I move— That the House go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue and Railway and Harbour Funds, respectively, during the year ending the 31st March, 1929.

Of course not.

Among the important gold mines the Aurora West United Gold Mining Company and the Central West G.M.C. have stopped mining. The Robinson G.M.C. and the New Primrose, although approaching the end, still continue to keep their mills going, and the Meyer and Charlton has given notice of the probable closing down in the near future. On the other hand the East Geduld Mine, Ltd., has started developing, whilst operations have been resumed by Dagga-fontein Mines, and a mining lease of an additional area exceeding 700 claims having been entered into between the Government and the company. During 1927 tenders were invited for the lease of under mining rights of certain ground adjoining the Rand Collieries, and as negotiations in respect of the tender submitted have now been satisfactorily concluded, there is strong reason to hope that the Rand Collieries will resume operations in 1928. It is not anticipated that there will be any serious difference between the production of gold in 1927 and 1928. There was an increase of 4,469 in the average number of persons employed on the Witwatersrand gold mines during the year, of whom 953 were white and 3,516 coloured. This increase brought the white labour force up to 20,620, and it is the first year since 1922 that the figure of 20,000 has been exceeded. The dividends paid by the gold mines were about £25,000 more than in 1926 at £8,469,000. A falling-off of £250,000 in the dividends paid by the Witwatersrand gold mines being set off by an increase of rather more than that figure in the dividends paid by mines outside the Rand.

And in the case of alluvial?

I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member the actual figures. I think my colleague mentioned the figures some time ago. It is very difficult to know the number of diggers, there are so many people holding digger’s certificates who are not actually digging. The average number of white persons engaged on the alluvial diamond diggings was approximately the same as in the preceding year, but the number of natives has increased by about 3,500.

We still pay double.

As was anticipated the effect of the increased duty on potable spirits in 1926 has had the result of reducing the importations of whisky which declined in 1927 to 279,000 gallons from 311,000 in the preceding year and 322,0000 gallons in 1925.

Shame!

Is that perhaps all due to sobriety.

The value of raw materials imported free of duty under the industrial class of the tariff increased from £1,334,000 in 1926 to £1,449,000 last year. The tonnage of oversea cargo landed increased from 2,777,381 tons in 1926 to 2,982,854 tons in 1927, an increase of 205,473 tons or 7 per cent. It might interest the House if I give the classification of imports from overseas for the various countries: Agricultural products and articles of food and drink 8 millions. Manufactured articles: (1) Textiles, apparel, etc., 18 millions; (2) metals and metal manufactures, machinery and vehicles, 22 millions; (3) other manufactured articles, 18 millions. Articles for industrial purposes, 1½ millions. Total, 67½ millions.

The countries of origin were—

Drawing them off the land.

The ex perience of the past ten or fifteen years has amply demonstrated that, under the peculiar physical or economic conditions prevailing in the Union, the primary industries of farming and mining as at present constituted are not capable of furnishing an adequate livelihood to the growing European population of the Union.

That is very questionable.

Have you any statistics?

In other words, as a result of the severe limitations imposed by nature on many of our farming and mining enterprises, we have already reached the stage where the expansion of our primary industries does not keep pace even with the natural increase in our population. During the war and for almost two years thereafter the abnormal conditions had produced an artificial stimulus to industrial development in the Union, while a large number of men were directly or indirectly engaged in war operations of one kind or another; But, with the completion of demobilization and the commencement of the general depression towards the end of 1920, the problem of creating new and permanent avenues of employment came to the forefront. The incidental protection, which had been enjoyed by our secondary industries under the war and post-war conditions, and which had been a factor of great importance in the prevention of serious unemployment, had obviously to be replaced in some cases, in part at any rate, by a system of tariff protection consisting of higher customs duties on the finished articles and the free admission of certain materials required for manufacturing purposes in the Union. With a few exceptions, however, such as boots and shoes, flour, cement and condensed milk, no increased protection was granted during the critical period from 1920 to 1925, and the inevitable consequence was acute unemployment and a severe restriction of immigration.

But you have not got rid of unemployment yet.

It was not until 1925 that a policy of protection was definitely and systematically brought into effect, but it was fully realized that, unless it was based on clearly defined principles and administered with caution and discrimination, protection to the secondary industries was fraught with great danger to the primary industries, and consequently protection was applied and offset in such a manner as not to raise the cost of production as a whole in the case of such industries. In connection with the opportunities for employment afforded by the primary industries, it must be borne in mind that farming and mining are, and always have been, based principally on the employment of native and other coloured labour. For example, in December, 1927, the total number of Europeans employed in all the mines and metallurgical works, as well as the alluvial diamond diggings, was only 39,000—

Does that include the alluvial diggings?

Yes, for that year. The hon. member probably has in mind the figures that we have heard giving thousands of people actually digging on the alluvial diggings. Well, of course, there is a difference of opinion as regards the actual numbers. The hon. member will find, if the true statistics are gone into, that the number is not so great as probably some other hon. members think. As I was saying, the total number of Europeans employed in all the mines and metallurgical works, as well as the alluvial diamond diggings in December, 1927, was only 39,000, compared with almost 310,000 non-Europeans, i.e., in the proportion of about eight non-Europeans to one European, whereas in 1926-’27, 61,400 Europeans and 109,400 non-Europeans were employed in privately-owned factories only, i.e., in the proportion of 1.8 non-Europeans to one European. Moreover, as already shown, the tendency under the new policy of protection is for the European employees in manufacturing industries to increase more rapidly than the non-Europeans, namely, 15.1 per cent. in the former and 11.6 per cent. in the latter case in the two years 1925-’27. Thus under the prevailing conditions and tendency of the Union, the secondary industries offer far greater scope for the employment of Europeans than the mining and other extractive industries.

Have you any figures of the number of Europeans who have left the land?

No, all I know is that the number of Europeans who left the land before the inauguration of this policy was much larger than it is at present. We regret very much that large numbers of Europeans are continually leaving the land, and that is the reason for this policy. It is realized, however, that the development of secondary industries must not be stressed unduly, and should be stimulated by protective measures only to the extent that it appears to be absolutely necessary for the purpose of filling the gap in our economic organization which has been caused by the inability of the primary industries themselves to provide for a growing population. That is the great effect in connection with this policy. We have to see what can be done in connection with these industries and to place them in a position to absorb our growing population of the land.

The Opposition don’t like this at all.

It is further realized that the primary industries themselves must be encouraged and developed by all possible means, not only because in effect they set the pace for the general economic development of the country, but also as they largely determine the extent of the local market for the products of secondary industries. On the other hand, it must be taken into consideration that the secondary industries provide a very valuable market for the products of intensive farming, especially those which cannot be profitably exported owing to high production costs brought about, in most cases, by adverse climatic conditions or relatively low fertility of the soil. In these cases the growth of the secondary industries undoubtedly plays an important part in the expansion of the local market and the consequent development of intensive farming. The farmers, however, are not only interested in tariff protection from this point of view, but also on account of the vital protection enjoyed by them under the tariff in connection with many of their products. With the exception of freight of green vegetables (other than potatoes and onions), which cannot in any case be satisfactorily transported over long distances, and such articles as wool and cotton, in which case almost the entire local production has to be exported, no agricultural and pastoral products are admitted into the Union free of duty, except, of course, from Rhodesia, South West Africa and the Native Territories. On the contrary, protective duties are levied on a great number and variety of farm products. As regards the development in individual manufacturing industries during the two years from 1924-’25 to 1926-’27, there was an increase of 29.5 per cent., in the number of Europeans employed in the furniture industry, 28.5 per cent. in the clothing industry, 19.5 per cent. in the manufacture of printed matter and stationery, 14 per cent. in the manufacture of leather and leather ware, chemical soap and candles and vehicles and 11 per cent. in the metal and engineering industry. Since the industrial census of 1926-’27 was taken, there has been further industrial expansion in the Union.

Is that really your reasoned opinion?

This is to be attributed mainly to the various tariff readjustments and the reductions in the duties on certain articles of household or industrial use, in conjunction with the safeguards which were introduced into the tariff for the special purpose of obviating a rise in the price of local manufactures as far as possible. During the period of almost three years since the revised tariff came into force, there has been no occasion to exercise the power vested in the Governor-General under Section four of the Tariff Act, namely, that of reducing protective duties in cases where manufacturers have been found to charge unduly high prices for their products. A few isolated complaints have been made to the Board of Trade and Industries, but these were satisfactorily settled on the whole, after the matter was brought to the attention of the manufacturers concerned, and adjusted or explained.

Does “coloured” include natives?

No. The cost of the scheme allowing for the conversion of Oudstryders grants is estimated at £780,000 for 1929 plus say, 3 per cent. or £23,000 for administration. This allows for 18,500 Europeans at £30 and 13,500 coloured at £18. On this basis the total cost would be £798,000, but as some of the pensions will not be paid at the maximum rates of £30 and £18, respectively, it is considered that the total expenditure will not exceed £780,000 for the first full year. The cost will increase annually by about 3½ per cent. It will be necessary to defer bringing the scheme into operation until January 1st, 1929, so as to give time to get the administrative machinery into working order. The estimates provide for £90,000 for Oudstryders pensions which it is considered will be sufficient to meet requirements until 1st January, 1929, and to meet the expenditure on old age pensions for the first quarter of 1929 an additional £200,000 will be required.

Do you include cotton blankets in that?

No, I am dealing with kadungas weighing over 12 ozs. each.

What are they?

I understand it is really the summer clothing of the native.

Have they got any?

At present these articles are liable to a duty of 1s. per 1b., or 25 per cent. ad valorem, whichever is the greater, and it is proposed to reduce the rate to 15 per cent. ad valorem.

All round?

Yes. And it is proposed to place these articles which constitute the native’s summer wearing apparel in various parts of the country on the same footing as European clothing generally and those kadungas, etc., which weigh less than 12 ozs. each. This reduction will entail a sacrifice in revenue of £8,000.

That is better than votes for women.

To further assist the housewife and thus lower the cost of living, I propose to reduce the duty on sewing machines and knitting machines from 15 per cent. to 3 per cent. ad valorem. This reduction means a remission of taxation to the extent of £13,000.

In lieu of votes for women?

No.

What about coffee?

Well, I have given that consideration, whether it would be possible to do something for the beverage of the platteland, or shall I call it the national beverage; but the present duty is three farthings, and if I reduce that one-third, it will cost the exchequer £40,000, and I am afraid that the trade will not pass it on to the consumer. Another item I have selected for special consideration is tea, which is in common use to-day, and the present duties of 6d. per pound on tea in packets and 4d. per pound on bulk tea coupled with the high price of tea impose a heavy burden on the housewife. To further reduce the cost of living, therefore, it is proposed to reduce the duties on tea by 2d. per 1b. This will mean a remission in taxation of £85,000.

What about trek chains?

These are among the minor articles, which are included in the various adjustments to which I have just alluded. The hon. member will find that there are plenty of good things which I have not the time to detail. I shall lay the reductions on the Table and the hon. member will be very interested in seeing them.

The reduction will never come. Why reduce the duty on silk stockings?

We on this side of the House differ from the hon. member on this question. We always listen to him with pleasure, but I am afraid he is not a very sound counseller on what is the correct fiscal policy for this country to adopt.

But your sympathies are with silk stockings.

We do not manufacture silk stockings, but we do employ people in making boots and shoes.

How will that affect poll tax? Will that be 20 per cent. less too?

I have not considered the position as far as the provinces are concerned. It is to be emphasized that the relief granted is by way of rebate for the current year of assessment only. The statutory rates to be fixed by the annual Act will be unchanged from those fixed last year. Those will remain as the standard basis of taxation, the relief constituting a reduction of the tax determined by the application of those rates. By adopting this method it is possible to make the relief given accord with the financial prospects of the moment without creating uncertainty by variations in the established statutory rates of taxation. It is estimated that the cost of this rebate over the whole year of assessment will amount to £720,000. These remissions of income tax will benefit directly about 68,000 individual taxpayers, besides a large but uncertain number who will benefit directly and indirectly through the rebate of the tax on companies, and the allowance of debenture interest as a deduction from the income of companies in the determination of taxable income.

seconded the motion.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

I hope that after the very glowing statement that we have had from the Minister of Finance on the financial and general position of the country, the House will be in a mood on both sides to give my simple little Bill its wholehearted support.

You are an optimist.

Perhaps I am an optimist. I would rather be that than the other. This Bill fulfils the promise I gave this House a couple of days ago—

That is a bit questionable.

The promise I gave this House a couple of days ago that the Government is quite prepared to meet the request which has been made from this side of the House as well as the other, to exempt bona fide farmers who produce or manufacture commodities from materials or produce which they themselves have grown. This little Bill is an unusual Bill in this regard, that the whole subject-matter has already been very fully discussed even before the Bill was introduced. It is unnecessary for me, therefore, to go into any very great details on the matter. The Bill speaks for itself. There is one clause in the main Act which deals with the exemption of farmers and that is sub-section (2) of Section 2. That clause was inserted for the purpose of granting exemption to farmers who manufacture their own produce, produce grown by them or made from animals kept by them, and it was in order to meet those industries—butter-making, cheese-making, fruit-packing, and things of that kind. It has been found, after ten years, to be defective in one respect, inasmuch as, while it gives exemption to the farmer who manufactures his own products for sale if those products are for human consumption, it does not exempt the farmer who manufactures for animal consumption or general use. A point has been raised in regard to the wattle industry and the cutting up of wattle trees and sending them to the mines for props, etc. They were not exempt under the Act which was passed by the South African party ten years ago, and it is proposed to-day in my little amendment to exempt these people. I wish to read out again the clause and how it will read as amended. Hon. members on this side of the House have considered the matter very fully, and there are just as many farmers on this side as there are on the other.

There is not a single one left there.

They have got such confidence in the Minister that they know that what I am doing is in their interest.

They won’t have when we have finished with you.

The clause reads as follows—

By taking out the last words “as food or drink for human consumption” the clause will then grant a general exemption to the bona fide farmer in respect of the making, packing or preparation of any goods from produce grown or animals kept by him, for transport, trade or sale. It seems to me that nothing could be more simple. Yesterday the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) put forward an amendment to exclude all “farming operations” from the terms of the Bill. What are farming operations? Ploughing? We do not touch that. Planting? We do not interfere with that. No farming operation is touched under the Factories Act. No court would hold that the preparation, for instance, of dried fruit or packing of dried fruit or the cutting of wood from wattle trees was a farming operation.

Your own officials have said that it is.

Planting trees and pruning trees and growing trees and all those things are all farming operations, but if you are manufacturing something that is grown by yourself as a farmer, you are now under the Act, except if it is for human consumption. I am going to make it exempt, no matter for what purpose. There is a difference between manufacturing and preparing goods for sale and farming operations, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort yesterday would certainly have rendered the greatest possible disservice to the farming community had it been accepted, for the simple reason that no court could possibly decide that bottling and packing jam was a farming operation. It is not a “farming operation”.

Not if I grow the fruit on my own farm?

No. I say that as the Act stands you are exempt if it is for human consumption, but because the Act exempts you it does not make it a farming operation. Any court that had to decide whether a process of that kind was a farming operation or not, would have to say that it is not a farming operation, but it is a manufacture of goods which have been grown from the produce of the farm. No court would have held that this particular process was a farming operation. It is a manufacturing operation. What the hon. member wants, and what we are going to achieve, is that a manufacturing operation, providing that it is done in connection with produce grown or animals kept by a farmer, shall not come within the Factories Act, and the whole point was raised on account of the hon. member himself asking whether a preparation for animal consumption was exempted or did it fall under the law.

What position will I be in if I grow the fruit myself and if I get two or three people together and convert it into jam and use the same channel for doing so? Will I then fall under the conditions of the Factories Act?

As long as you grow the fruit yourself under the Act as it stands, and pack it, you are exempt, but if you start trading as a jam manufacturer and collect your fruit from all and sundry, you are not exempt.

If I turn fruit grown on my own farm into jam and sell it?

Then you are exempt. If the hon. member turns fruit which he has grown into jam to-day and sells it, he is exempt, but if he was turning lucerne or teff or forage into animal food and he sold it, he would not, as the Act now stands, be exempt. But it is in order to give a general exemption, no matter what the purpose is, that I am moving the deletion of these words. There is no question about it. The proposal I am making in the case of the bona fide farmer who wants to manufacture his own produce will exempt him from the operations of the Factory Act, no matter what it is he is doing, and no matter whether he sells it or uses it for his own purpose. That has been considered and gone into. The hon. member need have no fear whatever. But if his amendment had been carried, and it had been just to exempt “farming operations,” there is no court in the country would have said that the manufacture of jam was a farming operation. It is not a farming operation.

I do not look upon you as a jurist.

I want the hon. member to have no misapprehension on the point. The position is quite definite and clear, and it is this—anything he grows he can manufacture into products for sale, and he will be exempt under the Act, no matter whether it is for human consumption or any other purpose whatsoever, and that is a full and complete exemption for every bona fide farmer in this country. My hon. friends on this side are quite satisfied that that meets the position, and meets it well and fully, and I was hoping that hon. members on the other side would also accept that, so that we could have an agreed upon measure. If we do get agreement on this, would hon. members over there be prepared that I should embody this amendment in the other amending Bill, so as to have one Bill. I have taken the Speaker’s ruling, and it would mean that the other Bill would have to be recommitted for the purpose of embodying this Bill, but I am not going to recommit that Bill if it means the whole discussion over again. If hon. members will agree to let me embody the two, I would prefer it, but I cannot run the risk, unless there is agreement, of recommitting the other Bill and going through the whole thing again. I move the second reading of this Bill, and I hope hon. members over there will accept it. It is an honest attempt to meet the bona fide farmer.

I am only going to raise a drafting point. I see what the Minister in tends, but I am not quite clear that the Bill as it is drafted will not give rise to difficulties. The Act of 1918 is rather curiously worded. Section 1 of the Act says—

It appears to separate these two classes of goods into two distinct categories. First of all the goods for sale or trade, and then articles of food or drink for human consumption. Section 2, as amended by the Bill the Minister has brought forward, will exempt any farmer in respect of the making, packing or preparation by any bona fide farmer from produce grown or animals kept by him of goods for transport trade or sale. It only touches the one. I know the Minister does not intend that, but I only anticipate the argument that may be brought later on. It may be said that there are two distinct categories laid down, and that exemption only applies to one. That is the only point I want to make.

In the first place, I do want to express my disappointment at those empty benches opposite. We are told by the Minister that the farmers on his side are thoroughly satisfied. Apparently they are so satisfied and has such trust in the Minister that they do not care to listen to any arguments or any discussion on a matter which most vitally affects the farmers of this country. I hope it will go out to the world, the entire and utter absence of interest of these farmers when a matter of this kind is discussed. It is very interesting to hear the Minister introduce his Bill and display such complete knowledge of this subject, but, in effect, and in actuality, the Minister is entirely wrong. He has not got the slightest knowledge of the industry he is dealing with, and not the slightest knowledge of the application of his Act to the farming industry. Yet the Minister says, owing to the pressure and persuasion from that side of the House, he promises to so amend this clause that he will exempt the farmers from the operation of the Factory Act. Let us see what this is in actual effect. What we complained about particularly was that where you used machinery for preparing your cattle food, where you run a factory, or what would be a factory under this Act, for the purpose of grinding mealies or chaffing lucerne to provide fodder for cattle, you would come under the Factory Act. The Minister said he had taken the law advisers’ opinion, and it did come under the Factory Act.

Not if it was for your own use.

The only exemption under this Act, as amended by the Minister, is this—

I put it to the Minister, if I am grinding mealies into meal for the feeding of my cattle, am I producing it for the purpose of trade, transport or sale? These are the only three exemptions under the Minister’s Act. It is perfectly plain. Under what possible section or words in this Act can the Minister claim that exemption is given to a farmer who is manufacturing foodstuffs for the purpose of cattle food?

It says so.

It says for the purpose of trade, transport or sale and nothing else. It is absolutely plain. I am perfectly satisfied that legal gentlemen on the other side will understand that point. If I am grinding wheat or mealies into meal for the use of my natives, am I grinding this for trade, sale or profit?

The first two lines cover it—in respect of making.

If the Minister knows the English language and knows English grammar, he will see that “goods” is qualified by “making You cannot get away from it. If the Minister is not convinced, let him put it to his legal advisers. There is a second point; this Bill lays down that the exemption is in respect of the making, packing or preparation by a bona fide farmer who is also the owner and occupier in respect of produce grown or animals kept by him. Suppose I go short of mealies and have to buy them; directly I purchase them I come under the Factories Act. It is produce not grown by me. Is it the intention of the Government to penalize every farmer who, in times of stress or drought, or from other causes, has to purchase supplies and puts them through machinery?

Not if it is for his own use.

The Minister has just said “in respect of produce grown by himself”.

If it is for your own use you are not touched.

The farmer is not making it up for sale, but for his own animals. I shall certainly move, later on, that the contents of the Bill be discharged and sent to a select committee, where we can put this matter right. In spite of the utter absence of interest on the other side, those members and the farmers of the country can rely on the South African party doing its best to see that this legislation is correct, and act in the interests of the country. I heard the Minister described as a “Minister in labour”, and by his harried look it must have been a very painful confinement. The only thing the Minister could produce was a caricature of this sort, and a deed of judicial separation between the Minister and the rest of the Cabinet should be obtained to prevent any more progeny of this sort being presented to us.

It is not my Bill, but the Act of the South African party.

I hope some other hon. members will deal with these two points. There is one more point I want to make. I do not know if the Minister means it, but suppose a farmer is treating his milk, and a neighbour says: “Will you treat my milk at the same time”. He can buy the milk, or get it on shares, or make a certain charge for treating it; but he is contravening the section, which says it must be his own product. Is it the intention of the Minister that no two farmers should come together and co-operate in regard to their own products? The policy of this Government is to encourage co-operation wherever it can, and to advise farmers to come together and co-operate in the manufacture of their products and the general working of the farm, but if the Government says: “Directly you do so I am going to penalize you under the Factories Act” you are discouraging the very system you are trying to set up. Another matter I want to bring to the attention of the Minister is that if a travelling thrashing machine comes from another farm, the farmer comes under the Factories Act.

Read the end of Section 1.

You can advance your own argument when I have finished. I will read Section (d) of Section 13. [Section read.] There the obvious construction is that skilled work in the open air can be brought within the purview of this Act. I maintain that a thrashing machine, a mealie sheller and the like, come within this purview. In view of the fact that the only way in which we can possibly deal satisfactorily with the position and to draft a clause to meet the requirements of the farmer, is to refer this Bill to a select committee, I move, as an amendment—-

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “the Order for the Second Reading be discharged and that the subject of the Bill be referred to a select committee for enquiry and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.”

seconded.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has been arguing that a farmer cannot manufacture his own produce for his own use without being regarded as a manufacturer, and therefore coming under the Factories Act. If he had only read section (1) of sub-section (1) he would have saved a great deal of time, for it defines a factory as—

It is clear that if you prepare anything which is not for sale, the premises cannot come under the Act.

I should imagine from the learned dissertation of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh), that he was mainly instrumental in assisting the Minister in drawing up this simple little measure. I, however, do not desire that there should be any ambiguity in the Bill, and I am sorry farming members on the opposite side are not in their place, but no doubt if the division bell rings we shall see them trooping in, and blindly giving a party vote without knowing what they are voting upon. I should have thought that if we wanted a legal opinion from the other side, the Minister of Justice would have been the one to give it. The Minister says he disagrees with me in asking that all farming operations should be exempt. My reason for asking for that is because it is a safer exemption than the one now before us. Take the case of a farmer who grows lucerne and oat hay. He desires to put that into bales and sell it, but he has to buy a certain amount of bran, mealies and molasses. As, however, these are not produced on his farm, I understand that under the Factories Act he will come under the provisions of that measure. I will give the Minister another case I have in mind at the present time. Suppose I join with a brother farmer in the district of Stellenbosch and we have a joint packing shed to which we bring our fruit and run that packing shed with machinery. I maintain that unless you adopt a provision such as I say, we shall fall under the provisions of the Factories Act. Surely, now, we know that machinery has come so much into use, and that cooperation is beginning to take hold on the farming population, the Minister must know that where two or three small farmers combine to deal with their produce in one central place, it is greatly to the benefit of the farmers and the country, and it assists export very materially, because in that place you will be able to turn out an article of one character and get a better price for it.

You must keep your produce separate.

How can I keep my produce separate? The hon. gentleman does not understand farming operations. You grade your articles into a certain class. When we send our goods to a co-operative factory, they do not sell your tobacco and my tobacco, but they grade the tobacco according to quality, and credit us with amounts of first-and second-class stuff that we have sent in. Let me take a case in the Free State. There is a development latterly to establish on farms small creameries. My hon. friend referred even to cold storage. If I am a farmer and put up a small plant for the manufacture of butter or the making of cheese, and my brother farmers, or even one adjoining farmer, desires to join with me and I get from him his milk or cream and turn it into butter or cheese, I say that under the amending Bill the hon. the Minister has introduced, I still come under the Factories Act. There is no doubt whatever. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) says I am right. I want to know if the farming members on the other side of the House are satisfied with the amending Bill, and if I were not right yesterday when I suggested that we should have an addition to the resolution of the hon. gentleman for the purpose of introducing this Bill to say that farming operations should be exempt from the provision of the Factories Act of 1918? I want people clearly to understand the position. I think we are indebted to the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) for making this matter clear. Whatever may be said of the advisability of establishing new industries in this country, the one great premier industry on which the success of every industry depends is agriculture which provides the food of the people. In a period when the farming population has to cope with tremendous difficulties, drought and flood and always uncertain seasons, it is no more than right that they should be treated entirely on a different basis from the ordinary commercial or manufacturing population dealing with products which they do not in the main produce themselves. If I am right in the assumption that I draw that where two farmers join together and combine their produce they will fall under the Factories Act, I say it would be advisable if the Minister would accept the proposal I made yesterday, and then we could make it explicitly plain that the Act does not apply to farming operations in any way whatever. Wherever a farmer starts doing things of that sort, he does the business on such a small scale that his overhead charges completely smother him, but if two or three farmers come together and divide the overhead charges between them they can make a decent living and a fair and reasonable profit. I appeal to the Minister. I have no objection to the Minister’s proposal, but when we go into committee we should embody with these Acts together. If necessary, the order could be discharged and the Bill referred to a select committee. This is not a party matter at all.

Have you seen the new Bill?

I can assure the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) that what I say is generally acknowledged to be correct. I would appeal to the Minister to get the necessary legal advice and let us know in what position we find ourselves placed, because I am perfectly certain that I have behind me the whole of the farming representatives in this House in the plea that I make that the societies I have referred to should have an opportunity of carrying on their operations without being subjected to the restrictions of the Act of 1918.

I do not know on what ground or principle we can support the provisions in this law, which exempt a factory which is situated on a farm and which uses mechanical power, or which employs a number of persons, from this Act and apply its provisions to perhaps a factory making exactly the same things in a town. As I understand it, the argument is this: That the S.A. party, having exempted under their 1918 Act a large number of persons from the protection given by this Act, now turn round and say, “They are not enough; we want more. We want to exempt further persons.” I take it that if any other hon. member had desired to put a measure of this kind through this House, he would have had to show that there had been a great hardship occasioned by the existing law.

I am afraid there will be hardship.

Those who are pleading for this to-day have not brought forward anything but a hypothetical case. As a matter of fact, they have had to distort these clauses in many regards, in order to make out the case for an amendment. Many of them, I am sure, display an utter lack of knowledge of the definition of “factory” in this Act, but what I wish to say to this House is, when you are pleading for the farmers, is there no other person to be considered? What about the large number of workers whom you are excluding from the protection of this Act, and who may be employed on machinery on farms for very long hours? Are they not to be considered? I hope these workers in the country districts will bring this home to hon. members opposite.

How?

When they find that they have to work far longer hours than the workers in the town and that it is due to an amendment made in this House to-day, as a result of the special pleading of hon. members opposite, I hope they will keep that in mind. I have no objection to the exclusions that are made in respect of seasonal occupations and things of that sort, which evidently must be excluded under the Act, but where people are continously employed in factories on farms where specialized machinery is used, is there any reason why they should work longer hours than men in the towns? Is there any reason for that, or any ground of principle? Certainly not. It simply amounts to this, that the S.A. party, having enunciated a bad principle of exempting in their own Act, want to extend that principle and exclude a further number of persons from the provisions and protection of that Act. There was a bit of a case made out for a small amendment, and it amounts to this, that having excluded a number of persons who are employed in the manufacture of articles for sale as food and drink for human consumption, to be logical you should also exclude those persons on a farm who are employed in the manufacture of articles for sale for animal consumption. There does seem to me to be just a little logic in that, but I want to submit to the Minister that in this amendment he has gone further than is necessary to meet the request that was made by the other side. The objection is to their own Bill and not to his Bill. But he has gone too far in trying to meet them. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) has just read the definition of factories. If there is mechanical power and one or more persons are employed, it is a factory and has to be registered under this Act. If there is no mechanical power, but three or more persons are employed, it is a factory. These conditions apply to all industries, but the farmer has this extra protection under the Act of 1918—

Now if we take this amendment and delete the words “as food or drink for human consumption,” it would be possible to institute any class of factory on a farm.

From produce raised there?

Yes. Liebigs could institute a canning factory on their ranches. They could have hundreds of employees on the place, and simply because the factory is on a farm and it is owned by a bona fide farmer, and Liebigs are bona fide farmers—

They are not in the Union.

They are in South-West Africa. What is to prevent any other person than Liebigs starting a huge stock farm, tinning meat and things of that sort, and claiming, because they are bona-fide stock farmers and their factory is situated on a farm, that they are exempt under this Act. I think the Minister has gone too far, and that we should limit this exemption to food and drink is just as far as we ought to go. To cut out the words “as food or drink” opens the door altogether too wide. If the Minister were to confine himself to the deletion of the words “for human consumption,” the point originally made, that only factories manufacturing articles for human consumption were exempted, and not those manufacturing for animal consumption, would be met. I can conceive of big tanning factories and all this sort of thing being started on farms, or even the manufacture of boots and shoes, and all the persons employed in those factories exempted under this Act. It would make this Parliament a laughing stock. No one wants to penalize the farmer, and especially the small farmer, but the farmer who possesses machinery and employs three or more hands in premises constantly used for the purpose of manufacturing articles for sale is in a different position. We should not differentiate between food and drink manufactured and put out for sale for human consumption, and that for animal consumption, and beyond that I suggest the Minister should not go.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) wishes to confine the law in its operation within as narrow limits as possible. He does not wish it even to be extended in the way proposed by the Minister himself. Then the hon. member also complains that we are tampering with the law made by this party when in power. At the time this law was passed there was no question of difference. This law was passed as a compromise, and as an agreed law. These laws relating to factories and industrial matters are always difficult, and it is only when you come to the actual application of the law that you then find the necessity for amendment. In the light of experience it is no use now throwing recriminations across the floor that this party or that is responsible. We are now asked by the Minister to amend the Factories Act, and certainly in the light of experience this House—it is not a party question—only wishes now as we have the opportunity to amend this Act, to try and amend it in such a form as to give general satisfaction. We know how the law can be applied in practice. At the time we passed it, industrial development had not taken the turn it has taken within the last couple of years. More and more you find out in the country districts factories, or rather undertakings, being erected by farmers which never existed before, and it is only now, in the light of experience, that we have the right to come forward and try and bring the existing factories into conformity with the law. Take the question of cold storage on a farm. The hon. member for Jeppes said that as long as a bona fide farmer carries on a cold storage, for instance, then he is quite satisfied that that should be done, but he does not want any further distinction. I quote again from my own constituency. There one farmer who has the means of doing it, has put up a cold storage upon his farm for storing fruit and pre-cooling fruit before exporting to the European markets. That plant cost him £10,000. As long as he himself uses that factory for the purpose of his own farm only, he does not tall under the Factories Act, but the hon. member for Jeppes says, “As soon as he stores my fruit, in addition to his own, then he comes under the Factories law, and he must conform to the wages—

The wages are right out of it. They are not included in any shape or form.

But surely the Minister has got a wage law? He has the right to apply it to any factory. The difficulty we find on the platteland and in the country districts is this, that as soon as a farmer stores the fruit of his neighbour he becomes liable to the provisions of the Factories law. He falls under the Act of 1918.

No, under what section?

Well, ask your Minister. He will tell you so. The same also takes place with farmers’ co-operative societies. Farmers are not all wealthy people, and they cannot all put in £10,000 for a cold storage plant. A few miles further on there are farmers with small holdings, who can only build a cold storage by forming a society. They have decided to build a cold storage costing about £7,000. As soon as they build that they fall under the Act of 1918.

Why not?

We cannot carry on our farming operations if we are going to be hampered by factory laws. What the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) says is that once you pass the second reading of the Bill now proposed by the Minister, we cannot meet the farmers’ co-operative societies in the first place, and in the second place we cannot meet the farmer who has a cold storage and is quite prepared to assist his neighbour. According to our parliamentary practice the Speaker will very likely say that you only agreed on the second reading to amend this one point in the Act of 1918, and you will be debarred from bringing in any further amendment. In order that we can get some evidence upon this highly technical matter, and also the legal view of the Factories Act of 1918, the Minister will be wise, since he has decided not to adopt the amendment of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Griqualand, and discharges the second reading and sends this Bill to a select committee. There you can call your expert legal advisers, you can call the farmers who are closely interested in the subject, and you can obtain technical evidence of every description and then come to a decision once and for all, how this law is to be applied to the country. I hope, therefore, the Minister will, on further consideration, agree to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Griqualand, and send this Bill to a select committee before the second reading.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is very ungrateful. The Minister is prepared to rectify an Act which the South African party Government, according to him (Mr. Krige), spoilt in 1918, and now the hon. member attacks the Minister instead of acknowledging his obligations.

I am not attacking him.

You are showing precious little acknowledgment. The whole attack is only made with a view to the next election, but it is very lame. The hon. member knows well enough that the present Minister has not construed the Act differently from his predecessor. It is only a few days since someone discovered that, according to the strict letter of the law, there was a flaw in it. Hence all the fuss. The hon. member for Caledon said that the 1918 Act was the result of a compromise.

I did not say so, *Mr. WESSELS: Certainly you said so.

The hon. member for Caledon undoubtedly used those words. He wanted thereby to notify that an understanding had been reached with the Labour party. Now, if that were so, then the hon. member should greatly appreciate the fact that the Labour party is ready to go further now than in 1918. They are meeting the farmers liberally. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) finds the pill difficult to swallow, but, because he and his party respect and trust the Nationalist Government, and are well disposed, they stand by the concession. I am convinced that if the Act is still ambiguous the Minister should be ready to clear it up by further amendments for the benefit of the farming population. I agree with the hon. member for Caledon that co-operation between a farmer and his neighbours should be permitted, without the danger of their being brought under the Factories Act.

Then you agree with me?

Certainly, on this point, If a farmer for purposes of his farming may combine with his sons, lessees and bywoners on his farm, why should he not co-operate with his neighbours for a similar reason? In that I entirely agree with the hon. member, and I shall certainly vote for an amendment in the direction of further clarity.

It appears to me that whenever the other side have a bad case and cannot answer arguments properly they go in for calling out electioneering. It is a clear sign that they have no case. My hon. friend, who is trying to push this Bill through, was in the House when the other Bill was put through.

I did not like it at all. At that time the party was divided into two. My hon. friend, the member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) is more responsible for the Bill than the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). It is all very well to say what you are going to do now, but it is a question of administration. My hon. friend will find out that many Bills which he intended to go in one direction have been interpreted in the opposite. In Malmesbury this is applied to a place which cuts up hay—an outside place to which it was never dreamt it would apply at all until the officials applied it. This amendment is brought in to remedy such a case as that. You must apply it, if you want it to operate thoroughly and well, to cooperative societies.

You agree to that?

Yes, I would agree to the amendment applying it to co-operative societies.

Where are you going to draw the line?

We have learnt by experience.

For six years you applied it to co-operative societies.

Never mind for how many years. A strong case has been made out by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) and the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson).

Why didn’t you alter it?

Take the case mentioned by the hon. member for Caledon with regard to cold storage at Elgin, which was put up by one concern of fruit growers. Under the amending Act of the Minister it would come under a factory, if other growers put their fruit into it.

It would not.

That is what my hon. friend says, but what would his officials say? If these other growers paid for putting their fruit into that cold storage they would say it would come under a factory. The Minister should make this thoroughly clear, and why should he not exclude co-operative societies?

I am excluding bona fide farmers, as I promised.

These are bona fide farmers, who cannot put up cold storage of their own, but put their fruit into the cold storage of the other concern, and pay so much per box.

I have a suspicion that a great deal of this debate from the side of the South African party is red-hot electioneering, and an endeavour to secure the farmers’ vote. It is an extraordinary thing that we don’t find the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) preaching the same doctrine as the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I am not prepared to go as far as the Minister of Labour, who is going too far, but we have to support him because it is the correct thing to do. I don’t suppose the Minister would go as far as he is going if he were in a Labour Government. Is it not ridiculous to have a select committee? A firm makes tomango, a very well-known drink, from fruit grown on their own farm, they employ hundreds of people, but they will not come under this Act, but if they were to move their factory twenty yards on to another man’s farm they would be liable to this measure. Let us take the Imperial Cold Storage Co. Not very long ago when the South African party was in power that company was running a large number of cattle in ranches in the Pietersburg district. If they erected a canning factory on the ranches they would not come under the Act, although they might employ 5,000 men.

And equally so under the old law.

Yes. Of course they are bona fide ’farmers. Surely a man who raises 20,000 head of cattle is as much a farmer as a man who raises one calf. Let us take the position of the butter people. One of the great complaints that the late Mr. Joseph Baynes had against the last Government was that it put the Factory Act into operation at Nelsrust, where his creamery was located, despite his protestation that the materials used in the creamery were produced on his own ground. But if I start a butter factory on my farm, why should I not come under the Factories Act? A yard beyond my ground is land belonging to the Bloemfontein Town Council, and if a factory were erected on it it would have to come under the Factories Act. Is it right that there should be any differentiation for the same class of people work under the same conditions whether a factory is located on a farm or within a municipal area? To have such a differentiation would make legislation ridiculous. The case mentioned by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is not even on the border line, and the South African party is straining at a gnat. There is no need to send the Bill to a select committee. The Opposition did not care anything for the farmers before, although the thing of which they complain has been going on for years, but the farmers have not suffered.

The Act says any premises in which, or in connection with which, steam, electrical or other mechanical power or appliance is used are to be regarded as a factory.

If we pass what the South African party wants, men will remove factories from the towns on to the farms. Why should a working man, if he leaves Johannesburg to work in a factory on a farm, labour 15 hours a day under the worst conditions, for these farm factories will be run under very bad conditions.

Why?

Because factories always are badly run unless they are inspected. Naturally, the farmer would take the line of least resistance. Nobody curses more than a farmer does when you go on to his land and ask him to do things. What is the difference between three farmers working together and three townsmen working together? You make printers come up to the scratch, yet you don’t want to make creameries come up to the scratch, although they pay big dividends.

Other people than farmers have shares in co-operative creameries.

They cannot have shares if it is a farmers’ co-operative society.

Why should the man in the town have to carry all the burden? That would be very wrong. Sooner or later political power will pass from the farmer to the townsman. The Nationalists are prepared to compromise on this question.

You were not so complimentary to the Nationalists on the Cruelty to Animals Bill.

I never said a word about the Nationalist party on the Cruelty to Animals Bill, and I defy the lion, member to quote one line. That is a lie which is being circulated right through South Africa. The hon. member knows it is not true, and I am surprised he mentioned it. The hon. member is electioneering, but I would like to see the platteland following him. The hon. member knows where I have been for the last seven years. If he does not like it, I cannot help it.

You have tried to keep a foot in each camp, as far as I have seen.

Never mind—one in the Nationalist camp and one in the Labour camp— that is the Pact.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). The farmer is always being urged to co-operate. Now, when he co-operates, he is punished. In my district there are several co-operations—wine—and my Voters send their tobacco to a central co-operation. These men are also penalized. The main thing is that when farmers co-operate the difference between them and the factories is that the farmers can never quote their price. The merchant or buyer says: “I will give you so much”, but a factory will say: “The price of my stuff is so much”. That is the big difference between a factory and a farmers’ co-operative association. Genuine farmers’ co-operations—that can come under the Co-operative Act—not companies which, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said, can plant a little patch of mealies around the factory and call it a farmers’ co-operative factory—but the genuine thing must not come under the Factories Act. I spoke in Dutch last night. I thought the Minister knew Dutch, but later I found out that he had not understood a word I said. I hope the Minister will think again and let this Bill be referred to a select committee or something and let us make something good out of it.

I do not think it is necessary to refer the Bill to a select committee. I think all hon. members know its contents and those of the Factory Act of 1918. I must say that I am always nervous when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) takes up the case of the farmers. I remember quite well, I think it was in 1918, the proposal that the Factory Act should not apply to farmers; the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at the time insisted that the farmers should actually come under it, and I think the hon. member also took up that attitude.

I do not do so to-day.

I am very glad to hear it. I am always glad when anyone is converted. I will just say this in connection with cooperative societies that I am also strongly in favour of their being exempted from the application of the Bill. I can see that it will be very difficult to say when a farmers’ cooperation is a co-operative society, and when not. Another instance is that which the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has mentioned, viz., that a farmer establishes a factory worth £10,000 on his farm. But suppose that another, say, Sir David Graaff, buys the factory with quite a different object, then we surely cannot exempt Sir David Graaff—with quite a different object—from the law. I think that hon. members opposite agree with me on this. My trouble is what we are going to do here.

Send the Bill to a select committee.

The object of hon. members in sending the Bill to a select committee is for quite a different purpose. I have been long enough here to see through it. The object of hon. members opposite—

We do not mind what is done as long as there is a chance of altering the Bill.

Hon. members should withdraw the motion then and let us enquire a little if it cannot be differently worded. I must say that it does not seem to me to be an insuperable difficulty, because the law states that the profits, in relation to co-operative societies of the members are limited. It cannot be more than 8, 9 or 10 per cent., but in other cases, where the profits of the person or persons cooperating are not limited, it is another matter. Hon. members opposite will agree that where five or ten or more farmers combine to manufacture their own products, and those of other people with a view to making a profit, there is no question of a farmers’ co-operative society, nor do I believe that the object of the hon. members is to exempt an organization of that kind from the clause of this Bill. But where a number of farmers together form what is nothing else but a co-operative society, I agree that it ought not to fall under the law. It does not happen only in Griqualand East, but also elsewhere that land in the neighbourhood of villages in the immediate vicinity of centres is very dear. It does not pay a farmer to hire ground there, because it is much too dear. Then there are only two possibilities, either he has to hire ground far from the centre, or he starts cattle and dairy farming on a small scale, but if he has to restrict it merely to manufacturing his own products he cannot make a living, and he, therefore, buys the milk from the farmers in the immediate vicinity and manufactures with it. Further, I am decidedly opposed to the farmers coming under the Act. I think that a farmer who does work of this kind will not fall under the Act, and in the circumstances I want to ask the Minister to go into it carefully and see if it is not possible to draft the provisions in such language that the Act shall not apply to the co-operative work of persons in the way I tried to explain.

The amendment which has been introduced by the Minister will certainly be of considerable benefit to the wattle industry. That I am quite willing to admit. The wattle industry has come under the Factories Act for the reason that where a farmer puts up a machine and cuts his bark, he was not manufacturing articles for human consumption. The amendment the Minister has introduced will exclude the wattle industry, and I am certain they will welcome the amendment under the Bill.

When the House suspended business I was dealing with the question of the wattle industry in Natal, and I pointed out that under the amending Bill this industry would considerably benefit. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) in speaking this afternoon stated that the arguments of this side of the House were based on hypothetical cases. He asked for some proof or some case where the Factories Act had been applied to the farming industry.

Where it was a hardship, I said.

It has acted as a hardship in the case of the wattle industry, because that industry is not very highly developed, and the conditions which have been imposed upon it have acted as a hardship. I can only mention the case of the ordinary wattle farmer who has a machine for cutting his bark, and who takes his ordinary native labour which does the general work and puts them on machines in these small factories, and the application of the Factories Act there has been a hardship. There has been an agitation for some considerable time that wattle farmers should be excluded from this Act. I say quite frankly under the Minister’s amendment the ordinary wattle farmer will be excluded.

What are you complaining of then?

I am not complaining, I am only pointing out that the Act has hitherto acted as a hardship on the wattle farmer. When you take the ordinary factory on a farm it is not so highly developed as a factory in a town. There has been a movement right throughout the country towards co-operation among farmers, and it is our duty as far as we possibly can to assist that movement. If we apply the Factories Act to the co-operative societies which the farmers are gradually forming, it is going to have a detrimental effect upon the development of that co-operation.

It has been the case for the last ten years.

If we can exclude these cooperative societies run by farmers, and even supposing that later on it is necessary to apply the Factories Act, then the necessary amendment can be made to the Act. In the meantime allow these co-operative societies to develop, and when they have got to a highly-developed state, should it be found necessary to protect the workers, then will be the time to make an amendment to the Factories Act and apply it to these societies. If we can exclude these societies from the operation of the Act, it would greatly assist as a stimulus to cooperation. The majority of farming representatives in this House are continually preaching co-operation among farmers, and there is no doubt that in recent years there has been a great movement towards co-operation. In many cases small factories have been established by the farmers themselves to work up the raw products upon their farms.

Then they cease to be farmers, and become manufacturers.

They are not manufacturers in the ordinary sense. Take the wattle industry. You cannot call it manufacture when you simply cut the bark in the raw state and bag it and export it. The only man you require is an engineer to look after your engine. There is no skilled work at all about it, and the same applies to other industries on the farms. I regard this as a very important matter, and not a matter we should deal with as a party matter at all. It is far too important and, so far as I am concerned, in making my remarks I am not dealing with the subject in any way on a party basis, but I do believe now there is an opportunity of amending the Act, we should take this opportunity of excluding these farmers’ co-operative societies. All these societies are not run to make large profits. Their profits are actually limited under the law, and if they can produce the stuff at a cheaper price it is all for the benefit of the consumer, and, therefore, we should not do anything which is going to act detrimentally to the establishment of these societies. I doubt very much whether it would be possible under the Bill to move an amendment at the committee stage so as to embrace co-operative societies in this Bill, and for that reason, in order to make sure that it will be possible to do so, I am supporting the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that the Bill should be sent to a select committee before second reading, so that the whole matter can be enquired into with a view to making such amendments as may be necessary, so as to exclude from the operation of the Factories Act all farming operations including farmers’ co-operative societies.

I have listened with attention to the arguments in connection with this Bill. It really astonishes me that the people who made the Act and are responsible for it should be the first to protest against it. I regard this Bill as a great improvement on the principal Act, and the Minister has taken a big step in advance to facilitate things for the farmer. I have myself had a few interviews with the Minister on the matter, and I must say that he is quite sympathetic towards the farmers, and he showed it that he was prepared to meet them as much as possible. I thought that, if hon. members opposite wanted to amend the Bill, then they have had sufficient time, because it is ten years since the Act was passed. Now they come suddenly and find that the Act affects the farmers. If they are so much interested in the farmers, they could have taken steps earlier to amend it.

You are merely making an election speech.

Unfortunately the hon. member is also one of those who call themselves farmers and who woke up ten years too late. This Bill is an improvement on the present Act, and if in future it appears that further amendments are necessary, we can make them. My view is that the Act was unnecessary and too drastic, but as we have inherited it from the previous Government, we must make the best of it. I hope the other side will not longer urge the withdrawal of the Bill. Let it go to the committee stage and we can then make some alterations. I am certain the Minister will try to meet the objections. The farmer should be worried as little as possible by laws. Everyone in the House understands that, and I am one of the last who want to handicap farming. Farming does not pay to day in South Africa, the farmer is having a very hard time and has suffered heavy losses, and we must see to it that the laws affect the farmers as little as possible

I can see all the possibilities or another split in the Pact arising out of this innocent little Bill, and I wish to associate myself with the protest made this afternoon by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). For the life of me, I cannot understand farmers desiring any greater exemption from the provisions of the Factories Act than is already included in Clauses 2 and 13 of the principal Act. Now, it has been frequently contended in this House that the farmer is the backbone of this country.

So they are—absolutely.

What about those who work for him?

It seems to me that the farmer is gradually becoming the wishbone. Recently a motion was brought forward asking the Government to consider the advisability of exempting farmers from the income tax, and the other day I think the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) was asking the Government to also take into consideration the advisability of assisting fanners on the £ for £ principle in connection with boring for water. Altogether, the farmers of South Africa get far too much consideration in this House. There is not at the moment an hon. member on the S.A. party benches who represents an industrial constituency. I would like to know whether any hon. member from an industrial constituency is prepared to agree that a worker in a factory on a farm should not be brought under the provisions of the Factories Act?

Is Greyville not an industrial constituency?

The exemptions already provided for are quite sufficient. So far as I am concerned, it is not so much a question as to whether this Bill should be sent to a select committee, but whether there is any necessity for the Bill at all.

You don’t mean that?

Most decidedly I do. I say only what I mean in the House—I am not like the right hon. member. If any factory is established on a farm, the provisions applicable to any other factory should be brought into operation. I feel inclined to move that the Bill be read six months from now.

I think that the amendment which I am moving in this Bill goes a very long way to meet the case of the bona fide farmer who wants to manufacture and prepare his own produce for sale or for consumption. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) put up the argument whether if he ground his mealies for his natives or got mealies or other produce from somewhere else, manufactured it or supplied it to his natives, or used it for his own requirements, he would come or fall under this Act. Nothing of the kind. He is absolutely exempt. And threshing machinery is also exempt, as they are not premises under the Act. There is something in the co-operative society argument—that is a debatable point. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line. The intention of Parliament and the country has been that the individual should be exempt, but when you get a large number of individuals combining to pool their money [interruption]—well, there is the society of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), with 235 employees. You must have consideration for them and study them.

Make the number of employees limited.

The question arises where to draw the line. The case mentioned by the light hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) this afternoon I do not think would come under the Act.

Why not?

Because in the first place when he is taking produce, packing it and handing it to the other fellow he is not doing it for sale, but for the convenience of the other fellow who is sharing in the cost. The question of registering co-operative societies was decided ten years ago when the Act was passed, and it is an extraordinary thing that there has been no real complaint—there is no real hardship on these people. Most of these places get seasonal exemption if they are packing and preparing fruit. The cheese factory of the hon. member over there gets an exemption. [Interruption.] Shall I give instructions that the seasonal exemptions be withdrawn? The hon. member (Mr. Gilson) is interested in a factory in East Griqualand which gets seasonal exemption. If they are registered as a co-operative society they cease to be farmers, and become manufacturers and packers in competition with other people. Before the present Government came into office, 16 co-operative societies were registered as factories, and since the present Government came into office, 19 cooperative societies have been registered as factories. Most of them deal in commodities, the manufacture of which is seasonal, and consequently they obtain seasonal exemption. More than that, I don’t think the House should ask for. While the employees are not being considered in respect of the individual farmer who can erect any size factory he likes, we are not prepared to say that, where a large number of employers come together, form a society and erect a factory, they should also be exempt. That is a very fair compromise which my friends on these benches are willing to accept, but hon. members on the cross benches say the compromise goes a good deal further than it should. The Act does not affect wages, so the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is hopelessly wrong. The only matters in which the Factories Act is concerned are hours and conditions of employment, ventilation, sanitation, cleanliness, fire protection and the erection of guards around machinery to protect life and limb, etc. Co-operative societies and other factories engaged in seasonal trades invariably obtain seasonal exemption, and as we have met the point raised by hon. members opposite with regard to the bona fide farmer, the Bill should be allowed to go through as it stands.

We raised the point of cooperative societies before this.

The point was with regard to the farmer who made stuff for animal consumption. I put the matter to the law advisers, and they think the Bill meets the position.

It will not meet the case of two adjoining farmers co-operating to have a common shed for shearing and so on.

I defy the hon. member to give a case of that sort where the department has interfered. It is a hypothetical case and is not likely to arise. A place is not a factory unless the employees work continuously all the year round.

A factory which closes down for a month a year does not come under the Factories Act, no matter how large it is?

This very point has been raised in court in regard to Pyott’s, Hill’s or Jagger’s factory. I don’t suppose that would happen, but it has been decided that before a place can be regarded as a factory, they must have three or more employees continuously employed, and “continuously employed” has been interpreted as all the year round. If the hon. member wants to carry on operations on his farm for three, four or five months, then his place would not come under the Act.

There must be cases of big factories which work only for five or six months in the year.

The court has decided that the employees must work continuously all the year round.

Hansard shows that the question of co-operative societies was brought up.

We have passed that. The Western Province Cooperative Society’s works at Paarl employ 265 persons.

The Minister refers to seasonal exemptions—why are they given at all?

The premises are kept going all the year round, but at rush periods they want to work the employees for longer hours and accordingly they obtain seasonal exemption. The position has been very fairly and honestly met, and I hope hon. members opposite will agree to the second reading of the Bill, which is a clear-cut exemption for the bona fide farmer who is manufacturing his own produce and selling it. It is a big advance on the Act as it stands to day.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move— That the House do now resolve itself into committee on the Bill and that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair.

objected.

House to go into committee to-morrow.

To-night is the only time I shall have to give notice of motion. I want to give notice that I will move to-morrow on the committee stage—

Seeing this is the only opportunity the hon. member will have of giving notice, I think it ought to be allowed.

I move— That the Bill be now read a third time.

Is this not the Bill that it is the intention of the Minister and of the House to have incorporated with the Bill which has just now been read a second time? If that is so, I understand it will be impossible to do that if we took the third reading of the Bill. I do not know what the procedure would be—to move that the debate be adjourned until the other Bill is going into the committee stage and then move that this Bill be recommitted to the committee and the two Bills incorporated. If you take the third reading of the Bill now, it will be impossible to carry out the incorporation of the two Bills into one in the committee stage which you said this afternoon you were prepared to carry out. The Minister, I understand, agrees.

I was hoping that the Bill which has passed the second reading would be disposed of before I came to this Bill. It is quite evident there is going to be a long discussion on the other Bill, and I was quite prepared to try and incorporate the two Bills in another place.

I do not think my hon. friend, if he took the third reading, could possibly incorporate in the other place two Bills which have gone from this chamber. If the Bills are to be incorporated they must be incorporated in this chamber, and under the circumstances I move the adjournment of the debate, but I really do not know, without being instructed, what course I should pursue to make it clear that I am moving the adjournment of the debate for the purpose of having this Bill eventually referred back to the committee. I move as an amendment—

I hope my hon. friend will accept that.

seconded.

I am quite prepared to accept that as long as I have got an assurance that in the committee stage no extraneous matter can be brought in at all, and nothing further discussed except the incorporation of the other Bill with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker cannot assure you what the House will do.

The right hon. gentleman will realize that I do not want a third reading debate if I allow the Bill we have passed through the committee stage to be re committed again, except for a specific purpose.

You mean on the whole Factories Act?

Not on the whole Factories Act, but on my Bill. The Bill has passed the committee stage. On condition that the only thing we will do when we go into committee is to incorporate the smaller Bill in the larger Bill, I accept the amendment.

And any amendments?

Yes. Amendment put and agreed to.

I want to say a few words in regard to this Bill, perhaps from a different point of view from what has been dealt with before. I also want to make a suggestion to the Minister. I certainly think this is a Bill that ought to be referred to a select committee. There are amendments in this Bill which will have a very far-reaching effect, and I think those effects should be very carefully considered before the Bill is passed. I am well aware that the first aim of this Bill, when we passed it in the first place, was to promote peace and conciliation between employers and employees. It was suggested that it was the intention to get these two classes of people together to discuss their differences, and try to come to some agreement. It has had that effect to some extent, we have got to admit that, but it has also had effects which were not foreseen at the time. Certainly one of the objects has been to fix wages. When wages have been fixed under this Bill, it has always been on a fairly high basis. Wages have been fixed on the highest scale in the trade, as a rule.

The industry fix it themselves.

Yes, and they have generally contrived to fix it, as I said, on the highest scale. That was not the intention when the Bill was passed, as is pointed out very clearly in this report of the Economic Commisson of 1925.

Do you want to fix them on the lowest scale?

No, I do not. One of the effects which this Act has had has been to make it more difficult for the smaller employer to keep going. I know two specific cases where two comparatively small people have been driven out of the trade. I know one man, a very respectable man, who has had to go to Kenya to carry on his trade. The result has been to drive the trade to some extent into the hands of the bigger men. It has had another effect which is far more serious—it has driven hundreds of semi-skilled men out of trades for the simple reason that the scale of wages in most of these cases has been fixed at the highest point, on the earnings of the most skilled men. The consequence has been that semi-skilled men or unskilled men have been turned adrift. Naturally when the employer has to pay the highest scale he refuses to employ those who cannot earn the wages. That has been the general practice right through. There are scores of men out of employment in Cape Town, on the Rand, in Kimberley, and, I believe, also in Port Elizabeth, owing to the operation of this Act, and the pity of it is that the majority of these men who have been turned adrift because they have not been up to the standard to earn the wages that are fixed are coloured men, so that in one way it has acted as a colour bar, to some extent. I don’t say right through. It varies in different trades, but in some cases it has acted as a colour bar in keeping the coloured man out of employment. It has also had this effect, that it has kept coloured youths out of employment. The most skilled men in a trade are, as a rule, Europeans, and they refuse in most cases to take coloured youths as apprentices. I know of two cases which have been brought to my notice, where they have specifically refused. I know one employer who said he had been told quietly by men in his employ that if a half-coloured youth was brought in, as an apprentice, they would go out. There is another case where a coloured youth whose father had been in the present trade was refused as an apprentice by the men employed in that trade, and it was only on very strong pressure that the matter was fixed up. Coloured youths of this city are to-day to a large extent being excluded from apprenticeship as a result of this Act. There is also another point, that it has increased the cost of building very materially, certainly in the big cities, because though the cost of materials has fallen the cost of wages has so been increased that upon the whole the cost of building in South Africa to-day is up about 15 per cent. on account of those wages.

Nonsense.

We had evidence before the Housing Board, when it was admitted. I think there is no question about it. By putting up the wages you have driven out semi-skilled men and the consequence is very clear that you have undoubtedly driven up the cost of building.

Wages were not put up; they were legalized.

Well, you have driven out the semi-skilled men and the unskilled men who, at any rate, could do a certain amount of work. That has been the effect of the Bill. To my mind its operation in the past has been unjust. What right have you to drive a man out of his trade because he does not happen to come up to a certain standard and because he is prepared to work for a smaller wage? To my mind it is an oppressive Bill which enables a certain section, the highest skilled in the trade, to oppress the smaller men.

There is more work in the trade than ever.

And there is no doubt there would be more work still but for the operation of this Act. Building would have been cheaper, and there would have been more building but for this Act.

They can get exemption.

I have not come across any yet.

There are over a hundred in Cape Town.

I only know one thing, that there are hundreds of people unemployed about the city. That we know perfectly well and the Labour Department cannot find them work. There is also another point. It has made unemployment permanent in South Africa. My hon. friend started out to get rid of unemployment. Has he done so? He may have reduced it to some extent, but he has not got rid of it.

Has America and Australia and Great Britain?

We are dealing with South Africa and the conditions in South Africa, and I say quite advisedly that in Cape Town on the Rand, in Kimberley and in Durban there are very large numbers who are unemployed at the present moment, notwithstanding the fact that when these hon. gentlemen came into office they were going to do away with all this. They have not succeeded yet, and so long as this Act operates they never will do so. Unemployment has become a permanent institution in South Africa. How is the poor beggar who is not fully skilled going to get work? The trade is fairly prosperous, and yet we have this amount of unemployment, and there is more work than can be got through. That may be the case but still, there they are, a lot of unemployed people. It is simply hopeless. How can you expect the semi-skilled man to be able to get work? He cannot work on the wages you lay down. It is practically a monopoly in the hands of the highest skilled men. You have increased the cost of building as I have shown. You have increased wages, so what else can you expect but to increase the cost of building?

Is that the only effect?

It is all very well for the Minister to talk in his comfortable position on the Treasury benches. Let him come back to his corner, and then we shall hear about it. Take boots. The determination has had the effect of increasing the cost of producing boots. I have no doubt the Minister of Finance would say that is one reason why he has kept up the heavy duty. So the thing goes round and round in the same way.

Don’t you believe in a living wage?

No industry can pay higher wages than it can afford to pay, and if the wage is not earned it cannot pay it. That is the reason so many are out of work at present.

In the leather industry.

You made a declaration there, and the result has been we have had the duty kept up at 30 per cent. Probably but for that we should have had it reduced.

Is that due to this Act?

I have no doubt it is due to the effect of this Act.

Who passed that?

Don’t try to put it off like that. I am dealing with the Act as it is to-day. Your object is to make it much worse in the application of it. Take furniture. The cost has been put up at least 15 per cent. by the increased wages, and thus the thing goes on right through. The object of this Bill undoubtedly is to strengthen the position of the employee as against the employer. Look at Clause 3 (b). That is the result of an action we had in Cape Town that in case it is a matter of arbitration under the Act as proposed to be amended they can only call in men who are in the trade to arbitrate.

It is the Conciliation Board you mean. Arbitrators can be anybody.

Why do you put this in, then? At any rate, the point is this, whereas disputes had to be settled amongst the men and the employers themselves, men thoroughly acquainted with the position in the trade concerned, and men also who desire to come to terms—the whole theory of conciliation I should have thought would have been on that basis— all that is taken away entirely and an outsider brought in. It is not in his interest to make peace. Left to the people in the trade itself they would be far more likely to come to terms than they will under the Act as amended. Take 3 (a); that is extremely important, and is going to lead to a great deal of worry—“the deletion of the proviso hereto” which simply means that: under the proviso of Clause 4, it is laid down that in a dispute where there were only two concerned, one man and the employer, it was not possible to call for a conciliation board without the consent of the Minister, and it could be done only where principles were involved.

How do I alter that?

It has not been operative. Under this, I understand, in the case of a dispute with one employee, a board can be called.

It must be left to the Minister’s discretion.

Personally, I do not trust the Minister—I say that quite frankly and at once. It is laid down in the Act it is some principle that has to be involved, but he can call this board now without any principle being involved [clause read]. That the consent will be given I have no doubt, or that it will be done without the slightest trouble. The consequence is that any man who may be discharged, we will say for inefficiency, or coming late or so forth, can call for a board of arbitration.

He could do so to the same extent before.

I do not doubt there will be far more arbitration boards than before. As I say, suppose a man is dismissed for inefficiency, or some other cause, a board will have to be called, and the whole of a man’s business is held up for that reason. It even may happen that the case may go against the employer, and he will have to reinstate the man; what is going to be the condition here in connection with any discipline of the manager?

What is going to be the position when a question of principle is involved?

Take the effect of this in the gold mining industry, where they employ something like 20,000 Europeans, as we have heard this afternoon. In 1915 they tried this with the view of preserving peace in the industry and the employers came to an agreement with the employees—there was a board of reference. It was all right with the bigger things, but it was made intolerable in its operation by the fact of smaller personal matters being referred to it, which had the effect, eventually, of undermining the position of the managers.

That was not a board such as is contemplated under the Act.

I am not so sure. That is not the opinion of the mining industry to-day. I will read an extract from the report of the Germiston inspector [report read].

What is the date?

The date is 1921.

There was another Government in power then.

I do not see what that has to do with it. You have established a similar institution again [further extract from report read]. This shows the deplorable effect on managerial authority caused by the interference of the shop stewards and the boards of reference. You are doing the same thing over again.

Not at all.

When this system was in full operation, the working costs went up to 25s. 8d. per ton. It shows the undermining of authority which took place. There is another point I want to bring out. The effect of sub-section (b) of section 6 is to bring the native within the purview of wage fixing, which applies to natives and Indians. What is to be the position of natives down here? We have work for which we can employ only natives—as tanners—and white men will not do that work.

All natives in the Cape can be covered to-day.

These are not covered, as a matter of fact. They get from 25s. to 27s. a week. I say quite deliberately there are no employers who can get others to do the work but natives.

There are no pass-carrying natives in the Cape.

I am glad to hear it. But as I say, all this increases the cost of production and the cost of living. You increase the burdens on the primary producer.

There are about 20 agreements.

I daresay, and the effect has been to put up the prices in most cases. The only effect of this Bill is to increase the drift from the country to the towns, which was mentioned this afternoon. Take, for instance, Australia, where you have the same legislation, where the effects have been remarkable, as I can soon point out to my hon. friend. It has pretty well destroyed the gold mining industry in Australia. The value of the gold produced in Australia was reduced in 1924 to £3,000,000, whereas the output in 1911 was valued at £76,000,000.

Worked out.

No; for the most part undoubtedly the operation of wage-fixing agreements was responsible.

Did you read Kingsley Thomas’ report on the Australian gold mines?

No. In 1921 43 per cent. in the six big cities, but in 1925 the percentage was 46. In 1901 28 per cent. of the Australian bread-winners were engaged in industrial occupations, while 30 per cent. were primary producers; in 1921, 31 per cent. were engaged in industrial occupations and only 25.8 per cent. were primary producers. This shows the effect of legislation of this kind.

What has that to do with my Bill?

I am just showing the evil effect of such legislation. It will have exactly the same effect here as in Australia, and that has been pointed out by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow). Farming is, perhaps, the worst paid occupation in South Africa. The farmer cannot afford to work only 8 hours a day; he has to labour from sunrise to sunset. The result of his work is very uncertain. The farmer is often afflicted with droughts or floods, while the price he will obtain for his produce is uncertain, and he has to compete with the overseas producer. We are on a wave of prosperity, but when depression does come—and it is bound to come in time—we shall have an enormous amount of unemployment. The wage policy of the Government will, in some degree, tend to bring that about and to make it much more intense. I warn the farmers who support this legislation that they do have to pay the higher prices which inevitably follow the putting into force of these measures. They have to buy furniture, for instance, and they will have to pay considerably more for it than they did before. We shall have to pay more for goods manufactured here and for goods manufactured abroad. The man who is getting the biggest pull and is best off in South Africa is undoubtedly the skilled artisan; he is the highest paid artisan in the world, excepting Canada and the United States.

What about the wholesale merchants?

Never mind them, we are talking about the artisan. This fact is stated in the economic and wage report of the commission appointed by the Government.

What about the cost of living?

The cost of living is not so high comparatively speaking. The primary producer is in a bad way, and no matter how much skill he displays in his business, he does not get any extra for his produce. We have heard protests about the increase in the cost of agricultural implements.

We don’t make them here.

We shall go on until we reach the same position as prevails in Australia. Take the clause which will allow the calling of a conciliation board in the event of dispute affecting even only one man; that will make business almost intolerable. The Bill should be sent to a select committee.

Were every member of the Opposition quite as frank in their utterances as the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), then the workers of this country would know exactly where the South African party stand regarding the application of our industrial legislation. When the hon. member says: “What right have you to drive a man out of his trade because he is prepared to work for less than other tradesmen”—well, that is getting at the very root of industrial organization.

It does not make it any more just.

Any man who refuses to join his trade union, but accepts all the benefits the organization is able to get for him, is like the man who went to a funeral, stole a wreath, and won a flower show prize with it. If the trade union movement, which members of the South African party contend they are in favour of, did not insist that every man was entitled to at least the minimum wage of the particular industry in which he works, what state of affairs would we have in this or any other country? The South African party should be given every credit for having introduced and passed the Conciliation Act of 1924. Machinery is provided in the Act whereby employers and employees can come together and hammer out their industrial difficulties and differences by the methods of reason, instead of, as was formerly the case, we had shooting first and investigation afterwards. That was the position until 1924, and it was largely owing to the recommendations embodied in the Brace Commission’s report that the Industrial Conciliation Bill was drafted in 1923. But there was a mighty difference between the Bill that was introduced in 1923 and the Bill that ultimately became law in 1924. Some conception of the difference may be obtained from the report of the proceedings of the select committee of which I happened to be a member. In the original Bill the definition of “trade union” was: “any combination of employees, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating relations between employers and employees, or between employees and employers, or for imposing restrictive conditions upon the conduct of any trade or business.” Now, that is not a definition of a trade union at all. A trade union does not exist to impose any restrictive conditions on a business from which the members of that trade union derive their livelihood. It is exactly the reverse. The definition of “trade union” inserted in the revised Bill was—

I mentioned this one instance to show the considerable difference between the Bill as originally introduced in 1923 and the Bill ultimately passed in 1924.

What is the point of that?

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and myself assisted in bringing about the first application in South Africa of the outstanding recommendations submitted to the British Government in 1917 by the Whitley Committee. The first industrial council in this country was established in 1919 for the printing industry of South Africa, and it was largely due to the experience the hon. member for Jeppes gained on that occasion that he was able to induce the select committee on the Industrial Conciliation Bill to adopt an almost entirely new measure, which the Minister of Mines and Industries of that day, to his credit be it said, accepted almost in its entirety. The original Bill only allowed for conciliation, but the revised measure provided for “prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.” There is no doubt the Conciliation Act is the finest piece of industrial legislation enacted since Union. But, as is only discovered in the application of every Act, there are a number of weaknesses in the otherwise excellent Industrial Conciliation Act. Section (2) of the Act is to be amended to the effect that, although a council may be dissolved, any agreement arrived at by the council shall continue until its natural expiry. Surely no reasonable-minded member of the House will object to any industrial agreement arrived at under the provisions of the Conciliation Act being observed by both sides right up to the time agreed upon. At present any one of the two parties not prepared to “play the game” can withdraw, and the agreement comes to an end. Surely that is not a fair proposition.

Has it happened?

Yes, it has happened, I understand. An agreement is concluded, and because it was not altogether to the liking of one of the parties to the agreement, they intimate to the Minister that they desired to withdraw, and the agreement comes to an end. This amendment is for the purpose of seeing that whatever agreement is arrived at will continue until the expiration of the period for which it was made. Surely that is fair and reasonable.

Section (3), which previously provided that industrial councils should set out in their constitutions the method of procedure for dealing with disputes brought to their notice, thus leaving some doubt as to whether it was compulsory for a council to provide for the settlement of disputes, is now more definite in the amending Bill, and states that the council shall lay down procedure for dealing with all disputes within the undertaking, industry, occupation or trade concerned. That is, in my opinion, a very desirable amendment. Section (4) of the Act is to be amended to make it possible for any person (not necessarily employers or employees) to sit on a conciliation board. In evidence given before the select committee on the Conciliation Bill the representatives of the Cape Federation of Labour Unions advocated that others than those directly associated with any industry should be allowed to sit on a conciliation board appointed under the Act. They, however, agreed that it was desirable, in so far as a standing industrial council was concerned, that only employers and employees engaged in the industry should be members of the board. Mr. Stuart, the secretary of the Federation of Labour Unions in the Cape, said—

I have no doubt Mr. Stuart is referring to the type of labour employed in the leather industry carried on, I understand, by our friend the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Not many of these men are altogether capable of putting up a proper case in support of better conditions, and it would be necessary for them, in the event of a special conciliation board being established, to get some assistance in order to present their case in a way that it could be understood and perhaps considered by the employers’ side. Mr. Stuart continues—

(That was in the case of a dispute in Cape Town between the tramwaymen’s union and the tramway company, and the former requested the secretary of the federation to represent them on the special board set up to try and bring about a settlement.) Mr. Richens, who, I understand, is secretary of one of the industrial unions in Cape Town, said on the same subject—

Mr. Stuart added—

I submit that it is only reasonable that an amendment of this kind should be agreed to, in order that any person, whom the employers or the employees have sufficient confidence in, should be permitted to act for them on a special conciliation board. There is the deletion in Clause 4 of sub-section (1), making it possible for a conciliation board to be formed by the Minister in respect of a grievance brought forward by any individual employee or employer. That was a point we fought very strenuously indeed on the select committee in 1923, because, after all is said and done, most of the disputes arise out of a one-man issue, and, of course, under the principal Act as it stands no conciliation boards can be appointed in such circumstances.

Unless it is a matter of principle.

Quite so. And if the employees in an industry where a dispute of that kind arises wish to take any action at all they have to use the strike weapon. During the giving of evidence to the committee, I was able to ascertain that at least 80 per cent. of the membership organized labour in South Africa is in favour of conciliation as against coming out on strike.

Hear, hear.

Why should men who are altogether in favour of settling these differences by the methods of reason be compelled to strike? That is what it means. Because the Minister cannot provide for the setting up of a special conciliation board on a question of a one man issue. This amendment should also be accepted by the House. I am given to understand that officials who are at present inspecting wage agreements find on many occasions that the rate of wages either laid down by a determination of the Wage Board or come to by an agreement under the Industrial Conciliation Act, is not paid, and many of the employees, regrettable as it is to have to say so, actually assist the employer in contravening the terms of the wage determination or the industrial agreement by accepting less pay, and at the same time signing the book that they are receiving amounts in accordance with the agreement. Employers who came before the Industrial Conciliation Select Committee objected to this unfair competition whereby an unscrupulous employer can come to an understanding with his workmen to sign for a certain amount and then accept less than what is shown in the wage book. Surely it should not be necessary for an employee, who may proceed against an employer for a contravention of the Act, to have to go to the civil courts to get the money to which he is entitled. Provision is therefore made that the magistrate who originally tries the case can also give judgment that the full amount to which the workman is entitled will be paid by the employer. Again I submit that is a fair and reasonable amendment, and should be accepted by the House.

Nobody objects to it.

If nobody objects to that and to other things—

That is a different thing.

No trade union organization forces a man to leave his employment, and if he is a man, he will not work for a lower rate of pay than his fellow men. What do trades unions exist for? Is it not to encourage every man to perfect himself in his business sufficiently well to be able to demand and receive the minimum wage? During the committee stage of the Industrial Conciliation Bill in 1923, tile hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) moved an additional new clause as follows: “Any employer who stipulates, as a condition of employment, that any person should not be a member of a trade union, or of any particular trade union, shall be guilty of an offence,” but every member of the South African party in the House, to the number of 53, voted against.

Quite right, too.

Even the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel)—

I was not here.

Yes, you were. I am sorry, you are quite right, it was your predecessor. I hope you will be here in 1929. However, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), he voted against it.

Certainly. I would do it again.

Then there were the hon. members for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt), Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), to mention only a few. They all voted against that clause. The South African party members who declare, on the plat form at all events, that they are in favour of workmen organizing for their mutual benefit, were not prepared to go to that extent to help them to do so. Furthermore, it is a remarkable thing that, on the Factories Bill and on this Bill, we find members of the South African party, like the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), objecting to their own legislation, the very measure which the leader of the Opposition took so much credit for at a meeting held at Claremont last week. He said: “This is what the South African party did for the working people. We introduced this Act”, and now his followers in the House are picking holes in it.

How did your Nationalist friends vote on that resolution?

I should have to look up the Votes and Proceedings. I am quite prepared to admit that a number of Nationalists may also have voted against. But, since their association with the Labour party, they are beginning to see the light.

I think the boot is on the other leg.

They now understand what justice is in South Africa, and are prepared to recognize that the South African people do not consist entirely of merchants, but largely of men and women who have to work, day in and day out, for a miserable wage in many instances, and who require the protection of the State in regard to laying down decent conditions of labour and reasonable wages for their labour.

Will you introduce that motion now as an amendment on this and test it?

I am not sure whether we could introduce that clause into this amending Bill, but it would be quite a good idea. If I promise to introduce the clause, will you give me a promise that you will support it?

I promise to vote against it.

If I promise to introduce this at the committee stage, will you give me your promise to support it?

Will they support it?

I believe my friends on the other side would support such a clause today.

Try it.

As I said before, they are getting more enlightened, but the members of the Opposition retain their old conservatism. I hope the Minister will be encouraged in the good work he is endeavouring to do in amending the Industrial Conciliation Act on broad lines, so that we may continue the method of getting round a table and hammering out our differences and difficulties. Let us try, if we can, to forget the period when other methods were used in South Africa which left an after-math of bitterness which, I hope, we will never have occasion to experience in this country again.

I think the House must have noticed with great interest the statement made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) that his colleagues on the other side were beginning to see more light. I think that they are beginning to feel a little more the cold draught that is flowing down in political circles, and that they would have liked to hear from the hon. member something of a little warmth in their existing political situation. Before I come to deal with one or two points in the Bill, I would like to say that the hon. member hardly rendered fairly what was said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) with respect to those men who secure employment at the rate at which they were prepared to work. As I understood the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), he was dealing entirely with the semi-skilled man, who, under the hard and fast agreement which the Minister had made, have not been provided for, and are suffering severely because of the failure of the Minister to ensure that there may be some degree of grading and some sort of provision made for them.

How can a mechanic be semiskilled?

That was the position in South Africa, that there are so many men who are not sufficiently trained, and not able to earn the wages in that particular trade. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) spoke of this proposed amendment which had been moved in 1924, and referred to the fact that members of the South African party voted against it, but they did so for the reason, as I have read from the proceedings, that it formed no part whatever of the provisions to deal with industrial conciliation. The proper course was to introduce a Bill and deal with it there. I would like to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) when he asked the Minister to agree to this Bill being sent to a select committee, and I believe, after having listened with care to what was said by the Minister and his friends, we as a House and country, cannot feel that sufficient information has been put before the House to justify the amendment. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) said, in effect, what I have heard elsewhere—“the great industrial charter”. It should be called the Malan Industrial Charter, because it was introduced by the previous Minister of Mines and Industries. I do not think it is quite to the credit of the hon. member to say that, had it not been for the majority they had, it would not have been put through. Let us at least give credit where credit is due. If the Minister is so satisfied that this is one of the most satisfactory pieces of industrial legislation in the whole of South Africa, and as I have heard hon. members remark, and anywhere else, any interference with that should be done with the greatest caution. We cannot afford to make a mistake. At this moment the House has nothing more before it than the exceedingly sketchy speech with which the Bill was introduced by the Minister, who did not do justice to the importance of this question, but has left us very much in the dark. We look to him, as being very closely in touch with this Act, to tell us something of its practical application and of the complaints which he has received from the side of the employers and from the side of the employees. But he was silent on that point.

Were you here?

I was here. He did not give the House that information to which it was entitled in a most difficult matter. I would ask the Minister to believe that this is not being approached in any captious spirit. If the evidence did not go much further than that of their own departmental officials, the request is one, I trust, to which he will give his most serious consideration. The Minister proposes in sub-section 2 to deal with the alteration in Clause 3 (g), and lays down that it will be competent for an industrial council to pass rules dealing with the procedure for dealing with all disputes in any industry.

If they so desire.

Yes, if they so desire. Such an agreement might be applied to persons who stand outside. I would like to ask the Minister what is the necessity for this alteration. What administrative difficulty has prompted this? Has it anything to do with any request made to him by employers whereby they can compel other employers to join some other organization against their will, or is the reason because of any endeavour of any trade union to use this machinery to compel men to belong to any union? As a matter of fact, I think he will know from his experience that that question has arisen, and the point has been put whether in certain agreements which have received the force of law, it is competent to include in them words which look very much like compulsory trade unionism. If that is the purpose of this amendment the Minister should have told the House so when he introduced the Bill. I hope the House will carefully look at it from this point of view, because it is possible you may have an element of coercion introduced which may be applied by the employers as well as by the employees. Perhaps the only reason for this amendment is to enable an industrial council to lay it down that all persons engaged in the particular industry concerned shall belong to a particular body. I am not concerned with whether that is a good or a bad plan, but it is quite foreign to the principle of conciliation, and if you thus divert the purpose and scope of the principal Act you do infinite harm to the great cause which underlies it. I come to the proposal to overcome the position in the case of the commercial employers versus the commercial employees. I am glad the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) is in the House, for an exceedingly interesting affidavit was made by him and by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) explaining what exactly Parliament meant when it passed that particular section, but that affidavit did not seem to be of much assistance to the court. The affidavit contained a disquisition on the law and what was intended by Parliament, this being the first occasion in our judicial history when a member of Parliament has tried to assist a court of law by explaining what Parliament intended.

Is this professional jealousy?

No, but it does not quite fit in with the many-sided occupations of a member of Parliament. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) argued that he could not see why an outsider should not sit upon an industrial council. Why did he insist upon that? Because he knows perfectly well that you cannot get from an outsider that familiarity with the conditions of the trade that you can obtain from a person actually engaged in the trade. In addition to that, the persons engaged in that trade, whether on the employer’s side with his capital or on the employee’s side with his chances of employment, in all the arguments and disputes that may take place, have behind them this fact—that they have at stake their employment or their capital, and thus two men whose interests are so vitally affected are more likely to come to an amicable agreement than are any (other persons. It seems to me that the whole evidence shows that if you let in a professional negotiator— what in America is called a “roarer”—I will not call him an agitator, because that might hurt the feelings of some people not here, the chances of an agreement being arrived at are considerably reduced. Is it likely that when men are called in to fight for any particular point of view that does not directly concern them that you are going to arrive at an agreement? If the Minister’s proposal to amend Clause 2 is carried so as to delete the proviso in sub-section (1), you may have a dispute as to whether the services of a particular man are to be terminated. If one man can demand a conciliation board he will say that he wants the man who will agree to nothing, for as long as no agreement is arrived at, he will remain in his job. It is most important that members of a conciliation board should be men who have something at stake, and not merely be men who receive so much for sitting on the board. It has not been shown that it is impossible to find men able to do this. Take a local case where the Commercial Employees’ Association desired to nominate Mr. X. Will anybody tell me that that association could not find in Cape Town one of its members able to do just as good work for it as Mr. X? I could nominate a man who could do as much as Mr. X could do.

If he dared.

This theory that a man may be victimized does not exist in practice. Hon. members on the cross-benches are suffering from an obsession, and do not understand the change that has come over industrial relations or the big pull of public opinion which is opposed to victimization.

You are speaking of good employers, but we are fighting the bad employers.

You are penalizing the good employer because of the bad employer. We know from the report of the Mining Industries Board that this very question of submitting the rights and the position of individual employees to conciliation boards was in vogue in the Transvaal for a number of years. Unfortunately, the Minister is not able to draw lessons from history. The board was a very competent and independent one. I need not say it was a very competent board, though I understand the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) was sitting on it. The board came to the conclusion that the practices that had prevailed were such as wholly to undermine discipline. This is the point I am urging. There is the report of that commission which definitely condemns the system that then existed, so that we start off in considering this proposed amendment by knowing that this board came to the conclusion that in any industry and particularly in the mining industry it was impossible to maintain efficiency and discipline if you were going to have conciliation boards constantly interfering with the management in the legitimate exercise of its duties as such. The onus will be heavily on the Minister to show us why this alteration should be made. What did he tell us in support of it? To the best of my recollection, he said he had been asked by the employers to bring about a repeal of this proviso. We do not know who has asked or under what circumstances.

That is not correct; I explained it fully.

I cannot remember the whole of the hon. Minister’s speech, but, nevertheless, it will not affect the importance of the point. In considering how far this provision could be repealed, I have recourse to what was said by hon. members on my left when this particular proviso was under consideration in 1924, because I think we should find that these hon. members who objected to the proviso would have pointed out the serious injury and wrong that would be done if the proviso were included in the legislation. They said as they have said to-day that the heavens would fall if this proviso appeared in the Bill of 1924. I have an extract from a speech made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), and I am going to read from page 156 of “Hansard,” a characteristic speech that he made which must seriously have troubled the House at the time, because of the prediction of the terrible wrong that would result from this particular clause. [Extract read.] The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) said in the course of his remarks to-night that 80 per cent, of the disputes in this country took place over the rights of individuals.

That is not correct. He never said that.

Of course he did.

What I said was that 80 per cent. of the employees in organized bodies in South Africa are in favour of conciliation as opposed to using the strike weapon.

I certainly did not understand that, but I, of course, accept what the hon. member says. I will confine myself to the prediction that there would be a tremendous number of disputes. Four years have passed since then, when there were a number of predictions by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), and where have there been this tremendous number of disputes? Where has there been a single dispute? Where have there been disputes which this proviso has prevented from being dealt with in a proper way? The experience of the last four years has shown that there is no need whatever for the extension of the terms of this Act in the direction the Minister proposes.

The public never knows these things, but they are going on daily.

That is exactly my point. Here we have the Minister telling us that he knows and that the public never know and we do not know. We want a committee to find out. I complain of that attitude on the part of the Minister in keeping these secrets to himself and failing to tell the country fairly and properly what are the needs for this proposed legislation. That is where he is not doing justice to the House and this legislation. If he has this information, I ask him to give us the opportunity of learning from his departmental officials and from himself if need be what is the particular point at which the shoe pinches, and then we will be in a position to say whether he is right or wrong. I am not prepared to say that the mere ipse dixit of the Minister on the point is sufficient for introducing this remarkable provision. It seems clear that in any industry, because the Act applies to every industry except farming, where an employer proposes to promote an employee or to terminate the services of an employee, the conciliation board can be demanded. He might desire to promote an employee and other employees might think the promotion unjustified, and a conciliation board could be demanded.

A conciliation board could not be demanded. It is at the Minister’s discretion.

That is where I think the Minister does not realize the force of this section. I put it to him whether he had a discretion under this section. It is true that on receipt of an application for a conciliation board the Minister may take immediate steps, but if you look at the whole scope of this legislation, I think it is a doubtful question as to whether “may” does not mean “shall” in that case.

I have refused conciliation boards several times.

The Minister may not have been taken before the court, but if “may” is construed to mean “shall” as it often has been construed, you will find the Minister has no discretion, and in a case like that, where there is a dispute as to whether A or B shall be promoted, the Minister will be bound to grant a conciliation board, and away entirely goes the whole system of discipline in that industry. Should industry in South Africa be subject to the single undivided act of discretion on the part of the Minister? How is industry to be carried on if the Minister is the one who is going to determine whether perhaps the whole of the organization of a particular employer shall be thrown out of gear, because a demand is made undermining the whole of the discipline of that particular industry?

Or whether there is an upheaval due to a strike. I am responsible for that.

Let me consider that point. I am surprised that the Minister is prepared to take so great a responsibility. He rushes in where everyone else perhaps fears to tread. Even suppose he has enough courage to do so, I ask is it fair that any large industry, whether it be the bootmaking industry or any other industry, should have to feel, when it is considering a question of discipline, that the grant of a conciliation board will depend on whether or not a particular employee, or some particular trade union, has or has not got the ear of the Minister.

Whether or not there is going to be a strike, that is the question.

The Minister is not infallible. He might be partial. I am not speaking of him personally; I am speaking possibly of his successor. He may not have proper information. I would like to know under what conditions the Minister proposes to deal with applications for a conciliation board like this. Let me picture a particular case: “A” thinks that he has been unjustifiably derated, and he goes with a resolution and gets the ear of the Minister.

Who makes the application? Not the individual. Read the clause.

It may be made by any person or a number of persons who, in the opinion of the Minister, represent the industry.

The union.

No union at all. The Minister has not read the Bill.

The union and the employers. Read the whole clause.

“If, under this Act, any industrial council exists, where Section 2 of this Act in respect of a particular undertaking any trade union or employers’ organization”—

That is the first thing.

The Minister’s memory fails him. “… or any number of employees or employers, considered by the Minister to be sufficiently representative of that area”—

That is a big difference to the man coming to me and demanding a board.

If that man comes with two of his fellow workmen. After all, do not let us get into a quibble about it. While the Minister is trying to escape from reading into the section the fact that a few people like that or one man who might come there with a resolution behind him from, let us say, a dud committee, and have the ear of the Minister, does he refuse to allow the employers to have the same facility, or is he going to issue a mere fiat, and say there is to be a conciliation board? I have raised these points, not only to hear from the Minister what he is going to say in order that the country may know generally the effect of this amendment, but because I feel that there is a necessity that these matters should be inquired into by a select committee. Let me tell him that in 1923 and 1924, when the framework of this Bill was under consideration, there was no refusal to give hon. members on my left an opportunity of stating their views. Now that the positions are reversed, and we find the Minister adamantine in his refusal to let these things be placed before a committee, can he really assure the House that the views of employers and the views of employees are sufficiently known to us in considering this particular proviso? I notice that in 1924, when this proposal was before the House, the federation of employers in the building industry sent a very important resolution to the House in which they protested against the inclusion of that particular section. Has that industry changed its mind? Has it communicated with the Minister? I shall be glad to know what the true position is.

Have they got to administer the Act? Do they do it or do I?

No, unfortunately, as it may prove for the country, the Minister has to administer it. By contemptuously putting aside suggestions that are made to him he is not serving the interests of the country. When I draw his attention to an important resolution like that, for him to reply in that way shows that the Minister, at the moment, is suffering from a misconception of the true duties of a Minister of Labour. I would like to ask him to give us some information in regard to another matter. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) made a very interesting speech the other day, and there was a little exchange between him and the Minister relating to something I cannot quite follow. The Minister was speaking of a permission he might give to native workmen to manufacture their own products in their own native locations or within their own territories, subject to the condition that those products should not be sold outside those areas. This is economic segregation with a vengeance. This is industrial segregation, and I put the question to the Minister across the floor of the House whether he was referring to native territories and whether he was, perhaps, taking the long view following upon something the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) once advocated, that is, a restriction on the right to sell products which might be produced under particular conditions of labour. In this particular case the Minister gave that assurance to the hon. member for Jeppes. What did he mean?

Read the clause. It speaks for itself.

No, I would like the Minister to explain to the House. I want to know this—is the Minister contemplating some scheme whereby he proposes that, if the natives in the country establish an industry, and to illustrate it more clearly, shall I say in the native territories, that he is to ring round that area with some restriction so as to prevent their products from having a free market in the Union. Is that what he means? I am putting the question to him, and I hope he will be good enough to give us a full and clear reply on the point. From time to time one notices in the “Gazette” publications and determinations by the Minister, determinations reflecting agreements arrived at by industrial councils, that is, by employers on the one side and employees on the other side. I would like to ask the Minister what regard he pays to the interests of the consumers when agreements of that kind are submitted to him. Does he institute any enquiries as to how the consumers can bear the increased burden which may be involved in this agreement, or does he simply put his signature upon it and give it the force of law? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to the great increase in cost to the consumer as a result of the promulgation of some of these agreements. I am quite prepared to believe that the agreement has meant increased profits. [Time limit.]

Some of the amendments which have been introduced into this Bill are very far-reaching, and I am afraid that the Minister, when making his second reading speech, did not clearly explain the purport and effect of some of the amendments. I think that possibly hon. members sitting on the opposite benches have not a full grip and realization what the effect of some of the amendments may be. The first amendment with which I wish to deal is the one which amends the whole foundation on which the Conciliation Act was originally based, was the establishment of a spirit of goodwill and of co-operation between the employers and the employees. It set up machinery by which employers and an equal number of employees would deal with any disputes which arose in that particular industry. Provision was made in the Bill for only the employers and employees of that particular industry to sit on the conciliation board, but it is now proposed to alter that and allow any outsider to sit on such a board. I think this is a great mistake. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give any cases where hardships have occurred where an industrial council has been hampered by not allowing an outsider to be appointed on that particular council. It seems to me, if you allow an outsider to come in, it is going to have the effect that, instead of creating a spirit of conciliation, it is going to create a spirit of antagonism, and it gives an opportunity to the professional negotiator to sit on the boards in which he has no direct interest whatever. It is only fair and reasonable that on all these conciliation boards there should be men who are particularly interested in the industry and that settlement of all disputes should be left in their hands. Antagonism is going to be created by the man who is going to be introduced from outside. Surely the Minister should have left well alone. There is another point with which I want to deal, and that is the amendment in the definition of the word “employee”; in other words, by now including pass-bearing natives and Indian immigrants in this definition. Does the Minister realize what the effect of this is going to be upon the country generally? Does he realize that it will give an opening to I.C.U. organizers? The Minister may smile, but we in Natal realize that once the Minister includes the pass-bearing native he is going to cause a considerable amount of perturbation. Mr. van Niekerk, who is a member of the Native Affairs Commission, and is also a farmer, reports that the native has not yet reached that state of civilization when he should he brought under the purview of the Conciliation Act.

I am not bringing him in.

He comes under the definition of employee.

Only in respect of certain things.

I know, but is that not the thin edge of the wedge? It is the beginning. I look upon this as very dangerous legislation, and it is difficult to say what the effect will be. An agitation is going on throughout the country which is having a very detrimental effect; many of us are suffering very severely from that agitation. There is another point. Do hon. members opposite realize that once you bring natives within the purview of the Act you whittle down the powers under the Masters and Servants Act? Will it be possible to prosecute under that Act a native who has gone on strike?

I am told yes.

I submit that the Minister is wrong. I submit that if a native goes on strike in an industry in which a determination has been made, his employer will not be able to prosecute him under the Masters and Servants Act. A material alteration has been made in the definition of strike. In the original Act the definition was suspension or temporary cessation of work by any number of employees, but under the new definition the Minister uses the word “persons”, I have taken legal advice and I am told that if natives are brought within the definition of the word “employees” it will not be possible to prosecute them under the Masters and Servants Act. If that is so, it is very serious, for if there is one thing we on the platteland must fight against, it is the whittling down of the Masters and Servants Act. It is the only means we have of controlling natives. This proposal originated with the Economic Commission, Section 31 of whose report stated. [Extract read.] I submit that this is the first step to the carrying out of the minority report of the Economic Commission. You will not be able to prosecute any natives who strike.

I thought you were against the colour bar?

If I am right, hon. members on the other side must realize that the time is not very far off when an agitation will start to do away with the Masters and Servants Act on the platteland. If the effect of the clause is as stated there it will not be very Jong before a powerful agitation will follow to repeal the Masters and Servants Act altogether. Legislation of this sort is playing directly into the hands of the I.C.U. One has only to read the speech made by Mr. Kadalie last week in Newcastle. I might incidentally say that Mr. Kadalie referred, in derogatory terms, to Mr. Marwick, Gen. Hertzog and Mr. Nel, saying that the best thing that could happen was that they should be deported from the country. He went further, and in referring to the I.C.U., said: “We are making the farmers tremble. The workers in Natal are going to kick up such a row that the farmers in Natal will not be able to sleep”. It would lead to no good purpose to mention all Kadalie said in his heated speech.