I move—

This Bill was published some months ago and at the time of publication met with a very mixed reception, especially on the part of the Opposition press. Now, I do not know, of course, whether hon. members opposite agree with that criticism or not, but in any case I think it will shorten discussion if, in the first instance, I try to ascertain how far the Government and the Opposition are on common ground as regards the desirability of curtailing agitation amongst the natives. The danger of that kind of agitation was very fully appreciated about two years ago when the Natives Administration Act was passed. By Clause 29 of that Act it was specifically made an offence for anybody to do any act or use any words with intent to excite hostility between Europeans and natives in the Union. The Act had not been in operation for many months when it was ascertained that as a check on native agitation this clause was practically useless. One of the first cases to be taken to the Supreme Court was that of Rex versus Bunting, Mr. Bunting the well-known communist leader, and the Supreme Court there held, and if I may say so, with respect, very rightly, that as far as Section 29 was concerned, the preaching of any recognized doctrine, in this case the recognized doctrine of communism, however harmful the result would be—not might be— to the native races of the country, such preaching or teaching, if bona fide, and it was assumed to be bona fide, was no offence under this clause; secondly, the court laid down that any statement calculated to excite public feeling must be judged by the effect that it has on the average normal reasonable man, which, as I intend to show at a later stage, in most cases means the effect it has on the average reasonable adult European. I think I am not exaggerating when I state that every public man in the country felt the paralyzing result of this judgment. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition took the first opportunity of raising this matter in the House by initiating a discussion on the Justice Vote last session. What he said is very interesting in view of the attitude that some hon. members of the Opposition are taking up, because in dealing with this question, as far as I can make out, the right hon. member spoke as leader of his party. I will read what he said as reported in Hansard, volume 13, col. 574, on 8th of August—

And I may say the reason why this Bill is before the House to-day is because to-day there is an even graver state of affairs than at the time the right hon. gentleman made this statement. He went on to say—

I have quoted this in extenso because I think we ought first of all before we plunge into the heat of debate see what the position was six months ago and what the attitude of the right hon. leader of the Opposition was. The report goes on to show that the Prime Minister intervened in the debate, and at that stage without any opposition from the right hon. leader of the Opposition or any other hon. member, foreshadowed that it would be a very difficult if not an impossible thing to amend the Act to meet the circumstances, and that in all probability administrative power would have to be given for the purpose of checking this agitation amongst the natives. I agreed to that, and promised to give the matter most serious consideration. I therefore want the House to understand that whatever the merits may be of this particular Bill, the necessity for legislation to correct the unfortunate results of the Bunting case was fully realized by every hon. member six or seven months ago.

What were the unfortunate results ?

I think I have referred in extenso to what the right hon. leader of the Opposition said, and I can only associate myself with regard to the serious consequences mentioned in the passage I read out. Corrective legislation can take one or two forms—and if we do not agree that the result of the Bunting judgment should be corrected, an hon. member who feels that way will vote against the second reading. Two courses are open. Corrective legislation can take the form either of amending Section 29 of the Native Administration Act—-—

Hear, hear.

I hope that “hear, hear” will take the form of concrete assistance and not be confined to the general pious platitudes with which I have been overwhelmed since the Bill was first published.

Do you want us to draft your Bills ?

No. 1 want the hon. member to give the House proof that an amendment in a form which will meet the position, is possible. I was indicating that there are two ways of correcting this position, either by amendment of Section 29, or in the alternative, by giving the Minister or the Government administrative power to check this agitation. In my opinion, and I am supported in this very fully indeed by the law advisers, it is legally impossible to frame an amendment of Section 29 in such a form as to meet the difficulties of the Bunting case. Let us analyse that a bit more closely. In Bunting’s case it was laid down that if the words “with intent to create hostility” are introduced, as the section is now, it is virtually impossible to convict anybody who is merely preaching recognized doctrines. In other words, under Section 29, the out-and-out communist is in a better position than a man who preaches something less extreme, but is not preaching a recognized political doctrine. Any native speaker might make statements which might be a contravention of Section 29, whilst the out-and-out communist might not be convicted. That is the first difficulty we have to face. On the other hand hon. members may say “Let us make it an offence for any man to say anything or to do an act which, in fact, creates hostility, no matter what his intention is or how bona fide he is” obviously absurd results would follow. If you have the words “with intent” in 99 per cent, of your really dangerous agitators cannot be convicted. If you take them out, nearly all political discussion becomes impossible. Supposing it were possible to find a set of words which would get over this difficulty, then we are faced with a second point brought up in the Bunting judgment, namely, that the result of any speech in connection with any prosecution must be judged by its effect on the average reasonable man. The average reasonable man is the basis of many branches of our law. For example, whether a man is negligent or not, whether his colour be black or white, he is judged by the way the average reasonable man would act. If he does not act as an average reasonable man would act, he is convicted. Let us take the average meeting in an urban area addressed by the average agitator. The meeting would be made up of a number of curious and unsusceptible Europeans, a small number of white communists, a number of educated and semi-educated blacks and coloured people, and a large number of raw natives. A prosecution takes place and the court has to judge of the effect of what the agitator has stated, and what is charged in the indictment. Which section represents the average reasonable man in such a case? Is the judge to judge the effect of the agitator’s words on the unsusceptible Europeans, or on the white communists, or on the other section. Which section is to be taken to represent the average reasonable man? What may inflame the raw native may not affect the European, and as regards the intermediate stages, intermediate effects may result from what the speaker has stated. The net result will be that in the overwhelming majority of cases there will be some reasonable doubt, and the agitator will be found not guilty. This is merely the second of two difficulties which the Bunting case raises. I think we must realize that the latitude allowed to the orator in Hyde Park cannot possibly be allowed to the orator in South Africa, where we have at one and the same meeting the twentieth century civilization with raw barbarism making up the same audience. I have already indicated that it is with great reluctance that one drafts a Bill where the ordinary courts of law are excluded, and mischief is sought to be hindered by means of administrative measures. If the legal members of this House are in a position to assist by means of a solution, and if that solution will take the form of a clearly and concisely worded amendment of Section 29 of the Act. I shall be more than willing to consider it; but let me emphasize that a mass of generalities will be no solution of the difficulties of Section 29. Before dealing with the second form of legislation, that is corrective legislation by way of administrative action, as set out in the Bill which is before the House now and which is, in my opinion, the only solution of this difficulty, I would like to ascertain whether the position is still as serious as the House saw it six or eight months ago, or whether the position has definitely taken a change for the worse. The fears expressed six months ago by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, which I quoted to the House, were in no way exaggerated, and the position to-day is a great deal worse than as we saw it six or eight months ago. I think one hon. gentleman asked a few minutes ago “why communists?” Bunting’s case was a prosecution in respect of preaching communist doctrine. It was an extreme case, and if we want a remedy it must fit an extreme case. Anyone who declares that every bit of native unrest in this country is due to communist intrigue or bolshevist gold would be making an absurd statement. But I do say that all the native unrest taking place must be viewed against the background of the rapidly increasing and cunningly adapted communist propaganda both in the town and in the country. It may interest hon. members to know that as recently as 1925 the Third Inter-nationale the chief of the general staff of Moscow was only slightly interested in South Africa. There is a report which is public property now—it was laid upon the table of the House of Commons some time ago—dealing with the position, where a report is quoted from the Colonial Department to the Communist party of Great Britian dealing with the position in the colonies with special reference to South Africa. All the committee could report at that time—

That was all that was reported at the time. There was no reference to the red revolution of 1922. The position remained more or less the same until nine or ten months ago when the Communist Internationale from Berlin, working in contact with Moscow, sent out a notorious agitator of the name of Paul Merker to organize the communist party in South Africa. This gentleman, apart from conferring with the party and mapping out plans for the future, actually corrected the election manifestoes of Bunting and Walton, who were standing as candidates in this province. Since at least October, 1928, funds from the Internationale have been sent to South Africa, possibly before, but certainly since that. The amount of the funds unfortunately we do not know, nor have we been able to ascertain the means by which they were transmitted to South Africa. We can show, however, that funds did actually reach South Africa. On the 8th of November, 1929, the Internationale sent to their comrades in Johannesburg the following letter—

I have already stated we do not know what amounts were sent, but some light is thrown on this by an interview of the Sunday Times correspondent with M. Bessedowski, the ex-counsellor to Soviet Ambassador in Paris, who fixed the annual subsidy at between 50,000 and 60,000 dollars. He gave a fairly lengthy interview, of which we have been able to verify most of the details. Since 1925 a number of South Africans have been to Moscow and have attended the congress of the Internationale.

You went yourself.

I went myself, and therefore I speak with authority. We also know that two native leaders have graduated from the communist school at Brussels. Moscow has intimated to the South African communist party that they will train three young natives in communist ways. The son of the president of the African National congress is one of the candidates. It is, therefore, impossible to confine ourselves to communism as such, because nearly every native organization is connected with communist leaders in some way or other. About eight months ago £100 sterling was sent through Barclays Bank to enable two natives to attend the congress of the league against imperialism, one of the most extreme offshoots of the Third Internationale, which sat from 17th to 27th of July last year. The natives who were supposed to attend were Gumedi and Champion of the I.C.U., Natal. They were supposed to attend the world congress, and £100 was sent to Barclays Bank for their passage. During the East London strike Kadalie wired for financial support to Bunting, and actually received an assurance that the communists had decided to support him with funds.

Did those natives go to Frankfurt after all?

Fortunately, they did not get the money, but that was not their fault. Kadalie, as I said, recently wired to Bunting for assistance, and this was publicly promised to him. Fortunately, meanwhile, that strike collapsed. In that connection it may interest the House to know that the league against imperialism sent a cable conveying to Kadalie militant greetings in his struggle. N’zulu, another prominent communist, and one of the joint secretaries, is shortly expected in Paris by the Educational Workers’ Internationale, which is the teachers’ branch of the Berlin Internationale. All these facts— I do not want to exaggerate them—are symptomatic, but I am prepared to admit that, in themselves, they are not so very dangerous. They are sporadic, and I think they are symptoms of a disease which a certain section is suffering from. By themselves they do not constitute a menace which would call for very drastic legislation. There is, however, one event which has taken place in the last six months, the seriousness of which can hardly be over-emphasized. It is this: that the communist party in this country, which only recently was unable to make any particular headway, because its policy, its slogan, did not appeal to the masses, has now completely changed its front. Up to the present, they have tried to gain support by advocating a world revolution, a native republic and various other cries which have left the average native “stone cold.” Now, however, they have completely changed their front, and have decided to place in the forefront some of the intermediate stages on the march to world revolution. This has happened in the last six months. The following is what the communist party of South Africa reports to the Internationale at Berlin. It is rather lengthy, but I think the House will be interested in knowing all the details—

Then Bunting, who is the chairman or president of the communist party, saw fit to add certain remarks of his own in a separate document, and in connection with this point he says—

In view of the reference to the League of African Rights, the constitution of that league is very interesting as showing how far the communists have already succeeded in placing on their subsidary organization representatives of other native organizations. The president of the I.C.U. is Gumede, A.N.C., Modiogotla, I.C.U., is vice-president, Mr. Bunting is chairman, and the general secretaries are both communists. In view of the role to be assigned to the League of African Rights, it is interesting to note that there are other auxiliaries of the communist party already busy in South Africa. One is the International Red Aid, with a branch at Johannesburg. During 1929 this branch at Johannesburg contributed £120, and at least two other branches contributed £80, for the defence of communist prisoners in Latvia. The aims of the International Red Aid are also set out in the documents to which I have referred. In the instructions from the International Red Aid, dated Moscow, September 14th, 1925, to the central committee of the communist party of Great Britain, it is stated—

1. (1) The I.R.A., particularly through its individual membership section, gives the party an additional means through which the party can reach success.
2. (2) The character of the I.R.A. propaganda definitely prepared the masses for party propaganda.
3. (3) The individual membership section of I.R.A. has definite, concrete, organizational value for the party’s penetration into the factories.
4. (4) The I.R.A. is of extremely great importance to the party in the event of the party becoming illegal. If the I.R.A. is correctly directed and maintains its non-party character, it is likely to remain legal during periods when the party could not remain legal. In such an event it is impossible to exaggerate the value of the I.R.A. individual membership section.

In addition to that, there are a number of other similar organizations which either have already acquired a footing or are attempting to gain a footing in South Africa. The Educational Workers’ Internationale, to which I have referred, has three branches in South Africa, and they are connected with that infamous Five Years Atheist Campaign which has been featured in the daily press. One resolution they passed a short while ago at their world congress in Brussels was as follows—

The doctrines of Marcus Garvy, the American negro, are being fostered by a certain Wellington who has caused considerable trouble in the Eastern Province. The aims and objects of the Universal Negro Improvement Society are being furthered in the Free State by a branch which calls itself the Universal Negro Improvement Society League and African Communities League. Another body which has gained a footing here is the Ligue de Defence de la Rasse Negre. It is busy attempting to stir up revolution among all the native races in Africa and even in America. Kadalie is in communication with this body, and has promised to foster the necessary revolutionary feeling among the natives; this statement being accompanied by a strong appeal for funds. Whether the funds were forthcoming we do not know. An international native and negro workers’ congress will take place in London in July. Union delegates have been selected and are at present, I believe, struggling with passport difficulties.

Are they not waiting or funds ?

They may have received funds. Revolutionary instructions from Paris, Brussels, Berlin and Moscow are constantly reaching individuals and societies in his country. There was the notorious cable from the Third Internationale just before Dingaan’s Day, with which I dealt in my Pretoria speech, calling upon the communists to adopt revolutionary methods and insist on a native republic, and by means of Weinbrenns, to non-European trade unions, to penetrate the mines and to propound communist doctrines in the compound. Further messages from the Internationale urged the natives to a general strike, non-payment of taxes, and civil disobedience to pass and all other laws. One of the last instructions was from Kuussinen, the chief director of red propaganda in Moscow, and the very latest communication, hon. members may be interested to know, calls for an unemployed demonstration under communist leadership, on the 6th March next.

Where ?

All over the country. Whether it will result one does not know.

It sounds like a mare’s nest to me.

Let us see whether it is a mare’s nest. Let me read hon. members some of the speeches made in this country. I am not trying to explain to the House a huge, involved Bolshevik conspiracy. I have already made clear that every man who thinks that all native intrigue is a Bolshevik conspiracy, is a fool. Since the hon. member has said that all this is a mare’s nest, let me emphasize that I am only trying to show the House how far things have gone, and I am producing proof that things have definitely become worse since the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, six months ago, implored this Government to introduce legislation. I want to give hon. members a few extracts from the speeches made all over the country, and I leave it to them to decide what the effect of these will be on the native mind. A speech which is absolutely innocent as far as Europeans are concerned, may have disastrous results when addressed to the natives, and we must recognize that the security of this country and white civilization is based on the prestige of the white man.

And the justice of the white man.

I agree with that. I am sorry the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is obstructing, because they have received instructions from his party congress to obstruct this Bill by every means; and if I do not take him seriously, I hope I will be forgiven. I want to quote a few abstracts from the speech made by the notorious Ndobe at Beaufort West on 17th December last. He said—

Hon. members laugh, but this is the type of speech which gave us the difficulties at Carnarvon, Potchefstroom and Durban, and is the type of speech which has already produced bloodshed. This may sound childish to white men, but I ask hon. members to determine what the effect of such speeches is on the raw natives. I will quote further—

We find the provincial secretary of the I.C.U. writing to the communist party in Johannesburg, stating—

Another speech which may interest hon. members for Natal was made at a meeting held in Doornfontein, where it was said—

The same speaker, at another meeting of the Johannesburg I.C.U., said that they could not go on strike—

But perhaps the most significant of all are the speeches made on the occasion when, in the presence of some 2,000 natives, my effigy was burnt. The speeches are significant for this reason, that there was present the European adviser of the I.C.U., Mr. Ballinger. Our opinion of Mr. Ballinger has always been that he has done his best to keep within reasonable limits, and the fact that on this occasion he used language that was as strong as that of any communist agitator, shows the danger of allowing these speeches to go on.

Why don’t you cancel his permit ?

That may still happen, if occasion arises, but here you have a man who has certainly so far attempted to adopt a sane attitude, and the effect of these speeches was such that he suddenly lost his head. If that was the effect of this meeting on a man like, Ballinger, what must have been the effect of it on the raw natives? The language was crude in the extreme, speakers sending me to hell, sending Gen. Smuts to hell, and sending Gen. Hertzog to hell, but while these expressions are to us crude insults, the effect on the native’s mind cannot be underestimated. Some of the expressions used, such as “the swine” and “the murderer,” are, as I have said, to us but crude insults. There was a statement by Kadalie—

Mr. Ballinger said that Mr. Pirow was desirous of introducing new legislation because the African people were waking up. There was a lot of unrest among the Africans. The cause of this was that while there were 6,000,000 blacks to 1,500,000 whites in the country, the latter had seven-eighths of the land, and the blacks only one-eighth. The Africans, Mr. Ballinger concluded, could claim to have built up the wealth and prosperity of the country, and were entitled to their share of all that was “good” in South Africa. Let us merely compare that with what Bunting writes as to the aims of the League of African Rights, and it becomes abundantly clear that Mr. Ballinger, whether he realizes it or not, is being drawn into the communist party.

Mr. Ballinger is an avowed communist.

Mr. Ballinger is here as a trade union adviser, and, as far as I know, is not a communist. Compare this language with that of Nzulu, who said—

Mr. Bunting said all these Bills which the Government passed from time to time to sup press the African people were causing an unquenchable hatred in the hearts of the Africans. Mr. Bunting told the meeting to prepare for hard times, but to prepare as well for victory, and finished his brief speech by shouting—

This demonstration is significant for this reason: that it was held under the joint auspices of the communist party, the independent I.C.U., the I.C.U., the League of African Rights, and other organizations, which is a clear proof how far the communists have succeeded, whether these other people know it or not, in embracing them in a campaign throughout the whole of the country. These speeches are merely samples of speeches being made all over the country, and as the law stands to-day the Government is powerless to do anything. It is quite clear that the position to-day is infinitely worse than it was six months ago. It is clear that there is direct contact with the Internationale through the communist party, and through many subsidiary organizations. It is clear that funds are being regularly sent, and that funds were available from the communist party, for example, for the troubles at East London. It is further clear that communist doctrines and slogans which formerly left the natives unmoved have been altered and adapted so as to appeal to the native races. Leaders from most of the native organizations have been drawn into the stream, and are now part of the communist organization right through the country. Apart from branches in all the big centres, the communists claim, and I am afraid they claim correctly, to have gained a strong footing at such small places as Pinetown and Kroonstad, while at Vereeniging steel works they maintain a full-time agent. How long will the European population tolerate this? We have already had grave warnings which cannot be overlooked at Durban, Robertson, Potchefstroom and Carnarvon. Those are danger signals which can no longer be ignored. If once the European population gets out of hand, if lynch law is ever introduced into this country, our lifetime will not see it leave South Africa. I am told that the cure for all this is to remove the grievances of the natives. I would be surprised to hear that the natives are the only section of the community which has no grievances. My own opinion is that these grievances are confined to the urban natives, and that is a very small proportion indeed of the natives we have in South Africa. We have no European affairs department, but we have a Native Affairs Department and a Native Affairs Commission in which the natives, I am certain, have every confidence. But hand in hand with enquiry and action with regard to grievances of the natives must go a stern suppression of all seditious activities. Merely to redress grievances, fancied or real, without taking up a firm attitude towards this seditious propaganda would undermine the position of the white man. Personally, I think that, grievances or no grievances, we will always have our agitators. Where you have the bulk of the people in a state of absolute barbarism, with facilities for certain individuals to become educated, and thereby alienated from their own people, we will always have agitators, we will always have our Buntings, our Champions and our Gumedes, and I am certain the House will agree that any weakness in connection with propaganda by these agitators must certainly lead to violence and bloodshed. This propaganda must be firmly dealt with. Now I come to the terms of the Bill. I want hon. members to read the terms of the Bill in the light of Section 21 of the original Act and of two amendments which I intend proposing. Section 21 of the original Act of 1914 provides that anything done under Section 1 must be reported to Parliament. Hon. members will see that Section 1 of this particular Act is an amendment of Section 1 of the original Act, so that everything which will be done by the Minister under this Bill will be submitted to Parliament. The point was put to me that hon. members would like to see these powers entrusted, not to the Minister, but to the Governor-General-in-Council. The only difficulty is that action under this Bill would have to be taken in most cases at very short notice. At Carnarvon, for example, a few hours would have made all the difference between adequate measures and a serious state of affairs. I do not insist that powers should be entrusted to the Minister, but there are great difficulties if they are given to the Governor-General-in-Council. On this point, I should like to hear the views of hon. members, but if this is the only point of objection, I would consider it. I have stated that Section 21 is applicable to every section of this Act. Section 4 gives the Minister the power to prevent hostility being engendered between Europeans and other sections. I see the wording is being criticized in the press. I am not wedded to the wording. For certain technical reasons the law advisers considered this the better wording; but in committee, I am prepared to alter the wording to read: “feeling between natives and Europeans.” The power is first to be given to prohibit attendance at public gatherings. There is also power to prohibit a public gathering in the original Act, but only in the event of a breach of the peace. This Bill seeks to go a little further. I further want to exclude from the operation of this Act entirely, anything said or done by any members of a European trades union, in the furtherance of the objects of such union; that is, this amending Bill will not have anything to do with any European trades union. Secondly, I intend proposing an amendment which will confirm the court’s existing right of review. Any decision by the Minister will be subject to a revision on such grounds as mala fides, or if taken on grounds that no reasonable man would have acted on. These are applicable, so that any case of grave injustice could be referred to a court of law. Subsections 5 and 6 are merely offence-creating sections. They also apply the definition contained in the principal Act as to holding a meeting; that is, to what is forbidden in this Act. Section 7 deals with the prohibition of documentary information, and there again let me emphasize that I am not wedded to the wording of this section and the following three sections. The press has indicated that any reputable paper could be held up at any time, but, of course, the Minister would never so apply it. Hon. members will agree it is necessary to prohibit a certain type of propaganda, and if any hon. member can find a wording which will safeguard our rights to suppress that type of propaganda, but will not make it applicable to any reputable newspapers, I am content to accept it. Clause 11 is a very important one, giving the Minister the right to exclude from a certain area any person deemed to be a person who is inflaming the feelings of any particular section.

For what period?

For a certain period only. I do not know why the hon. member is worried; he has no native voters in his constituency now. Hon. members must remember that the House, in the Native Administration Act of 1929, gave greater powers in connection with the natives. This is applicable to natives and Europeans. Power has previously been given to deport a man from an area and keep him at some other place in definitely. Clause 13 provides that the expenses of a man in complying with such a notice, and also subsistence, may be paid by the Government. Finally, there is Clause 14. A clause which has aroused a great deal of controversy. Clause 14 provides that where any person is convicted of an offence under this amending Act, if he is born outside the Union he may be deported to his country of origin.

We are indebted to the hon. Minister for his very careful and very temperate exposition of this Bill. As for the Bill itself, it is one of the most extraordinary and drastic pieces of legislation which has come before this Parliament. The most drastic. It is the duty of all of us to consider tins measure in the spirit in which the Minister moves it, not in a spirit of panic, but calmly, and temperately. We have to consider it not as dealing with the situation at the present moment, but we must consider its effect on our country in the years to come. I am glad that the Minister quite frankly recognizes that all our difficulties with the natives at this moment are not due to Moscow, and are not due to agitation. There are economic difficulties and grievances on the part of the native which have also got to be enquired into and, as far as possible, remedied. After all, these wild doctrines find acceptance in the minds of the people very largely according to how the seed bed is prepared for them. We have to deal with these doctrines not only by repression but by reform. I hope the House will keep that in mind. There are two things, repression of the adepts at revolution, and reform of the conditions which give these doctrines of revolution a hearing that they would not otherwise have had. I am glad that the Minister frankly realized that there were these two sides to the question. I would also make this admission that we must not take the wild speeches made in different parts of the country at their face value.

We must not take all the reports of them either.

Assuming that the reports are good, much of this stuff which appears in them must not be taken at its face value. I know it is more dangerous appearing in this country than in a European country. But much of it does not go very far and it does not last very long. With all these reservations, I want to respond at once to the appeal of the Minister when he said that he wanted to know if this side of the House was in agreement with the Government side on the necessity for curtailing this sort of agitation. We are in agreement with them. We realize the necessity of it. We appreciate the statement made by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) last year as to the dangers with which this country are faced. We believe those dangers still exist and we believe the Minister when he said that they are more dangerous now than when the statement was made. We realize fully that there are these dangers, that having regard to the conditions of the population in this Union these dangers must be met and checked. The Government must be given power to check dangerous and revolutionary agitations amongst the natives. We are absolutely in agreement with the Government on that point. We agree that this communist propaganda that is going on in South Africa is no mere political propaganda. Communism is not a mere political doctrine or a theory of Government. It is a revolutionary doctrine. Communism is the propaganda of violent revolution. Let us face that fact at once. They do not pretend to come here to improve our social arrangements. They do not pretend to come here to reform grievances and to abolish difficulties. They come here openly and professedly to overthrow the society which is existing here. They come here admittedly and professedly to use the native population of South Africa as the spearhead of the attack. It is through the native population and people that they can overthrow our society. They are working for that end openly, and I think we are justified therefore in regarding their propaganda not as political propaganda, or as something which exists to change the form of Government, or abolishing grievances, but as a revolutionary movement aimed and directed at the overthrow of our social fabric in South Africa. Therefore, we are fully prepared to meet the requirements of the Government when they say that “We cannot deal with this propaganda by the existing law and we come to this House to strengthen our hands.” Upon that point we are in full agreement. So far as the natives themselves are concerned we think it is desirable and necessary that this propaganda should be checked. This propaganda does not exist to protect the natives, to uplift the natives or to improve their conditions. It exists to use them as an instrument by which to overthrow our society. That is the sole interest that these communists take in the natives, namely, how far they can use them as an instrument to overthrow, by revolutionary means, our society. It is our business and duty, not merely to the European population of this country, but also to the loyal and law-abiding native population, to protect them from this sort of propaganda which threatens them and their interests just as much as it threatens ours. Therefore, as I say, when the Government asks this House to strengthen their hands and enable them to deal with this propaganda, we are fully with them. We are prepared to co-operate with them in order to attain that end. But this Bill is a difficult morsel to swallow. The principle of this Bill is to rule out the courts of law. You give the Minister in his arbitrary, unchecked discretion, the power to prohibit a public meeting if, in his opinion, there is reason to apprehend that a feeling of hostility will be engendered between the European inhabitants of the Union on the one hand, and any other part of the inhabitants on the other hand. That is a drastic power. But that is not so serious. The subsequent provisions of the Bill go much further. Clause 11 says that whenever the Minister is satisfied that any person in any area is promoting feelings of hostility between the European inhabitants on the one hand, and any other part of the inhabitants on the other hand, he can serve such person with a notice telling him to leave the area where he is and to go to some other part. He can tell him if he is living in Natal, or he can serve him with an order telling him to live in Namaqualand.

I cannot tell him. I can only exclude him. I cannot tell him definitely.

It is a process of elimination.

The root principle of our society is the rule of law, the law that a man must not be condemned without a trial, that a man against whom some penalty is to be put in force must have some chance of defending himself and of putting forward his point of view. Notice is served on him and he has to go. This is an interference with the liberty of the subject, which this House should not lightly undertake. It is very serious to tell a man that he must leave his home and live somewhere else. I do not say it is not necessary, but before it is put into execution some chance should be given to a man to defend himself, and to put his case before an impartial tribunal. I am surprised at the Minister, who is a lawyer, coming forward with a proposal which is a negation of the law, and law is not the invention of lawyers, but a guarantee of liberty and freedom. We are making a very serious inroad on the freedom of the individual if we are to give to any Minister the power by a mere order made in his office, to say to a man “You shall live there and stay there until I tell you to come back.” Under Sub-section (14) of Clause 1. if a man has been convicted of disobeying the Minister’s order, not to go to a meeting and the man is convicted of having attended the meeting, the Minister can sign an order for his deportation from the country. This is a most drastic provision. A man may not have committed any seditious act at all, but he may have simply attended a meeting he was bidden not to attend, and for doing that he may be deported from the country on a mere Ministerial order, without any opportunity being given to him of explaining that he is not a dangerous character.

He can explain that to the magistrate.

Let the idea not get abroad that we do not realize the seriousness of the position. The House should think once, twice and three times before clothing the Minister with powers which have never been exercised in any constitutional country.

Can you suggest any other remedy ?

Yes, but the Minister may not agree to it. We suggest that he should explore every avenue and consider every suggestion to strengthen the existing law before he has recourse to such an arbitrary proposal as this. The Minister said there were two defects in the existing law, the first being that in order to obtain a conviction under the Act of 1927, under which Bunting was charged, the Crown would have to prove intention—not only that he was preaching doctrines which were dangerous, or would lead to hostilities between black and white, but that he intended to do so. It was on the latter ground that Bunting was acquitted. However, that point can quite easily be remedied. In 1926 a similar measure to this, but not nearly so drastic, was introduced into this House by the Minister’s predecessor, who took so serious a view of it that he referred the subject-matter of the Bill to a select committee before the second reading was taken. The select committee—unanimously, I think—reported a Bill. I do not know why the Government did not go on with it, but I believe there were internal reasons.

Now the reasons have been removed.

I will not be so indelicate as to enquire whether those internal pains are still being felt, but the fact remains that the Government did not proceed with the Bill, but in the Native Administration Act of 1927 they included some provisions of that Bill. I venture to say that if the provisions of that Bill, defining seditious intention, had been incorporated in the Act, the conviction in the Bunting case would have been upheld. The Select Committee’s Bill stated that seditious intention could be presumed in the case of words uttered and acts done if the effect of those words or acts could be presumed to have certain results and to promote hostility between black and white. Then we would not have had that difficulty of proving intention. We might now consider whether the law could not be improved by the removal of these legal subtleties. The second difficulty the Minister referred to was the fact that the words uttered and acts done had to be judged according to what a reasonable man would think of them. Surely it is not beyond the powers of the Parliamentary draftsman to overcome that difficulty. The court could be required to base its decision on the effect these words or acts would be likely to have on the audience listening to the words or seeing the acts. These are not insuperable difficulties. I appeal to the Minister to act on this offer of co-operation, and let us have an opportunity of considering how far the difficulties may be met, and how far the troubles threatening the Government may be overcome along the lines which bring a man before the courts, and give him an opportunity of defending himself instead of suffering from this autocratic exercise of power, which leaves it entirely in the hands of the Minister to say whether or not a man is guilty. We must hesitate before adopting a Bill such as this, which substitutes for the courts of law a mere arbitrary decision and opinion of the Minister in power. We want to give the Minister and the Government power to deal with this propaganda; we recognize the evil which is inflicted, not merely on the European population, but on the native population itself. We realize the very serious position into which this country may be brought at any moment if this propaganda continues unchecked. We realize we are dealing with a population only slowly emerging from barbarism, which cannot weigh words as an ordinary civilized man can, and with people who are swayed by appeals to their sentiments. A powerful organization is working from outside for the overthrow of civilization in South Africa, and we are prepared to co-operate with the Minister to see how far powers can be given to him under the law to deal with this propaganda. But power such as is in this Bill ought not to be given except in the very last resort, until we have exhausted every other means in the matter. That is why we want to approach this question from the point of view of co-operation. I have said that in 1926, when a Bill much less drastic than this was under consideration it was sent to a select committee before its second reading, so that every shade of opinion could be brought to bear on it, and it could be calmly and coolly considered before being brought back to this House. A Bill was brought back which enabled us to deal with these matters without such arbitrary drastic powers as these. I appeal to the Minister whether the same thing cannot be done here. I notice that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has on the paper a notice to move for the discharge of the order for the second reading, and that the subject-matter of the Bill be referred to a select committee for consideration and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers. That undoubtedly would be a way to give this House an opportunity of co-operating with the Minister and considering whether there are other methods.

made an interjection.

If you go to the select committee after the second reading we are committed to the principle of this Bill, which is a supersession of the courts of law by the will of the Minister. It seems to me that why a select committee before the second reading is preferable is that by the second reading we adopt the principle, and we would be committed to the principle that an amendment of the existing law would be impossible, and that the only way of getting it is through the arbitrary powers of the Minister. My only objection to the motion of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is that it involves considerable delay, if we called in people from all over the country. What I would like is a select committee from members of this hon. House dealing with the matter from their own knowledge and without being committed to the Minister’s arbitrary power being the only remedy possible; and coming back with their result. They may say “We have examined every possible way, and find that nothing will serve except the Bill in its present form.” In that case we must make up our mind to take it. But they may come back with another result and say that an amendment of the existing law is possible which will not rule out the courts, and will give a man a chance to appear before the courts and state his case. The Minister has told us that he does not like the form of the Bill. Let him give us a chance, I ask him. I am not in favour of the committee taking evidence and calling for papers, which will involve a long delay. We see the necessity of a measure of this kind being passed as soon as possible, and we see the danger of the situation; we are prepared to co-operate in every possible way. When the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has moved his amendment, we intend to move an amendment to that, that “to take evidence and call for papers” be excluded. This Bill is a denial of law; it is committing to the hands of the Minister absolute powers over the freedom of the people of this country, and we should not do that until we have exhausted every possible means. We have not done so. We need not despair of finding some weapon to deal with this danger. While admitting the dangers of the situation, and that the Minister has a desire to co-operate with us, I want to suggest that the Minister should employ every means at our disposal to find another way, more consonant with liberty, law and the tradition of the races which populate this country. I hope the Minister will give that suggestion his best consideration. We do not like this Bill as it stands. We do not want the principle of the Bill accepted until we are convinced there is no other way open to us.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) in congratulating and thanking the Minister for the clear and temperate manner in which he submitted the Bill to the House. It was a pleasure to contrast his speech with the language used by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) when he introduced measures of this kind. I hope that the Minister will not be carried away by the fact that the right hon. member for Standerton delivered a panicky speech during the last session, and that the Minister will not be diverted from a temperate course in connection with the present matter. The Minister really only dealt with one point in his speech. He submitted a very considerable amount of material as to Communist propaganda in South Africa. He read speeches of different Communists. In that connection may I say, that there are two points he must not overlook in reading those speeches. One is that only a few days ago one of the learned judges in this province found in a case affecting three natives, charged with making such speeches, that in the case of two of the natives the speeches were absolutely manufactured. The Minister therefore should be cautious with regard to reported speeches.

That is not correct. There is some dispute.

At any rate, a report of that kind is not complete evidence. I am as opposed to any violent agitation for the subversion of society or the system of society as anyone else. I believe that the only permanent way to bring these changes about is by peaceful methods, by educating public opinion. Violence in the long run never pays, whether exercised by individuals who want to subvert society, or by a Government who want to suppress agitation by individuals. Take Clause 11 of the Bill. I can visualize what would happen during a general election on the Native Bills if this measure were passed. Every candidate opposed to the Government would be removed from the constituency in which he was fighting until after the election, because the Minister would have the power to do it. I can imagine that if the South African party were in power, the Nationalist candidates would be treated in the same way. The Minister shakes his head. I know he does not want to exercise this power, but although the Minister of Justice is a very reasonable individual I can conceive of some other Minister exercising that power to the fullest possible extent. The second point I want to touch on is that whatever may be the ultimate findings of this House, the fact remains that it is imperative in the interests of all sections of the population that we should stop getting away from the rule of law, that we should stop over-riding the principle that every individual in this country can have recourse to a court of law, and that we should stop handing over arbitrary powers to Ministers and officials. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said that he agrees that this Bill should go to a select committee before the second reading. He wants the Bill to go to a select committee to be thrashed out on the knowledge of members of this House. At the same time he tells us that one of the most important things is to redress grievances, and to give the natives the feeling that they are being justly dealt with. What possible impression can the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville have if he turns around and says to the natives “I am not satisfied with this Bill, but at the same time, I am not going to give you an opportunity of expressing your views before the committee, because it is going to take time.” They are entitled to give their evidence before such a committee, and the committee would then have information from all angles. I do not suggest that a select committee should take interminable evidence, but I do concede that such a committee would not be satisfied merely with the reports that have been submitted by the Minister. I suggest that the committee might take evidence from the Trades Union Congress, a few of the native associations and some of the native chiefs, and that it could then go into the question of how far the Bill is necessary, and to what extent it should be amended. We are faced with the position that in reality we have no information before this House. If the House is satisfied that there is to-day such a state of affairs as regards violent agitation as has been represented, then I am prepared to give the Government greater power, subject to the one principle that the enforcement of that power should be in the hands of the courts of law. Before anyone is found guilty of anything of the kind, he should be allowed recourse to a court of law. The hon. the Minister has drawn the inference that the trouble in Durban recently was due to communism. I submit that this House is entitled to go into the recommendations and findings of the judge who enquired recently into another trouble in Durban. Recently the Minister had to make use of aeroplanes and tear bombs. I do not object to tear bombs as much as to those which kill. But investigations should have been made and the report of the Native Affairs Commission should have been available as to whether or not the trouble was due to communism. Until the House knows this however anxious we may be to give reasonable powers we must claim we are entitled to more information. This House is the Supreme Court in the land and is entitled to give judgment on evidence. The chief object of the Bill as I understand it is to deal with Communist propaganda, but I have failed to find anything in the Bill to deal with Communist propaganda. It simply gives power to the Minister to do what he likes. He might use these powers against Communists or those who are supposed to be Communists indiscriminately. Communism is a theory which does not merely create difference of opinion between Europeans and non-Europeans, but also between Europeans themselves. Because the Minister finds difficulty in certain cases he wants full discretion to apply his powers without reference to the evidence in each particular case. You are asked to give powers to the Minister instead of to the courts. A suggestion has been made that there were more internal differences, but my hon. friend the member for Benom (Mr. Madeley) was partly responsible for that. If there were any difference at all they were differences connected with the consciences of members of the Cabinet alone. During the discussion of 28th April, 1927, on page 2914 of Hansard, Mr. Marwick interjected—

To which the Minister of Native Affairs replied—

The Minister of Native Affairs went on to say—

That is the reason why the clause was not included in the Bill. Because the hon. Prime Minister felt at the time that it was wrong to stop preaching of doctrines simply because they were different from ours. What would have happened to our friends who preached republicanism in the old days, if a clause like that had been included. I say the Prime Minister realized quite properly that it may be possible for people to preach socialism, syndicalism, or communism so long as the individual expressed his views honestly and fairly. But assuming that the Government has departed from the commendable principle of the Bill; assuming it has changed its views, does the Bill give you the necessary power? You do not need a Bill of that kind. You simply need a Bill to lay down that the Minister of Justice has power to administer the affairs of this country as he may think fit. I submit the clause is of no greater value than Clause 29 as it stands at the present moment, and there is the danger of giving the Minister the power he seeks under this Bill. I remember that on the 11th May, 1926, speaking at the joint session of members of this House and the other House in connection with the colour bar Bill, the Prime Minister made the following statement about the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—

The Prime Minister said that the hon. member for Standerton had been stirring up the feelings of the natives against the white man. The hon. Minister must have believed that, and honestly believed it, for he is one of the most honest men in this House. Having believed that, I wonder what the position will be if the power is granted that is asked for in this section. I do not believe that he would have sent the right hon. gentleman to Geneva. I take the reverse position. I remember some of the speeches which were delivered from this side of the House by the right hon. member for Standerton, and others, about what has now become known as the “black manifesto.” Supposing, instead of the hon. the Minister of Justice being in office, the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) was the acting Minister of Justice, and he saw that “black manifesto” in the light of the opinions expressed, what would be the position of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of the Interior and of my friend Mr. Tielman Roos who, I think, was not much of a party to that manifesto? I treat these points not as a joke, but in all seriousness. They show the danger of the thing. Of course, we are entitled to alter our opinions. Opinions are altered from day to day. The hon. the Minister says he is prepared to amend the clause to give the judiciary the right of veto. What is the value of it? The Minister first commits an act, and no evidence is necessary, and then he says, having done all that, “Now you can go to the judiciary and ask the judiciary whether I was a reasonable being or not.” The judiciary will have no evidence upon which to base its finding. I should imagine that nine times out of ten the judiciary will say that the Minister himself has got the right to deal with these matters, and they cannot judge of them. Even if in a singular case the judiciary might alter the decision of the Minister, what redress will the people have who have already been subjected to difficulties and trouble through the action of the Minister? So the proposed alteration is of no value whatever. As the section stands, there can be no doubt in my mind it would apply against legitimate trade union activity. The Minister realizes that as it stands it would be possible to administer this clause against trade union activities.

I do not admit it.

As I understand the policy of the Government at the present time, of separating the natives from the European race, everything possible is being done by the Government. But we are about to have another measure to force the natives to become employees on the land. My point is this, that I can conceive of a legitimate organization amongst the natives, and I understand this is already in being, in which, without any question of hostility between race and race, somebody may be agitated to ask for more wages. Obviously if that occurs, it will create a certain amount of friction between those who want extra wages and those who refuse to pay the extra wages. You are industrializing the natives; you are Europeanizing the natives, and when they use your instrument to improve their lot you will say that the Minister will deal with them under this section of the Act. No self-respecting House which declares itself to represent the well-being of the people, as a whole, in this country, will say that they are prepared to accept an amendment which will exclude a European organizer when he is improving the lot of his people, but which will not exclude from the operation of this Act, the native organizer. So I submit, if the Minister is to be fair, and I know he wants to be fair, then he has got to delete those words altogether. Once he does that then it means he is getting back to Section 29 as it stands at the present moment, word for word, and instead of the judiciary administering the section, it will be left to the arbitrary desires and action of the Minister of Justice. I think that is a very bad principle. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and I think the Minister was unhappy himself about it. He does not want to take these powers. He, as a very distinguished legal man in this country, realizes that the principle should be to leave the powers to the judiciary to act in these matters. I submit that under this Bill he is going away from that principle. In that regard he referred to another discussion which took place in this House in 1914. I think that was at the time of the deportation debate. In those days some of our friends there had different views from those they hold at the present time. The Prime Minister, then the plain member for Smithfield and a very unpopular member, said in the course of that debate on this question of the judiciary—

I submit, in fact, that the provision in this law is to forbid access to the courts of law and to hand over the powers of the judiciary to the Minister of Justice. He went on to say—

That is the very argument put to us by the Minister of Justice who says that we have a law, but we find great difficulty in getting the courts to declare people guilty under it. The great issue is whether the people should have the right to go to the court and let the court decide whether they are guilty or not, or whether that power should be given to the Minister and his administration. I will quote the statement made by the Prime Minister (Hansard, 1914, page 316) when, with very high-sounding and sincere words referring to Bismarck and justice, he said—

The principle enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1914 is as true to-day as it was then. Every hon. member favours the idea of control, but we are opposed to suppression and oppression. We all favour liberty as opposed to licence, but we do not favour the idea of granting licence to the Minister of Justice to act in this matter. If the testimony of the Prime Minister is not enough, I would recommend hon. members to read the Hansard reports from 1910-’24, and there they will find the testimony of the present Minister of Defence. I do not propose, however, to weary the House by reading the very brilliant and eloquent periods in which he used to proclaim in the interests of justice and freedom, because the Minister has gone back on those professions. I will say this: there have been occasions in the past in which people who have achieved power by denouncing oppression have then become the agents of oppression, and, therefore, one does not want to quote what they said in the days when they saw the light. I will, all the same, put the case of a man greater than the Minister—the great Wentworth—who was the founder of liberty in the British Parliament and later became the agent of the King to suppress the people. He met a well-deserved fate. I do not wish the Minister to meet with such a fate, but I believe the time is drawing near when he also will be thrown over, as he has thrown over his friends, but I will leave him to the contempt of his fellow-citizens and the gnawings of his own guilty conscience. I move the amendment standing in my name. I move, as an amendment—

seconded.

We on this side of the House appreciate the tone and attitude of the Minister in introducing the Bill. We feel just as strongly as hon. members opposite that the phase the country is passing through now is a dangerous one, and that it is necessary that steps should be taken to put a stop to this insidious campaign. Unfortunately, the native is hearing only one side of the question. Native agitators create ill-feeling, while we sit still and do nothing to counteract their evil teachings. If we had some means of counter propaganda we might put the other side of the case to the native, but, unfortunately, we have not, and the native is gradually losing his respect for the white man and his faith in the institutions of the white man, and that is an exceedingly dangerous factor. I agree with the Minister that the speeches of these agitators have a very disturbing influence on the native people. Maj. Herbst, giving evidence before a select committee in 1926, pointed out that—

That is the danger of these speeches, for they give the native the idea that there is some greater power behind the men who preach these doctrines than there is behind the Government. When Bunting went to the Transkei, there was an idea among the natives that Russia was behind him, and that our Government was afraid of the doctrines he preached. I have attended meetings addressed by Bunting; I have watched the facial expressions of the natives as he addressed them and heard the remarks they made—I know the native language—and I say without hesitation that the propaganda then and now carried on is extremely dangerous, not only to the white man, but also to the natives. Whatever happens in this country, if bloodshed results, it will react infinitely more on the native than on the white man. In 1926 the general impression of the select committee to which the hon. member for Yeoville has referred—I took a great interest in the matter—was that that particular Bill would meet the position. If that is insufficient, it seems to me a confession of failure on the part of this honourable House and of the legal fraternity that we cannot so use the English or Afrikaans language—as to clearly convey to the judges the intention and the object of our legislation. Surely the English language is capable of that. If it is incapable, and our legal members are unable to frame our thoughts and desires into legal expression, then it is our duty to support the measure. I have referred to the native attitude, and I think it is only right to say that when Mr. Bunting came to the Transkei the Bunga was in session, and took this matter up. A resolution was put forward and unanimously carried, asking the Government to take immediate steps to deal with what was recognized by the natives themselves and their leaders to be a menace to themselves. If I read the speeches of some of the natives there, hon. members will realize that we Europeans are not looking at it only from the point of view of our personal safety, but the natives themselves also recognize the dangers. Here are the words of the paramount chief, Dalind-yebo of the Tembus—

Then another leading councillor, E. Mda, spoke as follows—

Then Councillor Sopela, when referring to the delay and tardiness of Government in dealing with the matter, Said—

Sopela continued—

That, Mr. Speaker, I take it is what we are trying to do now. To find out which is the right means of providing legislation to deal with this evil. And now, in Sopela’s speech, we come across this interesting little item—

I hope we are coming to the point, and that quickly. It is the tardy attitude the Government takes towards the agitators that the natives cannot understand. It took three or four months before the appeal was decided, and during that time he was still carrying on his propaganda. The native cannot understand the reason. To their minds it is indicative of weakness or fear. An old chief told a magistrate at a council meeting that he knew how to deal with these agitators. He would not tell him publicly, but would only disclose his scheme privately in his office. After the meeting the magistrate invited him to his sanctum and said—

The old man, pointing through a window, replied—

Not that I suggest that the Minister should adopt such drastic measures, but we would practically give him that power under this Bill without recourse of the accused person to courts. During one of Mr. Bunting’s discourses, he said things which not only were calculated to cause a breach of the peace, but actually did cause a breach. One of the Europeans became so angry and excited that he actually struck him. The natives present immediately surrounded Bunting in order to defend him, saying—

The position was really serious for a time, and a general explosion might easily have occurred. That is the danger which is being faced every day. The question is what is to be done. The Minister will admit that in the native areas, under the schedule of the 1913 Act, he has sufficient powers under the Act of 1927, to deal with these matters. The Governor-General can deal with these matters by proclamation, and we have dealt with Mr. Bunting.

The only place is the Transkei. The whole of Natal is open.

No, the Act of 1927 gives power.

made an interjection.

Well, anyhow, I think we have power under the proclamation system in native areas. This type of propaganda is not going on to the same extent in the native reserves as it is going on on the gold fields and in the large urban areas. That is where we have our universities of crime. The Minister knows that he has just sent a gang of criminals, the Isitshozi gang, 45 in number, who have been educated in the criminal schools of the Witwatersrand, back to the Transkei. How can he expect peace and order to be maintained in the Transkei if he sends all these rogues and rascals back amongst their innocent relations.

That is where they came from.

They had not learnt this roguery when they first left the Transkei. And now we are to have a criminal gang-said to be even worse than the Amalaita gang —amongst whom is their infamous leader, known as “J.B.”—sent back to the territories to carry on their insidious teachings amongst the ignorant masses. It looks as though the Government is deliberately seeking trouble. One of the most difficult problems that the Minister has to face is how to deal with men of the agitator type. It is useless to send them from one place to another and also dangerous to the public peace. A place like Robben Island might be utilized. There is nothing a native fears more than not being able to return to his own home. Banishment—if even only temporary—might meet the case. I would now like to deal with the method by which the Minister proposes to deal with the matter with the powers that he asks us to bestow upon him. There is no doubt that native confidence and trust in the white man is waning —he has not that faith in our institutions— and I include our parliamentary bodies—that he used to have. I do not think he has any justification as I am convinced that every member of this House is honestly desirous of doing justice to all sections, but the mentality and outlook of members differs. However, that is an undoubted fact that we have to face. Now let me say that although he may be losing faith in us, he still has the greatest faith in our judges and law courts, and he feels that whatever may happen, he has a refuge there and will obtain justice, and it will cause grave dissatisfaction amongst the natives if, as is proposed under this Bill, that sanctuary or refuge is totally closed to them. I fear it will do incalculable harm even amongst the most loyal and obedient of our native friends. It may have a very serious and injurious influence. I have already referred to the speeches and action of the Bunga. If the Minister will refer to page 44 of the last report of the proceedings of the Bunga, he will see how the natives proposed to deal with these agitators and may give him food for thought and provide other methods than those he is now adopting. The natives must not be allowed to feel that the Minster is usurping powers that properly pertain to our courts of law. The Bunga did not only deal with agitators of this description, but they dealt with self-appointed teachers, religion and other matters. Missionaries are finding that natives are gradually seceding from their denominations and forming organizations of their own, and one of these days these organizations will be centres of trouble. I hope there will not be a division on this Bill. I am confident that if we discuss this matter around a table we can find some formula and come to a decision that the natives will voluntarily accept, and one that will be acceptable to every farmer and member of this House. I cannot see any real necessity for calling for evidence at this stage. I agree that the economic position of the native demands enquiry. Undoubtedly wages are insufficient in many places, and they have good reason to be dissatisfied, but an economic commission should be appointed to go into the whole question. This would mean travelling through the country and involving considerable delay. In the meantime the matter before the House, as the Minister has shown, is one of grave urgency and necessitates immediate steps. I therefore hope the Minister will consent to its going to a select committee before second reading in order that we might consider alternatives to the Minister’s proposals with a view to giving our courts power to deal with the matter.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

The Bill has been before the country for three months.

I admit there is a strong feeling in the country that legislation on this matter is required to enable the Government to deal with the situation, and to deal with it promptly. We desire to assist the Minister, but we are asking him to meet us in the matter—I am willing to have a select committee which will report without any delay.

I should like to second the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). There may be difference of opinion as to the method of the application of this Bill, but I think the Minister may rely upon unanimous support of this side of the House in support of the principle. For that reason it becomes all the more necessary to support this amendment, so that means may be devised to consider the best method of making the Bill palatable to those who think an injustice may be done by the possibility of taking away the liberty of the subject. All the hon. members from Natal are heartily in agreement with the Minister on the principle of the Bill. During the time the Minister was being ridiculed for his flight in an aeroplane and the use of tear bombs, we supported the Minister in the firm action he took at Durban. Perhaps the Minister will, therefore, listen to one who took up that attitude when he urges that the Bill should go to select committee. We heartily endorse what the Minister has said about communism getting a hold on the native people. It may be interesting if I quote a definition which has been given of communism—

I am sure we can be satisfied, if that be true, that communism has no message of goodwill for South Africa. I believe certain sections of the agitators add something to the definition. They say—

We must agree that communism is a pernicious doctrine and as represantatives of the people, we must set our faces against it. Here we find that perhaps those who are fond of liberty and justice might be squeamish as to whether the methods employed are right. It has been said that to do a great right yon must be ready to do a little wrong; and if it is not possible to amend this Bill, then it will be a very courageous man who would turn it down even as it stands. That is all the more reason why the Minister should accept the amendment that the whole subject-matter be referred to a select committee in order to improve the Bill so as to investigate whether the Minister should be given the powers sought. I make that as a personal appeal, having regard to the fact that I supported the Minister when he was somewhat unpopular. We, in Durban, took a serious view of the recent disturbances. I was present myself. Shots were fired, natives were taken to hospital, and it was the desire of the white people to enter the premises of the I.C.W. offices where about 60 natives were herded together. If it had not been for the police at that time, I am sure these natives would not have lived to tell the tale. You are not only faced with danger of communism among the non-Europeans, but there is also danger that the Europeans will become incensed with the threat against law and order, and grave troubles will ensue. Both aspects of the question deserve consideration, and the Minister is right in regarding the matter as urgent. I therefore appeal to him to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ermelo to send the matter to a select committee.

I just want to say a few words in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). I think that there is a good spirit generally on (his important matter on both sides of the House. The Minister of Justice asks for our co-operation, and we are prepared to give it heartily to the Minister. We see that steps must immediately be taken, and we admit that the present Act is unsatisfactory. The courts have given judgment against the intention of the Act, and an amendment must he made. The question, however, is how it is to be done, The Minister in introducing the Bill admitted that it was of a drastic nature. The Bill goes very far. It upsets our whole judicial system. It actually takes away the people’s rights, because ultimately the rights of the people are merely vested in the judicial system of the country. The Minister, himself, admits that this is a very serious thing, and he asks us to suggest something by way of improving his proposals. He knows that it is a matter of a sceptical nature to so draw the Bill as to meet the Minister’s intention. This can only be done by technical people in the House when in committee, and I am certain that when it comes back the Minister will be prepared to accept it.

Just mention some subject or other.

The Minister, and also you, Mr. Speaker as the highest authority in the House, will admit that if we accept the principle of the Bill we can no longer amend it after the second reading.

What do you mean by that ?

Well, if we now pass the principle that the Minister and not the courts has the right of deciding, then we cannot amend it after the second reading.

I don’t follow that.

If the Prime Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, can assure me that even after the passing of the second reading we can alter the final authority of the Minister into the final authority of the court, I have no objection. Perhaps Mr. Speaker will give his opinion on the subject. Last week we had a Bill for the cleaning of mealie lands; the farmers said that it was not advisable to pass the Bill hurriedly, and we dropped the second reading and sent the Bill to a select committee to see if it could be so drafted as not to encroach on the rights of the farmers. Here we are dealing with the greatest rights of the public, and there is a refusal to send the Bill to a select committee before the second reading, although we are all prepared to assist the Minister to give effect to the object he has in view. I do not see how the Minister can take the matter further. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) promised him support this afternoon, on behalf of the party, and admitted that we all wished the Act to be made more strong. The Minister, however, himself, doubts whether his proposal is the only method of solving the difficulty. Now we are only asking the Minister to send the Bill to a select committee before the principle is accepted. We are prepared when the Bill comes back from a select committee to pass it even if the select committee can find no other solution. Then we will have no objection, but as the matter is so serious, we ask the Minister to make a concession on that point. We are dealing now with the weaker section of the population, not only the coloured people and natives but also the weak section of the white population, because the law does not only apply to natives, but to the European population as well. Before we pass the principle to suspend our whole constitutional rights, and to take away a right of the public, the matter must be very seriously considered. The Minister will agree that when we have such an Act on the statute book, one no longer feels that you are actually a free citizen of the country, when the protection given by the courts is placed in the hands of the Minister. When a man wants to go to a meeting, and the Minister thinks that the meeting will do him no good, he can prohibit him from going there, and if he goes to it he can be punished. Or a man makes a speech, which according to the Minister’s discretion is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, then steps can be taken against him. We must use the Parliamentary method to see if we cannot overcome that difficulty. I therefore hope the Minister will grant the request.

I think we should like to meet the members of the Opposition if there were any ground for the reasons given by them why the Bill should go to a select committee before the second reading. I must say that I honestly cannot see that there is any ground in those reasons. They say that possibly a different method will be found to attain the object with which the Bill was introduced, than the one suggested by the Minister, and that it may possibly be done by means of the bench, and their difficulty is that if the Bill is read a second time the select committee will not then be empowered to recommend such an amendment. How is that possible? What is the general principle of the Bill? It is not the way by which it is suggested that the objections will be met. What it says is that the Minister wants to prevent seditious speeches being made to incite natives and Europeans against each other. It is therefore laid down that he is going to do it in a certain way. Suppose that the select committee were to say that he could only do so after he had consulted the bench or some other person or body. Do my hon. friends then mean to say that the select committee could not recommend that amendment in such a case ?

Yes, but the second reading has then already been passed.

Why not? Suppose that such an amendment were to recommend that the Minister should not have the right to intervene until he had consulted the law courts, and that the select committee came to the decision that such an amendment should be included in place of the arbitrary powers of this Bill, why should il not be done? Is the principle of this Bill that arbitrary powers shall be given to the Minister;

Yes

Yes, it is quite easy to say yes, but what are the grounds for it? It seems to me that we must assume that the select committee can pass such an amendment. I cannot possibly see what the objection to it is, until such time as Mr. Speaker gives a ruling on the matter, I am inclined to consider the difficulty of hon. members opposite together with my friend who introduced the Bill. But it appears to me, however, that the matter is clear. At the same time I want to point out that there has not yet been anyone on the opposite side who has suggested that such an amendment is possible, or the reverse.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) suggested one.

No, the hon. member went no further than to say that he was in favour of the court.

He also said that the existing Act should be amended.

Yes, but the Minister of Justice said that he had consulted all the lawyers, and they all agreed that such a formula could not be found.

Then ask other legal advisers.

Yes, but then you should have done it, and you ought to have indicated how you intended to do it.

I have done so.

Did you find the formula ?

Yes.

Well, I must say I was present during the debate and I did not find it in the hon. member’s speech. But if it is so then the select committee must have it. I should like the chairman to be consulted, and for him to decide whether such an amendment can be made in the select committee or not. We all agree that something must be done to assist the administration of justice. Mr. Speaker, I submit to your decision whether such an amendment can be allowed, my colleague would gladly come to the assistance of hon. members.

I wish to ask whether, in the event of the second reading being agreed to, and the Bill is not sent to a select committee, we should be entitled to enter into the merits or demerits of practically the whole of the sub-section of Clause 1, most of which are matters of vital principle. The Prime Minister tells us the crux of the Bill is to prevent ill-feeling between different sections of the community, but as I understand it, the crux of the matter is: are we going to give the Minister of Justice the right to abrogate the functions of the law courts. This is a vital principle in any free country. Are we going to give the Minister full plenary powers? Can we attack sub-section 11? As the matter stands at present, we are, I will not say handicapped, but under a stringent ruling of the previous Speaker. It still stands, as to what may or may not be discussed after the second reading. The Prime Minister thoroughly agrees it is an important point which should be cleared up. The ruling is on page 434 of Votes and Proceedings No. 47 of 1927. It makes all the difference in our attitude as to whether we are prepared to allow the Bill to go to a select committee after the second reading.

May I just say that I think the right procedure would be for the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) to put his amendment into writing, and then leave the matter for the decision of the Speaker. That is possibly the right line.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would you also, in your ruling, take into consideration whether it would be in order after the second reading is passed to introduce amendments in this Bill providing for a modification of the definition of sedition, because, speaking as a lawyer, it seems to me a great deal of the matter dealt with by the Minister may be covered by an alteration of the definition of the crime of sedition. It is impossible to actually draft such an amendment at the moment—the Minister will know the reason why— but it will not be impossible if reasonable time is given for such an amendment to be drafted.

Hon. members should be aware that the Speaker cannot be expected to give rulings on hypothetical questions. At the same time, I may remind the hon. House that amondments moved in committee contrary to the principle of the Bill, cannot be allowed. In the peculiar circumstances, if members will put their questions on paper, I will consider them and give my ruling a little later on.

Business suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

During the period over which the House suspended business, hon. members who raised the question of order this afternoon, submitted to me a draft amendment, and I have been asked to state whether such an amendment could be moved after the second reading of the Bill. The amendment referred to aims at strengthening the existing law under which the courts have to decide the guilt of persons charged with offences instead of giving the Minister the uncontrolled power contemplated by the proposed new sub-sections (11) to (14) under Clause 1. As I pointed out, the Chair does not give rulings on hypothetical questions, but for the guidance of the House, I may say that if such an amendment were moved after the second reading of the Bill, the Chairman would, I think, feel bound to apply the rulings given by Speaker Juta in 1896 (V. & P., p. 486), and subsequently by Speaker Berry in 1907 (V. & P., p. 269), and by Speaker Jansen in 1927 (V. & P., pp. 434-6). In those rulings it was clearly laid down that any amendments moved after the second reading “must be relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill and must carry out the intentions and purposes which the House had in mind when committing the Bill”. It seems plain to me that such an amendment as that now proposed would not be carrying out the purposes contemplated by the subject-matter of the Bill now before the House, and would, in the language of S.O. 165, be “in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time”. I would like to emphasize that I am making this statement for the guidance of the House, but that the question is one that should properly be decided if, and when, such an amendment is moved.

With the permission of the House I just want to say that I am prepared, with reference to the decision, to send the Bill to a select committee without evidence being heard or documents called for, provided the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is prepared so to alter his amendment that the select committee shall not sit for longer than fourteen days.

I am quite prepared to alter my amendment as the Minister wishes.

The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) is quite prepared to meet the request of the Minister, so that the amendment will be proposed in an amended form. At the same time the House is indebted to Mr.

Speaker for his ruling on a very important point.

I move accordingly, as an amendment to the amendment—

seconded.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Kentridge and Col.-Cdt. Collins put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to viz.—

I move—

I think it will be convenient if I make some general remarks applicable to this Bill and the two Bills which follow it on the Order Paper, Together with the Factory Act and the Compensation Act they most closely affect the working life of the working and salaried classes. The general aim and purpose of these laws is, first, to provide machinery which will secure to boys who are entering industrial life opportunities of acquiring for themselves the skill and knowledge of their trade which will make them efficient craftsmen. The Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act aim broadly at protecting workers against wages and conditions under which decent living is impossible and so far as organized ranks are concerned at setting up industrial councils on which both sides of industry can thrash out their difficulties and set up rates of wages and conditions which shall be permanent in industry for the period for which the agreement is made. The main aim of the Factory Act is to secure hygienic conditions and the safety and security of the workmen. The Workmen’s Compensation Act is to provide easy machinery for securing compensation in case of accident. This last named Act was the first on the statute book, and is the most out of date. My predecessor had hoped to introduce an amending Bill, and I hoped to do so this session. A good deal of work, however, remains to be done, if all interests concerned are to be brought into line with an improved Act in comparison with the present one. But it is impossible to introduce an amending Bill this session, and it will have to stand over, I think, until next session. With regard to these other Acts, while difficulties have occurred, in their general carrying out, I think we may fairly congratulate ourselves on the success attending them in the last five or six years they have been in operation, which sufficiently warrants us in the confidence that they are at all events soundly based in principle and are working with beneficial effects. It may be of interest if I illustrate this by a few figures and facts. With regard to the very important matter of securing more efficient training for boys entering industry, and protecting them from being left at the end of their youth without any real knowledge of their craft, the Apprenticeship Act was passed first in 1922, but owing to an amendment inserted in another place, from 1922 to 1924 it was comparatively inoperative, because the Act required the co-operation of organized bodies of labour as well as that of organized body of employers. However, after the removal of the clause which stood in the way of the effectiveness of the Act, it really did become operative, and the House will be interested to know the progress that has been made. When the last amending Act was passed, in March, 1924, there were not more than five or six hundred boys regularly indentured in the scheduled industries. To-day, I am glad to say, there are very nearly twelve thousand boys regularly indentured. I think we can look upon that as a great advance. Sometimes complaints come to me of an apprenticeship committee refusing to permit of the indenture of certain boys to certain firms. I would like to ask those who make these complaints to remember that the apprenticeship committees are really serving a boy’s best interests by declining to apprentice him in an establishment where their experience or their knowledge tells them he will not have an opportunity of making himself an efficient man. I would like here to express a word of appreciation of the work of the gentlemen who give up so much time to their duties as members of the apprenticeship committees. The Wage Act was passed in 1925, and the Conciliation Act was passed in 1924, just before the dissolution. The progress made in the regulation of wages and conditions under those two Acts has been most satisfactory. The number of Industrial Councils and the increasing tendency to that form of organization has been very much accelerated by the existing Wage Act and by the Wage Board. Under the Wage Act determinations gazetted give a basis of security to workers in the various industries, the number of whom amount to some seventy thousand. Under the Conciliation Act, there are in existence to-day four Industrial Councils of national scope, thirty which are more local in scope, and twenty-two industrial agreements which are operative to-day under the Conciliation Act, and give a stability in those industries and a security for the workers which they did not enjoy before. It is quite true that under both these Acts there are a number of evasions which it is difficult to bring to book. I would like to make this statement here, because I want this to go through the length and breadth of the land where wage-earners may hear it, that there has been one most regrettable accompaniment to this progress, and that is that a very large number of wage-earners are under the impression that because these Acts are on the statute book, there is less necessity for them to belong to and to support their organizations. I want to point out that you may have the best industrial legislation that man can devise on the statute book, but it will not be worth fifty per cent, of its face value unless there is real organization not only upon the employers’ side but particularly upon the employees’ side, because no inspection can prevent evasion as well as the trade union spirit among the workers themselves. There are certain evasions I am trying to cure by means of this Bill. I am aware that it will improve the Act, but without efficient organization of the workers it will be impossible for the intentions of Parliament really to be carried out. I won’t say that when one looks back over the events of the last 25 years, and the change that has come over the industrial situation since these Acts have been passed, that we have passed out of the world when no dispute can take place in industry, which is not liable to be followed by a serious industrial upheaval, nor out of the world when employers think their desires are to be mainly considered, and the workers look at things from the same point of view on their side. Yet we have made progress in the direction of national interests being considered. When one looks at that aspect of the effect of this legislation we may fairly say that it affords us very considerable encouragement in the belief that we are on the right road. The last interruption to industry by either strike or lock-out was a strike in the building industry which took place in July and August, 1924, in the Cape Peninsula, which lasted to the best of my recollection for some six weeks. Since then the only interruption was a strike of 11 days which concerned 400 men in one of the mines on the Witwatersrand, I think in 1927 or 1928. Apart from that there have been disputes and cessations of work by groups of individuals over matters which have been fixed up within 24 hours. If there are persons in this country in business who grumble at some of this wage regulation, I would ask them to remember that the stability and the absence of interruption of our wealth-producing activities are far more important than any of their objections to having their complete liberty in these matters interfered with. I would like to point out, just as a matter of contrast—I am not the least bit speaking from a party standpoint or taking credit to ourselves—the result of the lines of policy which came into operation in 1924. The figures for five and a half years including the strike in 1922 and preceding it show that some 2,000 working days were lost, and some £2,000,000 in wages were lost. In the next five and a half years, there have been only 21 working days lost.

There has been a great deal of peace in the country since then.

I am sorry, but I think we have some warrant for believing that we are on the right road in this legislation. There is no doubt whatever that there has been great progress on all sides all along the line which reflects credit on employers and employees. The day has gone past when the employee could say I demand so and so,” or the employer could say “I refuse to concede so and so,” and greater progress can be got by getting together and understanding one another’s difficulties than has been got in the past. I would refer to the statement of the president of the Federated Chamber of Industries at the last congress of that federation—

I wish to emphasize this and I wish employers would also spread that gospel that it is to their own interests that any industrial legislation to be effective does imply good organization on the worker’s side as well as on the employer’s side. I have found in the course of the last two years, and especially since I assumed office, that in these industrial councils the firms who are represented there—usually the most prominent firms in the industry—are a 100 per cent, anxious to see these agreements carried out; but the difficulty is that in the fringe of smaller firms there is a tendency to take some tiny advantage that is to be gained by evasion of the agreements. I propose to send the whole of these three Bills to the same select committee for the very understandable reason that any witnesses to give evidence on one Bill will also be able to give evidence on three, if required, and also that members will be able to deal with the Bills together better than with one at a time. I will explain the various amendments that I propose. The first section of this Bill amends Section 2 of the principal Act. Sub-section (a) is a merely verbal amendment to insert the word “registered." In Section 2, sub-section (c), the inclusion of the words “such areas as he may determine is to give the Minister the power to restrict and define the area over which an industrial council has jurisdiction. The reason is this. An industrial council can function most efficiently if it has its organization in the area over which it has jurisdiction, but if it has no organization, either among employers or employees, it cannot exercise judgment in giving or withholding attention and facilities for smooth working.

It cuts out the whole lot.

The industrial council must have organization on both sides.

What about sub-section (b) ?

The words are not necessary “to regulate the affairs of the industry.” It does not alter the meaning. Then sub-section (b) is a new sub-section to provide that during the currency of an industrial agreement the breaking of the organization on one side or the other, shall not put a stop to that agreement. Obviously when people make an agreement for two years, and one side, by breaking up its organization, can make that agreement null and void—that is not playing the game and therefore I think this amendment is necessary. Section 2 amends Sections 3 of the Act. Now the first amendment (a) is designed to enable the registrar to see that any rules of the industrial council are suitable rules of procedure for settling disputes. We want to make the industrial councils settle all dis- of disputes that arise.

What kind of disputes ?

Any kind of dispute that arises.

That is combined with the conditions of labour and wages ?

I would go further. I do not see why all disputes should not be submitted to, and settled by, the industrial council.

Such as price-fixing.

That affects wages and conditions. Then the next one is sub-section (e). It has been held that an industrial council agreement must be signed by the two parties. As a matter of fact, nearly all the industrial council agreements have been signed to give them effect, by the chairman, vice-chairman and the secretary. But recently it was found that the wording of the Act makes it necessary to have the agreement signed by the parties. Section 3 amends Section 4. First of all, there is the simple use of the word “registrar.” Then I come to a very contentious clause. It will be remembered that the Act, as it was passed, made provision where a dispute affects an individual employee. I would prefer to see the proviso out altogether for this reason; I have always held that the criterion as to whether a conciliation board should he set up is not whether the Minister thinks a question of principle is involved, but whether it’ is a matter on which tempers will get so hot that you are likely to get a strike. In point of fact, in all such cases there is some question of principle to be found.

That is only a temporary conciliation board ?

It is a temporary conciliation board before a dispute. I will tell you how this compromise was arrived at. I called into conference the representatives of the most organized body of employees, the Federation of Trade of the Cape, the Trade Union Congress and also Labour representatives on my advisory council. On the other side, we had the representatives of the Chamber of Trades, the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce, and representatives of various other industries. We had a most satisfactory two days’ conference. We discussed the matters from a practical point of view, and it was suggested, and accepted by both sides, that the specifying of these things was rather like a Ted rag to a bull and that we should delete the words and say that unless, in the opinion of the Minister, a question of principle was involved where it concerned an individual, no conciliation board should be set up. In actual practice, I may say with almost certainty, that there is no case in which there is likely to be real friction, real danger of fighting a matter when a question of principle is not involved. If you deny them a safety valve, then the only other alternative is a strike. I know the compromise will remove the injunction and the Minister has got to find some undoubted principle that he can formulate. The next clause is an amendment of sub-section three of Section 4. It reads—

For about three or four years we never had any doubts as to what that meant. It meant that any trade union could, if it liked, appoint an officer or another trade union, if it thought that it itself had not got a sufficiently skilful negotiator, so long as he was an officer of a trade union. In one case the law was invoked and the matter was taken to court, and the court found that the person concerned had to be an officer of the trade union concerned. At the conference I referred to, we threshed the matter out and it was agreed that this was an undue limitation of employees’ and employers’ organizations. And that we should not have a conciliation board unless the representative was a member or an officer of a registered organization. He must be a responsible officer of; trade union or a kindred union. He is responsible not only to the union he is acting for, but also, in a measure, he is responsible to his own union for seeing that trade union principles are fairly carried out.

I think you should go further and make it open.

I do not think so. Personally, I would rather limit it, but the only thing is that we do not want these conciliation boards to be such on which lawyers can be engaged. We want to stop that. We want to keep out the professional arguing element, and confine membership to men acquainted with the trade in question. Section 6 amends Section 8 of the Act and merely gives the executive committee of the Industrial Council the same powers as before. Sub-clause (b) is necessary because we want more latitude as to payment of witnesses’ fees. A very important section is number 7, which amends Section 9 of the Act. Under subsection (b) the court convicting an employer may order him to pay to any person who is, or was, in his employ and who, in consequence of his default, has been under-paid any wages or remuneration, the whole or such lesser part of such under-payment as the Court may deem reasonable. I am advised that this authorizes a magistrate to determine the amount of the under payment, if any, and I am told that this sub-section will benefit the worker. Workers’ organizations should take up the cases of under-paid workmen and recover the amount they are owed by civil action. Sub-section (e) authorizes the Minister, whenever he deems it desirable, in order to meet the reasonable requirements of persons residing within any area included in the schedule to the Natives Land Act, 1913, or any amendment thereof, or set apart under Section 1 of the Natives Act, 1923, that such agreements or award shall not be operative within such area, the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs, and with the industrial council or conciliation board concerned, exclude any such area from the operation of any agreement or award. Arguments have been put before me in relation to the larger cities where a considerable amount of ratepayers’ money is spent, that there is rather a danger of throwing a large number of white men out of work and offering inducements to natives to come in and replace the European. I now come to a very debatable point—sub-section 4, which provides that where an agreement has been made binding on employers and employees in a particular undertaking, industry, trade or occupation in any area, the Minister, may upon application from an industrial council in that area, declare by notice in the Gazette that every person of any class specified in the notice engaged in the industry, undertaking, trade or occupation in the employ of any employer shall, notwithstanding that he is not an employee within the meaning of the Act, be paid not less than the minimum wage for the particular class of work which he is performing and be subject to conditions of employment laid down in the agreement. When the Act was passed, the policy of the Government of the day was to exclude pass-carrying natives from the operations of the clause that affected the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal, but does not affect the Cape, as the Cape has no pass-carrying natives. I have had the very strongest representations on this matter from several important industrial councils, and the position they put to me is this: an industrial council arrives at an agreement, the parties to it are anxious to play the game, but there may be a man with a little shop who employs pass-carrying natives and thus is enabled to undercut employers who pay the standard wage. The Engineering Industrial Council waited upon me about three months ago. They told me that if something was not done to put a stop to this they would have to go out of action. Their business was being unfairly cut into by this illegitimate use of pass-carrying natives. This is another fact which makes it impossible for some industrial councils to carry on. An industrial council has an agent to see the agreement is abided by and to institute a prosecution if necessary. He goes into a certain establishment and finds a man who is paid less than the agreed rate, and says to the employer that he should put it right, or he will be prosecuted. The employer says, “If you do I will sack the man and employ a pass-carrying native.” The result is the industrial council finds itself fettered and ham strung, so to speak, and cannot enforce this under regulation without doing its workers injury. I will give another case which may appeal to hon. members in Cape Town. In the furniture industry they have an industrial council, which has been broken up, and one of the strongest allegations made here is that unfair advantage was being taken up in the north by means of pass-carrying natives. My predecessor, in the amending Bill he placed before the House, dealt with it by introducing in a saving clause a definition of employer and employee. In re-drafting it the law adviser left the definition of employee intact and used the phraseology which is put here. But there are other objections to this. The one thing I have in mind is to protect the legitimate functions of industrial councils, and when in select committee I am going to propose a different form to this. My intention is to place on the industrial councils an alteration of the present practice. It will read something in this form —[proposed amendment read]. That will enable the industrial council itself to stop that, and through which the sly employer is trying to get. I think it will be entirely satisfactory to the industrial council and the men. In regard to municipal employment, as the House is aware, under the Act persons in the employ of a local authority, if they are engaged on essential services, such as light, transportation and so on, and if a conciliation board sits, are not like ordinary employees. When a conciliation board has sat and cannot come to an agreement, the law lays down that they must agree on an arbitrator, and if they do not the Minister shall appoint one. There was a case recently in Benoni. There is a very strong municipal employees’ association, a national association, embracing municipal employees of all kinds, some in essential services and some not. A dispute arose with the local authority as to the treatment of certain persons, some of whom are on essential services and some not. The conciliation board could not come to an agreement. With those on essential services there is some finality. As to the others, they cannot co-operate in a strike and cannot help them. I have had very strong representations from the employees’ association, some of which I must frankly say I cannot accept. I cannot accept that all municipal employees must be subject to these restrictions. I cannot accept that if more than 50 per cent, are on essential services, all should be brought under these restrictions. What I thought I could do, and what I think is fair, is to say as I do in this provision, if the municipal employees’ association in any municipality of their own wish desire by resolution in accordance with their constitution to make a request to the Minister that the restrictive clause shall be applicable to all of them, I think I should have the power to include both essential and non-essential services. I have no doubt the municipal employees will come down and give evidence on that point. After a good deal of thinking about this problem, I think that is the fairest way to settle it. I come to Section 10.

How about Section 9?

The intention of that is very just. It is to insert a new paragraph—

I think that is only fair. With regard to Section 10, I have had representations from trades unions and from the Trades Union Congress objecting to it. At the conference I spoke of, to the best of my recollection, there was not much objection raised. I think those objections which have been made are most unreasonable in so far as they object to such information being given and being had on demand by the registrar, as will enable the registrar to satisfy himself that those organizations are sufficiently representative of the trade or industry as to justify him in registering them under the Act. The clause reads—

There are a number of small unions where that would be an almost impossible tax upon their secretarial capacity. That may be modified. In Section 11, we are defining the “one man” employer. The “one man” employer has been a continual trouble.

There must be some reason for your alteration in sub-section (d).

I think the main reason is to bring it more into line with the English Act. That is matter of form.

It is a very effective matter of form.

Under (a) you make it a man in a private capacity.

It does not affect the question the least bit in the world. I come to Section 12 which is new. The first part of Section 12, sub-section 1, is to give me the power to designate the same officer under different heads. Section 2 is a very ineffectual one, and I believe we shall have a good deal of evidence on that at the select committee. I have had representations about this, and have been convinced of the logic and justice of the claims. This clause gives to the industrial council the governance of the wages and conditions concerned. This matter has been represented to me in this way: “We have no right of entry into the establishment; we have to get your inspector to go. We employers cannot have all this skill, and the law gives us the responsibility of governing in these matters.” In this section I have taken power, and it is rather an invidious power to have. The objections are that industrial councils may not always be judicious in the selection of their agents. The agent may not be a tactful person, or one who can make himself persona grata with employers or employees. I am prepared to try it. If a man acts in an unbecoming way, I can always withdraw the licence. I quite realize that in this matter I may be laying up much trouble for myself in exercising this discrimination. Section 13 involves keeping of records, so that inspection may be made. I expect the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) will be inclined to say: “What another lot of records to be kept,” but he will find they are the same records. Section 14 is designed to try to deal with a very difficult matter. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) will understand it. In certain industries, our inspector goes into a place, and, whilst making enquiries, he is told: “Oh, that is not my employee; that is my partner,” and the partnership terminates at twenty-four hours’ notice; the whole thing is a gag. There was one case where it was found that there was undoubtedly a bogus partnership. We want to get a word that will get at bogus partnerships without the old difficulties. We are trying to put a stop to victimization or attempts by employers to obstruct the Act by carrying out dismissals or other discreditable actions.

I am very glad that the Minister and the Government have come to recognize the great value of industrial conciliation.

I introduced it.

This is the first time I have been told that the party now on the Government benches introduced the 1924 Act. I am in agreement with the Minister to the extent of his proposal to amend the industrial Conciliation Act, so that its scope and usefulness may be increased—and we hope that the scope and extent of the Wage Act will be correspondingly reduced. I think trade and industry will welcome the amendments to the Act; they both feel that the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act is better than the machinery of the Wage Act. The Industrial Conciliation Act is democratic. Persons on both sides in equal numbers meet on the board, discuss their differences, and come to an agreement. But the machinery of the Wage Act is bureaucratic; conditions are imposed on the trades from above, and, as the Minister knows, there have been disasters. In many respects to-day we do not know where we stand in regard to many determinations; in fact, I am not quite sure whether I have a right to be here or whether I ought to be in another place, because I may have disregarded some of the provisions. Although we approve of most of this Bill, there are several points where we are not in accord with the Minister. As the Minister has said, the Bill will be sent to select committee, and we can take up the minor faults there. One of the principal changes that this Bill makes in industrial conciliation is this adding to the people who have a right to sit on these boards—outside men from the trade union side or from the other side. This will not be a source of conciliation, but the opposite. I quite agree that a body of men—particularly of the employees—should be entitled to have its official representative of the board. He spends his life looking after the interests of those he represents; he knows the trade, and he ought to be a person who can put up the case of the men well and in such a form that they may be able to attain their end. I do not think any employer would have any objection whatever to see those officials taking seats on a conciliation board, but when it comes to importing other persons on to the boards, it seems to me it will lead to great difficulty. You are going to put on the boards the man who—if I may so describe him—is professionally retained for making trouble on every conciliation board. That is the position as I see it. If the employees have a good case—and they very often have— and they have a good secretary who can put their case plainly, I say that man is more likely to get his way with the employers than a man from outside who may bring in a spirit of discord. Therefore, I do not like this provision in Section 3. Now the Minister says that you will be able to appoint these outside men to the extent of 50 per cent, of the representation of the board. That is half and half, Supposing the Minister does not agree with me on my first contention, I then say, suppose that you get a board with representatives of four employers and four employees on it. Under this Act as it stands to-day, you would have two professional advocates on both sides. You would have one official of the trade union and one officer of the employers’ organization. You would, therefore, have only one employee and one employer who really understand the intricacies of the trade and whose actual interests are bound up in coming to an agreement.

Do you think that the organization would be quite so foolish ?

I think it is quite possible. I do not doubt that in times of trouble, when you really want conciliation, that you may force that kind of thing.

It is a common thing in trade organizations.

It is a pity that this Act which has worked very well despite all its difficulties. I say it is a pity that you should interfere with machinery which has worked quite satisfactorily up to the present. In the case the hon. Minister mentioned, a gentleman wanted to come down from Johannesburg to show the industrial council here how they should work, and, fortunately, he was prevented by the Supreme Court from coming. I think you will agree that despite his absence the employees put up a very good case. They had got extremely good terms, and I think you may say that they would not have done any better if that gentleman had come down. Therefore, I am distinctly against Clause 3 of the Bill. I ask the Minister if he still maintains the position that those persons should have the right of appointing these outside people. At any rate, the number should be decreased, so that you really get a representation of the employers and the employees on these boards. The Minister has also dealt with the question of the protection of local authorities in regard to essential services such as water, light, fire protection, etc. As I read this clause I must say that it seems to be very involved. I was very sorry that the Minister took up the position that he was not prepared to accept the proposal that all municipal employees should come under this definition. It seems to me that is a clear and defined way of dealing with the whole matter. You may say that it should only deal, for instance, with the fire brigade as one of the essential services, but surely if the person in charge of the municipal telephone exchange is on strike he might disorganize the whole of the municipal fire brigade. I hope that the Minister will not close the door to the suggestion that this clause should apply to all municipal employees, and then there is no doubt as to where you are. At present, as the Minister says, the difficulty is to know which employees are under it and which are not. There is one thing which, as a business man, I like to have seen made more clear than it is in the amendments, that is, that when an award is made two essentials are most important. First of all, that award must apply to the whole of the trade in that defined area. Secondly, there must be sufficiently strong machinery to see that that award is carried out by every individual employer.

You mean the conciliation board ?

Yes. For that reason, I like the suggestion in one of the later clauses that the conciliation board shall be empowered to appoint an agent subject to the approval of the Minister, so that they can have an actual officer seeing that these awards are carried out. There is a feeling, and it is quite right and correct, that many persons do not carry out the awards loyally after they have been made. It is very unfair to the good employer if he is being undercut and competition is coming from persons who are not playing the game with regard to these awards. I am perfectly convinced that the general body of traders and industrialists in this country are delighted to see the swing towards the Industrial Conciliation Act rather than towards the Wage Act. They often see awards and determinations of the Wage Act upset, and they feel that the Conciliation Act is going to clarify the position enormously. I am perfectly certain for that reason they will welcome this reformed attitude of the Government towards an Act which, as I say, was put on the statute book by the South African Party Government.

This Bill is one of those measures which is required more in the town than in the country. I presume the reason is that people are inclined to look at it from the angle in which their own interests are served. I am afraid that is the position; but we are not always prepared to consider legislation from the national standpoint. Considering the condition of South Africa at present, as the country is gradually becoming more and more industrial, we can hardly find a measure which is of more significance than the attempt on the part of the Government and of the Minister concerned to make industrial legislation work as smoothly as possible. The successful operation of our industrial laws is absolutely essential and by starting carefully we may avoid many pitfalls in the future, but the soundest industrial principle is to bring together the two parties contributing to the wealth of the State and get them to work smoothly and peacefully together. It is not, however, always possible to leave the parties alone and expect them to make a success of their negotiations themselves; therefore the State cannot remain merely an onlooker. The Government deserves to be congratulated for proposing a number of amendments to make the industrial and economic world work as smoothly as possible, and to avoid resort to less desirable methods of settling disputes. During the last 15 years we have witnessed a phenomenon—a large number of people leaving the countryside for town centres. Many of these people obtain their livelihood in our industries, and it would be an unpardonable indifference on the part of the State not to safeguard the interests of these young men and women leaving their homes and early environment to become workers in the towns. Apart from this, we, as a state, have taken various measures in the first place to protect local industries, as a result of which the consumers have been called upon to bear certain burdens because we want to encourage local industries. When the state is prepared to subsidise industries it is also the duty of the state to protect the worker, so that no differences may interfere with the success of our local industries. Therefore we must safeguard the conditions of labour. I have no doubt that the employee, organized or unorganized, has always less chance than has capital, because capital is a hard master and very frequently imposes conditions which the wage-earner cannot accept if he wishes to live under civilized conditions. I am very much concerned for various reasons. We are spending annually considerable sums to train our young men for industry. It is very satisfactory to see the increasing number of young men and young women attending our technical colloges; no less than 20,000 of them were students at technical colleges during 1928, and it is our duty to see that the conditions under which they will earn their livelihood will enable them to live decently. The second important fact we have to bear in mind is the large number of citizens and their dependents who are supported by our industries, which pay £23,000,000 annually in wages. In 1927 they gave employment to 88,000 European workers and 122,000 non-Europeans. Although I personally support the Bill as a whole I wish to draw attention to a few points which I feel will cause misunderstanding and difficulty in the administration of the Act. The Minister is empowered to determine certain agreements. I welcome that amendment very strongly. One of the reasons why this particular Act has been so unsavoury in the countryside is because its application in the past has not been made, if I may say so, with a due sense of the conditions of the country. If the Minister in the present circumstances claims the right and obtains the power of applying the Act with certain amendments, I wish to impress on him that this is one of the points on which a considerable amount of discretion will have to be exercised. One great feature of its application in the past was the enormous areas for an industrial council. One industrial council, that of Kimberley, had the vast north-west included, creating an enormous amount of dissatisfaction, and its operations extended to Gordonia and Prieska.

It was modified a lot.

It was. It is a sound principle that an industrial council should apply only to the actual town. I think it is not only useless, but it cannot be enforced to have an industrial agreement in Kimberley enforced in Gordonia, Prieska or thereabouts.

Not in similar industries?

No, because conditions vary so much. The second point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister has been raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and I think it is rather unfortunate that this amendment—the composition of the boards—has been incorporated. We have a definite principle underlying the old Act—two bodies concerned in a dispute are brought together, which is a sound principle, but with the addition, the Minister is bringing a third party into the matter. As to the provisions of Section 7, making it impossible for employers to evade the provisions of agreements in employing pass-carrying natives, I agree entirely. It provides for a great defect in the principal Act. I hope both the Minister and the select committee which will be appointed will give special attention to this particular aspect. The Minister has already spoken of the provisions, of sub-section 3 of Section 12. I do not know whether the administration will be in his own hands, or those of the Secretary for Labour; but I make bold to prophesy it will add greatly to the troubles of the Minister. I hope that provision will be exercised, I hope so for the proper working of the Act. It is very difficult to convince us here, and the country outside, that the councils themselves will have the trained men necessary to start these posts. I welcome the amendments because I think the principle of the Act is quite sound, and I hope the difficulties I have mentioned will be duly considered in the select committee.

The Minister was at considerable pains to explain that he congratulated himself on having travelled along the right road in industrial legislation. I join him in his congratulations, and assure him it is no small satisfaction to hon. members on this side to realize that by passing the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924, we were setting a course which the Minister has found it so profitable to follow since. With regard to the amendments themselves, I think we on this side can give them a considerable measure of support. I think some of us may be inclined to think the Minister has not used his opportunities as he should have done to extend still further the usefulness of the Industrial Conciliation Act. The fact, as he has himself pointed out, that he has applied the principles of the Act itself in discussing these amendments with the interests concerned has done a great deal to conciliate opposition that he would otherwise have encountered.

I shall have to examine those amendments !

I think the hon. member will find he has stronger friends on this side than he imagines. I only hope that if there is any success attaching to this experiment in consultation it will inspire other Ministers in other departments to do likewise when the opportunity arises. As the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford.) has pointed out, we, on this side, support whole-heartedly the principle of conciliation in all matters relating to employer and employee. Commerce has been accused in this House, and elsewhere, of speaking with many voices. But on this subject commerce speaks with one voice from one end of the country to the other. The voice of industry coincides with that of commerce, and employees as far as they can express themselves are united on this question with the employer. We would far rather see the voluntary, flexible and delicately adjusted machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act applied in the relations between employer and employee than the compulsory and inflexible tyranny of the Wage Act. I hope that the time may come when the Wage Act will cease to function. I am prepared to agree with the Minister that to-day the Wage Act is probably a necessary complement to the Conciliation Act. I am even prepared to agree with him that the existence of the Wage Act may have helped the Conciliation Act upon its way. But I would like to think that the Wage Act would be regarded in future as the big stick in the cupboard to be used when required rather than as an integral part of our industrial machinery. I think it is significant that with regard to the Conciliation Act we register agreements, whereas in the case of the Wage Act we lay down determinations. I can assure the Minister that as far as his amendments go in the development of the Industrial Conciliation Act we will give him wholehearted support. With reference to the clauses of the amending Bill, I would like to say respecting Clause 3 that I do not altogether agree with the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), because in a conciliation board much more harm is likely to be done through having employees represented by persons who are incapable of expressing their view, or who are ignorant of what their fellow-workers want, than by occasionally getting an agitator on a board. I can assure the Minister that in connection with the work of these boards we found the late Mr. Archie Crawford of very great assistance indeed when he was appointed as one of the delegates, because he was able to show the employees that perhaps the proposals they were asked to accept were not as far-reaching as they seemed to think them. I think there should be a little room for latitude as to the appointment of persons outside the industry itself to sit on a conciliation board. I would like to see the door opened wider. I do not see why a good man should not be brought in, even if he is not a member of a trades union or of an employer’s organization. This view is not universally accepted and I have in my possession a letter from the Kimberley Chamber of Commerce who state that they are quite satisfied that the passing of this Conciliation Bill will enable a few agitators to get themselves elected to help the conciliation boards of the country, and thus cause an endless amount of trouble. As I have indicated, I do not altogether support that, letter. In regard to Section 5, I will call the Minister’s attention particularly to the fact that he is allowing four persons to sit as assessors to an arbitrator—two on either side. I heartily approve, and when we come to the Wage Act, I will ask him to apply the same principle.

It exists already.

Not quite, the Wage Act only allows a total of two, one from each side. When the point comes up in the Wage Act I will ask the Minister to bear in mind that he has allowed two assessors for each side in this Act. Section 7, amending Section 9, raises a point touched upon by the member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and here I am inclined to agree with the hon. member. I do not quite understand why the Minister should take unto himself the power to apply all the conditions to the people on the industrial council, and not to those who are outside an industrial council. We are very suspicious of that provision. With reference to the sub-section which affects the natives, I am not a lawyer but I must say that the leading of this Bill to a layman indicates that it has a wider meaning than the Minister intends. I am not sure whether under it the Minister would not have the right to apply the conditions laid down by an industrial council regardless of whether they are working in the trade or occupation itself. Take the case of the mining industry. The mining industry employs all classes of labour, builders and carpenters and other who might come under the jurisdiction of the Building Trade Industrial Council. Hitherto the Building Trade Industrial Council has never beers able to include the builders in the mining industry, because the courts have held that these people are engaged in mining and not in building; but under the wording of this Act the door is open for the Minister to come along one day and say “I do not care whether the builders are employed by the mining industry or anybody else, I am going to include them under the jurisdiction of the Act.” The wording of the Minister’s amendment certainly does seem to lead in the direction I have indicated. With regard to Section 11, here I must join issue with the Minister. I recognize the difficulties the department have in administering the Act as it stands at present, but it seems to me unfair that one side of an industrial council can come to any decision without the consent or approval of the other. I recognize that if it is going to be a matter of resolutions, by both sides it will never be agreed. I would like to see the Minister include all employees of a public authority. Either take the decision from both employees and employers, or give it to both, do not give it to one. It does not seem to me to be difficult to put in a clause which resolves this point. It seems to me that the addition of the words “all auxiliary services thereto” might define the position, but the legal advisers could settle the point.

You must know that an individual engaged in essential services is not allowed to strike.

I know, but there are equal restrictions in regard to the employer. A municipal council cannot treat their employees as a private employer can under this Act. However, we can deal with that later in committee. Section 10, amending Section 14 of the Act, gives the power to define the area over which the Minister shall have jurisdiction. I can see some confusion arising unless care is taken to make the areas of employers and employees organizations coincide. Perhaps the Minister has in mind that he should have Union-wide areas. I notice in Section 8, page 8, that the question of subscriptions in arrear is raised. I have known cases where payment of subscriptions has been suspended owing to having funds in hand and I do not think we need not lay down statutory regulations in this matter. With regard to the definition of an employee, it is important that the Minister should keep in mind the classification of the handyman as this is an awkward point if he has to fix which particular section a handyman should fall into in regard to rates of wages to be paid by him Then there is the clause dealing with examination of partnership agreements. In regard to that it goes rather far. I think the onus of proof should not necessarily be thrown on the parties to the partnership agreement. I believe that this is a point to be met. I agree that people may contract themselves out of an agreement in this way but on the other hand the onus of proof should be on the industrial council. I hope that the Minister will give due attention to the views of commercial and industrial representatives in this House—views which are as sincere as his own. They are expressed by people who by training and experience can appreciate quite fully the difficulties to be faced in coming to a just settlement in questions between master and servant.

Seeing that all the support for the Bill is coming from the other side of the House I think I had better oppose it. Every member who has spoken on the other side has patted himself on the back that it was the South African party that passed the Conciliation Act. If hon. members will read the records of that time they will not be so clear that it was entirely the South African party that presented the Act. It was drawn up by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé), then the Government mining engineer, and the first draft was the most ridiculous thing ever presented to the House. If hon. members will also read the select committee’s report they will find that there is a little bit of credit due to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and also to me. At any rate, we did manage to get an Act which has worked fairly well. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has said that the machinery of the Conciliation Act is better than the machinery of the Wages Act. I would point out that the two Acts have entirely different functions. The basis of the Conciliation Act is organization on the side of employers and employees. The basis of the Wage Act is to meet those industries which cannot very well organize themselves. What happened is this. There were people in industries who should never have called upon the Wage Act to make any determination, but they were crying out for the Wage Act. Take the commercial employees. I told them in one town that they should be ashamed to cry out for a wages board to make a determination for them. The men should be thoroughly organized, and the employers through their chambers should also be thoroughly well organized, and there should be harmony in this industry without calling upon a wages Act to make a determination. My position is this: I have the same complaint as Oliver Twist: I want more. I do not think the Bill goes far enough. The courts have upset many things on small technical questions, and there runs through the Act little points that were not taken to the Appellate Division. But there are loopholes where the courts have ruled against the action of the industrial council. I should like to see that tightened up, and in select committee perhaps the hon. Minister will accept one or two amendments. Another point is: Should those who claim a conciliation board have the right to call in anyone from outside? I entirely agree with what the hon. member who has just spoken has said, that people comprising the conciliation board should have the right to ask the assistance of an officer from the trade union, or an officer of an employers’ association. I know of cases in which I have been called upon to assist people to present their case in a proper way. On one occasion I was asked by certain commercial employees on the Hand. I was asked to attend, with the consent of the Chamber of Commerce, to assist in the presentation of their case. There was the case of the slaughter-men in Johannesburg. These men are not highly educated, and they found themselves in a difficulty in presenting their case. I know nothing at all about slaughtering. I was sitting in my offices when two of these men came in and said, “We have been negotiating with our employers on wages and conditions, and we have got to a dead-lock. Will you come and help us?” I did not know anything about their occupation. They stated their case and their difficulty and where they had come to a deadlock. I agreed that if the employers were agreeable I would go with them. I went with them, and that very afternoon we came to an agreement which existed all the time that it was necessary for the agreement to exist. They had no right to call in anybody else. Cases of that kind frequently occur in which such men are of the utmost value to both sides. This is one of the finest amendments we have in this Bill. The Bill does not cover several other things. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) is afraid that under one of these clauses the Minister will have the power to extend the agreement to the mines. That is not so. The mining industry should have its own industrial council. The building industry should have its own industrial council. The engineering industry should have its own industrial council. The whole of the industry, wherever there are men employed in the industry should be under the agreement of an industrial council. We have cases at the moment where this is not so.

Another labour leader does not agree with you.

I cannot help that. I have never come across them. A man may put up a factory with a large amount of machinery and is going to overhaul that machinery. He employs twelve fitters in the place. At the present time he can pay those fitters anything he likes, because he himself is not an engineering employer. The courts have held that in this particular business—say he is a clothing manufacturer and employs engineers—he can pay them anything he likes. If such a case had gone to Bloemfontein I think it might have been decided differently. I think the judge gave his decision more on the word “industries” than on the word “occupation.” At any rate, I think these things can be amended in select committee. This machinery has been working fairly successfully and these amendments presented now are something to tighten up the loopholes. My desire is that legislation of this kind shall be a success in every industry. What has been the cause of friction under this Act? It has not been caused by the men. As the Minister has said, around all industries you have a little fringe of men who are unscrupulous to the last degree. They are continually undercutting, and that is where all the friction has been. There is another difficulty. We have had people who try to split the various trades. We have at the present time an agitation by the motor traders’ association to separate themselves from the engineering trade. That would be one of the worst things that could happen. In Cape Town all the mechanical workers in the motor car industry, are included in the engineering council, but on the Rand there is a tremendous agitation to keep out motor mechanics from the engineering council. If the Minister agrees to that, he will break up the engineering council. We want to bring the trades closer together. Let commerce go together, and let trades draw together, and then we shall have peace in our industry, which is the only way to achieve progress in the country.

The Minister spent considerable time in singing the praises of the Industrial Act of 1924, and he paid a tribute to the South African party. Not only has the Minister suffered a change of opinion, but he drew attention to the fact that the amount of lost time has greatly decreased since the Act came into effect. He mentioned that a great deal of time was lost through the Rand revolution in 1922, yet I recall the time he spent in the past trying to convince the House that a revolution did not take place on the Rand in that year. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has been endeavouring to demonstrate that the Industrial Conciliation Act was not the work of the South African party, but of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and an official in the Labour Department. Well, we are getting accustomed to having our garments stolen one by one by hon. members opposite. We may have lost our coats and waistcoats and to-night the hon. member for Germiston has stolen the South African party’s last pair of breeks. When we turn to Hansard, however, and examine what occurred when the Industrial Conciliation Act was introduced, it is interesting to note that his colleague commenced his speech by saying that personally he was sorry the Bill was not passed ten years ago, for if it had been, much of the industrial strife the country had suffered would have been avoided. Let us hope that this fable that the Industrial Conciliation Act is due to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will not be heard again in this House, although, no doubt, it may be re-told outside. Although in committee, no doubt, some matters can be made plainer, I am not clear whether the Minister’s amendment to Clause 2 will have no effect upon what is probably the most important clause in the Bill. Section 2 defining the undertakings, industries and trades in regard to which industrial councils may be formed, lays down a limit regarding the subjects they can deal with. I would be better pleased if he had given us a fuller explanation of this amendment or assured us more definitely that the amendment of Clause 2 did not carry the principles of that clause further. I hope that point will be very fully investigated. May I invite the attention of the Minister for a moment to a matter which should have come before him and be referred to in this clause—the deregistration of an industrial council. I know of at least one instance where deregistration has occurred, and the Act contains no provision for dealing with the disappearing assets which such an industrial council may have collected in the course of its existence, and there is no power to appoint a liquidator. I would like to draw attention to the practical difficulties that apply when deregistration occurs. I do not know if the Minister knows of these facts, but I am telling him of them so that he may know of them if this Bill goes to a select committee. In some cases provision is made for the collection of a levy. I know of one case where an amount of fourpence per employee per week was collected. Quite considerable sums can come under the control of an industrial council, and if the agreement happens to run out the industrial council remains vested with possibly a large sum of money. One can understand it may be a considerable sum, and the difficulty is to know what to do with it. It has been contributed by a large number of employees and employers, and ordinarily one would imagine the money should be returned to those who have contributed it, but as a matter of practice it is almost impossible to do so. I would like to ask the Minister if that has come before him in the course of his experience, and whether any provision will be made for this. Another point that occurs to me in dealing with Section 3 is the alteration that has been made in sub-clause 3 (1) (g) as to procedure in dealing with disputes. The proposal made by the Minister is that all disputes in an industry may in future be dealt with by an industrial council; in other words, its powers can be extended that it can lay down in its constitution to deal with all disputes in that particular industry concerned. When I put a question with regard to the fixing of prices across the floor of the House I was told it did not concern the rates of wages, but when I looked through the speech made in 1924 by the hon. member who is now Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, he actually referred to the value of this machinery in fixing prices of work done in the printing industry. This goes to show that apparently in some quarters the idea is held that it would be competent for an industrial council to deal with a dispute which might concern the fixing of the prices of commodities. Is there any possibility of such an interpretation being placed upon this clause? If there is, I think it should be made quite clear that the intention of this Act is not to go outside the prevention of disputes and the fixing of wages, rates and conditions. I would like to refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and traversed by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), the right to appoint members to a conciliation board who may not themselves be actually concerned in the particular industry out of whose working a dispute may have occurred. When this amendment was put forward, the Minister explained the consequence of a decision given in Cape Town when an application was made to appoint a well-known trades union organizer on the Rand to a conciliation board. I would like to say to the Minister that even though he has restricted the number of trade organizers, trade debaters, one might sometimes describe them as paid pugilists, if that principle is once introduced you will have men electing persons who have no stake in the industry, and whose duty it will be to make the hardest possible bargain for their side. Is there not the greatest danger that as these councils increase in number you will find sitting upon them men who will have no direct interest in the result of decision arrived at. One of the greatest factors in bringing about useful working agreements in industry has been the fact that sitting upon the boards are men who have to pay for their mistakes. If they are too extreme on one side or the other the defect is one for which they have to share a full responsibility, and towards which they have to pay their share. It seems to me that the principle parliament adopted in 1924 is one which must have been deliberately selected, and if you allow paid agitators to sit on these boards you will be departing from that important principle, and these men may work solely for the best results from their point of view, which may not necessarily lead to the best results or towards conciliation in industry. There is one point to which I want to draw attention. Referring to the power which you will have by simple declaration to extend under Section 4 of the Act any particular agreement to persons who are not employers within the meaning of the Act. I quite agree that provision should be made. It has been admitted by supplementary wage determination that the extension of this power may sometimes cause a good deal of dislocation. I do not know how far the Minister in practice would enquire into such extending order as he may make, but simply to make a declaration under this Act to apply indiscriminately would justify some enquiry before being put into operation. The same discrimination should be used in dealing with all these clauses. Under Section 12 power is given to the industrial council to regulate the books, accounts and affairs of non-members of the council. I believe that unless some limit is put to these powers you may have domiciliary visit powers being based on them by non-members of the industrial council. The Minister is asking for powers which he is going to give to an industrial council over which he has no control. I would like to insist that the report of the investigating officer should be in writing. Secondly, that the copy of the report should be furnished to the department of labour. I think the Minister will realise that this is a very drastic power indeed. A number of cases have occurred where industrial councils have abused their powers to the detriment of a competitor. I do not say that clear proof exists, although the Minister should know. The Minister wants power to give to a non-member protection as to inspection of books and papers with a view to some action by the industrial council. If some fraud is discovered of course that is a different matter. I ask that some discrimination in control should be exercised by an industrial council. I do not want to disturb the slumbers of the hon. minister, but I thought these points would have been of some little assistance to him, and possibly he may have been induced to follow them. I feel that we, on this side of the House, have not obstructed the Bill this evening. We have brought forward constructive suggestions which may be of assistance in making the Bill more workable. It has been said that the Bill was passed by the S.A.P., and although the Minister has pointed with glee to figures, to those who are now concerned in it, either as employers or employees, the fact remains that the principle of co-operation and conciliation developed on this side of the House has proved a more valuable factor in the government of industry than his Wage Bill. However, we shall deal with that later. It is for that reason that the Minister has received this evening criticism from this side of the House which was intended to be constructive, and I hope he will consider them in this spirit.

On the motion of Mr. Christie the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 17th February.