announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. W. B. de Villiers from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities and has appointed Mr. Bergh in his stead.

I move—

seconded.

Mr. Speaker—

I am sorry to say that no discussion is allowed on this motion.

Gen. Smuts called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—46.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Vermooten, O. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—36.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards. G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Marwick, J. S.; Nathan, Emile.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

When the adjournment was reached last night I was dealing with the effect of the Bill in promoting trade unionism among the natives and in that connection I mentioned a contribution of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, through the columns of the “Guardian,” to the support of that movement among the natives, quoting his advice that the natives should be organized down to the native piccanin. The implications of such a policy are very wide. They travel rather wider than the scope of this Bill, because if every native down to the humblest worker is to be organized it surely means that the whole of our native population will be imbued and infected with this one idea of antagonism to their employers; because we must remember that their minds are not awake in the same way as is the mind of the civilized man to the real meaning of trade unionism. I was dealing then with that aspect of the problem and I would like to indicate to the House that this doctrine preached by the organ of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not one that falls on stony ground in regard to the natives, because it will be found that immediately after this doctrine was proclaimed there was a definite move on the part of a native organization in the direction of endeavouring to make one large union amongst the natives. We have the extraordinary activity of a native agitator who lives almost entirely upon fomenting industrial unrest among the natives, and I would like to quote the statements of this man, made at Bloemfontein on the 15th January last, to show the aims of this particular organization, which is headed, controlled and directed by the man in question. I refer to a native Clements Kadalie. In the course of a violent, provocative speech he threatened that the natives would hold up the railway services and the mining industry if the Government refused to bring in a minimum wage Bill for them. Several thousands of natives attended this meeting and he was received with tremendous enthusiasm. In the course of a violent attack on the English people he said that in the Cape the natives were now all Nationalists and had no time for English ideals and traditions. The talk of English ideals he said was all hypocrisy.

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from a telegram from Bloemfontein to the “Natal Mercury” on the 14th of January. He said further—

The comment from Bloemfontein is that indignation is expressed that paid native agitators from the Cape should be allowed to come here and disturb the minds of the local native population, which numbers over 20,000 in Bloemfontein alone, without any check from the authorities. To show the ramifications of this organization I should like to quote from a letter which was written by Kadalie dealing with the number pi branches he has in several parts of South’ Africa.—

This shows the aims, the extent and the sphere in which this particular organization is working, but the head of the organization has had even more august and direct support than the indirect support he has received from the “Guardian.” I would like to read a letter which was addressed to this native in connection with a subscription to his funds by a very prominent figure in this House and a very prominent figure in South Africa. It is dated from Bloemfontein 21st July, 1924—

Here follows the signature of the Hon. J. B. M. Hertzog, the Prime Minister.

What is the matter with it?

It seems that we are now confronted with the position that black trade unionism, as outlined by Kadalie, has had the moral support and the slight financial assistance of no less an authority than the hon. Prime Minister. It seems to me that the ramifications of this organization extend to the whole of the State services of the country. They threaten under this Bill to cause a dislocation of our State services at any time, and the implications of this movement are such as seriously to threaten and menace the future development of South Africa. The Bill as it stands will be a direct encouragement to coloured trade unionism, because this Bill will constitute for the first time an avenue whereby the native by combination can command an increase of wages, entirely apart from the rights of the situation, or entirely apart from any view which may be held as to the native’s position in the land; because we have here a Bill, the aim of which, as explained by the mover, is to lay down a civilized wage for a civilized man. That is in a line entirely with the past policy and views which the hon. Minister of Labour has constantly expressed in this House. But let us consider what the effect is going to be on one industry alone which has been singled out by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) as the one which should receive attention, when this Bill becomes law, namely, the mining industry. The natives on the mines, numbering roughly 175,000, are in receipt of a wage in the neighbourhood of 2s. per shift. If we increase that wage by another 2s. per shift, it would even then be below the standard of civilized wage declared by the Minister of Railways, namely, 5s. a day, with housing. But let us consider what the effect would be of such an increase. Applying this increase of 2s. to the actual number of shifts worked in January, 1925, namely, 175,384, and multiplying the result by 12, you get an increase of no less than £5,400,000 in the coloured wage bill on the mines of the Rand for a year, which would absorb the major portion of the profits on the mines and would reflect itself in the Treasury receipts from the mines. If you apply this increase to the individual mines on the basis of January, you will find that nineteen mines out of the thirty-four (excluding the Robinson, which will cease work in a few months owing to exhaustion) will have to close down, because they will have reached the stage of unpayability, as the increase of the native wage will be in excess of the profit earned, which will make further working impossible. If you take, for example, a mine like the East Rand Proprietary Mines, their native wage bill for January was £28,594. They had an average of 10,286 natives at work during that month, and an increase of 2s. per shift would increase their wages bill to £35,287. An increase of 2s. per shift will thus increase the native wages from £28,544 to £55,287, thereby converting the profit of £5,012 into a loss of £21,688.

Where did you get those figures from?

These figures are from the output returns issued by the Chamber of Mines and published in the “South African Mining Journal” and the figures regarding wages are vouched for by accountants. In considering this question we must not overlook the fact that of the mines that remain their possibilities of continuing are very much reduced by the altered conditions, because there is no doubt that with this large increase in working costs there will be a considerable curtailment of the life of the payable mines. My plea is that there should be an investigation of the whole subject before we accept the principles laid down in this Bill, because, if we commit ourselves blindly to this Bill we may be doing a more serious injury to the biggest industry of the country than we imagine from the very fragmentary information placed before us by the Minister when introducing this Bill. I would refer to the report of the Economic Commission of 1913, which was well qualified to investigate the questions put before them. This Commission comprised Professor Chapman, one of the most experienced economists of the day, who was assisted by men who had spent their life-time in the investigation of the subjects—Mr. Maurice Evans, Mr. Howard Pim, and Mr. Wiener. That commission found that the mere introduction of a minimum wage would probably have the effect of completely defeating the end that the Minister has in view. We have in par. 78 a statement of the case. After dealing with the arguments that the adoption of a minimum wage would widen the basis of employment for Europeans, the Commission stated that minimum wages were supposed to be imposed on the skilled trades alone, but insistence on the payment of natives at the same rate as semi-skilled whites could not possibly give the latter a monopoly. Where are you going to discover 173,000 white men who are able to carry on work the natives are at present performing. For even if the displacement is a gradual one, it will be impossible to discriminate as between one mine and the other. Although the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) referred to the necessity of an early investigation of each mine, he said a minimum wage should be imposed in the Act. If that is done it is difficult to see how there is going to be differentiation. We have in the Bill a sweeping provision aiming at the introduction of a minimum wage for a wide range of trades. A commission which investigated similar legislation in the United Kingdom in 1922, emphasized the fact that there was a good deal of loose thinking whether the Bill was intended to cure sweating conditions or for settling wage conditions generally. That is a point on which the Minister neglected to make himself clear. If this is an instrument for laying down wage conditions generally, the Bill will mean a revolution of the whole of the conditions in South Africa with a consequent dislocation of every industry in the country. We have had the argument of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that the doleful prophecies of what was to have happened in England as the result of the introduction of a minimum wage in that country proved to be without foundation, but he neglected to observe that the conditions here and in England are dissimilar, and that we are dependent on foreign capital for the development of our resources. By allowing the Minister to introduce a Bill which will affect the basis on which capital has been subscribed, the Prime Minister is allowing him to take a very wide liberty with the economic conditions of South Africa. The Prime Minister was congratulated when he decided not to entrust the Portfolio of Mines to the present Minister of Labour. It was felt that although the Minister of Labour had been a mining engineer for thirty years, he had completely disqualified himself for the office of Minister of Mines owing to his opinions and to being a crank on the subject of labour. I would commend to the notice of the Minister of Industries the danger he is exposing the country to by allowing the Minister of Labour to interfere with the goose which lays the golden eggs, and by allowing him to introduce a Bill which will cause a complete cataclysm in the financial conditions of South Africa. I now want to deal with the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). He told us that the business people of South Africa very badly managed their own business. I believe that since the hon. member has taken to business he has been the rag-time editor of a ragtime journal, and in that capacity his output has exceeded that of any known editor in the civilized world, at any rate in one direction for he has produced more apologies to the square inch than any other man who has ever wielded a pen. In fact, he is an expert in that particular line. His declarations on that subject reminded me of a saying of the late Brigham Young, who declared “I know more than any one else in the world.” I do not think the hon. member is an expert on polygamy as Brigham Young was, but he is certainly an expert in the production of apologies, and knows more about them than anyone else in the world. I wish to emphasize that Clements Kadalie, who has been entrusted with the confidence of the Prime Minister, is not a native of the Union, but is from British Nyasaland. As far as the natives here are concerned he is a foreign adventurer. He is a member of the Askari tribe, and his home town is Tanga.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

The more one studies this Bill the more one sees the vast importance of its effects. In my opinion it is going to affect, seriously and materially, every manufacturing industry in the Union. I employ some 600 or 700 men in the manufacturing industry. It is grossly unfair and unwise to try and rush this Rill through. It has been only two days under discussion. How hon. members on the Labour benches, who raised Cain when the late Government tried to get things along, and above all how the Minister of Labour can support such tactics on the part of the Government, I cannot understand. The Minister is developing that martinet spirit which he is well known to possess and that spirit of autocracy which he has been compelled to keep under control. This is a gross injustice.

That is not the point under discussion.

All right. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick.) was reading a letter from the Prime Minister addressed to Clement Kadalie, and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) wanted to know what objection we had to it. We have no objection to it, except that it is exactly contrary to the principles embodied in this Bill. This Bill is absolutely and entirely against the interests of the people Kadalie represents. In this minimum Wage Bill we have a proposal which emanates from countries that have purely white populations, with one standard of civilization, and one minimum standard of living, such as Australia, Great Britain and the like. Here we propose to apply this Bill to a country in a very peculiar situation, a situation unequalled anywhere in the world. We have two standards of living.

We have about thirty.

We have two big outstanding ones. I do not want to go into minor details like that. How can you apply a Bill like this to South Africa? It is extremely difficult to say what is going to be the results of this Bill. I have been thinking and I do not exactly know how it is going to work out. My hon. friend proposes to fix minimum wages for all occupations except agriculture. What is he going to do with the farmer who is building a shed or a pair of cottages or a house for himself. Is he going to have the minimum wage there?

He is going to do the same as you people did.

I want a direct answer from the Prime Minister. Is he going to apply the minimum wage to the bricklayers working on the farm, or what is going to be the position? Bricklayers and carpenters would be employed on the job. Are they to be exempt? If they work in the village a few miles away they are within the law. If they work on the farm are they outside the law? There is no definition of what a minimum wage is in the whole of the Bill. What is it going to be. Is it going to be on the European standard or on the native standard. Is it going to be based on the cost of living or on efficiency? I will give an example. Among other things I do run a tannery, in which I employ 68 natives, largely used for changing the hides from pit to pit, which is extremely dirty work, twelve coloured men, principally on the machines, and five white men who are foremen and superintendents. I ask what is going to be the minimum wage there? Is it going to be on the white man’s or on the native standard? If it is on the white man’s standard then within one month I close the tannery. I have tried to see what I have to do in that case. I cannot find out. We want to know what the minimum wage is going to be based upon.

You don’t face the facts.

Of course we face the facts. We cannot work the tannery with white labour.

Will the Board close it down?

I shall close it down myself. Surely I cannot be compelled to keep it going if I am losing money on it. I would like the hon. the Prime Minister to think over these points. We have tried more than once to get white men to do the work but they won’t do if because it is extremely dirty.

Perhaps it is the wages.

They get the usual wages. Take the larger industries where whites are employed as superintendents and a great number of coloured people are worked. Is it going to be the white standard or the native standard in those cases? If you go into this Bill you are at once up against the question of the standard, either the European cost of living and standard of life, or the native standard. It is certainly not laid down here. Is my hon. friend going to ax two standards like he did in the building trade, one at 2s. 9d. and one at 7½d.? Is that going to be his policy?

We don’t want the colour distinction.

It is what I suspected. You want to clear out the coloured men and confine these trades to white men.

We want to pay the white wage.

How can you do that, you can’t do it. The natives themselves don’t expect it. If you follow that policy, suppose you fix the white civilization as your standard. It means indirectly introducing the colour bar into the trades of South Africa. Is it going to pay £4 per week for certain work to the natives when £4 is all the white man gets. Because if it is, you must introduce a colour bar or close the place down. Under these circumstances you do the greatest injustice to the coloured people and the natives of this country because you exclude them from certain employment. You cannot have it both ways. I believe this Bill is for the purpose of excluding the coloured men and natives from certain trades. Then, of course, you take the white man’s standard. Of course, if you don’t do that, and fix the minimum wage on the basis of the native wage, then you defeat the whole object of the Bill and it will be no good from your point of view. Another point is that you do not know how far this Bill is going to reach when it comes into operation. You get the officials on the job and you may depend upon it that they will always read into the law its most extreme form. The officials will tell you: “It is there in black and white; it is our business to carry it out.” Suppose a man employs a handy man to do a bit of carpentering work, some odd repairs, he must pay that man the minimum wage. Suppose an hon. member has a town house which he uses on Sundays, and he sends a man from his farm to do certain repairs there, as I take it, he will have to pay that man the full minimum wage, not the wage he gets on the farm. Take the case of myself. Suppose I want a few repairs done, say a bit of painting on my property; being in the neighbourhood of the town, I should have to pay the full minimum wage. I may be employing a handy man who cannot get a job from any other man because he is not sufficiently expert in his trade, but he is good enough for a job of this kind. That will not make any difference to the officials—they will insist upon my paying the full minimum wage. Suppose you have a chauffeur whom you employ on a small job of painting or carpentering, there is no doubt that under this law he will have to be paid the minimum wage. Surely one or two results are going to follow from this Bill. It is going to increase the cost of living, and in my opinion, it is going to increase unemployment in South Africa. There are two things that my hon. friend the Minister cannot do at the present time. The first is that he cannot compel anybody to give employment, and pay a man a certain wage, if he does not want to employ him. If I do not want to employ a certain man there is no law yet, at any rate, which is going to compel me to do so. Then you cannot compel the public or any member of the public to buy any article which they think is too dear. We have not got quite so far as that yet. Even hon. members opposite, I think, would kick at that. With these minimum wages there is no doubt that you are going to increase the cost of production. It is the very object of this Bill to increase wages in certain directions, and, naturally, in that case, it is going to increase the cost of production. If you increase the cost of any goods you decrease in some degree —I do not say altogether—the demand for those goods, so that there will be fewer men employed. Furthermore, if a man has got to pay a certain wage for any job that he wants doing, naturally he is not going to pay that wage to an inefficient man. If any employer of labour must pay a certain wage he is going to pay, as far as he can, that wage to the man who earns it. If a man is not up to standard and he cannot earn 10s. a day, but can only earn 8s. 6d. or 9s., then, under the minimum wage system, it will be a case of 10s. or nothing, as far as he is concerned. Take the instance of the building trade. I have inquired again about that trade. There seems to be two minimum wages—painting, bricklaying and the like 2s. 9d. per hour, unskilled labour 7½d. I made a statement some three weeks ago in this House that that regulation had led to considerable unemployment. I made inquiries again last night and found that that was still the case. I am told there are scores of men out of work in this trade as a result of that regulation, and that there is not as much building and repair work being done at present as would be done had that regulation not come into force. I know my hon. friend will get the opposite from Stuart; I admit that, but I do not go to Stuart for my information. There are scores and hundreds of these tradesmen who are not trade unionists, and who are out of employment. We shall have exactly the same effect in other trades, when this minimum wage begins to be applied, as you have to-day in the building trade. In the printing trade, as a result of the efforts of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), there has been a very close combination. The masters have agreed to keep up prices and the men have agreed to keep up wages, and the public have got to pay. It was calculated at one time that it cost Cape Town £30,000 a year as a result of this combination. What do we find? In the “Cape Times” of March 24th appears an article headed: “Printing Industry Suffering. Result of Overseas Competition.” The article says: “The figures show a tremendous increase in unemployment over the past four years.” That is just the time this combination has been in operation. I maintain that if the printing trade had let things take their course and let wages take their course, with the decreased cost of printing you would have had far more printing done to-day and you would have had far more employment in these trades to-day.

That is your leader’s plan.

I am using this as an example. It is a sound plan. If my hon. friend the Minister issues his ukases you will have a similar state of things to this from all parts of South Africa in various trades. He cannot yet make a man pay wages that he cannot afford to pay, and he cannot yet force people to buy stuff which is too dear. These things will defeat him in his efforts in that direction. There are one or two points in connection with the Bill that I want to mention. The Minister takes good care that the employer shall be punished and brought to account if he does not follow out and pay the wages which are laid down. If the men say that these wages are not good enough and that they are going to strike, he does not do anything with them. Where is the sense of fairness, I would ask? You punish one side because it does not obey, while you allow the other side not to obey or do as it likes. Another point I wish to emphasize is that this Bill will mean a big increase of bureaucracy in this country. We have got too much bureaucracy in this country already. We pass laws and hand them over to officials to carry out and we become pretty well the slaves of these people. There is no doubt that this Bill is going to give rise to a large increase of officials in this country, who are, in my opinion, to a large extent, an abomination. The less officials we have in South Africa the better for South Africa. Then I cannot conceive for one moment why the Minister should have only one board to do the whole of the work of the Union. It seems to me absurd. The cost of living varies in different areas, and if you have your board sitting in that seventh heaven in Pretoria and laying down the law, they must be influenced by the fact that they live in Pretoria, where the cost of living is very high. You ought to have local boards in the different areas who know the circumstances in each area, and who are representative of employers and employees. I think this provision as regards having one board only is one of the worst features of this Bill.

Have you read clause 3 (2)?

I have read all the clauses more than once. You have laid down two assessors, but the three Government nominees remain there on the board. Furthermore, it puts all the power in the hands of the Minister. This shows my old friend coming out in his true light. They simply advise the Minister, and as far as I understand it, he can do just as he likes. That is the position. He can appoint an arbitrator, but everything seems to come back to the Minister, as far as I can make out. To my mind it is extremely unsatisfactory. The more I go into the matter and discuss it with employers of labour, the more I am convinced that it is going to seriously interfere with manufacturers in this country. People do not know where they are. I had a discussion with three men this morning, foremen in my own place. They do not know how it is going to apply; nor do I myself. We go in for boot making, harness making, basket making. How is it going to apply to all these cases? The basket making is almost entirely in the hands of coloured people—Malays. Is the Minister going to make a minimum wage for them? It is going to interfere with the living of thousands of people in this country. Above all, the circumstances in South Africa are peculiar. They are not the same as in Australia, New Zealand or Great Britain. We employ two entirely different classes of labour. How is the Minister going to get over that? If he follows the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) he will simply have one minimum wage, and that will be the European standard.

If it is left as it is now you will have one.

What is going to become of the natives and coloured people in the various industries in South Africa? What is going to become of the industries founded and built up on native labour? They will close down. I defy anybody present to say what the results will be. There is a distinct division on that side of the House as to what is going to happen. On the left wing they want to be on the European standard; but does the hon. member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) want to be on the European standard? I doubt it when he comes to study the matter. You cannot apply a minimum wage to both these classes of labour, with justice. I would like to have gone further than the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I think that such are the implications and difficulties that will accrue from the Bill that the Minister would have been better advised to have appointed a commission and put the Bill before them, saying, here is a Bill we intend to introduce; will you make enquiries and say where the difficulties are, and modify it and bring it into accord with the circumstances as they are in South Africa. That, to my mind, would have been more satisfactory than to plunge into the matter. The Minister has never been in business and does not know the conditions in South Africa.

Do you seriously advise the Minister to ask for a commission to define a policy for him?

The Minister is simply rushing into a piece of work of which he does not know what the results will be. It is going to affect thousands of people in their living, as far as the manufacturers, in their methods of working, are concerned. Certainly the least I can, do is to support the motion of my right hon. friend that the subject-matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading is taken.

I must say that I was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I think that he did his duty as one of the Leaders of the Opposition very well, just as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did, namely, by criticizing. As members of the Opposition, I have no fault whatsoever to find with them. They have well fulfilled their duty as members of the Opposition, but they should never forget that if it is their duty to criticize, to look for weak spots, as the woodpecker looks for the rotten places in trees to take out worms, that we as Government must do what the Opposition need not do, namely, submit fixed measures to the House which we recommend for acceptance, whether they are the best in the world or not, but which we regard as as good as possible under the circumstances. Another point that hon. friends opposite must take into consideration, that in a matter of such great importance we must not in the least lose sight of the fact that the second reading is nothing else than taking a decision approving of the general principle which is elaborated in the Bill, and that as soon as that is passed, then the task of the Opposition begins to see whether the provisions are against the interests of the country, and to strengthen their arguments, but now they may not propose an amendment, as the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has done, to discharge the order for the second reading and to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, at least unless they are against the general principle of the Bill. This is the first fault that I find with the hon. member for Standerton. The pith of the whole Bill is—all members of the Opposition will acknowledge—whether or not to bring into operation legislation fixing minimum wages. That is the whole matter. All the other points are irrelevant. I just want shortly to deal with the speech of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. After his colleague. Mr. Malan, had introduced the Wages Bill in 1922, he said. “Legislation to this effect is already overdue.” But let us hear what the hon. member for Standerton says now—I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will listen well. His Leader said in his speech the other day, “I am not, nor are we on this side of the House, opposed to the principle of minimum wages.” But my hon. friend there has spoken against minimum wages from A to Z. If the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) means anything, then it is against a minimum wage. But may I ask my hon. friend the member for Standerton if he is in favour of the principle, how he can dare to move that the order for the second reading should be discharged, which means a condemnation of the principle for which, according to his statement, he stands. My hon. friend will admit that the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton will mean nothing else than a disapproval of the principle. But if we further hear: “The minimum Wage Bill? Well, we will stand by it.” Then one cannot understand members on the other side. Let me say this, that we have the fullest opportunity in Select Committee or in committee of the whole House to recreate that old Bill, if hon. members opposite can convince the House that that is the best form for this Bill. By the acceptance of the principle we are by no means prevented from doing that. Let us just notice what the principle of this Bill is. The long title reads—

This is precisely the same as was intended by the Bill of 1922; thus the hon. member need not be frightened. He says that he is still in favour of the principle of minimum wages. Well, if he can convince the House he will be able later to introduce anything out of the old Bill into the new, but he says, while he refers to the Bill of 1922, “if a Bill were introduced on those lines into this House, hon. members on the Government benches would find, as far as I know, tremendous support from this side of the House.” Here we have a basis upon which, if we are serious, we can immediately meet together and see what can be done about the subject which had been so long “overdue.” The hon. member for Standerton went further and gave his reason why he was inclined to propose his amendment to discharge the order for the second reading. The same person who just now said, “I am for minimum wages, we are all for it, and if this Bill had been introduced on the same lines as that of 1922 then we would again support it,” the same person, the late Prime Minister, now turns and says, “I cannot vote for the second reading of this Bill, because your machinery is defective.” Now hon. members on the opposite side must acknowledge that the machinery is merely the means of reaching the chief contents of a Bill, and that it has always been open to this House if there is something unsuitable to consider something else, and I have always found that if the Government is convinced that better machinery can be introduced, that they have always been prepared, and will in the future be prepared, to make such an alteration. If hon. members opposite can suggest better machinery, a more acceptable machinery, very well; but they must not, because we differ on the machinery, reprobate the principle. Let them, then, frankly admit and say that they are against the principle. From what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said, the only inference to be drawn is that he is against the principle. It seems to me they are against the principle notwithstanding all the protestations that they have made to the contrary, but to clear up the matter a little, let me inquire what the hon. member for Standerton means by “defective machinery.” What are the defects in the machinery that is here proposed? What defects has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pointed out? In the first place it is a defect that the Minister shall decide what the minimum wage in any case should be. Let me say at once that I think that on this very point the new Bill is superior to that of 1922. We may call it bureaucratic, and I concede that the appointment of boards will cause expenditure, but unhappily, unless we are prepared to put our hands into our pockets nothing can come of this legislation. But let me just point out what differences there are from the Bill of 1922. Under the Bill of 1922 a board of four was proposed. The board would investigate and finally decide what the minimum wages should be not alone for this or that industry but for any industry over which their functions should be extended. If necessary over the whole Union. An opening was left as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has rightly said, to develop one board into more boards, but it might also be only one, because the district or ward which might be referred to such board could extend itself over the whole Union. There I will acknowledge they more particularly intended one board, but it is subordinate. What I want to say is that the board consisting of four people could fix the minimum wages for any trade, for any work, for any industry in the district. The Minister had nothing to say under the old Bill. In this Bill a change is made in this respect. The Bill says that the board will enquire and thereafter advise the Minister. The board will go and make investigation into prices, into circumstances, and anything else, and after the necessary enquiry has been made they will come and give advice to the Minister as to what the wages ought to be and whether wages ought to be fixed. Now I say that, in my opinion, this method is superior to the former. A Minister who is a responsible person and whose duty is to keep supervision over the interests of the country and who, at any time Parliament is sitting, can be and will be called to account, and who is at the same time answerable to his electors, will come to a decision after the advice of the board. I say that this is no more than right. We have to do with something extraordinary. We have to take account in our country of two standards of life, and I do not think that in any other country in the world similar conditions exist to ours. We must, therefore, go to work experimentally, and that is, I think, exactly where the Minister will be entrusted with the fixing of minimum wages. He can at all times be called upon to give an account to Parliament when in session. Now I should like to refer to the Bill of which they think so much, that of 1922. It has been said here by the Opposition that in the present Bill no distinction between coloured and white people has been made and that this is the great objection to the Bill. I want, however, to point out that it was not said when the Bill provided that when the board which would be established under that Bill had once decided what the minimum wage should be for a fixed trade—

Who would be the board?

I will answer my hon. friend in a moment; and I now want to read what the Opposition proposed at that time. It was then proposed—

We see, therefore, that he had to pay every person according to that wage irrespective of the colour of the person’s skin. Now I come to the question of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), namely, who the people were who would serve on that board. Those people were a chairman, and an equal number of representatives from the employers and the servants, (near, near.) Precisely, but I take it that that board would have arrived at a minimum wage and then “every person” would have to receive it.

They would have arrived at a minimum wage if they could.

Yes, but that must surely have been possible. You came and wasted the time of the House if you knew that it would never come about. I now want to refer the “hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to what happened there: Those wages had to be paid to all persons irrespective of considerations whether they were natives, coloured or white people. He must, therefore, not insist so strongly that he, for that reason, cannot accept this Bill. But am I to understand from the hon. member for Caledon that the object of the introduction of the Bill was only mere camouflage? Then I wish to ask him whether at that time there was an election in view anti if they were preparing for it.

That was two months after we came into power.

Yes, but I do not know when they made a beginning with their preparations for the election. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is really convinced that it would have led to the fixing of minimum wages, and I think he is right in that connection. I would like to ask him a question. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said here that he proposed in his Bill that an equal number of workmen and that an equal number of employers should fix the wages, because, as he put it, “it is their concern and their business to fix a minimum wage.” If that is his point of view, then I ask why he introduced that Bill, because whether the Bill was passed or not it could still have happened by means of an agreement in the trade or a contract between the employers and employed, because if they reach such an agreement, then that would fix the wages which would be enforced. What does the Bill say further?

The chairman will decide.

The chairman would decide. But then the machinery we have here is much more elegant, because instead of the chairman, we provide that a responsible Minister shall decide. That provision that an irresponsible chairman should decide, the hon. member for Standerton now calls “the democracy of industry.” I am very glad to hear this from the hon. member for Yeoville, but that is certainly not what the hon. member for Standerton meant. He said here—

Then he goes on and says—

He made it clear that the Wages Board should be so constituted that they could come to an agreement, but if they did not come to an agreement, then nothing should happen. If this is “democracy of industry,” then it is the democracy which will exist between the lion and the lamb when they have to settle a dispute. It is very clear to me that to legislate would not be suitable for what the hon. member for Standerton has said, namely, that we must leave that agreement to the two parties. Such legislation then would mean nothing, and we could tear it up. I believe that it must indeed have actually meant something, and then I asked him who should we appoint to fix the wages. The Minister, or the chairman of the Wages Board? If he can convince the House that it is better to give that power to the chairman of the board, then there is no objection. But even this can be considered and settled in the Select Committee. There are still a few little points to which I want to refer. Let me say at once that we have here to do with an important Bill where we have a difficult task, a Bill of the greatest weight and importance for land and people, and a measure where one, according of the best of one’s judgment, cannot yet come to the conclusion as to what the final result will be, (Hear, hear.) Precisely. We have never yet regarded the matter as if it was of no consequence or importance. Exactly the opposite has been the case, but we must choose whether we will adopt that principle which is approved by all of us or whether we shall reject it. If it is our intention to adopt it, as was said in 1920 and 1922, then it is best when the matter comes out of the Select Committee to make the Bill one which will not only do good but which will have good results for the whole country.

Then why so much hurry?

Yes, if my hon. friend had been here yesterday he would have seen that hon. members said very little yesterday about the Bill, but that they only attacked each other, and therefore I do not believe that we have given too little time for the discussion of the Bill, and that we have had an opportunity of understanding each other, and we have still very important work to dispose of. My hon. friend must not be unreasonable and want more time. I will only add this. Mention has been made about the exception which has been made with reference to the farmers. Well, I must ask my hon. friend why that exception was made in 1920 and 1921. It is very clear to me that no legislation will fix the minimum wages for the farmers, simply because the incidence of labour on a farm is of such a nature that no minimum wage can be fixed. That is what I feel and that is what my friends opposite felt when they excluded the farmers. It cannot be otherwise. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has asked a further question which is of the greatest importance. He has asked what the basis of the minimum wage will be. But you see that question also arose in 1920 and 1921 in connection with the previous Bill which my friends opposite introduced. There the wages board had to decide upon the matter. He has said that the Wages Board at that time had to settle the basis, and that is exactly what the board will have to do in the present case. The board will have to recommend what basis must be taken for a specific industry and a specific place. To lay that down here would mean that we would simply be going in advance of the Bill. By this legislation we shall create the means of gradually building up the system. We can’t now run away. I repeat that the Opposition must not forget that it can criticize. That is their duty, and I am thankful for what has been said.

Yes, but can you say whether it is going to be on the basis of the native or on the basis of the white?

It must be decided after consideration and circumstances. Legislation cannot decide it.

Then who will decide on the basis?

The Minister. My hon. friend is wrong. He is filled with suspicion and as far as I know my hon. friend the Minister of Labour is just as ignorant about what the basis will be for the respective industries and at the respective places as I am. The circumstances will have to guide us.

Do you like this Bill?

Certainly. Do you think that I have been speaking against it? Well, if my hon. friend thinks so, I think he will be sobered by the voting.

I was surprised and disappointed at the fact that the Prime Minister thought it necessary at the beginning of the sitting to hold what I can only call a pistol at our heads and told us that the Bill has to be driven through to-night. The Prime Minister admitted a few minutes ago that the Wage Bill is one of the most important and difficult subjects that this House could possibly consider. He himself has only just finished addressing the House on it, and I want to put it to him in all fairness whether he can honestly say that any speaker on this side of the House has taken part in the debate in any other spirit than that of honest and genuine discussion. I leave him to answer for his own supporters, very few of whom have spoken. I do insist that as far as criticism on this side of the House is concerned, it has been honestly directed to the subject matter of the Bill, and it is unfair that we should be told on the second day of the debate that we must sit all night or pass the Bill.

That point is not under discussion.

May I not make any comment on the fact that we have to come to a decision to-night?

We are not discussing the decision of the House, but whether the Bill is of such importance that we cannot finish the debate on it to-night. We are only pointing out the importance of the matter. Apart from questioning the decision of the House, I submit that we have a perfect right to speak on the very important principles underlying this Bill, and that we have not had sufficient time to discuss the principles the Bill contains.

Well, sir, if you rule I am not entitled to refer to this matter—

But he does not rule that. Am I to understand, sir, that you have given the ruling that members have no right to discuss this question on a Bill which has been referred to as one of the most important brought before this House? That hon. members cannot say anything, after having sat in this heat from 2.15 to 11 o’clock at night, with only a two hours’ break, or have no right of pointing out to the Prime Minister that it is impossible, under such heat conditions, human nature being what it is, to fully discuss the proposals of a Bill of this kind? I would like you to consider that fully, because I can never remember that hon. members have been prevented the ordinary liberty of free speech in pointing out what they consider to be detrimental to the discussion of a measure.

I don’t prevent any hon. member from referring to it, but I cannot allow discussion on the question which has already been disposed of.

I have no desire to refer further to the matter except to say that all the discussion has not come from this side of the House, in fact, practically every speaker has been answered from that side of the House.

That is as it should be.

The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, when in another place, was a keen supporter of the rights of the House. If he is satisfied in the present circumstances, I am. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister tell us that it was quite illogical on our part to support the motion of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) because the principle of the Bill is the determination of a minimum wage, and the right hon. member for Standerton said that he agreed with the principle of a statutory determination of a minimum wage. I remember, and this is a side issue, when a little Bill was brought forward lately in the House, my hon. friend the Prime Minister said that he agreed with the principle and was shortly afterwards supporting a motion that it be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading. One must not expect cast-iron consistency on either side. The principle of this Bill is not me determination of a minimum wage, that has been accepted long ago. In 1918 a Bill was passed through the House laying down a statutory minimum wage for women and children in certain industries, and then we had a Bill in 1921 that did not get further than this House, and then we had the Conciliation Act, which lays down that when the minimum wage has been arrived at by one of the wages boards, the Minister may give it statutory effect. The principle, therefore, has been accepted in this country long ago. The principle contained in this Bill is not the setting up of a statutory minimum wage, but the determination of wages by an outside body. It is going back on the whole industrial policy of this country since 1909. If that is not a new principle I don’t know what is.

How does it go back?

I will tell you. We have tried to proceed along the path of settling our industrial differences by agreement through boards of conciliation. It has worked out extremely well. We have supplemented that in trades not sufficiently organized by boards that fix the wages. Never have we adopted the principle of compulsory arbitration. In this country we have kept definitely aloof from it. If a Bill had been introduced into this House substituting compulsory arbitration, surely the hon. members would have admitted that it was an introduction of a new principle, and one that we would be justified in saying requires further enquiry before we adopt it. This Bill goes further than the introduction of compulsory arbitration, which has many defects, as the Minister points out. It brings about a decision imposed from outside by an outside tribunal and can be enforced upon the employers but not on the employees. These things have gone a long way towards wrecking compulsory arbitration wherever it has been tried. This Bill is a more drastic departure from our present system than that. A compulsory tribunal is an official body generally presided over by a judge and gives its whole time in deciding questions of wages and conditions. Here we have a board appointed by the Minister. If we judge by our past experience of boards it will be composed of people who have no experience of trade or industry.

Were your own boards appointed in that way?

I am sure they were not. Take the members of the Board of Trade and Industries, a board which sits to advise on important matters in trade and commerce, and not one of them has any practical experience. I am afraid we shall have a similar board consisting of professors who have written their thesis in college and that sort of thing, but have no experience of industry.

No shining lights of your own party?

We don’t expect that, as the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) said yesterday: We need not expect South African party members to be on the board

Did you ever do anything else yourself?

Does the Minister consider it is the right thing to make party appointments even if we did so ourselves? If he does not, why does he bring it up now? I thought we were going to have a new era when the new Government came into power and that no more party appointments were going to be made. I am not in the least desirous of suggesting that the Minister is going to be actuated by that spirit. In the past questions of wage determination have been considered by representatives of boards in the areas where the industries are situated. Now we are going to have a bureaucratic board.

Not if they take advantage of the conciliation.

Perhaps the Minister will say what that board is going to be and what any other board that may be called into existence may do? It is an entire departure from the whole course of industrial history in this country, and it is the principle of this Bill with which we are concerned and not the question of a minimum wage. The Prime Minister made great play with the fact that in the Bill of 1921, if two parties were unable to agree, a chairman would decide. With scorn, he said: “Is this a democratic principle?” I have yet to learn that it is not. In a great majority of cases the chairman would be agreed upon by both sides, and if he was not he would be appointed by the Minister.

Is he more representative than the Minister?

Yes, if he is appointed by the Minister and has experience in the industry. In this Bill the Minister can refuse to determine a minimum wage, but if he does, he must follow the recommendation of the board. Is it any less democratic for a chairman to come to a decision? I know there is an arbitrator, a curious figure called an arbitrator, that flits across the Bill. A more complete misnomer I never saw. He is not appointed by both parties nor is he entrusted with the settlement. He is simply appointed by the Minister, and he reports his opinion to the Minister. If his report is different from the recommendation of the board the Minister cannot act upon it. Why the arbitrator is brought in I do not know. I maintain that the method of making these wage determinations which has grown up in South Africa is more democratic than those we are threatened with now. It is more suited to our conditions of industry. All sorts of conditions exist in different districts. You cannot go on uniform lines, as the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) seems to think. You cannot fix a national wage for all over the country. It is necessary that yon should keep to the principle of industrial boards, sitting in particular areas, and the coming to decisions after discussions on both sides.

But they are kept. Have you not read the Bill?

No, they are not kept The Minister says in clause 1—

Very well, that does not oust this Act, that does not prevent the board to be appointed under this Act from going to an industry where a determination already exists under the Conciliation Act, inquiring into it and saying: “We do not think it is enough; we are going to fix a rate higher than that.” If the Minister intends to leave this Conciliation Act machinery working, the Bill is not as bad as I thought it was, though it is bad enough. As the Bill now reads, this board takes complete control of wage and industrial conditions throughout the country, regardless of whether there has been a determination under the Industrial Conciliation Act or not. For that reason, I say it is going back upon our past history. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) says he wants to see a national minimum wage fixed. I would have thought that his experience would have led him to a better idea than that, namely, that a national wage can be imposed by some board of this kind, sitting in Pretoria, responsible to the Minister. We have been going along another line in South Africa, along the line of industrial conciliation, and of the setting up of wages boards and national councils.

They are hopeless against syndicalism on the part of the employer.

The hon. member must not be too impatient. We have set up one national industrial council in which the hon. member took a great part.

They won’t leave that alone; they are trying to snaffle that.

My objection to this Bill is that it is setting back the clock of industrial legislation in South Africa. We have had a great deal of talk about the principle of a minimum wage, and a great deal of political recriminations backwards and forwards in regard to that question. It is no secret that there are hon. members on this side of the House who do not like the principle of the minimum wage. They got up and said so. There is a larger number on the opposite side who are going to support the second reading of this Bill, although they are just as much opposed to the principle of the minimum wage as hon. members over here. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) said last night that he was sorry that this matter was being debated on party lines. I would like to know what the Minister would give for his chance of getting this Bill through second reading if it were not being carried out on strict party lines. So do not let us have these recriminations as to being in favour of or against the principle of the minimum wage. There are members on both sides who are against it. The Prime Minister has quoted Mr. Malan when he introduced this Bill in 1921 as saying that a minimum wage Bill was long overdue. I stand by that absolutely. I think it is long overdue. I think that in certain trades and industries, particularly where the workers are unorganized, particularly where they are being exposed to competition by other workers at an uncivilized stage of existence, a minimum wage is necessary. We are up against one of the greatest problems we shall have to cope with in dealing with this competition between the uncivilized native and the civilized white and coloured man. You have some industries, I will take the mining industry for example, where you have the uncivilized man coming in and doing unskilled work, and there is a fairly distinct line of demarcation between him and the civilized man.

No, he is in the semiskilled trades now.

Apart from that, you will find in the towns, particularly in Cape Town here, but also in Johannesburg, the uncivilized native brought in and competing with the civilized man at semi-skilled or unskilled work and being employed at a wage at which he cannot live in compliance with the conditions of civilized existence. He is put into a location in some cases, very often subsidized at the public expense, living in that location and competing with the civilized man at an uncivilized wage, or he crowds into the parts of the town where he can get accommodation and creates there conditions which are a scandal to civilized society. These slum conditions are not caused by a lack of housing accommodation, but because men are being employed at a wage at which they cannot live in these houses under civilized conditions. That must be met by the application of a statutory minimum wage and, therefore, I hold strongly by the principle of the minimum wage.

Would you have a joint board?

I would have it there just as we have it in the 1918 Act in regard to women and young persons.

Do you know that it has been a failure?

I do not know that it has been a failure. In that respect I agree with him that in certain industries particularly, under certain conditions particularly, statutory minimum wage determination is necessary. But that only emphasizes to my mind the need for proceeding along the lines which we have followed so far, and of leaving the determination of this minimum wage to the people in the industry itself. They are the people who know to what extent a minimum wage can go. We have to consider whether it would not be a wise thing to meet in select committee before this Bill is read a second time, to discuss whether this new principle, which the Bill sets up, is a sound one, and whether we should go back upon the principle of representative determinations which we have followed so far and have the determinations of a board recommending to a Minister, responsible to the Government of the day. I support the proposal for a select committee in all sincerity, and with the best wishes that a Bill of this kind shall go through this session.

I am not surprised at some of the members of this House opposing this Bill and using the language that they have been doing about it. I wonder how many hon. members have read the evidence placed on record in connection with the Regulation of Wages Bill which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) introduced into this House in 1917. I maintain that having regard to the evidence which was placed before the Select Committee which considered the Bill, and considering the fact that almost everybody admits that the Act has been a failure, the Government are amply justified in taking another step and trying to tackle this question in another form. Perhaps, in a sense, one ought not to criticize the attitude taken by the Opposition, for they are providing us with some very valuable material, possibly, for the next general election. The Opposition is trying to divide the forces of labour and retain the colour bar. There is a Government which has introduced a Bill that has no reference whatever to colour. Members of the Opposition who are opposing this Bill are rendering good service to the Labour party by providing them with material for propaganda purposes. I suppose it will be generally admitted that Mr. Warington-Smyth is not exactly a fool. In my opinion, right through his evidence on the Wages Regulation Bill, he supports the attitude of the Government of to-day. At the time he gave his evidence he thought this Regulation of Wages Bill was going to do good, but the results have shown otherwise. Then in regard to the question of differentiation in pay between coloured and white, on page 11 of the report Mr. Smyth says there is no distinction in wages in the Cape Peninsula in trades such as cigarette-making and sweet factories, etc. This Bill will automatically solve these problems, such as whether there should be any differentiation in the different trades irrespective of the matter of colour. The members of the Opposition, by opposing the Bill, indicate that they desire that there should be some differentiation. Most of the arguments brought forward against the Bill are such as could quite well be dealt with in Select Committee. Personally I am not altogether satisfied with the Bill. I should like it applied to all industries, including agriculture. If the principle of the minimum wage is good for one class of workers it should be good for all. In my opinion we shall not make real progress in South Africa until all your labourers, including the native with his 2s. a day, is on the minimum wage basis. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) tried to frighten us by saying that the mining industry would crumple up if we applied the minimum wage to natives. He ought to be ashamed to bring forward an argument of that kind; also for suggesting that the industry could only pay 2s. per day. I think that the idea of having a large number of wages boards in this country operating separately under different conditions, and looking at matters from different points of view, would be unworkable. Knowing the Minister, who is the leader of my party, as we do, we are certain that when the Minister appoints a board he will be very careful to see that they have the necessary qualifications for their job. They will probably be experts and should do the work much better than the ordinary wage board composed of members representing employers and employees. In the latter case, the result depends very largely on which side is the better organized. If the time comes when the Minister does appoint a board that is not qualified, I should be one of the first to condemn him. In the Cape Peninsula, and throughout South Africa, a systematic exploitation of the labour of young girls and boys is taking place, The evidence on record in this blue-book discloses the fact that some of the great commercial firms are exploiting girls to a terrible extent in the Cape Peninsula. Even one or two members who have spoken against this Bill have themselves been guilty of this practice, and some members of the House will recall a case which came before the magistrate’s court in Cape Town in which evidence was given to the effect that a big firm was employing European young women sewing boot-uppers at wages of 7s. 6d. per week.

What wages are they paying?

According to the evidence in the Blue Book, £2 and £3 a month for a typist in some cases, and we have had it authoritatively stated that a young woman cannot live on less than £8 a month. If a young woman is not prepared to take what is offered, there is no law in force and no organization. When a young boy or girl is offered £2 a month to start, they cannot very well refuse, and when they work up to £4 or £5 a month, and ask for an increase and it is refused, they have no redress. Something should be done to tighten up the law. We want some machinery to deal with the matter in a scientific way. We cannot get away from the fact that the existing machinery has broken down. Compare the conditions under which these young people work with the conditions under which the average carpenter and engineer and other skilled trades are working. It shows that there is something to be said for combination among the workers. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has used the argument that is so often advanced that there are only two standards of civilization, but so far as Europeans alone are concerned there are probably scores of standards. One person has hundreds of thousands of pounds and, perhaps, several houses and expensive motor-cars, while another man is working for 5s. a day as a labourer on the railway. In regard to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central’s) remarks with reference to unemployment, is he going to state that the inspector of labour is not stating the truth when he reports that no unemployment has been caused by reason of the recent award in the building trades?

I said there were lots of people out of work.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) tried to make out that because the men engaged in the building trades had got an increased wage, that a lot of unemployment had been caused. That there is unemployment we know, but I think he is wrong in suggesting that Mr. Stuart, the secretary of the Federation of Trades, gave wrong figures. He may think the wages are high, but I do not know any who have got Rolls-Royce cars or who are buying their wives diamond necklaces, so that they are not millionaires, after all. So far as the building trade is concerned, it has never been in such a flourishing condition since I have been in this country. If anyone has read the history of the trade union movement, he will know that almost every argument which has been used in the debate was used 50 or 60 years ago in regard to the trade union movement. Anything which makes for the betterment of the working classes and giving them, under the wage system, the opportunity of putting something by, will be resisted by certain members in the House, because they represent that section which thrives on the profits from labour. This Bill simply sets out to do something to mitigate the evils of what we regard as a very bad social system. I hope that some day we shall have a different system.

You would adopt the Russian system?

I don’t know about Russia, but I do know that here in the Cape Peninsula girls are being paid wages which make it impossible for them to live decent and moral lives, There are also men in business and commercial offices who are paid £15 and £16 a month, which makes it impossible for them to live under decent conditions. I do not regard that as a living wage, and we want a living wage.

You are grossly exaggerating. I don’t believe it.

I know as a positive fact that there are hundreds of married and single men in business firms who are not being paid a wage which enables them to lead a decent life. And now that the despised Pact Government comes into power and hon. members see that the present system is inefficient, why cannot they allow the new Government a fair field and see if its proposals will work? I can quite understand an hon. member who lives in comfort not caring to believe that these low wages are a fact, but what should bring hon. members down to earth is that to-day the conditions of many industries make it impossible for them to organize properly; many are so poorly paid that they cannot afford to pay the trade union contribution. Many of them, too, are of a low standard educationally, and it is only fair and right that the Government should come forward and try to remedy the state of affairs. Up to the present your Conciliation Act and other legislation has failed to remedy the disease. We do not want to see this present chaotic condition of industry continued; it is bad economy to have these disputes. It is bad for the workers and it has a bad effect on the native population and the country generally. I think the Bill should receive the support of all who want to see the country go ahead and hold its own with the other portions of the civilized world.

I was interested in the threat made yesterday by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson)—interested, but not surprised. In these times the people of South Africa have learnt not to be surprised at anything that may happen and when they pick up their morning paper they are prepared for any shock. But what interested me in the hon. member’s statement that nothing stood between this country and a bloody revolution except the passing of this Bill was this, that if the hon. member considers it necessary to come here and put this forward as a reason why we must pass this Bill, what pressure must the Labour party have first brought to bear upon the Nationalists—the senior branch of the Pact—and what threats must they have directed at them to make them swallow this Bill, violently distasteful at it is to most of them. Not only must the Labour party have threatened them just as vigorously with a bloody revolution, to use his words, a revolution in comparison with which the American civil war would pale into insignificance, but he must have gone even further. This is the sort of language which is being used to scare us, but it does not convince us, although I am one who has a fairly open mind on this subject, and it will not have, I am sure, much influence on the people of South Africa. No, Mr. Speaker, this bloody revolution may be coming, but it will not come as the result of the passing or the rejection of this Bill; if it does come it will come from entirely different circumstances, and because South Africa seems to have the fatal habit of ignoring the lessons of history. If you have a set of circumstances and you repeat them with the same people you will get the same results, and if there is one country in the whole wide world in which history has a habit of repeating itself, it is South Africa. This is the lesson we need to take to heart. I have been listening very carefully to this debate, because I feel that a minimum wage, if it can be properly and equitably arrived at, is a very desirable thing. But there is a vast difference between that and what you are likely to arrive at under this Bill as at present framed. I have looked for the reasons for the necessity of this Bill, and we are told it is to prevent sweating and a state of affairs in which boys and girls are drawing a meagre salary of £2 or £3 per month—a salary on which they could not possibly live. But that was never intended as a living wage. A large number of these young people are learning their business. I myself started life at £2 a month, and probably at the time was not worth the money, and I fancy there are many hon. members on my left who were not worth at the time as much as I was, but I never considered I was very sweated—I was learning my business. It may be that sweating takes place in some of the factories in the Cape and Transvaal, which are in constituencies represented by Labour members, but as regards Natal, sweating has never come under my observation, and I take particular interest in the factories there. Now, as a matter of curiosity, I have taken some trouble to turn up a number of official statistical works relating to the various Dominions, and I find that, taken as a whole, we are paying in South Africa a higher wage for artisans than any other Dominion. This is very astonishing and a very interesting fact, and it is obvious that the reason why we are able to do that is that we have behind that expensive labour a basis of cheap labour. Hon. members may read the figures for themselves. I refer to New Zealand, Canada and Australia; not to the United Sates, where higher wages are paid, but the intensest form of industry is demanded. Now, if you are going to raise the price of this cheap labour as you propose to do, it seems to me, as an ordinary-minded person, that you will have to lower the whole standard of this high wage tariff, or else discharge a sufficient number of hands to compensate. That is one alternative. I have in mind quite a number of factories in Natal and elsewhere which are not paying their way. They are gradually struggling towards the stage in which they can show a profit. In a good number of instances, if you were to increase their expenditure without compensating advantages, they would have to close down. There is only one other alternative and that is if you increase the cost of the output, and it arrives at the stage when it can only no longer compete in price with the imported article, you will have to face a demand for increased protection, and the gun they will present at the head of the Government will be this: “If you don’t give us more protection we will have to shut our doors and turn all these people into the streets.” And it the Government surrenders, the result will be that the price of the article will be put up so high that people will cease to buy. This seems to me the logical outcome of this process into which we are blindly rushing. But I believe that, although this process is being advocated, the real object of the framers of this Bill is not so much the raising of wages as the driving of all the coloured people out of civilized employment, I come from a Province where we employ very little of what is termed down here civilized coloured labour, but I feel certain that viewing the whole position from an unbiassed standpoint, you are never going to drive these people out of employment in the Cape Province, and furthermore, minimum wage or no minimum wage, you are never going to pay them the same rate of wages as the white man. If you look at the figures you will find that they are not getting it to-day, arid a different rate will always be paid. The Minister of Railways has accepted that as a correct policy in his own department, and has stated so in this House. I do not know whether there are any farmers on the Nationalist benches; if there are any, it is a pity there are not more of them, but I would point out that the Bill will affect the farmers just as much as those engaged in any other industry, for if you pay a minimum wage to natives engaged, say in cheese, butter or bacon factories, their brothers, the agricultural workers, will be dissatisfied and will clamour for higher wages. When it is pointed out to the farm workers by the Communists and the Socialists that they will be able to get higher wages by organizing they will not lose any time in doing so and no one can foresee the end of that form of organization. I am not adverse, I may repeat, to the principle of a minimum wage, provided it is fixed by the people who have to pay it in conjunction with those who will receive it, but this principle has been entirely eliminated from this Bill. I think the pressure which the Labour party has brought to bear on the Prime Minister to close this discussion to-night because of the fear that the Opposition is tearing this Bill to pieces, and because they are afraid of criticism, is a most unfortunate line to take. If we are not to be allowed to have full and free discussion in connection with matters of such vital importance to the whole community, both black as well as white, it is, indeed, a sorry state of affairs.

The hon. member must not discuss a resolution of the House.

I support the amendment for what is a good and sufficient reason. If the Bill has so much to be said in favour of it, why not court the light of examination in a Select Committee before the second reading is taken? I have had a very unhappy feeling in my mind since yesterday, when one of the most respected members of the Labour party, whom I have always held to be a most sagacious member of the party, used threatening language to this House as to what would happen if this measure did not pass into law. Is it right that threats of this sort should be employed, that we on this side of the House are alleged to have a habit of settling industrial disputes by the use of aeroplanes?

Is it not correct?

It is an utter falsehood. I am not surprised at the nature of the interruptions after studying the history of those who have interrupted, and what they have done in promoting disorder in this country. I rise under a sense of compulsion to utter this plea. Why not have done with threatening language from that part of the House; why not rise to the spirit of Mr. Stanley Baldwin (Prime Minister of Great Britain), who three weeks ago in the Imperial Parliament compelled the homage of that House by the depth and sincerity of his plea for honesty of statement, for sobriety of thought and for the cultivation of mutual, respectful relations all round? That, unfortunately, seems to be impossible in this House. If we speak what appears to us to be the truth, we are accused of tyranny, and if we utter perfectly fair criticism we are accused of desiring to use aeroplanes. The thing is preposterous, and I protest against legislation by panic and terrorism, and not legislation by logic and kindly feeling.

Just a few words. The first are to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). He mentioned my name and said that I had said that I would not allow myself to be led by the Labour party. It is true what he said there, but he has not spoken the whole truth. What I said, and what I meant, and what I still say and still mean, is that I will allow myself to be led to destruction or to Hades neither by the Labour party nor by my friends, nor by anyone else. I then said, and I wish to repeat it, that if my friend wants to lead me to destruction, then I will in a friendly way warn him that he is leading us to hell, and if he does not want to listen, I will consider it my duty to my electors not to go with him and to avoid it. This has already happened in the past. I will say at once that my friend the hon. Minister of Labour means well with this Bill. I will also accept at once that he is using his utmost powers to solve this difficult problem. I accept all that, but I, who represent farmers in a division which lies on the borders of a native territory, feel that I have certain objections to the Bill. I was very glad to hear the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister and to learn what indeed the Minister of Labour has also said, namely, that the Bill will be sent to a Select Committee. As soon as this is done, and as soon as this is promised by the person introducing a Bill, it is clear that certain alterations and improvements can be made in the Bill, otherwise it will not be necessary to send it to a Select Committee; therefore I feel justified to mention my few difficulties to the House so that when the Select Committee is appointed—whoever they may be—my difficulty will be taken into consideration and met. My difficulties are not insuperable. In the first place, everyone knows that I always was in favour of economy in the public expenditure as much as possible. It is clear to me that this law, with all its permanent appointments of boards, etc., is only the thin end of the wedge to increase our estimates again by thousands of pounds, and probably it will not stop there. This is one of my grievances, and I hope that a Select Committee will put a stop to it. But I have another objection which I want the Select Committee to carefully consider. I am glad that the hon. Minister of Labour has met the farming population as much as possible by excluding the farmers and the farmers’ servants from the provisions of the Bill. It is one of the points in which he has used his best endeavours to solve the difficult problem. But I only wish to say, as a representative of farmers, that if this Bill is accepted it will react upon the farmers.

Hear, hear.

Hon. members need not shout so. That is my view, and the Select Committee can in one way or another bring alteration and improvements with regard to my difficulty. I represent a division of farmers and manufacturers. There are in my constituency small factories which will also come under the Bill, and I am speaking in the interests of the electors in my constituency. Well, the hon. Minister must take into consideration, and the Select Committee must carefully investigate, what the repercussion will be upon the farmers if, in my division for instance, minimum wages are fixed say at 5s. per day. Then a native would get £7 10s. per month against the £1 that the farm natives get. Now I want to show how it will react upon the farmer. The best people that the farmer has will immediately try to leave the farmer to go and work at the factory at £7 10s, per month. The argument is advanced here that there will not be enough work for all the natives so that all will not be able to go to work in the factory. But what will be the consequence? Accept for a moment that the factories cannot employ all the natives, say that one out of every three is so employed at £7 10s. per month so that two are left for the farmer, what will be the consequence? If there are three brothers in the same district and one gets work at the factory at a high rate then the other two brothers living in the same kraal will no longer be satisfied to work for £1 per month. They will come to the farmer and say: Why must we work for so little if our brother earns £7 10s.; we are just as smart and can work just as well. They will want their discharge, and every month they will threaten with notices, etc., and the farmer will never know where he is with his labour. I am only speaking about servants. The hon. Minister will agree with me when I say that one gets much more work from five willing servants than from 20 unwilling ones, and the servants will become dissatisfied and all day long refer to the wages which the natives earn in the factories, and the sword will constantly hang over the farmer’s head. I don’t wish to oppose or to baulk the Bill, but I feel that this point is of great importance for my voters and I hope that the Select Committee will go carefully into it, otherwise I know what will happen. I have myself been a large farmer in my time and know what it is if one has to deal with a large number of dissatisfied labourers, and especially if there are agitators amongst them who stir up the people. I hope that the hon. Minister and hon. members will not take the few words I have said as obstruction or as opposition, but it is my habit to speak what I feel. I have known the hon. Minister of Labour for the last 15 years. I am certain that he has the best intentions, and I trust he also will do his best to meet our objections. I do not speak about the white man, I am in favour of his living decently with his family, but I am only speaking about the native.

Like the hon. member who has just sat down, I do not intend at this stage of the debate to go through the Bill as a whole and to deal with the whole of the arguments, but I would like to mention a few points. If I make them as successfully as the member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) I shall be content. The Minister, in introducing his Bill, gave expressions to opinions which I think would commend themselves to all of us. We can all agree with him when he talks about the influence of public opinion and the advantage of voluntary agreement in industrial disputes, when he said the state was against oppression of any one. The Minister talked of sweated industries in South Africa, and particularly of sweated industries where there was a want of organization among the workers. He did not give any examples, but some of his friends gave examples for him. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) gave some examples and I think these would come under the wages agreement which was fixed for women and juvenile workers. With regard to other things mentioned about girls working at a low rate, they too would come under the same agreements. But many people acquainted with business know that there are many businesses in which there is no pay at all where a trade is being learned. In England a premium is paid to learn a trade or profession. He left out the two most disorganized trades, the farm labourers and domestic servants. It is not surprising that we have a Bill of this sort from the hon. the Minister. I have heard his views for ten years, but up to now he has been a voice crying in the wilderness. It is surprising that he has got the support of members opposite, who in ordinary circumstances would have laughed the Bill out of the House. One would like to know what they have got as a quid pro quo. Perhaps one of these days we shall get something surprising, but I am not surprised at this Bill coming from the Minister because he is a Socialist. The majority of people in this House are individualists, believing that there are no two men exactly alike— we come into the world one by one and we go out of it one by one. We are agreed machinery is necessary for dealing with people in sweated industries, but we say that it is the duty of the Government to provide the machinery, and they should then leave the people who know about it to work the machinery themselves. That is where we part company with the Minister. The less interference we get from the Government in industry the better for the industry concerned. I put it to the Minister even in his Bill it is a necessity, if it is to work well, that the deciding authority should be absolutely impartial. His desire is to look for peace in industrial concerns, but you can only have this when the decision which is arrived at gives the people a feeling that after a full and fair discussion the decision has been arrived at by impartial arbitrators.

You have no objection to its enforcement?

We have had at least three members from the Labour benches pointing out that the members appointed to this board should be members of the same opinion as the hon. Minister. We have had it laid down by the Minister of the Interior that in all these appointments, men holding the same political opinions as themselves, must come in. It is from this body of people that the arbitrators have to be drawn, and the final arbiter is the Minister himself. The Minister will not take it amiss if I have to be a little personal. Take the mining industry. Does the Minister think that the mine owners would consider him an impartial arbitrator to decide a dispute in mining matters? Can he expect it? I came here ten years ago, knowing nothing of the Minister. I had not been here long before I came to the conclusion that the hon. member had a vendetta against the mines, and I have seen nothing to change my opinion since, yet the Minister is putting himself in the position of being a final arbitrator in these matters. In connection with business, I have heard the Minister himself and his colleagues, during the war time, talk on business matters and on the question of profiteering, and it was made clear to me that the view of the hon. Minister for Labour and his colleagues with regard to business was that any business was like a sausage machine, where you put something in at one end, turn a handle, and out come the sausages at the other end, but always in the shape of profits and never of loss. That sort of gentleman is to be made the final arbiter in any dispute which may arise. He has told us constantly that we on this side of the House are entirely out for the influence of big finance. I don’t accept that, but take it from the point of view of the argument. I do not suppose that the Minister expects he will sit there for ever, and thus you will get a position, on his own argument, that whilst he is there he is biased in favour of the workers against the employers, and when the time comes there will be a change over, gentlemen will sit there with a bias in favour of the employers. That being so, you will never get impartiality under this Bill. I take it that the Minister would like to put on the statute book an Act that will last, but if the Minister is to be the final arbiter there can, in the nature of things, be no impartiality, and I say it is a most dangerous thing. I recently came upon an illuminating article in the “Cambridge Law Journal” by Judge-President Brown of the Industrial Court, Adelaide, dealing with this subject. He refers more especially to South Australia about which he knows most. He tells us that they have in Australia the most elaborate and ambitious industrial code in the world. It provides, in the first place, for a board of industry consisting of representatives of employers and employees nominated respectively by the Employers’ Federation and the Trades Hall, together with a president who is a judge of the industrial court. Enquiries are conducted in public and at the conclusion of the public hearing the board sits in camera and finally declares its conclusions. He says that so far the conclusions have been unanimous, and that the long, and sometimes painful, course of unanimity has not been by the process of splitting differences. There is no provision in the Minister’s Bill that the board shall sit in public although it is provided that an inquiry shall be in public if the board so wish. President Brown also states that the industrial court gives a binding force to custom if the custom be reasonable.

Are you advocating compulsory arbitration courts?

I am advocating that in place of the Minister, some impartial authority should be instituted.

Do you want a court set up?

I would like to see a judicial authority. I know that hon. members on the cross-benches question even the judiciary. We have been told that if there were such an industrial court there would be constant appeals. President Brown states that on an appeal from an industrial board determination the burden of proof is on the appellant. It was said when the appeal court was first constituted that there would always be an appeal, but this had been disproved. The point I have been trying to make is that it is impossible for the Minister to be impartial, and yet he is to be the final arbiter, and, if the Minister cannot be impartial, it is impossible for his decisions to give satisfaction and the thing will sway from side to side with the changes of Ministry, you will get politics brought into the matter, and you will get no finality. It seems to me that the finality of a judicial court is very much to be preferred to the Bill which the Minister has brought forward. I agree with what has been said that, whether it is the intention or not—and I suspect it is the intention—the effect of this Bill will be the elimination of the coloured man from a great many of our industries. With regard to the Prime Minister’s remarks on this point, I would call attention to the provisions of the Bill of 1921, in which clause 7 (2) expressly lays down—

I do not think that provision is in the present Bill. So, taking it all round, I think the Bill in its present form is a dangerous Bill, it is not a Bill that is going to give satisfaction, and it is not a Bill that is going to exclude politics from disputes, and I only hope that when it emerges from Select Committee it will be a very different Bill from the one now before the House.

One thing we have to be grateful for in regard to this question. We are indebted to the introducer of the measure for a clear statement as to the intention, as well as the principle, that we are out for, and also to the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition for stating the real point at issue as between the two parties in the House in this matter. There has been no attempt to evade the differences between us, and there is no intention on the part of those on this side to avoid the issue; but we notice as the debate proceeds the smallest things are being brought forward strongly, and insignificant details are criticised as if the whole matter hung on the immaterial points of a measure which it is generally admitted must go to a committee for investigation. The Leader of the Opposition said that this Bill was a turning point in South Africa, and so it is. He also stated it would influence the whole industrial future of South Africa and that we are tying it up instead of letting it run absolutely free. From the other side, we have always heard the boast of their speaking with one voice. It has been rather a falsetto voice; but to-day we have had another revelation, which was hardly needed, of how utterly divided the previous Cabinet was on this question as well as on free trade and protection. We have the frankly honest statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to the effect that goods should be made or bought where that can be done cheapest, irrespective of what wages were paid for production of such goods. That is the principle he has stood for these many years, and of those associated with him. On the other hand, we have now his former colleagues standing up and saying they do not stand for anything of that sort. I rather like the Leader of the Opposition for his frankness in declaring for a minimum wage when taunted with the fact that he did not press his measure right through both Houses of Parliament when he had the opportunity; but we all know the tactics of the hon. gentleman, and it is quite another matter bringing in a measure to carrying it through. At any rate he now stands out straight for the minimum wage, and a good number of the gentlemen on the opposite side also declare for that principle. So much to the good. As far as this measure is concerned there is one thing it has in common with previous measures brought forward in regard to this matter of wage payment, and that is that both the old system of what was called absolute freedom of contract, and this particular measure, rest curiously enough on an ultimate authority to intervene. But the one runs wider than the other, absolutely regulated in a sensible and honest fashion, so that industries may rest on a solid basis and ensuring prosperity for all concerned. In the past, there is no doubt whatever that intervention was forced and destructive to all we hold dear in the country, namely, the peaceful progress and prosperity of the people themselves. When those two speeches on which this measure was introduced were made public, we had an example of what is considered a “good press” for the one and dishonest treatment for the other. Our leader was congratulated on having brought in the measure in a forcible and well-reasoned speech, but the Leader of the Opposition had made an immensely great speech; one of the greatest speeches. That is a “good press” according to the journalists—but is rather ridiculous when analysed. I notice that when a Minister or anyone on our side speaks jingo newspapers say he “got up,” or “rose,” or “said,” but when members on the other side speak we read “The right hon. the leader of the Opposition sprang to his feet”; “The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort sprang to his feet”; “The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) sprang to his feet”; “The hon. member for Yeoville sprang to his feet”—as though they were sprinkhaans. I was just analyzing what this “good press” is, and it is pertinent to the question of the introduction of this Bill and influencing public opinion. I am going now to contrast the old method with what is proposed in the new The old method of voluntary association—that sacred thing which one must not interfere with, the sacredness of contract, which would reduce those who cannot fight for themselves to absolute starvation—that is the voluntary system. What have we seen enacted in the past? When there is difficulty, and there always is between the under dog and the top dog—the wage-earner and the one who is trying to make profit out of his earnings—any difficulty that arises is allowed to develop. That is the illuminating phrase. And when the inevitable friction comes, the Government of the day stand by the employer, and standing by the employer allow the employees to rise in the heated fashion of outraged humanity. Unfortunately I have seen a good deal of that process. I am one of those who tried to arrest the process by persuasions of peace, which were rendered nugatory by this doctrine of forceful intervention to which the Government of the past resorted. Then there comes the “drive” of the human being. He strikes, resents authority, and the “drive” is on, and results in the human “game” being remorselessly shot down. The hon. member for East London (City) (Rev. Mr. Rider) was very much shocked at any charge of cruelty or anything of that sort brought against his side of the House, but past history shows that the policy that has been pursued can best be described as force tempered by hanging. It has been allowed to run its bloodstained course, and when peace is forcibly established and the worker absolutely subdued, then from Irene goes out the message at last “peace reigns in Warsaw !” That is the whole policy of the past; the mad policy of a war-seared general. The new method we propose to introduce is founded on a belief in human nature; that men do not want trouble, especially married men who have to work for their wives and families. The new policy, as indicated in this measure, is to go right down to the people, trust them, and try what arrangement can be made before the trouble starts.

When the new Government came in they found no real remedy, though there were several palliatives, and the members representing our party in the Cabinet have taken up this question. Members on our side have gone so far as to say—

It has been threatened that this is a rod in pickle for ourselves, and that a day will come when this law will be operated by, shall I say, our foes. We are willing to risk it. We believe that the country has made up its mind to a definite departure, and our friends on the opposite side must see that a change has absolutely come. Abolition of titles has proved that to them. They think they have condemned this legislation that is now coming forward by branding it as Socialitsic, but the mere name cannot possibly make any difference; the only question is its satisfactory working; and we are satisfied that the public will see the advantage of such a measure as this. I believe that even if our foes once more climbed into the seats of the mighty, they could never go back to the old policy of force, tempered by hanging. Of course we get terrible warnings. We are used to them. I dearly love to see my old friend the Leader of the Opposition when he is warning anybody of the terrible consequences that may ensue through not taking his advice, but his warnings fall on deaf ears now, because his prophecies have been so futile in the past. Let me read one of his warnings. Here is the hon. Leader of the Opposition saying: The Labour party—

This measure is a reply to that accusation. Solicitude of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) for the Labour party is very touching. We shall not forget the overtures that we should become, shall I say, the tail of the South African party dog.

Whose dog are you?

There are different kinds of dogs. There is the kindly watchdog, who bays deep-mouthed welcome as we draw near home” — our national watch-dog—and the streaked and spotted mongrel masquerading as a British bull-dog, really what our American friends call “a yaller-belly dog.” While this Bill was in progress we had another warning— the warning to the farmers that if you raise rates of pay, it will fall upon them. But farmers at least know the advantage of a close and big market, such as Kimberley was—-although under the hon. members for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) and Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) it has dwindled down to the importance of a hamlet—and since then the industrial market of Johannesburg. They realize that, whatever they may have to meet in regard to increased charges, the advantage of a large and close market will give them such a high return as to compensate for anything they might lose through wages being higher. I did not quite follow the argument of the other side, to the effect that if you increase the value of labour, the pay of the higher ranks will inevitably be pulled down. I do not think that assertion has ever been borne out. I have yet to learn that a K.C. accepts less because the legal profession becomes overcrowded and similarly with other professions and trades. The question of higher pay has far-reaching effects. Take the cotton industry for instance. The reason why cotton can now be grown in South Africa at a profit is because the price is high, that rise in price being due to the fact that labour usually employed on the cotton fields of the Southern states of America is now receiving increased pay. The cotton industry will open up a fresh vista to our farmers, and add to the value of their holdings. If the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) really believes in a higher wage system and is sincerely desirous of increasing the prosperity of the native voters whom he so largely represents in this House, surely gratitude will lead him to say “The debt we owe to these people should be repaid and we hope they will get higher wages.” One of the warnings received in the course of this debate is that the Minister of Labour may dictate, and the bureaucratic system be introduced. We have already had dictatorship in South Africa, and when we ask “what is Bolshevism?” the reply is that it is dictation of the proletariat, but if there has been dictation of the proletariat it is on the part of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He fits the bill of a complete and absolute Bolshevik. We have been told that the great danger to this country is the agitator on the soap box. Justin McCarthy, in his “History of Our Own Times,” lays it down definitely as incontrovertible that agitation can only rest upon an absolute grievance, and if you get rid of the grievance you get rid of the agitation. If gentlemen on the opposite side will take that dictum to heart they need not be afraid of any agitation whatever. We have seen what has happened in Russia, and all history shows what follows in the event of grievances being left unredressed. There may be room for the legitimate agitator so long as there are unredressed grievances. Great sympathy has been expressed by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who cannot believe that such a state of affairs exists in Cape Town as was mentioned by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) although the facts had been well established before a Select Committee of Parliament. On every hand we find numerous instances of people not being able to get a decent living wage. It is up to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to stop mere mock sympathy, and it is up to hon. members on the opposite side to take up this challenge and prove that they really mean to remove these evils Right through this debate there has been an, attempt to show that members on the Opposition side are in complete sympathy with the working classes. I hope those hon. members will, during a long period of opportunity in opposition, be able to go into questions such as we have gone into so as to obtain the support of the people. As to the warning to the Labour members issued by the right hon. member for Standerton, I would like to quote a warning to the present Minister as to what may possibly overtake them if they listen to bad counsels in regard to this or any similar Bills. It is possible that influences may get to work which may be difficult to overcome. Here is a warning as to the danger of our Government’s being ill-advised, and the warning comes, from Sir Lionel Phillips, a gentleman who had a great deal to do with the unrest which has overtaken us in the past. Sir Lionel points out that he came back to this country at a very trying period, and found on arrival that a Government was in power which was out of sympathy with, and indeed hostile to, the interests he represents. Sir Lionel describes in his book how he at once got into touch with Botha and Smuts and secretly established friendly relations with them, although his friends, Sir Drummond Chaplin (member for Cape Peninsula) and others, looked askance at such efforts. He invited Generals Botha and Smuts to come and stay at his house with him and arranged a few social gatherings so as to bring them into personal touch with the right kind of people. Sir Lionel goes on to describe how he was thus enabled not only to get hold of the Botha-Smuts Government, but to influence and alter their proposed legislation. Ira actual fact the Botha-Smuts Government was captured by the “big interests” and I sincerely wish the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was here, so as to appreciate this boastful record by a millionaire financier of how General Botha and he were roped in. We have had to listen to charges against the leader of our party and mover of this measure of carrying on a vendetta against the Chamber of Mines and the big companies. It is the cry of the guilty, the cry of a conscience at last at work. It is only such imagination that could make them think that anybody who was out for the good of the people could have any vendetta against anything that was for the country’s good. The South African party press advocated that the “greatest statesman of the age,” Gen. Smuts, had declared for a big fight with the Chamber of Mines and he was bound to see it through. Why is he not charged with pursuing a vendetta? In time the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) will recognize that there are people who are for the good of this country. What is the position at the present time? That terrible bloody business which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) describes as “a blessing in disguise,” resulted in a tremendous loss of money, indeed the millions of which he always speaks with such reverence. They do not count the loss of life, those great generals whose chests are decorated right down to their “little marys,” Loss of workers’ lives is nothing compared with the loss of money! Now companies have bigger dividends than ever, and all this monetary loss has been made up out of labour— labour at the mines receiving lower rates. Labour has made up the profits under conditions of servitude which allow them no liberty of action except to strike. Dividends last year were two millions more than they had been, and the profits fully three millions more than before. When you talk of “a vendetta” cannot it be understood we are fighting big interests representing overseas control, and not local interests. It has been put out that shareholders are largely South African. The way in which this assertion is maintained is instructive. If Solly Joel draws his dividends through his Consolidated Investment Co. at Johannesburg, therefore he lives in South Africa! That argument is overdone. We have had a terrible picture of what may happen under this Bill. We are to have ruin staring us in the face, and industries are going to die away even before they are properly started. We have had the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Port Elizabeth (Col. D. Reitz) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) going about saying that everything was perfect in the country as long as they were in the seats of the mighty. The moment people say we will withdraw our power of attorney from you and put our trust elsewhere they then become incorrigible pessimists, and proclaim that everything is going to ruin and nothing can go right. They are without faith in their own country, and its great future. The fact is really that they are incorrigible egotists, believing that they only can be trusted with the care of this country. Let me recommend for the thoughtful consideration of the leaders of the Opposition the old revivalist hymn—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up.

I have listened attentively to the member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), but he has said very little about this Bill. He has been pouring out criticism on the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and having the usual gibe at the capitalist. But he carefully avoided answering any of the arguments brought forward from this side against the Bill. It is remarkable that the main points made by the leader of the Opposition against this Bill have never been met. Even the Prime Minister, in dealing with the matter, did not deal specifically with the weighty and cogent objections raised by the leader of the Opposition. Instead, we have been told from the other side that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has run away from the position taken up in 1921. On the contrary, he has said that he stands by the Bill of 1921, and would like to see a Bill of that sort passed into law. We have been told on this side of the House that we have no sympathy with the women who are being sweated by wicked employers. There is on the statute book a measure giving power to boards to regulate wages of women and young persons, and I have not yet heard that the Act has been a failure. Boards which have been appointed under it in many centres have done good work, yet we are still told that we are regardless of the suffering of women. It is the business of the Government to see those Acts enforced so that sweating is put a stop to. We have been told that it is necessary to bring a Bill into law to avoid a repetition of the state of affairs in Johannesburg in 1922. The Conciliation Act was passed for the purpose of dealing with such disputes. The hon. Minister shakes his head, and we have been threatened by the otherwise peaceful member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) that if we don’t pass this Bill into law we are in for a bloody revolution. That is carrying things too far. As the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) has said, he thinks we are children to be intimidated by a thing like that. We are here to use our commonsense and pass or reject this Bill as we think fit. The criticism of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has not been met. He made a point that this Bill was unlike the Bill of 1921, because it applies to members of the civil service and railway service. Are we to scrap the whole of the legislation that has been passed to set up the Public Service Commission, and give them power to fix salaries, subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament. The hon. Minister evidently wishes to over-ride this legislation and wants to fix the salary of men in the public service and men in the railway service. The Minister of Labour has told us that he regards 5s. a day a reasonable wage for white men in certain circumstances on the railway, with certain privileges, of course. But the hon. Minister of Labour may come along and say that 5s. a day is ridiculous, you must make it 10s. or 12s. 6d., or even £1. When he seeks to interfere with the Public Service Commission and the Treasury in fixing the salary of public servants, and to interfere with the Minister of Railways, and the Railway Board and their staff in the fixing of wages and salaries of men on the railways, then that is one of the blots of the Bill, and it is a serious objection of the Bill as pointed out by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). Another objection that was taken was that the Minister now seeks to set aside the Conciliation Act of last year. That is the effect of this Bill. Employers and employees may come together and agree upon a rate of wages, but if that rate happens to be lower than the rate which the Minister thinks is reasonable and has been approved by his board, then the work of the organization set up by employers and employees under the Conciliation Act is to go by the board. I think the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was right when he said that this was a revolutionary Bill. It is reversing the whole policy which has been in force in this country for the last ten or fifteen years under which employers and employees are brought together with the intention of coming to a settlement. In future, if this Bill is passed, a board is to be set up and the Minister is to give his decision, and he is able to ignore any Conciliation Board set up by the employers and employees. That, I think, is a serious blot on the Bill. Another serious objection to the Bill is that we have one board to be appointed by the Minister, instead of boards appointed jointly by employers and employees. I give the Minister the credit, if he has to act under this Bill, of doing his best to satisfy both parties, but he is bound, in the natural course of events, not to give the same satisfaction as would accrue if these people appointed their representatives on the board. The Minister under this Bill, has, I consider, made a mistake in setting himself up as an autocrat or dictator. I do not know why the Minister did not stick to the Bill of 1921, which allows the parties to a dispute to appoint their representatives on a wage board. It is of the essence of that Bill that the Government should not interfere, and I think there is great force in the criticism of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) who says that this Bill cannot be brought into line with the Bill of 1921. I have examined the Bill of 1921 and compared it with this Bill, and I find that the two are so totally dissimilar that the present Bill cannot be brought into line with the Bill of 1921 without taking practically all the clauses out. Then it seems to me that the clause regarding the appointment of an arbitrator is the most farcical one that was ever put into a Bill. An arbitrator is supposed to be a man who is brought into a dispute by two parties who have a difference of opinion and who wish to settle the matter amicably out of court. This arbitrator, however, is not appointed by the disputants, but by the Minister. If the Minister pushes this Bill through, I hope he will delete this ridiculous clause affecting the so-called arbitrator. I have been very much struck with the difference between the legislation introduced by the Minister of Labour in this Bill and the legislation introduced by the Minister of Mines and Industries, as instanced by the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, in which a final Board of Appeal is set up, and the Reserved Minerals Development Bill, which provides for arbitration if the Minister’s decision is questioned. Here we have an illustration of how autocratic the Minister of Labour is, as compared with his colleague. The Minister seems to have left the arbitrator in the air. The arbitrator has to report to the Minister, but nothing is said as to what the Minister may do. That seems to be a defect of his Bill. I notice also that this Bill makes reference to the conditions of employment. Besides wages, the board which the Minister is to set up deals in Clauses 3 and 8 with conditions of employment and hours of labour. We have a very elaborate Factories Act which deals with these matters, but the Minister not only wishes to have the last say in the recommendations of his Wages Board and his arbitrator, but he wants to override the Factories Act. In that Act Parliament went to a great deal of trouble in fixing the hours of labour, but now, apparently, that Act is to go by the board, if the Minister thinks fit. I do think that the House would be very well advised to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton, because practically every member of this House is agreed that a Wage Act is necessary. Is it not advisable, therefore, to get a general agreement as far as possible, and also to proceed upon the lines that we have been going on in this country for the last few years, and, as far as I am aware, successfully, rather than introduce this measure, which is to set up one board to deal with practically all the industries in the country, and leave the decision entirely in the hands of one Minister? It is rather remarkable that so many members of the Minister’s own party have severely criticized the Bill on the point that one board cannot possibly do the work. The Minister has jumped into this matter and drawn up his Bill hastily and without consideration. I am certain he will do the right thing if he sends the whole matter back to a select committee. I notice that the member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) is very anxious to have this Bill applied to the mining industry, and I have no doubt that the Minister will be very much tempted to adopt that course. Is he going, if he starts with the mining industry, to fix a minimum rate on a black basis or on a white basis? Apparently he has not the power to fix two bases. I think that is a matter on which he ought to be a little more frank. Before we accept the second reading, will the Minister not take us into his confidence and tell us a little more about this Bill? If he is well advised, even at the eleventh hour, he will send the Bill to a select committee before the second reading and give us an opportunity of discussing the matter round the Table, and he may then come back with an agreed Bill.

We are getting on. This is the first debate of importance this session in which the arguments from this side of the House have not been countered by the cry of racialism. Another point which is very interesting is that the back benchers on the Government side have their enthusiasm for this Bill under strict control, and of course to compensate for that we have the Socialist section very ardent about this measure. Both the mover and the Leader of the Opposition have referred to the importance of this matter. The Bill is undoubtedly one of great gravity. Indeed, it has been said that it is of fundamental importance, vital to industries, far-reaching and so on. With that I agree, and that is all the more reason why, as far as possible, we ought to discuss this Bill in a judicial rather than a partisan spirit. I think we ought to correct some statements made from the other side as to the attitude of the Opposition towards the minimum wage. I do not know whether they wish the people to believe that we as a party are opposed to it. It has been inferred that we have the same social outlook as that of employers of 60 years in regard to the amelioration of the lot of the workers. I think I can speak for all the hon. members of this side when I say that we do not take up that position for a moment—the old position, that if the so-called economic forces were left to themselves everything would be all right. We do not do so, because past experience has proved that it is not correct to take up that position. We know that the economic forces, without some control, have led to very great evils, some of which have been alluded to in this House. Undoubtedly in the past it has led to sweating to insanitary conditions, and other evils, and for these things undoubtedly the employers of the past were very much to blame, but now I do not think any member of this or any other legislature would say it was not necessary to have machinery for controlling the wages system. Experience shows it to be necessary. The wages system is the basis of industry. It is the method, by which, on the one hand, capital is able to obtain a supply of labour, and by which, on the other hand, labour is able to obtain the use of capital, and it should be the function of the legislature to see that neither of those sides abuses whatever powers they have at their disposal, and as far as possible we should lean to the side of the weak man. Laws are necessary to protect the weak against the strong, whether weak financially or through want of organization, or even if weak physically. It has also been inferred by the other side that we are altogether opposed to anything that would tend to ameliorate the lot of the worker, evidently forgetting that it was this party that introduced the minimum wage Bill in 1921. But we believe that the best results can be found in legalizing a voluntary arrangement when that can be come to between workers and employers and if such an agreement cannot be come to, through the contumaciousness of either side, it is necessary to have legal machinery to be put into operation to avoid very great evils happening to the whole country. We introduced that Bill and it passed through this House, though it did not become law. The good intentions of this House were also shown in the Industrial and Conciliation Bill passed two or three years later. But we are opposing this Bill in its present form, for what we think very good and sufficient reasons. For instance, the Bill of 1921 was confined in its application to organized employees. This is clear from the section dealing with the composition of the board. The board could not come into existence except as a result of representations from organized people on one side or the other. That should be sufficient to show our good faith. We do not want our friends on the other side to make political capital out of this and therefore, I am trying to make our position clearer.

Do you speak for your party?

I speak for myself. I am not the leader of my party, but I think our sentiments have been expressed very fully and freely, and I do not think the views of the party differ from mine. The Minister introduced this Bill and commended it by saying that the whole basis of the Bill was to help those in sweated and unorganized industries where workers cannot look after themselves. In this he will have our sympathy and support. Some of us are workers, and some of us employers, but we all know that the worker has no reserve of wealth, that a strike is a calamity to him and to all connected with him. We know, too, that when a strike occurs it is very seldom that a director or employer smokes one cigar less or is put to serious personal inconvenience, and therefore we all sympathize with the worker and are inclined to help the under-dog wherever possible and see that he is not oppressed. But it is no kindness to him if by any legislation we deprive him of employment, if we cause industries to be closed down from which he would ordinarily look forward to earning a decent livelihood, and leave him stranded by unemployment. Another point is, in the Industrial Conciliation Bill natives were deliberately excluded. That will be seen from the definition of employee. To all intents and purposes it excluded natives.

No.

Well that is my reading of it. Surely if the Minister was obsessed by his desire to help those engaged in unorganized industries, his first care should be for those engaged in agricultural, pastoral, forestry, or domestic service. We know those industries are utterly unorganized, as regards the workers. It strikes one, in reading this Bill and hearing the explanation of the Minister, that there is one thing sticking out very clearly, and that is that Minister does not know his South Africa. I do not know how long he has been in South Africa, but his knowledge of South Africa as a whole is strictly limited. I believe he has spent the greater portion of his time in connection with one particular industry, in one particular portion of South Africa, and it is obvious that he has not the slightest conception of the mentality, the psychology, outlook of the native, or whatever you like to call it. He does not understand that the native cannot be civilized by an Act of Parliament, or by the award of a board of industry or conciliation, it would take centuries to do it. A native will not work longer in any one year than is necessary to supply his immediate wants. Suppose under this Act you increase the pay of natives up to 10s. a day. Let us put it down that his reasonable wants, under the conditions to which he is accustomed, can be met by a total income of £20 per annum. It follows then that his almost insuperable inclination would be to work for forty days in the year, and go idle for the remainder of the time. That explains why we have such vast organizations created and conducted at great expense on the Rand for the supply of native labour because the native will not work longer than his immediate wants require. We know too, that the greatest incentive to natives to work, especially the young men, is the desire to purchase a wife, and then more wives, and by giving them large sums of money we are to that extent encouraging polygamy. The natives cannot suddenly adapt themselves to our civilization by putting on our clothes or by the rates of wages he receives. So it is perhaps wise that the natives —those engaged in agricultural pursuits too should be excluded from this Bill, in spite of the fact that agriculture is the most important as far as can be expressed in figures, and otherwise, it is necessary to exclude the native. The agricultural production of the Union amounts to £56,000,000, the industrial production £37.000,000 and mining production £52,000.000 per annum, but then we find that the value of the agricultural production per head of the total rural population of the Union —not the population as a whole—is only £11 per head per annum. You will therefore see the difficulty there would be in legislating and interfering with agriculture as carried on at present in this country. That is a very small production per head and leaves such a small margin that it would hardly bear tinkering with. In the view of the Minister there are certain industries that are unorganized and where sweating takes place, it is a pity that he did not specify them. We are without information on that point and are asked to pass a Bill of such far-reaching importance without such information and that alone is a most cogent reason and logical argument for adopting the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and letting this Bill go to a Select Committee before we affirm the principle laid down in the title. There is not an hon. member in this House who would not lend his whole weight to prevent such evils as have been alluded to in the form of sweating, whether they are extensive or, as we have reason to believe, on a small scale, and on the whole in isolated instances. Unfortunately these incidents do occur and always will occur in spite of the wisest legislation in the world. It is a pity we have not that information: We find that most of the industries in this country, apart from agriculture and the like, are very highly organized and the Bill of 1921 was definitely prepared to meet existing circumstances—to help the organizations existing both among workers and employers. I would point out that all the best results have followed from voluntary arrangements entered into between masters and men. I will give a few examples which will, while being by no means exhaustive, illustrate my thought. I might refer to the Ford motor industry, which is an object lesson as to how an industry can, though facing world-wide competition, pay the highest possible wages with the most remunerative results to the employer. It is the same with regard to Lever Brothers, who while amassing fortunes have made their workers capitalists in addition to providing them liberally with the amenities of life. I could go on and show that it is not only possible but good business for employees to put the workers in the position to enjoy more of the good things of life. I have always thought it a pity that a corporation like De Beers, that had a unique chance in the world, because of its monopoly, has not taken advantage of this special and unique position to provide employment deluxe for the workers in this country. I am sorry. Perhaps the peculiar circumstances of diamond winning have prevented it, and while I realize that De Beers have done a great deal for this country, I hope they will still provide an object lesson in that way, and that the difficulties will not be insuperable. I believe that to do that would do a great deal towards giving a lead to other employers and thus securing industrial peace. No doubt the same applies to the Premier Mine. Now this Bill takes out of the hands of those who are most interested—those who have most to gain and lose—the arrangement of their own affairs by this extraordinary system of legislation. It is, we believe, a real danger to this country that we are to have, under this Bill, a Board appointed of such far-reaching powers, who must obviously be the tool of the social and political views of the Minister for the time being. That is a proposal which is almost unparalleled. Moreover, the members of the board are not appointed for any particular time. Their remuneration and conditions are not specified, and it is obvious that a member of the board must feel that he holds his appointment simply at the will of the Minister, and that it will be his duty to carry out the views political and otherwise of the Minister. That I think is dangerous and undemocratic, and whatever else happens to this Bill, I hope a very radical change will be made in the appointment of this board and in the regulation of their proceedings. Supposing a future Minister of Labour was a Communist. If he was true to his convictions he would follow the Russian precedent and make payment not in cash, but in tickets for meals and clothes and the right to sleep in a bed. And we are providing the Minister of the day with the necessary machinery to put these ideas in force. This is not an imaginary danger by any means. We find that only a week ago a body was appointed which was described as being “Colonel Creswell’s link between the trade unions and the Government.” We find that the secretary of that body is Mr. W. H. Andrews, the arch-Communist of South Africa, who will be the link between the Minister of Labour and the trade unions, and further he will be a link between the trade unions and Moscow.

What is the link between that side and Berlin?

I do not know about Berlin; I only know about Moscow at present, and that is far enough. The Communist party in South Africa has its headquarters in the Trades Hall, Johannesburg, and Mr. W. H. Andrews is its organizer. He attended a congress in Moscow not long ago, and there was a congress in Petrograd in 1920 at which a letter was read from Mr. W. H. Andrews, announcing that at a meeting it had been decided to affiliate with the Third Internationale, and enclosing rules which he said he would show that “our policy is on all fours with that of the Communist party of Europe and elsewhere.” This letter was signed—

We have a Ministry of Labour linked with this organization at Johannesburg which, in turn, is linked up with Moscow. I wonder how many members of the Nationalist party representing country constituencies will go home and explain this to their constituents. Will they explain to their farming friends that if the Bill passes and if they build a dam or erect a shed or build a kraal wall, or put their boys on to a little road-making, their farm hands who do this will be entitled to come under the operations of the Bill? Even if a farmer makes cheese, then he becomes a manufacturer and his boys then will no longer be farm boys but industrial workers and so become entitled to enjoy all the benefits of the Bill. I would endorse what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has stated, that this Bill goes far in industrial matters. Nothing in this debate has given me greater pleasure than the robust commonsense of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown). I think you will agree with me that good wages demand good work, and that one reason why wages have been bad is because employers have been hampered by the small output of their workmen. Surely, if an employer can, by increasing wages 50 per cent., obtain an additional profit of 75 per cent, he will do so. But it is the policy of going slow and “ca canny” that has in many cases caused such bad relationships between employer and employed. How is it that a bricklayer’s daily output in the laying of bricks has been reduced from 800 to 300)? Yet we find these same bricklayers going to America and laying 1,100 bricks a day and getting three times as high wages, and it pays the employer to give them those good wages. The utter disorganization of the whole of the public service and provincial and municipal services that will take place if this Bill becomes law has not been emphasized enough. How can the Minister of Finance frame his Estimates if there is a body that can raise the pay of the Government employees? We thought that Parliament had the last say in these matters, but it is obviously impossible to frame Estimates with any degree of accuracy if they are liable to be altered extensively by the wages board. The same thing might happen in the railways, and with regard to the police arid the warders. This Bill is very far-reaching indeed and its tendency is to undermine the authority and power of Parliament. If financial matters are to go to another body, all public finances will be dislocated. I do not think that the Bill will have any but a very disturbing effect on the native. I was rather struck by the fact that the Prime Minister did not take the trouble to explain his connection with this native agitator, Clements Kadale. Apparently the sympathy between the leader of the native agitators and the Prime Minister has been of long standing, because a letter passed between them just after the then leader of the Opposition moved for an enquiry into the Bullhoek affair. So lately as January 14th at Bloemfontein, when addressing several thousand natives, Kadale referred in flattering terms to the Prime Minister, whom he called a fine fellow. Nevertheless he urged his hearers to make such an agitation everywhere that Parliament House would tremble. Apparently the trembling process was taken up by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson). Kadale said that the Minister of Labour was also a fine fellow, but Kadale hoped that the Minister would not confine the Bill to the white people, for—

I would suggest to hon. members on the back benches opposite to look where they are going. A closer examination of this Bill than some of them seem to have given it will indicate more clearly in what direction they are going. They are going far on the road to Socialism, further than many of them think. They are putting power in the hands of the Minister of Labour, that will enable ideas for the social revolution to be put into operation sooner than could otherwise be expected. I cannot too strongly emphasize the danger of including the native in this agitation. We cannot civilize them or even make them satisfactory trade unionists in a day, a week or even in a generation, but we are encouraging them to build up an organization which will tend towards the destruction of the white civilization here. Our experience shows that the civilizing process is slow, but nowadays in the case of the natives it may not take so very long. When they have been given a chance of running little republics on their own, they have not made a success of it, and we must beware and lead them slowly towards the light if we have the interests of civilization at heart. This Bill is not calculated to enhance their progress in South Africa. The native problem is a great cloud which no one can see through, and one to be approached with the utmost caution and not in the reckless way the hon. Minister for Labour has approached it. It should be approached, not with a view to party or political advantage, but with a view to the welfare of South Africa. I will not go into the question of the possible misuse of this Bill for political purposes. It will be easy for a Government on the eve of an election to instruct the wages board to give vast increases to everyone throughout the services and in all industries. It is one of the things we have to reckon with in the future. Already there is an average of about 500 servants of the Government in each electorate in this country, not counting provincial administrative or municipal employees. I have the greatest respect for them, but we must not subject them to undue temptation. In addition to this we also open up temptation to other employees throughout the country; and I can only say that under these circumstances politics will cease to be anything but a means of leading us to corruption and destruction.

We are trying to pull you out of that.

You are leading us into the morass deeper and deeper. We shall never get parties quite clear of these tendencies, but we must do our best to keep them as free from it as possible. This Bill is tending to corrupt our politics and will make things worse in the future than they are now. The hon. member shakes his head as if they couldn’t be worse. Well, the experience of the last six months makes me almost agree with him, but that is no reason why we should cease in our efforts to make politics cleaner in the future. I hope this House will see that it is the wisest course not to pass the second reading 1925 Bill now, but to send it first to a Select Committee, and there have evidence as to the drawbacks mentioned by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), exact evidence as to the alleged injustices and oppression sought to be remedied, and it will come back to the House in a far more reasonable form, and, perhaps, more acceptable to the House generally.

Yesterday afternoon I heard in this House that hon. members of the Opposition had all been asked to talk on this Bill. The word had gone round, via the Whips, that each member on that side of the House had to “go out” all he could to speak on this measure. After listening to the speech that has just been delivered, I can only congratulate the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in doing his best to speak for 40 minutes on this Bill at the bidding of his party whips. He has travelled all round from Moscow, Shanghai, to New York and other parts of the world. Might I remind the House that this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) seemed to resent members on the Government side of the House taking part in the debate. The hon. member for Yeoville said that a good deal of time had been taken up, not by members of the Opposition, but by members of the Government. I interjected, “Why not?” Let me say I think it right at this juncture, after the experience we had during the first few weeks of the session of members on that side of the House, during the discussion on the Diamond Control Bill and other Bills, going out of their way to talk for the sake of talking, whilst we, to conserve time, sat quiet, to point out what was then said. We were taunted that we were unable to reply to the sound arguments of the Opposition. We had to submit, because we restrained ourselves and refused, for the sake of saving time, to talk—we did put up one or two Ministers to reply to various points—we had to submit to the taunts of the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and others, who said that members of the Government couldn’t reply to the argument.

Why not devote your time now in replying to the hon. member for Ficksburg?

We have had a good deal of tiresome repetition in this House whilst dealing with this Bill but we shall now have to pursue the policy that for every member that gets up to speak on the opposition; side a member on this side of the House will reply.

You cannot do it.

They are not going to put us in the position of jeopardizing any of our legislation. We shall be ready to reply to them, but as time goes on, if we don’t get through the programme as quickly as we should, it will be the duty of the Government in July, August, September, October or November, to say that we are going to remain here until we pass our legislation.

Idle talk!

A curious feature of most of the speeches which have been made on the other side of the House, perhaps with the exception notably of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), has been an almost violent assertion on the part of the different speakers that they, at any rate, were in favour of the principle of a minimum wage. After they had committed themselves several times in the course of their speeches, they strained themselves in order to find arguments on details for the purpose of killing the Bill on the second reading. Not one argument has been put forward by a single member on that side which could not have been adequately and reasonably dealt with in Select Committee after the second reading has been passed. It is all very well for the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and others to talk about the harm this Bill is going to do. What are the arguments which have been put forward ad nauseam and which it has been said we are afraid to tackle? Nothing is easier to handle than the arguments which have been advanced against the second reading of this Bill being passed. The hon. member for East London (North) enlarged in his speech on the difficulty of dealing with the colour question. I ask him and other members, are they keen on putting in a colour bar in Select Committee or at a later stage into this Bill? I would ask the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), is he in favour in Select Committee of putting in a clause which shall differentiate and say that this Bill shall not apply to natives and coloured people, but shall apply only to Europeans? If they want that, then what becomes of their fight against the colour bar in this House a few days ago? If they are in favour of putting in a colour bar, Why did they not put a colour bar into the Bill which they themselves passed in 1921?

What does Clause 7 (2) of that Bill say?

I cannot read it at present; it is too long. On the question of colour the position in South Africa is difficult for all parties. We are striving in this Bill to raise the standard of civilization for coloureds as well as for Europeans. Now let us take agriculture. Hon. members on that side, one after another, get up and say “Why don’t you apply this to agriculture?” or “Why do you exempt agriculture?” I do not know whether they want agriculture to be included or whether they don’t. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that one of the most important industries in the country where European labour should be encouraged was the agricultural industry, and he spoke as if he would like to see the agricultural industry included in the Bill. I would ask hon. members opposite, are they prepared in Select Committee or in this House to move am additional clause which will make this Bill applicable to the agricultural industries throughout South Africa? If they are not prepared to do that, what becomes of all their talk about the omission of agriculture from this Bill? Their own Bill of 1921, in the very first clause says that it shall not apply to persons employed in domestic service or in agriculture.

If it is moved, will you accept it?

It is for you to move it. We will tell you whether we will accept it when you have moved it. Hon. members opposite are prepared to sacrifice the principle of this Bill on account of difficulties which they put forward and which they themselves only met in the same way in 1921 when they passed their Bill through the House. The hon. member for Standerton and others talk about the public servants and railway workers, and say why should these people be included in this Bill? Supposing we had excluded them, in the frame of mind that members of the Opposition are in, what would the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) have said He would have got up and said: “Here is a nice measure which the Government is bringing before the country; they set up certain machinery to deal with certain employees in industries outside the Government service, but they take good care that that machinery shall not be applied to the employees in the Government service. On this point of the Government servants, I believe I am right in saying that the Minister of Labour is quite prepared in select committee, if he is convinced that this is a sound and reasonable argument, that Government employees should to a certain extent be excluded, or that the power should not be in his hands as against that of the Minister of Finance. I am satisfied that the Minister would go out of his way to meet that particular objection. But that is no reason for wrecking the Bill. Hon. members opposite should be reasonable. They have no right to wreck this Bill on the second reading when the Minister would be prepared to consider some of the points of their criticism in select committee. Members on that side of the House have spent hours over this particular point and yet in committee safeguards could be put in to meet them. Then they say we are brushing aside the Conciliation Act. This Bill does nothing of the kind; nor does it do away with voluntary agreement. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents an employer, whether it be Lever Brothers or De Beers or anybody else, having wage arrangements made with their employees if they are mutually satisfied. The most this Bill does is, if an award is made under the Conciliation Act, and that award happens to be less than an award made by this board, then the Minister can put into operation the award given by the board. Then in regard to the objection to only one board. This Bill provides for a hoard of experts. They would become experts by the time they had been a few months on their work. It is a legitimate argument to say there should be more than one board, but that is not a reason for wrecking the Bill. Supposing there had been provision made in the Bill for boards to be scattered all over the place, what would have happened? You would have had minimum wages for different parts of the country, the guiding principles of which might have been absolutely contrary and you would have created chaos. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) says that has happened. If we had put into this Bill that there should have been a number of boards I can imagine the howls of criticism that would have gone up from that side of the House. Where are you going to get uniformity, and so on? That would have been their line of criticism. We considered the question as to whether it would be advisable to have a mobile board travelling about assisted by local assessors if necessary. For instance, supposing the board were in Kimberley, dealing with the diamond industry; the board would get the assistance of one of the representatives of the company and one of the representatives of the employees, and these two assessors would sit with the board, in order to arrive at a more satisfactory decision. That seems to me to be a much more practical scheme as the board will go on certain definite guiding principles and you will get uniformity. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) talked about the tanning industry as if it were the only one. Don’t you think that the board will have regard to what a particular industry can bear and will not simply close up an industry without consideration. It will have due regard to all circumstances, and all the factors surrounding that particular industry or class of employee. At the same time there is nothing which would justify the other side in voting against the second reading of the Bill. Speaking about the closing down of industries, I do not think this Government, no matter how hard it tried, could close down more industries than the last Government. The bankruptcy record of South Africa will stand as a monument of the number of firms and companies closed down during the three years the last Government was in office, from 1921 to 1924. This was largely due to the absolute indifference of the Government to the requirements and needs of the industries which were appealing for help and which appeals were ignored, but these appeals are not being ignored by the present Government. What was the position under the 1921 Bill? That Bill was a result not of a conviction on the part of the South African party, not of a sincere desire to put on the statute book a Minimum Wage Bill such as we want to do, or even such as the Bill that eventually passed, but that Bill was due to the aftermath of the general election which took place on February 8th, 1921—that “man and the hour” election, when the Prime Minister committed his party on the principle of a Minimum Wage Bill. The then Prime Minister and the members of his party at the election committed themselves to the passing of a Minimum Wage Bill, but they did not want to do it; it was not done because their heart was in it. We all knew the difficulties in getting that Bill through. It was conceived in abhorrence by its own sponsors. It was passed in this House with the greatest of pain, although it was known that it would be killed in the other place, and would never see the light of day on the statute book. A lot of lip service has been rendered on that side of the House to the principle of a minimum wage, but if the party on that side had been sincere they would have brought in that Bill again in 1922, and would have passed it earlier, so that the other House would have been allowed time to deal with it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has put up an argument which is entitled to be answered, and then I think I have dealt with all the arguments of any weight from the other side.

The constitution of the board?

I suppose the constitution of the board will be what the Minister of Labour makes the board, and let me tell the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) that this Bill has this advantage over the Bill of 1921—that it gives this Parliament some voice in the matter of wages, as the Minister will have to face the music in regard to anything done under this Bill which should not have been done. The Bill of 1921 did not do that, and the Government would have said, if anything went wrong, that the wages boards had done it and that the Government were powerless, and should not be attacked for anything the wage board had done. They would have said “We cannot interfere; it is the board which has done it.” We said in 1921 that that is a wrong principle, and that the Minister in charge should be responsible to this House for the administration of the Minimum Wage Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) put forward an argument which he used against the Bill, but which in reality is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. His argument was that in South Africa we have not a homogeneous population; we have two standards, whereas Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Great Britain have a homogeneous population. It seems to me that on account of this fact, this country, more than any other country, is entitled to protect those living on the higher standard of civilization. That is to me one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. If a country where they have a homogeneous population still finds it necessary to protect certain sections against sweating, oppression, and being driven down into the depth of the lowest possible wages, it is all the more necessary to have this protection in a country where there is such divergence in the standards of civilization as there is in South Africa. If we are going to protect the European and coloured worker from the unfair competition of the manual labourer we can only do it in the manner set out in this Bill. If there is one province where this Bill is more necessary than any other province it is Natal. Why? On account of the unfair competition of the Asiatics in the skilled and unskilled trades. They are not competing with the farmers, but they are competing with our European boys and even with our skilled and semi-skilled workers. There are several trades in Natal which have been practically lost to the European. Not because the European is less efficient, but because he has been unable to stand against cheap, Asiatic competition. The furniture-making, cabinet-making, tin-smithing, and upholstering trades have gradually passed out of the hands of Europeans. The Bill merely says that if you want to employ Asiatics then you will not be permitted to compete unfairly with Europeans, but will have to pay Asiatics the same wages as those received by Europeans. Without a Bill of this kind the white workers will go down, not because of any fault of their own, but through unfair competition, from efficient but cheap competition of people whose standard of living is lower than that of Europeans. What is the alternative? Are we to go on in the old way? The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says this Bill is a turning-point in the history of South Africa. No, sir; the turning-point in the history of South Africa was on June 17 last, when the Smuts Government was put out of office and the Pact Government put into power. The Leader of the Opposition says this is a fundamental departure from all past policy. It is time we had a fundamental departure from all past policy. The greatest compliment that could be paid to the Government and the Bill is to say that the measure is a fundamental departure from the way we have gone in the past. If this country is going to continue in the future as it has been going for the last 14 or 15 years, it is not going to be a nation or become a country where Europeans can live, but a kaffir compound and an Asiatic reserve, with a few supervisors employing large masses of cheap labour in order to enrich themselves. If this Government does nothing else but pass this piece of legislation it will have done well by this country and will earn the gratitude of thousands of people, coloured as well as white, by elevating the standard of living and giving the people an opportunity of living as they should live. We shall see the Bill is put through, but we shall do the best we can to meet the Opposition. Any argument and criticism will be met in the Select Committee, but we have to stand by, and the country expects us to stand firmly by legislation of this description, because it is long overdue, and the sooner we get it on the statute book the better it will be for South Africa.

I intended to speak on this subject in Afrikaans, but I have been challenged by the hon. Minister who has just sat down to answer certain questions put to me; I shall therefore reply in the language he best understands. His whole speech has been of a negative nature and his only positive assertion was on the white labour policy of the Minister of Labour. That clearly came out in the last few sentences, but the Minister has not attempted to defend the main principles underlying this Bill and how it is going to affect the public in its practical form. I was surprised this afternoon at the hon. the Prime Minister, and I am sorry he is not in his place. He made a speech endeavouring to console his own and the political consciences of his friends the Nationalists. He suggested we should take the second reading because he says it only affirms the principle of a minimum wage upon which we all agree. The Prime Minister well knows that this Bill contains much more than the principle of a minimum wage. The essential thing in this Bill is, how is this minimum wage to be established, how is it to be applied, and by what machinery. It is covered by the great principle of the wage boards, and by the second reading we adopt the principle of the wage boards as laid down. The Prime Minister says: “We are here to govern and we shall govern.” With what sort of feeling, therefore, can we enter the Select Committee after the second reading when the Prime Minister asserted that as far as he and his Government are concerned, they are going to govern in regard to the principle of this Bill. We know what will happen in the Select Committee once we have approved the principle. In the Select Committee the principle enunciated that he is here to govern will be fully asserted.

Don’t you want us to govern?

There are different ways of governing. I say that after the Prime Minister’s declaration this afternoon I expect no mercy in any Select Committee from a majority of the Government party to be appointed on that Committee. The Prime Minister said that this Bill contains the principle of a minimum wage and he desired to tell his supporters on the other side that the Bill contains the same principle as the 1921 Bill. What is the essential difference between these two Bills? The 1921 Bill lays down clearly that the control of whatever action is taken under that Bill would be in the hands of the workers and the employers. When I put to him the question as to what the constitution of the 1921 board was, the Prime Minister evaded the question, but he afterwards made great play in regard to the chairman of that board and said that we wanted to relegate all the importance of this Bill to a chairman, instead of to a Minister. The Prime Minister there disclosed the fact that he had never read the Bill of 1921, for that Bill says—

The Bill of 1925 lays down this principle, that in future the industries of this country—the same principle which the Minister of Mines has under his Diamond Control Bill—shall no more be controlled by the workers and the employers, but shall be controlled by the State. If we agree to this principle on the second reading, we agree to hand over all the commercial and economic interests of this country to the State and into the hands of the Minister. That is, in short, what this Bill means. I want to ask the Prime Minister and through him also the Minister of Labour, is the Prime Minister, as head of the Government, prepared to accept the machinery of the 1921 Bill?

No.

There you have it. Then I ask what is the good of going to a Select Committee, after the second reading, when the Minister has stated here that he is not prepared to depart from the machinery laid down in this Bill?

I said I was not prepared to accept the machinery of the 1921 Bill.

In other words, the Minister wishes to control the industries of this country through his board or boards—which he himself is going to appoint. This is one of the most important measures which has ever been discussed in this country and yet at this late hour and in a tired House we are compelled to discuss a matter concerning the very vitals of industry. Here there is no full opportunity to discuss this matter, but in two days’ sitting this great principle has to be settled. There is nothing to be gained he accusing one another of having expressed certain views in regard to the measure of 1921 or any other measure. I, fortunately, have never expressed an opinion on that Bill, and I stand untramelled in regard to any commission dealing with wage boards or a minimum wage. But it is the duty of this House to consider every measure upon its merits. Apart from the 1921 measure, we have to deal with the measure now before Parliament, and it is the duty of every hon. member to consider this question from the point of view of the measure actually under discussion. I am going to analyse this Bill to show what it means when applied in practice. We are prone nowadays to endeavour to fit in our own country with other advanced countries in the world. But our country is peculiarly situated both economically and racially, and it is impossible to apply to it the economic doctrines of other countries. The Minister holds advanced views and also his associates, and those advanced views are to be applied to this country economically, but if that is done the economic future of this country is doomed. Let us see whether the terms of this Bill can be applied to the great industries of this country. Apart from agriculture, the two great industries are diamonds and gold. Diamonds are a luxury, and the diamond mining industry is a most uncertain one, depending upon the world position to buy the most delicate article, perhaps, that any country could deal with. In the gold industry you have to deal with an article of standard value, not an article that goes up one day and goes down another.

What about the gold premium?

You should not interrupt on a point like that. The premium is practically gone. These two main industries are responsible for a large number of subsidiary industries, and if you were, to-day, to endeavour to eliminate from your mind the gold mining and diamond mining, then the question is whether this is an industrial country. You hear from morning to night that this is an industrial country, but it has still to be proved whether South Africa is an industrial country. If you eliminate the gold-mining and diamond industries and other subsidiary industries, I ask, where is your industrial life? We all hope some day to be able to establish an industrial life in this country, but that still has to be proved; and now, when we are on the verge of endeavouring to build a foundation for our industries, we are faced with a Bill of this nature which, I say, is the most drastic measure that has ever been thrown upon the floor of this House, as I shall show in analysing its details. We must realize that the agricultural industry—the permanent industry of the country—is very largely dependent on the gold and diamond industries. We must also remember that we have invested over £100,000,000 in the capital account of our railways, and those railways are to a great extent dependent on the gold and diamond industries. I am pointing out how careful we must be in dealing with our economic life. The only industry which is permanent in this country, and which we can be sure of for the white race of the future, is the agricultural industry, and it is our duty, as Parliamentarians, apart from party, not to do anything to impair that industry; because if agriculture is the backbone of this country we must be honest and treat it as a backbone. I ask whether, if you have a Bill of this nature, dealing in the most drastic and revolutionary manner with all the industries outside agriculture, is agriculture going to escape? Can you economically argue that it is not going to have a bad effect on agriculture? I have shown how our industries all hang together. If you strangle economically the gold-mining and diamond industries and the other industries spread all over the country by impossible legislation you are damning the agricultural industry. That is an economic truth which no hon. member dare controvert. I come back to this point again, that we have been discussing this Bill because the hon. Minister of Labour is endeavouring, with the Pact behind him, to carry out that old policy of his, more than 20 years old, the white-labour policy so dear to his heart.

You want a black labour policy?

No I don’t. I want what is laid down in the 1921 Bill in which all men, regardless of colour, would come together and discuss the conditions of their industry.

So they can if you pass this Bill.

No they can’t. Under this Bill the Minister proposes to appoint a board which will be all-powerful. The members of the board need not pass any examination in agriculture, economics or business. But they can be the puppets of the Minister of Labour. I do not think in any Parliament in the world an attempt has ever been made before to give to an outside body such sweeping powers as it is proposed to entrust to the board and inspectors in this measure. If the Bill becomes law it will come back like a boomerang. The board will have power to enter a man’s business premises and order him to produce his books.

That can be done under the Factory Act.

No. Only with regard to the hours of work. This Bill will kill all ambition on the part of business people to build up industries with their capital and brains. It is all very well to say that the Bill will not be applied to the farmer: If the provisions of the Bill are carried into force in the dorps and are made to affect the tailor in the Caledon district, say, a farmers’ co-operative society, or the moss konfyt factory which the farmers have established at Villiersdorp, will the farmers not be affected? The Minister can go and fix wages in the factory at Villiersdorp, he can fix wages for assistants in the town of Caledon. Is that not going to have an effect on the countryside? Are the farmers not going to be affected either directly or indirectly? This Bill is too harsh to apply to the farmer; it is too inquisitorial to pry into the farmers’ stock books, as they must pry into the books of the factories. But I say if you are honest and you say it is good for the shopkeeper, then it is also good for the farmer.

Why didn’t you do it?

I want to point out that you are going to inflict this drastic law on the shopkeeper. It is going to affect the factories and the shopkeepers in every place in your electoral division. The Minister is going to be in the position of being able to say to the shopkeepers, you must pay your clerks so much a month. Every phase of business comes within the scope of this Bill. I am firmly convinced when this Pact was formed it was freely stated that Socialism will go to the back veld on the backs of their Nationalist friends, and here this Bill I contend is a clear proof of that. The principle of this Bill is the principle of Socialism, and yet my hon. friends belonging to the Nationalist party representing farmers and vested interests in the country vote for this principle.

1921.

Every Nationalist ran away in 1921.

Let me say the 1921 Bill cannot be compared in its incidence to the Bill now before the House. What was done in 1921? The Minister of Mines and Industries moved—

That was prior to the second reading. Now this Bill has much more drastic principles, much more drastic machinery, and I ask why my hon. friends over there should be committed to dangerous principles of this sort before the fullest and most stringent inquiry has been conducted.

We have heard a very bombastic speech from the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), but at the most what he has said was intended to frighten this side of the House from voting for this Bill. I can assure the hon. member that he is not going to frighten this side of the House over this Bill. Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) said that the back benches of the Government side were keeping a discreet silence, but I can assure him that we support this Bill wholeheartedly. I rise to express my satisfaction, as a humble backbencher, that this Bill has been brought in by the present Government. It is one of the first and best fruits of the Pact. The fruits of the Pact are now ripening and are already being put on the market, and the Opposition will have to buy them, whether they like them or not. We were accused of not doing anything, of not delivering the goods. Now when we deliver the goods, what is the result?

Whose goods?

The goods of the Pact. Half of it was supplied to us by the South African party in 1921. The attitude of that party during the present session has been that if anything has been brought before the House which they cannot help supporting, then they say we are building on the foundations of the South African party. If, on the other hand, we produce something which they don’t like, they shout “Bolshevism,” “Moscowism,” or something of that kind. The turning point, which was reached in June last, was between two schools of political thought in this country— one school represented very ably by hon. members opposite, embodying the idea that the top dog shall rule, and shall rule for his own benefit alone, and the other school representing the idea that the under-dog should have its chance, too, and that there shall be a fair deal for everybody. One school which has as its motto, “What can my country do for me?” and the other school which asks, “What can I do for my country?” I cannot understand hon. members opposite taking up this attitude to-day after what they did when the 1921 Bill was before the House. Mr. F. S. Malan in 1921 came and said to the House that this was a first attempt (more was to follow) and that legislation of this kind was overdue in South Africa. We say amen. We have heard from the member for Cape Town. (Central) (Mr. Jagger) about strikes, but Mr. Malan said the Bill provided a means of preventing strikes. We make the same claim for the Bill. I am sorry the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is not here to-night. It would have been enjoyable to listen to him. He said he was on that committee in 1921 and that the Select Committee was unanimously in favour of this principle, and that no division had taken place upon it. He went on to support it and said that it was necessary for the sake of industrial peace. Now we hear that this Bill will cause industrial trouble, Bolshevism, etc. I fear it is hopeless to look for consistency from hon. members opposite. Mr. C. A. van Niekerk, who is now in another place, in 1921 expressed his pleasure that public servants and farmers were exempted, but he asked how long would they be exempted, and Mr. Malania was very much concerned to show that the fear was groundless. We give the same reply as Mr. Malan. We find that this Bill was then accepted on the second reading. It is interesting to read the division lists for the third reading. I am surprised that only forty members voted. Where were the others? On the division lists you find such staunch “Nationalists” voting for it as Robert Ballanine, John Joseph Byron (who spoke against the principle of the Bill to-night), Andries Lourens de Jager, and Gideon Brand van Zyl.

Was it the same Bill?

It was the same principle !

Read the Nationalists.

It would waste time. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has moved this amendment. It is a blind and a smoke-screen. Why do not hon. members tell us if they are in favour of the principle of a minimum wage or not? Only two members have been honest—the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) who said he did not want it, and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) who said he was in favour of it. Other hon. members always leave us in the position that we do not know where they stand. All the questions that have been raised can be discussed in Select Committee. Why bring them in here? It is a smoke-screen. The right hon. member for Standerton in an attempt to frighten us said “You are going to fix a minimum wage. Do you know that the general wage tends to gravitate towards that minimum wage?” The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said the Bill would tend to inflate wages. Which is right? Take your choice. We feel that there may be points of detail on which we do not agree, but let hon. members say “We agree with your principle, but we have this or that difficulty.” The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has raised the question of the decision of the chairman in the Bill of 1921. Now I ask what would happen if there was a deadlock? The answer is, you would have the same position as if there was no Bill, for there would be no one to decide and what is the use of it then? As one of the younger members I feel that we have been playing with fire too long, and on more than one occasion we have badly burnt our fingers. We must put an end to that sort of thing, and that is why I support this Bill. The farmers in this country are realizing that if you don’t pay a man a fair wage he cannot buy the farmer’s produce, and if a large proportion of the population is living below the bread-line, how can they be expected to buy the farmers’ maize and wheat? The farmers are not so troubled over this Bill as hon. members suggest.

I rather regret the speech of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Swart), for I looked upon him as reasonable in thought and fair in argument. He used two arguments which I think are quite unworthy of him, and I would advise him to read this evening’s “Cape Argus” before he indulges in the usual sneers about the use of aeroplanes and machine guns by this side of the House. It is also unfair to suggest—of course the hon. member is careful not to say so definitely—that the Select Committee on the 1921 Bill was packed by South African party men.

I said you had a majority.

The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Werth) for example—a prominent Nationalist—was a member of that committee, and he said “He had gone to the Select Committee on the Bill with a good deal of prejudice against the measure, but after six weeks’ consideration of every detail he had come to the conclusion that it was a very useful and necessary Bill.” The principle of that Bill is very different from the principle of this measure. Much has been made of the high wages paid in America and of the splendid industrial conditions there. I would remind hon. members that in America the labour principles differ totally from labour principles in this country. There they believe in paying good wages but they insist on a good day’s work. There are no “ca canny” principles there. There they don’t believe in State-owned industry and they do not rave against, but rather support, private enterprise. We have been told By speakers, on the Government benches that not a single point has been brought forward in argument on this side of the House against the Bill, yet when the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs rose to reply he found there were so many points made by us that he had to tabulate them. He tabulated up to five points that we had made, and then suddenly—no doubt appreciating that he was, in being just to us, rather giving away his friends, he continued in his endeavours to meet our arguments but without referring to each in turn as the sixth, seventh, etc. I counted on, however, and found that he replied to no less than nine points made by us. And they must have been good points for he thought them worthy of lengthy argument. That should satisfy hon. members opposite of their absolute inability when they say that there were no points in our argument but that we were merely talking at length for party purposes. I must remind the Minister that he is absolutely wrong, and really in a responsible position should exercise some restraint. He is wrong when he says that many industries had to close down during our term of office. Let me remind the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who one would imagine speaks for the Cabinet, what the Prime Minister thinks of industries and what his views are in regard to the part this party played in furthering industries. On January 30th, 1920, at Bloemfontein, the hon. the Prime Minister said: “General Smuts’s panacea for the poor white problem was industries. Well the whole basis of industries was poverty. The greater the industrial developments the greater the poverty. General Smuts wanted to abolish poverty by industries, which proved the superficial intellects possessed by General Smuts and his colleagues.” Let us see what happened during the term of office of the South African party. We have the statistics, and the Minister will be able to get them if he wants them. During the period of office of the South African party the gross value of manufactures increased from £17,000,000 to £79,000,000. The number of factories increased from 3,998 to 7,055; the value of land and buildings increased from £8,000,000 to £15,000,000; the value of machinery and plant increased from £15,000,000 to £27,000,000. The number of persons employed increased from 101,000 to 170,000, and the wages increased from £9,000,000 to £20,000,000. The average wage increase was from £91 to £122. The value of materials used in factories increased from £22,000,000 to £42,000,000, and the gross value of factory production increased from £40,000,000 to £79,000,000. All that happened under this Government which we were told set out to kill industries ! So much for the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The Prime Minister lectured us at great length this afternoon on our duty as an Opposition. He had a long experience, but I don’t think the House gained much by watching him in Opposition.

The country did.

He was on strike most of the time and consequently absent from the House, when not on strike no doubt he was travelling. Certainly we saw very little of him. He said that as an Opposition, if we were honestly in favour of the principle, we had no right to object to the second reading when there was a promise to go to a Select Committee afterwards. As the Prime Minister is not present let me ask the Minister of Labour if he agrees that this is what the Prime Minister said. It is important that I interpret the Prime Minister’s suggestion correctly. Will the Minister of Labour say if I am correct? No; he pretends to be asleep.

No; I can hear better with my eyes shut.

Then I take it you agree with my interpretation of the Prime Minister’s suggestion. The Prime Minister on the Defence Force Amendment Bill in 1921 spoke very strongly in favour of the principle, but although in favour of the principle he supported the amendment by the present Minister of Agriculture to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. That is only one instance showing that when in Opposition the Prime Minister supported the principle they now are struggling for. I have no doubt if I look through the Votes and Proceedings I shall find many other instances for if I remember rightly the general practice was to require a Select Committee to consider a Bill before it was read a second time. He said on that occasion “He agreed that it was essential to amend the existing Act, but that didn’t mean that he agreed with the amendments which the Minister now proposed. There were portions of the Bill which he might agree with. Placed in the right hands, in the hands of the people who had the right “policy” at heart, the Bill might be a weapon for good, but in the hands of people who were not rightly inclined, whose policy was the wrong one, it might be a very serious weapon. Placed in the hands of the Government whose policy he and his friends were convinced was to the detriment of South Africa, the Bill would undoubtedly prove a very evil weapon.”

What portions do you agree with?

It is not for you to catechize me. It is becoming a habit for Ministers when they are met in argument, to avoid the issue by questioning us. Those words of the hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion in criticism of that Bill are absolutely applicable in criticism of this Bill and we hold views on the present Government which are splendidly set out in those remarks by the Prime Minister. We hold the Government has not the right “policy” at heart and that in the hands of the Minister of Defence this Bill is a very serious weapon for wrong—an evil weapon. I am sorry that the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) is not in his place tonight. Yesterday he lectured the right hon. the leader of the Opposition and told us that it was misleading to say that the majority of the Nationalists were not in favour of the 1921 Bill. He showed us that two Nationalists only voted against the Bill, but he omitted to tell us how many voted for it. I find there were six who voted altogether, and yet on the previous division no less than 23 Nationalists voted.

We were on strike at that time.

The strike was not on any Bill but on the Estimates. On the Bill, however, the Nationalists had not the moral courage to vote one way or the other. Were they then already wedded to the policy of “wait and see” what the country would prefer? The hon. member (Mr. Alexander) also stated that if we had been honest in our endeavour we would have averted the 1922 strike by re-introducing the 1921 Bill in 1922. The 1922 session started on February 17 of that year and the strike broke out on January 9. So how could we by re-introducing that Bill have averted that strike? The hon. member tried to make great play of what the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) said in regard to “onus of proof,” and he stated that under this Bill the onus of proof only meant the onus to produce books. The hon. member (Mr. Alexander), if he had read the Bill, and I presume he had for he frequently in the course of his remarks suggested that others had omitted to read the Bill, if he had read the Bill he would have found that he was quite wrong and that while section 15 bears out, though only in part, what he stated, as to the onus to produce books, that section 15 discloses quite a different position, and throws the onus on a man who dismisses any servant of proving that he did not dismiss that servant because he had given evidence against the employer. Take the first section he referred to, clause 15, that shows that the employer has not only to produce his books but also his wage or pay sheets, his records, etc., and he must prove that he has not paid or agreed to pay wages at less than the rate determined, or has not failed to comply with any other condition prescribed in any determination. Then clause 13 states “that allegation,” namely, that the employee was not dismissed or threatened, etc., “shall be deemed to have been proved unless the employer charged shall satisfy the court that the employee was dismissed or threatened or injured in his employment or had his position altered to his prejudice for some other reason than that alleged in the charge.” I cannot understand how the hon. member, who is a leading counsel, can say the Bill says one thing when if he had read it he would have found it says a very different thing. I would like to put to the hon. member the question whether he agrees with the hon. member for Jeppes that the principle in this Bill is the same as in the 1918 and 1921 Bills, and that the fixation of the minimum wage is by agreement? Does he not appreciate that the difference between the two Bills is this, that whereas the 1921 Bill allowed the employer and employee to have representation on the board, and the Minister was required to carry out the recommendation of that board, this Bill gives the Minister the sole right to appoint the board, and if the board has come to a conclusion and made suggestions which the Minister does not agree with he can say, “I am going to do as I jolly well please.” I know the Minister has often denied that.

It is not correct.

I say that if the hon. member would read the Bill he will find it is correct, and it is for the hon. member for Delarey to prove the contrary. I think he tried unsuccessfully for nearly an hour last night. We put the onus of proof on him, but, Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the Minister does not deny this. I wish to know also from the hon. member whether he agrees with the hon. member for Jeppes that the alternative to this Bill is strikes, civil war and bloodshed, and if he does, whether he will tell us where to find in the Bill any provision to prevent strikes? On the contrary, the Minister by his silence encourages strikes, whereas he provides against the employer disobeying any of the orders he may have given.

What causes strikes?

I think the hon. member will be able to explain that more clearly than I can, but I wish to know, more particularly from the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), whether he agrees with the Minister that by this system of equal pay the coloured and native people must give way industrially to the white man? The Minister said that very clearly, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) agreed with it. He said this Bill was the only hope for the white man in South Africa, and that by the present unequal system the whites were being driven out.

Do you want them driven out?

That is a foolish question. What I object to is that the native and coloured people should be driven out of their employment.

You did not reply to the Minister of Railways the other day.

He put questions so as to avoid answering questions, but it shows that he speaks with one voice and you with another voice. Does the hon. member agree with the hon. members for Umbilo and Turffontein that this Bill will drive the Indian out of the industries in Natal?

I never said that.

I ask whether the hon. member who has always stood for the rights of the Indians agrees with that interpretation of the Bill? I regret that he is not here to make his position clear. It becomes perfectly hopeless when the Minister of Railways, amid great applause from his Pact followers, one day enunciates one policy and the Minister of Labour on the next day, again amid great applause from his party followers, enunciates a policy totally opposed to that first put forward. The Minister of Justice, when he is cornered, says, “That is not the Cabinet’s view; it is my personal view.” Do these two Ministers adopt the same method? I think we are entitled to demand from the Prime Minister the views of the Cabinet on the question of the payment of equal wage for equal work. The principle of a minimum wage is one with which everyone agrees, but we object strongly to the introduction of a Bill under the guise of a minimum wage Bill which has the sole object of damaging one section of the community.

Which section is to be damaged?

I have already told the hon. member, the section which the Minister is out to damage is the coloured and native section. Of course he will deny this, but I think the remark made by an hon. member from this side in regard to the Prime Minister also applies to the Minister of Labour. When he gets up he does not know what he is going to say, and when he has sat down he does not know what he has said. We know that this aim of the Minister of Labour to damage one section of the community is in conformity with his determination in the past his utterances of the past and his past actions. His endeavour has always been to drive the coloured and native workers out of the industries of this country. We are entitled to ask is it the Minister of Labour’s wish fully and faithfully to explore the principles of a minimum wage, or is he rather endeavouring by this Bill to gain the end for which he so long though with such signal unsuccess has been trying to gain. I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister is out for one thing. He is so obsessed of supposed wrongs and so greatly broods over the past that he has entirely lost all sense of proportion and now imagines he can control all capital. His desire is to become the Napoleon of finance. He is a very long way off and certainly he will never reach his goal by this method. We on this side definitely adopted the principle of the minimum wage in 1921. But the chief opponents to the principle then, were hon. members who are now sitting on the Government benches. The present Bill differs in such very material details from the 1921 measures as to raise the gravest doubts of its effect on the industries of our country. The latter was framed on the very democratic principles, of the Whitley Councils which had been so loudly called for by the Labour members over and over again. We proposed to appoint to those councils representative men nominated by the parties concerned and who were fully acquainted with all the conditions of particular trades, and they would have had to come to a decision which would have been binding on the parties concerned as well as on the Minister. In the Bill before the House, however, that democratic principle is totally ignored, for the boards appointed by the Minister and not by those closely concerned can only enquire into matters. What has become of those democratic shibboleths which the Minister of Labour used to thunder forth when he sat on the cross-benches? He then told us that we must have democratic principles. Where are the democratic principles in this Bill? I must confess the Minister then the member for various constituencies, almost impressed me. At times I never believed he was in earnest. I now see the wisdom of not accepting all he says as all he believes in. Is this Bill another method of getting rid of the Civil Service Commission for the Minister takes power to himself to establish boards to go into the question of civil servants’ wages?

I left out members of Parliament.

That is a sweated industry—why leave it out?

What would become of the safeguards of the service, because if you have powers to increase wages, you would have powers to decrease them as well? Then the Minister of Railways laid it down the other day that he was going to pay white labourers a certain sum and coloured labourers so much less, because there are different degrees of civilization. Again, what is the policy of the Government? I think the House is entitled to know because we have members of the Cabinet speaking with two voices. Has the Minister thought of the position it he takes the power to increase civil servants’ salaries that he takes more power than the Government has? What has the Minister of Finance to say to this? And what about the Minister of Railways? Is the Minister to ignore Parliament and tax the people as he pleases?—Parliament has not the power to increase the estimates for there is a splendid rule designed to prevent fanatics rushing the country into chaos. Yet here the Minister takes to himself the power which Parliament cannot exercise. The Government cannot increase Estimates except with the consent of the Governor-General. Yet the Minister of Labour with a; single stroke of his pen may. He has already allowed the Extremists to take command of the trade unions, and before long they will take command of him, and his career will be brought to a sudden and perhaps unpleasant termination. The more we study this Bill the more amazing we find the powers the Minister proposes to confer upon himself. It is amazing though quite in keeping with his past record. The Minister can appoint Boards to go into all these matters and he personally can determine the minimum wage which can be paid by any employer providing it be not less than that assessed by the Board. That Board is in no circumstance’s going to reduce wages, and no matter what the Minister thinks of their finding he cannot decrease the wages they recommend, but he may increase them. He can determine the age at which juvenile employees are entitled to wages, he may determine the number of juveniles to be employed by any employer and the conditions of apprenticeship and the wages to be paid.

Do you object to that?

I object to the Minister taking such sweeping powers. Why should such power be given to such an autocrat? Why, he may determine the class of employer who shall comply with the requirements of this Act. He alone is to determine in which trades persons under 14 years of age may not be employed and further he may determine any other matter whatsoever affecting remuneration or conditions of employment of any employees. All this is in favour of the employees. In no case is the employer safeguarded. The Minister wishes to be the sole autocrat of South Africa. Just imagine he and he alone may determine any other matter whatever affecting remuneration or conditions of employment. If anyone can show me any Act in the world which gives a Minister greater powers than this does I should like to see it. I know of none. He has rightly been called a Czar, or was it the Kaiser? That is a more appropriate name. If he had made a fair provision that employees and employers would be considered by the Board and by him then there would be something to say in favour of the Bill, but he deliberately leaves out one section whilst protecting and guarding another section. The matter is of so great importance, and should be so fully debated, that I feel midnight is not the proper time to carry on and I therefore move—

In seconding that motion, I would like to say that I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place, because this is a very important question and one would have liked to appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the motion of my hon. friend (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). After the extreme heat of the last few days, I hardly think it is fair to this House that the Government should at this late hour refuse a reasonable request for the adjournment of the debate. I do not think the discussion has been inordinately long on a matter of this kind. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister has now come back. I find on going through the list of speakers on this measure, though two or three more members on this side have spoken than members on the opposite side, several of the members who have spoken on this side have given extremely brief speeches. I would appeal to the Prime Minister. We are determined on this side, as far as our physical powers will allow us in this fearful weather, to demand the right of expressing our opinions and the Prime Minister is not doing himself or his party or the House any justice in using his majority to prevent us from having what is a reasonable request, the adjournment of the debate. There are a fair number of members on this side who take a very great interest in this measure and who still desire to address the House.

Tiresome repetition.

We listened to a certain amount of tiresome repetition from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs this evening. Surely at this late hour there should be some consideration for the officials in this House as well. We only want a fair and reasonable opportunity of bringing forward the views of members who have not already spoken. I know the Government has a majority, but I would say to the Prime Minister that you are not going to expediate, and I say it advisedly, you are not going to expediate the business of this House on this and other measures by practically threatening a section of the House who, though in the minority, have a perfect right to express their opinion. Hon. gentlemen opposite never had an all-night sitting forced on them with such slight justification as is being done to-night. There is only justification for an all-night sitting when you can prove that there is real obstruction, but nobody can say that there is anything in the nature of obstruction here. There has been no speech from this side of the House that has not brought forward arguments* against the Bill, and it is unreasonable for the Government, under the circumstances, to refuse to grant the adjournment of the debate. The House is in the hands of the Prime Minister, and on him rests the responsibility if in future the business of this House is not expedited, as we are desirous that it should be expedited.

I hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion for the adjournment. If we were all, and he himself, in the condition of physical exhaustion the right hon. member who has just spoken would lead us to believe, I am sure he would not have been able to regale the House with airy nothings for a quarter of an hour as he has just done.

I feel that we have the right to appeal to the Prime Minister. This is not an Appropriation Bill. One could under stand the orders which went out last week, but in regard to this Bill only one-third of the members on this side of the House have spoken. Moreover the Government members have replied with speech for speech.

I gave the reason.

What reason?

That when we kept quiet we had no answer to your argument.

I hope the Prime Minister will on consideration agree to the adjournment.

In the first place, I want to say that I am astonished at the action of hon. members of the Labour party. People who give out to the country that they stand for the true rights of the people.

Not for the three calves.

What has happened? The hon. the Prime Minister to-day made his first speech on the subject and he has acknowledged that it is a Bill of very great importance, and now on the second day of the discussion the House is forced to sit into the middle of the night to pass the Bill. I say that it is a breach of the intention of the rules of order. The intention is that this means shall only be applied if a Bill has been fully discussed, but the hon. the Prime Minister of the country— the man who is responsible for the Bill, for the policy and the administration of this Bill —has this afternoon, for the first time addressed the House on the subject, and then we are expected to pass it in this night sitting of the House. I say that this is an unfair breach of the meaning of the rules of order. And I can give the hon. the Prime Minister, who has a long experience in Parliament, the assurance that these tactics will not help the Government at all. The hon. members on the Government side have stated that the Opposition are toothless, but they can stand up for themselves. I can assure hon. members opposite that when the time comes the Opposition will prove that it is in a position to look after itself. We are now in the minority, but our minority represents a large portion of the people of South Africa, and although we are in the minority, we ask that we should be given the full right to which the minority, as representatives of a large part of the people, can make claim. I am astonished at the speed of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The man who, when he was not on the Government benches, always spoke of treading the people’s rights underfoot and always said that he stood up for the rights of the people. Where is he to-day? Today he comes and deprives us of our rights. Hon. members must not forget that the Opposition has an important duty to the country, and the people especially, where we have to do with such an important measure and new on the second day of the discussion—

Third day.

On the second day of the discussion the Bill must be pushed through. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister, as leader of the House, will allow the debate to be adjourned now.

An appeal has been made to the Prime Minister to accept the motion for the adjournment. He has not answered the appeal, but the Minister of Labour says: “No, go on.” We want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say. He moved the suspension of the 11 o’clock rule, and since then has made a weighty speech on the subject. If he wishes us to pay attention to that speech he will give us an opportunity of reading it in the papers in the morning, and this may perhaps induce some of us to withdraw our objections to this Bill. There are many members in the House who don’t understand a word of Dutch, and they want to read his speech. Ever since he moved that motion this afternoon I have been watching his seat. It has been vacant, and even now he does not deign to listen. I presume that we cannot again move this motion, and therefore we shall be sitting here until 2.15 to-morrow afternoon, when the House should resume.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—32.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Nathan, E.

Nel, 0. R.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius. N. J.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Collins, W. R.

Noes—57.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Motion accordingly negatived.

[Midnight.]

In 1921 I voted along with several other against the Wages Board Bill. We then heard a good many of the same arguments from that corner over there of the necessity of fixing minimum wage rates. All of us on the South African party side who differed from the Minister of the day had the courage to vote accordingly. On the other side several members voted against the Bill, four, I think. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) was one of them. He has been very silent. I know he is very much against the Bill. There were only two Nationalist farmers who had the courage to vote against the Bill. He was one of them and the other was the Minister of Lands. I do not think he is even here to-day. The other Nationalist farmers ran away; they were afraid to vote; just as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had not the courage to vote on the Corderoy petition.

Perhaps the hon. member will discuss the provisions of the Bill. The hon. member has wandered away from the subject.

It was just to illustrate my point. I would like those hon. members to get up and tell us if they were against the 1921 Bill, what has induced them to be in favour of the present Bill, or are they also afraid to declare their attitude on it? If I had an objection to that Bill, I have ten times more reason to object to this. My reason for being so much opposed to this Bill is that immediately you have passed this Wages Rill to determine the rate of wages, every wage-earner will expect immediately to receive a nice, comfortable wage. They will be expecting a new heaven and a new earth. But, on the contrary, this Bill is going to cause a good deal of unemployment, not taking into consideration the closing down of factories which will result. The hon. Minister of Labour, while lacking in practical wisdom, is ever bubbling over with theories, and they will not carry him very far when people want bread and butter. When you fix a minimum wage it is going to be on a fairly high level, and we know that pressure will be brought to bear on the Minister, so that it will soon be hard for him to fix a satisfactory wage for every trade and industry and branch of employment, but he will have to do it. This will cause an exodus from the land to the towns, because the fixing of a substantial wage will be a great lure to struggling people on the land, and this will cause increased unemployment, apart from any closing down of factories. The Minister asks for very wide powers, and he ought to view it as a kindness that we do not want to give him those powers, because if we give him rope enough he will soon hang himself. In view of this Bill and the Emergency Powers Bill, his position will not be a very comfortable one. Re will not be the drill sergeant, but he will have a number of drill sergeants and major-generals also, who will drill him and make him go the pace. He will have a very hot time. I do not want to spare him that hot time, but I wish to save the country from the effects of any rash acts which the Minister may be forced into. What is going to become of those who cannot get employment in these branches of industry?

What becomes of them now?

Their position will be very much worse, because many branches of employment will be closed to them. I am entitled to my opinion, and the hon. member for Brakpan to his. I would bow to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) as an expert on the forming of commandos. When you have many more lured from the land to the towns by the prospects of high wages, you will not easily get these people back to the land. We saw that a few days ago, when we had to deal with the amendment of the Land Settlements Act. The whole trouble was to get people back to the land, and assist them to keep them there.

At 12.20 a.m. Col.-Cdt. Collins called attention to the fact that there was no quorum.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

I voted against the 1921 Bill, but the two measures are not the same.

Then vote for this one.

In the 1921 Bill the settlement of wages was left entirely to the people concerned, both Europeans and coloured, that measure being framed on democratic principles. In this Bill you transfer those functions to the Minister, and while you do not have a colour bar, you bar the coloured by fixing wages on a European standard. The Nationalist members of the Pact have not expressed their views on this measure, but from what the two Ministers and Labour party have said, it is clear their intention is to exclude black and coloured from industries. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said that the farmers have realized that if the labourers get more pay, then they will have more money to spend on things produced by farmers, who would thus reap an indirect benefit. But how would that rule apply in the case of mealies, wool, ostrich, and dried-fruit farmers, the price of whose products is fixed, not here, but in the markets overseas? If wages are fixed at high rates, the articles required by primary producers will naturally go up in price, and they will have to pay more for their requirements, and the prices they get for their products will still be regulated by the overseas markets. This is a one-sided measure altogether, for under it the employees can do as they like, but the employers are bound. Not only will you be creating in practice a colour bar, but it is going to cause a tremendous amount of unemployment, distress and misery amongst all classes. If you raise the standard of living for one section only, you will naturally bring down the standard of “the other sections. You not only are going to do it for the coloured and the blacks, but for a large number of Europeans also. Those whose wages are fixed at a high rate will enjoy a higher standard of living, but you will lower the standard of the rest. You can take almost every paragraph of the Bill and you will find that the Minister comes first, not the employers, or the employees. He appoints the boards and reserves the right to nominate the chairman. He appoints the assessors and if you have Labour representatives the Minister appoints them. It is always the Minister and that is why the Bill is open to grave objection. I objected to the 1921 Bill, but in this case the objections are more serious. The Prime Minister has ridiculed the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Standelton (Gen. Smuts). What did he propose in the case of the Wine Control Bill which was very urgent. What did the hon. member for Smithfield (the Prime Minister) do? He moved an amendment that the order for the second reading be discharged and the subject matter be sent to a Select Committee. He didn’t mind then when it was the welfare of the wine farmers. Even the title of this Bill will have to be amended because it refers to “a” wage board and therefore under the title you will be limited to only one wage board. Since the title of the Bill has got to be amended, I think it is more necessary to have the order for the second reading discharged and send the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee.

The hon. gentleman who has just sat down and other members, have been greatly concerned, because power has been given to the Minister, but in the past they have been prepared to follow the late Prime Minister like so many baa-lambs. The Prime Minister did just as he liked inside and outside the caucus. You never worried about Bills, you followed your loader. Members on that side have stated that they were in favour of the 1921 Bill because the control of wages remained in the hands of the people in the industry. The moment the boards are appointed you have representatives of employers and employees, but they have to find an impartial chairman and they have to look for an impartial chairman with a microscope. Then they sit for months going into the question of wages and the result, at the end of the deliberation, is that the impartial chairman becomes dictator and he gives the award, not the representatives of employers and employees. I think the Minister is right, therefore, in setting up a wage board so that as far as possible you have an impartial body of men giving as impartial decision is possible. Under the hon. member’s system one person and one person, only decides the wages and conditions and employers and employees do not retain control of affairs in their own industry. Another misunderstanding in connection with this Bill seems to prevail in the minds of hon. members opposite. They appear to think that it is going to provide for a minimum wage being laid down according to each industry. It is not going to work out in that way at all. The wages will be decided according to the occupation of the individual and not according to the industry. There might be half a dozen different minimum wages in the mining industry, for instance. There will not be one wage laid down, irrespective of the occupation of the individuals, which will apply to the whole of the industry. These wages are going to be laid down, not according to the colour, but according to the occupation of the individual. Hon. members opposite have clearly shown that they are against the principle of a minimum wage in an industry, and in favour of retaining the cheapest possible labour for their particular industry. I come now to a statement made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who has shot his bolt and run away. He said that the manufacturing industry in South Africa had been built up under the South African Party and he quoted figures to show the increase in the output of that industry under the beneficial rule of the South African party. The Unionist party joined the South African party in 1920 and immediately after that the effects were seen of the Unionist party gaining control over the South African party. As far as the manufacturing industries were concerned, there was a drop from £98,307,000 to £79,446,000, a drop in one year with the South African Party under the domination of the Unionist party of £18,861,000.

That is easily explained.

This is how the South African party helped to develop the industries of South Africa. Under the South African party again what do we find? We find that they employed in the factories cheap labour, and they employed coloured labour not because it is coloured, but because it happens to be the cheapest available labour. What is the result? I would commend to the few remnants of the South African party still in this House, who are always complaining about the discourtesy shown by the Government members in not remaining in the House, the diagram which I am holding in my hand and which shows how, during the South African party rule, the percentage of coloured labour in South African industries, increased in comparison with the higher paid labour. One of the Natal members has stated that they have the lowest percentage of coloured labour in their industries in Natal. Natal, as a matter of fact has the highest percentage of coloured labour, 75 per cent. and the Free State the lowest 57 per cent., the figure for the whole Union being 65 per cent. The hon. member (Mr. Duncan) who is not here, has taken up a most peculiar attitude on the Bill. He was a man labouring under great difficulty. All his life he has been preaching against the policy he is now advocating. As late as 1923 he made a speech and asserted that the proper development of South Africa demanded the settlement of a great many more suitable people on the land, so that we might extend our market for home products, and depended also on a plentiful supply of coloured labour at a wage on which white men could not live. As a result of this speech the “Rand Daily Mail” has a leading article on the 31st December, 1923, headed “Don’t make South Africa a Cheap and Nasty Country.” That is what we are asking to-day. There is a real danger today of making South Africa a cheap and nasty country. This leading article said that a system which permits the importation of cheap labour must keep wages low, and that the law of the land tended to make a coloured man less expensive and more easily handled than the white man. We find the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) who gave rise to this leading article, defending the exploitation policy put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). The article finishes by saying that the white race in this country can be made to forge ahead, although to-day it was sinking back and was growing more and more coloured. If from indifference or other reasons we made no effort to check the tendency, South Africa would grow blacker and blacker with increasing speed, with no hope of ever checking the downward tendency. There was, however, the article stated little that was impossible, if the people and the Government would set about it in the right way. I ask hon. members on the other side to realize the position in South Africa to-day. The white community are dwindling and the poor whites are increasing, and in many cases with no hope for the future left to the working classes. The whites are being driven down to a lower level than the natives. It is time to call a halt, in order that the white man shall not be placed on the same economic basis as the native. We have heard a great deal about the minimum wage in Australia, but none of the hon. members have quoted Henry Ford’s book on the point. We find that a little while ago a representative of one of the Australian Governments was entertained to lunch by the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, and in his speech then he said that generally speaking labour was done by whites in Australia, and that there were heavy penalties for infringing the immigration laws. Among other things he said that food industries were protected and the prices fixed, with the result that there was a higher standard of living for the lower classes and greater trade for the merchants. The hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Swart) was correct when he stated that after the strike in Johannesburg the farming population, who brought their produce in for sale, found the people had no money to buy their products and that the reduction of wages had a detrimental effect on the farming community. If we do in this country as has been done in Australia, introduce legislation, not to protect the farmer to employ sweated labour, but to save the farmer from the grip of the speculator, the money-lender, and the exploiter, we will be doing more than hon. members will do when they appeal to the material instincts of the farming population. We hear a great deal about industry being closed down if we pay reasonable wages, but in Australia they found that not only could they raise sufficient agricultural products to feed their 4½ millions of population, but in addition could export an enormous quantity. In South Africa we know that we cannot with our cheap black labour produce sufficient to feed the 1¼ millions of white people which we have. Hon. members opposite talk about the state not being allowed to interfere so far as employees in industries are concerned, but when the interests of the employing class are threatened; when other countries are dumping their commodities such as cement or something else, and selling them cheaper than the people here, we find an immediate appeal to the Government to step in and protect the employing class against overseas competition. Yet the same hon. members will stand up when it comes to a question of the human element, and plead for dumping duties and protection, and all sorts of measures in order to protect themselves against cheap foreign competition. They ask what right the state has to interfere with the employer. The state has every right, as it is primarily responsible for the men, women and children of South Africa. The state has every right to step in to protect the human interests just as hon. members say they have the right to step in to protect the manufacturing interests. I am surprised that many hon. members have taken up the attitude that they have done. They seem to be good fellows, who, I believe, are anxiously willing to do what they can in the interests of the country; yet when it comes to doing something to build up a great South Africa, we find them searching round for excuses to vote against it. I would ask them to look at this question from the right point of view instead of taking up the attitude of obstruction to every measure with the deliberate object of preventing anything going on the Statute Book which may enhance the reputation of the Pact Government, and that has been their attitude hitherto. That is why I am pleased that the Government has decided to sit all night if necessary. I want to ask every farmer why it is that the farmer who grows wheat and has his wheat ground into flour by black labour goes to the Government for protection against flour produced in Australia, where everything is done by white labour, and which flour has to be shipped and then sent thousands of miles oversea? Take the boot manufacturer. You will find the boot manufacturer, and all the other manufacturers are asking for protection against the products of England and Australia, where they pay wages on a white labour basis. Yet we, with our so-called cheap labour, must have protection. It is evident that our so-called cheap labour is dear and inefficient labour; and so long as we are dependent on low conditions of life and let the exploitation theory be dominant, we shall never be able to hold our own with the other nations of the earth. I want to say this to those hon. members who wag the flag when there is war: “How do you expect to build up a virile race, men physically capable of being soldiers, if you drag them down in order to squeeze profits out of them?” I want to ask hon. members of all sides to remember when we are dealing with wages and conditions that in this country more than in any other we have that black menace which is driving people down, and driving them out of the country. I want hon. members to realize that in South Africa there is a great necessity for legislation of this description in order to protect the community of to-day, and the future generations of South Africa.

I have never been in favour of a minimum wage, and I do not think I ever shall be. My friends on the Rand can, if they so wish, use that against me at the next election. I believe in the law of supply and demand, and have always been taught in that school. The statement of the Minister of Labour that he had forgotten to put the salaries of members of Parliament within the scope of this Bill reminds me of what I read in “Die Burger” some days ago. “Die Burger” raised the question whether the members of Parliament are to come under the wages board and said that in the Nationalist caucus they had considered this question and that a resolution was passed calling for an increase in Parliamentary salaries, and so usurping the powers of the wages board. I agree with what “Die Burger” said in regard to this Bill, and the Prime Minister to-night also said: “Die saak is van groot gewig” (The matter is one of great importance), and members on the opposite side will in time find out that this is so. “Die Burger” also said that the Bill should apply only to industries which do not come under the Conciliation Act. I would like to see the original draft of this Bill and to see the alterations made to it by the Minister of Labuor, who has been waiting for many years for this measure in order to avenge himself against the mining companies on the Rand. “Die Burger” goes further and says the Wage Bill must not make any encroachment on our methods of the free fixing of wages. But the Minister proposes to take away that power from the employers and employees.

No, not at all.

Of course he has. The powers given to the Kaiser are small compared with the powers arrogated by the Minister to himself in this Bill.

You should know—the Kaiser is a pal of yours.

Who will pay the bill which this measure will cost the country? Hon. members opposite have asked why the late Government did not re-introduce the 1921 Bill. Why did those hon. members themselves not re-introduce it as a private Bill? They had not the courage to do so, but now the Nationalists come along because they have the Labour party tail wagging them. Where was the Minister of Labour in 1921?

I was not in Parliament then.

What a pity he did not remain out. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. A. A. Cilliers) voted against the 1921 Bill. I wonder how he will vote now!

How did you vote then?

I was loyal to my party. I would not vote with them, but I did not vote against them.

The hon. member must come to the subject-matter of the Bill and must leave other hon. members alone. The division list has been referred to very frequently during the debate.

Now, Sir, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), who is asleep elsewhere, made a statement in which he quoted from a speech which the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) made with regard to the white boys and the coloured boys. He said that the hon. member for Newlands had stated that “the white boys could go elsewhere,” by which he is supposed to have meant to convey that our white boys, so far as the member for Newlands was concerned, could leave South Africa. The member for Umbilo either said that in ignorance or it was a wilful and gross distortion of what the hon. member for Newlands intended to convey. He indicated that the coloured and natives could not go out of the country and learn a trade, whereas the white boys could go elsewhere and take up employment there or in South Africa. Perhaps the member for Umbilo will apologize for the distorted and misleading interpretation he made. We now have this proposed legislation before us, and in a general way I want to ask where we are going to. Where is South Africa going to be landed—

[Interruptions.]

Will horn members kindly allow the hon. member to continue his speech:

I say that this sort of legislation, which is on a par with the other legislation on the Table, is going to land the country into a disastrous position. The country is going to be run into debt with a largely increased civil service and so many pensions will be added to the country until we shall be unable to cope with the expense. It was recently stated that the Prime Minister was overwhelmed with applications for work. It was said that there were ten thousand applications, and one poor chap got a reply “Your No. is 10,001.” He is probably still waiting for a job for pals. This Bill is only another method of pressure to compel people to join the trade unions. That is only one of the evils of this measure. If a poor beggar gets a job and is not a member of the union he is kicked out within. 24 hours. You force the employers to kick him out and I know of such a case on the Rand. This has been really the finest time of the Minister’s life. He has been waiting for it to have his revenge. I remember him saying when he sat on the cross benches that he agreed with many of our— the old Unionist party’s—sentiments, but he added “I am not going to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them.” He has now allied himself with the Nationalist party and is using them to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for himself and his party. As sure as the sun rises the people will discover the terrible mistake they made in sending the Pact here to rule the country. One of the first things that will happen will be you will have a minimum wage fixed for the miners; fixed so high that it will be impossible to produce gold at a price so as to leave sufficient profit to pay for materials and wages and the carrying on of the mines. I ask, would the Nationalists have brought in this Bill, had they not been forced by the Labour party to do so? Is it not purely a measure to placate the latter? This socialistic measure is only one of the many prices paid by the Nationalists to the Labour party for its support. Have we not over and over heard the Labour members’ clamour that the Government should take over the mines?

You have spotted it.

Oh yes. The great object is to get the mines to close down and then the socialists will come along and work them and carry on to their nostrums. I think that Bolshevik and Socialist are synonymous terms at any rate they are very closely related. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said that the hon. Minister is going to make “trouble where trouble does not exist.” I think that is so, because the Emergency Bill is one which if it becomes law will cause no end of trouble and strife. The country is going to suffer, and I am concerned with that more than the interests of any party. If the wages are going to be suddenly and Constantly altered at the whim of the Minister, what is going to be the position of contractors? They won’t know how to tender for contracts. We have heard much about “equal work for equal pay” at the minimum wage. Do the members realise that if there is going to be a minimum pay, there must correspondingly be a provision for minimum output also. One of the hon. members said that the greatest Kaiser we had was the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The hon. member for Standerton will very soon be sitting on the Treasury benches again, much sooner than hon. members over there think, but, if this Bill becomes law, I think one of his first acts will be to repeal it, because it is not a measure which is in the best interests of this country. I say that inter alia, by reason of the “go-slow” policy which the employees have adopted in Great Britain and here, foreign countries have been able to compete with the productions of Great Britain and Great Britain has been left behind. That is what we are going to have here, unless we are very careful. Hon. members opposite, and particularly the hon. members on the cross-benches, have enunciated the axiom that they are totally opposed to double punishment. Talk about double punishment, read this Bill! In clause 8 (2) certain obligations are thrown upon the people and if those obligations are not carried out certain fines and penalties follow as a matter of course, and a man may nevertheless be prosecuted for the same offence thereafter. This is an extraordinary clause which I have always objected to, namely, a daily penalty of £1 for not doing certain things. The Prime Minister should not have been so obstinate when the adjournment was moved. I believe it is his birthday, and when a strong appeal was made to him before 12 o’clock last night to let us go home, he assumed a stubborn silence. He should have been more generous on his birthday. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) accused hon. members on this side of having fired their shots and then departed from the House. Where is the hon. member now? He has left the House. The hon. member stated that the object of this Bill, inter alia, was to give employment to white people, but he did not say what is to become of the coloured and native man. That is what we want to know and to have a clear statement on. When the Minister replies, I want him to state definitely and distinctly, if the coloured and native men are to be pushed out of their work. What are they going to do for these people to enable them to earn a living? Had this coloured and native question been tackled 50 years ago, it might have been settled more easily then, but this Bill is not a solution of the question. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) said the State was responsible for the men, women children of South Africa. Does he include the coloured and native in this category, and, if not, what is he going to do for and with them? Is he going to kill them off and let them die from starvation? Is thus humane? He raised the question also about the dumping duty on Australian flour, and said: Why is it they can produce flour with higher paid white labour than here, at a cheaper rate than we can? I should like to ask him whether we could produce wheat cheaper here than at present if we increased the present wages of the employee? The hon. member for Brakpan also said that labour was inefficient here.

In personal explanation, I wish to state that what I said was that the so-called cheap labour was dear labour, because it was inefficient.

Was the hon. member prepared to say whether the white labour is always efficient in this country? He knows very well that much of it is inefficient. No, Sir, this Bill is not in the best interests of the country, and should be condemned from both sides of the House.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) stated yesterday that wages were dependent on the cost of production of the different commodities. Fortunately for us there are a great many authorities in the world who have gone into the question, and I should like to quote from a report issued by several professors of economics. They all agree that wages have got nothing to do with the cost of production. We might take wearing apparel, or workmanship in iron or wood, but it is immaterial what we take. I will take, for example, an article costing 100 pence. The prime cost of materials and labour production of the manufacture of an average article was twenty-five pence, made up as follows: Manufacturing cost 22 pence, profit three pence, cost of distribution 15 pence and profit 10 pence, price to the wholesaler 50 pence, wholesaler’s cost of doing business 13 pence, profit two pence, which brings it to 65 pence. The retailer’s cost of doing business was 25 pence, profit ten pence, which brings it to the price to the consumer of 100 pence, which indicates that the prime cost of a commodity is roughly 25 per cent of the cost to the consumer or the final purchaser. In other words, we have the commercial cost or middleman’s cost 50 per cent of the final price. If we analyze this matter a little further, we find that the combined profits of the manufacturer, distributor, the wholesaler and the retailer works out at 25 per cent. I think that clears the atmosphere a little, and it shows that wages do not depend on the cost of production. Wages depend, first of all, on the supply and the demand. For instance, the reason why the natives get such low wages on the mines is because of the influx of Portuguese natives which brings down the wages of the natives of the Union of South Africa. We found when they were building the docks at Simon’s Town, the Cape Government, in harmony with the British Government, allowed the contractor, Sir John Jackson, to enter in an agreement to bring out from Italy 107 mechanics at two-thirds of the price that mechanics were being paid in this Peninsula. The result was that either the wages had to be reduced in the Peninsula, or the workmen were to be displaced. But, thanks to the organization of the trade unions, we were able to demand that the Government should use its influence with the British Government to stop this. One further instance what settled the wages at the Mount Nelson Hotel? The wages at which they can import men from Great Britain to accept. We have beard, not only in this country, but in other countries, a great deal about the ca’ canny system of the workers, but what about the ca’ canny system of the capitalist class who are out to give as little as possible to their employees? If we analyse this matter we find that in this country the late Government placed its orders oversea, because wages were low in Europe. Moreover, in Great Britain, they import lascars to work the ships trading on the coasts of Great Britain, because they are cheaper. We have also the fact that the mill owners in Lancashire, finding that the wages are high owing to the organization of the trades unions, are building mills in India. It is ridiculous that gentlemen with the intelligence of the hon. members of the Opposition should use the arguments they have done against the Government, who are initiating legislation not only for the benefit of the European people, but the non-European.

drew attention, at 1.54 a.m., to the fact that there was not a quorum.

House counted, and Mr. Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

We know the Opposition have agreed to sit till 6 a.m. We then have the right to criticize their ridiculous arguments advanced by them in support of their fallacies. We have had the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) attacking this Bill, and I have thought it wise to get some figures to refute the arguments from his own point of view. His statement that he would have to close his factory if he had to pay decent wages appealed to me. I have noticed that different commodities have been imported from Great Britain, and the same articles have been imported from Germany and Japan, but they have all been sold at the same price. It is all nonsense for them to say that they are standing for the highest civilization when they are willing to sell goods made by people on the lowest civilized standard at the same price that they charge for the same goods made by people living on a high civilized standard.

On a point of order, sir, Rule 62, sub-section (2), lays down that an hon. member may not read a book, document, or other paper. I want to draw attention to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt).

It is for Mr. Speaker to see to that, but no hon. member is allowed to read a paper except in connection with the debate.

We have listened for two days to members of the Opposition and they have tried to prove that by manufacturing commodities by cheap labour the purchaser reaps a great advantage, but I am able to prove that when an article is made by means of cheap labour the same price is charged for it as if it had been the result of dear labour. For instance, a pair of boots made under pre-war conditions which cost 11s. 6d. to manufacture in South Africa would have cost 6s. to make in China, 6s. 4d. in Japan, 7s. 8d. in Italy, 8s. 2d. in Austria, 8s. 9d. in Germany and 10s. in England. Yet in each case the same price was asked for these boots. The same rule applies in the case of articles made in Cape Town, the purchaser receiving no advantage from the employment of cheap labour. It has been said that the Bill will crush the mining industry. Well, the Mining Industry Commission which sat in South Africa in 1908 reported that the average dividend on gold mines was 3.26 per cent on a capital of £70,496,000, but on the actual or real capital the dividend amounted to 32.96 per cent. Yet hon. members opposite have stated that the mines will have to close down if the Bill becomes law. In one instance in which a mine states that its profit was only 2 per cent it was making 55 per cent. on the real capital really employed. No doubt the tremendous loss which the Union Castle Steamship Co makes owing to having to pay a decent wage to its employees is responsible for the fact that the original Castle Co. £10 shares are to-day worth only £163. South African party members tell us that owing to trade unions insisting on a living wage almost every industry is losing money. The South African Milling Company is also losing money, apparently. It has a capital of £300,000 and a reserve fund of £300.000 and its £1 shares are only quoted at £3 2s. 6d. I can understand the strong feeling of opposition to this Bill on the part of the employers for it means that wages will have to be brought up to civilized standard. We should have a great deal of sympathy with members who sit on the Opposition benches who represent capitalists who have always been losing money. We, on this side of the House do not represent gentlemen who float companies. We do not represent vendors and we are not retained by people who represent financial interests. We must take a lesson from the world and what the world tells us is that unless we allow people living in the world to conform to certain civilized conditions, you are not only injuring them, but you are injuring yourselves. Throughout the ages, where two or three civilizations were living together the highest civilization was always destroyed. The natives have as much right to live as we have, and they have the right to be given an opportunity to develop their latent faculties. We have a duty to perform and that is not to utilize them for profit, but to give them an opportunity of raising themselves to a higher standard, and we can only do that by preventing employers using them unscrupulously by displacing the higher civilized worker to get the greatest amount of profit. There are many employers who would try to live up to the ideal of allowing their employees a wage that would give them a decent living standard, but they are compelled through competition to pay wages no higher than those paid by the unscrupulous employer. If it was only for the sake of the decent masters who would like to play the game the Opposition should welcome this Bill. I recognize there are certain faults in this Rill, but it is impossible to have a Bill to suit everybody. It is an honest endeavour to safeguard the civilization we live in. It makes it possible to lift up the civilization that is living on a lower standard. History tells us that unless we do that we shall also be destroyed. We in South Africa represent the cream of the world. Remember it is only the best persons from Holland, France, Scotland, England and the Jews, that have peopled this country. I believe also there are as good men in the Opposition as there on this side of the House, but unfortunately for the country they have, through their environment, been led to honestly believe that there is a caste which should naturally exploit others. They believe that some people are born to exploit the rest of the people. I believe that they honestly think it and I give them credit for honestly keeping on thinking it. But if we look back on history we find, if we go back far enough, that we, the men and women of the world, have it in our power to make the world better for being in it. We believe we have the power to make the world perfect. Although we belong to different parties and sometimes vote according to the party whip, I want to appeal to the Opposition at this hour, not to respond to the party whip, but to say, although they don’t believe altogether in the Bill, that it is an earnest endeavour to benefit humanity and to keep the civilization we live in, and an endeavour to lift up the aboriginal natives of this country so that in the time to come they will no longer be a menace to this country but they will live a better life than they live at the present time.

The previous speaker has told us history, but he never came to the Bill. He said that we on this side of the House represent capital and the capitalists, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said the same thing. This is not to our detriment, but in our favour. It is, as the previous speaker said, that he and his friends grew up in such an atmosphere, and therefore they are now still in the mud. What is the ambition to-day of the hon. members over there on the cross-benches? It is simply and solely to draw high wages and then to spend them every day. As some of them have said here, they must draw high wages to be able to live well, to go to the bioscope, drink a glass of beer, etc. If this is what this Bill must bring about, then we cannot expect that our land and our people will progress. Here in our country the mines and many other industries had to come to the Government for help because they find it difficult to succeed. If we go and institute minimum wages, then the Minister will kill immediately the industries that are still struggling on. I wish to mention a small matter, namely, the wool factory at Harrismith. That factory came to the Government for money because it was not in a position to continue. The money was happily advanced in another way. In that factory hundreds of natives are employed, and what will happen if those natives have to be paid a minimum wage?

It is just about to close down.

If it is not yet finished, then it will be if this Bill is accepted. It will go the same way with the mines. There 10,000 white workers and 100,000 natives are working in the mines. The white workers get £1 per day and more, and each one supervises about 10 natives. Then it is said that their hours are too long and that they should get better conditions of service. We must be a little careful what we do. I was not here when the former Bill was introduced, and I speak now for the first time on the matter. It is quite sufficient if the Minister makes provision for persons who are not organized, but to introduce such a new principle and to throw over all the existing system of our trades is not fair. Our industries are built up on white and native labour, and the natives were always in the majority. Now we are going to throw all this over, although if we had allowed things to stay as they are we might have expected big things in the future. We are now, however, going to kill them. As soon as a high salary and wage is paid in the towns the farmer will immediately be hit by it. Our farming and other industries are so interrelated at present that if we hurt one it is at once injurious to the other. It is unfair to introduce such a one-sided Bill where a person who has people in his employ will not have a say over his own workmen. It has been said that we shall have a better market for our produce if we pay the workmen more. Before the strike on the mines, salaries and wages, better than any obtainable in any part of the world, were paid, and then our markets were no better.

What do they pay in Australia?

I have nothing to do with Australia. I start with the circumstances prevailing in South Africa. The circumstances there are different to ours, and we cannot get per morgen what they get in Australia. The Minister of Labour has the right to appoint a one-sided board, and if the board cannot agree he can throw everything over and decide himself. It is dangerous to leave all this to the Minister. I have not that confidence in the Minister. I would possibly have confidence if he appointed an independent body, but he must not have the last word. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) has said that the public are sick and tired of cur chatter. What does the Government expect from this side of the House? Must we sit still and swallow all they put before us? The Opposition must criticize and give to the House the best ideas they can. It is true that the Government do not accept our opposition. The Minister of Mines and Industries has even said that they do not want our sympathy and support. It is, however, our duty as an Opposition to bring our views to the notice of the Government, and we will do so. If they do not want to take any notice then we cannot help it. No distinction is made between people of different colour. We make a proper distinction between such people.

What does Caledon say?

I am speaking for the Transvaal, and I think that this is also the view of the Free State, but the Free State members are remaining quiet. The only member who has yet said anything is the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter).

Give them a little water.

I wish to warn you that you are playing with fire. I feel strongly on the colour question and I want the Nationalist members to get up and say that they agree with the Government to remove the colour bar in this respect. Then, I will say that they have the courage of their convictions. They however remain as quiet as mice. The Minister of Labour has sown his ideals on fruitful soil and the seed is growing splendidly amongst the Nationalist members. If we lay a heavy burden on the mines and industries the country side will suffer. The object expressed here is that the native must be pushed out. He must not have a place to make his living in the land. When the Minister of Labour sat on the cross benches he fought us on all questions in connection with native labour now he has the power and carries out his purpose of driving out and freezing out the natives. He must say What he is going to do with them.

What are you complaining about?

I am complaining because I shall have to pay dearly for my farming requirements. I have read an extract from “Die Burger” that the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) stated that the Labour party was going to carry out its basic principles during this session. He said it long before the session. This shows us how clearly they are bound to the Labour party in connection with this matter and therefore I should like to know what the views of the Nationalist members are. They must state clearly what their intention is. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) a young member, has made the remark that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) was bombastic. I would be ashamed to say such a thing to an old member, because he was not bombastic and came here with sound arguments and facts. I admired the frankness of the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) He has said he was against the Bill and that if it were not altered in the Select Committee he would vote against it. I hope the Minister will make the alteration. He must see to it that the workmen are not oppressed, but why introduce such a far-reaching measure which will injure all the industries?

If there is one thing that has surprised me to-day then it is the speech of the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius). He made an objection that the workmen should also have the right to enjoy his life. Just think a little. Why should not the workman when his work is finished in the evening also have the right to enjoy the few things which make life pleasant? These privileges the hon. member for Witwatersberg, allows himself and his capitalistic friends. They want other people to work, but to enjoy life themselves. Now they have said a great deal about the farmer who is excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I wish to ask whether one of them will have the moral courage to propose an amendment to include farming. If they do not dare to do so then they should be “silent about the exclusion of the farmers. I challenge the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) to say in the country that they are opposed to exclusion of the farmers.

Throwing dust in the eyes.

Hon. members opposite have made such a noise about the workman, but who are the workmen to-day? Relatives, brothers and sons of farmers.

Is the socialist also that?

No, everything that does not suit the views of the capitalists is socialistic legislation. We desire social legislation and improvement, but everything that conflicts with their legislation of the last 14 years is Socialistic. Hon. members opposite talk a great deal about Bolshevism, Moscowism, but if anyone asks them what that means they can give no answer. Your working man in our country to-day is a member of the family, brother and son of the farmer, and if the farmers to-day jump into the breach to protect the working men in order that they should get the just portion that comes to them then they are only doing what they are bound to do for their own flesh and blood. Then much noise is made about the point that we allow the worker to receive his fair wage. Is that not reasonable? If a workman is competent must he then not get the wages which represent the value of the work done? Does the farmer not expect to get an annual income from the capital he has laid out? And is the energy of the workman not the only capital that he has? Is it then unreasonable that the workman should get a certain return on this capital? Just as the capitalist is entitled to certain interest on his capital so the workman is entitled to a minimum wage for the work he does. I am very sorry that I have not brought my market reports with me. It would furnish direct proof of what has taken place that the more wages the workmen earn the more money there is in circulation and the more purchasing capacity the people possess. The market reports prove in black and white that the prices of agricultural produce were much higher before the miners’ strike than shortly after the strike on the Rand. It is also clear that if a number of people, say any number from 2 to 2,000, receive a smaller amount monthly that their purchasing power is so much smaller and the person who suffers is the farmer, the producer. Further, they have accused the Minister of Labour that he wants once and for all to lay down an unalterable basis for white civilized labour in South Africa. Are hon. members such as the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) and others then prepared to state that all work shall be done by unskilled, by blacks? If this happens and the disposal of the produce depends upon the purchasing power of the unskilled worker then I should like to hear from hon. members of the Opposition how they will sell their produce? Is the hon. member for Witwatersberg going to sell his produce to the unskilled workers of the country? Let him try. Does he think that he will then make his farming pay?

How many natives has the hon. member got on his farm?

I have eight and two whites, excluding myself. How many has the hon. member got?

I have seven on my farm and two whites.

Now your white journeyman and your monthly wage earner are those who put other people into the position of making a living. In the first place the producer can sell his produce and find the shopkeeper a living. I challenge hon. members there to say that they are seriously in favour of the use of unskilled labour. I cannot see how our farmers will dispose of their produce in South Africa if your wages and money circulation in South Africa must be less than it is now. We are faced by the difficulty. We have all the difficulty regarding the shipping space for export of our produce to Europe. Take the fruit industry. We have a big market in Europe. In England there is a population of 50,000,000 people 6,000 miles from here. If we cannot get our country after the example of America to the position of getting rid of its produce, what will become of our farmers? It is of the greatest importance in connection herewith that the daily paid man in South Africa should get a minimum wage which will put him in the position of living properly and well. Hon. members opposite want to live well alone, they want to enjoy a pleasant life and enjoy it alone. I say that it is my duty to see that the workers just as well enjoy the pleasant things of life. It is also economic and in my interest, because the people will then be able to buy my produce.

I am glad that I have a chance of speaking on this Bill. I have listened to the various speeches, and especially to the speech of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood). He has such a pro vocative manner. I only want to tell him that his argument that the countryside does not come under the Bill has no value. It is nothing else than deceit and eye-wash. I don’t think it is necessary to further answer the speech of the hon. member. He has practically told us fairy tales.

Out of the mouths of children one often hears the truth.

But I just want to go a little into what the hon. the Prime Minister has said to-day. He has said that it is an important and serious matter and he insisted that all sides of the House should acknowledge that when the Bill went into committee the difficulties could possibly be altered. I have listened with attention and care, but I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Labour will in committee alter one jot or one title? Hon. members know that this will not happen, because it is a labour law and it is a Bill which is in his interest. We shall not help the poor classes with this kind of legislation, The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has spoken about farming, I would like to ask him if his farming in the Nelspruit district can be taken as a model. Are the people treated so splendidly there? No, we treat our people entirely differently. The people come to us without possessing anything. They come to farm with us and they possess something when they have been there a little while. I want to return to the Bill. Much has been said about it. There are people here who can explain the law with great ability. I don’t wish to, nor need I enter upon the merits of the Bill, but there is one thing mentioned which in my opinion is entirely wrong. I would like to ask the Minister if he is going to put the work of whites and coloured people on exactly the same footing how it will go in the Transvaal. Does he think that the white workmen in the Transvaal—my hon. friend for Barberton calls them brothers, and I agree with him that a portion of them are our brothers— that the white workmen in the Transvaal will be satisfied with the equality of white and coloured people? The hon. member for Witwatersberg and others indeed know better. The white man will not work alongside of a coloured man at the same wages. I am certain the hon. Minister will have difficulties there. The whites will not work next to the coloured man at the same bench at the same wage. I am sorry that the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) is not in the House at the moment. I would like to ask him what he thinks of this eyewash. What he thinks about the position of the farmers. Where I live, for instance, the labour supply is very bad, and what will happen? If the minimum wage is introduced the workmen will go away to the places where the minimum wage is paid to get a place. They will not be able to be taken on, but they will come back and not want to continue working at the lesser wage. And if I pay him the high wage how will my farming continue if I get 7s. or 8s. for a bag of mealies? I wonder what sort of sympathy this is that our farmers are getting. No, it will kill our farmers, but it will enrich the workmen. The man where the work originates, the source of work, will be killed. If I go into the Bill then only certain things are excluded, only farming and afforestation. Dairies and other things fall under the provisions of the Bill. Railway officials and public servants in general fall under the Bill. Now I only wish to take the railways as an example. If the minimum wage is also introduced there then it will mean an increase of the wages, and that although the public is pining for relief. At least in my district they are pining for relief, especially for favourable rates for the carriage of fertilizer. The hon. member for Barberton will, perhaps, be surprised to hear how much fertilizer alone is delivered at Bethal station. One and a half million bags of mealies are required to pay for the fertilizer which is delivered at Bethal Station alone. No, this Bill is going to put the farmers back. More will have to be paid to the railway officials, and rates will go up. I ask now what does the sympathy for us farmers mean? I am very sorry about it. Just as the hon. member for Ficksburg, I feel very sorry in my heart about it, and I think that quite a number of the members if they rise and say honestly what is in their hearts will agree with me. I always said that I was not afraid of a Nationalist Government, because I think that the interests of the Nationalist Government are also my interests, but my disappointment is great when I see that they introduce this legislation. If I shut my eyes and listen to members of the Nationalist party such as e.g., the member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), then I ask myself if this is the Nationalists speaking the language of the representatives of the farmers of South Africa. I am surprised at it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said once that as long as they could set foot on the countryside that would be sufficient for them, and they have set foot on the countryside. Who put them there? I have much respect for the Minister of Labour. I am personally thankful to him for a matter in which he assisted me, but politics are politics, and I say that it is dangerous to put those people in the position of governing. I have said that not one article of the Bill will be altered, because the Bill is in the interests of the Labour party. I ask the true farmers opposite to rise and to Speak honestly that they can be entirely at ease, but they remain quiet. The Labour party is going to govern. In the Provincial Council I collaborated with the Nationalists and also here in this House when they had only a few members; I assisted them on several points, out I cannot understand how they can vote for this Bill. The Nationalists in the House are gagged, and if they speak they must support the Bill. It is wrong to put political interests in the foreground, and to put them above the interests of the country. Party politics are the cause of the interests of the country being injured. I do not want to speak much longer.

The hon. member has said nothing yet.

If the hon. member listened he will have heard sufficient to be convinced of the error of this Bill. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) represents farmers, but he is voting for the Socialists if he votes for this Bill. I am not a challenger. I do not wish to ask them to go to the country with this Bill. The reasons I vote against this Bill are not that I will not give a workman, who does his work properly, a proper wage, but it is wrong to put everyone on the same footing. It will seriously damage our industries. If young industries are established, then it will not be done with small capital. In view to the provisions of this Bill, only powerful financial co-operation can do this. That is my first reason, and my second reason is that it is wrong to place the white workmen in industries at the same bench next to the natives and to give both the same wage. Another point why I am against the Bill is that the small section, which excludes our farmers from the provisions of this legislation, can be reversed by a small alteration. It will not be two years or this legislation which will now come into force for the villages will then also be applied on the farms. I challenge the friends there to go to the countryside with this Bill. I will tell the people on the countryside what this Bill means.

The speech of the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) has convinced me and everyone of us in the House that his speech is the language of a deeply disappointed man. He several times referred to the Minister of Labour and said he was convinced that he was very happy on the Government benches, and that he would not depart from one of the sections of the Bill. This shows me how disappointed he is that we have deprived them of these seats. My hon. friend cannot stop telling us how the Nationalist party is compromised with the Labour party. He has shown that he speaks from experience. I remember well how the South African party hopelessly compromised itself with the Unionists. They were swallowed up holus bolus by the Unionists, and they still suffer from the consequences. Let me remind him that we have profited by their experience. We have not been swallowed up, we have been associated with the Labour party with whom we agree, and it is that if we want a happy people then we must have a satisfied people in South Africa. It seem to me as if hon. friends who oppose the Bill do not wish to pay for the work at which the labourer sweats. The hon. member is concerned about it that we will have to vote for the Bill of which we are not in favour. He need not worry himself about us, he should remember how blindly they always voted with their Government. He voted so blindly that I remember a few weeks ago he voted for a thing and he did not know at all what he was voting for, so that we have received letters from his constituency to please wake up the hon. member for Bethal. He must be careful, because he only came here by a narrow shave. He must be careful, because the electors are watching him.

I have a large majority.

Yes, 12 votes is a large majority. He must take care how he votes, because he voted against the interests of his electors.

Tell us something about the Bill.

That hon. member has jumped up like a jack-in-the-box and cracked jokes about the Bill; he repeated other members’ speeches like a parrot. He must first go and plant more violets before he comes to speak about this matter. When the Government came into power the Opposition cried out within six weeks that the Government did not put its programme before the country. Now the Government has done this, and now they complain again that it entails too much work. We regard this Bill as in the best interests of South Africa. They want to frighten us, and the farmer that the farming industry will also eventually fall under this Bill. With that bogey and ghost they will no longer frighten us. There is nothing in the Bill which includes farming. The hon. member for Bethal has talked about the railway and harbour services, that these will also fall under the Bill. I would advise him to read the Bill before he says such things. But it seems to me there is a split in that party. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) commenced his interesting speech by saying that he agreed with the principle of the Bill. Now the hon. member for Bethal and the hon. member for Witwatersrand (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) come and state they are opposed to it.

Also the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan).

Yes, I don’t wish to speak of him, because he usually talks nonsense. The hon. members are not logical. In 1921 they introduced the same Bill. We helped them to have it adopted by the House, then the Bill came to grief in another place. We have, however, introduced it again. We have remained logical, but where are the hon. members, they are not logical. I did not intend to take part in the debate. I only wished to give advice to the hon. member for Bethal that he should be careful or otherwise his voters will throw him out. If he does not take care, I will go there and help his electors to throw him out.

I am not very learned, but if “associated” means swallowed up, then it is entirely right. The Minister has the bit in his mouth, and they must follow. The bit is in the horse’s mouth and he cannot but run. The tail is wagging the dog. The point is that the farmers in the country will one of these days also come under the law. I say that I agree with a part of the Bill. If it is true that an injustice is being done—blood and sweat and starvation wages are mentioned—then I am in favour of minimum wages being fixed in such circumstances. But, first of all, careful inquiries must be made into such circumstances.

That is exactly what the Bill contemplates.

That is the way in which young members interrupt, but we have heard from the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) that this Bill must make an opening for the whites. I quite agree with my hon. friend that the whites in South Africa should have an opportunity of making a living, but we may not exclude the coloured people. We are here creating a colour bar. This Bill is only in the interest of the white man. One of the hon. members has said that it is the only solution of the economic side of the native question. The hon. Minister of Labour has said that there is no distinction made between colour. But how does this tally with the speeches of hon. members? No, it is only a smoke screen to put the coloured man out of work.

It is the coloured voters who have brought you here.

I just want to say that there are many coloured people in my district, masons, carpenters, etc., who don’t need to take a back seat to any white people. They also live in a civilized way. They are advanced. It is only a smoke screen to put the people out of work and to put whites in their places. There are many good coloured workmen, and they must be treated properly. I invite my friends opposite to come and see my farm. The people there are putting money into the savings bank and going ahead. There are carpenters and masons who are as good as any white carpenter and mason in Cape Town.

But what does the Bill say?

That hon. members there allow themselves to be led by the Johannesburg members.

Does the Bill say so?

The Bill does not say so, but the labour congress says so. A splendid building was some time ago erected at Stellenbosch. The white workmen said that they did not wish to work with the coloured workmen and the coloured men are more capable than the whites. I want to protect the whites, but I will fight for the coloured man until I fall down in the House. I say: Pay every man according to his ability, but the Johannesburg friends do not at all intend to do so, and, as I say, it is a smoke screen to introduce a colour bar.

When is the hon. member coming to the Bill? What is he talking about now?

On a point of order, can I appeal to you, as Acting-Speaker, to use your great power and influence to preserve ordinary order and decency in the House?

I do think that hon. members should allow the hon. member to continue his speech.

I daresay these hon. gentlemen do not understand Dutch, so I will excuse them.

Order, order !

I am surprised at the interruptions. I am sorry that the hon. member for Riversdale is not in his place. During the election of last year he said that as soon as the. Nationalists went with the Johannesburg coterie he would leave them or resign. I would much like to know his opinion about this Bill. There are several members such as the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) and others who are not so learned and who feel just as we do. Too much wisdom sometimes drives people to boredom. That my parents taught me, consequently perhaps I have been less educated. No, I shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I shall not permit such a Bill to pass the House before a proper enquiry has been made.

How will the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) prevent it?

I first want to be convinced that the people whom I am obliged to protect will fall outside the law. That the coloured people will not suffer through it. It is also the promise of the hon. the Prime Minister to this House. He said that he would protect them through thick and thin. I support the amendment.

What is the amendment?

I will put the hon. member right a bit. The amendment of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is to first refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

We have been repeatedly invited by hon. members opposite to express our views on this Bill as representatives of the country side. I feel that I can support this Bill with the utmost freedom. If we think about the debate generally then we can say that hon. members have more or less followed the same direction. But take the last two speakers. The great objection of the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) is that the Bill treats the coloured people on the same footing as whites. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) says that he will fight till he drops for the coloured man. How can one reconcile this? The only conclusion is that members on the other side of the House understand nothing about the Bill. I am prepared to meet any member in my constituency or in his own with reference to this ill, and I am certain that I shall get more support from the farmers in favour of the Bill than he will get objections. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is cleverer and therefore more careful. He has said that he is in principle in favour of the Bill. Members opposite try however now to fight it. He knows that the object of the Bill is a good one. But he only tries to raise the suspicions of the farming population. What however surprises me most is that the representatives of the big towns, of the Chambers of Commerce and of the Chamber of Mines are so concerned about the farmers. We have heard how they hammered the point that the farmers will be dragged in under this Bill. I ask why they love the farmer so much now. We see that the Chamber of Mines are flying to the farmers. Almanacs, etc., are sent round stating what the mines do for the farmer and what they mean to the farmer. It is only meant to mislead the farmers so that the Chamber of Mines can shelter behind the farmers. Hon. members need not be concerned about the farmer. We can go to the Transvaal and even to Bethal and we shall find there is a shortage in the country side. If we are going to permit that industries should get all the natives in order to push the whites out of work, then there will be a shortage of labour in the country side. The object of this Bill is to allow the unskilled labour to go to the country so that the industries can give work to our sons. As regards the expression about our brothers here on the cross-benches I will only say this. The hon. member for Bethal has challenged the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) to say whether they are his brothers. I say yes My position is that every Afrikander whether he is Dutch speaking or English speaking is my brother if he has made South Africa his home. The hon. member for Bethal wanted to make out these people, because they are English speaking, could not possibly be our brothers. How can he take up such an attitude? He surely belongs to those who stand for conciliation. He has no right to make the challenge, of does he wish again to cause race hatred? The position is that this was the object of hon. members opposite that although they proposed such a Bill they wanted to raise suspicion amongst the farmers.

That has already been said ten times.

It is repeatedly thrown at our heads, and more than ten times, that we are allied with a dangerous Bolshevistic party this is not Bolshevic legislation but pure National legislation for advancing the welfare of the land. The workmen who supported the hon. member in 1910 are to-day the same workmen with whom he co-operated. The difference is that it is not any longer the same South African party. It is however still the same Unionists who at that time fought the Labour party and who have to-day swallowed up the South African party. To the South African party, the workmen are no longer the same because they will no longer support the altered South African party. Their whole position is so illogical. I only hope that before hon. members again criticize a Bill they will first of all arrange with each other better how they will act in conjunction.

Say something about the Bill.

I hope that hon. members will see that they are not alone wasting the time of the House, but also their own time, because they will not attain their ends.

When I hear the members of the two parties opposite praising each other as they have been doing this afternoon, I look forward to a period, two or three years hence when the hon. members of the Pact will have brought to a conclusion this little love episode. When I hear the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Moll) in which he referred to hon. members on the cross-benches as “brothers,” and when one recalls how a few years ago they were opposing those same hon. members on almost every question with the greatest bitterness, then I wonder what will happen in the next few years when the inevitable break comes. However I wish to deal with the question before the House mainly from the native point of view. The hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) in his speech mentioned the case of three natives, brothers, two working as ordinary labourers, for £1 a month, and the third with no greater accomplishment or ability being employed at a neighbouring factory where he mixes with the white workers on equal terms and receives a minimum wage of from, say, £7 10s. a month. The hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) was rather worried about the two brothers who worked for him, as they would be very dissatisfied, when they compared their pay with that earned by their brother. He looked at the matter purely from the farmer’s point of view. But my anxiety is for the native who is mixing on equal terms with Europeans and receiving equal treatment and pay, for he is the man who is going to cause the trouble when he becomes imbued with the socialistic doctrines of absolute equality and starts preaching them to his brothers. We have built up the country in the past on a policy of differentiation, and we have to recognize that there is a difference between the black and the white races, and anyone who tries to disturb that natural difference, that cleavage ordained by nature, is not doing his duty to this country. Professor E. H. Brookes in his well-known book on native policy, which has been endorsed by the Prime Minister, points out, amongst other things—

Hear, hear.

Professor Brookes expresses the opinion that there should certainly be differentiation between white and black where both are employed in one industry. He deals generally with the position on the Witwatersrand and the gold industry then proceeds—

Let us say that these suggestions, if they are practical, appeal greatly to me. Professor Brookes proceeds—

Now, if I understand correctly, the attitude of several of the Labour members who have spoken, they contend that the Bill now before the House means the total elimination of the colour bar and absolute equality in the industrial world as between white and black, and I would ask members who hold those views to listen very carefully to the views of Professor Brookes on this point—

Are hon. members on the Labour benches, who are contending that the Wages Bill was before the House means the elimination of the colour bar and equality of opportunity for white and black, prepared to deny that the conclusion of Professor Brookes on this aspect of the case are other than reasonable and borne out by past history? Now we have the further extraordinary and contradictory attitude of hon. members of the Labour and Pact parties in this House who, in another Bill before the House—the Mines and Works Bill— are advocating the extension of the colour bar throughout the Union. Let us see what Professor Brookes has to say about the retention of the colour bar. He states—

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) said that in the Transvaal this Bill has been described as “the white man’s hope.” But what is it to be to the black man—his downfall? The hon. member also said: “This is the solution of the economic part of the native problem.” And the hon. member for Winburg said: “If an industry cannot pay civilized wages there are only two alternatives. It must close down or be declared a black industry.” Are we then to divide our industries, and should one not be able to pay when run with white labour, is it to be worked entirely with native labour? Is this the policy of the Government? The Minister of Railways stated that he was not applying his policy of employment of civilized labour to the Transkeian territories—a native area. Is the Minister of Labour prepared to take up the same attitude and not apply this Bill to native areas? I am of opinion that there is only one policy—call it what you will—and that is the recognition of the fact that nature has created a division, and it is the duty of every white man to uphold that division, but the natives must be treated fairly, squarely and honestly. I stand by that policy which was originated by the Dutch people several hundred years ago and followed by the British—a policy of differentiation, but of treating both races equitably and fairly, but the difference created by nature must be preserved for the sake of ourselves and our children and also for the sake of the native in our midst. I ask the Minister this, seeing that he is prepared, and seeing that he states that it is his desire, to treat the native so equally and so fairly, is he prepared to give the natives representation on this wages board? Of course he is not going to do that; it would be fatal to his policy. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) made a statement the other day that only one-tenth per cent of the natives ever reached ordinary intelligence. I would like to take any member of this House to one of the native councils in the Transkei, and he would quickly realize the intelligence that has been attained by the native. You cannot keep the native down by wages boards and such nostrums, and the more you attempt to suppress them, the more strenuous will be their efforts to rise. I agree very largely with the policy of the Prime Minister, as laid down by him in his recent speech in this House. What I am afraid of is that instead of his native policy being developed that the policy is being developed here now by the Labour party. The Prime Minister will waken up one morning to find that the policy has been developed by the hon. members in the corner. If the Prime Minister is prepared to do his duty to the native, then I say that we should start with a very definite policy instead of tinkering with it with such measures as we now have before us. Let him come forward now with a definite native policy. Let him meet the natives and say: “We cannot compete with you under your present standard of civilization, and we are not prepared to allow you to compete in our industries except upon certain conditions. We are prepared to treat you fairly and justly in your own areas.” Let us not attempt to overcome the difficulties by surreptitious methods such as these. Don’t build the solution of the native problem on schemes of this nature.

What about the Masters and Servants Act?

The hon. member must not discuss the Masters and Servants Act.

Do hon. members of the Labour party wish me to discuss their attitude on that Bill. If it is permissible then I would point out that it was only a week ago that natives found many champions on the Labour benches. The House rang with their denunciations of the farming community. The word “slaves” was frequently applied to the native labourers and the farmers called “slave drivers” and accused of sweating their employees. That Bill should go before a Select Committee before the second reading, they contended, and evidence taken as to its general effect and the views of the Native Affairs Commission be heard. Well, if they were genuine and honest in their denunciations and criticisms, and seeing how vitally the present Bill will affect the natives, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Standerton which is exactly the same as that moved by the Labour members on the Masters and Servants Act should receive their wholehearted support. As I said before I feel the Prime Minister has a very difficult task ahead of him. To-day the position is infinitely more difficult than it was ten years ago, and the difficulties must increase unless we take the right road I sympathize with the position of the European labouring classes in this country. It is not really a black menace to civilization, it is the menace of the white man not being able to look after himself that we have to face. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) during the course of his speech on the Bill stated that we on this side were trying to frighten the farmers—that ours was an attitude of “bang maak ” as he put it. Well this policy of the Government is nothing but a policy of funk. A policy of trying to push the native aside, because he is threatening us. You have many methods of preventing the native from coming into direct contact with the European and threatening European civilization. The Urban Areas Act helps greatly in that direction. The Prime Minister has a difficult duty, but I believe we, on this side of the House, fully recognize that, and we are prepared to assist him in every way possible. On this side of the House, every one is prepared to put aside party and do what we think right in the interests of the country. If ever there was a Bill that should go before a Select Committee, at this stage, this is one. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who is one of the keenest business men in the country, admits that he does not know what the effect of it will be in the country and upon industries. The hon. members in that corner do not know what it means, nor how it will affect the native. If they think they are going to solve the problems threatening white civilization by legislation of this nature and without going to the very root of the whole problem, they are making a mistake. You cannot push the black menace, as they are pleased to term it, aside. I have lived for forty years among the natives, and do hon. members think that I do not realize the dangers to white civilization of this so-called “Black Menace?”

What is your solution?

I am prepared to give my views before the Select Committee if necessary, but in the main, I may say, I agree largely with the views of Professor Brookes, one of the advisors to the Government. I understand. If this House is going to rush into funk legislation without consulting the natives, if they deal with this vital question in this way, I say there is very little chance of their coming to a solution of the native problem, for in arriving at a settlement there must be more or less mutual agreement and sympathy. I believe the native is just as anxious to keep his children from European contamination and from the dangers of white civilization as we are to keep our civilization pure and to guard our children against the evils arising from the poor white problem. I appeal to the Prime Minister as the guardian of the natives in his capacity as Minister of Native Affairs to allow this matter to be carefully considered. What will the natives think when they read in the papers that the most important measure affecting them that has ever been brought before the House and country was being rushed through at four o’clock in the morning? I say, and I repeat that if the Prime Minister would only hold this Bill over and place it before a Select Committee so that we may be better able to judge what the consequences of the measure are likely to be, we should be dealing more fairly with the natives, and it is vital that we retain their confidence in the justness of our legislation.

In the course of this debate a charge of inconsistency has been frequently levelled by Opposition members at the Nationalist side of the House. I find that the present Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the House when Minister of Defence, quoted a speech delivered by the present Prime Minister to his constituents at Smithfield, in the course of which the following passages occurred—

Those were the words of the present Prime Minister at a time of industrial crisis in South Africa, quoted on Wednesday, February 4th, 1914, by the then Minister for Defence, when speaking on his Indemnity Bill. I do not think the Prime Minister, or the members of the present Government, have deviated from the words spoken by him at that time, and this Bill in its terms is entirely consistent with that utterance. I regard the present Bill as the complement of the Conciliation Act which is at present on the Statute Book. Without this Bill the enforcement of action under the Conciliation Act is quite useless, and that Act misses its objective. The Conciliation Act embodies purely voluntary procedure designed to delay extreme and precipitate action by either party to a dispute, but there is no compulsion on either party to adopt a verdict arrived at by any conciliation board. This is strikingly demonstrated by the present action of the Chamber of Mines in their refusal to act on the De villiers’ Conciliation Board award. The workers or this country, having striven for years to reach constitutionally some means of solving their problem, have at last got to the stage when they have Ministers in power acting on their behalf in measures of this nature. The workers, in doing so, are conceding a great deal. The strike weapon and the right to employ it when occasion compels are jealously cherished prerogatives of the working classes, to be foregone only when legislation honestly tries to cater for their economic needs. They are not forcing Bolshevik doctrines down anybody’s throats; they are adopting the constitutional method, to which they have been so often urged by the late Prime Minister and his followers. Now that the constitutional method is being adopted, the workers are not being encouraged by their critics in this hon. House to proceed on that line, but they are being encouraged by the members of the Opposition to fall back upon direct action. Conciliation generally provides for the adjustment on the basis of existing conditions (cost of living and local variations) of immediate differences which may arise without taking cognizance of what must be a most important factor in all industrial legislation, and that is, the need of the workers to advance progressively. The workers have never accepted the position that they alone of society must remain stationary in status and conditions. Rectitude and justice have not always been the governing factors in adjusting differences between employers and employees. Rather the reverse has been the rule. If there has not been the actual and direct force of military action, there has certainly been the economic and indirect force of starvation, which has invariably been brought to bear on the side of the employing class. That is what has led employees generally throughout the world, wherever they are congregated in industrialized areas, to realize that, short of revolutionary methods, the only effective thing is to get hold of, the constitutional machine. When the workers have produced an article, and it has been put out of the workshops, they no longer have any say in the value of ultimate disposal of that article. That rests in the hands of people who do not and cannot produce. Their product is alienated from them and they are rationed with sufficient to maintain their working efficiency. I listened with amazement yesterday when the hon. member for Newlands told us that, in our economic outlook, we on the cross-benches were thinking in the middle of last century; when he talked about the five quarters of the melon. It struck me then that his problem was not as impossible of solution as he tried to make out; because the melon has been, cut into five quarters all along, and the fifth quarter was what the workers got, the four substantial quarters being the remuneration of the employers and dealers. Compulsion has always been a weapon in the settlement of disputes, and compulsion must pass into the hands of those who can use it most effectively. It is the nature of that compulsion which is vital to the workers and to the community. We have found out by costly experience that the best way to use compulsion is through the ballot-box, and that method of compulsion is now going to be used in the settlement of disputes in this country. That is where all the resentment springs from on the Opposition side of the House, viz., from the fact that at last the workers are on the eve of achieving something for which they have sacrificed and striven for many years past with very small results. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), whose futile theories, backed by puerile arguments, are only amusing, referred to what I said about the use of white labour in agriculture. We know that you cannot at once introduce revolutionary methods like that of immediately, by law, substituting white for coloured labour, and so drastically upsetting things; but I would quote one instance of white labour applied to farming. It is a farm of 16,000 morgen or more in the neighbourhood of Balfour in the Transvaal. The work on that farm is carried out by white labour, or if not entirely by white labour, the coloured labour employed is negligible The men are of a fine stamp and live on the farm with their families. They are not landowners, they are land-workers, but they are not the cheapest type of land-worker, namely, the man who is expected to endeavour to eke out a living from exhausted land and pay for his occupancy by giving the landowner a share of his products. The men work for a regular cash wage, and are well housed, their families being well provided for. They have land provided for their own use, and pasturage available for their cattle. Schools are provided on the farm so that the workers’ children are not penalized educationally, and these men are vastly better off than the men working down the mines for 18s. or £1 a day. Anyone visiting that farm must be struck by the demonstration which it provides that farming in this country by white labour is not only possible but profitable. It is an answer to those who say this country must have special conditions applied to it to enable it to weather the storm of competition with overseas producing countries. The farm has no special advantages of fertility of soil or perennial natural water for irrigation. It has the natural features and resources common to that part of the province. There are millions of trees in different stages of growth and the last Government had promised to put down a four mile railway siding especially to deal with the shipment of wheat. An elevator erected at the nearest railway station deals mainly with the grain output from this estate.

What farm do you refer to?

Mostert’s farm.

Have you seen the farm?

Yes.

Do you know Mr. Mostert?

Yes, personally. He stood bail for many of my friends who were imprisoned after the strike of 1922. An attempt has been made all along in the discussion to create a schism on the Government side of the House as between those interested in farming and those interested in industry or commerce. I refer to this instance to show that if this Bill did contain the drastic provisions indicated by hon. members of the Opposition; even then it should have no terrors for the farmers. But the Bill does not say it is going to treat farm labour as a whole and lay down a wage for that. It expressly excludes the agricultural industry. If the class of labour employed in an industry is mainly native labour, I take it that the board, when it sits, would take that into consideration and fix the wages accordingly. But supposing the board did fix the wages of natives engaged on agriculture at what we would call a higher level, for natives, but at what would be a low level for Europeans, it does not follow that an employer like Mr. Mostert would want to bring his wages for labour down to the level fixed by the board. It is more probable that he would maintain the proportional difference and retain the ratio of efficiency which he obtains in service. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that wages should be determined entirely between employers and workers. As I said, that way has been tried and it, is mainly owing to the mismanagement of the right hon. member, when Prime Minister, with his “clear-the-ring-method,” “the wait-for-the-situation-to-develop method” and the “do-not-hesitate-to-shoot method” that it has not met with success. I think the right hon. member might justifiably have taken some credit to himself for having educated the workers by his rather drastic tuition, so that they have now adopted the constitutional method, even although it meant putting him out of the saddle. The spectacle of the right hon. member posing here as the prime critic of industrial and economic legislation would have been ludicrous had he not been such a tragically colossal failure in legislating for the working class. He said this is a young country on the threshold of its development, Yes, it is young in years but very old in experience, and I think one of the best lessons the present leader of the Opposition ever gave us was when he took £47,000 out of the coffers of this country for compensation to scabs after the 1913 troubles at Kleinfontein, instead of leaving it to the people interested in breaking that strike to pay the cost of their own dirty work. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said that for wages to be paid they must first be earned. But he did not elaborate on that thesis. I do not know that there is any one on the Government or, cross-benches who would say otherwise. Generally, wages are earned 200 per cent. if not more. We have heard it stated from another hon. member of the Opposition that the men who work in the mines sit on a box, do a bit of supervising, and draw their £1 a day. That is an old and worn-out jibe, and those who actually know ignore it. I have had fifteen years underground, and have never had the experience of being able to sit on a box to supervise. My work was done with my own hands. I have worked 36 hours at a stretch in a shaft, and worked three consecutive gangs of cheap labour to a standstill, doing mechanical and manual work myself continuously, the native labour only being utilized to attend on and assist me in an unskilled capacity. I only mention this here, because it is an instance which cannot be refuted on grounds of “hearsay.” Probably it is because of this training in the field of profit-making for employers that I regard this all-night sitting with perfect equanimity. I would cheerfully have another 36 hours tacked on to this sitting. The law of supply and demand has been quoted. That law knows no minimum wage, though it knows a maximum wage. Where production has been intensified by the introduction of machinery, we must adopt some measures to see that the work is done by the mass of the people and not by the few, leaving a great number redundant. One way of doing that is to improve the conditions of labour, create higher rates of pay and shorten hours, instead of, as at present, crabbing the power of consumption by undue restriction of the purchasing power of the producing workers, and mulcting the community generally to provide, by charity and otherwise, for those who are precluded from earning what they require to merely exist. That is essential unless we are to have an increasing redundancy of population, whether white or black. Machinery and scientific methods have been introduced and applied to production to such an extent that it must sooner or later bring about the time of which Oscar Wilde wrote when he said—

Present-day conditions, however, take no cognizance of that. I think that the members of the Opposition in this debate have been talking with their tongues in their cheeks, and with their eyes on the party exchequer, and in the hope that they will still be able to keep their hands in the pockets of the workers.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to attribute motives, that we have our eyes on the party exchequer, and our hands in the pockets of the people?

I did not hear what the hon. member was saying, but he must not attribute motives to hon. members of this House.

I am quite prepared unreservedly to withdraw what I said if it is misunderstood. I have no wish to use words personally offensive to hon. members, and if my metaphor was miscontrued probably it was because it was clumsily expressed. I hope that when he has occasion next to do so the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) will profit by my example. I have been struck by the fact that he is not over-sensitive as to the effect of his words on the feelings of other hon. members. It has been said that the operation of the Bill will lead to the closing down of industries, and to the scaring away of capital. But a well-known writer on economics, Hugh Dalton, M.A., has pointed out that “so long as there is any profit to be made from keeping works open, they will not be closed except, perhaps, as a desperate political bluff. And such bluff could speedily be defeated by a Government which had the courage to stick to its guns. For profit-making is a far stronger motive in the business world than political prejudice.” We know that manufacturers are not going to jettison their interests because a Bill of this sort is introduced. If the hon. members on the Opposition side are concerned as many of them have professed to be, about the condition of their employees, they should welcome the Bill because it will protect them against the unfair competition of the unscrupulous profiteering employer. It will, as it were, set a “scratch” line from which the economic race can be started. No one has a better experience than I have of the necessity of a victimization clause in the Bill, although many of my colleagues, inside and outside of this House have been made to suffer to an even greater degree for refusal to bend the knee. The retaliation of the big interests in this country on people who act against them in times of crisis does not stop with their refusal to give work to black-listed men. An hon. member in this House controls a mining group which not only has refused to re-engage men, but has intimidated private outside contractors to refuse work to men on whom the ban had been placed, the penalty tor ignoring the ukase being no more contracts for the offending firm. That sort of thing should be scotched by legislation. I know men who have been driven to desperate passes in cases like this, and who would be easily induced to retaliate in the only way in their power, a way which is not in conformity with respect for “law and order,” and the hon. member for Jeppe was quite correct in saying that revolutionary thoughts thrive on such injustices. There are many families on the Rand suffering from this retaliation of the mining houses, but I do not place personal blame on the hon. member to whom I have referred for this. Such actions are the deeds of under-strappers of the lick-spittle class, who are prepared to do anything, however contemptible, to curry favour with a boss. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) tried to twit the Minister of Labour with his 5s. per shift experiment on the Village Main Reef Mine. That was, I believe, the identical pay received by the troopers engaged in the Jameson raid, and they were engaged ostensibly, on a great national undertaking which was meant to stimulate industry, whether the munition, the mining, or the undertaking industries I would not say. I do not see any difference between a man taking 5s. a day for serving the industry in that capacity and serving it with a shovel in his hand. If it was deemed equitable pay in one instance, why not so in the other? This is an old canard which the Minister of Labour does not take the trouble to contradict, though I wish he would sometime, for the benefit of misinformed and uninformed hon. members. I agree that, to a large extent to-day the real workers underground are natives, but how did “the muscle of Black Africa,” so dilated upon by the hon. member for Zululand, acquire its proficiency? Was it trained and taught by the muscle and brains of the white worker whom the people in control now wish to discredit and displace in the interests of profit-making, or was it found ready-made and indigenous in knowledge and proficiency as in origin? I daresay Providence organized the abundant supply of cheap labour, ready trained to undertake the work. It must have been so. How otherwise could the white labourers have been redundant? I have known white miners to say that certain natives working under them are just as skilled as themselves in routine mining work. We know there are such, but are they paid the wages of efficient miners? How would their wages satisfy efficient miners elsewhere? I would like to know what improvements the workers have ever secured in their conditions which were not forced by great sacrifices on their part. Always there has been resistance to the utmost power of the profit-making class. We are in a state, in the economic world, of transition from semi-feudal land-ownership to modern industrial ownership, and that stage of transition up to the present has been a very painful one for those dispossessed of land and forced into the wage-earning market, and people have had to struggle step by step for every little advance gained, and if the Opposition had its way those people would still have to go through the same sad experiences in order to better their conditions. There is no question of moral right or wrong in their attitude to the matter. I remember last evening the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) stating that he was willing to concede consideration to the under dog. I know he meant it genuinely, but it roused a feeling of deep indignation in me that anyone who agrees with the hon. member for Zululand should say such a thing. It is the under dog that, by his exploited labour, keeps such people in comfort and ease. We hear the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) saying that we all live on the natives labour. It is certainly true of him and of his class. Then is the native not the under dog from whom they derive their maintenance and very existence? There is no concession about it. It is an absolute right that the workers should control and share, in a just degree, in the fruits of what they produce by their labour. The efficient management of the mines has been improving in late years, but a great deal of waste and mismanagement has yet got to be offset by cutting the wage of the workers. A board set up as this board will be, consisting of technically qualified men, able to separate the wheat from the chaff, will discover whether an industry is able to carry on higher wages or not.

The hon. member’s time has expired.

One might come to the position that it would be necessary to go on. If someone has fallen into the river he will attempt to swim through, otherwise he would drown. I understand that when we come to the vote that we must meet again this afternoon, but if we can go on to twenty minutes past two then the position is that the House need not meet again before Monday. It is fortunately not necessary for me to make any excuse for speaking. Hon. members opposite have accused us of making obstruction, but I do not think that they can say it any longer to-day, because members opposite have taken up just as much time as we. Members have often got up on this side but had no opportunity to speak because members of the Government party wished to talk. I want to speak because, as a representative of the countryside, I consider it necessary that we must do what we can to avoid this Rill becoming law. It is said on the opposite side that this Bill does not touch the farmers. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) has said that there is no proof that it will affect the farmers. If he considers he will see that he is wrong. If, e.g., a farmer employs a man on his farm to look after his pumps, such a man will fall under the Bill. If anyone has an engine—

Has the hon. member read the Bill?

Yes, I read it, and the definition of “work” as well. If anyone reads the definition of “work” he will see that all such things will fall under the provisions. The Minister himself in his speech said that the meaning of the Bill depended upon the explanation that is subsequently given to the term. Anyone that has steam pumps and employs another to look after them will be obliged to pay the man the minimum wage, because such a man will come under the provisions. If such a person is on the farm and gets the minimum wage then it will cause dissatisfaction on the farm.

What about the Act of 1918? It is the same wording.

Things that have not taken place in the past may happen in the future. If, in the past, such a thing has not happened, then it may occur in the future in consequence of this Bill. It is said that farming is excluded. I hope hon. members who represent the countryside will think a little. In England it has become applicable to farming, and the Minister of Labour, when he mentioned it, also had in his thoughts to make it applicable to farmers when the opportunity came. Take, e.g., Cape Town, Johannesburg and other large towns where living expenses are very high. The wages must be proportionately high. The big places will be thought of by the board and the consequence will be that it will be impossible in a small place to carry on your business if such high wages have to be paid. If we observe what a shop assistant in Cape Town or Johannesburg gets in a shop, and then compare it with what an assistant gets in the interior, then we find that he draws about one-third or one-fourth of the salary of the assistant in the large towns, and yet on the countryside he can live respectably on his pay, because his living is cheap. It will be impossible to carry on business in the countryside if they are compelled to pay the wages which are earned in the shops in the big towns. I hope that the country members will think a little about this. The Bill will certainly do harm. Much is not required to kill some of our industries. The industries are based on mixed labour of which a great portion is cheap labour. The idea is not that the minimum wage will be brought down to the low scale, but it is going to be increased to the high rate of wages, and we shall find that many of the industries will not be able to pay these, and that the industries will close down. An accusation repeated a few times by hon. members opposite, and which I think is entirely unjust, is that we have no consideration for the worker. I only wish to point out to hon. members that when we were on the Government benches we always showed great consideration for the workers. But we feel that we are making it impossible with the high wages for some industries to continue. I noticed one thing, and that is that hon. members opposite, who belong to the Nationalist party, have taken so little part in the debate. It is only the members who represent industrial areas who have talked about the Bill. It is quite true what the hon. member here says, that the tail is wagging the dog. Then there was laughter, but it sometimes happens that the tail wags the dog. I think that is the case here, because it is remarkable that the tail does not wag the head of the dog while the body remains quiet. The members of the Nationalist party who represent the farmers are in a great majority, and thus the body and they are so quiet. Only the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) rose, and what did he say?

What about the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood)?

Yes, the hon. member for Barberton also spoke, but he is not a regular farmer. He spoke about the market report. There are members who speak flippantly. The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) has also not yet spoken. Usually he is very flippant and talks like a “clown,” but I hope that he will get up this morning and will speak seriously as a representative of the countryside. And someone that I should very much like to hear is the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers). He is a man whom I regard as an honest representative of the countryside, who usually speaks frankly, and has the courage to state his meaning honourably. Other country representatives also should say what their feelings are. I have said that the tail is wagging the head.

Head and tail has nothing to do with the Bill.

The Bill also has a head and tail.

Where is it?

I should like that the real farmers’ representatives should get up and make clear to me that I need not be uneasy, but they have remained quiet, only the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) has said that it is a pure socialistic measure, and he is right. I say also that the law will work as a pure socialistic measure.

He did not say so.

If he did not say so, then I say it now. I sit a little bit far away, and there is often so much noise that one cannot catch everything, but in any case the hon. member gave the impression that that was his meaning. And it is mine also. We now have a Pact Government. There are only two Socialists in the Government and there are eight men who are not Socialists, therefore in those hands the Bill is not yet so dangerous, but if we get another Government? If tomorrow or the day after the Bill has to be carried out by a Communist Government? Moreover, large powers are given to the Ministers. The Minister will appoint the Wages Board and he will practically have the sole decision. The Government will one day be out of power. I am convinced that the next Government will be the South African party. Hon. members opposite, when they were still in Opposition, always said: It is not good that the Government should remain long in power. I hope that they will understand that they will one day have to give place, but what will come after the next Government? The Labour party use the Nationalists to get a hold on the countryside. I am afraid therefore that some day we shall have a socialistic Government in the country, then the Bill will be a dangerous instrument and the farmers will no longer be excluded. What will then be the state of the country? I do not wish to detain the House, but I want to state my views. I hope my hon. friends opposite will honestly state whether they are satisfied with the Bill.

My name has been mentioned so much since yesterday that I am compelled to say a few words. I heartily wish that my action will assist in our doing something for our people. That is why I remained quiet. I will, however, try to satisfy members opposite. A little while ago when the Prime Minister announced that the House would sit after 11 o’clock if the Bill was not adopted the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbours) (Mai. G. B. van Zyl) said that it was the supporters of the Government who took up all the time, they then said that we should not talk, but now they complain that we do not talk. They say that there are some of us who will not talk and who are afraid to speak. I have never yet been afraid to express my convictions and I will readily acknowledge that I am one of the persons who at the third reading of the Wages Bill of the former Government voted against it. I am still logical. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) also voted against it, but I want to ask him whether we at that time were also so unfair to the Government as hon. members opposite are now.

You were just as unfair.

We were not so unfair. We allowed the second reading to pass and the Bill then to go to a Select Committee.

It went before the second reading to the Select Committee.

Well, even if it did go before the second reading, the necessity existed that there should be a wages law. The principle was then actually accepted. Why if the principle was then accepted and if the Bill is now drafted can’t it go to a Select Committee after the second reading? Is there a single section which cannot be altered? The Prime Minister has acknowledged the difficulty in connection with the Bill. He invited the Opposition and said: let the Bill go to a Select Committee now. It can there be discussed and thereafter come back to the House, and members will then have the opportunity to try and make the Bill into what we should like to see it. I am just as keen on seeing that it should be a good Bill. I shall try just as other members will to see that the Bill is not pushed through contrary to the interests of the farmers. It is my sacred duty, and I will let my voice be heard. We must however not be so narrow that we have nothing over for other occupations. I acknowledge that there are other occupations of which I know nothing, and I then listened to what others say about them. The previous Government felt that such legislation was necessary, and to-day they contest it. My experience has taught me that we must look further. We had at that time not yet had the great trouble on the Rand. I wish to make no reproaches, but that trouble came over our country, and if there was such a body—I do not say that they would have arrived at an agreement— then we could at any rate have done our best to settle the matter. Our organ “Die Burger” has also mentioned necessary alterations, and I think that the Minister and the Prime Minister will be prepared to consider the alterations suggested. Members must understand that we have been two months in Cape Town, and what have we done for the country? The Opposition give us no chance. Speeches are made here which are intended to work up the farmers against each other. I do not for a moment believe that the farmers will suffer so much under this Bill. What will do the most harm will be we members ourselves if we try to make political capital out of it in our constituencies. Is it possible that the natives will all go and look for work in the industries? They also farm in thousands, and do not go to the mines. How can we argue then that the farmers will be entirely without labour? An alteration must be made, but I cannot understand that hon. members wish that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, seeing the principle was adopted by both parties I would appeal to members that we should now come to a vote. If hon. members will do their best the people outside will be able to decide upon the position. One thing is certain, this long discussion will do the country harm. I agree with the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) that we are playing with fire if the native is dragged into every discussion. The native problem will become more difficult every day. By oppression we can keep no one down. We must be just, but we must not play with fire in fencing with native affairs.

In rising to support the amendment of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, I am influenced to a great extent by what has fallen from the hon. members for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) and Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). The first hon. gentleman practically incited to violence and the other hon. gentleman remarked—

I can only assume that this is the policy of the Labour party, and that if that is the case I cannot possibly conceive the old Conservative back-benchers of the Nationalist party giving support to these sentiments. I have always found the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) a very moderate man, and I am disappointed to find that he also has been gagged. My little knowledge of parliamentary life teaches me that if the Bill goes to Select Committee after second reading there is very little chance of altering it, especially as the majority on that Select Committee would consist of members on the opposite benches. As a representative of a Dutch-speaking constituency I can speak very feelingly, and I can give the assurance that the majority of these people are dead against these Socialistic measures. I do not want to go into details, and I must admit that the different sides of the question have been fairly and exhaustively debated on both sides of the House. I must repudiate the tendency on the other side of the House to say that the agricultural interests are not going to be affected if this Bill comes into force. I say that this fallacy will not hold water. There are affiliated industries which are going to be severely handicapped, and I appeal to the hon. members opposite—I do not expect any response from my hon. friends on the Labour benches, because this is purely and solely their Bill— but I cannot see how any conservative member representing the country can possibly support the principles of this Bill.

Whose was the 1921 Bill?

Another point against this Bill is clear, and that is that the employers of labour have absolutely no say in any trouble. The whole tendency of the Bill is “one-sided. There are also the very autocratic powers given to the Minister of Labour. We have frequently heard the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) accused of being a dictator, but the dictatorship assumed by the hon. Minister under this Bill is much greater than could ever be assumed by the right hon. member for Standerton.

Impossible.

That is your idea. I respect yours, and I want you to respect mine. Mow many members representing the real backbone of the country have spoken in favour of the Bill from the Nationalist side of the House? We have had a few attorneys and barristers speaking, but we have not had the farmers.

Are you a farmer?

I am as much interested in farming as the hon. member who has just interjected. I Cannot possibly support the Bill, because I feel it has not the genuine support hon. members on the Government benches.

At this rather embarrassing hour it was not my intention to make a long speech, but a challenge has gone forth from the other side and it is necessary for those who have the Bill at heart to take up the challenge. I do not wish to repeat arguments which have already been used, but I wish to reply to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) for it there is one of the members of the Opposition whose views we do respect it is the hon. member for Tembuland. When he discussed influence of this Bill on the natives those views were listened to with respect by members on this side of the House, but that does not mean that we agree with everything he says. His argument, given short, amounts to this— that we should not help the white worker by means of a Bill such as this because it is uncertain how the Bill will affect the native That policy of drift, for that is what he is advocating, does not commend itself to members on this side of the House who wish to see the country progress and to see this terrible problem of unemployment—which has affected the country for the last 20 years—solved. The hon. member seems have forgotten that there are 150,000 white men who are unemployed and whose families are starving. It does not matter what measures we adopt as long as those measures genuinely attempt to solve this problem. Our first duty is to the white man, and I would commend to the notice of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) a passage in Lothrop Stoddard’s “Rising Tide of Colour.” The author of that book describes at p. 275 the inexorable process of competition between the black and white races—

And my contention is that this Bill is attempting to meet that unfair competition which in this country has driven so many white men into the ranks of the unemployed. By this I mean it aims at giving the white man a living wage without which he must inevitably sink below the level of the coloured races. But as soon as you give him a decent civilized wage he can compete with the black man, for he can live according to the standard on which a white man ought to live. That is the answer to the argument of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). The Bill will give a living wage to the white man, while at the same time treating the native with absolute fairness. This Bill says the black man must be paid an economic wage just as the white man is. But it will now be made possible for the white man to compete and from the time that this becomes possible the problem of unemployment will begin to be solved. Surely we want to see these hundred and fifty thousand men in work. Does not the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) realize that if this problem is not solved the white race in South Africa is inevitably doomed. Every effort to stem that tide should be welcomed by this House. It has astounded me to hear hon. members from the other side of the House get up and fight this Bill. In the background of this Bill there looms a bye-election and there seems to be a certain amount of political expediency in the tactics of the Opposition. It is their intention to frighten the farmer in that by-election. I would like to direct the attention of the House to some of the clauses of the Bill. One of the objections is the question of the single Wage Board. I can’t see for the life of me how there can be an objection to the principle of a wage board advising the Minister how to act. The wage board inquires into the conditions of a particular industry, advises the Minister, who thereupon act upon that advice, while if the Minister does anything in conflict with the recommendation of the wage board he is directly responsible to this House.

You are a very simple fellow if you believe that.

Then we have the criticism that this Bill will result in the destruction of small industries. Are hon. members forgetting their own 1921 Wages Bill, and the principle underlying it. They have risen and protested that the small industries will go under all over the country. These industries if they are going under the present Bill would have done so under the 1921 Bill. The answer to that protest is to be found in section 9 of the Bill, under which the Minister may authorize, under licence and under special circumstances, the exemption of certain trades or persons from the provisions of the Bill. These particular objections are raised by hon. members with the realization that they are criticizing the machinery of the Bill, and that the question of the machinery of the Bill is one which a Select Committee can go into. But on a second reading. We are discussing the principle of the Bill and how members of the Opposition can by a mere criticism of the machinery, find reason to reject the second reading, is beyond my parliamentary understanding. That seems to me to be a hopelessly illogical attitude. We have also heard criticisms levelled against section 13 of the Act, which places the onus of proof upon the employer. Perhaps those hon. members of the House who have legal training will realize that this is a principle which is adopted in many cases under our criminal system. In many crimes where it is recognized that there is particular difficulty in bringing the crime home to the accused, as, for instance, in stock theft and in crimes under our liquor, diamond and gold laws, the Legislature has stepped in and said that the onus must be on the accused. So under this Bill the onus of proof will rest on the employer. We have had further objections with regard to the reason why farmers have been excluded from this particular Bill. It seems to me, speaking as a townsman, that the farmer is on an entirely different footing from the industrial concerns. The farmer hitherto has never sweated his labour and therefore there has not arisen the necessity for the application of the principle of this Bill to them. Farmers all over South Africa have paid for their labour fairly.

Your friends on the cross-benches say that the natives are slaves of the farmers, and that they are ill paid and ill fed.

I am perfectly certain that hon. members never said anything of the sort. Hon. members were referring to a certain Bill and were discussing a principle in that particular Bill to which they objected, which, if introduced, would, they contended, have the effect of slavery. They never mentioned that the farmer was a slave driver. I do not believe there is a white man in South Africa who says that the farmer does not treat his natives in a perfectly fair way to-day. The native on the farms has never been sweated and he lives there under natural and healthy Conditions. This Bill has been particularly directed against sweated labour. I do again raise my voice in protest at the manner in which the Opposition have fought this Bill. We know that the whip has cracked and that the command went forth that everyone on that side must speak, and they are doing their duty well. But, with few exceptions, hon. members have not been sincere in their criticisms, and I say again that what underlies the attack made on this Bill is not a disagreement with the principle underlying it, but is a bye-election looming in the background of this debate.

I am rather surprised at hon. members on the other side of the House, especially those who are supposed to represent rural areas and the interests of farmers. The last speaker (Mr. te Water) said that this Bill is not to affect the farmers. I join issue with him on that point. It is true that agriculture, as such, is exempted, but you cannot have any taxation measures or any wage measures without coming back upon the farmer. As soon as this Bill begins to function, you will increase the cost of distribution. That, in its turn, will raise the cost of living, and immediately the vicious circle will start again and wages will be chasing the rise in the cost of living. You are starting at the wrong end. If you reduce the cost of living, wages will tend to come nearer to parity. The farmer is the one producer whose costs of production are never taken into account when he sells his produce. He cannot pass his costs on to the consumer. The farmer has got to accept the price that is offered him. His market is controlled by the export price, by what it costs to get his produce from the farm on to the London market. An increase in the wages of natives is no solution to the problem of the shortage of native labour. I have been on the farm that I own to-day for the last forty-two years, and I have natives on that farm who have lived there the whole time father, son and grandson. Most of the farmers treat their natives well, and keep their natives on their farms. Again I would say to the farmers on the opposite side that they are being misled entirely if they think this Bill is not going to affect them and affect them very deeply. Every time wages are interfered with artificially, those wages are going to go up and react to the detriment of the farmers. You may tax the mines or the merchants but it all comes out of the pockets of the farmer.

I had no intention of speaking, but many of us feel that this is a matter which is much too serious to be rushed through in this short period. I want to make it quite clear that it is not correct to say that this side of the House is opposing the principle of the Bill as regards minimum wages. We are opposing the methods by which the Government are forcing the Bill through the House and by which those minimum wages are to be decided. This Bill, which is being forced through is a complete departure in certain regards from the principles of the Bill of 1921. There is a vast difference between the present Bill and the proposal that came from this side, when in office, which was that each trade and occupation should decide its own affairs and not have a single Board, composed very probably of young doctors of philosophy, who would go round and fix wages, etc. I say, as a man who has worked with white, coloured and black labour, that employers and employees in each industry are the best people to get together and decide what is good for themselves. I do not want to raise any “goggas,” or “bogeys” or ghosts in the woods” when I say that the farmers are not immune from the operations of this Bill. The Minister himself gave you the cue earlier in the debate. The question was interjected as to how it was going to affect agriculture, and why agriculture had been kept out, seeing that in England they provided a minimum wage for the agricultural industry. His reply was that England had gone a good bit further than we have, and if was better developed. The logical conclusion from this remark is that when our agricultural industry is sufficiently developed, the principles of this Bill will be applied to agriculture. I do not necessarily find any fault with that and it would at least be honest to say so. I should prefer that we should say that this Bill will apply to each industry, but that each industry will settle its own minimum wage. But you are going forward now and throwing dust in the eyes of those who do not think sufficiently and offering a lot of soporifics to the farmers. You deal with certain things specifically and openly but there are also soporifics which, as anyone can see, are only throwing dust in the eyes of the farmers. Of course, you have a Pact, and you have had to keep your agreement with each other, and you have got to scratch one another’s backs. The exclusions provided in the Bill have a bearing to which I want to draw attention. Domestic service and farm labour are going to be excluded. The mere fact of excluding certain occupations from the operations of this Bill will stamp these occupations as inferior, and the other occupations, for which a minimum wage is provided, will be marked off as the field of employment for white men. I want to see as many white men as possible employed on the land.

Hear! Hear !

I, like the Minister, wish to see as many whites employed on the farms as is economically possible, but he is not providing that these men shall have “a living wage.” Whilst he makes such provision for their brothers employed in other industries.

Do you want to propose that we should include them?

I think that on the land you will raise a more virile race than by crowding them into the factories, but the Minister is not going to get away from the conclusion we are coming to by saying, would I include farming in the Bill? I say that agriculture will be affected, and that it would have been more honest to include it, and that this Bill will stamp farm work as an inferior occupation and relegated to natives, and will tend to keep white men from such work. Our leader appealed to him, on very sound lines, to refer the subject matter of the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, and probably, if that had been done, an agreed Bill would have come before this House. I believe we are all so earnest to get this question settled that this would have happened. We have had speeches from the other side, indicating that there is a very grave difference of opinion there in regard to the Bill, and you have heard from this side that one member stated he was against any minimum wage in any industry, so that difference of opinion exist on both sides and possibly also on the cross-benches.

No.

Well, perhaps, you are more solid than the rest of public opinion, but you have probably been dragooned into your position by the trade unions. At this eleventh hour I appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision and adopt the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), although I fear that it is too late now to appeal to the better sense of the Government benches. They have practically stated that they are going to use the steam-roller. As a person born here, who hopes that any descendants he may have will live in this country as their home, I want to see questions of this magnitude solved on sound lines, with as much agreement among the different sections of the community as possible, and that is why I think it would have been wiser to adopt the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). It appears to me that there is a deliberate intention, through this Bill, to drive all the coloured and native labour from any other industry on to the farms and into domestic service. If you exclude domestic service and farm labour from the scope of this Bill, it will mean that anyone who does this work will be ashamed to do so. It is for the good of this country that white men and women should undertake domestic and farm work to the fullest possible extent. I do not agree with the contention that this kind of work is only fit work for natives. As regards the driving of people into work as a sort of wage slaves, I think every right-thinking man is prepared to stand against it. As regards the details as to what kind of labour is going to be allowed by this Bill on farms and what is not, as an employer of farm labour myself I frequently get work done by farm hands where under this Bill farm servants would be precluded from doing it, e.g., rough masonry, carpentry and blacksmith’s jobs. We were told in the Transvaal that the Factories Act would not interfere with the farmer. I was running a dairy some fourteen miles from Pretoria and this required the running of a ¼ horse-power engine for half-an-hour a day, which was done by a native. A factories inspector made me shut down that engine because I could not afford to pay a certificated man to work it, and the dairy was shut down, as far as that particular work was concerned.

By the South African party.

This was in the days before Union, about 1906 or 1907.

How will the Bill affect that?

I was talking about one Act which was not supposed to affect the farmers, yet it could be made to do so, and therefore it is not only possible but I think that this Bill will actually very gravely affect the operations of the farmers of the country. Personally, I do not see why farmers need necessarily be excluded. We have conditions of farming which are as different as Patagonia and Norway, and each area should be treated as an entity as regards wages and hours. If farmers and their employees in each area and branch of farming were allowed to decide the running of their own business, I do not see why we should exclude the farmers. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) said that “not a single farmer sweated his labour.” Members of this House who are farmers know that that is not a true statement of fact, because we all know of farmers who deliberately sweat their labour. Why is there suddenly this extraordinary glorification of the farmers from the benches opposite? Why is it that no farmer has been known in the history of the country to have done wrong? That is not what would have been said 15 months ago. I begin to become suspicious when I am told I am faultless.

Has anyone said that of you?

No one that I know of ! Not even the Minister of Labour can lay claim to perfection. We are told that this Bill is a “turning-point” in the industrial development of the country and in its history, but that being so is it not the more necessary that we should take care not to turn into a badly made road or a blind alley and that the change should be made with the consent and approval of the mass of the people of the country? Does the Government not realize that all white men in this country are seriously perturbed by the events of the last few years, and are agreed that there is an absolutely unnecessary and illogical amount of unemployment in the country, in view of its very small European population? It was stated by the Minister of Railways that the employment of white labourers on the railways knocked out the contention that the white man would not work. But the day is not far distant when white men of South Africa would not be employed in that way. I have seen it happen.

Here and there, yes.

I have seen it happen from the Cape to the Northern Transvaal. I welcome as much as the Minister himself the fact that the white men of this country are learning that manual labour is not derogatory. There was a day when the older inhabitants did hold that view, but times are changing, and this change should help to simplify the problems of unemployment. We want to see not one man, whatever his colour may be, without his proper place in the economic life of the country. I want to see white men employed more and more, but I know cases in which some of them have refused to work on railway construction at a place a few miles from their home. After the construction on which they were employed was completed, they gave up their jobs rather than submit to that inconvenience.

There are black sheep in every family.

That is the first time we have had an admission from the Labour benches that there are black sheep among the working classes. I would ask, is the Government doing a wise thing in acting so stubbornly over this matter, and if it considers that two days are too long to devote to a subject which the Government itself admits is a turning point in the history of South Africa.

It Has been before the public since 1921.

This Bill is different from the one of 1921. It is an exceedingly dangerous thing to put the final operation of the extensive powers contained in this Bill in the hands of one man. I wish to point out an error, which the Minister has repeated in this Bill, and that is that a girl under 18 is classed as a juvenile, but when she is over that age she is regarded as an adult. This has had and will have the disastrous effect of inducing unscrupulous employers to discharge a “girl” before she reaches the age at which she must be paid a “woman’s” wage. Many girls are thus forced to lie about their ages in order to save their jobs, as some employers will not pay them the increased wage which would be their due when they reached their 18th birthday. I do not see any provision in the Bill for doing away with that abuse. From every point of view I think it is regrettable that this Bill should be forced through the House without giving ample time for its consideration by thousands of thinking men and women who are afraid of what its outcome may be. Even at the eleventh hour there is time for repentance on the part of the Government. I wish the country to realize the obstinacy of the Government in using its majority to squeeze the measure through Parliament. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) asked why the cost of the production of wheat was greater in this country than in Australia, where highly paid white men are employed in wheat growing. The reasons are too many to be stated here in detail, but they include the difference in climatic conditions and the richer and more suitable soil of Australia. The hon. member said it is because we have cheap bad labour.

Cheap labour which is not cheap because it is inefficent.

Why does he wish then to drive this bad, “inefficient” labour on to the farms. One of the hon. members said that this bad labour must be driven on to the farms because it is “besproken werk” (?) for the natives of this country. That was the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll). To a large extent I agree with that statement that natives are suitably employed on the farms. But I ask why, if it is “inefficient” labour, why make it the only labour available for the farmer? You want to drive more native labour on to the farms and the white men into the other industries. A member on the cross benches said, when the Mines and Works Bill was under discussion, and wherein certain works were going to be kept from natives and Asiatics “give us a minimum wage Bill and we shall not want any colour bar.” The intention therefore clearly was to make the minimum wage so high that people would use nothing but white labour, and the black man would roam about the continent without work, or else the farmer has got to use that man, because there is no other labour available for him. The agricultural industry is cut out of the operations of this Bill, and the employees therein are cut out from the benefits their brothers will get if employed in other industries. The hon. member for Liesbeek protests, but I know it is difficult to find ruthless logic slapping you in the face. It is no good getting up in this House and loosing off a lot of language which sounds eloquent, but when analysed means nothing. I ask the House, if the labourer on the farm is not to have the benefit under the Act, whether—

You move that it be put in.

I am asking the other side to explain to me what is the position. I want an answer as to why the white man on the farm does not deserve the same treatment and consideration as the white man working in the factory.

Why did not you give it in the 1921 Act?

That Act left those things to be dealt with by the people concerned in the industry without interference and meddling and muddling from outside by people who knew nothing about it. I have dealt effectively I hope with the “cheap” and “inefficient” black labour which alone would be left to the farmer to employ. I want to know why the hon. member for Hoopstad said he could see there was “ook ’n split” on our side of the House? Why did he use the word “ook”? It obviously means that his Party are split over this measure. We have no split whatever here. There are differences of opinion upon details but they don’t show a split. It is to avoid a very much larger split amongst the people of this country that I get up and ask you to try and get an agreed measure by adopting our amendment rather than ram this Bill down the throats of the people of the country.

I did not intend to speak about this important Bill. I thought that as a new member and as one of the back benchers I should rather be silent on it. I cordially agree that it is an important measure and perhaps it is one of the most important that we have had here for a long time. But after the intentional baiting by hon. members opposite that we who come from the country, we who represent farmers, remain quiet because we are against the Bill but will not say so I wish to take the opportunity to contradict this. I say that I am under a deep sense of my responsibility to my fellow farmers and of the importance of the matter but I agree with the Bill. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) and the hon. member for Colesburg (Mr. G. A. Louw) have said here that they are farming representatives. Let me say that I am talking here on behalf of farmers. The hon. member for Colesburg is a farmer and if I may judge by appearances I think he is a farmer’s son. But that is not the impression that I get from the hon. member for Swellendam. If I look at him then I feel that he is one of those who has made his money out of the farmers. He says that he has an interest in farming. I wonder what it is. Is it not possibly mortgages on the farms? Let me say to the hon. member that I have been and still am a farmer. The little money I have I made in farming and I know farming from A to Z. I am as certain that I have the farmers behind me that I will invite him and also the hon. member for Colesburg.

“ Ryperd.”

I will resign my seat on condition that those two members also resign their seats and then we will fight out the matter to see who is supported by the farmers in this matter. No, they will not do that, because they know that the country stands by this Government. The country has given us the duty of saving it from the misery to which the previous Government had brought it. I am absolutely in earnest. I will write out my resignation to-morrow if the hon. members will accept my challenge. This is not the place to call out “ryperd” and those kind of members, such as the member for Swellendam, will not succeed in frightening farming members. He will not succeed again in Swellendam. If he should then I am sorry for them. Then I am sorry that they send such a member to represent them. I support this Bill because I am sure that my electors and the people stand with us. I acknowledge that there are certain things in it which can be improved but this we have all said and also the Prime Minister. It can be put right in the Select Committee. Why must we now waste the time of the House and the money of the country as the Opposition is doing?

What are you doing?

I did not wish to speak but members invited me to do so. Now they ask what I am doing? No, they cannot accuse this side of wasting the time of the House.

What are you talking about?

If the hon. member does not yet know what I am doing then I do not wish to waste the time of the House any longer to make it plain to him.

Not waste it any longer.

It has been said contemptuously that we call the labourers brothers. Let me say that I feel very happy amongst these brothers of ours. I stretch out my hand to all who accept South Africa as their country but those hon. members who say that they are going to kill racialism try to drive a wedge between us by arousing race hatred for that purpose. They say that we have here to do with a Labour measure. They, however, introduced it themselves. I think that South Africa feels proud of men such as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) who has stood up here for bilingualism and who has made a speech which is a model for members opposite. I am very sorry for the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) because his position is very bad. He fought for his country in the second War of Independence and, therefore, I have every respect for him, but I am sorry that he has wandered so far that he is now sitting amongst his former enemies. We have full confidence in the Pact Government. I would like to ask hon. members opposite why there are so many shopkeepers who are millionaires. Have they found out what some of them pay the girls in their employ? They pay a wage that the farmer does not give his native on the farm. It is such scandals that make this Bill necessary. We know what the consequence is to our sons and daughters. We have recently seen that there was a case before the court where a girl was accused and she was employed in responsible work at a salary of £3 per month. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said that he is in principle with us with regard to this Bill. Other members are entirely against the principle. There is consequently division. With us there is none. The hon. member for Standerton has said that it is only a matter of time and then the Bill will also be applied to agriculture. I am not at all frightened of that. What Government will go so far as to do that in South Africa? The Government that dares to do so will find out that it cannot survive. If farmers, however, send such members to the House then I do not know what will happen, but as long as the farmers send the right representatives I am not afraid of what will happen to the farmers. It may perhaps be that this Bill will apply to the farmers. That will happen when they are organized like the other industries in South Africa, but before that everybody admits that this Bill cannot be applied to the farmers. I welcome this Bill and I hope that it will be the turning point for something better in South Africa and I entirely agree with the views of other members that if more wages are paid to the workmen the farmer will get better prices for his produce.

The title of this Bill is the Wage Bill, but its real title should be the Industrial Control Bill, and I think those two terms just describe the points of difference between the members on the other side and this side of the House. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) defined the attitude of the Opposition in this matter he made it perfectly clear that the issue was not whether there should be a minimum wage in this country, but whether we should submit to a wholly novel and extraordinary measure whereby the whole industry of this country should be brought under Governmental control. And when I hear hon. members on the other side express surprise when, what they call the machinery of the Bill, is questioned, they fail to realize the point of view we have been urging upon them for some considerable time. Speaking for myself and also endeavouring to interpret the views of other members on this side, I should point out that the principle of a minimum wage has been adopted by the party on this side of the House, this so-called capitalistic party, by the legislation which they have put on the statute book since 1908, by a series of Acts which have immensely improved the condition of the workers in this country. I would remind them of the Regulation of Wages Act, 1918, the Apprentices Act, the attempt to pass a Wages Bill, although on a different footing from the present one, and the Industrial Conciliation Act, of 1924, an Act which has throughout this debate been referred to by hon. members on the other side of the House with entire approval and without any criticism whatsoever. And they profess to be surprised when they find there is a degree of opposition to the present Bill and refuse to realize that that opposition is based not on any determination to oppose a settlement of a minimum wage or a refusal to improve the conditions of labour, but because of the drastic alteration of the whole scheme as contained in the Bill. It may be asked why should we express that difference of opinion by the amendment of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and why should we not accept the motion of the Minister himself and allow the second reading to go through. It is obvious that if the second reading were passed, you would commit the Select Committee, the House and the country to an endorsement of a principle which has never been properly investigated in this country nor applied in any other country. I listened to what the hon. Minister said in introducing this Bill, and I noted that he appreciated the very clear distinction in the methods which had been applied in dealing with the question of a minimum wage. You have the voluntary principle, the principle of compulsory arbitration, and finally, the experiment you are trying in this Bill of absolute Governmental control. It is not the case, as was apparently suggested by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), that they have anything like Cabinet control in the fixing of minimum wages in England. As I understand it, the position is that they have adhered to the Whitley principle, which is not in any way like anything that is contained in this Bill. I think hon. members will agree that when it is proposed to jump from the voluntary principle over the compulsory system to this method of autocratic control, the Minister should have given the House some reasons for justifying such a departure. Has it ever been tried elsewhere? Is there any other country where such a system has been given a trial? The Minister has been entirely silent on that point. The only conclusion we can come to is that if the evidence is not forthcoming, it is because it is not available, and that we are to have an entirely new experiment without experience to back it, and with the prospect of its proving to be a terrible mistake, not only for capital but for labour, with the result that there may ultimately be a set-back instead of steady evolutionary progress. I venture to say that there are many members on this side of the House who feel that the development of our industries has reached a stage when we should be able and indeed are bound to protect the worker from the effect of harsh, unfair, economic conditions. I think if that were the issue alone the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) would be surprised at the amount of support it would receive. But, if we have nothing from other countries placed before us by the hon. member to guide us, what has been our own experience in South Africa? What is the argument relied upon by members, such as the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston), to show that the present machinery has, as he alleges, proved entirely ineffective? I take it that the hon. member refers to the working of the Regulation of Wages Act of 1918. He did not tell us in what respect it was ineffective.

Because sweating is still going on.

As I understand it, there have been a number of awards which have created very great dissatisfaction, and that in a number of cases the employees have declined to appoint nominees to wages boards because they felt the awards would actually deprive them of employment because the awards, being uneconomic, actually caused the employment itself to cease.

No.

My information may be wrong, but I should like the Minister to say whether it is not his information that in Cape Town, at any rate, some of the boards constituted under the Act of 1918 have not functioned because of the refusal of the employees to appoint representatives on the boards. That does not show that the machinery was inefficient, but that the rates adopted were unreasonably high, having regard to the economic conditions, so that it was found that the consumer was not prepared to pay the price required for the product of the particular trade concerned. I would have been very much interested to know whether hon. members on my left have appreciated the effect of unreasonably high costs of production upon the disposition of the consumer to buy! And may I, at this point, correct the hon. Prime Minister who said that it was the chairman of a Conciliation Board who under the existing legislation would decide the rate of wages? This is not the case. A chairman has no casting vote either under that Act nor under the Abortive Bill of 1921. But passing to the reasons advanced for the Bill, the Minister, because apparently public opinion acts too slowly discards compulsory arbitration and goes to the opposite extreme to the voluntary principle, and lays down the principle that he alone shall determine what shall be the conditions of labour and pay in particular industries. I think he has overlooked one method which might be of assistance to the interests he has in view. If public opinion is to be of any value in assisting in the, determination of a dispute it must be an instructed public opinion. Why should we not have a competent trained impartial investigator who would be called in, when a dispute was impending, and whose report, framed when a deadlock in Council occurred, would be published, so that the public, which is often very much concerned, could know the merits of the dispute? The Minister appears to have been affected in framing his Bill by the apparent success secured by the National agreement which has been in vogue in the printing industry in South Africa. He appears to visualize a scheme under which he can institute a national rate of pay for all major industries to be administered by a central bureau directed by himself. The Minister has been called a Napoleon, although I fancy a Mussolini would more correctly describe the character he assigns to himself on the stage conducted in the form of this Bill, but if he were a super-man he would not care to take the responsibility of having to fix national wage agreements for all our industries. It may be that the printing industry has been able to compose its differences and has arrived at a national agreement, but I wonder if anybody has worked out what the public has had to pay for that.

Three times pre-war prices.

I would put it at a higher figure. Again how much has the volume of printing been restricted by these increased rates? And, coming to the principle we object to, what is so dangerous is the centralization in the hands of the Minister enabling him—it is true subject to the criticism of Parliament—to attract to himself the responsibility of all the dissatisfaction that must ensue from the one side or the other. What is the position when a wage board is compelled by the force of economic conditions to recommend a reduction of wages? Does he realize that the whole of the responsibility will be centred upon himself? Our experience in South Africa has shown us that if you are to avoid charges of favouritism in dealing with the public service, with the construction of railways, it is essential to have an impartial body free entirely from political associations. If, however, we depart from this point of view and consider the board as he has designed it, he must realize the way in which it must inevitably be viewed by employers, I take it that he would wish to appoint a board that will carry universal confidence. I feel sure the Minister will not display any intention of following the advice of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), advice that the board be appointed from members of a definite political party and therefore becomes a party board. That suggestion should be definitely denounced. If the desire is to frame a Bill dealing with industry as a whole, the Minister would like to feel that he was presenting a Bill which, in its abstract principles and machinery, could demand as an effective treatment the confidence of both sides. He has failed entirely in the Bill to give any indication that he has regarded the employer’s point of view; and by them the Act in its application will necessarily be approached with suspicion. Under Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided that a Conciliation Board award cannot be altered except to increase the rates of pay. Now supposing a wages board ordered rates to be reduced. He has made no provision for that.

I will deal with that presently. It is a difference in interpretation.

I don’t think there can be much misunderstanding as to the meaning of that clause. I would like the Minister to deal with that point, because the criticism that would arise is that he had given an indication of bias against the employer. If he has overstepped the principle of compulsory arbitration and has deprived employers and employees of recourse to a impartial tribunal, how much more so will he not desire the board when it functions for the first time to possess the confidence of both sides. Both successful and unsuccessful parties should feel that they have got justice. I will give an instance of another indication of the bias which has crept into this Bill. It is the case that if an employer dismisses an employee for the reason that he is entitled to the benefits of a determination, he can be fined and be ordered to reinstate that employee and repay any sums short paid to him. What will be the position if the board reduces the rate? Is an employee to be compelled to carry out his contract if he is not satisfied with the determination? No, he is entirely free. The Minister has entirely failed to visualize his duty towards capital and the employing class. Even if the best board in the Union were appointed the employers would think the Minister had this bias. Because of the very fact of the extraordinary powers taken to himself in this Bill, he must be extreme to create the impression that he is acting in an absolutely impartial manner. There is one further point I hope the Minister will deal with in reply, i.e., the omission to consider the position of the consumer in relation to this legislation. As a result of the advanced labour legislation in Australia there has arisen between the employers and employees a disposition to split their differences. The employer increases his prices and the employee increases his wages, but the exploitation of the public develops and is absolutely unchallengeable. There is not one word in this Bill to show that the Minister in taking upon himself so important a power as the control of industry realizes that he owes a duty not only to labour and capital, but to the consuming public of the Union. I would urge upon the Minister that in forcing this principle through in the manner in which he has done, he has lost an opportunity of satisfying the country that he is embarking upon this policy with full information. An authority which can control wages has an absolute control of industry. The Minister in asking this House for that drastic power gives us no evidence of experience elsewhere to justify his action. One would have thought that rather than commit the House in advance, without information, to this principle he would be prepared to have it thoroughly investigated by the best minds that can be brought to bear upon it in this House. I think the country will realize that the opposition of hon. members on this side is not based on any challenge to the interests of labour, is not due to any lack of sympathy in regard to the conditions of labour which have been described by some hon. members here as to the principle of a minimum wage, but that they do feel that to give this enormous power, unprecedented in the legislation of any Parliament, is to take a step for which there is no warrant.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Coulter) on having contributed to this debate almost the only lucid and, shall I say, although I disagree with him, well-pointed speech that we have listened to during the last twelve hours?

That is rather a poor compliment to members of your own side who have spoken.

I said from that side. Let us just begin by dealing with what I conceive to be the central difference between us. I believe it to be entirely this on the side of hon. members there, in so far as I take the criticism of the hon. member who has just spoken and I may say the criticism of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), both of which seem to me to be more logical and more informed than most of the speeches of hon. members opposite.

Or even yours.

One can excuse the captiousness of old age. I was going to say that, if I apprehend rightly, the position of these two hon. members it is that they believe we desire by this Bill to completely over-ride the Conciliation Act, to completely over-ride the voluntary principle, and to take into our hand the regulation of wages throughout the nation, simply on the advice of the Wages Board. I will try for the next few days not to be, as the Scots say, “up lifted,” or, in ordinary parlance, swollen headed, but I had not realized until I listened to this debate how I am credited with the ambition of a Mussolini, a Napoleon, a Kaiser and every other potentate known to history, nor had I realized that I was such a long-headed far-reaching scheming person as I have been represented by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and others who say that behind this ostensible plan lies a deep-laid, Machiavellian and wicked scheme. I thought I had made it clear, in moving the second reading, that the object of this Bill, so far from over-riding that voluntary principle, was to supplement and assist it. As far as I can see, the whole of the difference between the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Gardens and myself lies in the wording of the first clause. As I read it and as it was intended, it meant that no determination under this Act shall apply to an industrial agreement under the Act as long as that agreement provides for wages or rates not lower in any case than those which may be determined under this Act. Such a voluntary agreement must either be in a trade or section of a trade in which a determination has been made under this Act or in which a determination has not been made under this Act. If a determination has not been made under this Act, how then can those rates of wages or that agreement be lower than a determination that has not been made?

It does not prevent a determination being made to-morrow.

I contend that it does. This is a matter of legal interpretation upon which I am fain to confess the hon. member may possibly be right, but I have also asked other hon. members who are learned in interpretation.

But let us make it clear.

Hon. members there object because they say I want to sweep into the dust bin the whole conciliation machinery. I, on the other hand, as I explained before, want to supplement the conciliation machinery in those aspects of industry where it has been found to break down, and I look upon this measure as one of which one of the objects and aims which will be achieved will be that of making both employers and employees see the greater advantage of coming under that mutual conciliation machinery of which there is a tendency to step outside. I have sat in this House for many years, and I have never yet heard a debate of some three days, and the impassioned denunciations that have taken place here, all turning upon practically a phrase in one clause of a Bill.

No, no.

Where is your case otherwise? It has been said hundreds of times in this debate that this Bill is designed by a Napoleon, and what not, in order to scrap the conciliation machinery; to scrap that democratic machinery of which the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was so proud, and substitute simply the will of a Napoleon acting upon the advice of a board. There is no sort of ground for asking the Government to consent to this Bill going to a Select Committee before the second reading. Do you agree that a Bill, supplementing, as it does, the conciliation machinery, a Bill which while protecting the conciliation machinery gives power to deal with those portions of industry where the conciliation machinery does not and is not, and so far as we can see will not apply ! If you do, then I am afraid I must say a good deal of this demonstration has not been quite sincere. Because a good deal of the cloven hoof has cropped out in the speeches on the other side. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has inferred, and other hon. members have pretended that this Bill was inspired by some vindictive passion which they supposed animates me towards the mining industry. The mining industry had very little place in my thoughts when this Bill was being framed, except in so far that I hoped it might make the people in the industry on both sides see the advantage of forming an industrial council of their own. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) also stated that this was an attempt to get by some devious method the fruition of the policy of extending the employment of Europeans in this country, for which I have stood for the last twenty years. I recognize the right of my hon. friend to say that. I think that of the whole of the inhabitants of South Africa, on that question (it is now some 23 years, all but about a month ago), he and I were the first to differ, and he frankly differed from me on the very first occasion on which it was brought forward. He differed throughout the stormy controversies of the next few years and in the first years of the Union Parliament too he was a consistent opponent of the views I held, the views founded first of all on economic practice. And, may I say, in relation to the actual facts of the use of white labour in those old days, that if hon. members will only take the trouble to acquaint themselves with the real facts, they would not talk such nonsense as they often do. I frankly admit that I hope great things from this Bill in helping to open up greater areas of industry for every man demanding the civilized standard of Europeans, and that we may have wider and wider openings for them in the Union. That was the creed I held 22 years ago, and which the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) then said would never be accomplished, but that we the Europeans must be looked upon merely as supervisors of uncivilized savages. Twenty-two years have passed over our heads. The hon. member at that time occupied a great position, and the men with whom he was associated were many of them of the most powerful, wealthy and influential men in this country. They had power and wealth; I had only this, that we had the great silent forces of Nature which assert that the social and economic system in this country shall be adjusted to their wants, and not their miseries adjusted to those who command the industries of this country. I accept the hon. member’s challenge and I say to him and to others: Is there not something significant in the fact that 22 years ago you had all the power and influence on your side and to-day it is the men with the least resources on their side who have won? It is to-day the hon. member who sits there in Opposition, and we sit here, guiding and commanding the destinies of this nation.

You will get back here.

I should be very sorry to see any Government last 17 years until it becomes musty and rusty, mouldy and rotten. I hear an hon. member describe that as heroics. I think my hon. friends on my side will feel there is nothing of heroics, but only our plain duty to think of the future of this country and the future of the white civilization of this country. They will not call it heroics to call attention to the way in which the silent forces of Nature can defeat the utmost powers of wealth. I have, I hope, disposed of one point, and I wish to deal with one more —the assertion that we desire to sweep away the conciliation machinery. Hon. members opposite have simply a phrase to go on. They have turned it one way, but we read it another way, and that is the way it is read by lawyers. The reason it was put that way was—and I am told it is the right reading—that the Wages Board and the Minister cannot apply a determination to an agreement come to under the Act of 1924. As far as the hon. member’s objections are concerned, I give them the assurance that that is the intention and in Select Committee they will find me ready to concede to any reasonable amendment if it is necessary to make that clear. I do not want to sweep away the conciliation machinery; I hope great things from the conciliation machinery; but there are certain areas of employment where that conciliation machinery has not been operating and cannot operate with any satisfaction. There are other occupations which, without the conciliation machinery, cannot act. Pressure of this sort is necessary in order that they may get inside the conciliation machinery. Take a sweated industry; it is agreed that the conciliation machinery cannot function satisfactorily because, as I am informed, one of the principal reasons and difficulties in getting employees to move is that if they do so, it is at the peril of the small pittance on which their livelihood depends. We will now come to the Board. I am told that the Board is a mere simulacrum and is simply going to be my creature. And it is anticipated that I shall appoint—we will say—three members of trade unions and no one at all representing the general public or capable of having the sense of fair play for the employers. I do not object to hon. members opposite considering me so entirely unfitted for the position I occupy as those remarks would imply. When I was in their position I myself held that the hon. members then on these benches were not the proper persons to govern the country, and the country itself has endorsed that opinion. Another criticism has been made regarding the constitution of the Board. The sum of this criticism was due to a misconception. Some hon. members opposite held that I wanted, through this Board, to be myself the sole machinery and to arrogate to myself the position of the Pooh Bah of industrialism in this country. Stripped of that misconception, what is so very wrong with the Board.

It is your board.

Exactly. What the hon. members opposite want is that in all our arrangements, although we had been sent to govern the country, is that we shall surrender to them what they regard as their natural right—the Government of the country —irrespective of the votes of those who have returned us to occupy the Ministerial benches. No sir. We have the responsibility and that responsibility we are going to discharge.

Not a political board.

When we hear interjections like that and from such a consistent long service umbongo as the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) and are told “no, not political appointment,” our minds go back over the last fifteen years when we had a Government in power who, forsooth, when they wanted an appointment, searched through the whole country with a fine-tooth comb to find somebody who could not possibly share, or be suspected of sharing their political views. It is right and justified that they should have some feeling of mistrust. There is an old proverb familiar to the Dutch-speaking section of the country “The man who looks behind the door has generally been there himself.” Come to the next point—the board. Am I going to appoint a board in a matter like this which cannot be removed except by Parliament! That board is to give me advice and carry out investigations and make recommendations. When it makes recommendations I have to publish the determination that I propose to make. Thus, for a month, there is a full opportunity for any aggrieved person to make the fullest representation and then I have to appoint an arbitrator to sit with the board and re-investigate the whole case. What is in a name?—an arbitrator by any other name would be as good.

As a representative of the Minister?

No, not as a representative of the Minister. I would try, it will be very difficult, to live up to those lofty ideals of my friends opposite, but I shall be very careful to avoid imitating their practice. These Boards dealing with a limited portion of industrial areas will, I hope, result more and more in industrial development being guided on the lines laid down by the Conciliation Board of 1924, the credit for which lies with my hon. friends, member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson), and the member for Maritzburg, who transformed the Bill first introduced into a most useful measure. The hon. member who spoke last spoke of the great bias evidenced in this Bill in favour of the employee and against the employer. In one clause he seemed to detect a great bias. Take that clause, I confess I may be wrong, but I think the hon. member was wrong, the Act will not apply to any agreement in any trade or occupation in which the board has not made a determination. How can wages be lowered in a case in which determination has never been made? But there are other cases in which it may be very necessary. I think the hon. member for Yeoville will be candid enough to agree with me. We will take it for granted that in some of these sweated trades conciliation machinery will not act, and you have got to take some other course, the course I suggest. A determination is made in a sweated industry. Three or four employers in that industry say: We will get out of this somehow.” They have got their employees under their thumbs and they say: “You will take steps with us to come to an industrial agreement under the Conciliation Act at wages lower than that determination ”—simply one of those dodges to contract out of the objects of this Bill for which some security and some method, it is necessary should be provided.

I think that is rather a farfetched contingency to provide for.

I do not think it is, because they are full of tricks. It is one of the most difficult things to deal with, as the hon. member knows. I say that you have to provide for that eventuality in that case.

Is this a safeguard against agreements?

It is a safe-guard against bogus agreements made in defiance of the objects of the Bill. Again, it is said that I provide a penalty if an employer pays less than the determination under the Act, but I do not prescribe any penalty for the employee who won’t take that lower wage. I do not provide any penalty whatever to the employer who refuses to accept the determination and says “I am going to close my shop and won’t work,” nor do I apply any penalty to the employee who says “I do not care to take that low wage; I will shut up shop.”

You do not apply a penalty to the employee who won’t remain in work?

I do not think those are the converse and reverse of the same things; I look upon the two opposites as being those the hon. member puts forward. To the man who says, “I won’t work,” the opposite number is the employer who says “If I have to pay that wage I will shut up my shop.” I will provide a penalty for the real converse of the hon. member’s position, if he likes. The converse to the case of the employer who pays less than the determination gives is the employee who insists, after having received from the employer the minimum wage laid down, on giving him back 20 per cent, or something of that wage. I am willing to provide a penalty against that man being so generous to his employer, if the hon. member likes.

There is a bias in this Bill against the employer.

Haven’t we been talking something like three days on a Bill which is expressly designed to protect the employee against ill-usage, and is not the fact of passing such legislation in itself evidence of a bias on the part of the Legislature against some employers? In any other event there would be no need to protect the employee. There are penalties attached to the employer who dismisses a man (a) because he has given information and (b) because he is entitled to the benefits of the determination. It has been suggested to me that if the determination was so high that the employer found it simply did not pay, and shut up shop, that because he dismissed these people and shut up his establishment he would also be liable to a penalty. I think that is rather a far-fetched interpretation. At all events, if that is the implication there, then hon. members may rely upon it that, in Select Committee, I will be perfectly prepared to assist in re-shaping that clause so that, at all events, the man who shuts up his establishment and goes out of business on account of this award is not going to incur the double inconvenience of having to shut up his business and having to pay a penalty for doing so. The hon. gentleman who made this objection may rest quite easy in his mind.

Are you not coming back to the Bill of 1921?

We are all accustomed to interruptions from the right hon. gentleman who is the twin Leader of the Opposition, is he not? To use that old quip it is not my own—the right hon. gentleman and the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) remind one of nothing so much as of twin stars, the only evidence of whose is the occasional eclipse of one by the other.

People in glass houses ….

The right hon. gentleman with that charming old-world courtesy of his used—on many occasions, when we were in considerable numbers down there— used to allude to us as the grasshoppers.

Not a locust?

The right hon. gentleman who adds so enormously to the dignity of this House betrays, I think, something of the chirp of the cheery cricket, and contributes just about as much sense and just about as much information. I think I have pretty well dealt with all the points that are material. The right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who pretends to lead the Unionist party to-day, and I was glad to see, I think in the “Argus,” the party over there referred to as the “Unionist party” because they have come back into their own. In his speech he posed as a great pillar of democracy in this country. If ever there was any man in this country to whom the very existence of democracy was more precious than another it was the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). We know something of the democracy of the right hon. gentleman and his friends He finished up his speech by saying that we have embarked on a great era of industrial development, and let us drift along and this era of industrial development is going to cure all the troubles this country suffers from. Can he disregard the fact that our industrial development carried on under his policy of drift has left this country with about 170,000 poor whites. I just want to make one or two further observations. It seems that the right hon. member for Standerton was so enamoured of democracy—

That is crushing !

But what he calls democracy is generally called plutocracy, because behind him stand the supporters and pillars of plutocracy. And then there were the crocodile tears they shed over the natives, who are going to suffer such evil and oppression. How their hearts bleed for the native; except when inconvenient for their exploiting friends. There is an old saying that “the devil did grin for his darling sin is the pride that apes humility.” But for many of us, sir, it has often seemed to me in connection with some aspects of the remarks about the natives and their exploitation that there is something nearly as nauseating in the “Greed that apes Philanthropy.” The natives will be just as safe, far more safe, under this Government than under the late Government. The lifting up of the civilization of this country is just as essential for the natives as for the whites, but the policy of the hon. member and his friends pursued was one of drift which means decivilization and barbarism for the native. We are not going to accede to the eleventh-hour request to send this Bill to Select Committee before second reading. Hon. members over there know that there is no ground for refusing to read the Bill a second time. They have themselves said that they were in favour of a Minimum Wage Bill. They talk about the 1921 Act. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is always about four years behind the times. Much of the idea of the 1921 Act has been incorporated in the Industrial Conciliation Act. We want to try and stop the drift of white South Africa into “poor whiteism” and barbarism. And I hope the House will support us in this aim by now reading this Bill a second time.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the question.

called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—56.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—31.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R,

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: de Jager, A. L.; Collins, W. R.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Gen. Smuts dropped.

The original motion was then put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Before the Prime Minister moves the adjournment I make the suggestion that we adjourn until Monday after noon. I do not know whether hon. members can resume at 2.15. It would not be fair to the officials of the House.

You might have thought of that last night.

On a point of order has the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) the right to address the House?

The hon. member is asking a question. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question?

I am trying to do so. The newspapers have been full of alarming things with regard to the Rehoboths in South-West Africa and I want to ask the Prime Minister—

We are now on the verge of moving that the House adjourn. I submit that the member is entirely out of order.

I was informed on the highest authority that the proper time to ask a question was before the adjournment. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity—

The hon. member can only put his question with the leave of the House.

I would ask for leave of the House to ask the Prime Minister to make a statement upon that.

Is there any objection?

On a point of order, I would like to say that when the Prime Minister moves that the House do now adjourn it is customary not to debate the question, but to put the question moved by the Prime Minister.

The motion has not been made, and the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) is entitled to ask the indulgence of the House to put this question. Is there any objection?

I object.

I had intended this afternoon reading a letter to the Prime Minister and asking whether he would tomorrow make a certain statement, but I thought as the House was sitting on till this morning—

Order.

I shall bow to Mr. Speaker’s ruling. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that if a member wanted to put a question to the Prime Minister after a debate like this the proper time when that member has an opportunity of making a speech, if he desires, is when the Prime Minister moves the adjournment of the House. When the Prime Minister moves the adjournment of the House I thought that would be the proper time to ask him a question.

The Prime Minister was, in fact, moving the adjournment when the hon. member got up, and I have allowed the hon. member to ask that question. The only matter that can be raised on the motion to adjourn the House is on a question of the business of the House, and that, I take it, is the reason why the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) wished to put his question before that question was put.

I move that, the House do now adjourn.

seconded.

It is moved that the House do now adjourn.

I think I am now in order in asking the Prime Minister whether when we next assemble, he will not make a statement on the condition of affairs in the Rehoboth territory.

I rise to a point of order.

What is the point of order?

I wish to ask whether the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is entitled to put a question now without the leave of the House.

The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort was speaking on the motion to adjourn.

I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I only wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether he will take the House into his confidence when we meet again at 2.15 and tell us what the real position is in the South-West territory.