as Chairman, brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Native Affairs.

Report to be printed and considered on Monday.

I was profoundly disappointed the other evening, and I think a good many hon. members of this House were also disappointed, when the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), said that he intended to vote against the second reading, that is the principle, of this Bill. I was not only disappointed, but I was perplexed. It appeared to me very much like a father who runs away from his family, or an artist who runs away from his own creation, for, after all, I maintain, in spite of what was said on that occasion, that the underlying principle of this Bill is the same as the underlying principle of the measure introduced into and passed through this House in 1921, and the previous 1918 Act. What is the underlying principle of these three measures? It is the fixing of minimum wages by statutory boards, allowing no differentiation in rates of pay on the grounds of race or colour; and both in the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and in this Bill, agriculture, forestry and pursuits of that character are exempted. It is quite true the number of exemptions in the 1921 Bill was greater than in this Bill, but I think there is good reason why the number of exemptions should be limited. As I understood the speech of the right hon. gentleman, I heard nothing in it which would justify his declaration against the principle of this Bill. His differences were chiefly in regard to the details. I think the speech was typical of the right hon. gentleman and of his own side of the House, lofty, airy, eloquent. All the adjectives which the Press give him are allowable, but at the bottom there is no performance, no remedy. And may I say that the people of this country are tired of these lofty speeches, and are looking for performance. The right hon. gentleman started with a note of faint praise for the Bill. He approved, in a light and airy way, of the principle of the minimum wage, and for a little time I thought he was going to be content with the assurance that this Bill was going to be referred to a Select Committee. But somehow the dark shadow of the mining industry—that poor starving industry—and the great financial corporations in South Africa seemed to cross his mind, and he wondered what they would say? and then he went off the deep end. Nothing was good in the Bill, and everything had to be condemned, lock, stock and barrel. I want to put it to you that not only hon. members in this House but the whole country side will be very bitterly disappointed with the right hon. member’s speech. What remedy did he substitute for the social and economic evils in this country? Did he make one suggestion as to what should take the place of this Bill; something in the nature of an alternative policy? The right hon. member knows the alternative to this Bill: strikes, disorder, rebellion and civil war before which the civil war of America would pale into insignificance.

Oh!

I know hon. members opposite have in their mind the use of the aeroplane.

No, common sense.

What have you faced already? Merely disorder in one part of the country; but when the poor whites and organized labour make common cause—have you thought of what is going to happen then?

You are inciting to disorder.

I am trying to obviate disorder. But hon. members opposite have no remedy for this evil which stares them in the face; or will they consider one put forward by others.

The Emergency Bill.

I noticed too a note of chagrin in the right hon. member’s speech which was regrettable to me. He appeared to be very disappointed because there was no back door by which unscrupulous employers can escape; some disappointment because he could not make party capital out of the Bill on grounds of differentiation. His speech was clever all through, but did I not detect the suggestion—there was not a single clear-cut note in his speech—that if we left the way open to some differentiation on the grounds of race or colour, there was a possibility that this Bill would have a much easier passage than otherwise? It is not the first time we have heard this suggestion. In 1921 before the Bill had passed Its third reading there were rumblings in the lobby to the effect that it was going to be thrown out in the Senate. I seem to hear the same sort of rumblings to-day—a suggestion that whatever happens in this House this Bill is destined to be thrown out in the Senate. I hope that is not so. But if that happens I hope this Government will stand by this Bill and see it through notwithstanding attempts made to block it. I was told in 1921 that if we would only consent to a little clause, giving powers to the wages boards to allow them to differentiate in wages on the ground of race or colour, all would be well, and the Senate would agree, and that unless that was done in this House (nobody had the courage to move an amendment of that kind) the Bill was doomed in another place. I would sooner see this Bill torn up than that it should contain a blot of that kind. Many of us recall that, some 20 or 30 years back, when we were building up our trade unions, insidious suggestions were made to us that because we came from overseas, because we were better trained, we were worth more than the Afrikanders; that we should do better by keeping to ourselves. We did not fall to that suggestion. We stood by the Afrikanders and have insisted that they should be treated on similar terms to ourselves. We may have brought superior training and new ideas to the country, but in the long run the Afrikander is better fitted for the work of this country. Whatever little additional knowledge I have, the Afrikander has a knowledge of both official languages and is, therefore, generally of more value to the employer. We are not going to allow ourselves to be divided on the matter of race that would be fatal to both. We are going to demand for the Afrikander the same wage as for ourselves if he performs the same work as ourselves. Again, what would be more fatal to the white races in this country than to listen to this insidious suggestion in regard to differentiation in wages on the ground of colour. There are three distinct standards of life or civilization in South Africa, white, coloured and black, and a further standard—the native brought in from outside the Union and native areas to compete with the civilized native. How did this come about? The original conception of South Africa held by the early settlers was a sort of plantation country, something on the lines of the West Indies, carrying on production by means of white capital and coloured labour. This country progressed on those lines for some time, for centuries, until precious stones and metals were discovered and technical processes had to be employed. These technical processes required artizans who were imported and lent themselves to the bad system of engaging themselves under contract, to perform the work for a certain time, then going back to the country of their origin after imparting their knowledge to the native or coloured man. Thousands did that, but in course of time a different outlook came about in these people. The carpet-bagger married the daughter of the citizen of this country, and became a citizen of this country He wanted to remain here, and decided to do so, and he is going to fight for the right to lead a civilized life here. These men want to stop in this country and leave a heritage to their children. But what is the result of the present system? Three distinct standards of wages have been paid for the same work. In the first place, the coloured man at a lower rate of wage is pitted against the white, which drives the white out of the labour market. Then the partially-trained native, receiving a still lower rate of wage, is brought in, and after his training is completed, he drives out the coloured man. We find even the coloured people in the Cape are now the greatest opponents of the idea, that once they supported, of allowing different wages being paid for whites and coloured for the same work, because the native has been brought in to undercut them. I want to point out to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that there is no Bill before this House which is being followed more closely throughout the country than this one. Whatever financial corporations may say, the ordinary people are keenly desirous that this Bill should be passed. The other day a leading merchant—perhaps he had been a little hard hit by the fall in the spending powers of the community—described this Bill to me as “The white hope.” That is what it is—the only hope for the white man in South Africa.

What about the rest of the country?

The white man is undoubtedly being driven out of all forms of industry; it is only a question of time. The mining industry has reduced its white personnel by about 22 per cent., and their example is being followed by every other employer. Wherever a white man can be replaced by a native the white man has to go. This means that the white men have to fight for their right to perform the work they have created by their presence. You are always going to have disorder from this disordered economic system for want of Bills of this character. I am not afraid to acknowledge that I view some of the details of this Bill with misgivings, although these can best be dealt with in Select Committee. The right hon. leader of the Opposition criticized the fact that this Bill provides for only one board. I have misgivings myself on that point. The right hon. gentleman also said that industries were going to be ruined and closed down by this board. Well, I have a little more faith in the citizens of this country who are likely to become members of this board. I think that what they will do is to lay down an economic wage which each industry can afford to pay; otherwise they will be fools and only fit for a lunatic asylum. I do not think, however, that one board is going to do all this work unaided. That view is based on my knowledge for many years of the working of the arbitration court in Australia. Bodies of men have often had to wait two or three years before their claims could be considered by this court, although standard wages existed in most industries in Australia long before this court was constituted. I am afraid that is what this board will be faced with if it tries to perform all the work itself. Their efforts will need to be supplemented by staffs of trained economists and accountants, who will be able to go into the figures of each industry. But I think it is utterly wrong to try to put before this country the statement that this Bill interferes with the freedom of organized bodies in coming to voluntary agreements. I hope sooner or later the Minister will consider the advisability of applying this Bill to the gold-mining industry—the sooner the better, I think, for the safety of this country. When he does that it should mean a close economic inquiry into the conditions of each mine, which is a separate concern. Some mines are high-grade, while others are poor, and these facts have to be gone into thoroughly. If you make such an analysis of the gold-mining industry it will probably take up twelve months of their time, without consideration for thousands of others clamouring outside for attention. Probably, though, before that time the mining industry would have decided to establish an industrial council under the Conciliation Act, and settle these things for themselves, and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent them doing so Therefore I think it will be necessary to supplement this board, though I agree with the principles of having one board as a co-ordinating authority. That is the experience of all other parts of the world. The principle of this Bill has been before the world for 40 or 50 years. We shall have to follow the experience of those other countries who have tried a number of boards. After a number of agreements are made on a voluntary basis, everyone knows that discrepancies exist as between one •agreement and another, and it is necessary to ensure justice that they should be co-ordinated. Where you have a weak trades union and employers are well organized, it is forced to accept anything it can get. When you have a strong trades union—sometimes stronger than the employers’ organization—they get even more than they are entitled to or would get if the organizations were equally balanced. There is every necessity for some co-ordinating body. In Australia, where they have compulsory arbitration, the decisions of the court are not given in accordance with the views of the Government of the day, or affected by whether depression or prosperity rules. Definite sets of principles are followed in arriving at its decisions. But this court was not found to be sufficient to deal with the mass of work. Many voluntary agreements were arrived at, and now industrial courts have been set up all over Australia; these courts examine all agreements and co-ordinate them, and sometimes they reduce wages and sometimes they increase them so as to secure equal pay for equal work. America is following that lead, no fewer than 17 states having similar bodies. I do not say the Union Bill of 1921 was a bad Bill; so far as it went it was a good Bill, as it encouraged the men and the employers to organize and enter into voluntary agreements. Where does this Bill interfere with bodies desiring to make their own agreements, provided that the wages paid under those agreements are not less than the prevailing rate for the district? I have still a suspicion left in my mind from the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that we have not heard the last of the idea of trying to differentiate in wages on grounds of colour, and there is nothing in the Bill at present to prevent the board doing so. In my opinion, the House and the Minister should seriously consider whether the time has not come, especially in view of the right hon. gentleman’s speech, when Parliament should determine what is the lowest standard of civilization that should be permitted in industry in South Africa, and lay that down as the lowest minimum wage payable under this Bill. After all, wages are the principal factor in determining the standard of living. I hope the Select Committee will consider the advisability of a wage which shall represent the lowest wage it will be legal to pay. That principle is not unknown in other parts of the world. If this principle is not followed here, the cheapest labour will continue to be employed in many industries. Where do we stand at the present time? You are bringing in uncivilized people to compete against civilized people, and we have got to the stage that it is only with great difficulty that we can face our economic problems. The fixing of such a general minimum wage as I have advocated is the economic solution of the native problem, that is that portion of the problem that has been caused by enticing the natives from their tribal areas to perform work in competition with whites. I suppose a lot of people here regard themselves as benefactors of the natives and have induced them to enter our industries and to compete with Europeans. Many of these people have done this with the best of intentions, but, in my opinion, no bigger crime against humanity was ever perpetrated than that committed by those people who have deliberately set themselves out to break up the natives’ tribal life, to bring the natives away from their kraals, and to induce them to come to the towns where they work amid crime, vice and insanitary conditions for the sake of obtaining a mere pittance. These people shed crocodiles’ tears when they say that the Bill is designed to injure the native. On the contrary, the Bill will do as much good for the native as it will for the white man. The philosophy of the Bill could be extolled upon for many hours, as its principle is absolutely sound, but if people approach the matter from the standpoint of their own selfish interests, many of them may find themselves in opposition to the measure. Nevertheless, the Bill is a sound one, and we on these benches heartily approve of it and will support it through all its stages. Obviously a measure of this size and importance is not likely to pass without amendment; indeed, the Bill may be the better for amendment, but when we are up against principles, that is another matter.

I rise to support the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), for it seems to me that that amendment is most fully justified. We have here a Bill which, in some respects, is entirely unnecessary, and if it becomes law and is carried into effect on the lines advocated by the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) it will become a source of real danger to this country. The Minister of Labour, in introducing the measure, laid great stress on the necessity of providing some help for the people who are unorganized and who are employed in sweated industries. The Bill also professes to deal to some extent with the conditions governing apprenticeship and also the employment of women. If that is all that the hon. Minister wishes to do, very little alteration is needed in the existing legislation to meet the case. We have quite a good Factory Act giving adequate powers for dealing with bad conditions and we have the Conciliation Act of 1924, which provides good facilities for settling disputes, and by reason of a clause which gives the Minister power to make the award of a settlement applicable to the whole district it has considerable bearing upon this question of a minimum wage and unskilled classes of labour. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) tells us that he cannot understand why we oppose the second reading of the Bill in view of the fact that the principle was fixed in a Bill passed by this House in 1921-’22. I was not a member of this House at that time and do not know what the discussions were, but apparently there was a feeling outside the House that the Bill was premature and unnecessary and so it came to nothing. The fact remains that the Bill was a genuine attempt to provide machinery for minimizing disputes and machinery for settling them, and to help those people belonging to sweated industries to obtain a better standard of wages and living. If the Government had been content with a measure of that kind there would have been no opposition from these benches. But the Minister is not content with that. The Minister now sees the chance of realizing some of those ideals he has kept before us for twenty years. They have been discussed in the House for years and no section has been more prominent in exposing the weakness of those ideas than the section now sitting behind the hon. Minister. I congratulate them on their change of front, I do not think, as I have said before in this House, that it was necessary to pay such a big price for support of the hon. members who sit there (Labour). They could have got that support, I think, very much cheaper. I don’t think I shall be doing the hon. Minister an injustice, when I say that obviously it was his intention to bring forward an epoch making piece of legislation in which will be embodied the arguments he has used in the House in season and out of season for the last twenty years. First of all we had a pronouncement from the secretary of the Minister’s department; he came out like one of those people who clear the road in front of an eastern potentate and he cried out “look out! My Minister is going to produce the most wonderful measure ever introduced and nobody must oppose it.” I do not think it is the function of a civil servant to make such a pronouncement; however, we will let that pass. The hon. member who sat down just now, said, in connection with the colour bar, that he would vote for the Bill as a temporary expedient and he admitted he would vote for it because his friend the Minister was going to introduce a measure to provide for a standard of wages based on the civilized life of South Africa. Now we know what the hon. Minister is going to do.

What is the point?

The point is this, instead of providing machinery for employees who receive, ex hypothesi, too low wages in sweated industries, instead of providing for settling disputes, the Minister is going to do two things. He is going to upset the whole industrial system of South Africa, and he is going to remove all temptation to employers to employ native labour as unskilled labour and he is going to see that he gets power to carry out the scheme by getting the whole control of labour into his own hands. That is the distinction between this measure and the measure brought in by the Minister of Mines in 1921-’22. Let us see how the Minister is going to carry out this scheme. It is well thought out. I give him credit for ingenuity in designing machinery to carry out his object. The Minister knows that if the different industries, employers and employed, were left to themselves they would see the futility of the scheme, and would soon have had enough of this Bill. He is not going to allow them reasonable facilities to settle their own differences, he is going to take the matter into his own hands. That is going to apply to all occupations, whether Government servants, Provincial Council servants, railway servants, and, I suppose, the police. If the hon. member sits long on those benches, and the Bill becomes law, the hon. member will wish he had never had the Bill placed on the statute book. The Minister may initiate proceedings, and may refer to the board to be constituted, any questions on conditions of labour, and any employer or any body of employers or employees who can satisfy the board that they are a sufficiently representative trade, they, or he, may move the board to take action. Look at a late section in the Bill and you will find that any 10 employees can secure rejection without an appeal of any matter of which they do not approve.

What section are you alluding to?

Section 11. He knows perfectly well the result of this is that there are going to be unlimited applications for relief under this Bill. The hon. member who has just sat down has given that away. His only complaint was that one board would be unable to deal with the thousands of applications which would be made. They would be clamouring for relief and the board would not be able to deal with them. Human nature being what it is, people will say: “Let us have a go at the board. There is no penalty against us if we lose, or if we disobey the finding of the board. We may get something, but we cannot lose anything.” Is that likely to conduce to peace and quiet in the industries of this country? Now I come to the question of what this board is. How is the board to be constituted? Here again I think the Minister has shown very considerable ingenuity in framing rules under which a board will be constituted which will carry out his wishes. The Minister appoints the board, he settles their remuneration, he can settle the conditions of their appointment and there is no security of tenure for them whatever. Of course, he is going to get suitable people. The Minister seems to approve of the secretary of the department preparing the way for him. I daresay he will equally approve of the members of the board proclaiming before any matter is investigated by them, what their views on that matter are. It is perfectly plain what the policy of the Minister is. He is going to appoint the board and it is useless to expect that people will take office on that board unless they are prepared to carry out the wishes and policy of the Minister.

Does this Bill provide for the Minister appointing the board? Read the Bill. It is the Cabinet who appoint the board; the Government appoint the board.

Really, the Minister has expended a great deal of ingenuity in framing the clauses of this Bill. It is not necessary for the Minister to expend his ingenuity in splitting straws in this debate. The board as constituted is a board, apparently, for the whole Union. It does not presuppose that the members of the board will have any particular knowledge of any part of the country or of the conditions of any trade. They may have assessors for any approved investigation, but the assessors are given no responsibility, they are given no power whatever. The board under these circumstances considers something which has been referred to it. There is nothing to prevent the board, as far as I can see, from recommending that a minimum wage which is to be applied to a particular trade be applicable to the whole Union. The board will then report. Then the Minister, if he approves of what the board reports, gives one month’s notice of his intention to make a determination. If there is an objection, and he thinks fit, he appoints an arbitrator. I never in all my life saw such a travesty of words in the suggestion that the person to be appointed in these circumstances is called an arbitrator. He is a person for whose appointment the Minister is responsible, he is in exactly the same position as members of the board, and there is nothing to show that he will not be entirely in sympathy with the policy of this Bill. Supposing he ventures to differ, the Minister is not in the least bound to follow his advice. The decision of the Minister has the force of law. If the employer disobeys the decision he goes to prison, but if the employees disobey the law, nothing happens. Really, it is nothing whatever but putting a premium on agitation. But that is not all. The scales are still further loaded against the employer. The employer cannot get rid of a person in his employment if he has given information or if he is a person who is entitled to the benefit of a determination. What happens if, as a result of a determination and an increase of wages all round to the trade referred to, that trade becomes unprofitable? The people cannot be got rid of and the employer cannot shut down. Who is going to provide the money to pay them? There is another clause which seems to be most unfair, and that is that in all these proceedings the onus of showing that there is no contravention is thrown on the employer. That is contrary to our system of law. The Minister will probably reply that that clause was in the Bill which was rejected by the Senate three years ago. I admit it was, but that does not prevent it from being a bad clause, and I venture to say that, if I had been here at that time, I would have voted against it. But the Minister, I see, is sending people to Geneva. I happened to come across a report the other day of the fifth international labour congress held at Geneva at which the Union was represented by a gentleman named Fowler, who, I believe, is a civil servant. He refers to a difficulty which arose. It was proposed that in dealing with factory legislation reports drawn up by inspectors of factories should be considered to establish the facts stated in default of proof to the contrary. Mr. Fowler objected to that, and the English representatives also objected and said it was contrary to the system of law in their countries. The difficulty was got over apparently by putting in a clause that this should be the provision in countries where it was not incompatible with legal procedure. When the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) goes over to Geneva I suppose he will be able to assure the conference that such a clause, unfair as it is, is not now contrary to legal procedure in this country. I think this is sufficient to show that the whole procedure of this Bill leads to the vesting of the Minister with entire control. The employer is bound, the board are the creatures of the Minister, the employees are free to agitate, inspectors are appointed with a full knowledge of what the policy is, and I think, after the advertisement which the Minister’s policy has had, it will not be difficult to find people to take up these appointments from his point of view. But that is not all. The Minister said—

And at a later stage he said that voluntary agreements would be given the fullest effect to. The whole policy of this Bill is, I maintain, entirely against voluntary agreement. A determination will not apply to an agreement under the Conciliation Act if the agreement provides for wages not lower than those which may be determined under this Act. How does anyone know what will be determined? An agreement is in force. That agreement is only valid if it provides for wages higher than those which may be determined under the Act. That presupposes that that agreement cannot stand as it is. It is open to the board and the Minister to upset that agreement. Therefore, to say that the full principle of the Conciliation Act is upheld is really pure nonsense. The position is that any agreement of this kind made under the Conciliation Act can be re-investigated and can be over-ridden, and the result, of course, is that no single agreement of this kind is safe. I do not think that is very satisfactory. Then you come to the other clauses which deal with the voluntary principle. People may make an agreement as to any matter which may be the subject of a determination, but at wages not lower than those of any determination in relation to such trade or those provided by agreement made under the Conciliation Act. I have already shown that the safeguard in relation to the Conciliation Act means nothing and the other part of that clause is also perfectly valueless. Even if an agreement is approved, it can only be for one year. The point of this is that if the agreement is filed, then any ten employees may object within a month.

Not a Conciliation board agreement?

No, a voluntary agreement. Any ten employees may object. You may have an agreement come to between an employer and, say, 1,000 workpeople, and that agreement is filed, and then because there are ten dissatisfied men, this agreement is declared to be null and void. What becomes of the principle of voluntary agreement under these conditions? It is pure humbug to say that that principle is enshrined in this Bill. We have had the statement of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) that it is the determination of the Minister to secure standards based upon civilized standards of life. It cannot be denied that the whole machinery is designed to throw the power into the hands of the Minister and enable him to achieve that object. He is entrenched here with an amenable board, with amenable inspectors, with employers crippled, and it is difficult to see how anybody can interfere with him, except in the last resort, when people realize the harm and folly of this. Let us see for a moment what is at stake? We have in this country two main industries—the mining industry and the agricultural industry. Will anybody say that both these industries are not dependent upon the cost of production not exceeding a certain amount? We know what the position is on the mines if they do not yield certain profits they cannot work. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Sampson), who has said that all opposition is due to the mines, to some figures which have recently been published. I happened to see in the paper the results of the mines for the month of February. Three mines made a narrow profit of £4,499. Four made a loss of £7,179. There were therefore seven mines which put together made a loss of £2,680. These mines employed 4,009 white people, and the working costs which they spent in a month amounted to £416,000. It follows from that, that a great many mines are very near the stage when they cannot work at a profit. Then we come to other industries. The other main industry is agriculture. There, have we got so much to spare? Can we say we are independent of the cost of production? Can we say we can get what we like for our products, irrespective of what the cost of products of other countries may be? Can we say the cost of maize is independent of the cost of maize in the Argentine? Can we always get our fruit across the water? Can we be quite certain we can get all we want for our products? We are in competition with the rest of the world, and if we have to put up our costs beyond a certain point we are going to fail. That is all the more the case with the manufacturers. We are now making some sort of start with a certain amount of manufacture. We are in the same difficulty. We have a very limited market. If things are not produced in large quantities they cannot be produced cheaply, and if they are produced in large quantities there is the difficulty of selling them in this country and we have to go abroad, and then we have to face the competition of other countries. The industries in this country, and which we hope are going to succeed cannot stand interference on the lines proposed by the Minister of Labour. Can anyone say that real progress has not been made in all these industries during the last thirty years? Everything done in this country has been built up on the theory that it is legitimate to make good use of the cheap native labour that exists here. We have five million natives in the country. Why should they not be made use of? We cannot raise their standard of civilization immediately but it is perfectly legitimate to employ them at wages which are reasonable, having regard to their scale of civilization.

The colour bar.

The hon. member shouts “colour bar.” We are against the colour bar because we wish these natives in the course of their employment gradually to rise in the scale of civilization, and we wish them to have every opportunity to do so. The result of what has been done is that a large number of white men in this country are able to get very high wages. What is going to happen if the hon. member’s policy is carried out is that working costs of whatever industry are going to be largely increased, but before people shut down—and I can tell the Minister that the mere fact that his Bill prevents people from getting rid of employees will not prevent the industries shutting down unless he is prepared to pay to keep them going—until people come to that last resource they will say that in order to keep going they must decrease the wages which they are now paying to the so-called skilled men. If the Minister has his way so far that these lower wages go up, then the higher wages must come down, and the result will be that if the industries can carry on they will do so on a reduced profit, but if they cannot, then, so far from the Minister’s scheme benefiting the people, they will find the last state of things is worse than the first, because they will have no margin of profit at all. The Minister will find that if the Bill goes through, and if he puts it into operation, his friends who represent the trade union people, on the Rand particularly, and elsewhere, will find that all is not as they thought it would be, and that before they get that increased power, which I suppose they hope to get from the addition of large numbers of white labourers to the trades unions, there will be endless dissatisfaction among the people they represent, who will be sorry they ever sent them to Parliament to vote for a Bill of this kind. And the same applies to those sitting on the other side, who represent the farming industry. They think that because the Bill does not apply to farming they are safe, but are they?

Leave that to us to decide.

I have no objection to the Bill exempting farmers. I am glad it does. My objection to the Bill is that its application is already too wide. The only reason why I could wish that it should apply to farmers was because then the farmers on the other side would be constrained to watch the course of events very closely, and would have a better idea than they now have of the evils that are going to befall them. The Minister said the Bill did not apply to farmers because it was well-known the conditions in the farming industry were widely different from those of any other industry. So they are in some respects, and many farmers, he said, have realized the advantages of civilized labour. Why does not the Bill apply to them?

For the same reason as in 1921.

The hon. member knows his farming friends would not agree to it. Why should they? They think they are safe. No; propinquity does a great many things besides encouraging marriage. Propinquity will show the large number of natives who are working on the farms what is going on in places adjoining and when a native sees he can get so much more in the town, is he going to work for less on the farms? Why should he? I hope the native will take advantage of it. It will be the Minister’s fault; but when that happens I do not think the people who stood behind him and represent farmers will be so quiescent as they are to-day. I think this Bill constitutes a most dangerous innovation. We have built up this country upon one theory of labour, and if we are going to upset that we are going to open the door to every sort of agitation. I am not frightened by the threats of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) that if the motion of my hon. friend is carried we shall be heading for revolution and horrors of that kind. The common sense of the country will save us from that, but what I am afraid of is that when this Bill is passed, if it is passed, we shall find that there is an agitation among the white people, among the black people, and among employers because of loss of trade, loss of enterprise, loss of development. In the long run human nature will assert itself, the necessities of the conditions of this country will assert themselves, common sense will prevail; but probably the Minister will have left that bench long before that happens and in the meantime he will have done a lot of harm.

The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member who has just spoken, in their criticism of this Bill have adopted the old policy which the South African party adopted during the elections, and which proved a miserable failure, that is the policy of Bangmaak. I think a Bill of this kind should be considered on its merits. If hon. members will refer to the long title they will find that everyone of their criticisms could have been dealt with in Select Committee. Seeing the right hon. member stated he was in favour of a minimum wage, provision must be made for it. There must be some authority to determine that wage, and there must be some power to deal with sweating in industry. Unless you have a Bill like this how are you going to fix a minimum wage and deal with sweated labour? There is, of course, an alternative. We have had that alternative. If you are going to throw out legislation of this sort you are going to have more bloodshed—more of the iron hand administration in South Africa. What happened before? You had the policy of sitting until the situation developed, and when it developed you had the rifle and the bomb. Then you had an Indemnity Act. Surely it is much better to encourage social and economic legislation of this kind, bringing in your criticisms as to details wherever possible, than to let things drift until you have a state of things such as you had in 1922, and which will occur again unless you provide social and industrial machinery to deal with the situation. Hon. members in their criticisms have referred to the fact that this Bill makes no distinction with regard to colour. I am surprised at what the right hon. member said on that point. You must have one thing or the other. I have never been in favour of the colour bar, but how you can object to provision being made for the same wage for the same class of work I cannot understand. You cannot have it both ways. It is unjust to say that a civilized man whether native or coloured, will never be able to earn the same money as the white man. That though he may be quite as effici0ent he will never reach that wage because he is a native or coloured man. I agree with a great deal of the criticism of the detailed provisions of this Bill. I prefer the system of several boards, as in the Act of 1921; but that is a committee point. In some of their criticisms hon. members have done the Minister a great injustice, and I do not think they have read the Bill carefully. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) began with the suggestion that the Minister could appoint these boards and then sweep them aside. If hon. members will read clause 6 of the Bill they will find that upon consideration of any recommendation by the board, the Minister may determine in accordance with any advice or recommendation of the board. He may say, “I am not going to do anything,” but he cannot sweep aside the recommendations of the board, although the right hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) suggested that the Minister could put his pen through any recommendation.

I said nothing of the kind.

The hon. member has forgotten what he has said. The hon. member’s point was that the Minister appointed the board who would then be his puppets. He does not notice that it is not the Minister who appoints the board; there is a distinction between the Governor-General and the Minister. It is not only the Labour members of the Government but the Cabinet which makes the appointments. I am afraid the hon. member is coming down to very small points when he criticizes the Bill on those lines. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) called this Bill a dictatorship. I listened to him with amazement, because the history of South Africa shows that if ever there was a dictator it was the right hon. gentleman himself, who treated Parliament as an instrument to register his decrees, and called upon his subservient majority to give him an Indemnity Act. His policy is apparently—

Then the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) took up a point about agriculture. Let me frankly confess that I do not like to see the constant exclusion of agriculture from various Bills; and I have seen this in every Bill of that kind during the last 17 years in which I have sat in Parliament. This is a policy which has been common to all parties. I think the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was a member of the Jameson Ministry which introduced a Compensation Act in 1905, from which employment in agriculture was excluded. It was a matter of political expediency, because the farming element in Parliament was too strong on all sides of the House. The Mines and Works Act of 1911 was introduced by a Government of which the right hon. member for Standerton was a member, and from that Act dams and reservoirs used solely for agricultural purposes were excluded. The Act of 1918, dealing with the minimum wage for women and young persons, also showed this to be the law of the land, because ten trades were laid down in the schedule as trades to which the Act should apply, and agriculture is not one of the ten. So in that way they kept agriculture out. And in the 1921 Bill, dealing with wages boards, which gave a good deal of power to the persons concerned, it was laid down that the Bill should not apply to persons employed in domestic service or agriculture.

Ask them whether they want agriculture included.

Now I come to another point, regarding the burden of proof, that the hon. member for South Peninsula was keen about. There is an old rule of law that the onus is upon the man who has the information. For instance, the onus is upon a man who is charged with shooting in the close season to prove that he has a permit. The onus provided in this Bill is that the employer must produce proper business books, wage or paysheets, or records. If you do not have a provision of that kind you will have the most awful frauds perpetrated. The man will have to produce his books to show whether he is paying the proper wages, and he will show his honesty by producing his books. Perhaps when I point out that this is already the law of the land, hon. members who oppose this Bill will not be so indignant, because this is already in a law passed on the motion of the South African party Government, viz., Act 29 of 1918, dealing with the minimum wage. Section 11 of that Act provides that in any prosecution of an employer the burden of proof was laid upon him of producing proper business books, wages sheets and records.

That was a good law.

I want to devote a few moments to the claim made by the right hon. member for Standerton, which I was absolutely amazed to hear; that was his reference to his party’s action in 1921; because it was one of the cardinal points brought against the South African party that they were not sincere in regard to that Bill, seeing that their own people tried their utmost to destroy the Bill, and succeeded in another place in doing so. The right hon. gentleman has completely forgotten in 1925 what took place in 1921. His point was that it was the Nationalists who op posed the Bill in this House and caused its wreckage in another place. We tried to put him right, but he would not have it; he kept on repeating it. He referred, for instance, to the fact that one Cabinet Minister voted against it at the third reading. When we come to deal with this Bill we must judge of the value of the right hon. member’s speech by the fact of his having completely gone off the rails in regard to the facts of the Bill of 1921. When a division was called for on the second reading of the Wages Boards Bill of 1921, only seven members—Messrs. Geldenhuys, Jordaan, Merriman, O’Brien, Sephton, J. van der Merwe, and van Eeden—voted against it, all seven being members of the South African party. In committee, an amendment was introduced by Mr. J. H. H. de Waal, and it was supported on a division by six members of the South African party and nine Nationalists. The third reading was carried by 29 votes to U, the then Prime Minister (Gen. Smuts) not taking part in the division.

He was not here.

The minority consisted of eight members of the South African party and three Nationalists, while among those who voted for the third reading were five Nationalists. So much for the Bill going through in the teeth of Nationalist opposition. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated that the Nationalists in the Senate prevented the Bill becoming law, but the division list disclosed the fact that for the second reading there voted two Labour members, one Nationalist, and four members of the South African party, while 13 voted against the second reading—10 members of the South African party and three Nationalists. If only four more members of the South African party had voted for the second reading the South African party would have had a majority. Think how the right hon. gentleman’s loyal supporters embarrassed the Government by throwing out the Bill! If the South African party was honest and sincere in its desire for a Wages Board Bill, why did it not re-introduce it in subsequent sessions? They were pressed on all sides to do so, and we have been told that if the Bill had been passed and put into operation, the disastrous Rand strike would not have taken place. Under these circumstances hon. members have the right to look at this Bill in the light of the performances of the South African party in 1921, and although there are many clauses which require a great deal of amendment, I support the principle of the Bill—the determination to root out social and economic evils by providing proper social and economic machinery and not relying on the short cuts of the rifle and the bomb. If the Government proceeds on these lines it should not be met with carping criticism but with active assistance, and for these reasons I am going to vote for the second reading.

It is a common saying that history often repeats itself. I was very, forcibly reminded of this when I read a report of the proceedings of the House of Commons when a similar Bill was introduced in England some 15 years ago, and it struck me very much that almost the same objections which had been raised here by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) were also raised in the House of Commons. I do not wish, however, to suggest that the right hon. gentleman has been plagiarizing, for I do not think he has ever seen or read these reports. The British Bill incorporates the same vital principle as our Bill does, but there is a difference in the machinery. I would like to quote one or two short passages from the House of Commons Hansard. The member who led the opposition at Westminster began by saying that the principles which actuated the Government were to be found in a complete surrender to the Socialistic party—that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to make out, not only in this House but in the country. The objection raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) about the scope of the Bill affecting all industries most adversely, was also raised in England, one of the members of the House of Commons saying—

The passing of this Bill in England, however, did not put a nail in its trade coffin, and a few years later the Minister in charge of the execution of the provisions of the Bill said—

I began by saying that history repeats itself. I may also say that in that repetition history has a strange way of contradicting itself, even when the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is making history. I have been trying to find out the difference between this Bill and the Bill of 1921, and to grasp the vital principles of the two Bills. A large part of the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton might have been made in committee. He admitted on Monday night that he was in favour of a minimum wage, but in spite of that he has been going about saying—

This is slightly contradicting his own history, for clause 7 of the Bill of 1921 says—

The right hon. member goes further and says we are going to have a minimum wage which will apply to both white and black. But his Bill made no difference between white and black, whether he wanted to or not; I have been trying to discover why he did not put it in, and what is at the back of his mind when he speaks of the colour bar. I have come to the conclusion that the right hon. member for Standerton is in favour of a colour bar, so long as you do not put it on the Statute Book. If you regulate by legislation, and if you govern by departments, he is in favour of the colour bar, but don’t put it on the Statute Book.

It may lead to repercussions.

Yes. The right hon. member has not done the country a good service by legislating for natives by regulation, this having had a very bad effect on the minds of the natives. The native is not so foolish as to think that the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) does not understand his own law. They think that he has deliberately been misinterpreting the law. I would very much rather have a clear and clean legislation and have a statement in the House of what we exactly mean.

How about the Transvaal legislation by proclamation?

We are certainly not responsible for the proclamations. There is one bogey the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) put up in trying to frighten members on this side. First of all he said why do you exclude agriculture? Why, time and again he himself had tried to exclude agriculture in similar legislation. He said we were doing it on the grounds of political expediency because of the political power the farmers have at present. We do not often hear that kind of political confession on the part of the hon. member for Standerton. It is a confession no doubt of his own past experience. Speaking of agriculture I have not the slightest sympathy with sweated labour of any description and if it could be proved that we have conditions on our farms similar to the conditions in England, which caused the passing and institution of agricultural wages boards last year, no right minded farmer would be against doing something to prevent sweated labour on the farms Circumstances in England are different from what they are here and the fact that in England they have found it necessary, in spite of legislation for a minimum wage, to pass a special Bill shows that there is some logical basis for special action in the case of agriculture and that it is not merely political expediency. The Bill which the previous Government introduced and in which was incorporated the principle of the minimum wage, to which opposition is now being taken, passed through the House, and after the third reading the hon. member for Standerton seemed to be glad to drop the Bill like a hot potato. Why did they drop that Bill? It has been said they never gave a reason for it. I have hunted through Hansard to find if there was a reason given and I found that a question was put to the Minister hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) several times. The question was often evaded but eventually he got this answer—

That was the answer on the 26th of June, 1923. The hon. Minister said the Bill would go a long way. I will not endeavour to determine how far it did go. I am certain however that Bill did not go far enough to touch the plague-spots of industry and that is why a Bill like the present one is now necessary. These plague-spots—

Tell us where they are.

There is, for instance, according to the papers a place in this country where people are paid 4s. to make twelve shirts. That is what I call a plague-spot. I would not like to enumerate them all but when a like measure was introduced 15 years ago in England they started with a schedule of three trades, but after investigation they added a good many more. I don’t say that all the machinery of that Bill should be retained. Here and there an extra wheel may be put in. We must have a wages board to go into the industrial life of the country and find out where these plague-spots are. In England, whenever the wages board discovers a few industries to which the Act should apply, the Act does not apply until after the next session of Parliament. A paper is laid on the Table saying that the Act will apply to these industries, and if it is not objected to within 30 days it is then considered to apply. I would like something of that sort done. This is a protectionist measure. I can quite understand members who are always against protection, the “diehards” of free trade, saying that they are against protection even when dealing with a commodity of labour and human life. I understand them being against the Bill but I cannot understand any man who is for protection where there is unfair competition being against a Bill of this kind. In South Africa we certainly have unfair competition. I feel that it should be made plainer in the Bill what we mean by minimum wage. In England a definition was given of the minimum wage. It was described as follows—

We must make it clear what we mean by a minimum wage. I think it will be admitted that a Bill of this kind is very necessary in South Africa, in fact in any country in the world where they have 20th century civilization. Protection is necessary for the weak and unorganized masses especially. As the Minister has pointed out, the Bill will afford protection for the worker and for the good employer. The good employer is always undercut by the bad employer, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst employer. A great point is made of the assertion that it we pass this kind of social legislation it will mean that we are killing industry in this country. It is not necessary to go into these arguments. They were advanced 15 and 20 years ago in the House of Commons and in Europe and have been effectually replied to. Even John Stuart Mill said—

Increased wages bring increased efficiency and this brings increases in quantity as well as quality. They had a minimum wage Bill of this kind in Germany long before they had it in England. South Africa is very late in the day in introducing a Bill of this kind. Finally, I want to touch on one very important problem which was touched upon by the right hon. member for Standerton. It is with regard to the result that this measure will have on the industrial life of South Africa; especially with regard to the native problem. If we introduce the minimum wage it will have to apply to white as well as black labour. He was right in saying that we have a Bill of fundamental importance. It is so fundamental that it will preserve civilization in South Africa. If we lay down a minimum wage on the basis of uncivilized labour it will mean that one industry after another must become black or uncivilized altogether. We must, therefore, try to ensure the life of those industries where it is possible for a white man to find a decent livelihood. It is argued on the other side that many people would rather be sweated than starved. I refuse to accept either alternative. I don’t believe it is necessary in South Africa for any man to be starved, and I don’t believe there is any need for him to be sweated. A wages board like the one proposed would have to go very carefully into every industry and would have to find out where a minimum civilized wage can be fixed, and if this wages board discovered there was an industry where the civilized minimum wage could not be fixed upon, then either the industry would have to shut up or we must determine that certain industries must be black altogether, and that would mean a certain amount of segregation. If this is going to be a civilized country we must make it possible for as many industries as possible to exist for the white man, and this will be the necessary work of the wages board. I firmly believe that all the agricultural people in the country, who have the welfare of their own people at heart, realize that it is necessary for the welfare of civilization in this country to have a Bill like this passed. Knowing that this Bill is of such great and fundamental importance, and that it will have such far-reaching effects in preserving the white civilization in South Africa, I can give it my full support with merely a few reservations on committee points.

I think I may say that I have probably more sympathy with the principle of the minimum wage than the majority of members sitting behind the Minister who has introduced this Bill, but I must say that, although I have sympathy with that principle, I believe it can only be satisfactorily worked if the legislation is wise, and the administration is moderate and intelligent. I quite agree with the hon. member who last spoke (Dr. van der Merwe) that to some extent the minimum wage does protect the good employer as well as the employee, but, from my knowledge of commerce, I do not think the good employer needs very much protection. The good employer gets his protection by treating his people well, and by paying them reasonably, and, therefore, he is not affected very seriously by the question of a minimum wage, unless we have a minimum wage which is entirely on wrong and unsound lines. That is my basic objection to the present Bill. To my mind it is the difference between democratic freedom and Socialistic slavery. My objection is not to the principle of the minimum wage, but to the method by which the Minister suggests enforcing it. To my mind if a minimum wage is going to work smoothly, there are certain fundamental matters which must be attended to in connection with the working of the machinery. The first principle that I should say that is fundamental is that the minimum wage should be arrived at by a mutual agreement between employers and employed. I do not think you are going to advantage employers or employed in any way by an outside body interfering in the matter, but the employers and employees of a trade should mutually appoint a committee who can discuss the technicalities of the trade and arrive at a wage which will not only be sound from the point of view of the happiness and comfort of the employees, but which it will be possible to maintain.

There is nothing to prevent you doing that in this Bill.

My great objection to the Bill as introduced by the Minister, is that you are going to have a board of three people who, in all probability, cannot understand the technicalities of any trade at ah. Another fundamental suggestion which I consider necessary is that the demand for action should arise from the employees. Under this Bill the Minister, on his own initiative, can send this board to investigate any industry, can create trouble where no trouble exists, and to my mind this board will be a continual source of trouble and strife in this country. Whatever my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) says, when the board has arrived at any decision, wise or unwise, the Minister can wipe it all out by saying: “I will not act at all.” Suppose it is proved conclusively to that board by the employers and employees in the trade that certain action should be taken, the Minister can say: “I won’t act; you have either to produce a report which suits me, or I won’t act at all.” That is the position. Whatever other hon. members may say, the Minister of Labour has the absolute veto on any action that the board may recommend being taken. There are two things that the Minister can do. He can either accept the recommendations of the board, or he can sit tight and say, “Now you can go on recommending as long as you like, but until you recommend what I want, I won’t act at all.” As regards this question of boards, I may perhaps say, as an aside, that, even ii we agree to having this board method, I absolutely disagree with one board without a technical knowledge of the trade. I disagree with boards divided geographically. The only satisfactory form of boards is boards divided according to trades. Another principle which must be quite clear, I consider, in a minimum wage Bill is that the minimum must be fixed at a price which by far the largest bulk of the people in that trade can earn. I know that my friends on the cross-benches look upon it as an absurdity that a wage must be earned in order to receive it, but you can no more get more money out of certain work than is earned than you can get five quarters out of a water melon. It is a mathematical impossibility, and you are going to ask for trouble if you try it. I may say that some of the remarks which I have heard in this House from the Labour benches make me think that they have not studied modern conditions in this world, but that they are back in the last century. The modern commercial or industrial man thoroughly approves of good and high wages, provided those wages are earned. That is the difference between the Labour party and what you call the industrialist. The wages must be earned, but the Labour party say that the wages have got to be paid first and the industrialist has got to hope that they will be earned afterwards.

We agree with you.

I am glad to hear the hon. member say that. I was interested to hear that some of the members of the Labour party have been reading Henry Ford’s “Life and Work.” I did not think it would have appealed to them as much as it seems to have done. In order to emphasize a few points, I have taken a few texts out of his chapter on wages. I am a great admirer of Ford. His minimum wage to-day stands at six dollars a, day, that is between 24s. and 25s. a day. This is what he says in his chapter on wages, when speaking of the institution of the minimum wage—

If you will bear with me for a moment I will give you a few extracts as to what his position is, and you will see that it coincides exactly with what hon. members on this side of the House have said—

So the essential part of a minimum wage, more particularly a minimum wage rather than a standard wage, is that by far the largest bulk of the people in that industry must be able to earn that wage. I will give you another analogy. I want to clear up this point so that it is not constantly coming up. I believe my friends on the Labour benches are constantly confusing money wages with real wages.

That is what we don’t do.

That is what hon. members there are always doing. Let us imagine a native tribe with powers of legislation sitting down and deciding that every man, woman and child in their tribe is to receive one bag of mealies a month. They sit down and solemnly legislate that that shall be so. It would be absurd to imagine that the thing finishes there. They cannot each have that one bag of mealies per month unless they earn that bag of mealies, unless they produce enough bags to go round. That is the trouble with the whole question of high wages that are not earned. If they are not earned, there are not the wages to go round, and whatever legislation is brought into this House, no matter under what conditions, it is going to be a dead letter. It will eventually ruin the industry that tries to enforce it. The Minister said that big industry had been responsible for low wages and sweating. The whole history of industry is entirely against that statement. Big industry has been responsible for big wages, and if the Minister refers to the time when an inquiry was made into the sweated industries in London, I think he will find from the book written by Charles Booth, who was a member of the Royal Commission, on “Life and Labour in London,” that the sweated industries are the small industries that are more or less hidden away. America is an instance of high wages, but America is also an instance of big industry. It is the big industry that pays the high wages. The Ford case is one in point. Owing to the big scope of their work they are able to pay these big wages, and therefore big industry is not responsible for low wages.

I never said it was.

I must have misunderstood the Minister. Then any minimum wage Bill should provide machinery for very easy revision of the minimum wage. If that is not done the minimum acts as a boomerang and hits the people whom it is intended to benefit. The 1918 Bill for women and young children was a particular case in point. It was not long before the women and children were the people who were coming and asking the employers to do something to alter that Bill. It was not necessary to alter the Bill, but to provide machinery for very quick revision of the rate when that rate was found to be uneconomical. The position was that in certain districts, in certain trades, the rates laid down were such that production ceased immediately these wages were paid. This is the same case as I am constantly referring to of trying to get five quarters out of a watermelon. They tried to get a great deal more out of the industry than it could pay, and the result was that some industries practically closed down, and the working people in those industries were the very ones who cursed the 1918 Bill. Another thing I particularly object to in that Bill is that any minimum fixed between employers and employed should be subject to the veto of the Minister. In clause 1 this point is referred to. If the employers and employed in any industry come to an arrangement in regard to wages, no man should be allowed to interfere with that arrangement. I am a democrat, and the hon. member who brought in the Bill is a Socialist, and we are bound to disagree on this point. Then there is another point which is very difficult to deal with, and I have not seen in any Bill introduced in any country a solution of it. What are you going to do with the people who are thrown out of employment owing to your insisting on a certain minimum wage? It is a difficult point, and no doubt our friends on the Labour benches have a solution of the problem. I only ask them to give that solution to the House. If you are not going to do something for the people thrown out of these industries you must provide some poor relief for them.

How do you know they will be thrown out?

I am speaking of the person who is waiting for the fifth quarter of the watermelon. The fifth man on the line who is thrown out will want something, and I suggest that in a Hill of this nature provision should be made for the people thrown out of employment. Then when the minimum is fixed, the less interference there is with business the better. An instance was mentioned by a previous speaker. After the minimum is fixed, if it is fixed at a price that a certain employer finds that he cannot pay without going into the bankruptcy court, he cannot dismiss one of his staff. He has to go bankrupt. He cannot even close down because he has to continue paying every one of these people the minimum wage. I do not think the Minister appreciated the implication of this clause, and I hope this clause will be entirely eliminated in Select Committee. But it is only one instance of the enormous interference in business that this Bill will create. There are all kinds of regulations and forms that have to be handled according to the Bill and all this costs money: For instance, every time you make out a wage list, which has to be done once a week, you have to put down not only the name but the age of every junior in your employment. Surely if you stated this once a year the department could keep trace of it? But it is this constant interference that is so exasperating and so expensive. I also particularly object to the powers under this Bill under which the Minister, when he is not satisfied with a certain industry, can send his inquisitors into any part of the country and say, whether your employees are satisfied or not, I am going to have my board on this; and upsetting things however comfortable they are. There is a very curious thing about the clause dealing with disclosure of information. Although clause 5 provides against this, the preceding clause provides for the board sitting in public. It is an inquisition. You can get a man here with all his books and documents and thoroughly examine these things in public. It is a most drastic condition to put in a Bill, because the disclosure of a business man’s affairs may affect the whole of his career. It may militate against his chances of competing with the other man in the same trade, and I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that any information that is disclosed should be confidential and that the board should not have the right, in these conditions, to sit in public. Then in regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). Whatever he may say, the Bill is perfectly clear, that when an employer is charged with a contravention of this Bill the onus of proving his innocence rests on himself. It is not only a question of producing his books and other records. He has to produce the whole of the evidence, and the man who charged him can sit still and say nothing. Then in regard to the 1921 Bill, it is futile to discuss that. Many members were not in the House when it went through, and we are not responsible for the acts of our political ancestors. We are discussing something which I take it the hon. members on the other side wish to get on the statute book. There is another very grave tendency of a minimum wage bill and that is the tendency to raise the wages unduly of sheltered trades. For instance, you had it particularly in England in trades such as the railways and trades which do not come into competition in the export market, and you will find the wages are ridiculously high compared with the wages of more important trades which come into competition in the open market. There is the case of the railway porter and the skilled engineer in the shipbuilding industry. It is a very serious tendency and a very bad thing for a country if you are going to have your unskilled labour paid within a very little of the very highest skilled man in the industry.

Where is that implied or stated here?

I do not say it is implied. I say that this statute of the Minister’s is purely draconian. The Minister will sit in his office and issue edicts. That is my trouble with the Bill. There is going to be no provision whatever for the people who are interested in these trades and who know the technicalities—for their view to be taken. Their view can be swept aside first of all by the board, and if the Minister does not like what the board says, he sweeps aside the board, and the only person in this country who will control the wages question will be one man sitting in Pretoria.

What about section 4?

I do not agree with the criticism of the Minister with regard to agricultural labour not being included in this Bill. I recognize that his ideals naturally must melt in the glare of the people sitting behind him. He cannot perform miracles and it is well-known that the Nationalist party would not dream of passing a Bill if the agricultural industry were touched; but I do feel that probably the Minister in a Machiavellian way recognizes that though in so many words this Bill does not affect the agricultural industry, as a matter of fact it is going to affect it most drastically. Let us take one case alone. Under this Bill the railway employees can go to a board and get their wages raised. Suppose their wages are raised. It is quite clear that the Minister of Railways will not be able to reduce his rates on some of the agricultural commodities, say, maize, for instance. If that means that a certain rate, say, cost £15 more for a given quantity of maize to be railed to the coast, it means that the farmer has to produce, say, 20 bags of mealies as a donation to this minimum wage. The agriculturist is going to be touched in everything he consumes. When he brings in fertilizers, the railway rate being higher, he has to produce so many bags more of mealies or wheat to provide for this rate and it comes out of his pocket. To my mind the whole attitude of this Bill is unsound. I think the Minister started with a prejudice. He took up the attitude that the interests of the employers and employees are divergent and must be divergent, and he does not in any way protect the employer. He looks upon him as outside the pale of white civilization and if there is any charge against him he says—

To me the Bill seems full of prejudices, and the whole methods of the Bill are those of a drill sergeant. Employers and employed are not allowed to have any say; they must just do as they are told. I believe, with the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), that this Bill is going to be a very dangerous thing for the nascent industries of this country if they are to start with the idea that employers and employed are to be kept apart, like two fighting cocks.

The Minister is to be congratulated on this—that if there is no better argument against this Bill than has been put up so far, he is going to have a very easy time. There has been no real argument yet against this Bill. There are employers of labour on this side of the House who are welcoming this Bill, and who have no dread whatever for it. I agree with the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that no man should be paid wages unless he has earned them, but what we are fighting for is that the people who have earned their wages should get them; and there are hundreds of people in this country who are earning wages and are not getting them. Let me quote a few figures in regard to Cape Town. Shirts are being made by women at 4s. per dozen; men’s shirts with single seams at 1s. 9d. per dozen; workmen’s aprons at 7d. a dozen. There are factories springing up throughout the whole of this country in which the wage paid for the work done is not equal to the amount earned by the individual. There is an old saying that if anybody gets a dollar he has not earned, somebody has earned a dollar that he did not get. I agree with the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that the conditions in the factories which are springing up are appalling, both in regard to wages and the conditions of labour. The time is very opportune for a Bill of this description. The basis of this Bill is that there shall be an investigation, and good employers are not afraid of a thorough investigation. There has been one point raised against the Bill, i.e., that it will interfere in free discussion between employers and employees, and in agreements between them. No one in this House, with, perhaps, the exception of the hon. member for Jeppe, has had more experience in these matters than I have had, and I have always found that the trade which is best organized gets the best of the bargain in negotiating an agreement. During the war period, when we met employers, they used to greet us with a smile, pass a cup of tea and supply cigars and cigarettes; but when that period passed, they were not so amenable, and when we met them it was almost with cap in hand. So it has always been a see-saw; to-day the employers are able to dictate terms, and to-morrow it is the employees, and so on. The object of this Bill is foremost for the vast body of workers in this country who are not organized, and cannot be organized. Let me refer to the speech of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in opening the discussion. While he was speaking, I carried my mind back to the time, seventy years ago, when the same arguments that he employed were used in the British Isles against the abolition of child labour. The employers then said—

But Parliament abolished child labour and there was not a single industry in the country that closed down. At one time men had to work twelve, fourteen or sixteen hours a day, and when men of heart got up in the House of Commons and declared that these conditions amounted to slavery and should be abolished, the same cry was put up again. The employers said that if they did not get these twelve or sixteen hours, continental competition would come in. This was particularly the case in regard to mining and the production of iron and steel. Although the hours were reduced until an eight-hour day came into force, there has never been a period of greater development in the iron and steel and coal industries than during the Victorian period in which this change was made. I believe we are on the eve of great industrial development in this country. I think it was the right hon. member for Standerton who appealed to the farming class by asserting that if the principle of this Bill was applied to the small industries, they could not afford to pay high wages, and the prices of farming commodities were going to be raised. I do not think he had read the Bill, seeing that one of the functions of the board is to enquire into the ability of the employer, and to get at the facts. A very great deal is going to depend on the personnel of the board. I know the hon. Minister of Labour very well, and I think my remark is useless, but I hope that in the selection of members of the board the Minister will allow nothing to weigh with him, other than the suitability of the person for a board of this description. The board has also to enquire into the cost of living. There is one thing I could never understand. I remember that during the war period the employers told us that there was no other basis on which to fix wages than the cost of living. But when the war was over they said that is no basis. Personally, I believe it is no basis at all, but if we take it that the cost of living is to be the basis, then most of the industries in this country will have to have an immediate rise in wages. If we hire a mule the law compels us to see that it is properly fed and housed, and kept in condition for its work, but when we come to men and women we shall be told that it is not for the employer to see that they are properly fed and looked after and kept in proper condition for the work they do. Taking it right through, and taking it that a board shall be established, the position falls away, because almost every hon. member has said: “We have no objection to the minimum wage.” But up to the present time wages have been based on the lowest possible level. I have often asked myself whether low wages have been cheap wages, and to my mind low wages are not cheap wages. I agree that wages only come from production; but the production in the world has increased by leaps and bounds, and yet the working class is very little better off than it was thirty years ago. If low-paid labour is cheap labour, what do we make of India? It has been known for over 200 years that there are great resources in India; yet the coolie is paid 6d. or 8d. a day and is given a bag of rice at the end of the month. We should expect India to be standing at the forefront of industrial nations yet to-day it is one of the poorest nations under the sun, and Great Britain has often had to send assistance to enable the people to stave off starvation. In the Balkan States, where there are great mineral resources, yet the workers have never risen above a very low standard of living, and wages in that country are low, as they are in other countries in Southern Europe, with the result that thousands of their inhabitants have emigrated to the United States, which at last has been compelled to erect barriers against the unrestricted entry of these people. Look, on the other hand, at the high wage countries. America has always refused to go on a low wage basis and to-day she stands out as the great industrial nation of the world. You cannot, in fact, build up a strong and healthy nation on low wages—on wages that do not permit the working people to obtain sufficient to eat or to wear, or to obtain decent housing conditions, or to enjoy any of the amenities of civilization. Good employers will not oppose this Bill, but people whose only aim is to grab everything they can get and to obtain the cheapest possible labour will be brought to book under this measure, and it is only by a Bill of this description that we shall be able to force up the standard of pay to the level of a living wage. A minimum wage is very difficult to define. The president of the Australian court of conciliation and arbitration dealing with this question wrote—

A minimum wage which does not provide for all these things should not be permitted to continue. There has been very little real opposition to the Bill, which I shall certainly support.

I rise because I really sympathize with my farming friends on the other side of the House.

We do not require your sympathy. We are growing and growing.

I thought that hon. members opposite would get up to help their allies, but they sit still and say nothing.

There is no opposition.

Until finally the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) stood up. I think of the meetings which he will hold at Winburg, and I hope when he has that gathering of farmers collected together and they are attentively listening to him—as farmers usually do to those who represent them—that he will say to the farmer, “Look, friend, we have made an agreement, and we were obliged to vote with them on this Bill.” And then I think of what he said here, namely, that “history repeats itself,” and his argument that a similar law had been passed in England 15 years ago. I hope that he will also tell his people that which happened 15 years ago in England, and also speak to them in the English language. I am sorry for hon. members opposite because I also once sat there behind the Government then in office when they also wished to introduce a wages Bill. But although the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has already shown that that Bill was framed on an entirely different principle, because in it the employer was still acknowledged, I still felt that I could not vote with the Government, and I am to-day thankful that I took up that position. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has mentioned all the names of the members who then voted against the Bill. He has given the names of ten members who voted against it because we felt that the time for such legislation was not ripe in South Africa, and that it would be to the detriment of the workers themselves. I only want to say to hon. members that I represent a constituency where a large number are workmen who must live from their hands. Included amongst them there are many who hold similar ideas to myself, and who are just as opposed to this sort of thing. The hon. member for Winburg (the Revd. Dr. van der Merwe) has stated that it happened 15 years ago in England, but here it is a new thing, and a thing the people don’t want, and I think that sort of legislation takes away the freedom of the workers themselves. I cannot imagine that anyone of a right turn of mind and who has fellow-feeling with the worker can reckon that such a Bill ought to be introduced, and that the wages should be fixed. It is surely to the detriment of the people themselves, especially of us South Africans, who are in any case not skilled workers. That is exactly the reason why we have difficulties. A number of unskilled workers are walking around Johannesburg. They can’t do the same work as skilled workmen, and they are unemployed. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has rightly said that the Labour party should rather try to solve this question a little and see what should be done with the people who have no work. Now the Minister of Labour comes and proposes wages boards, while the final decision, if there is no agreement, will rest with the Minister. He has the final decision, and I must say that I have always been afraid of imperial power. I reckon that we should carefully deliberate to-day whether we should give that power. The hon. friends who represent farmers must consider whether these powers can be put into the hands of the Minister. He has already lost control over his own party. What happened at Johannesburg at the congress? Must we then entirely overlook what happened there? The Communists came in and chose people—

The hon. member is wandering a little far from the point.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just want in my simple and honest manner to point out the danger of such people. Must we then play with the interests of the worker? The Minister of Labour has said here, he has said it several times, that we have laid down all the principles in the Bill we introduced in 1921. I say, again, that that rested on entirely different principles, and, moreover, hon. members opposite should do what I did and be so honest as to vote against the proposal. But they come here and say on every occasion. “Yes, but you always did it as well.” But hon. members opposite have come to put all things right. Then they must not do what we did, they must not come and say that we have already done it.

We are engaged in putting things right.

To muddle them more.

The hon. member acknowledges, then, that they muddled matters.

I differ a great deal from the member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers), but I should like to see the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), the man who has always said that he is not led by the Labour party, get up. When one thinks to what lengths politics can bring a man, I am very sorry that hon. members opposite are in this difficulty. I feel sympathy for them, because I have myself in the past been in a difficult position. I will frankly acknowledge that my Government at that time did not always act in accordance with my views, and I then voted against it with other members. We said, “We will not co-operate with the Labour party.” Now it is argued here that the farmer does not come under the Bill. I would just like to ask the farmers’ representatives if it is right to make laws for one class of people and not for the other. If it is such a good Bill—the hon. members say that they can vote so happily for it—why, then, is the Bill not to be applied to farmers; then it would also be just and good for the farmers. I further ask if the farmers on the countryside will approve of this. I would particularly ask this of the hon. member for Winburg: Will he get up and tell them how he rose here and what he said?

Do you then want starvation wages.

Let me only say to hon. members that there is nothing in the world that depresses me more than that we should have to see that the worker does get a reasonable wage for his work. The hon. member for Winburg (The Rev. Dr. van der Merwe) and other members have talked of “sweated labour.” I cannot understand what they mean by that. Must a man not sweat when he works? The hon. member should think a little about the great Book which laid down “in the sweat of your brow you will eat bread.”

That does not mean that one should pay starvation wages to a workman.

So “starvation wages” is the translation of “sweated labour.” Well the hon. member for Fordsburg is always an authority in these matters. I would like to be serious. I would like that we should speak earnestly about the matter and I do not think it is right that the employer should have no say. I have not the confidence in the Minister of Labour to give him all the powers and moreover he will not always be the Minister and I cannot agree to it that the rights of the employers should be handed over to a Minister, to the imperial authority. I cannot agree to that because what will happen? The people who wish to invest in the industries of the land will not agree to it they will have no control over their workmen I hope the hon. members opposite will tell people outside that the Wages Board will fix all wages in manufacturers, etc. I hope that when the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) addresses a meeting in his constituency he will frankly report what powers he is handing over to the Minister of Labour. I know the Labour party is also in difficulties. The Communists are using their influence but I say that every man who intends putting his money into manufacture, etc., in this country will be afraid because he will have no power over his workmen, this is a fact.

Read 2 Corinthians, 11 verse 19.

Let the hon. member now be sensible. It is wrong to mock at religion. I say that the people will not put their money into the land but into manufactures.

Nor should they put their money into the land but into manufactures.

Someone told me the other day that we had said that if the National Government came into power the land would get no more credit and nevertheless our credit has not dropped. Yes, people would rather give their money to the State than use it to establish factories because they will there not be masters in their own house. I would like to ask the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) when he addresses his sheep shearers … …

Farms have nothing to do with this.

It is the principle which is laid down here. I happily did not vote for the Bill in 1921 I did not make myself guilty of that and then we did not have such a dangerous Government as we have to-day.

The Government then was so dangerous that it was kicked out.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Riversdale if he really is so satisfied.

His condition proves it.

No, it will not be long before farms will also come under this Bill. Then the hon. member for Riversdale will have to vote that as well if he wants to keep his “Pact” Government together.

You are surely also for fixing the wages?

Yes, our leader also stated yesterday that he was in favour of the fixing of a minimum wage but that the employers must also be recognized in the matter. I can assure hon. members that there are workmen in my constituency, masons, etc., who are prevented from working not because they do not do their work properly, but what do they say? They say that since the trade unions, etc., came to Johannesburg they are out of work. I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) he is, I think, one of the most moderate men on the cross benches. But to-day I have heard him also throw the blame of the revolt, etc., upon us. I could not imagine that it was the same man because he expressed himself very sharply. Our Government had great difficulty in surpassing the riots and to conquer the wrong spirit which had been imported. There are those, especially the Afrikanders, who say that they had plenty of work before the disturbances but that they lost their work owing to the unhappy revolt and now cannot earn their bread. We should consider this that later on we shall have to do with thousands of people who are unemployed.

It is in consequence of your misgovernment.

I shall not reply to that. I would rather advise the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) to tell that to his electors in Riversdale. The farmers there will not believe him any longer. Our Government had its faults but it tried to do as much as possible for the poor people. Many were given work on the railways and the irrigation works were left by our Government as a gift to the present Government as an additional means of helping people to work. I can assure hon. members that there are thousands to-day who are thankful for what the previous Government did to help them to make a living. I hope hon. members opposite will even at the last moment see the danger of this Bill, and at least some of them will vote for the motion of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), namely, to first send the measure to a Select Committee. I cannot vote for the Bill. Hon. members opposite say that everything is prospering in the country but why do they introduce such legislation? I will not detain the House any longer but I cannot vote for the second reading.

Every right-thinking man who possesses any feeling of justice must be glad that this Bill has been introduced. If we take the history of the country for the last few years we shall see how things went in the past. We will see that the employers, especially the mine owners, by pressure in all directions pushed to workmen down. This has happened ever since 1913; how many people have not been shot down on the Band by cannons and rifles? Is it not better that Parliament should make a law to prevent that sort of thing? Every person who possesses any feeling of fairness and right will be glad that the Government has introduced this Bill. I have read the Bill through and I and many other members expected that the former Government would long since have introduced such a measure. But no, it was not done. It was the policy of some members opposite to make higher profits by paying starvation wages to workmen, and what happened? The people were shot down with cannons.

What did they demand?

They demanded a wage on which they could live. But the scheme of the mines was to bring down wages and to enable them to do that the Government shot down people. The wages were reduced to what they now are. We did our best at that time to prevent it.

The hon. member must not now discuss the happenings on the Rand in 1922.

Exactly. But the intention of this Government is to prevent such things. We have already had instances where wages boards have been appointed to regulate wages. There is a board for the railways, the wages are there fixed, and this is simply for the whole country. We also have it in the public service for the officials.

Why is this Bill necessary then?

This Bill is necessary to have uniformity over the whole country. The members opposite make out that we are children, that they can frighten us with ghosts and bogeys. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has tried to, but there are people here who know just as much about the country as he does. It is stupid of him to try it. The Bill provides that only industries will come under it.

What about the small agricultural industries?

If a factory is not in a position to pay a proper wage to people it must be closed down. We cannot maintain factories where people get starvation wages. It happens daily that miners must work for less than a living wage. Take the position in Johannesburg where the town council pays higher wages than the mines do to people who work 6,000 feet under the surface and who are exposed to the dreaded miners’ phthisis.

The town council is paying the money of the taxpayer.

Yes, but they see that the people get enough to exist. The Bill is therefore necessary to bring about uniformity. This is the only way to get rest and peace in the country. No one wants to pay higher wages than the people earn, but we want to give them fair wages so that we shall get rest and contentment in the country and so that there shall be no more disputes about wages. This Bill regulates the matter once and for all. Members on the other side have asked why the farmers have been excluded. That is a horse of quite another colour. The workmen in the factory work for a fixed number of hours per day, on the farm this is not so. I know this because I grew up on a farm, I have also farmed.

Why did you not remain there?

Because it paid me better to go to the Transvaal and because I could not sell a gold mine. Every reasonable man will be glad to get this Bill. Members, and also the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said that it is a socialistic measure. He himself introduced a Bill of this kind and excluded the farmers, but now they are frightened into thinking that this is a socialistic measure. But the people will not allow themselves to be frightened any longer by ghosts, That was shown at the recent election.

We are still here.

Yes, but how many of you? And those who are still here will never come back again. The people are not any longer afraid of ghosts.

After listening to the debate since yesterday, one comes to the conclusion that hon. members on the other side of the House have been evading the issue which is involved in this legislation. I have listened to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). If one goes into the criticisms which have been raised, one would think that we are here introducing a thoroughly new principle, a matter which is going to have very far-reaching effects indeed, and which is going to effect the whole country adversely, and yet we find it is on all fours with a report presented to this House in 1917, and that to-day the Minister of Labour is actually introducing legislation which is entirely within the spirit of that report. I am referring to the report of the Select Committee on the Regulation of Wages (Specified Trades) Bill), the members of which were the then Minister of Mines and Industries (Mr. Malan), Mr. Duncan, Mr. Bezuidenhout, Mr. Rockey, Mr. Vintcent, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Heatlie, Mr. de Waal and Mr. Conroy. The point to which they directed their attention was the question of a minimum wage. Let us see what they said in regard to that—

A stronger report than that it is very difficult to conceive could have been presented by any committee. Even if we were to appoint a committee entirely from this side of the House, it would be difficult to imagine their recommending more strongly a minimum wage being fixed by the State than is recommended in this report.

Specified trades?

Yes, but what does the present Bill say? The present Bill says that a board shall be appointed which shall go into the question in so far as specified trades are concerned. This portion of the report deals with the general principle; it does not go into the details of any particular trade. It deals generally with the question of a minimum wage, and its use and application to this country. I do not know of any report made by any committee of this House which so absolutely establishes the points made by the Minister in introducing this Bill. As I understand the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), a point he made was that if we continue with this legislation we are going to get the whole of the industries of this country into the hands of the natives. Now this very question of colour crops up in this report. In section 12 the committee say they cannot recommend that any law providing for the fixing of a minimum wage should discriminate on the grounds of colour; that too much stress has been laid on this point, and that in practice there would be no serious difficulty in providing minimum wages for particular industries. On the strength of that report a Bill was introduced into this House in 1921 and carried through all its stages in this House. Anyone who listened to the right hon. member’s speech would have come to the conclusion that the Bill of 1921 and the one now before us, differed in all essential features. The one being a really good piece of legislation, and the other a serious menace to the whole industrial community, and the development of the Union, and to large sections of the community, laying down a dangerous precedent and dangerous principles. There is in principle not an iota of difference between those two Bills. Is there any hon. member who can refer me to a single section where there is a difference in principle?

What about the voluntary principle?

Under the 1921 Bill, agreements only accepted by the Minister where they are made by employers and employees, and where the Minister thinks the employees are sufficiently represented, and if the terms are to his satisfaction. Only then will he allow that agreement to stand in the way of a decision of the board. What is the voluntary clause in the Bill now before the House? This Bill says it will not interfere with any agreement arrived at under the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1924.

Does it say that?

There is no interference whatever with the working of the Conciliation Act in this Bill.

Read section 1, sub-section 2.

If hon. members will refer to Clause 11, they will see that this is so.

But the board can come in any day and set that aside.

No. A determination under this Bill can only come after the board has exercised its powers, examined its witnesses and made a determination. No agreement made binding under the Conciliation Act of 1924 is interfered with at all. Another point made by the hon. member for Standerton was that he does not like the Minister becoming a dictator. For the last ten years I have known the right hon. member, I have always associated him in my mind as a real dictator and probably the most politically unscrupulous dictator we have ever had.

Is the hon. member permitted to refer to the right hon. member for Standerton as being politically unscrupulous?

I think the hon. member should not use language of that nature.

I withdraw unreservedly what I have said if there is any idea that it reflects on the honour of the right hon. member for Standerton. I had no idea of conveying that. I wanted to say that if ever there was a big dictator or leader in this country who did not care two straws for the opinion of the public when he wanted to do a particular thing, commend me to the right hon. member, and when I used the word “unscrupulous” I meant it entirely in that sense, and I think the hon. member knows I meant it in that sense.

I am sure we did not.

The powers here of the Minister are criticized. Again let us compare the Bill of the hon. gentleman sitting opposite. What did he suggest? Not one board where you could have a continuity of policy, dealing with every trade and having whole time officers keeping in touch with all the business of the country, but you might have a board in every district, a board for every trade and every industry. You could have 150 boards. Jobs for pals I suppose it would have been.

Voluntary boards.

It may interest members to refer to the exact terms of section 4 of the Bill of 1921. The appointment of the board or boards was in the hands of the Minister, and the clause reads—

It is said that the Bill is dictatorial, but whereas section 2 of the present Bill provides for a single board for the whole Union by the Cabinet, the power was placed in the hands of the Minister in the Bill of 1921 to appoint boards all over the Union. If the present Minister had taken powers which would have been given him in the previous Bill to appoint some 30 or 40 boards, I know what would have been said by members on the other side—“jobs for pals.” There is no obligation upon the Minister in this Bill. The Minister must in every case be satisfied that the parties have been brought together, as in this Bill, in which there is a provision that before there is any determination, a representative body of both sides has to be called together and take evidence on oath.

No.

Yes. The board is definitely appointed for a definite period, and will consist of men entirely disinterested, except that they will act for the benefit of this country. It is better to have uniformity, as is ensured by this Bill, than the variety that would have arisen under the Bill of 1921, between one district and another, as the result of which no industrialist would know where he was. In one area an industry would be able to use sweated labour and in another area they would not. After all, these differences between the two Bills are very small. If you read the long title there is not the slightest doubt that both Bills could have been brought in under the same title. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has referred to the powers conferred under this Bill, but if you compare section 7 of the old Bill with section 3 of the present Bill you will see that the powers are exactly the same. What we want is continuity of policy. We have suffered too much from loose, disjointed bits of work in almost every department.

Were you in favour of the Bill of 1921?

Yes.

Why did you vote against it?

I did not.

Yes, you did.

Look up Hansard. We cannot help coming to the conclusion that here we have an example again of a policy of obstruction. The principle of this Bill is a principle laid down by the party opposite in their Select Committees and in this House and pleaded for in this House—by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), among others— particularly when an election was on. As for the objections generally of hon. members, any necessary changes can be made in committee. Let us take the question of voluntary agreements, over which a great point was made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The only difference between the sections in the two Bills dealing with this point is that the parties may not enter into an agreement for the payment of wages lower than that fixed by the board. But for such a provision, should there be a surplus of labour in a particular industry, the employers might ask the employees if they would be content with 5s. a day, although the wages had been fixed at 6s. a day, and the men would be compelled to accept, because if they did not they would lose their jobs. I agree that where a minimum has been fixed, no agreement to pay less than that should be tolerated. In other words, no agreement could be made for the payment of lower wages than those already determined.

Or which might in future be determined.

No. The other exception is that they will not be allowed to make an agreement exempting them from the operations of the Act if there is an agreement made in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. In other words, people may place themselves under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and then they will fall outside the limits of the Bill. Surely the exemption here is greater than that set up by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)? The right hon. gentleman’s speech on Monday night sounded a great one, but the readers of the “Cape Times” did not have the Bill before them. Why did he run away from the Bill? Now he comes along and gives a solemn warning, “Beware you farmers.” Why did he not warn the farmers three years ago of the iniquitous principle of the Bill which he forced through the House? The principle is exactly the same except that in this Bill you have not a multiplicity of courts throughout the country. The only real difference between the two Bills is that contained in section 8 of the old Bill dealing with voluntary joint boards. The right hon. member for Standerton asks why this provision was excluded from the present Bill but if a board already exists there is not the slightest reason why it should not be regarded as a board constituted under the Act. I think the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) dealt with the question of the onus of proof, saying we were making a startling innovation in the administration of justice. But this principle already exists in our legislation, for in regard to the alleged illegal possession of gold, “diamonds, liquor and stolen cattle, the onus of proving the innocence of the accused already rests on the accused. Why section 13 of the old Bill states that on any prosecution of an employer it shall lie upon him to prove that he has not paid wages less than that fixed by law.

That is the good Bill of the virtuous South African party.

Yes. The two clauses with regard to this matter are exactly the same word for word in both Bills. As far as the principles of the Bill are concerned there is not very much difference between the two, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows that. He would have welcomed this Bill three years ago, and I think he does so now.

Wait and see.

The colour bar Bill and this measure must be the complement one of the other.

Which is the complement?

It does not matter which you take. The right hon. member for Standerton made a point which I think should be dealt with. He said that if you fix a minimum wage for the native workers you would be fixing their standard of living on a level with Europeans. Three years ago the right hon. member had an illegal colour bar, but now when the colour bar is proposed to be made legal he objects to it strenuously and says that this Bill will reduce civilized labour to the standard of the native.

Or raise the native to the civilized standard.

Why not? I am not afraid of it. I am not afraid that the native can ever attain the standard of the Europeans here, not if he takes a hundred years. In America you have the negroes—

I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss that on this Bill.

It is not a question of being misled. A serious point was made of it when it was said that the provision of the Bill would reduce the standard of civilized labour. The answer to that is obvious. The intelligence standard of the native is only one-tenth per cent, of the European. Only one in a thousand of the negro type will attain to the same standard as a European.

Who said so?

It was, I think, a professor of one of the Columbian universities (Prof. Pintner).

Do you believe it?

Well, we can only accept what these men say who have made a lifelong study of the subject. What is the condition of the farmers. Does the hon. gentleman want to tell the House that provisions of this nature can be applied to agriculture?

Why not?

Does the hon. member want it to apply to farmers?

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Everybody in the country has sympathy with these individuals who are suffering considerably, and the monopoly of sympathy with our sufferers does not lie entirely with the Labour party. There are others who feel that anything that can be done should be done to improve the lot of these people. My objection to-night to this Bill is that I really do not believe in Government interference in private concerns at all. They themselves have been riding rough shod over the law, and since the law does not protect our own civil servants, I don’t believe any manmade law is going to help materially the people this Bill hopes to help. In one respect we shall rejoice in the passing of this Act, because if it becomes law we shall be able to indict Cabinet Ministers for not obeying the law themselves. I cannot understand why the Government let themselves into this Bill. In 1921 I find that hon. members on the other side who voted for the third reading of a like measure only numbered four. Only forty members were in the House, and only four of the Nationalist side thought it worth while to vote on this important measure. I wonder why the Government have tied themselves to the Labour wing of their party to bring in this Bill. Whatever they do the Labour party will have to vote with them, even if they swallowed the Bill to-morrow, because the Labour party would not be members of the House at all without the Nationalists. The Labour party are glad they have a sympathetic Minister. I am asking myself whether they really have a sympathetic Minister. The Minister is a born autocrat. The Minister many years ago developed a theory that he could work the mines with white labour, and the magnificent wage with which he was going to assist his workers was 5s. per day.

You remember wrongly. You know it is not true.

Five shillings a day for one of the most strenuous jobs, a job which is like sweating.

You know that is not true.

A man who has gone to his rest once said that Mr. Creswell was the greatest slave driver the country had ever had, and the Minister is going to take charge of this Bill. I wonder whether this Act will not be in the nature of an Australian boomerang, and come back and hit them. I know the Minister. There have been a good many mischievous speeches made on this Bill in the House. When I hear men talk glibly about equal pay for equal work I can only think it is either maudlin sentimentality or mere cant, that they are not reasonable men. The men from Johannesburg know that the real workers underground are the natives from up-country. If you are going to claim equal pay for equal work, then you will have to pay most of the natives somewhat more than the European is paid. The thing is hypocritically wrong. Why don’t we all have Europeans in our homes? How many on the other side do? I know the circumstances that obtain in the mines in Johannesburg, and when you come to talk about a minimum wage don’t forget that what is said here goes out of this House and goes through the mines. The natives are no longer ignorant. They realize they are the men who do the work, and they begin to ask themselves if the rate of pay is sufficient for the work they do. Whether the rate is right I do not know, but if you put up the scale of native wages on the Rand you are going to seriously interfere with the mining industry. When you refer to equal pay for equal work you know perfectly well the difference in the conditions under which white men live, and under which the native lives. When members come to the House and one hears about these awful cases of sweating, I do not doubt the case the member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) quoted is right, but we are not going to alter it by Act of Parliament. We have got to make them realize that honesty is above the law, and these things must be stopped. I don’t object to the Bill other than that I do not like the Government interfering with these things. The minimum wage is not a matter that affects the people of Johannesburg. The real cause of most of the unrest in Johannesburg lies not between the workers and those in authority. The real cause of unrest comes from the Labour leaders on that side of the House. They don’t want peace, they don’t seek peace. If we get peace they come along with this dispute and that dispute, until disputes are of daily occurrence on the Rand. I take the common-sense view of the subject and know that when the workmen meet their employers and have a talk round a common table, in ninety-three cases out of a hundred, if left alone, they come to an amicable agreement. The curse of Johannesburg and the Rand is that the men are never left alone. We have got as good a set of men on the Rand as you will find in any part of the world. They don’t want any minimum wage; their own work will give them their wage wherever they like to work. Leave them alone; that is all I ask. I ask the Government now to leave them alone, and not put powers into the Minister’s hands which no human being ought to exercise. I am one of those who wish to see this country go ahead. We have a number of industries of which we have as yet only touched the fringe, and we must find openings for our boys in those avocations for which they are eminently suited. I would like to see the bodies of motor cars used in this country made in this country. Many of our boys are led into blind-alley occupations, not because they cannot be taught good trades and make good artizans, but because they are denied the privilege of becoming good artizans by regulations laid down by the Labour party. We are asked to only put one apprentice to four artizans. Only lately I had to send a boy to England, because there was no opening where he could be properly trained here. I think it is a pity when one is addressing this House to see so few men who can really call themselves farmers on the other side. In 1910 we had a very large sprinkling of farmers and I must say—

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering away from the Bill now.

I will try not to wander. I will try to work up to the question of the minimum wage on farms. As I was saying, we have got very few hon. members on the other side who are real farmers. They do not understand what they are doing. It is quite true that farm labourers, agricultural labourers and a few others are exempted under the provisions of this Bill, but it follows that, if you are going to make extravagant minimum wages for all classes of work done for farmers, the farmers are going to suffer. If you are going to put on the minimum wage the natives on the Rand are going to strike for bigger pay, and to keep our mines going we shall have to give them bigger pay. When the natives on the farms find that their friends on the mines are getting very much more pay than they are, they are going to strike right away. I want to go back for a moment to the question of the gold mines. We have been told frequently in this House that the gold mines cannot pass on any additional charges to the consumer. Gold is now coming under the law of the land almost to a fixed price, and the mines cannot pass on those charges. When I hear members of the Labour party advocating the minimum wage, which they hope to be so much better than the standard wage to-day, they know perfectly well that if this Act is brought into being and if the Minister is not reasonable, we must shut down a good many of our mines. We do not want to create more poor whites. We have got to keep every industry we have in this country going, and we are not going to keep those industries going by subjecting them to arbitrary rules and giving power to men who do not know the first beginnings of modern industrial conditions.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) has professed unbounded sympathy for the lower paid workers in this country. I was reminded of a little anecdote. There were two men seated in a crowded tram-car, in which ladies were standing along the alley-way. One man had closed his eyes. As they were going out the other man spoke to him, and asked him why he closed his eyes. His reply was—

I think that is more or less the position of the mine owners, the farmers and the agricultural experts typified by the hon. member for Park-town. The hon. member said that Labour leaders and agitators are the cause of the unrest in this and other countries. Labour leaders are not the cause; they are the effect. It is the underlying discontent which pervades the working classes of this country that throws up the spokesmen of both classes, the agitators and the Labour members in this House. You have paid agitators by the hundred in the ranks of the capitalists to every agitator, unpaid, in the Labour movement. You have the editors of the capitalistic press; you have a hundred capitalist papers in this country for every Labour paper. If you had a hundred Labour papers for every capitalistic paper, there would not be one of those hon. members sitting on the Opposition benches. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Goldenhuys) conferred on the Minister of Labour the title of the “Kaiser.” I think the hon. member is mistaken; he is a few years out. He has forgotten that the Government has changed over. The Kaiser who used to reign in Germany is now in exile, and the “Kaiser” who used to reign in South Africa is also now in exile. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) asked us what right, if an employer and an employee agreed, another man had to interfere. I would like to point out that there is no equality between the employer in this country and the employee in this country, and no equality in any other country. There is no equality of bargain. Both sides do not come to the bargain with the same advantages, the same forces, behind them. There is no equality of bargain between the well-fed, prosperous merchant and the starving city clerk who wants a job. The worker has no right in industry; he is not a citizen in the industrial commonwealth. He has no legal right; he is an alien who can be deported at any time. His job is terminated and he is thrown out of the industrial commonwealth into the ranks of the unemployed. The hon. member (Mr. Stuttaford) expresses sympathy for those who might be thrown out of work by this particular Bill. A few days ago he expressed sympathy for those who had been thrown out of work by the minimum wage in the building trade in the Cape Peninsula, but, on challenge, he has not been able to produce those particular people. I would like him to express sympathy for the white men who to-day are thrown out of work by the employment of uncivilized labour in this country. I would like to show how the hon. member for Newlands viewed this problem a little while ago, how he expressed his sympathy with the white man and the white boy who cannot find a job. Speaking at Newlands the hon. member, then the candidate for Newlands, on Tuesday, June 4th, at the Palmboom School, made the following remarks which, in my opinion, for callous disregard of the feelings of the white men and women who desire in this country to provide a future for their children are without parallel. I am quoting from the “Cape Times” report—

Mark that—coloured labour !

Why not?

It was quite right, Mr. Stuttaford continued—-

Shame !

And he continued to say that—

Why not?

The hon. member, according to the report, then said—

Yes, the white youth can go elsewhere. What a prospect for the white boys and girls of this country ! But that is the only prospect which is held out if the present industrial system is allowed to continue, the only prospect held out in this country for the white boys of this country if the South African party get back to power. We have heard a good deal about commerce. Commerce is supposed to be one of the bodies responsible for the government of this country it is an important factor in the Government. Let us see how the commercial people view the problem of the native and white man in this country. In the African section of the London Chamber of Commerce the following opinion was expressed on the 19th of October. 1922, in regard to this country, “that the training and utilization of African natives for the various Government departments in Africa was strongly favoured, for by that means the present unnecessarily high proportion of Europeans could be reduced.” This is the official policy of the African section of the London Chamber of Commerce, of which the hon. members on the other side of the House are such eloquent spokesmen. Let me deal with some points raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). He made a great deal of the clause dealing with the onus of proof. A portion of the balloon sent up by the hon. member has been slightly deflated by hon. members on this side, and particularly by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). The clause 13 (3) says—

I understand hon. members object to that. It is a new thing, a precedent. The memories of the members of the South African party are very short. They have an unfortunate habit of forgetting what they do not want to remember. But in an Act passed by the South African party Government, the Defence Act of 1912, section 3, clause 8, it is provided that the burden shall lie upon the employer of proving that no person in his employ has been dismissed or has suffered a reduction of wages or has been in any way penalised for any good and sufficient reason connected with the training referred to. This is an exact parallel of the clause complained of in the Wages Bill. The hon. member for South Peninsula said, further, that this Act is a danger to the country. Who are the country? What right has he to speak for the country? What part of the country is going to be put in jeopardy? The poor whites, the natives, the sweated industries? The only people who are going to be put in jeopardy are the employers, who are sweating employees to-day. There is a prevalent idea on the Opposition side that the merchants in this country, the manufacturers and the owners of property are the country, that they are the people who should be consulted and considered. But not only in this country but in every country in the world the position has changed entirely. The merchants, manufacturers, landowners the big men of the country are to-day in the dock not on the jury. They are the people who are being tried.

The “Guardian” is on the bench.

Hon. members laugh, but these are the people who are being tried for the murder by starvation of men, women and children. They are the people who are responsible for the slums of this and every other country. The hon. member for South Peninsula expressed solicitude for the native He appears to have forgotten that there was a time when he was the champion of the white men in this country; when he desired that skilled trades should be reserved for the white man in this country. In a speech which he made in the Transvaal Parliament on the 30th July, 1905, speaking on the question of the Chinese Ordinance, the hon. member said he favoured he deliberate separation of the two spheres of labour which was brought about by the Chinese Ordinance; that the provisions of the Chinese Ordinance constituted a safeguard for the white people of the country. That was in 1905 but 20 years later there is not the same solicitude for the white man. The application of the Bill to the civil service or police appears to be undesirable in the eyes of the member for South Peninsula. It may interest him to know that there are to-day police under a wages board in this country, in the Durban municipality—possibly, with the exception of the printers’ board, the most successful wages board in South Africa. Every member of the Durban municipal police comes under that board and is satisfied with it. Then in regard to the objection that in case of trouble 10 men may petition for the intervention of the wages board, I would remind hon. members that 10 is a good number. Is it not the case that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah would have been saved if there had been 10 good men in them? Another point which the hon. member referred to was the competition which we in this country under the wages board system would have to meet; he saw that after we had coped with our own market we would have to go into the world market and meet the competition there. He did not say whose competition, but I will fill in the blank. The competition of Australia, of Britain and other European countries, all with wages boards in them. To-day these countries can knock us sideways though we have no wages board. It is an indication of bad management in the manufactures of this country. Again, he objects to the Minister appointing this particular board. I do not see what is wrong with it. Ministers do appoint this sort of thing. They have appointed them in the past.

No, it is the Government.

Is the probity of the present Minister of Labour less than that of any Minister in any previous Government? it cannot be that. It may be the objection is that members of the board to be appointed will be in sympathy with the present Government. I want members of the South Africa party to realize more than they do to-day that their day is past and that this is our day. This Government is going to carry out its own policy and not the South African party policy. There is a point I do not think the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) made quite clear. It appeared from what he said that if certain industries were not able to pay while paying the minimum wage, these industries should be assisted. Possibly some hon. members took that to mean, by lower wages. I hope that will not happen. I do not desire that any industry which cannot afford to pay its own wages snail be allowed to continue at the expense of the employees. It means that the men, women and children in the industry are going to be compelled to pay the profits which the manufacturers in those industries are going to have. The country is not kept up by its police force, its army, or navy. A country like this, more than most countries, is going to be kept up by the love of South Africans for their country and by their reverence and respect for the Government. How can a child brought up in the slums created by those people represented by the party on the other side, as for instance, in District 6, with blank walls and no playgrounds —how can such children have a love for a country like South Africa? I want to see conditions created which will enable the children to be brought up with an abiding love and joy in their country. I think the hon. member for Jeppes said that perhaps employees in some cases, through wages boards, had got more than was their due. I do not agree with that. Neither the employees in this nor any other country ever got more than their due, otherwise the employers would have nothing. The annual wages which were paid in the factories of the Union amount to (in 1920-’21)—the average European wage was £280. The value which was added to the raw material by the application of the labour of the £280 man amounted to £641.

And the power?

Including all that. I agree with the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) that there should be inserted in this Bill in Select Committee a definite clear-cut clause, which will provide against differentiation, on account of race or colour. If he is fit a man must get the full civilized rate of pay. In my opinion a great deal of the trouble in this country, a great deal of the low wages and inefficiency is due to the inefficiency or low efficiency of the business men of this country. The fact is that they do not know how to run their business.

Do you?

I do know how to run my business. I am fortified in my statement by the report of His Majesty’s Trades Commissioner for South Africa for 1923, in which there is a strong indictment of the commercial men of this country—proof positive that they do not know how to run their business; with the result that they attempt to pass on the result of their inefficiency to their employees. I am glad of the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He has now definitely, on behalf of his party, thrown down a challenge to this side of the House. He has told us that this Bill introduces a fundamental change in the structure of this country, that we are at the cross roads, at the parting of the ways. I am sure that is a challenge which the Government and the working people are prepared to take up on this Bill. On the floor of the House, on the platform, at the polls at Klerksdorp and elsewhere, we are prepared to fight this particular challenge. That party, through the mouthpiece of its leader, has sided definitely with the employers in the battle between the exploiters and the exploited, and we take up the challenge on behalf of the exploited.

Good old soap-box.

Many a true word has been said on the soap box. This Bill differentiates between the man who touches the bell, and the man who answers the bell; between the man who gives the sack and the man who gets the sack, and we are on the side of the man who answers the bell and who gets the sack. This is the workers’ charter. This is the case of the people versus the profits, and the South African party have come out unashamedly on the side of the profits. Let me close with another quotation from the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Speaking in the Transvaal Parliament on June 21st, 1907, on the Chinese Ordinance, he said—

The right hon. gentleman spoke truly in those days, the words were true then, and they are true now, but the attitude of the right hon. member and his supporters is not true to the best interests of the working people of this country.

There are some remarks which were made by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) which I am sure we all heartily agree with. We should all like to see the European labourer in a happy and contented position, and enjoying the amenities of life. This is only natural for, after all, he is our fellow-European. He also enunciated a doctrine, seldom enunciated by labour members, viz., that wages should be earned. I heartily agree with him. Too often, alas, the ideals of the Labour leaders are those which I recently read in a review of a book—

We also agree with the hon. member for Germiston in regard to the elimination of child labour from certain occupations, and reasonable hours of work for labourers, but he loses sight of the fact that we have not in this country a homogeneous working class. We are singularly situated, because in addition to the European labourer we have the native labourer, and this alters the aspect considerably. There is no doubt that the Minister’s incentive in introducing this Bill was to secure only the welfare of the white labourer, because if this Bill becomes law the native will be eliminated from industry. If a minimum wage is fixed for a white labourer it is one which the native labourer will not be paid, and it necessarily follows that industries will employ white labour only. Is this fair to the native? Is this just to the native? The native has by the European been emancipated from slavery. We have raised him to the status of a free man, and we have told him he must improve himself. I remember, when the Nationalists were sitting on this side of the House, how amongst others the present Minister of Railways said the European must take care of the native and protect him. This paternal solicitude is shown in this legislation which now seeks to drive the native out of industry. There has also been a remarkable change in the attitude of labour to the native. The time is not far distant when labour rather flirted with his black brother. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is the editor of a paper which bears the somewhat arrogant name of “The Guardian.” The idea was to coalesce with the native and to present one united labour front. The Minister then said the natives must be incorporated in the trade unions; every “piccanin” must be made to join up. But the hon. member is a Cabinet Minister now, and a bit of a capitalist. The native has now also been jettisoned by labour which has joined hands with the ultra conservative Nationalist party. The sop to the Nationalist party is that the native, after being driven out of industry, will seek refuge in agriculture, and provide the farmers with a cheap supply of labour. The entrenchment of the white man by fictitious means such as this Bill and other measures now before the House at present are wholly ineffective, and are the result of a policy of despair, helplessness, and hopelessness. History contains examples of such futile efforts, showing that measures of this sort re-act only on those they are intended to protect. One is reminded of the saying of that astute statesman, the Prince de Tallyrand—

The Minister of Labour is embarking on legislation the ultimate effects of which he cannot see, and which I feel is bound to lead to disaster and shipwreck. The creation of a white aristocracy of labour, which all these measures aim at, is an idle dream. The white man can only hold his position by his superiority in the domain of intellect, and in the field of labour, by his inherent superiority. You can never do it by measures of this sort, and it is an injustice to the European to legislate in this manner, because he will find that you cannot suppress the native, and it is better to guide his energies in the proper channel. Now, however, he is dispossessed of his land and his scope of usefulness is to be circumscribed, so where is he to turn to in his despair? I think the Bill is a pernicious one, and will lead to economic disasters, and there is no doubt that the primary producers— the farmers—are bound to be hit by it as well. I would implore members on the other side of the House who are interested in agriculture, and who are resting in the hope that this measure will not affect them, to pause and think deeply. You cannot introduce legislation of this character, affecting one section of the population only, without indirectly and eventually directly affecting other interests as well.

A prominent Parliamentarian once stated that it was the function of an Opposition in Parliament to oppose. Our friends in opposition here—like the pianist of the Western States—are doing their best. A well-known statesman of Great Britain said, on one occasion, that he never allowed himself to get angry with his political opponents, but he always liked to see them in a position in which he could be sorry for them. Before I became a member of this House I had the impression—-perhaps I got it from the press—that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was a great statesman.

A world statesman.

Yes. But after listening to the right hon. gentleman’s speech on Monday evening, I am forced to the conclusion that, instead of being a great statesman, he is nothing more or less than a disgruntled politician, who refuses to support any measure unless it originates either in his own brain or in the brain of one or other of his political followers. I have preserved an extract from a speech he made n Zululand, when he discovered a few natural harbours that did not exist previous to his going there. The right hon. gentleman evidently gave utterance to one of those lofty speeches referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). He said—

When the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen Smuts) makes statements such as these in far-away Zululand, and makes speeches such as he did in this House on Monday evening, I can only come to the conclusion that the right hon. gentleman takes care to ensure that his Zululand tongue does not know what his Cape Town tongue sayeth. If the Bill before the House is to be made a party measure, and the members representing Natal in the South African party are compelled to obey the party whip in voting against this measure, they will have great difficulty in explaining to the people in Natal why they did so. Up to the present the hon. members for Natal on the South African party benches have had nothing to say on this particular Bill. Were the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in his place, I would ask him in view of the propaganda he has conducted in Natal with regard to the unfair competition which the European merchant has to contend with from the Asiatic, to tell us what justification he would have in voting against a measure which is expected to go a long way towards compelling the Asiatic trader to pay a similar wage to his assistants as is paid by his European competitor. The hon. member for Illovo has frequently moved motions in this House on the desirability of protecting the European trader in Natal against the Asiatics The passing of a measure to establish a minimum wage will surely assist the European trader to better compete with those who refuse to pay shop assistants anything in the nature of a proper wage. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) said in this House last session that the intelligence of the Indian was equal to the European; that they were learning trades and professions, and were ousting the European. The Asiatics, he stated, have a stranglehold on Natal. What more, then, could any member representing Natal desire than the provisions contained in this Bill? I am glad to see the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) nodding his head in approval.

Your remarks were putting me to sleep, that is why I nodded my head.

I shall be curious, when the division takes place on this Bill, to see which side of the House the members for Natal occupy. The member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), speaking on the Glass Areas Bill introduced by the South African party in 1923, said that it was a cruel thing to ask a European to compete with an Asiatic in the economic field. What he meant was, I take it, not that the European could not hold his own with the Asiatic on equal terms, but that it was a cruel thing to ask the European to compete with the low-paid Asiatic and also maintain a civilized standard. Here we have a measure that will assist in some degree towards solving that problem. Certain hon. members will no doubt assert that the amount of salary drawn by any particular individual should not be made generally known. I know of a large business establishment in Natal where three or four men have worked together for 15 years, and not one of them was aware how much the other was drawing in salary. A well-known business house in Cape Town enclosed a circular in their pay-envelopes to the following effect—

One employee who received the circular for the first time said, in his reply, that he would not tell a soul; he was as much ashamed of it as they were. There are many good employers in this country, and they have nothing whatever to fear from a Bill of this character. But there are many bad employers who ought to be ashamed of the salaries paid to their employees. I had the privilege of being one of the members of the Select Committee in 1921 to which the Regulation of Wages Bill referred. I was struck with the desire shown on the part of the representatives of organized labour for legislation along the lines of the 1921 Wages Bill. Certain employers who gave evidence before that Select Committee also impressed on the members of the Committee the desirability of having an Act of this kind on the statute book. One of the witnesses who appeared before that committee was a Mr. Vincent, the general secretary of the Commercial Employees’ Association of Cape Town. I think it would be of interest to the House to just run over Mr. Vincent’s statement to show the miserable wages which were at that time and, I understand, are now paid to unorganized employees in Cape Town and suburbs. He gave examples showing the average scale of wages of shop assistants, clerks and typists in Cape Town and district. As regards shop assistants the average monthly wage, according to the statement, was: Males: apprentices, £2 to £2 10s., after four years £6 to £8; second salesmen, £10 to £12; first salesmen, £14 to £20. I would like to ask the hon. member, say, for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) how he would like to scrape out on £14 to £20 a month. It cost more than that to run his motor car. This schedule of wages paid to shop assistants in Cape Town goes on to show that female apprentices are paid £2 to £2 10s. per month, after four years, £4 to £7; second saleswomen £7 to £9; first saleswomen £9 to £12. It also adds: “They have got to be very good to get this figure.” It also gives examples of low wages. The case is quoted of a lad of seventeen-years of age, keeping assistants’ commission book, transfer book, etc., receiving a salary of £3 10s. per month.

Cape Town is past praying for.

Then the statement mentions the case of the manager of a forage store, in full charge, married, with seven children, getting £12 a month and £2 bonus; a cashier in an Adderley Street business, after seventeen years’ service, handles thousands of pounds weekly salary £18 a month. Organized labour, I may remark, needs no such Bill as this. By organization the workers can always demand a fairly reasonable wage. This Bill I understand is directed towards assisting those who up to the present, for various reasons that need not be gone into here, have not been able to organize. The measure is not to interfere in any way with agreements arrived at under the Industrial Conciliation Act. Only one industry however has been able, so far, to take full advantage of the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. That is the printing industry. There is a possibility of the building industry also doing so. Some exception has been taken to the clause in which an employer is made to prove that he did not discharge an employee for giving evidence either to an inspector or to a board. Now that is, I consider, a very necessary clause. The secretary of the Commercial Employees’ Association mentions the case of a young lady who was only getting £5 a month. She gave evidence before the wages board and the employer gave her one month’s notice on the spot. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) took exception on Monday night to the wide powers which are to be given to the Minister of Labour under this Bill, but he must surely have overlooked the fact that in the Bill of 1921, which was introduced while he was Prime Minister, very wide powers were also given to the then Minister of Mines and Industries, as evidenced by clause 4. The Minister of Mines had as much power as regards appointing the members of the board under the 1921 Bill as the Minister of Labour has under the Wage Bill of 1925. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) said we had no real labouring class in this country; that the native is our labourer. However true that may have been 30 or 40 years ago, that is not the case to-day. The artisan used to come out to this country 25 years ago with the intention of working for four or five years, accumulating as much money as he possibly could under the more fortunate circumstances which he found here as compared with the country from which he came, and with the object of going back again to the land of his birth, but that is all changed. To-day the artizans who came out then with that intention are still here, their sons and daughters are growing up around them and the land of their adoption is now the land in which they intend to live, and in which their families intend to remain; consequently, however true it may have been that we had a white aristocracy of labour thirty or forty years ago, to-day the position is entirely altered. We have thousands of white men who can only do labouring work in South Africa, and there are thousands more gradually coming to manhood and womanhood who are entitled to a reasonable wage from the industry with which they intend to associate themselves. I wish to give this Bill my blessing without reiterating any of the points which have already been made. I have taken some considerable interest in the industrial side of the labour movement in South Africa, and I feel that legislation of this nature will go a long way to assist the organizations of both employers and employees and will do much to ensure industrial peace in South Africa. If anything further were needed to prove to the workers of the Union the wisdom of the political Labour party in arriving at an agreement to form a political pact with the National party, then we have it in this Bill.

I would like to say straight away that I entirely agree with the principle of this Bill. I think it is necessary in the interests of the country that we should have a minimum wage, particularly where there is sweating. I do not think there is any member in this House who does not support the principle of a minimum wage in those industries where sweating is taking place, because we know there has been a tendency on the part of some industries to take advantage of the cheap native and coloured labour and to use them to the detriment of Europeans as a means of reducing the living wage. There is no doubt that this country can never be a white country in the sense of Australia and New Zealand. They took measures at the very outset to rid themselves of coloured or Asiatic labour, but unfortunately in this country we did not realize the menace that this imported labour would become eventually to portions of the country. Those of us who come from Natal realize how the Asiatic is gradually undermining, and very seriously undermining the European civilization in that part of the Union. One of the reasons I have come into politics is the Asiatic menace, because I have long realized that unless we can devise some means of overcoming this unfair Asiatic competition which we have in Natal, we, as a white civilization in Natal, are going to go under, because it is impossible economically for the European in that part of the Union to compete on a fair basis against the inroads of the Asiatic in every trade and business there. For the reasons I have stated I am in favour of a minimum wage Bill, but not a Bill such as this which has been presented to the country. Here we are asked to assent to a Bill which is one-sided. There is in this Bill not a shred of protection of any kind to the employer. I ask hon. members to tell this House where in this Bill there is a shred of any protection for the employer. I do not know why the hon. Minister has departed from the well-established form of legislation which has been introduced in other countries to deal with the minimum wages in industry of those countries. Take Australia and New Zealand, and the United States and England; there you have, in every case where minimum wage legislation has been introduced, the same representation for employers and employed on the boards established to determine such wages. In Australia the law provides for the establishment of equal representation and an independent chairman, and where a determination is not acceptable to either employer or employees there is a right of appeal by the dissatisfied party to an independent arbitration court presided over by a judge, who is unfettered by political considerations or influences, with two assessors, and this court decides whether the determination of the wage board is a fair one or not. Surely that is fair provision?

Would you support that?

I would support it. I would support any Bill which gives equal representation to employer and employee, and where that decision is questioned by either employer or employee, that such decision may be appealed to a judge sitting with two assessors, because the judge would not be influenced in any way politically and would give a fair decision according to the facts before him. The reason I object to the Bill in its present form is that it is one-sided, and it may lend itself to political influences. Say, for instance, as might happen, there is a change of Government, and a new Minister of Labour comes into power who is not very sympathetic towards Labour? What would be the position of Labour if he was administering this Bill? It would not be a very happy position. The powers sought here might easily become a dangerous double-edged sword. I submit that this Bill is one-sided and not in the interests of all the parties concerned. I do not think there is any country in the world where legislation embodying such one-sided and autocratic powers has been sought which gives to only one party the absolute right to decide whether a wage is right or not.

Australia.

In Australia there is equal representation of employers and employees, and where they are not satisfied there is an arbitration court. In Australia, when the Labour party was in power, the Labour party accepted this principle, and between 1894 and 1900 Labour was satisfied and capital harassed and dissatisfied.

What are you quoting from?

“Conciliation and Arbitration in Australia,” by Rankin. Between 1906 and 1912, Labour was in revolt, and capital endeavoured to uphold the Act. During the first period of the arbitration court it was mainly occupied in raising wages, and Labour had little criticism to offer. Then in the next period of six years they found that wages could not be increased any more, and Labour started to be dissatisfied, and revolted. Eventually they said, “Unless we can get a share of the profits we will continue striking.” I do submit that this Bill, as it is framed, is not one which I can accept. I may say openly that I am anxious that there should be a minimum wage Bill, so that in Natal we can overcome the peaceful penetration of the Asiatic, who has a throttle-hold on most of the industries, such as the upholstering and tailoring trades.

This Bill will deal with them.

The Asiatics go further, as the hon. Minister knows, and they evade the Shop Hours Act.

This Bill will deal with those.

I contend that the whole Bill will have to be altered to give fair and just representation to both parties. This Bill does not offer a shred of protection to any employer. I submit that this country is only on the verge of its industrial expansion, and we should devise legislation which will be elastic, so that we shall be able to satisfy both capital and labour, because, when you come to consider it, capital and labour are so closely associated that you cannot disregard either of them, and they have to be treated on an equal basis as regards legislation affecting them both.

Yes, labour creates capital.

I feel that this Bill, as it has been designed, is a declaration of war on capital, because where employer and employee agree upon a wage which they consider a fair wage, the Minister may veto it. In the different parts of the country you cannot apply the same wage, because there are different economic conditions. A wage which can be economically paid in Cape Town may be one which cannot be economically paid in Durban. Why should not a man in Durban he allowed to come to a fair and just arrangement with his employees? But under this Bill, if he does that, such an agreement is illegal, unless the wage fixed is not below the amount which the Minister has determined; because the Minister finally determines the wages. The board reports to him, and if their report is adverse to labour, in his opinion, he need not accept it, but if it is favourable to labour, he will accept it. He is not bound by any determination which the Wages Board may decide upon, and if an arbitrator is called for by any dissatisfied party who objects to such determination, this can only be done if the Minister decides that such objection is of a serious nature. You are not going to have industrial peace by passing legislation of this kind, in which the employer is not in any way considered, and where there is no penalty embodied in it, as there is in Australia, against employees who refuse to carry out the determination as to the minimum wage. In this country, if this legislation is passed, the employee will be placed in the position of “heads I win and tails you lose.” He can never lose. Whichever way it operates, he is bound to be on the right side. If the Minister decides what is to be the minimum wage, and the employees will not accept it, what will happen? Nothing. There is no machinery to punish or compel them, but the position is otherwise with the employer. He is compelled under pain of heavy penalties. In Australia, however, there is machinery to punish them and that in a country where the Labour is in power. The Labour party are controlling the Government, otherwise the Pact would never have introduced this legislation which goes further than any Labour Government has gone in any other part of the world. I do say that what to-day appears to the farmer to be a snug and safe position will, in the near future, seriously re-act upon him under the practical results of this Bill. I will give you an example. Take the wool industry. I see the hon. Minister of Agriculture does not agree with me. The majority of brokers in the wool industry employ a large number of natives as unskilled workers. If you apply this Bill and fix a minimum wage on a civilized rate of 10s. 6d. or 7s. 6d. a day to be paid by all these wool brokers who employ in some cases up to 15C natives, who is going to pay for it? The farmer; and indirectly the farmer is going to bear the detrimental economic effects of this Bill. There are many farmers to-day who have a small machine working to chop and bag their wattle bark. What is going to happen to them? If the minimum wage comes into operation against them—because it is not a farm operation, but a factory operation. The farmer is going to have to pay the minimum wage. What is going to be the wattle farmers’ position? All the natives on these farms are going to claim the minimum wage. Every farmer in the country in the near future will have to pay the minimum wage.

Do you believe in the minimum wage?

I do, but only where you have sweated industries. Why don’t you apply this Bill to the farmers? What are you afraid of? Why are you twitting me? The native himself is going to realize his position far sooner than members realize and he is going to claim from the farmer the minimum wage. What will our farmer friends on the opposite side then do? This Bill as it is at present is going to be a hard knock to the farmer, and is a very real and grave menace to the farming industry in South Africa. I regret that the Minister has seen fit to introduce this legislation in the form that he has. With all my heart I would have supported a Bill which he introduced that was fair and not one-sided. I realize that every man should be paid a wage which would enable him to live a civilized life and bring up his children in a civilized way. I regret that the Minister has brought in a Bill which cannot in effect do otherwise than cause dissension between employer and employee.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Nel) has done the same step dance as the rest of the Opposition members who spoke this afternoon. They proceeded to tell the House in one breath that they agreed with the principle of the minimum wage, and then immediately turned round and said: “Whatever you do, you must not bring this into application; if you do, you are chasing away the industrial life of this country.” One of the hon. members put up a plea that we should not do anything to stifle the activities of the young industries in this country. Well, I happen to know that one of the young industries in Johannesburg at the present time is employing a large number of white girls and white women who, after six months’ strenuous application to the work gain sufficient experience to be able to earn the magnificent wage of 2s. 11d. a day, the hours being 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., with a short midday break of not more than 30 minutes. Quite a number of these girls pay something like 1s. a day tram fares to and from their homes. Do members opposite who so ably defend employers agree with this and still say this Bill is not required? I also agree that the minimum wage Bill to a certain extent will help us to tackle the Asiatic menace. One need only pay a visit to the lower portions of Johannesburg to find the sweating dens mostly run by Indians, workshops filled with kaffir, coloured and Indian labour, and with no hope of the white workers being able to compete with them. The principle contained in this Bill is not an innovation. Over 30 years ago, in 1894, New Zealand introduced practically the same legislation as the Minister is introducing to day. That example was followed two years later, in 1896, by the State of Victoria. After that most of the Australian States adopted the same methods of industrial arbitration with the fixing of minimum rates of pay. In 1909, long before Bolshevism was known. England introduced practically the same legislation. The Government of that day could not have been called friendly to anything branded as Socialism, neither can it be said that they were afraid of the Socialist, yet we find that the Mother of Parliaments found it necessary to some extent to protect the workers by introducing minimum wage laws. I wish to correct the statement of the last speaker by pointing out to him that in England a permanent Government body is responsible for the application of these laws. The Board of Trade regulates wages, hours and conditions of labour in England, but naturally there are meetings of the joint boards to assist them. Similar legislation with regard to minimum wages has been introduced in many of the States of America, starting with Massachusetts in 1912. But On-position members are trying to scare this side of the House by saying that this kind of legislation will mean the strangling of our industries. Well let us see what has happened in that great hive of industry, America, the country of high wages and very high efficiency. Starting with the State of Massachusetts in 1912 the strangling of industries became so bad that many other States followed the example set. California. Colorado. Minnesota. Nebraska, Oregon. Utah, Wisconsin adopted minimum wage laws in 1913: Arkansas and Kansas in 1915; Arizona in 1917; Columbia in 1918; Dakota, Porto Rico, Texas and Washington in 1919, and yet we are asked to believe that this legislation cripples industries. No one can say that legislation of this sort has meant that industrial workers have got a stranglehold of industry. As a matter of fact America’s experience shows that it is not only right that where you find human beings willing and anxious to work, that work should be provided for them, but we should also see that the wage should be one that will allow the worker and his dependants to live and lead a decent and happy life, that can be assisted by the passing of this Bill.

I did not mean to speak at this juncture, but I cannot help replying to the extraordinary remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), who has said that the landowners of this country are responsible for the tears of widows and children, for the slums of Fordsburg and District Six, and for many other horrors. He said—

Is “we” tire Labour party, because the land owners are equally represented on both sides of the House?

He said “landlords.”

He may have meant landlords, but very distinctly said landowners, and I did not see very delighted looks from the landowners opposite when that remark was made. I am totally opposed to a minimum wage Bill in any shape or form, for once you accept the principle you cannot restrict it to one class. You may start with the industrial class, but, as sure as the sun shines, it will be extended to every section of the community, including the agricultural section. In England you had exactly the same conditions, and agriculture was specifically excluded, but minimum wages have now been extended to agriculture, and agriculture in England is now in a very sorry plight. Not only is it compelled to accept the principle of the minimum wage, but also the 8½-hour day. I wonder how we farmers would relish an 8½-hour day? Apart from that, if you are going to apply the minimum wage to any one industry, that minimum wage, whether local or not, will gradually spread to the agricultural industry. If the natives, or the white people for the matter of that, see that a certain wage is fixed by law in every other walk of life, if they cannot get it by law they will attempt to get it by other means, and you will have acute unrest in the agricultural industry throughout the country. Apart from that, you are going to raise the cost of production to the farmer. There is no doubt that the idea of the Minimum Wage Bill is to raise the wages in this country. By doing that you raise the cost of living, the cost of production, and the farmer has to pay for it; because the value of everything he produces is governed by the prices in the world’s market, whether it be wool, cotton or fruit: whatever agricultural product you raise is going overseas, and the price he is getting is the world’s market price, and he is the man who is going to pay in the end. It is perfectly correct that every little industry we have on our farms is going to be subject to this Bill, and I may tell hon. members that under the Dairy Act alone there are over 280 registered butter and cheese factories. In order to test the sincerity of hon. members on the other side, I intend, when the second reading comes on, to move an amendment specifically excluding the small farming factories from this Bill, and I hope every farming member will support it. But I doubt whether the Minister will accept it, because it is the intention to bring every farm under this Bill if the Labour party has its way. I have had a good deal to do with agricultural organizations, and I can say that a minimum wage is anathema to farmers of this country. During the last election there were two causes which I think contributed largely to the change of Government. One was the swing of the pendulum, and the other was the feeling among the inhabitants of the country that whatever happened agriculture was safe in the hands of the Nationalist party. I do not see how hon. members on that side of the House will be able to go back to farming constituents and defend this Bill. The hon. member for Jeppes called this Bill “the white hope,” but before the end is reached the farmer of this country will call it “The Great Betrayal.” We know the Labour Party is hostile to the farming interest.

Nonsense.

Let the hon. member recollect the response which the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) in regard to farm labour, received in this House. For once the muzzle was off the Labour benches, party considerations were not in the picture, and you had the edifying spectacle of the members of the Labour party at the throat of the agricultural members of the House. Whether friend or foe, they made no distinction of party.

The hon. member must not refer to previous debates.

I am afraid that I cannot withdraw what I said, but I will not go further. We know the feeling the hon. members of the Labour benches have. We know that the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) said he was glad to see that the farmers were going to be in difficulties in regard to labour and when they were faced with these difficulties they would be at one with the Labour party in regard to labour. We know the hon. member for Springs—I think it was Mr. Allen—considers there is an ample supply of white labour in the country for all farming purposes with the exception of cotton picking. I suppose that labour will be included in the minimum wage, because the white man will not work in one industry for a minimum wage and in another without it. The Labour party is essentially a party that does not take a wide view. (Laughter.) The hon. members who are laughing will admit that the Labour party goes straight out for bread and butter politics, politics that affect their own interests and, in attaining their ends, allow no other interests to stand in their way. It is we who represent what the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) calls the land owning class who must copy these tactics if we wish to keep up our end in this matter. It is not only the minimum wage I don’t like, but the trend of labour influence in all our legislation. I can see the trail of the labour serpent in all the Bills before this House. We have labour supreme at present, and if it is going to be predominant, then it will mean that the farming industry will be doomed. Production will doubtless continue, but individual prosperity will be gone. Look at the history of England. At one time agriculture was a flourishing industry.

Who killed it?

I will tell the hon. member who killed it. As labour interests grew, you got the cry for higher wages and cheap food and, although you claimed that advantage for yourself, you denied any form of protection for agriculture in England. Every Government has realized the position and has tried to get a remedy for it for the land which has gone out of cultivation, because it does not pay to work it, and they know that the only remedy is protection for the farmer, but they dare not introduce it, because the whole of the Labour interests are shouting for high wages and cheap food. If the influence of the Labour party is going to be predominant in this country the farmer is going to suffer. You have it in America. Go to any country in the world and you find the farmer is the beast of burden if labour influence is in the ascendant. Go through Germany and every industrial country where labour is predominant, and you will find the farmer is always subservient. Whichever side of the House they sit on, I don’t speak as a party man now, but I speak as an agriculturist, if the farmers are going to vote for legislation, which is going to secure a predominance of the Labour party, then agriculture is going to be he under dog. I say don’t wait until the trap has closed, because that will be too late.

You disagree with your leader.

I stand on this question. With all my fellow farmers in the Union, and I do not look on it as a party question. I say without fear of contradiction that every member of this House who represents a farming constituency, whichever side of the House he sits on, betrays the interests of his constituents if he votes for this Bill, I shall oppose it.

I is not a difficult matter to arrive at the real origin of this Bill if one has been familiar with the politics of the Minister over a period of 20 years. There was a time when his vivid personality commanded more support than it does in these dog-days, when we have heard, to the state of being bored to tears, these worn-out doctrines which he is endeavouring to translate into law in the shape of this Bill. We have only got to refer to the “Hansard” of a short time ago to know to what lengths the Minister of Labour was willing to go in his attitude of vengeance against the mining industry. Those of us who know his early career know that this theory of white labour was proved under his instrumentality to be a most hopeless failure.

That is not true.

We know that his attitude of vengeance towards the mining industry has been an absolutely implacable one ever since. In 1920, when a motion was introduced in this House by the late member for Stellenbosch (the right hon. Mr. Merriman), it was met by a counter-motion by the then leader of the Labour party, the present Minister of Labour, who, in that motion declared that—

His objects in this resolution was to destroy the stability of the mining industry in the Transvaal, if that were possible, by preventing the introduction of any more labour from Portuguese territory by amending the Immigration Act, by destroying the present means of discipline in regard to native labour on the mines as embodied in the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911, and freeing the natives from any kind of discipline in regard to their employers on the Rand. He spoke on that occasion of such discipline being akin to slavery, just as members of his party have recently referred to the proposed amendment of the Master and Servants law of the Transvaal as slavery.

Perhaps the hon. member will come to the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was incidentally referring to the origin of the Bill and I hope I shall be allowed a similar latitude to that which has been allowed to the members on the other side of the House. I think we have had a very wide discussion from the other side of the House, in the course of which even the alleged want of business capacity on the part of the commercial community in this country has been alluded to. I shall not go into that. I am referring to the underlying objects of the Bill, and the objects which were professed to be at the root of the Bill, by the Minister himself, who said that the object was to do away with any advantage which the uncivilized man possessed as against the civilized worker. I wish to draw attention to the motion which indicated the hon. member’s attitude in 1920 and of which the present Bill is an expression, when he declared that he was in favour of an Act providing for equal wages for such classes of work as would enable those doing it, whether coloured or white, to maintain the standards of living of civilized men in a civilized country. It seems to me that the whole policy of the legislation which has been introduced and the policy of the party led by the Minister of Labour is in the direction of forcing natives to become members of trades unions. We have had that policy enunciated by no less a member of the Government than the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. A newspaper of which he was for some time the editor— if he is not still the editor—enunciated the desirability of organizing all natives in a trades union. I am quoting from “The Guardian” a paper to which I referred the other night as not always being read by respectable people, but I withdraw that remark. “The Guardian” said—-

The Minister of Labour is always the soul of courtesy; at least, he said so the other day, when he explained that nothing but a cup of coffee would drag him away from a debate in which any member claimed his attention. I do wish he would give attention to what is being said.

The hon. member must address the chair, and not the Minister.

I am addressing you, Mr. Speaker. I have rigorously refrained from addressing the hon. Minister at all; but it seems impossible to get the attention of the Minister to what one is about to say. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. members must not take this procedure. Ministers and hon. members are not compelled always to listen to what is being said, and hon. members must address the chair.

If an hon. member is addressing this House on an important Bill, is he not right in calling attention to the fact that the Minister is treating his remarks with the greatest discourtesy, and is not listening to the arguments brought forward by him? It is a very important matter of Parliamentary procedure.

Hon. members are not entitled to insist on any Minister or other member listening to them or on their being in the House. This is a practice which appears to be springing up, calling upon hon. members to give attention, and I do not think it is in order.

Is the hon. member not in order in calling attention through you to the fact that the Minister treats a member with such discourtesy when discussing a Bill introduced by himself?

I do not think any discourtesy has been shown to-night. The hon. member may proceed.

I was dealing with the question of the effect of this Bill on the natives in forcing them to become members of trade unions. I think that the Minister, in introducing this Bill, was at fault in not illustrating to us what the effect would be of applying it in the manner indicated in the views that he has proclaimed in this House and in the country over a long course of years. It seems to me that the Minister has done nothing to remove the doubt that the intention is to apply this Bill to the mining industry in this country. To those of us who understand the mining industry, and I can fairly claim to understand it, as being one of those who worked in the mines in the Transvaal as far back as 1889, the effect of the application of the provisions of this Bill to that industry may have an effect totally the reverse of that which the Minister hopes to bring about. The object of the legislation, as avowed by the Minister, is to provide a wider basis of employment for Europeans; but it seems to me that in actual result the Bill may have a contrary effect. For instance, if the Minister desires to apply this Bill to the mining industry in the Transvaal, we may assume, for the sake of argument, that the mines at the present moment are paying a wage equivalent to 2s. to 2s. 3d. per shift.