I feel almost certain that since we last discussed the Bill in Committee of the whole House the Minister has had an opportunity of considering the point I raised and has probably obtained evidence to show that I am correct. Therefore I withdraw the amendment I proposed yesterday and substitute the following—

I hope the Minister will be able to tell me he is thoroughly convinced.

I am glad the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens. It is simply introducing into the Bill something quite foreign to it and to the principal Act. Instead of making the administration of the Act more difficult, we ought to make it more easy. It is only adding to it, and suggesting to the industrial councils that they might go on these lines. The whole object of the Bill is the spirit of conciliation. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) knows that for many years relations between employers and employees were always strained, and after the upheaval in the Transvaal we did get something better, and the Act of 1924 was passed for the purpose of trying to settle disputes in a different way. We are now trying to amend certain weaknesses in that Act.

This amendment should not be voted upon silently, because it does propose to whittle down the powers of the industrial councils in such a way that they might not be effective. I can conceive occasions where the employees represented on a certain industrial council, having made a request for an increase of wages, may receive the reply that the employer is not in a position to do so, because he is not in a position to get sufficient from his commodity to enable him to do so. I can conceive circumstances may arise and an arrangement may have to be made between the parties, by which, as a concession for an increase of wages, the employees would have to undertake to help the employer to maintain a particular price of a commodity, and unless they can come to such an arrangement it would mean the employer would not be able to carry out such an agreement. I can conceive an employer being obliged to utilize the other parties; if a particular employer refuses to carry out such an agreement, trade unionists would refuse to work for him. If the Industrial Council is to be limited by such an agreement, I can see occasions when a reasonable request for an increase of wages has to be turned down. The power, I am sure, will not be exercised unreasonably.

Surely we are not going to pass this Bill and allow certain trades to enforce certain prices on the general public? It is a most unsatisfactory condition if this Bill, which is intended to help employees with regard to reasonable conditions as to their pay, should be used for another purpose. The employers may go to their employees and say: “Provided you agree to an increased price, we will give you a portion of the profit we are making in the way of wages.” I think it is very unsatisfactory that that should be. I think these two questions should be kept entirely separate. I understand from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) it is not only a possibility but a desirable thing to do, and it is to be one of the methods by which the employee is to get increased wages.

The fact that this Bill has been in existence for the last six years, and the hon. member (Mr. Stuttaford) did not know before last evening that the Act gave precisely that power to which he referred, is in itself the clearest possible proof that there is very little likelihood of such a dispute ever occurring. Very little if anything has cropped up that the employers’ side desire to put right in the way of an amendment. They do not want to make the Act any better from their point of view. The confession that has been made by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) demonstrates that most conclusively. What does the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) want to do? If I caught the amendment correctly it was that in the event of any dispute involving the question of prices, no conciliation board shall be set up to deal with it. Surely a question of that kind ought to be considered under the Act.

I am quite satisfied with the Bill as it is. I do not see the danger which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) sees. I think the Minister has told us that there is no such intention as the hon. member for Gardens fears. The preamble of the original Act to my mind is very clear. With regard to fixing prices, I might remind the House that fixed prices during the war rose to a higher percentage than those which were not fixed. I have no fear of fixed prices because if any manufacturer wanted to sell below the price, do you think he would be restricted? The people of the land would not allow it. I do not see the need of the amendment, but if we are going to come to a division I must support it.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Madeley and Mr. Coulter put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to

Amendments proposed by select committee, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

On amendments proposed by select committee,

I move—

After line 3, on page 4, to insert the following new paragraph to follow parapragh (a):

1. (b) by the insertion in sub-section (1) of the following new paragraph (h), the existing paragraph (h) becoming paragraph (i):—
   1. (h) the admission of additional employers’ organizations or trade unions to membership of the council;

and in line 13, after “statement” to insert “of the terms”; and in lines 16 and 17, to omit “an industrial” and to substitute “the”.

I understand that when a memorandum is sent to the Minister, a memorandum of an agreement, the agreement is binding upon non-contracting parties. Under the proposed amendment there is no provision in respect of inspection by members of the public of the original agreement. As that original agreement, when published, has all the force of an Act of Parliament in regard to, not only members who are parties to it, but members who are not parties to it, some of whom may desire to know the terms of it, it seems to me right that members of the public should have the right to inspect the original. For instance, an industrial council settles an agreement and sends the Minister a copy, and decides to make it binding upon non-contracting parties. What guarantee has the Minister that it is a correct copy? I am rather surprised that the Minister should have been content merely to receive the agreement which he himself has to give the force of law under Section 9. I am viewing this amendment as affecting agreements under Section 9. The importance of following precisely the terms of the Act has often been illustrated by actions which have come before the board. Therefore, I move—

I cannot see any good that this can do. These agreements are arrived at by the two parties to an industrial council. When the agreement is arrived at, a statement of that agreement is supplied, and the certification that it is the agreement arrived at is attested on that document by the signature of the chairman, vice chairman and secretary. It is one of those little technical matters, and I am not prepared to favour the activities of clever attorneys whose contentions have been frequently turned down on some small technical point.

I do not know why the Minister is so averse to accepting a simple proposition like this. The Minister rather alarms me by his words about clever attorneys and little technicalities. The Minister has had some experience in courts of law as to what these little technicalities may mean. Practically half the awards of the conciliation board have been set aside on the ground that those awards were unjust, and all the Minister can see is clever attorneys discovering little technicalities. If a man discovers that the Minister has committed an injustice, the Minister is made to toe the line by the courts of the country. The Minister of Labour may take as lofty a view as he likes about the way he can trample upon public rights, but as long as there is a court of law in the land, if he does not administer his department within the realms of law, he can be called to account by the courts.

I do resent the sneer at clever attorneys—

I cannot allow this to be discussed. The hon. member may deal with the clause before the committee.

On Clause 2, the Minister jeered and sneered at clever attorneys. I suggest that the public owes a debt of gratitude to those clever attorneys for having shown the incompetence which obtains—

Order! I cannot allow this.

On a point of order, I listened to the remarks of the Minister which you allowed to proceed unchecked. If one member is allowed to make remarks to which other members take exception, they should be allowed to say so whether it is germane to the discussion or not. If you say you will not allow the discussion, then you make it appear that you are not fair to members on this side.

The hon. the Minister in replying to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) based his objection on this point alone, that clever attorneys might find a way out. That surely is very germane to the discussion. We said that he had no right to make these sneers, and that, in a large number of cases, clever attorneys have proved that justice has been trampled on. Surely we can deal with that point.

I have now allowed the hon. member to reply on this point very fully, and I think hon. members should be satisfied. If this were a second-reading debate, I might have permitted further discussion.

If the Minister levels a sneer at an honourable profession, surely we are entitled to object, and to ask him to withdraw. I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw his remark.

I am sorry to have wounded these very tender susceptibilities. I am unable to see that it was a sneer. I simply spoke of clever attorneys—

It was the sneering tone.

I said I was not prepared to favour activities of clever attorneys whose contentions would be very frequently turned down on some small technical point. The activities of these clever attorneys have been shown to be unfounded. If the hon. member desires it, I will apologize to the attorneys for having said that some of them were capable of being clever. I would point out that if you want the original to be forwarded to the Minister of Labour, I do not think there is any objection to deleting the words “copy of such statement.” I am quite willing that such a statement shall forthwith be transmitted to the Minister. Does the hon. member suppose that the Minister is going to get a statement of this sort, which is published in the Gazette, and having got it, he is going, out of his own head, to publish something quite different? I think that is going, too far. I do not think I can admit that the department and the Minister are going to receive something and are then going to publish something else purporting to be the thing they receive.

I think the hon. Minister will agree that I am not likely to be supporting hon. members on this side of the House in any amendments which are likely to weaken this Bill. I do say, however, that I cannot see any grave objection can be taken to the amendment that has been moved. Even a member of a trades union may desire to see what agreement has been come to in regard to any particular matter. Surely he, or any other member of the public, has the right to-day to see such a document. As I see it, it does not impugn the hon. Minister at all, nor does it impute motives. I could quite logically and wholeheartedly move such an amendment, not in order that I do not trust this, that or the other Minister, nor that I suggest that such an amendment will accuse him of the possibility of getting one copy of an agreement and issuing or publishing another. It is not that. At any time, any member of the public may want to know, for his own purposes, or for the purposes of his organization, for general public purposes or for any other purpose, that he has the right to go along, as I have the right to go along, and see the list of shareholders of any company, and get information on a thousand and one different points, such as mortgages, transfers or anything else. We have nothing to hide, nor have we anything to hide in regard to the industrial councils. It should be open to the world to be able to go along and see such a document if they so desire. I think the Minister is rather straining a point in objecting to this method. I have no objection to it myself, and I shall support the amendment.

I do not want to say too much on this point, because if I were endeavouring to appeal to the intelligence of some hon. members opposite I should be spending a great deal of time unsuccessfully. I am trying to say this, that the reference by the hon. Minister to the legal profession in courts of law is, I think, characteristic of the attitude of his department. They have consistently, in the administration of this Act, and in the administration of other Acts, oppressed the citizens of this country by giving a so-called sanction to a document which has afterwards proved to be illegal, and in hundreds of cases people in this country have been deprived of money and punished before the courts of law upon illegal documents and illegal agreements published by the Department of labour. Now, the hon. Minister stands up and says that it is not possible for a mistake to occur in the Department of Labour, if he attended to the administration of his department and reviewed all the cases in connection with which the courts of law have commented upon such documents, he would not have the audacity to stand up and make such a statement. However, we must forgive the hon. gentleman. I should like to point out the importance of this matter. Here is an agreement which may be made by an industrial council. In the first place, it must, of course, be made at a properly constituted meeting of the council. The Minister proposes, under this clause, that it will be sufficient proof to him, in the exercise of his far-reaching powers, if he receives a statement which is only a copy of an agreement which he is told has been made. He will not know whether this has been passed at a properly constituted meeting of the council, or whether the authority referred to in this section has been given, or whether it is a true and correct copy of the original agreement. Yet, that agreement may form the foundation of a proclamation by the Minister which makes it binding, not only on the parties to the agreement, but on members of trades unions’ or employers’ organizations. It is the charter of the industry. When we pass an Act of Parliament it is engrossed upon vellum and checked with careful accuracy and deposited for public inspection with the registrar at Bloemfontein, and any member of the public may see a copy of it, and may, for the expenditure of a few pence, get a copy of the authorized version of the law. Here the foundation of the proclamation is to lie hidden in the offices of an industrial council. It may be that somebody is prosecuted for an infringement of an agreement which has been made binding by the Minister, and he may wish to know what is in the original agreement. He may wish to know if it has been properly executed, and he may wish to inspect it for a variety of reasons. The first step he would wish to take would be to go to the office and see the original in order to define his rights. Under this Bill he will not be able to see it in the Minister’s office. Even if the Minister wants it, he cannot get it by right from the offices of the industrial council. They might not be prepared to show it to him. Supposing a person concerned goes to the office of the industrial council and says: “I am prepared to pay the necessary fees, and I want to see the original agreement. I am being prosecuted for an infringement, and I am not satisfied with what I have seen in the Gazette. I desire to know what is exactly contained in it.” He cannot get it. It may be that, later on, in the course of legal proceedings, he can subpoena someone to produce it. Consequently, the Minister is not only handicapping himself, in spite of the grandiloquent way in which he dismisses anything I have to say, but he may be doing a great injustice to members of the public. Over and over again these agreements have been set aside by the courts of law, and over and over again it has been found that the whole administration under these agreements has been one long sequence of illegalities. These agreements are of great importance. In fact, they amount to compulsory appropriation of property held by one person to be passed over to another person. If you can condemn A to pay £5 to B, you are, in fact, exercising what is equivalent to an act of appropriation. When we talk of expropriation in this House, we have a thousand voices raised to see that it is properly safeguarded. When you have such a thing made compulsory by the state, and I do not question it, surely it is the duty of Parliament to lay down a clear and definite code which can be understood by the man in the street. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is quite correct. The time may come when he may want to see a document under an industrial agreement, but he may not have an opportunity of knowing when in the future some restrictions may be imposed. It is just as much to the interest of the employee as to the employer to know the exact terms of the original law. But the Minister says no, and he prefers to rule in the way in which he has ruled the Labour party, namely, by sheer unadulterated autocracy.

Would it meet the case if I took out—

The Minister constitutionally is unable to see the view of anybody who differs from him. It is a definite principle of right that the people concerned should have access to the original document. A great part of the trouble that has arisen over the interpretation of some of these agreements is not due to wilful perversion of words, but owing to small words being substituted when the copy is made, these substitutions frequently being unintentional. All we ask is that people should have access to the original document. As the Minister has gone so far in meeting the objections from this side, cannot he pocket his pride and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter)—an amendment which is a mere matter of ordinary justice?

I do not propose to intervene in the complimentary exchanges which have been passing between the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) and the Minister. The Minister’s amendment—

I have not moved it, as it was not acceptable to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens).

It seems to me to be a pity that the Minister, standing on his dignity, has not accepted an amendment which would do no harm. I cannot think that any trade unionist is anxious to do anything surreptitiously. The proposal of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) is more to the interest of the trade unionist that it is in the interest of the employer. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) shakes his head, but I know of cases in which men have been very dissatisfied with the working of these awards, and it may be of great importance to them to be able to have access to the original document. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Minister would not meet completely the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens), and would be rather loading the scale against the workman, for, whilst an employer would be in a position to instruct some clever attorney to write to Pretoria for the documents, there are thousands of workmen who would not be in that position, and able to spend that money, and, therefore, they would be at a disadvantage. Why should they not be able to go to the office of an industrial council wherever situated and get information? I hope the Minister will have the moral courage to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens).

These agreements cannot have any effect until all the employers and trade unions have been informed of them, and the ordinary workers also have to vote on the subject. Why should the public trip up to the office of an industrial council to see documents? The members of the industrial council are either busy business men, or workmen who attend the meetings of the council at night. Many industrial councils have no staff apart from a typist. It would serve no useful purpose to say that a copy of an agreement can be seen at the office of the industrial council concerned, because, if anybody wishes to know the contents of an agreement, they can purchase the Government Gazette, which published these agreements in toto. Very often it is published in the press of the country, and every industrial council, as far as I know, have published their agreement in pamphlet form, and distributed it to the various members. What more information do you want? It is only going to load up the Bill, and make the administration more difficult. It is not the administration of the Act which is wrong, but we have found there were weaknesses in the Act itself, and these we are now trying to fill up.

Dealing with this question of access to the agreement, at first I thought I agreed with the hon. members for Gardens and Mowbray, but if I follow them correctly it is difficult to say now what they are aiming at. I am beginning to lose confidence in their sincerity. What more the hon. members want than the Minister suggested I do not know. The Minister is good enough to agree to the original signed statement of agreement to be forwarded to him where it would be accessible to everyone. You have two parties entering into the agreement—the employers’ organization and the industrial union, and each of the two parties would be likely to have a copy, and members of each would have access to that copy. There would be a copy in their office, so that the parties concerned and all those interested would have access to it.

The hon. member and the Minister do not seem to realize that this amendment has come from the select committee. It says a “statement” means a summary, resume or abstract of the terms of the agreement, and not the whole of it. I challenge the Minister to deny that if you get half-a-dozen trained men to make abstracts of any agreement you will be able to find the most important differences between them. No statement or summary can take the place of the original document. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. K. Rood) laughs, but some of us have had quite a lot of experience of that. If he is a practitioner he knows perfectly well there is nothing more remarkable than the way in which half-a-dozen men pick out what they consider the salient points of a statement, and when you compare them you find half-a-dozen differences at least, which may affect the legal interpretation. What we ask is perfectly simple; let there be access to the original document.

I may be wrong in my interpretation, but in reading that section I thought the statement meant the agreement itself, what else can it mean?

If that is so, why not “agreement” then?

Previously a statement of the agreement is mentioned and it is quite unnecessary to alter the wording as it would mean the same.

If that is so, the hon. member gave the whole case away, because if the statement is the same as the agreement I would ask the Minister, is he prepared to substitute " agreement” for “statement” in that clause? No, I thought not. What happens then to the argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging? (Maj. K. Rood).

I am not concerned very much with this splitting of hairs on the terms, but I am concerned with the position of trade unions, and I know all through the piece they have been regarded with some suspicion as secret societies and all that sort of thing. The Minister himself, in 1912, at the conference at Bloemfontein, wanted to limit the representation of the trade unions at the meetings of the party, and used that argument. That was in the palmy days when they were affiliated with the Labour party. I want to get over that sort of thing, and I cannot, for the life of me, see why we should object to complete publication and completely opening the door. We have nothing to hide. If there is anything to hide, all the more reason why we, who do not want to hide, should have the door open. If there is nothing in the amendment beyond what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) calls overloading the Act, then let us have the amendment, because there is not much overloading. Take some official of the trades union in the Cape, who may not have been directly engaged in an agreement somewhere up in the Transvaal, but the members of the trades union down here want to know all about it. Why should they not get into communication with a member of their union in Johannesburg, say, and ask him to go and see the agreement? These unions have secretaries available for such a duty, and why should not any member of the public see any agreement. I am not afraid—

It is in the Gazette.

I will challenge the hon. member to say in what particular Gazette any agreement appears. That is a very weak and almost dishonest argument. I do not read the Government Gazette once in ten weeks, and members of this House get them free. How often do hon. members read them? I do not think that disposes either of our liability or responsibility, to say that it appears in the Government Gazette. The trades unions have nothing to hide.

I do not want to protract this discussion. I have already suggested that to meet any objection the way to do it is that the statement of the agreement shall be forwarded forthwith to the Minister. I suggested that to meet the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close). I thought I was meeting him reasonably. I do not think it is necessary, but I thought I was meeting him, and he got up and poured scorn upon me. I ask him seriously, if the original document is in Union Buildings how can it be in some office somewhere else. I move—

Without the recommendation of the Governor-General I am unable to put that part of the amendment which prescribes a fee.

The words “on payment of a fee prescribed by regulation” accordingly omitted from the amendment.

I would suggest that in order to meet the criticism offered the hon. the Minister should agree to the deletion of the words “a statement of,” and then it will read to the effect that the agreement, not a statement of it, shall be signed by the chairman. As long as the agreement is signed and deposited it will be satisfactory. The agreement has got to be filed and why not say so. I am trying to help the Minister so that we may get on with the business.

The difference between the Minister and ourselves is that he says that the statement is the same as the agreement. I argue that it is not so. The first words of the section are “whenever an agreement has been arrived at Then it refers to a statement of an agreement. A statement can exclude the preamble and all the annexures, and in addition it may be a summary of the contents of the agreement. The Minister is trying to screen irregularity in the execution of agreements. The origin of this amendment is simply this, that every industrial agreement has been set aside for irregularity in execution.

I do hope the Minister will consent to deal with the matter as an agreement. It is open to misconception. As the Minister is making a concession, why not make it willingly and thoroughly? It is only a sign of obstinacy not to do so.

I move—

I thought it was understood that the original agreement would be the property of the parties concerned and that the Minister would have a copy of it. If that is the position we are quibbling over words. Between trade unions and employers, we do not quibble about matters of this kind and I think we should abide by the wording the committee has decided upon.

I understand what a fair copy of an agreement is, but I would like to ask the hon. Minister what a “statement of agreement” is. I move—

A “statement of agreement” is simply a document stating an agreement accurately. I have taken advice on this matter. The only point is that instead of that copy, my amendment will mean that the original document shall be transmitted to my office.

I hope the Minister will make that clear in this clause. It seems suspicions for the Minister to insist on a vague term like “statement of agreement A statement of agreement may be a curtailed resumé. We do not wish to be hard on the Minister and we realize that he may not have grasped the difference between the two conceptions, but I cannot see what objection the Minister has to doing away with this objectionable form of words.

I should like to refer to two points. When an industrial council is at work, it does not go to the lawyers of the respective parties and ask them to make up an agreement. An industrial council may sit for weeks and during this time all the decisions arrived at are recorded in the minutes. To a layman like myself it seems obvious that a statement of all the agreed decisions must be drawn up and this must be called a statement of agreement. I appreciate that a statement of agreement may be different from a statement of an agreement. I want to make another point. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) said it was very important that every formality should be strictly complied with. As one who is anxious to see this Conciliation Act functioning properly— as one who would like to see far more conciliation in industry than there is to-day—I hope that steps will be taken to prevent weeks of work on the part of employers and employees being upset because an “i” has not been dotted or a “t” left uncrossed.

I appreciate the point of view of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) in the remarks he has made. Perhaps he will bear in mind that what he calls “formalities” are strict conditions laid down by the Parliament of this country, to see that justice is done to both sides. When he talks of minor informalities, I ask him who is to judge of what a minor informality is? What may appear to be a minor informality to an employer, may appear to be a very major one indeed to an employee. No one can judge of that except a court of law. The court of law has to consider the interests of both sides. For the information of people like the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) I wish to state that it is not a question of lawyers or of technicalities, but a question of rights as between man and man in this country. The lawyer is there to interpret what the statute says. He may be right, or he may be wrong, and he may be clever, or he may not be clever, or he may be the man whom the Minister consults or may not consult. But the hon. member for Turffontein must remember that we in Parliament are the persons laying down the conditions, whether formalities or otherwise, which cannot be ignored by anyone, whether he be the Minister, the employer, the employee or any other person. The only person who can say whether the rights have been properly carried out is to be found in a court of law. That is the body which the hon. the Minister has disregarded at very great cost to the country. I should like to ask the Minister how many of these technical points have failed when they came before the courts, and how many have succeeded? I should like to ask how many were minor points, and how many were major points? I challenge the hon. the Minister on that. In regard to the hon. member for Turffontein, I appreciate that an agreement may be arrived at, but look at the Act. You have to go by the Act, or tear it up. Section (9) of the Act of 1924 says—

What is the agreement referred to? Surely it is an agreement in writing, embodying as a final result the points between the persons concerned. They are not points minuted one day or another day, and it is not a minute in regard to what has been agreed upon one day or another day. What the Act contemplates is an agreement, and that agreement should be published in writing. You, cannot have a verbal statement of agreement published in the Gazette. We come back to this, that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) with all his desire to get practical results, has only got to persuade the Minister to do a simple practical thing. He must get the Minister to drop all his obstinacy and pride, and accept one simple fact. Let him tell the people, the employer or employed, that they can have the opportunity to get the original document. It should be kept in a public place to which they can have access. There they could see also the statement which the Minister has published. They can then see whether his summary of the agreement is a correct summary or not. A man may also find that the agreement has not been properly arrived at in accordance with the formalities laid down by law, and he may, therefore, wish to contest it. The Minister has stated that he will not substitute the word “agreement” for “statement” in this amendment. By so doing, he has admitted that there is something different between the agreement and the statement. Therefore, there must be some document in writing which is different from the statement he proposes to publish. The man who is concerned with the document should be able to see what the document has to say.

I am not a lawyer, but I can read all the same.

We do not blame you for that.

I sympathize with them. The principle agreed upon is a statement of any dispute or any other matter by a registered industrial council. In the principal Act it says a memorandum of the terms of settlement shall be drawn up and signed by all the parties. It says there that it is a memorandum. It does not say it is an agreement. It only says that a memorandum shall be drawn up. I am asking the lawyers about this, but they do not seem able to differentiate between the two. They do not seem able to differentiate between what is in the amending Bill and what is in the principal Act. It seems to me that there is no difference whatever between the two.

As I read this sub-section, the procedure is that this industrial council, after discussing the matter in dispute, comes to a certain agreement, which is settled between the various parties. After they have come together and agreed to a certain thing, the record of that agreement is the statement drawn up and signed by the chairman. That is the only written agreement which exists, so far as I know. It is a statement of the agreement come to, and agreed to by the council. I cannot see what the difference is between the statement and the agreement. I do not know where that is to be kept. Cannot the Minister arrange that the original statement signed by the different people whose signatures are required shall be open to inspection if required?

I have moved that the original document shall be open to inspection by any member of the public on payment of a fee.

May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that in discussions of industrial matters the Labour party is peculiarly interested.

That seems to be a reflection on the Chair.

No, it is more of a hint. You may, in examining the claims of members to address the House remember that mere numbers ought not to count. It is not an insinuation, but a request.

But a statement has been made. All the members on those benches have spoken more than once. Therefore, I insist on the withdrawal of the words.

Very well, I will withdraw that and complete my remarks. I wish to urge hon. members who wish that the public should have an opportunity of obtaining information to refrain from constantly flaunting in our faces the possibility of these things ultimately coming to the law courts. All this talk of testing the matter in courts of law is weakening my support of the amendment. This is a Conciliation Act Amendment Bill. Its essence should be conciliation, and we should not be examining it from the point of view of picking holes in agreements, which probably will be drawn up by laymen. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) is perfectly right, that you have two sets of men meeting together and neither side having any legal knowledge, and no appreciation of the legal value of words. These people are not likely to be very particular as to choice of language, although this discussion may frighten them into making a mess of these agreements in future by searching around for legal phraseology. All the same, I wish to urge on the Minister the right of the public to know all about these agreements. I ask the Minister to withdraw his amendment, for it makes it more difficult for trade unionists, now that the Minister insists that you shall go to his office to examine a document. It is easy for employers to send someone to make a copy of agreements, but it is not so easy for the other party.

They also can get copies.

Do not be in too much of a hurry to defend the Minister because he is a Minister, and the Minister should not be in a hurry to set his teeth like a rat trap because some people think he may have made a mistake. Thousands of people who are not parties to these agreements may want to know their contents, but if the Minister does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) it will be better to leave the clause as it stands. I hope officials will help the parties to make agreements which cannot be ridden through with a carriage and pair.

I am inclined to say to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that he should not assume that this desire for an inspection of documents does always arise from the employers. The employees also want to know what their rights are. A case in point occurred the other day. An employee came to me and consulted me on the point whether he could open in competition with his employer, but the agreement made that illegal, and no one could tell us whether the declaration under which the agreement was entered into was valid or not. We are now dealing with the exercise of this law-making machinery. Parliament has dedicated in effect its law-making powers in regard to industrial conditions to particular industrial councils. When they make their agreements they are transmitted to the Minister, who may declare them to be binding on all engaged in the industries concerned. It is just as much in the interests of the employee as of the employer that there should be no room for doubt. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) seems to have fallen from grace, no doubt owing to the had company he has been keeping lately. There is a tendency on the part of Government officials to ask to become superior to courts of law, and I am surprised that the hon. member should wish to put these agreements in such a position that they cannot be challenged in a court of law, because of an informality. But if Parliament decides to delegate its function to any other body we should at least make it clear how that is to be exercised, and make sure if it is exercised it is according to law. The original should be available for inspection to the public. I think this amendment is a direct result of the Labour Department trying to keep it from the scrutiny of the public. I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture suddenly proclaimed some regulation, would you not ask whether that was valid if it took away some of your rights? There is nothing behind this except a mere desire to have this available for public inspection. The more the Minister rejects this the more I am convinced he means to prevent access. Only the other day an agreement in the printing industry which had stood the test for many years was declared invalid in Natal. I ask that the public should have the same facilities in regard to this as in regard to an Act of Parliament. Any Act is available to anyone who is sufficiently interested.

The statement is the agreement.

The hon. gentleman has not read the first line of the clause—

A verbal agreement.

Now we are beginning to see what lies behind it. If I rise to make a statement of an agreement, does that mean I have to bring out every word?

There is a written agreement, and there is a statement of it.

Would you not allow a very wide margin if I made a statement?

I was attacked by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close); but when such distinguished members of the legal profession as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) seem to differ from one another, there is some excuse when lay members are confused. What hope could the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and I have of coming together when apparently we have to start off with preambles and formal agreements? We should each have to go to our respective lawyers and ask them to arrange it for us. I just wish to emphasize that if these conciliation boards are going to function at all they must be made to function with people who know nothing about law. If, in the event of any agreement being arrived at, it cannot be in language which is not absolutely clear and definite to those making it, then I say scrap this Bill. We should try to frame a Bill which will not be upset by all sorts of legal formalities.

I am satisfied when the two parties to the agreement arrive at conclusions which will enable them to put a statement to the Minister which goes to the Minister as the original. He has agreed to delete the word “copy”, I think he can go a step further and make the alteration that a statement of the agreement shall be made to the press, the whole of the public will be able to understand, and we will be over the difficulties of our hon. friends there. I am sure what we are aiming at, and I think all those dealing with this matter, is that in cases where disputes take place there should be reasonable machinery set up in order to arrive at some decision which would save disputes and trouble among the various disputing parties, and for that reason we do not want to go into the niceties of language. Our agreement will not he disputed by the two parties who have arrived at it.

What about the law? What about the other parties who are bound by the agreement?

It is published in the Gazette.

If it is published in the Gazette, why not publish it generally? I think hon. members are afraid of shadows.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) assumes that there is going to be a solemn agreement between the parties, and he wants a statement of it. Quite right, but I think that in this case there is no agreement at all, except that the statement solemnly signed by the chairman and vice-chairman is the agreement. There is no other agreement.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has put the matter perfectly clearly. May I ask the committee to come to a conclusion? We are chasing shadows.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford in lines 18 and 19 dropped.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Stuttaford in lines 12 and 13 and by Mr. Coulter put and negatived.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3.

On amendments proposed by select committee,

I move—

Apropos of his amendment may I ask why he is restricting either of these bodies to representations elsewhere than on their own organization? I am in possession of definite representations from the trade union congress, and the amalgamated engineers’ union, and the sum of their representations is in the direction not of restriction, but of perfect freedom to draw their representation from anywhere they like. They want to have the right to use their own members, members of organizations akin to them, or persons who are not members at all. It is almost certain they would draw on their own membership, but they want to be free to draw on persons outside, if they so desire. I move—

Whether or no the present Minister is sympathetic, some future Minister may not be, and trade unions do not want a question of principle involved in a dispute to be at the whim of the Minister in power. That is the representation made to me, and I am in whole hearted agreement. The deletion of all those words throws the decision where a dispute is involved into the hands of the Minister, but in the event of such an amendment being enforced by the Minister, they want it to apply only to a question of an individual being discharged. I also desire to move—

Can the hon. member move to delete the whole proviso in the original Act, and then move to alter the proviso?

If I cannot get the whole proviso out, I want to secure an amended form.

As far as I can see, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) does not want any conciliation. There will not be any conciliation left if both sides have to take an extreme view of any case. What we want is each side to take a conciliatory view. When the hon. member wants to delete the word “discharged” he practically breaks down the arrangement of the old Act to deal with a case of an individual. If the committee decides to adopt the hon. member’s view, every individual who gets discharged will go to the industrial council with his grievance. I hope the committee will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni.

I should just like to say to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that I think this has a much wider scope than the industrial council. This is an amendment to Section 4 of the Act. If we go to Section 4 (1) of the Act we find that we are in the same place as we were on the 11th February, 1924, when the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) spoke at great length on this very same question. It then formed the subject of a very long debate in this House. Perhaps my hon. friend will follow me when I say that under Section 4 we are dealing with a case where there are no industrial councils. There being no industrial council in regard to the industry concerned, any number of employees may apply to the Minister for the appointment of a conciliation board for the determination of any dispute in an area between any employer and his employee, and the Minister may take immediate steps for the appointment of such a board. This matter has been fought out at very great length. We are now faced with this position that it is a case where there is no industrial council. Supposing we had an employer with a large business in Commissioner Street, and he had an employee who receives a month’s notice, and that employee conceives that he has been wrongly dismissed. He can go to the Minister and the Minister may appoint a conciliation board. There have been such boards held at East London and on the Rand. Under the existing law the appointment of a conciliation board was only possible where a question of principle was involved. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) now wants to sweep away all that, and if he is not successful in getting the proviso deleted, he wants a conciliation board in regard to the discharge of an employee.

The Minister proposes, in his amending Bill, to amend the original Act by the deletion, from the proviso to sub-section (1) of the following words “the engagement, suspension, discharge, transfer or de-rating of an individual employee.” I want to amend that amendment by deleting the word “discharge.” That will mean, if the Minister is successful in deleting all the other words, that I retain the word “discharge” in the original Act.

It would then read “provided no conciliation board shall be appointed under this section, in a dispute in regard to the discharge of an individual.” The hon. member does not quite realize that by leaving out the word “discharge” you get a meaningless sentence. Does the hon. member intend, in a case where a discharge takes place, that he will restore sufficient words to make it clear that that discharge cannot be dealt with by a conciliation board, unless a point of principle is involved?

If I am defeated, in moving for the deletion of the whole of the proviso, I want the word “discharge” to remain in. It will then read “provided that no conciliation board shall be appointed under this section, if the dispute is in regard to the discharge of an individual unless, in the opinion of the Minister, a matter of principle is involved.” The Minister’s opinion of whether a matter of principle is involved will only be allowed to operate in case of a discharge.

I suggest to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that his real point is in regard to the question of the proviso. In effect, it is whether it is a matter of principle in relation to the discharge of an individual. I am expressing my own personal point of view, which is precisely the same as it was in 1924. I disagreed,’ in 1924, with the vast majority of the members of this House, and I am expressing my own personal view when I say that the criterion adopted in this Bill is quite a wrong one. Quite clearly, whether a conciliation board should be appointed or not, is not whether, in the opinion of the Minister, a question of principle is involved, or whether in point of fact a question of principle is involved, but whether, if a dispute arises, it is so resented by a large number of men, that you want to bring the parties together. That is my own personal opinion. We are dealing with conciliation. It will be remembered that employers’ organizations and trade union representatives met in Pretoria, and this question then arose. Labour was more strongly represented than it is in this House—that is to say, it was about half and half. The employers’ representatives there took the view which I have expressed, which I am sure is the right view. After all, you are dealing with a principle, for it is a question of how the men look at it. It is impossible to get past the point that we had before us in 1924. I then tried to bring the parties together. It was proposed by one of them, on that occasion, to delete these words. I pointed out that it was a case in which a question of principle was being involved, but when an individual is concerned, it is something more mandatory. You will find that this question of principle is involved where a large number of men are prepared to go out on strike, because they resent very bitterly some act of their employer. You will find that they do not do so without some question of principle being involved. I merely state this. I am expressing my own personal view.

I agree that if one has to make a choice this is the best thing to be done, but I am not convinced that we have to make a choice. We are reinforced in our view by the representations of the trades union congress backed up by the amalgamated engineers’ union. They say that it is entirely wrong that you should allow a Minister to decide whether the men’s belief in their own rectitude is in itself sufficient grounds for the appointment of a conciliation board. That is what we ask for. We are not asking that when, say, men resent the degradation of an individual worker that a verdict should at once be given in their favour, but that a conciliation board should be set up in any case that arouses their resentment. The same thing applies, too, to the employers, for any one employer can ask for a conciliation board to prevent further trouble between him and his employees. I hope the Minister will translate belief into legal action this afternoon. A tremendous advance has taken place in the views of hon. members who passed the original Act a few years ago. I see a happy augury for the future in the attitude of these hon. members, and the Minister need have no fear in asking this side of the House—which formerly was opposed to this principle, but now is very much of our way of thinking—to agree that it is desirable to invoke the aid of conciliation. Under any and every circumstance, if the workers think a matter of sufficient importance to cause trouble over, or if the organized employers wish “to raise the dust”, that is warranty for the setting up of a conciliation board. I move the following amendment in the belief that it will be carried by the House, if the Minister signifies his approval—

1. (b) by the deletion in sub-section (1) of the word “may” after the words “application the Minister”, and the substitution of the word “shall”;

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), which gives effect to what the Minister believes in. In practice, indeed, he has been carrying out the idea contained in the amendment. The trouble with Cabinet Ministers is that they get it into their heads that they will always be Ministers and that they will administer Acts of Parliament in the way they think right, but—fortunately, or unfortunately—Ministers come and go, and to-morrow we may have a Minister whose point of view may be entirely different from that of the present incumbent of the office, and he may be hostile to the granting of conciliation boards. That being the case, we might have trouble which might easily have been avoided by the appointment of a conciliation board. More often than not strikes have arisen through obstinacy on the one side or the other, and gradually tempers are aroused and matters develop until you have serious trouble in the country. Why place the onus on the Minister and say that unless the Minister is satisfied that a principle is involved there shall be no conciliation? The Minister must not refuse to accept the amendment because it would give effect to our point of view in this matter. We know he has the idea that he is going to be in that place for ever, but personally I do not think he will be there very long. So I do hope that the Minister, in anticipation of that unhappy event, will accept the amendment.

The last part of the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) cannot be moved by him. He cannot move an amendment to his own amendment.

My original motion was the deletion of the proviso. I have put all my amendments on the table. If the proviso is not deleted, I want it amended, and I want to have an opportunity of moving that amendment.

Any other hon. member can move that.

I will move—

and my hon. friend (Mr. Kentridge) can move this amendment.

I move—

I hope the Minister will not be over-persuaded by my hon. friend on my left. I am quite satisfied as the result of the experience we have had, and if the Minister were to give way to the hon. members on the left, we would have practically every industry having conciliation boards in permanent session. After all, people must get on with their business.

Would it not be good to have permanent conciliation machinery? Your argument shows the necessity for it.

It would be unfortunate if every industry had a conciliation board sitting every day and every month and every year. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member in that. I hope the Minister will stand by what he has already said.

I cannot accept this amendment. This body represents the persons most concerned. Any other Minister, even if he were opposed to conciliation, would still be in the position, under the Act, to grant conciliation.

I moved the deletion of “may” and to substitute “shall”.

I am not going back on the compromise on those most closely concerned. The other point relates to the freedom of the selected parties and their right to be completely unfettered as to whom they desire to represent them on the conciliation board. On a matter of broad principle one is bound to agree that they should be unfettered, but as a matter of actual working, first of all men are not going to be members of that board who have not a real immediate acquaintance with the business and are not of a representative character. When the Act was passed, it never occurred to anyone that there was any restriction against there being anybody on the board of another trade union. I do not know in how many cases men were appointed by one party or another who were not members of the organization concerned; but one man, who is well known in South Africa and all through his life has been a very staunch champion of the wage earners, whatever his politics may be, and is a very effective negotiator, was put on a board, and immediately the employers’ side took legal action and tested the matter in court. It was found he had to be a member of that precise organization. So the freedom of the men and of the employers’ organization was unduly fettered. I was very glad to see on the part of the employers a very clear disagreement with the action of certain employers whose view was found to be right. Both parties agreed, as a matter of practice, that it is almost inconceivable that a trade union would appoint all its representatives away from its own trade, and as a matter of working practice the trade union or the employers’ organization could put on the board to represent them members of another organization, so long as the members who are foreign to the particular organization involved, do not exceed in number 50 per cent, of the representatives of such organization. In these matters you want to get men off their “high horse” and down to the concrete. All the parties were agreed that that would be an immense improvement, and in 99 cases out of a hundred that 50 per cent, would be in excess of the number.

I cannot agree with the Minister’s argument on the fundamental question, because here you have views urgently and distinctly represented from the trades union representatives. The Amalgamated Engineering Union is very emphatic about this. They want the whole proviso removed. I must urge the Minister to put the matter right. What is the good of putting it half right? If you get a Minister in control of this department later who wants loopholes, there are all the loopholes in the world here.

The Minister talks about compromise, and he refers to the conference that was held I think in January. I think it is almost stretching the matter to call it compromise. My information is that a number of these things were not agreed to unanimously. I am not sure whether this provision was agreed to unanimously between the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the employees or not. My impression is that the employees’ representatives were dissatisfied. After all, it is stretching a point to say that because a compromise was not unanimously arrived at at that conference, then no change should take place. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) seems to be taking advantage of the conciliation of the Minister. There is not much conciliation coining from the cross-benches.

You are against conciliation.

I believe in conciliation, but I believe in a board where you have people who understand the technical affairs of the trade they are discussing. I consider that there should be none of these paid agents on these boards on either side. My ideal of a conciliation board is that the employers of a trade and the employees should get round a table and compose their differences, every man at that table thoroughly understanding the technicalities of the trade. If you are going to have these paid officials on either side, you are going to get two bodies who are out to take advantage of each other, which is what, you don’t want on a conciliation board. I accept the compromise, and I ask the hon. members for Benoni and Troyeville (Mr. Madeley and Mr. Kentridge) to take up the same position.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to the Pretoria conference, and stated that the conference was not unanimous in coming to this particular decision. I should like to tell the hon. member that not only did the employees agree to this, but they agreed to a good bit more. Actually at the suggestion of the employees, supported by employers, it was agreed that not only should these words come out, but that this proviso should read “but provided that no conciliation board shall be appointed under this section unless a matter of principle is involved”, That is how it was originally decided, on the motion of Mr. Creswell, the commercial employees’ representative. Afterwards the employers were asked to allow the words to be submitted again as it was thought that this went rather far, and we at once agreed to the wording as it was printed in the Bill. I would urge the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to accept what was accepted by the employers’ and the employees’ representatives at that conference.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley put and negatived.

Question put: That the word “from” proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause, and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Bates, Christie, Deane, Kentridge and Madeley) voted against the question, the Chairman declared the question affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Madeley dropped.

The names of the minority will be recorded.

Is it not permissible for a member of this House to ask that the names of those voting on the other side be recorded?

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by select committee, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

On amendments proposed by select committee,

I move—

1. (c) by the deletion in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the word “notify” where it occurs and the substitution therefor of the word “declare”;
2. (d) by the deletion in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the word “applicants” and the substitution therefor of the words “parties to the agreement”;

1. (f) by the deletion of sub-section (2) and the substitution therefor of the following sub-section:—
   1. (2) The Minister may by like notice and under similar conditions, at the request of a conciliation board or industrial council as the case may be, publish and make binding upon all employers and employees in the undertaking, industry, trade or occupation in question and within the area defined by him such terms of any award made by any arbitrator, arbitrators or umpire appointed under the provisions of Section 7 as may be specially indicated by the Minister in such notice.

I move the amendments standing in my name, but in a slightly different wording, as follows—

I will give the reasons for this amendment of mine. There are some cases in which there is collusion between the employer and employee to the detriment of the fair employer and to the harm of other employees in that trade. In the original draft of the Bill, the magistrate had, in such cases, the right of refusing to allow an employee who had acted in collusion with the employer, to be paid any amount of the balance of wages which were found to be due to such employee. In this case, one can see that the employer got off with a very much lighter sentence because he did not have to pay the employee the amount of money which should have been due to him. In the Bill as altered now in select committee, the court has to pay the employee, even though the employee or employees have been consistently conspiring with the employer to defeat the conciliation board award. Even though they have consistently done that the magistrate is bound to pay to the employee the full amount of wages which should have been paid to him. The suggestion in my amendment comes to this. I am not prepared to allow the employer to get off. If he has been swindling, he should be made to pay the full extent of his liability. On the other hand, if there are no extenuating circumstances—in many instances there are extenuating circumstances, for the employee may be hard up and subject to severe temptation, and the magistrate can say, “I consider that this man was sorely tempted by the employer and he should get his wages.” If he does not satisfy the magistrate on that point the magistrate can make the employer pay the whole amount into court, and only a certain amount shall be paid to the employee. This matter is one of the most serious points in the whole of the conciliation machinery. I think it is suspected with very great assurance by many of us, that many of those conciliation board awards and wage board awards are not carried out. The hon. Minister will know more in the future than he does to-day, that it is almost impossible, except with an army of inspectors, to inspect every business concern which comes under these awards. There is very grave reason to suspect, in many instances, that these awards are being evaded. I feel that when a man is convicted of evading these awards in one case, it is the employer who is taking an unfair advantage of the decent employee to pay low wages, and the employee is deliberately doing down his fellow workers. When a case is clearly proved, and a conviction got against these people. I say that an example should be made of them and it can only be done by making a fine which can be inflicted to the fullest possible extent. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment.

I find it somewhat difficult to follow what the hon. member was reading. It is not in precisely the same terms as the amendment on the order paper. This is about the third draft of this amendment.

read the amendment.

This amendment in another form the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) was good enough to show me before he put it on the paper. I think that, undoubtedly, substantial justice is aimed at by the hon. member. I think he and I see eye to eye, as most of us do. In the select committee this matter came up very often. It was pointed out that the man who asked for less than the wages laid down was also culpable. It was asked why he should not get what he asked for. My answer and the answer of others was that, after all, no sane man will usually work or do anything for less than is legally due unless it is under compulsion by way of force majeure. But that by no means is a complete answer. If you take ordinary trade union rules it is never admitted for a moment there is justification for the man taking less than the standard wage because he happens to be in straitened circumstances. If he does he is scabbing and nothing else. On the other hand, I ask the hon. member for Newlands’ close attention for a moment. There are various degrees of turpitude on the workers’ side. Take an extreme case—a man may take less than his due wage and by doing so he is keeping out of a job a man who has played the game by the agreement. There is no excuse for him at all. One of my hon. friends says that it is no infrequent thing to do before these industrial councils to test whether a man was really carrying out the required standard wage agreement, and for a boss to say that he will reduce the wage by so much an hour, and if a man will accept, say, 30s. per week less he will get the job. A man may go in to work for a fortnight or so, but there may be cases in which a man is so overpoweringly tempted to go back on the agreement because he might be in the utmost financial straits and be without the means of subsistence for his wife and family that he might work for several months at less than the legal rate. In those circumstances, however, if I were a magistrate I should very much be tempted to pay the man the full amount underpaid. On the other hand, one has little or no sympathy for a man who works for less than the determined wage for several months, then has a disagreement with his employer over a minor point, leaves and gives information that this breach of the law as been going on for several months. I suggest to the hon. member that he let his amendment stand over until the report stage and in the interim we can go into it together. I would suggest, however, that the amount a magistrate could award the man should in no case be less than 50 per cent, or 25 per cent, of the total, as I do not want altogether to sacrifice the giving of a reward for exposing these little conspiracies, for the sooner they come into the open the more chance you have of checking them.

The last part of the amendment is out of order, as no monies can be paid into the consolidation revenue fund without the consent of the Governor-General.

We might give that authority.

In that case then we might hand the money to the industrial councils who have certain expenses in connection with their work. Before accepting the Minister’s suggestion, I may say that I agree that in the natural course of events generally the employees are less to blame for accepting wages below the proper scale as naturally they are subject to great temptation when they are out of work to accept less than the proper wage. But under my amendment the magistrate has absolute discretion because in taking evidence as to the comparative culpability of these two persons, if he thought the employee, considering the circumstances in which he was, was tempted to a very great extent, I think he would give that employee the total amount of underpaid wages. If we allow any balance to go to the industrial countil instead of to the consolidated revenue fund, the magistrate would not be tempted to lend a hand to the Government. I hope before we get to the report stage, we will come to some agreed motion.

With leave of committee amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford withdrawn.

I now find the Minister proposes to delete from the section any obligation to publish the agreement, and to publish a statement of the terms of the agreement. What does he mean by that—not the words of the agreement. I trust the committee will not vote for that amendment, because, after all, we are dealing with people not concerned in any agreement and made subject to it, and the least that can be done is that the whole terms of the enactment should be published, just as it has always been done.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

New clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

On amendments proposed by select committee,

I move—

1. (10) Any person who objects to any decision of the registrar under this section may appeal to the Minister, who may either confirm, vary or set aside the registrar’s decision.

Here is another instance of this constant tendency, on the part of the Government, to take away the rights of the people. The Minister now proposes to prevent a decision by the registrar of trades unions from being corrected by the courts of this country.

The hon. member is barking up the wrong tree in this case. The Act as it at present stands gives the Minister the decision. A body of persons may apply for registration in a trade union. They have to satisfy the Minister that they are the only representative body. If he refuses to register they have a right to appeal to the Minister under the Act. But there may be other trade unions who are interested in the matter. They may desire to put before the registrar that it is a body not sufficiently represented. If the registrar is not satisfied when this application is made to him, he may by notice in the Gazette notify that application has been made and invite persons having objections to lodge them. Then he exercises his own judgment.

There is one very big omission here. The registrar has been given greater power here than under the original Act. If, after registration other factors come to his knowledge of which he was not aware at the time of registration, he should have the power to cancel the registration.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

On amendments proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

Amendments, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 12th May.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

On amendments proposed by select committee in lines 36 to 50,

I move—

1. (3) Upon consideration of a recommendation to which after publication under the provisions of sub-section (1) no objection has been lodged, or to which an objection has been lodged and considered by the board under the provisions of sub-section (2) but which has not been amended by the board, or upon receipt of a recommendation amended under the provisions of sub-section (2), the Minister, may make a determination which shall be in accordance with the recommendation or, if the recommendation has been amended, in accordance with the amended recommendation, save that the Minister may exclude from the determination for such period as he may from time to time determine any section of a trade or any area or part of any area embraced within the recommendation. Any determination in accordance with an amended recommendation may be made without any publication of such amendment in terms of sub-section (1).

Agreed to.

On new Section 7 A, proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

New section, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I have an amendment on the paper. I do not want to waste the time of the committee. If the Minister would prefer that I should move it at the report stage.

I think we can do it at the report stage.

On Clause 8,

I move—

In line 16, on page 10, to insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (c):

1. (d) by the deletion in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of the words “every wage-sheet, pay sheet, time-sheet, or approved record” and the substitution therefor of the words “all such records as are referred to in paragraph (a)”, paragraph (e) becoming paragraph (d);

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

On new sub-section (4) proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

Sub-section, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Should the short title not be” The Wage Act (Amendment) Act”, and not “Wage (Amendment) Act”,

I think it should be that. I move as an amendment—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered on 12th May.