to take these arbitrary steps.

You must see that the wage agreements are carried out, that there is no contravention of the wage agreements. There must be inspections.

It seems to me we are dragging this inspection business to a tremendous length. I know it has been a complaint for some time past that employers are beset with inspectors of every sort and kind, and I do think we are adding new and perhaps unnecessary terrors to people who undertake industries by subjecting them to further inspectors. I should have thought that in the case of an organized trade one could rely on the employees seeing that the conditions of the agreement were maintained. I can imagine where there was no organization amongst the employees an individual might be afraid to come forward to give information about a breach of the agreement.

Somebody has to go and verify. It is not always a matter of wages.

It is either a matter of wages or of employment, which is particularly within the knowledge of the employee, who is the person chiefly affected. I should have thought the Minister would rely on the employees to see that the Act is carried into force. There is the other point the Minister touched upon—the prohibition of partnership. I can see that the Act might be evaded by what he calls bogus partnerships, just as it is being evaded by employers taking advantage of the exemption with regard to pass-carrying natives. I am not objecting to the pass-carrying natives being brought into the scope of this Bill under these provisions, but it brings in the very position which the Minister is not prepared to face—about allowing further organization. There may be genuine partnerships created, which will be hit by this new definition—say two or three men come along and offer to do some work, such as building a shed or wall or anything of that kind, and the person for whom the work is done may not be able to enter into an agreement with these men, until he has satisfied himself as to the rate of wages fixed by that particular district, which is putting a rather severe restriction on people. It hits the bogus partnership, but also the genuine partnership. I do not want to deal with the application of this Act, as amended, to agricultural employment, because other hon. members will deal with that, who are more competent to do so. I do not want to raise any further points until we come into committee.

On the motion of Mr. Sampson, debate adjourned; to be resumed on 21st March.