On the last page of the Votes and Proceedings, namely page 402, the following amendment appears in my name, which I now move as follows—

1. (g) proof that such person is a Union national; or, if not a Union national, proof—
   1. (i) that he possess all the other qualifications prescribed above; and
   2. (ii) that, in terms of a reciprocal agreement concluded by or on behalf of the Government of the country of which he is a national and the Minister, a Union national is in such country entitled to recognition as a land surveyor if he is in accordance with the provisions of this section recognized in the Union as a land surveyor: Provided that a person who is recognized as a land surveyor in a country of which he is not a national in terms of a reciprocal agreement between the country in which he is recognized and the country of which he is a national, shall not be qualified to be recognized in the Union merely by virtue of such recognition.

I want to state the object of the amendment in plain language. The object actually is that anyone to be allowed to act as a land surveyor in the Union of South Africa must be a Union national, with this understanding, however, that the power shall be given to the Minister to lay down the principle of reciprocity with other countries in regard to this question. The intention is that the Minister should have power, for instance, in the case of Rhodesia, Kenya, the Congo, or England, or America, or Holland, to apply the principle of reciprocity in regard to those countries, so that our land surveyors shall have an opportunity of going and working there, and vice versa, to give the land surveyors of those countries the chance of coming to practise here, because an agreement of reciprocity has been entered into. There is one exception, to wit, this one, that no abuse of this power may be committed by people who come here from a country which is not embraced in that principle of reciprocity. If there is no reciprocity in existence between the Union of South Africa and Russia, then no Russian will have the right to go to Rhodesia, with whom there is reciprocity, for a while, and then to come to the Union by that back door in order to practise here, and that is the object of this amendment. It has been drafted in the necessary technical language, as unfortunately is customary in a Bill, and if anyone can suggest a way of improving on the language, I am prepared to accept such an amendment, provided no harm is done to the principle. This amendment is therefore intended to effect an alteration in Clause 3 (g), Clause 3 (g), as passed by the majority of this House last Thursday reads that any person from outside of the Union who wants to come to work here as a land surveyor, only needs to be a British subject. I am opposed to that. Of course, there is additional protection. Such a person must comply with the requirements that are laid down in Section 12 of the principal Act. The last part of that Section 12 is of special importance in connection with this question, because it says that the Survey Board must decide whether anyone’s technical qualifications are sufficient, and it reads as follows: It is Section 12 (2)—

A certificate has, therefore, to be issued by the Survey Board. By this is meant that that certificate, so far as people from abroad are concerned, can only be issued in the case of a person who comes from a country where there is reciprocity with our country. I hope that my amendment is clear. I would like to say this, that I consider that my amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it was passed last Thursday by this House, and I say this for various reasons. The chief of those reasons I will quote, and I am certain of it that I shall be able to convince the Minister of the reasonableness of my amendment, and I hope that hon. members opposite will agree with me, and I am certain of the fact that hon. members of the official Opposition will agree with me. You will admit that if this Bill remains in the form in which it now stands, then the Minister can only enter into a reciprocity-agreement with countries belonging to the British Empire. I am certain of it that that is wrong. It is wrong in principle, and it will operate still worse in practice. If the Bill passes in the present form, what will then be the position in regard to North Africa? Under this Bill the Minister can enter into reciprocal agreements with Rhodesia and Kenya, but not for instance with the Congo, Portuguese East Africa and Portuguese West Africa. Then the Minister will also not have the power of entering into reciprocal agreements with America, Holland, France, subsequently Germany, and all the other countries of the world. For these reasons I would like to move the amendment not only because it will be in the interests of South Africa, seeing that in that way we shall get the best ability we need in South Africa, but especially moreover because it will protect the sons of our soil. We know what the mentality of people is, and also that of governments: “If you exclude us, we shall also exclude you.” Those countries will say that they are going to exclude our nationals if we exclude their land surveyors. Under the existing stipulation there will be no reciprocity with Holland, Denmark, France and other countries outside of the British Empire. I think that the Minister ought to accept this amendment, and I hope that the whole of this House will agree to it. These more extended powers will be granted to the Minister, and he will make the best use of them in the interests of the sons of South Africa who want to become land surveyors. The profession of a land surveyor is held in very high repute in South Africa. Our examination is very stiff, the practical tests are severe, and it is generally admitted that surveyors who have been trained in South Africa are able fellows. I do not think that that oportunity should be taken away from our children by the passing of this Bill. That is why I am moving this amendment. But my amendment contains a much deeper principle still. If we agree to this Bill as it stands, then we lay down the principle of reciprocity with countries in the British Empire only. If that is done in this profession, what will happen in the other professions? Then the principle will also be applied in other spheres of life, then South Africa will also take the course of restricting itself in regard to its trade and the general expression of its vitality—it will all be restricted to countries within the British Empire. It is a wrong restriction, a restriction the responsibility for which no one, surely, will dare to take upon himself. It is also wrong in the special matter with which we are now dealing. There was an amendment put on the Order Paper by hon. members of the official Opposition, and the amendment was actually moved. It merely stated that nationals of the Union only would have the right of being land surveyors in South Africa. That principle is, I think, still more dangerous. Why? Because it means, so far as our surveyors are concerned — and the principle will, I fear, also be extended to other spheres of life — that our sons will in future be confined within the borders of the Union of South Africa, because if we say that people from other countries are not to have an opportunity of practising here as surveyors, then those countries will also exclude our surveyors. This principle of isolation is a very dangerous principle, and I cannot agree with it. For that reason I have moved that so far as the Afrikaner Party is concerned we are prepared to co-operate to bring about reciprocity with any country in the world which is prepared to do the same. I think that that is a very sound principle. I make an appeal to hon. members on the opposite side, and also to the Minister. I have a great grievance against the Government in connection with this matter. The grievance is that up to the present they have not yet, so far as I know, done the least thing to push the great chances which we have in the North for our commerce and for our sons. I brought the matter forward twice with all the seriousness at my disposal, and I want to do the same again to-day. This is the time, to create a future in the North, apart from other countries in the world, for our children and our commerce. I am sorry that the Government has not yet grasped the opportunities. Merely to say that we must wait until after the war and until times change is irresponsible, because when the war is over then you may be certain of it other great powers will get ahead of us there. The object of this amendment is clear. I do not want to have South Africa hide-bound within its own limits, because that would be fatal. I want to give our commerce an opportunity in the future of extending throughout, and for our sons to go throughout the whole world. Let me say this: I do not regard nationalism as a thing which can only flourish within the narrow confines of your own country. Nationalism is nothing else but the development of the powers which your people possess up to their maximum point for the benefit, in the first place, for the country itself, but it must also radiate to other countries of the world….

I think the hon. member is now wandering very far from the subject.

I have only touched upon the broad principle, and accordingly I enlarged slightly on the view that I hold of nationalism, which is also embodied in this amendment. That is my excuse for the fact that I have gone a little far. I therefore move my amendment.

I second. In the memorandum on “British nationality within the Union of South Africa” drafted for the use of the Imperial Conference in 1937, we find an important declaration with regard to this point. The memorandum was laid on the Table of this House on the 18th February, 1938. Inter alia, it contains paragraph 73 which was reserved for subsequent discussion by the Imperial Conference of 1929. It reads as follows —

And paragraph 78 of the same memorandum reads —

So much for the memorandum. The Imperial Conference of 1937 also debated the matter, and I find in the “Short summary of the proceedings” the following paragraph on page 25 —

That is the resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1937. I read further —

1. (i) Each member of the Commonwealth would in the normal course include as members of its community:—
   1. (a) Persons who were born in or became British subjects by naturalisation in, or as a result of the annexation of its territory and still reside there, and (b) persons who, coming as British subjects from other parts of the Commonwealth, have identified themselves with the community to which they have come.

Then the report goes further and says—

The memorandum was submitted by our delegates to the Imperial Conference, under the lead of Gen. Hertzog, the then Prime Minister. A discussion took place, and the principle was then adopted that you cannot have an open door to your nationality in the British Commonwealth of Nations, but there had to be definite requisites, and regulations had to be made in connection with the admission of persons, or the reverse. It is therefore clear to me that we, in this amendment, have not in the least gone beyond the agreement or resolutions which were passed at the Imperial Conference. We do not go so far here as to close the door entirely. Nor do we want to leave the door quite open. We are simply following our own immigration policy, which is a policy of testing and selection. People who can adapt themselves to our population, and whom we feel that we need at the given period, are admitted. I think it was always our policy in the United Party that you could not allow your country to be flooded by people coming from the whole of the world, even by people from any part of the British Empire. You must keep control in order to prevent people from overseas depriving your sons and daughters of work. But at the same time we have always also felt that we are in favour of reciprocity by means of agreements. This amendment confirms that principle. I feel that we can support the amendment with the greatest confidence, and I also think that the Minister should give his serious consideration to it. I want to go so far as to say that the Minister, by the acceptance of this amendment, will considerably improve the Bill.

I think that we debated this matter fully when the Bill was in Committee last Thursday night. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. Union nationals are fully protected in this clause, which the hon. member wants to delete and to replace by his amendment. The only difference between my clause (which he wants to delete) and his amendment, is that my proposal limits the matter to British subjects, while the hon. member wants to extend it to foreign countries. By the terms “British subject” it was actually the intention to keep out foreigners, who could not be kept out under the existing law. I have given the example of one case where a foreigner came here, and because he possessed the proper qualifications, he was able to practise here, but the name which we are now adopting prevents such a thing happening in the future. I restrict it to British subjects, while the hon. member wants to extend it to foreign countries. He wants the Minister to have the power to grant reciprocity also to foreign countries.

Foreigners surely come in as “British subjects”?

I am sorry, but I cannot accept it.

During the Committee stage of this Bill we on this side of the House moved that instead of the clause being restricted to “British subject” it should read “Union subject”. The Minister did not see his way to agree to it, and the majority of the House rejected it. Now the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) comes along and his amendment is, in my opinion, a test of the good faith of the Minister. I am sorry that the Minister replied before we had an opportunity on this side of debating the question, but the Minister at a previous stage said that he could not accept our amendment, because there was an arrangement in existence between Rhodesia and the Union by which our Union citizens would have the opportunity of practising in Rhodesia, while people from Rhodesia would be allowed to practise here. He insisted on the point of reciprocity between ourselves and Rhodesia. I actually pointed out at that time that that was not the reason at all. The reason could not be that the Minister wanted to consider reciprocity, because that could be given under the existing Act without any amendment, because the existing Act only demanded that a person who was carrying on the profession of land surveyor should comply with certain conditions as to qualification, and there is no question of any demand as to nationality. Therefore there was an opportunity of having reciprocity with Rhodesia. The amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) is now taking the Minister at his word, and says to him: Here is an amendment which will allow you to establish the reciprocity on a fixed basis. The Minister will not accept it, and he says that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) now wants to extend the provision, while he, the Minister, wants to protect the Union national. That is not the case. The Minister is not protecting Union nationals. What is the position to-day? Any person from Rhodesia or any person from any part of the British Empire or the British Commonwealth can come and practise here.

Even Indians.

But the same privilege is not given to Union nationals to go and practise elsewhere. As the Bill stands now, it does not protect Union nationals at all. Rhodesia can pass a Bill to-morrow to prevent Union nationals from practising there. Under the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) the Minister will have the right to say: “You are not giving us reciprocity, and I will therefore not give it to you either.” But now a man from Rhodesia and any other part of the British Empire is protected, and can come here and practise, while the Union national is not protected.

We have reciprocity with Rhodesia.

That may be repealed to-morrow, and we will no longer have the whip hand. If Rhodesia or any other part of the British Empire, Bechuanaland or Basutoland, were to decide tomorrow that Union nationals cannot practise in their territorities, we would be powerless, but people from those territories can come and practise here at their discretion under this clause. Accordingly, the Minister is not protecting Union nationals but allowing any person to come and practise here from elsewhere in the British Empire. The Minister has said that any person coming from the British Commonwealth is not a foreigner.

I say it again.

Jews from Jamaica, coolies from India are not foreigners according to the Minister.

No.

A Jew from Jamaica born in Poland or elsewhere who lived a short while in Jamaica and was naturalised there, or a coolie from India, are not foreigners, but Hollanders actually are foreigners.

Yes.

I see the Minister nods affirmatively and says it is so. Therefore the coolie from India and the Jew from Jamaica are his brothers, but the Hollanders and Frenchmen are foreigners. This amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) tests the good faith of the Minister. Everything is being done here which according to his own statement he wanted to be done in the Bill, and the opening is left here for reciprocity with Rhodesia, but under the Minister’s clause there is absolutely no protection to Union nationals. He gives protection to any person in the British Empire who wants to come here and practise, and who complies with certain requisites, but persons from other friendly nations are excluded by him. If Holland or any other country wants to have reciprocity with South Africa, the Minister cannot permit it. Only those who fall within the term “British subject” can be admitted. But on the other hand, the Union national is not protected in the same way. Rhodesia can at any time repeal the right of Union citizens to practise there. This provision is simply and entirely a protection for British subjects at the expense of friendly foreigners, and at the expense of Union nationals, and therefore we cannot agree to the clause as it stands, and we will support the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (District).

Question put: That paragraph (g) proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—71:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—47:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Oost dropped.

Amendments in Clause 3 (Afrikaans), 7, 9, 11 (Afrikaans), 17 (Afrikaans) and 19 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a Third Time.

I want, for one moment, to analyse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), to analyse, if such a thing is possible, the hon. member for Fordsburg himself, and to analyse, probably the greatest impossibility of the lot, the attitude of the Opposition Party towards this Bill. If the speech made by the hon. member for Fordsburg was a really sincere explanation of his personal attitude towards the Bill, and a sincere explanation of his party’s attitude, I should have welcomed his speech. But I am constrained to think that his speech was one of these irresponsible utterances about which he himself, some two years ago, so pointedly told the then Opposition. The chief criticism is not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the Bill, but that, in the first instance, it does not go far enough, and in the second instance, leaves out what, to the hon. member for Fordsburg, appears to be very important, namely, the segregation clause. Now I think it is necessary, at this stage, both in the interests of the Bill itself, and particularly in the interests of the mass of the workers in South Africa, that we should determine, for the moment, the attitude of the hon. member. Only three years ago, in 1938, the late Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, who was then member for Winburg, moved, amongst other things, an amendment requesting the Government to determine equitable minimum wages, to protect the unskilled European labourer against unfair competition by non-European, the reservation of work in industry for Europeans, or by a fair division thereof between Europeans and non-Europeans. In other words, at that time the purified Nationalist Party, through its mouthpiece, Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, were in favour of a minimum wage, the protection of unskilled European labourers against unfair competition by non-Europeans, and for a definite segregation in industry either on the lines that specific industries should be set apart for Europeans only, or that a certain fair division of work in various industries should be arranged between Europeans and non-Europeans. That, I gather, was more or less the policy the hon. member for Fordsburg was advocating the other evening when he made a great deal of noise about it, and incidentally developed a new technique in parliamentary debate when he used a casual conversation he had with the Minister in the Lobby as amounting to some kind of specific promise on the part of the Minister. The astonishing thing about it is that in 1938, when that policy was being advocated by Dr. N. J. van der Merwe, the hon. member for Fordsburg voted against it.

Where did you vote at that time?

You were in the back-veld at that time, and can’t possibly be interested in what happened then. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. member for Fordsburg. It is possible that he may have changed his mind, it is possible he may have realised that he was perhaps wrong in those days, but what I do want to emphasise in connection with the matter is this, that when he sat on these benches supporting the Government of that day, he made it his duty from the day he entered Parliament to arrogate to himself the right to get up and attack the Labour Party, and he used to attack the Labour Party in those days by using some of the very arguments which he himself is now prepared to use. He used to say, “Oh, you are always crying for the moon; I want to show you how good this Government is, what the Government is giving to the workers, and you people are not doing the workers any good.” He is adopting something of our attitude at the present time, but in a different way, and I want to show that. Our attitude has been a consistent attitude ever since the Labour Party was a party, while the hon. member has shown in his very limited experience of this House that he is a classical example of the political jack-in-the-box who jumps from one party to another, which seems to offer a chance of catching the votes of the unthinking public of the country. The hon. member went further. In the course of his speech he made a continuous and long-drawn-out sneering reference to the Minister of Labour. We were asked to believe, by inference mostly, that the Minister of Labour, who has been 31 years in this House, and has stuck rigidly to the principles which he was practically brought up with—we were asked to believe by this new heaven-sent genius who is going to lead the working classes into the promised Valhalla, that the Minister of Labour had let the country down. I suggest that when the hon. member emerges from his political infancy, when he drops his political swaddling clothes within the next five or six years, he will probably be astonished when reading the speech he made the other night that his presumption should soar so high. That was the attitude of the hon. member in 1938. He tells us to-day that the Government of New Zealand has done this and that and the other thing, but the hon. member knows quite well that the Government of New Zealand is a Labour Government, and if we have a Labour Government in the Union of South Africa under the premiership of the hon. member for Benoni, I can assure the hon. member for Fordsburg that the present Minister of Labour will definitely introduce precisely the same things that have been introduced by the New Zealand Government. It is no use the hon. member trying to blind the country, as he blinds himself. His are sticky-sweet politics, when he stands up there and accuses the hon. Minister of Labour, who is only one man in a Government with three colleagues supporting him on these benches, and taunts him, as it were, with not having introduced a 40-hour week and all the other social progressive measures which have been introduced by the Labour Government in New Zealand. The hon. member knows perfectly well why the Minister of Labour is in this Government. We have explained it time and time again, and I want to remind him of it. We are in this Government because we are determined, as far as we are able, to see that this war is prosecuted to a successful conclusion, and we propose to stay in this Government until that very desirable end is obtained. Now, may I show how far the hon. member has travelled, and attempt to justify my statement that he is a political jack-in-the-box, advocating one policy one day and another the next? One of the items in Dr. N. J. van der Merwe’s amendment was that the then purified Nationalist Party repudiated the statements of certain Ministers, and especially those of the Minister of Justice, in regard to South Africa’s policy of participating in the wars of Great Britain. Now the hon. member voted against that, so that one assumes that in those days he was in favour of South Africa’s participation in the war. Now with reference to the very great noise that the hon. member made about the segregation proposal, it is rather a peculiar coincidence that the last time the hon. member made a biting attack on the Minister of Labour, most of the ammunition which he then used had come from Mr. Solly Sachs, the general secretary of the Garment Workers’ Union. It is a remarkable coincidence that this particular clause over which the hon. member is weeping tears because it was dropped was also drafted by Mr. Solly Sachs, of the Garment Workers’ Union, and was subsequently repudiated by Mr. Sachs himself, and was withdrawn from the Bill. So that it does seem as if there was a very close relationship between the hon. member for Fordsburg and Mr. Sachs, of the Garment Workers’ Union, a new combination of Schoeman and Sachs, and one which seemed to hold within itself a very dangerous explosive mixture. It is a combination of the new order with a Communist. I am sorry that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has only favoured us with a few minutes of his presence in the House, because I am sure he will be interested to know that one of his most apt pupils appears to be going off the rails by holding some kind of unholy conversation and making some kind of unholy pact with a true dyed-in-the-wool Communist, Communism being, as we all know, anathema to anyone who holds the sacred principles of national socialism at heart. That brings me to the outlook of the hon. member for Fordsburg a little later than 1938. We are still considering him, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the new leader of the Nationalist Party in so far as industrial matters are concerned. With regard to their policy upon industrial matters, I think there can be no doubt, because in reply to an interjection during his speech, the hon. member was heard to say very plainly that he spoke for himself and the party. It seems to me it would be very difficult for members of the Herenigde Party, who are running about all the corners of the country, to speak with the same voice. They seem to get different ideas at different times, and to hold different views in different parts of the country. However, the hon. member for Fordsburg has been promoted, and I assume that probably he was talking as the result of a little bit of political swollen head, but since it has not been contradicted, I have to believe that the speech he made was a speech agreed upon by his party, and the policy he laid down was the policy of the party. He said that he was in favour of a minimum wage for every worker in this country, and I take that to be every worker, white, coloured, and agricultural as well as industrial. He said he was in favour of a minimum wage for every worker in the Union, and that is something which is a complete turnover from the usual attitude of the Nationalist Party. A few months ago, the hon. member, who was still conscious that some industrial policy was necessary, delivered himself of the considered statement that the future of South Africa lay in a Hitler victory. That is a statement which he has never so far repudiated, and one presumes that, having made it, and having refused to repudiate it, it is still his belief. Also, we must assume that having been promoted to the ranks of those who speak for themselves and the party, that the party is in favour of a Hitler victory, and feels that the only hope for South Africa lies in a Hitler victory.

I am afraid the hon. member is wandering from the subject of the Bill.

I think you will see that I am not, sir. I now want to deal with the hon. member’s stated labour policy in this House, and compare it with the labour policy which he himself had in mind when he said that the future of South Africa depended on a Hitler victory. This is a very important point from the point of view of the working people of this country. It was precisely that kind of talk that was mainly responsible for sweeping Hitler into power in Germany, and it is the kind of thing we have to guard against in this country. If the hon. member believes that the future of South Africa lies in a Hitler victory, he must realise that the future of South Africa must lie in national socialism on the Hitler plan. Whether he admits it or not, it is quite obvious that South Africa would then be dominated by Germany, and the Union, as well as many other countries greater than South Africa, will have to come under the new order of Nazi Germany. I want to suggest to the hon. member that he was either talking through his hat the other night, or he is not very conscious of what the new order, Hitler’s order, for the working classes of any country means, he must have had very little information as to how the industrial system is worked in Germany. The hon. member now pretends he is speaking for the trade unions. Does he realise that under Nazi Germany one of the first things that happened was that Hitler abolished trade unions, confiscated their funds, seized their buildings, and threw their leaders into gaol, lengthened their working hours, made them work many many hours overtime, and reduced their wages? Does he realise that the industrial policy of Germany has made the workers in Germany nothing more or less than slaves? It is a policy under which a man is forced to work where he is sent, and women too, where wages are low, there is no right of organisation, and if the worker objects he is immediately landed into a concentration camp. Does he realise that when he said the future of South Africa rests entirely on a Nazi victory, that he was visualising the certainty of the people of the Union, the working classes of the Union being subjected to all these things I have mentioned? If he did realise that, what amount of political audacity is necessary to come to this House and say that he is in favour of a 40-hour week, a national minimum wage, and the New Zealand system of social progressiveness! Mr. Speaker, you won’t allow me to use the word hypocrisy in this House, but I suggest the hon. member was indulging, on that occasion, in methods which he and his party think will induce the working classes of this country to support them. They know that for many years they have led the working classes up the garden path, that all these funny racial accusations which they throw about are ineffective, they know also that the drift of the people into the towns from the agricultural areas is beginning to instil a little bit of reason into the people’s minds in this matter, they know that in the industrial areas there is a tendency both among the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking people to pay less attention to this racial quarrel, and a little more attention to hours of labour, working conditions, and how they can keep their women and children, and they know also that it is the party which is going to put before these people a really sound economic programme which is probably going to rule South Africa in the future. So, in spite of all the kind of stuff that they talk, they realise that they have got to get into the market somehow with an economic policy which will appeal to the people, and here we have, of all people, the hon. member for Fordsburg getting up and telling us that he is speaking for himself and his party when he says that he would like to see a 40-hour week and a minimum wage, more leave for pregnant women and double pay for holidays. In other words, he comes along and gives us one of the most perfect socialist speeches I have heard for a long time, but he did not tell us why he had not taken any steps to see that these things were brought into force when he was a supporter of the Government, he did not tell us why his present leader, who has been in politics for the last 25 years, had never said anything of that description, or why his colleague, who has been perambulating all over the Union and speaking about a new order, has told the people that the democratic system has failed. It is no use the hon. member for Fordsburg talking through his hat. We can only get on, and we realise it in the Labour Party perhaps more than any other member in this House—we realise the working class of this or any other country can only get what they demand if the working class sees to it that they are fully represented; and if there are only four Labour members in a House of 153, then it shows that the blame lies on the shoulders of the working classes.

What an admission.

The blame does not lie on the shoulders of the Minister of Labour or on my shoulders, or on those of my colleagues. The blame lies on the shoulders of those who have for years smoke-screened the politics of this country.

What you are trying to do now.

Who have preached in this country a policy of division in South Africa, a policy of division between the races —who have for years preached that the questions which interest the people are that they should have a Republic, and that they should not live in a Commonwealth of Nations. The kind of talk which they have been feeding the country on is whether we should introduce the words “British subject” or “South African nationals” in an unimportant little Survey Bill—that is the sort of thing they have made the country believe in. The question whether we should have black men working in the same factory as white men—that is the kind of stuff they have put before the country, and they have not an ounce of economic knowledge among the lot of them—not even the hon. member for Gezina, who should know better. And if there is any responsibility to be placed on anyone for the fact that to-day instead of introducing a 40-hour week, and a great many more far-reaching provisions in this new Factory Bill—then that responsibility must be borne by the racialists of this House who have for so many years misled the people. I am speaking as I am doing, and examine the question as I am doing, because, as far as I can see, we are going to try and see that the people are no longer misled. The hon. member entirely mistakes the purpose of a Factory Bill at the very beginning. I noticed on reading through his speech that on a previous occasion he accused his colleague for Bloemfontein (Mr. Haywood). In those days he started off his speech by the suggestion that his friend had not an ounce of economic knowledge in his head—that is where I got the phrase.

Yes, I thought you picked it up somewhere.

Oh, yes, it is not mine. I am going to suggest to the hon. member that he has no knowledge of factory legislation. Because this Factory Bill lays down what is the very minimum requirement imposed on people running factories. The intention is to lay down a minimum requirement below which no individual can drop. But that does not mean that that is the requirement of the Labour Party. And in South Africa it will be far from the truth. This Bill is designed to lay down the irreducible minimum. These are the conditions below which no factory can employ labour. But beyond this Bill there are other Acts— for the information of the hon. member.

Thank you.

There is the Wage Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act; there is the Shop and Office Hours Act, which lay down conditions far in advance of anything contained in this Bill.

Are they carried out?

So the Factory Bill is designed for individuals throughout the country who have not so far been catered for by these various Acts which we have, and it says a great deal for the Minister, and it is a major triumph for the Minister, that one of the chief sinners in respect of these disabilities, the Government itself, is now being brought within the provisions of this measure. The Government itself, of which the Leader of the Opposition was for many years a very distinguished member, was in the past one of the worst sinners. The successive Governments have been more responsible than anyone else, and it is a triumph for the Minister that he has at last placed State Departments under this legislation, and he has achieved a more far-reaching triumph. It is not in this Bill— but he made a statement on that the other day. The hon. member for Fordsburg should have seen the significance of it, and that is that the Minister has persuaded the Minister of Railways to set up a joint committee which is investigating the question of how far the provisions of this particular Bill can be made applicable to the Railways. I do not know how far the committee will decide to make the provisions of the Act applicable to the Railways, but there are many conditions in the Railways to which the provisions of this Bill can be made applicable, and if the problem is approached in the line of co-operation I know that the Railway men will call the Minister of Labour blessed, if he has never been called blessed before, and this is not the end of the Factories Act. The hon. member for Fordsburg talks to us as if this was something which was the end of the Factories Act. We know perfectly well that under the provisions of this particular Act a great many people in the Union of South Africa are going to benefit. I might even go further and say that under the provisions of this particular Act a great many people in the Union are going to be spurred on to gain more than is provided for in this Bill. I agree with the Minister and with the hon. member for Fordsburg—we would like to see a reduction of hours much below 46, and I am even now going to suggest to the Minister that he might consider making that 46, 44. I think I can tell the Minister this, that if he is prepared to amend 46 hours to 44 hours, he will have a very considerable body of support from members on the Government benches.

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

I beg to move—

There being no objection,

Are you going to make use of it?

Yes, I am going to make use of it, just to tell you what I think of the Nationalist Party for having moved it. One of the grievances of hon. members opposite was that the other evening I objected to an extension of time for the hon. member for Fordsburg. That party very conveniently forgot that only a few days before three of their front-benchers had jumped up to object to an extension of time to myself. I do not need an extension of time, and I do not propose to utilise it. I am not going to thank hon. members, because they are not going to hoist me with my own petard. They are not clever enough for that. I just want to suggest this to the hon. member for Fordsburg: He believes that the future of South Africa rests with a Nazi victory. If he believes in a complete abolition of democracy and what it stands for, then he should not be allowed to talk for one minute, never mind forty.

I do not intend to take the slightest notice of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). In the first place, I think that when he rises here he does not himself know what he is saying. I think that on Thursday night he was in such a state that he could not make a speech.

Order.

I just want to say this, that I think the hon. member was wise the other night in not going on with his speech. He was himself clearly convinced of the fact that he would not have understood what he had said, and this afternoon he was again engaged in abuse, and he apparently again did not realise what he was saying. We understand it still less, except that we could follow that he was making bitter remarks against this side. The hon. member talks all day long about democracy. He believes in democracy. It is foreigners like him—I do not want to say where he comes from, perhaps he does not know it himself—who say that they believe in democracy, because under the rules of this House he then gets the opportunity of making his bitter comments to get rid of all his gall. I do not want to say of his unmannerliness. The hon. member and the other hon. members, especially the Minister of Labour, made a great fuss of the point that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) had supposedly made use of something which the Minister had said privately. The Minister of Labour knows just as well as I do, that it was not a thing which the Minister said privately to the hon. member. When he said it there were no less than four or five hon. members together. It was in the tea room. The hon. member for Fordsburg casually asked the Minister when he was passing there: “I hear you want to withdraw the clause?” The Minister replied: “I will never withdraw it.” That was not in a private conversation, but there were four or five hon. members who were drinking coffee. But apart from that I want to ask whether it is, as a matter of fact, the custom of the Minister to say things in a private conversation which are not correct, and can he then by virtue of that, come and make an attack here on the hon. member for Fordsburg? I think the Minister will himself admit that it was not a private conversation, and that he had no reason for becoming so enraged against the hon. member for Fordsburg. I might be able to refer to what took place here the other day in connection with a private conversation between the Minister of Lands and the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé), and when hon. members on the other side laughed when it was said that it was a private conversation. I want, however, to say something else in defence of the hon. member for Fordsburg. The hon. member for Umbilo said that when the hon. member for Fordsburg was still sitting on the Government side, he was not a champion of segregation. Has he forgotten how the hon. member for Fordsburg fought, in connection with the infiltration of Asiatics into the Transvaal, time and again for the principle of segregation, and how it was the hon. member for Fordsburg who put the Government in the position of having to postpone for a year its legislation which it had intended to put through then? That is why I say that the hon. member for Umbilo does not himself know what he says. If there is one Minister for whom I am really sorry then it is the Minister of Labour. He is a man whom, as a private individual we like very much, but he always spoke in the past of the financial magnates and the mining magnates, while now they are actually the masters of the Minister of Labour. He always said that he was the champion of the workers, of the underdog. Last year he introduced two Bills, but he had to withdraw them again later. They did not suit the mind of the magnates. This year he has again introduced a Bill, but before he introduced this Bill he accepted a motion from the Minister of Finance, he and the wohle of his party, by which they compromised themselves, because they gave their approval to the internal policy of the Government. The Minister of Labour said, at that time, that in connection with his two Bills he was going to do more for the workers than we have ever yet done, or could do. But now he has supported the home policy of the Government, and he says he did so on condition that he could now introduce two Bills which would go through. What happened in connection with his first Bill? He introduced his Bill and, under the pretext that he wanted to improve on the poor Afrikaans of the Bill, he withdrew it. Allow me to say that I do not know how well and truly it was altered but they speak, for instance, in this amended Bill, of „huisafbraak”. It is an ugly word, and I shall be glad if he will further amend the language, and if he will speak of “afbreek” (demolition). But the Minister then withdrew the Bill, as he said, to improve the Afrikaans. What happened then? The Minister who, in the lobby gave the assurance that he would not alter the segregation clause, did in fact completely change it. His masters were not merciful to him. They induced him to withdraw the Bill, and said to him: “You will introduce a Bill into the House on the lines that we want.” That was after he had voted in favour of the Government’s own policy. The Minister is not in an enviable position. The hon. member for Umbilo said that he would give proofs of how the hon. member for Fordsburg had changed his position, how he at one time was in favour of a minimum wage, and subsequently opposed to it. But let us for a moment examine the policy of the Minister of Labour. Does he happen to remember how he moved an amendment in this House, an amendment in favour of segregation between Europeans and natives? I want to quote from Hansard of 1936, the joint sitting, which dealt with the segregation of legislation. The Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) then moved the following amendment—

Hear, hear.

Yes, that is what the Minister proposed at that time, and then he suggested various things which should be done to bring about the segregation. He suggested—

And this is what the Minister said in connection with the separation of natives from Europeans. In those years he was still a very brave man. He said:

Where is the Minister now? The Minister, however, did not move for a minimum wage for Europeans only, but also for natives. Will the Minister deny that? If the Minister wants to deny it then I want to quote him a portion of what he said what should be done when the natives had sufficient land. He then said that there would be certain natives who would not go back to the reserves and who would remain in European areas, and he said:

That is what the Minister said. If the natives remain then a 10s. minimum wage must be fixed in the European areas for Europeans as well as natives, so that they can compete with each other on an equal footing. I just want to refer to this because the hon. member for Fordsburg has been accused of saying one thing now and another then. Here, after this, we have the Minister introducing an important Bill, and he brings it forward on the eve of great developments in industrial affairs. The Prime Minister said at Bloemfontein that they were going to tackle the question of the poor whites, and the bad conditions of employment of the workers were going to improve. Now the Minister introduces this Bill, and although the workers have been looking out for a minimum wage which the Minister has been promising for all these years, we do not find a word of it in this Bill. Do not think that what I have read out here, namely, the theory of the Minister of Labour, that natives as well as Europeans should get the minimum wage, that that necessarily meets with our approval. Absolutely not. We want a minimum wage, but for Europeans only. As the Minister has always spoken of a minimum wage of 10s., we are now asking him to take his courage in both hands, seeing that his masters are so stern towards him, and seeing that we are faced with great industrial developments. The Minister belongs to the Labour Party, let him have the courage now to fulfil his promises of a minimum wage in regard to European labourers. If he does that the workers will possibly say that he is now entitled to go on with his empire policy, with the support of the war policy of the Government. Otherwise I can give him the assurance that the workers, after the Minister has handed over his portfolio, will sweep away the Labour Party, and that the labourers will all rush to join the United Nationalist Party or People’s Party. When we speak on this side about a minimum wage we do so not for any political advantage or from any political motives. When I see what the conditions in farming matters in my constituency are, and how they are continually getting worse, and how the farmers are being driven off the countryside, to go and look for work in the towns, as unskilled labourers in the factories, then I feel how urgently necessary it is that there should be a provision made for such a minimum wage. The Minister knows just as well as I do that when a man has lived on a farm and he is forced to go to the town and to compete there with coloured persons or natives at a poor wage of 4s. or 5s. a day, that such a European cannot possibly in such case maintain his standard as a European. Accordingly, we who are sitting on this side have no party motives. We are advocating this matter because it is of national importance. It is in the interests of South Africa that the workers—whatever work they happen to be doing—that the European workers should have a minimum wage. Otherwise we shall slowly drift down to miscegenation, which of late years has already increased so much, especially in the Cape Province. It is for that reason, also, that we on this side feel very strongly in favour of the clause which the Minister withdrew. When we read the Bill in its original form and we saw the provision in it that an inspector would now have the right to come, subject to the approval of the Minister, and to say that the conditions in the factory were unsatisfactory with regard to the working together of the races, then it was to our minds almost too good to be true. I am now speaking for myself when I say that I was surprised to see the clause, and that I asked myself how the Minister of Labour had managed to get the clause into the Bill with the approval of the Cabinet. I do not know whether it came before the Cabinet, but I suppose so, because the Bill was laid on the Table. I have, however, been disillusioned. One of the hon. members on the other side— I think it was the member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander)—said that in the original Bill there was no segregation clause at all. To that he added: If there was no such clause, and there is now no such provision in the new Bill, how could the Minister have withdrawn something which was not there at all? But cannot the hon. member read? Let me just read out what the clause says. It says—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) thought about his own race, but we have never yet made a distinction in regard to the fields of employment between Jews and non-Jews. When we speak of different races in South Africa then we refer to the coloured race and the white race. Now the hon. member comes and says that there was no such provision in the first Bill at all, and accordingly the Minister could not withdraw it. Now what does the new clause say which has been put in the place of it, or which it is supposed to take—

That means absolutely nothing, and it does not at all refer to powers which are being granted in regard to races. Hon. members on this side who have gone to consult lawyers say that the lawyers state that if a man was taken to court in connection with this matter, then it would be decided without any doubt that there could be no question of undesirable contact between races. It refers here generally to “employees”. Accordingly I cannot understand the remark of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). I cannot assume that he put it that way deliberately, that he intentionally wanted to put the House under a wrong impression, or does he think that the House has so little sense that we cannot read? There are a few more advocates left. He is not the only one. One almost gets the impression that he put it that way deliberately. We are disappointed by this Bill. We were prepared to support it because this side of the House has a definite policy in regard to factory matters and labour policy. We want a minimum wage to be established, and that is the policy of this side of the House, that general segregation should be introduced, especially in industrial matters. Accordingly, when the Minister abandoned the original clause we were much disappointed and therefor I support the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg most heartily.

After having had 39 years experience of factories and industrial conditions, and as a worker in factories, I think I am as well qualified to speak upon this Bill as any member of this House, and certainly much better qualified than some who have ventured to criticise the Bill. Personally, I want to compliment the Minister on introducing a Bill which undoubtedly not only embodies what was best in the old Bill, but wipes out some anomalies and tightens up certain necessary restrictions, while conferring additional benefits upon the workers. To my mind this is a great achievement. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) this afternoon mentioned that the Minister and his party were a very small part of this coalition government, and that is a fact which has to be borne in mind and taken into consideration when one estimates the value of this Factories Bill. It stands to reason that if the Minister had a Labour majority behind him the Bill would be very much more sweeping in its powers. I can understand the disappointment and the chagrin on the Opposition benches at the fact that the Minister has been able to find the via media which is essential to satisfy all sections of the Government party. I can understand that that is a rather sore point with some of them. I think some of them had visions of the Labour Party taking up the attitude that if they could not get what they wanted they would not worry about the war effort.

[inaudible.]

I believe when the hon. member has had the experience of public life and public work that some of us have had, he will make a very much better and saner politician than he is to-day. The hon. member for Fordsburg criticised the Minister of Labour rather severely last week, in fact very severely, and it seemed to me that he was trying to discredit the Minister in the eyes of the workers of this country. If that is what he has in view I can assure him that he has a very stiff task in front of him. It will be a very hard task to make them believe that the Minister of Labour has let them down. I am not a supporter of the Minister of Labour, but I am at one with him in his desire to uplift and improve the conditions of the working classes. I realise that this is not going to be done by any drastic step, but by a process of evolution and building up, and I think the Minister, with this Bill, is on the right road to achieve the end which not only he, but the workers, desire. When the hon. member for Fordsburg attempts to depreciate the Minister’s efforts on behalf of the workers, I want to tell him that the Minister of Labour has had more experience and has worked longer on behalf of the workers than the hon. member has lived years. I remember, sir, in Port Elizabeth, 36 or 37 years ago, the Minister came there to address a labour meeting, and I spoke to him on the town hall steps. I asked him how he was getting on, and he said in health very well, but financially very poor. I asked him why, and he told me that he had been dismissed from his job for trades union activities, and that for three months he had tramped from one end of the Reef to the other, looking for a job, but he was suffering from a boycott. Now I want to point out to this House that that was earlier than the time when the parents of the hon. member for Fordsburg inflicted him upon the suffering public of this Union. And yet we have members who come along here who are in their swaddling clothes, and want to criticise the actions of men who have spent the best part of their lives in improving the conditions of those for whom they have worked for many years. The hon. member for Fordsburg has made reference to what he considers certain omissions in the Bill, and he has compared it with New Zealand. I don’t want to deal with the New Zealand legislation, but I want to give him a little information in regard to the comparison he drew between this country and New Zealand. He says there is no provision for a minimum wage in the Bill, but he did not tell us for whom he wanted it, and when one considers the variety of nationalities and colours engaged in our industries to-day, one should be very clear in talking about a minimum wage, what exactly is meant and for whom the minimum wage is meant. In my opinion, a Factories Bill is not the place for a minimum wage, there should be special legislation dealing with that question, and despite the criticism of the hon. member who has just spoken and who taunted the hon. Minister about his previous demands of a minimum wage of 10s. a day for everybody, I would like to say that it is the fashion for members of the Opposition to be very irresponsible in their statements. I don’t think one should place too much value on what is said there. The proper way to approach this question of a minimum wage is for a special investigation to be made into conditions of labour and cost of living until a basis is found upon which a minimum wage can be framed. That, I think, is an essential detail. I believe in a minimum living wage, and I wish this Government would bring it about some time in the future. I hope when this war is over the Government in power will take this into consideration; in fact, I think they will have to do that. I firmly believe that every man and every woman who desires to work is entitled to have work found for them at a minimum living wage; that has been my idea ever since I have taken an interest in the welfare of the working classes. The hon. member asked whether the Minister made any provision for sick leave in the Bill. I don’t believe that the Factories Bill is the place for provision for sick leave, that should be dealt with by insurance. Employers can insure against their workers being sick, and it does not inflict too much hardship on the employer or employee if they are called upon to contribute a few pence for that purpose. Unfortunately, we have still a long way to go before we arrive at that happy, Utopian state of affairs. One thing the Minister must be very careful about, and his Department must be very careful about, is the amount of work that they impose upon the employer and his staff in the matter of returns of various descriptions. These returns cost employers a considerable amount of money, and they increase the overhead of his business. That, with a little careful consideration, could be reduced to a minimum, and I suggest to the Minister that he should bear that in mind. The hon. member for Fordsburg is not satisfied with the Minister’s 46-hour week, but when I look back over a long period of years I visualise the change that has taken place in the hours worked in industry, even in my own experience, and I think the workers have a lot to be thankful for that they have advanced as far as they have in so short a time. When I first came here I worked 55 hours a week for the first six months, 50 hours for the second, and I can assure you when we got down to 48 hours, which had been looked forward to with anxious eyes for many years, we felt we were almost in heaven. The workers then felt that it was a very decided achievement to bring about a 48-hour week. Now we come down to 46 hours. That may not seem very much to the members of this House, who think nothing of wasting two hours, but I can assure them that two hours less is a very useful consideration for the worker who has to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow. The aim of a Factories Bill is to safeguard the workers, and to see that what they have gained is not taken away from them when depressions come along. My experience has been that, prior to industrial legislation, what the workers managed to achieve in boom periods was invariably lost during depression periods, and that was one of the reasons which made the industrial workers realise that they must have legislation to protect them. This Bill is a measure designed to protect the worker and safeguard the benefits he has obtained up to now. Unfortunately, it does not go as far as one would wish, but the present Bill marks an advance on the previous one, because it not only reduces hours, but it doubles the number of paid holidays to four. I never got more than two holidays myself when I was a journeyman. In addition to that, the Bill gives the worker a fortnight paid holiday every year. I worked as a journeyman for 20 years without getting anything but the statutory holidays. I am very conscious of the difference between what this Bill provides and the conditions under which we worked formerly. I can assure the House that those who worked with me at the time I am speaking of would have regarded this Bill as being Utopian and impossible to bring about. I congratulate the Minister that he has been able to bring this Bill forward and make it acceptable to the Cabinet. Another point to which the hon. member for Fordsburg objected was the Minister’s power to deal with appeals; he did not like that the Minister should be the person to whom appeals are made, the final court as it were; he felt that a control board should be appointed. Well, sir, it is very certain that employers and employees must have a final court of appeal. The power to make a final decision must not be left in the hands of a factory inspector; that would be all wrong, someone has to make a final decision, and I very much prefer that the Minister of Labour, whoever he may be, should have the power rather than a board of control. Many of us are absolutely sick of the thought of boards of control, and we visualise with horror any additional boards being thrust upon us if they can be avoided. Wit h regard to the point made by the hon. member that the Minister could not possibly deal with 6,000 cases at one time, that I think is one of the most preposterous and foolish statements I have ever heard, because it is an utter impossibility for the Minister to receive 6,000 appeals at once. There is not going to be a dispute in every industrial establishment at the same time, and criticism on that point is not worth consideration. Then with regard to overtime, I have had a lot of experience of overtime, and have worked a good many hours’ overtime under varying conditions. I don’t like it, and I don’t believe in it, but I want to say to deprive an employer of the right to work his people overtime would be wrong and unjust and do more harm than good. There are occasions when employees must be called upon to work some overtime, in the case of a rush order or a breakdown or something of that sort. As a general thing, however, overtime is to be discouraged, because it has a tendency to create unemployment. To-day it is impossible to get men in certain industries, and employers are at their wits’ end how to get the labour they want, because you cannot take a man off the street and make him into a trained worker at once. You cannot transform a casual worker into a skilled man in a short space of time, and I am sure that if you deprive certain industries of the right to work overtime, you are not only penalising the employers but penalising the very people you want to help. If any hon. member wants any information on this subject I will give him the fullest details in the Lobby. With regard to minimum pay for overtime, I agree with the idea of minimum pay, but time and a third is very much better than time and a quarter, and you must not penalise the employer too much. There are times when you must have overtime, and if you are going to make it impossible by a prohibitive wage, you may just as well prohibit overtime entirely. I agree with the idea of the hon. member for Fordsburg that there should be a minimum scale of pay when a worker is called upon for overtime, and I think the Minister might give some consideration to that. There was another statement made, I think, by the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R. Strauss) on Thursday evening. He made a very sweeping statement that the Bill was no good to the workers and was actually detrimental to them. Now when one hears statements of that description, one scarcely knows whether to laugh or cry because it betrays such colossal ignorance of actual industrial conditions, that it makes one wonder that hon. members get up in this House and criticise the Bill. I think the hon. member’s punishment should be that he should be compelled to go and address a meeting of workers and tell them he thinks the Bill is detrimental to them. I think he would find that an ample reward for his efforts, and I am quite sure the workers would not be content with laughing at him. Then we come to this question of segregation and separation. My hon. friend over there, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) made great play with that. He said that separation and segregation were the same thing. Well, I happened to meet the hon. member in the Lobby and I explained the point to him. I gave him an example where it would be quite a different thing. I suggested to him that the hon. member who occupies this bench with me has been away sick all this session while I have been here. We have been separated but not segregated. It just shows the danger of playing with words.

Can you be segregated without being separated?

In dealing with this question of segregation in industrial establishment one has to be careful. I take it no hon. member of this House wants unduly to increase working costs and costs of manufacture, and yet if you press this thing too much that is the effect it is going to have. You have to understand the conditions of each particular branch of industry or trade before you start to apply general conditions, otherwise you are going to do more harm than good. In every industry there are a number of elementary operations, and if you are going to drive out entirely your non-Europeans, you are going to create a number of dead-end occupations for our white youths that are not going to be beneficial to them in the future. One has to be careful to take each case on its merits before laying down a hard and fast rule which is going to deprive a lot of people of their livelihood and reduce the opportunities of our own youths who are growing up. One of the great things about a Factories Bill is that it prevents sweating, and I think that when one reads one’s paper occasionally, and reads the court cases, one realises that workers still require protection from some employers.

Very much so.

Since I have entered industry I have seen a tremendous change in the outlook of the average employer, and particularly so in the outlook of the large employers. I find, and I have found, and I have had considerable experience, ever since I have been in this House—I have been through scores of factories, and I have found that the small employer is more prone to take advantage of the worker than the large employer. And strangely enough the large employer with his large number of departmental heads and that sort of thing is more careful to observe the provisions and safeguards of the Factory Act than the small employer who employs one or two hands, and it is all to the good that the worker should have this protection which is so essential. There are one or two other points which I want to make. Great play was made by the hon. member for Fordsburg of the New Zealand Industrial Legislation, particularly its Factory Act and our own Factory Bill now before the House. You know it is very easy to come forward and make a bald statement that our Bill is not as good as their Act. It is quite true that it is not as good as their Act.

That is one admission.

Yes, but I want to say this to my hon. friend over there—New Zealand started their industrial evolution and it started their industrial legislation as far back as 1878, and that makes a tremendous difference. In addition to that New Zealand has not got the racial problems which we have in this country, and it has not got the downtrodden class of people that we have in this country. The average New Zealander is of sturdy peasant stock and he long ago realised, I think in 1890, that strikes through the medium of trade union organisations were not sufficient in themselves, and that it was only by the medium of industrial legislation and political action that the worker could come into what he was entitled to have, and that was the start of the industrial legislation in New Zealand. In 1891 they passed their first Factory Act. Where were we in 1891? Where were we twenty years after? We dared not form a trade union …

What about Great Britain?

I am not discussing Great Britain. She has plenty of hay on her fork at the moment. Very likely after she has disposed of that she will produce conditions even acceptable to my hon. friend over there. In any case when it comes to the question of “what about Britain” I shall tell my hon. friend that I would sooner live in England for one day that in Germany for one minute. Conditions in England are far superior to what they are in Germany.

That is what you know.

How would you like to stay at the North Pole?

They can never say that Great Britain took the workers by force and compelled them to work for the Government for 2d. per day, and that is what Germany did just prior to the war, and I defy hon. members to contradict that.

We are not discussing that.

The hon. member does not like any mention of conditions in Germany. We know he is a Hitler worshipper, and he does not like the truth. But when he speaks of England the natural corollary is what about Germany? And if he can answer for Germany I can answer for Britain. As I have said, New Zealand has over a long period of years gone in for industrial legislation. But I want to say this, that it was only in 1938 that the Factories Act which had commended itself so strongly to hon. members over there was put into operation, so actually when one considers the period which has elapsed between any attempt to get industrial legislation in this country, and to get it in New Zealand, we are not so backward after all, and I do believe that as hon. members on the other side become more enlightened as to the meaning of industrial legislation, that they themselves will help to try and create industrial conditions in which they can take a pride. Now there is just one other point I want to make before I conclude, and that is this, that in New Zealand which my hon. friend spoke about so much the other day, they have an agricultural workers Act which is entirely separate from the Factories Act, and that is what will have to come in this country eventually, and the workers’ wages are laid down by force of law in that country, and I believe the wage for a male there, the minimum wage for an agricultural worker, is £3 16s. plus board and lodging without an extra pound, and may Heaven suffer the day when we shall do the same here—it will be very beneficial to this country, but I do want to say this: that if hon. members opposite would only realise this, that by improving working conditions and by improving the wage conditions of the mass of the workers of this country, they would create the markets they are looking for.

That is an old story.

They would find it much better than subsidies which may be passed on to them by a liberal Government.

I wish to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, for addressing the House in English and not in my mother tongue.

And I wish to thank you.

I am doing so out of respect for the Minister who cannot follow me in Afrikaans, but I wish he would have the same respect for the Afrikaans speakers by learning their language. I also am very disappointed with the Minister, and I ask myself the question, what has come over him? What has happened to him in bringing this measure in such a half-baked form?

That is for the roast beef.

Well, he has Donald Duck on the other side.

The Minister used to be the lion—he used to thunder in this House denouncing the Government for not assisting the poorer classes of the community. What has happened to him? I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the capitalists have not spread their net in vain. He is caught in their net and, like Samson, he is lying with his head on the lap of Delilah.

I hope she has a nice lap.

If there is a section in our society which should be looked after it is the working class. They are doing their little bit to improve the economic structure of the country, and they are working under most deplorable conditions. They are being exploited by the industrialists like my own friend over there who has just spoken.

I am just a wage earner.

We want their conditions to be improved considerably. They have to work from morning to night under the most deplorable conditions. The Minister himself used to advocate a minimum wage of 10s. per day in this House, and so did the Minister of the Interior. What has happened to them now? Why do not they come and do something of the kind in this Bill?

Because this Bill has nothing to do with it.

Why not?

I want to remind the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) of a jibe which he threw across the floor of the House. He said, “What about the National Socialists, what would you do if you came into power?”

Are you a Nationalist Socialist?

I have said so time and again. The hon. member said, “Would you do the same thing as Germany is doing?” Making slaves of these poor people, of the working classes.” Germany is doing nothing of the kind.

Do you know anything about it?

I want to quote from a book which I have in my hand here.

By Wodehouse?

No, by Ward Preiss. What does he say on page 117? I shall read to hon. members what he says:

And then one page 113:

When was it written?

What does its matter when?

It was written just before the war broke out.

We intend following Germany on these same lines.

Who are “we”?

We would like to create a movement of strength through joy for the working classes.

The Minister will lead us.

We are indebted to these poor people to make life worth living for them and to make them happy ond prosperous, and not exploit them. In this respect so far as exploitation is concerned I want to read to the House what Dr. Norval, Member of the Board of Trade, says:

That is the wrong Norval.

He says this—

He says: “We have tried to get as much as possible from the nation.” I would say from the workers. I should say we should increase the purchasing power of the working class.

Hear, hear.

And the farmers and commerce will profit by it. I would again say that I support the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) that we stand for a working wage of 10s. per day; we stand for sick leave fully paid for; we stand for fourteen days’ holiday, and we stand for insurance against sickness, and especially the expectant mother should get all the attendance she needs. She should get free medical attendance. And on top of it all she should get a bonus on the birth of the child. It is the poorer class which contributes most to the increase of the population, and they can least of all afford to pay for the health of their children. We have to tackle the poor white problem, too. In this regard we want free education and free medical treatment. Now I also want to raise my voice in protest against this segregation clause being left out.

I thought you wanted a minimum wage.

What has that to do with it? Is it not a disgrace that our daughters have to work cheek by jowl with the coloured people and the natives? They have to work in a miserable atmosphere. You grade them to the standard of a coloured, and they are looked upon as low class.

But you allow them to nurse your children.

Most of these coloureds, we are told, are suffering from venereal disease. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Labour, if he would allow his daughters to sit cheek by jowl with coloured people and natives? They will not allow it, but they expect the poorer classes to do it. I say: Shame on you for allowing these things. You expect it of these poor girls. These daughters of ours, although they come from the poorer classes of our population, are going to be mothers of to-morrow and the future. If their health is impaired, if they are physically, spiritually and mentally ruined, how can you expect them to produce children who are healthy and sound? It is up to this House and the Government to see that our daughters are well looked after. I also wish to support the amendment that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

It is quite clear, from the course of this second reading debate, that this Bill is going to have a very curious passage.

A very storm passage.

Not stormy, slightly confused. The Minister made his own position clear. As a long established leader of labour, he would have been much happier bringing in a much less conservative measure than this, but circumstances have placed him in such a position that he is very glad even to handle this measure. He has had a good deal of sympathy from his own side in respect of the limitations of his position, but he finds himself in the curious position of being faced with the sort of criticism from this (the Opposition) side of the House which would suggest that the Nationalist Party had suddenly become the Labour Party. I have no doubt that in the course of the Committee stage we shall have numerous amendments put forward by our friends on the Nationalist side of the House in the happy confidence that the big business interests on the side of the United Party will not allow them to be passed.

You don’t mean that.

I have seen nothing yet to persuade me that members on the Opposition benches are the protectors of labour interests. I should be very glad if it were so. And what I am going to say is that I hope the Minister of Labour will find himself in a position to challenge their integrity on several aspects of this Bill. For myself, I was very much encouraged by the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), particularly his closing remarks when he expressed the hope that the Minister would find it possible to put forward a 44-hour week. That led me to believe that there is probably more support in the House for wider labour clauses in the Bill than have been enshrined in it, and I want to assure the Minister that, if he puts forward that amendment—I am sure I am speaking-on behalf of my colleagues here—he will find two votes here to support him. I hope he will also be able to put forward or to accept one or two other amendments also. Even while I sympathise with him in the difficulties with which he is faced in view of the composition of the Government Party, I am convinced that it will not be difficult to get some extensions of the principle of the Bill accepted.

Will you support him?

I think there are one or two amendments which the Minister could easily leave to the general support of the House. Apart altogether from the 44-hour week, there is the actual establishment of the 46-hour week which I would like to see much more secure than it is at present in the Bill. I am a little alarmed at the possibility of the maintenance of the 48-hour week at the expense of the 46-hour week. I realise that the maintenance of the 48-hour week is to meet the emergency conditions under which we live at the moment, but I think that there is a very great weakness in the Bill here. The Bill is designed to deal with conditions in normal times, and for that reason I feel that the special conditions necessary in times of emergency like the present should be put in a separate part of the Bill, so that they do not interfere with the establishment of the basic principle. In that respect I would support the proposal made by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Now, in another respect, there has been what I think must be an oversight in the sections of the Bill dealing with hours of work, but one which could be of major importance to the workers; that is, that while the Bill makes provision for a 46-hour week, it does not provide for a guaranteed wage being earned in such a 46-hour week; that is, it makes no provision against a reduction of earnings on the part of workers whose hours of work are reduced from 48 to 46. That, I think, is merely an oversight, but, as I have said, it is a matter of great importance to the workers. I should be glad also to see the Minister a little more generous in the matter of those maternity allowances which we have heard so much about, and I hope that during the Committee stage the Minister will agree to remove the conditional clauses with which the provision he is making is at present hedged round. I do not think there should be any sort of a means test in regard to the maternity allowance. I feel that, if there is to be a means test at all, it should be applied before a woman is employed and not after. If the country wishes to place a means test on any worker then I think one should go into the position of the worker and see whether she needs employment before she takes it. If the country accepts a worker, then it accepts the responsibility for that worker. The moment the woman goes into employment she should be treated as an individual. I therefore hope the Minister will remove all means tests, as I hope he will remove the rather ambiguous clause that, if the father of the child can be found and has means, whatever the Government pays out to his wife shall be recovered from him. That is only a disguised means test. I also hope that the Minister will see his way to lay down that an allowance to a woman shall not be less than the wage she earns. This is not an ideal provision, but it is the least that should be given. It is only, of course, a temporary concession to the needs of the position. My own desire would be to fight for the right of married women not to be in factories at all. That is the right way of advance. That is to say, that our economic system should be so organised that a woman should be able to stay at home and look after her family.

What about the women who are not married?

A woman who is not married and is about to have a child should also receive assistance from the State. For the rest, I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) that this position can never be satisfactory to anyone until legislation in regard to this matter, and to sick leave generally, is built on the basis of national health insurance.

That is another step in advance.

I think that the indications are that this House would support national health insurance and I hope the Minister will consider that. I repeat that until that is provided and backed up by provision for the family, either by the establishment of a motherhood endowment scheme or by some other means, so long as married women go into the factories—the only reasonable and decent thing is to give them at least the wage they earn when they are in a position such as we are trying to deal with, when they need money much more than they do in ordinary circumstances. At that stage, we should not give them less money than they usually earn to tide them over the difficulties of that particular period in their lives. I hope the Minister will accept that. With that question is connected the question of sick leave. I hope the Minister will provide for that in this Bill. Most wage determinations make provision for sick leave. This Factories Bill is built up on the experience of wage determinations, and on that experience there seems to be no reason why a fortnight’s sick leave should not be laid down as an irreducible minimum. Further, I hope the Minister will consider putting in this Bill a provision for a ten minutes’ break in the morning and in the afternoon. He himself has put forward the very best argument for that. He made a lengthy defence of the 46-hour week, longer perhaps than necessary, since I think most people are convinced of its virtue. In the course of that defence, he put forward the argument that workers give better returns over a shorter time than over a longer work period. Well, in the same way, a break would make for greater efficiency so that this ten minutes’ break would not be an additional tax on the industry. Personally, I should also like to see an extension of this Bill to certain farmers who fall outside its present terms. I know that that will not be particularly popular on this (the Opposition) side of the House. At the present time, farmers who are organised in companies to process the products of their farms come under the Bill, but two or three neighbouring farmers who put up a factory between them, and claim that they are processing the products of their own farms, are excluded. I cannot see why. The conditions under which their workers work are exactly the same as those of other factory workers, and I see no reason why these workers should not have the protection of the terms of this measure.

What about the mine workers?

I do not see why the mine workers should not be brought in.

What about the Railways?

A claim for the inclusion of the Railways has already been made from these benches. We would like to see all these industries covered by this Bill. But to return to the question of farms. On the farms to which I refer, factory conditions prevail and exclusion from this Bill in respect of these particular factories is going to mean exclusion of the workers from the protection of workmen’s compensation. That does not apply in respect of either mines or railways where workmen’s compensation provisions already prevail, so that these farm factories do represent a special case which should, for the sake of the workers, be covered by this Bill. I hope the Minister will consider that point; and finally I must add my support to all the appeals that have been made to the Minister to modify if not to throw out altogether, the large exemption clause in the Bill. I know the clause is copied from a whole lot of other Acts, but that does not seem good reason for going on with it. I think the Minister must realise that. In fact, the best speeches made in this House against this particular sort of clause have come from the Minister himself in the past, and I think he should now take the opportunity to put his views in this matter into operation. I would point out that there would seem to be no good reason for giving the Minister power to exempt anybody and everybody from the operation of the law. Where such powers are sought, there is a reflection on one’s capacity to administer the field which is the business of the department concerned. If the principles of the Bill are sound, they should be sound in all circumstances and in all cases. As the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) has said, the Bill ensures the irreducible minimum of what should be given in the way of protection of the workers and in the conditions of work in factories. If that is so, there cannot be any justification for exemptions, and I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of breaking new ground and setting a new example in this matter by doing what he himself thinks is the right thing to do. Now I come to the inevitable colour bar issue. The debate on the colour bar was inevitable on this Bill, even if there had not been a clause in the original Bill which suggested that the Minister was going to take power to discriminate in the arrangement of workers along lines of race and colour. It has been the policy of the Opposition for the last few years consistenly to endeavour to get a colour bar into every bit of legislation of an industrial type which has come before this House. They in fact state that they have actually a policy in this regard. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has said that their policy is a mimimum wage and segregation of black and white. Well, Sir, I want to suggest that that is not a policy at all; it is only the very fringe of what might possibly be a policy. The claim is that there should be in industry a minimum wage fixed in the region of 10s. per day, as being a wage upon which European workers can live on a civilised standard, and for the rest they want European and non-European separated in factories. Now, Sir, the Opposition has been asked again and again and they have not replied to this question, if a policy of this kind is established, what are they going to do with the people who will be displaced? They ask why people should be displaced. But that is the inevitable result of their policy. [Interruptions.] Now, they tell us they want these things, but not one of them has ever explained what they are going to do with the situation which must inevitably arise as a result.

We have told you heaps of times.

Well, I have never heard it. I have never heard anything that sounded like an answer to this question. They have been told time and time again by every commission that has dealt with the question that you cannot run a policy of segregation of black and white in factories without doing two things. One of them is that you must inevitably raise the costs of industry, which naturally must contract employment, and the other is that you displace people who are already in the industrial field.

[inaudible].

I am not talking about the Labour Party’s policy. But I want to point out that the Opposition owe it to themselves and to the House to have quite clear in their mind what the Labour Party did say as against what the Nationalist Party is now saying that they said. I hope to say a word about that later. At the moment, the question is that of this supposed undesirable contact between the races, and I say that if you have discrimination between one race and another, you either say one lot must work in one room and another in another room, in which case you must have two rooms and double supervision, double machinery and so on, or you must only employ one race, in this case Europeans, and drive out the other, in this case the coloured. [Interruptions.] Now I think it is about time we stopped talking about this question purely on the basis of emotion. If you discriminate against people, these people are in fact thrown out of the employments they would choose. They then become poorer for the reason that they have to choose whatever employment is open to them, and have to accept whatever wage they can get since they have no alternative. They have no power to choose their jobs, to get a better type of employment. They have no protection in the labour market. Already in this country, the power of the non-Europeans, naturally small, has been artificially restricted by hon. members of this House who have refused to allow them to organise and to acquire the protection of collective bargaining. But if you raise the administrative costs of industry and force sections of the working class into worse paid employment, you will contract the labour market because you reduce your consumer’s market and prevent your machines from working to capacity. In the circumstances, you undermine the position of the very people in whose interest you discriminate against others, you undermine the position of the very people you are supposed to be protecting. These are simple economic facts which I would like the Nationalists to consider and, when they have considered them, I should be glad to have them tell us what they propose to do with the situation which they will create by this policy of theirs. [Interruptions.] This is a most vital point which hon. members there must think out and to which give us some sort of answer, otherwise their arguments have no basis of reason at all. I want to say that I cannot help feeling, in view of their refusal to face the issue, that there is nothing but emotion in the whole of their attitude on this question of segregation. They have demanded protection for their girls in factories, but they have never asked for protection for their wives and daughters in the home. They put up the argument that a woman is mistress in her house and only a fellow worker in the factory. It is the old theory that a man is not a man while he is a servant. There is this additional fact, that if hon. members were going to be so sensitive as to what is supposedly now happening to their woman in industrial areas, they should have thought about all that before they adopted the original segregation policy which cut the Native African from the land and set in motion the townward movement which has created the present position and was indeed intended to set that movement in motion to serve the industrial market. I have never yet heard anything from this side of the House in defence of women workers in industry other than this general emotional appeal that we should separate them from non-Europeans. Never once have I heard a reasoned argument put up from this side in defence of women workers and their rights to better wage and other conditions of work. This is a general emotional appeal with very dangerous economic and social implications and we shall oppose it tooth and nail for a variety of reasons. It is economically absolutely unsound. It does not protect the interests of the very people hon. members are claiming to protect, and the women themselves have not asked for this particular protection. I quote here a letter from one of the biggest women’s industrial organisations in the country, the Garment Workers. This is from a woman worker in the industry with a good Afrikaner name, Miss Anna Scheepers. She says: “I want to make it perfectly clear that for our part we don’t want any discrimination clause in the Factories Bill. We are satisfied that any difficulties which may arise in the employment of Europeans and natives can easily be solved without any special legislation.

She doesn’t work with any coloured people.

She does. She represents one of the biggest industries employing European women and native men. But the only instance in this House put up as justification for applying the principle of discrimination was put up by the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan) who quoted the case of a small factory in the Transvaal engaged in the manufacture of contraceptives. I noticed the emotional appeal in this instance which he chose. Now, I hold no brief for the employment of either native men or European women in such a factory. I would like to suggest that women should not be employed at all in a factory of that kind. Indeed, I would like to know what the Dutch Reformed Church would say about its women being employed in such a factory. But this is a very exceptional case, and I ask the House, have we any right to legislate for the whole field of industry in order to meet one exceptional case? It is, indeed, well known that legislation for exceptional cases is bad legislation. This would be extremely bad legislation to provide for the regulation of the whole of industry in order to deal with conditions in one very special type of factory.

The only other instance I have heard quoted outside this Chamber as a justification for legislation of the type hon. members on this side want is that there are factories in which two or three women are embedded in the middle of hundreds of native men working on the manufacture of tin hats. On investigation, I find that these women are supervisors of the work. Do hon. members wish to deprive these women of those jobs by discriminatory legislation? I have this on good authority. Now, as I have already said, legislation of this kind is economically unsound, and would tend to undermine the security of the very women workers it is desired to protect, and it must also be remembered that these people do not want protection. I also base my opposition to this segregation proposal on the ground that it will be a serious interference with the organisation of industry at this very critical time, when we need to put all our energies into the maintenance of our efficiency if we are going to carry through our war effort. I know that some members of this House would not at all mind that, as it would be completely in line with their policy, but we shall oppose any suggestion of this kind. Further, we shall oppose any suggestion of segregation, because we do our best to defend the weakest element in the social scheme, in this case the non-European. I again challenge hon. members on this side of the House to tell us what they really mean to do with the non-Europeans if they carry out their policy in this country. They have said that the one thing they mean to do is to establish a segregation policy. Now already the native people have been driven off the land into industry by segregation, and now hon. members want to drive them back. They maintain that they want them on the farms, but even that is only a temporary measure. The question still remains, what are they ultimately going to do with the non-European population? They never tell us. The hon. member for Fordsburg has told us that they will tell us their complete policy at the proper time. Will they please hurry up the right time for declaring that policy. The non-Europeans have been denied the right to organise and safeguard their position; they have never had the full protection of the trades union movement; they cannot fall back on the land except as farm servants; and they have no alternative choice of livelihood if they are driven out of the industrial market. But the hon. Minister has given us his word that he has no intention of establishing a segregation policy. And let me here do what I can to redeem my promise to deal with the policy of the Labour Party. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg referred to the policy of the Minister of Labour when the Labour Party was in Opposition. He quoted an amendment to a recent pre-war Finance Bill. I want to point out that the terms of that amendment were completely comprehensive; they covered every aspect of national life. But the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg extracted one particular point, namely, the demand of a minimum wage of 10s. per day, and stated that the Labour Party had gone back on that demand. But the Labour Party were then in favour of that minimum wage because they linked that 10s. minimum with complete and absolute separation of the European and the native. They said the native must live in one part of the country, and live his own life there, and if any chose still to try to find work in European areas, he must compete on the European wage. But the hon. member missed that condition of the Labour Party’s minimum wage policy that insisted on a complete separation of black and white, and it was to try to clarify this position that hon. members on this side of the House have been trying by interruption to make clear to the speakers on this side the inadequacy of their suggestion that the Labour Party has gone back on their policy. Now that separation of black and white has not taken place and cannot now take place, hence the silence of the Labour Party on the 10s. per day minimum wage and the responsibility of the Minister for the protection of the interests of all workers. Now, in view of the Minister’s own statement, I am absolutely convinced that we are not going to have a policy of segregation introduced by this Government. In the present position of politics in this country, the non-European can look for protection only to the Cabinet, to the real makers of policy; and I am sure that the Cabinet will uphold their responsibility in this matter adequately, will protect the rights of these people, and support the Minister of Labour in his declaration that he has no intention of introducing segregation in this Bill. The hon. member for Umbilo will, presumably, also stand on this platform of opposition to segregation, since he has made it clear that he regards it as a retrograde step on the part of the member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) that he could ask for such a thing.

The hon. member who has just sat down (Mrs. Ballinger), in the few remarks she made very clearly showed the great difference in conception and attitude between the various sections of this House. She told us that all the arguments employed by this side of the House to bring about a dividing line in our industries between different classes of labour on a colour line basis were founded on emotion. She told us it was an appeal to, or an expression of emotion. I say that anyone in South Africa who feels that our attitude in regard to the colour line is founded on nothing but emotion, has a very poor conception of our point of view, and has a very poor idea of one of the greatest national problems of South Africa. With us it is not a question of emotion; it is a question which affects the existence of the white race in this country. And this difference in outlook will continue to cause friction between the one section of the population and the other until the struggle is eventually settled and until finality is reached on the subject. I just want to point out to the hon. member that her conception is entirely wrong, when she says that we on this side of the House are out to deprive the non-European population of opportunities to find work. That is not the case. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would urge that point of view. Everybody in South Africa has a right to live, and the non-European section of the population also has a right to live and has a right to work. But what we do stand for is for due account to be taken of the fact that the one is a white race and the other non-white, and that if the white race is to preserve its own existence, if it is to maintain its purity and to resist the mixing of white and coloured, it cannot possibly do so and secure its own future as a white race if conditions are allowed to prevail as they are doing to-day in some of our slums, in a great many of our slums where Europeans and non-Europeans are mixed up in the same streets and sometimes in the same houses, and where they work together cheek by jowl as we find them doing very often to-day in factories. That is the attitude we adopt. That is what we are going to stand by and that is what we are going to fight for to the bitter end. I have got up to take part in this debate, and, more particularly, to say a few words on this particular point—the question of Europeans and non-Europeans working together in factories; and I want to do so because of the fact that for quite a number of years I have been introducing substantive motions on this subject in this House as well as amendments or other measures. I must say that we were filled with joy when we saw in the Bill now before the House a provision which would mean that eventually we would have industrial segregation in our factories. We felt that the Government and the Minister of Labour had taken a step of the greatest importance, a step which unquestionably would have been a most important forward move, a step of the greatest importance, especially to the white race of this country. It is self-evident that when we found out the next day that the Minister of Labour had run away from his own proposal and that he had deleted this provision from the Bill, we were deeply disappointed. The explanation as to why he has done so has not yet been given by the Minister. He made an excuse for the withtdrawal of the Bill and he told us that it was done because certain of the translations were wrong, and because those translations had to be put right. But it did not stop at that. He changed the Bill on a most important point, and we are looking forward to his explanation when he replies to the debate. I think he owes this House and the country an explanation. If there is one thing which I rejoice at in connection with this matter it is that we can deduce from all this that the Minister of Labour realises that what he is doing is wrong. In the first instance he had this provision in the Bill, because he knows what is the right thing to do; he knows what is in the interest of South Africa and especially in the interest of the white race. We are deeply disappointed that he has not had the courage and the strength to stick by his decision and to keep on the right course. That we should have segregation in our workshops between white and non-white is merely the logical sequence of the attitude which has been adopted in the administration of our country for a long time, and which has been carried out in practice for some considerable time. On our trains where the Department of Railways carries passengers, the Europeans and non-Europeans are not mixed up, and in spite of the fact that the coloured population of the country wants things to be different and wants Europeans and non-Europeans to be mixed up in the railway compartments, the Government of the country has adhered to this principle on our trains for some considerable time now, and insists on European and non-Europeans not travelling together in the same compartment. We have segregation there. Recently, I believe it was last year, we had legislation before this Parliament to give the municipalities the power to carry out segregation on our seashores and at bathing resorts, even at places where such segregation between Europeans and non-Europeans had not prevailed previously. The Government opposite and members opposite came along to this House and approved of legislation of that kind. The Government is spending thousands of pounds annually, and altogether has spent millions of pounds on housing, with a view to bringing about segregation, not in the way we should think it should be done, not compulsory segregation, but wherever houses are being built with the aid of loans and support from the Government in our towns and dorps, the principle is kept in mind that there shall be no social equality in this country between Europeans and non-Europeans. There is no social equality, and for that reason, because there is no social equality, it is undesirable—and the Government has to take account of that undesirability—that Europeans and non-Europeans should live together in our towns and dorps. That is the principle which has been adopted, and now I ask what reason there is why that self-same principle should not be applied in our factories where, from early morning till late at night, Europeans and non-Europeans and often non-European men and white girls, have to work next to each other and are treated on a basis of complete equality. In spite of all this we find that the Minister of Labour, while fully aware of the position in the country and against his own conviction comes here and runs away from the Bill which he himself has introduced. So far as this question is concerned, we have in our factories conditions which I can only describe as scandalous and abhorrent, if one wants to maintain one’s self-respect as a white man and if one bears in mind the fact that there is no social equality in this country. If hon. members would take the trouble to enquire into the conditions prevailing in the Cape Peninsula, they would find that what I am saying is correct. Let me mention just one instance: a few years ago at the time of a general election, a certain individual who is well known to me wanted to get some postal votes. He went to one of our factories where white girls whose votes he wanted were employed. It was difficult to get to the workers even during the dinner hour, as apparently the owners of thé factory were anxious to hide the conditions from the public eye. But this person succeeded in getting through, and her description was that in the yard she found white girls and coloureds together, and she found natives on the benches which were put there for them to sit on while they were having their meals. All those benches were taken up by the workers, and from the one end to the other they were mixed up, and she saw there that a pitch-black native and a white girl had to eat out of the same food-basket. What are the results of conditions like that? What mu st be the feelings of the white girl? One of the white girls whose postal vote was asked for on that occasion said with tears in her eyes that she could not stick it any longer, although she had to earn her living there. She said that she had gone to the boss to ask whether things could not be changed, and the reply given by the owner of the factory was—

That is the position, and it is not an exceptional one, and if those conditions prevail what hope, what future has the white man, and the white race in our country? What will become of the respect which the non-European should have for the European? And what eventually becomes of the white man’s self-respect? That is the position, and that is what has to be remedied. I just want to draw attention to the fact that this Parliament has gone very far in that direction. In 1926 a joint session of both Houses of Parliament passed legislation known as the Colour Bar Act. It was an amendment of the Mines and Works Act, and in that Act a principle was laid down which was applied not merely to the Johannesburg gold mines, but it was applied to the whole country on that occasion. It was a short Bill, and it provided that the Government was given the power to lay down by regulation that certain occupations in factories and mines throughout the whole of the country in any province could be reserved for whites only.

You excluded Cape coloured people and Malays.

Certain classes of work could be set aside for coloured people only.

You put coloured people and whites on the same footing.

I have the law here, the hon. member can study it if he wants to. Certain work could be reserved for Europeans only or for coloured people only, or for natives only, or one could even divide the work in such a manner as to make an allocation of the different classes of work. In other words, one could lay down a quota of how the different classes could do the work in the different occupations. That law was passed in 1926, and it was of general application. That law is in the same position as the iron and steel industry, which is an industry on which, once it is established in the country, other industries can be built up. That law was passed so that other legislation could be fitted into it, legislation such as that in connection with factories and so on. It can be applied here. Now the Minister of Labour comes along and he definitely refuses —I am not even speaking about allocation of different occupations in factories to different classes of labour—but he emphatically refuses to separate Europeans and non-Europeans in the workshops. What the Minister said when the Bill which I referred to, and which became law in 1926, was under discussion, was most interesting. What was his attitude? Hon. members will recollect that that Bill went a great deal further than the provision which the Minister has now withdrawn under this Bill. It was stated there that one could draw a dividing line between workers and workers in the same workshop, and what was his attitude on that occasion? He said this—

The friends he speaks about who walk about the streets of Johannesburg are Europeans. That is how strongly the hon. member felt on this question in 1926, and yet the Minister comes along here to-day and, in spite of the fact that he felt so strongly on those much more radical provisions of those days, and in spite of the fact that he said that we could wait no longer, and that it should be applied at once, he comes here to-day and refuses to insert into this Bill a very much milder provision; he refuses to separate Europeans and non-Europeans in our workshops and factories. And now the question arises why the Minister has done so. Incidentally, a telegram has come into my possession which was sent to him and quite a number of members on the other side of the House, a telegram which casts a little light on the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister, and on the reason why he withdrew his Bill so suddenly, and why he reintroduced it into the House without that provision. I am reading from the „Cape Standard”. The “United Front”—that is to say, the United non-European Front here in the Cape Peninsula—

That stirs a chord in your memory.

I go on to quote—

So the Minister had previously indicated that he wanted to bring about segregation. And he knows it too, and now they complain to the Prime Minister and they say this—

And in addition to that there was a protest from the trade unions—

We can see the pressure which was brought to bear on the Minister, and why he changed his attitude so suddenly. You see how they went to the Prime Minister, and we know now why that injustice has been done to South Africa and the white race in South Africa, and what is behind it, what is the motive? The motive is that the non-Europeans are being called up to take part in the war, and because they have to take part in the war the white race has to pay for it. We have to allow white girls to work cheek by jowl with coloured people in the factories. We have to allow them to continue working there under those degrading conditions, or otherwise get out. Not only have we to pay the price in millions and millions of pounds being spent on the war, but here we have to pay a further price for participation in the war. The white race has to be sacrificed on the altar of Imperialism.

It is rather amusing this afternoon to have two of our political predikants on their feet, both urging the Government to do something on behalf of the poor workers.

What do you know about the workers?

It is rather deplorable that hon. gentlemen on the other side, particularly those political predikants, should come here to make vote-catching speeches, because that is all they amounted to.

And what are you doing now?

Because I and a large number of members on this side of the House also want this separation. We do not mind this clause being eliminated, because we know that separation of Europeans and non-Europeans can be done under the regulations of this Bill. The regulations provided for it. The inspector will have the power to separate Europeans and non-Europeans in factories. Hon. members opposite must not think that we on this side of the House want to see the deplorable conditions which exist in some factories to-day, continue any longer. I want to say to my honourable lady friend the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that she does not know the conditions which do exist in some factories in the Cape ….

I know them all through the country.

Well, then she would not like to have a daughter of hers working alongside a non-European man or woman if they could be effectively separated. The excuse which she gave was that it would mean a lot of extra cost.

I did not say that.

Cost does not come into the picture at all. Surely you could put them into separate rooms at no great cost. I know the Minister has this as much at heart as hon. members opposite have. I want to see European women completely separated from non-European workers. Now I want to support the hon. member for Cape Eastern on one point, and I thought it was an excellent point—and that was the provision which the Minister had possibly forgotten, namely that through the shortening of the week a reduction in wages might result. I think she made an excellent point there.

You never read the Bill.

Previous to the hon. member for Cape Eastern the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) addressed the House, and told us he was a National Socialist. I asked him across the floor of the House whether he was a National Socialist and he did not reply. Then he read from a book and told us all about the “Strength through Joy” movement in Germany. Has the hon. member ever seen anything of that movement?

I have seen it on the pictures, have you ever seen it?

Yes, I have seen it with my own eyes but some of those hon. members never travel. Those people who go on those “Strength through Joy” trips are herded together like sheep on those boats. They go round from Hamburg usually to Genoa in Italy and they live on the decks; they sleep in hammocks, and the conditions under which they travel and live are not very good. I hope we are above that sort of thing, and that we are not going to have any strength through joy movement of that kind here. When we have our pleasures we want to take our pleasures in comfort. The hon. member should try to find out a little more about this movement. Now, Sir, I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill. The Opposition, of course, are simply trying to pull the Bill to bits, but I, on the other hand, have looked at the advantages which this Bill is bringing. One particular type of person, whom this Bill will benefit, is the unorganised worker, and it is the unorganised worker who always works under the worst conditions and who always receives the worst pay. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) oppose this Bill. I remember him giving a speech a few days ago when he told us that the labour policy of the Nationalist Party was in the hands of the printers. Do you know it ran through my mind whether that printer was the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). That hon. member has been missing. It is self evident that the hon. member for Fordsburg has this “New Order” in his head also. I have heard it said that it is called Pirowitis, and I am told it is a very dangerous malady, and they tell me that anyone who suffers from this malady is liable to commit suicide, at any rate political suicide. Also the doctors who have studied this malady tell me that the symptoms of the malady are that people suffering from it have cold feet and are yellow. I am sure that hon. members over there are suffering from this malady, and then they get up here and they tell the country that they are fighting for the good of the poor. No, you cannot expect any fight from people suffering from Pirowitis.

You on your side are suffering from a swollen head.

Maybe, maybe, I would rather have a swollen head than suffer from Pirowitis.

Why don’t you go and fight?

I would go to-morrow if I were allowed to, but I have to stay here to keep the hon. member and his friends in order. I was surprised to hear the hon. member say that this Bill should go to a Select Committee. The poor workers are gasping for this legislation to go through. It is going to help the unorganised fraternity of our workers and yet the hon. member gets up and says that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. They know very well that if this Bill goes to a Select Committee it will not pass this session nor even next session perhaps.

Why not?

The hon. member asks why not. Surely he knows that perfectly well.

We have two months.

I am afraid the hon. member does not follow; he comes from Mossel Bay, and there are a lot of sheep there, and I wonder if some of the blood from these sheep has not got into his head.

Now you are talking nonsense.

I support this Bill 100 per cent., and I want to examine the benefits which this measure is going to give to our industrial workers in South Africa to-day. Under the old Act first of all there was no provision for paid holidays. In this new Bill we have four statutory holidays provided for, plus two weeks’ leave on full pay. A very great advantage for the workers. Another thing is this: under the old Act the payment for overtime was not obligatory. Now the Minister has introduced a one and a third rate of pay for overtime. Then he has also introduced the 46-hour week. The hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan) said that this was not going to be of any benefit to the bulk of the workers because the bulk of the workers are covered by the Industrial Council and the Wage Determination Board. He knows very well that he is talking nonsense, and that the only people who have special concessions conferred upon them are organised labour, and only those organised workers have been able to get these special concessions under Industrial Council agreements. The passing of this Bill will benefit everyone, and that is what hon. members opposite do not realise.

Have you ever read the Bill?

It was very interesting when the hon. member for Germiston North was speaking to hear that the workers of this country have found new champions in the Afrikaner Party. I remember asking the hon. member across the floor of the House, while he was talking about sick leave, how much he paid his articled clerks. The hon. member is a lawyer, and there are a large number of lawyers in this House. The hon. member would not answer me in the first instance, but eventually he said he did not have any articled clerks. For the benefit of members of this House who are not lawyers let me tell them what these articled clerks are paid. They are paid the niggardly sum of £3 per month. And then you get an attorney getting up and attacking the Government for not bringing in a minimum wage clause.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I was mentioning the case of the attorneys’ articled clerks. For the first three years they get £3 a month, which I think is a very low pay. I was criticising it because the hon. member for Germiston, North (Mr. Quinlan) was putting up a pathetic plea on behalf of the poorly-paid workers of South Africa. In fairness to the attorneys I should say that when these clerks have completed their articles they get £15 a month. I must also mention that in order to qualify themselves to earn the £3 a month they have to be matriculated.

I am afraid that all this is quite irrelevant.

Very well, sir, I will go on to something else. I want to congratulate the Minister on this maternity allowance. In this new Bill he is allowing that, providing an expectant mother wishes to go off eight weeks before the event, she can do so. The old Act only allowed her to go off four weeks before. I think this is a big improvement. Also this Bill allows that, where the woman is the mother of a still-born infant, the woman may go back sooner than the full eight weeks that she is allowed. That is of course at the discretion of the inspector, who will get a medical certificate to that effect before allowing it. The woman will be allowed to go back to work before she has spent the full eight weeks which the law provides. I think that is an excellent thing, because a woman may be earning £2 5s. a week, and why should she stay away on £1 5s. a week if she is perfectly fit? I congratulate the Minister also on the fact that this maternity allowance of £1 5s. per week which he has provided is the highest in the world. There is no other Act in any part of the British Commonwealth which allows a larger maternity allowance than is allowed in this Bill. The hon. member for Fordsburg took exception to this allowing of the woman to go back before her full eight weeks after she has had a still-born child. If she is perfectly fit, does the hon. member for Fordsburg want her to stay at home, providing the doctor has given a certificate that she is fit? Does the hon. member want to keep that woman deliberately at home when she can be earning her proper wage at her work? The hon. member said this Bill was badly drawn, and in all ways an unsatisfactory measure. He said there were two serious omissions, and one was that there was no minimum wage. He knows that this is a Factories Bill, and not a wage-regulating measure. We have our Wage Act and our Industrial Conciliation Act, which deal with wages, so surely the hon. member was not serious when he threw these two charges at the Minister. The other serious omission he mentioned was that there is no provision in the Bill for sick pay. Again, I don’t think he was serious when he made that charge; he must know that we have small and large factories, some of them employ three while others employ hundreds, and I ask the hon. member how he expects to work it out so that sick pay is only granted to genuine cases, how does he expect to control it? It will be impossible to control, dealing with the people that we have here it will be impossible, much as we would like to do it. National insurance is the better scheme. We are dealing with a class that makes it impossible to work out this sick pay on a sound basis. Then the hon. member said he would like a central authority to decide appeals on which there should be two representatives, one for the workers, one for the employers, and an independent chairman. How, in the first place, would he elect those representatives? If he is only going to have one representative for the whole of the workers, does he think that the engineering industry, for instance, would be satisfied that a representative of the tailoring industry were elected as their representative? The scheme he put up is absolutely impracticable. Then he said the inspector’s powers were far too wide. I see that power is given to the inspector to go into a factory, and if he thinks that a person is suffering from some contagious disease he can claim that that man or woman should be medically examined, and if it is proved that the person is suffering from such a disease the inspector can order his or her dismissal. Is that why he brings this charge? The last point is that the hon. member for Germiston North pleaded for a reduction of the 46-hour week, and said that that would not benefit the present workers at all, since most industries were working a 46-hour week or less at present. I want to correct the hon. gentleman. The only workers whom I know are doing 46 hours or less are the printers, they do 46 hours; the leather workers are doing 45 hours, and the building industry, who to-day are doing 44 hours. These are the only ones; all the other factory employees are working 48 hours. This Bill curtailing the week by two hours is going to apply to everybody, and I, as an actual employer of labour, am very glad of it. I am sorry the Minister didn’t go a little bit further and make it 44 hours while he was about it, because I believe that as much work is done in 44 hours as can be done in 48, if you have contented workmen and women. If we analyse the situation, we shall possibly find that the workers have received more than four hours per week in reduction of time. In this Bill they will receive four statutory holidays, and they get two weeks’ leave on full pay, plus two hours per week less which they will work. That gives a total of 229 hours per year which they are not working. If we divide that by 52 it works out at 4.4 hours per week, or nearly 4½ hours per week. We have got some people in this country who feel that a reduction from 48 to 46 hours will not be beneficial, but I am sure the experiment is going to be a success, and will be the forerunner of future legislation which will bring the working hours down to 44. I want to make a final plea with regard to this coloured question. Actually I want to see the coloured and the European separated in the factories where it is possible. I know we have industries such as the gold mining industries, where it is impossible to separate the Europeans from the natives, but in cases where the contact is undesirable I think they should be separated. And I think the non-Europeans would be pleased also, as they want separation as much as the Europeans do.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth), who has just sat down, is an adept at spoiling a good case. He reminds me of a man who is chasing birds and who is a real adept at acting as a scarecrow. But the hon. member is making a mistake if he imagines that there are birds on this side of the House who are so easily scared off. This side of the House does not take the slightest notice of what that hon. member says. We feel that we have a very good case, and we are going to bring this good case to the notice of the House and the country. The hon. the Minister of Labour in introducing this Bill was very much to the point. He created the impression that he tried to regain lost ground, to revive the principles which he had abandoned, and had renounced, as leader of the Labour Party, and that he was out to regain his former prestige as champion of the workers. I say that he created the impression that he had found himself again as leader of the Labour Party, and I wish to give him every possible credit for taking up that attitude. When he creates the impression that he is standing up for the workers of this country, I raise my hat to him, and I hope that the Minister will not only regain his former prestige as a champion of the workers, but that he will maintain that prestige in days to come. In regard to his friends who are to-day pretending to be such strong supporters of his, I want to remind him of the fact that the capitalist has never yet associated himself with or made common cause with the workers. Those same people who now sit with their arms round his neck, are out to put every possible obstacle in the way of this Bill; they are ready with their pruning knives, and they want to prune this Bill to such an extent that the tree will eventually be as they want it to be. They will prune a tree as it pleases them and in accordance with their own views and not in accordance with the intentions of the Minister of Labour, and the fruit which that tree will bear will not be the fruit the Labour Party wants to see, it will be the fruit of the capitalists. I emphasise the fact that the Minister and those friends who support him will discover later on that this Bill will bear the fruit of capitalism and not the fruit of labour. They are engaged on a process of emasculating this Bill. They are engaged on a process of destroying the original intention of the measure and to play into the hands of the capitalists. One or two things will be the result. There will be a crisis because the Minister will realise where his friends want to lead him, or failing that the Minister will be driven to a compromise. Of course we assume that the latter is what will happen. There is nothing but a compromise ahead of us because it is still the same capitalistic clique of old, with which the Minister is dealing with to-day. I want to remind him of the fact that it is the same old capitalistic clique which in years gone by drove him and his friends into a dark corner, when they were shot at by the capitalists in the streets of Johannesburg, and when his friends were put in gaol and when some of them were sentenced to death and others deported without trial…

All this is very interesting but it has nothing to do with the Bill.

I therefore want the Minister to understand, and I want to remind him who the people are who are taking up an attitude of such great friendship towards him, and I want him to remember how much assistance he can expect from them to get his Bill passed. I ask whether the Minister can deny those facts? He cannot deny them. They are the truth. And if that was what they did at that time who says that they will not do it again to-morrow? The Minister may look forward to a similar disappointment. I would like the Minister to introduce his Bill in such a way that this House will respect him, and that the Labour world will also respect him. Because to be chained to a pole and to jump around that pole pretending to be free means nothing. His capitalistic friends laugh at him and say “Come on, Jacko”. What a spectacle! This Bill defintely does not go far enough. It is lacking in many respects. It refers to a 46-hour working week; this is the kind of legislation which should have been passed forty years ago, and not in a modern world and in modern civilised conditions. I want to ask the Minister whether he was not at one time a champion of the 36-hour working week?

Yes.

The Minister admits it; many thanks. He is honest. If he had come here on this occasion with a Bill providing for a 36-hour working week I would have said that he was still the champion of the working classes, and I would have said that he was not tied to a pole, and I should have said that he was a man standing on his own feet.

Would you vote for a 36-hour working week? I shall give you the opportunity.

I am a supporter of a 42-hour week, and I am going to move an amendment in that direction, and I hope, no, I am convinced, that the Minister will accept my amendment and approve of it.

It sounds like an auction sale.

We say live and let live. Capitalism has always been civilisation’s enemy in this respect, that capitalism has taken all the life out of the worker, has deprived the workers of their health and has begrudged them their life. I ask whether a country is civilised if it is full of poor people, full of unemployed, and if those that work are not paid enough to keep body and soul together? Poverty undermines a nation’s health, and it is the duty of this House to consider which is of greater importance; the workers’ duties are exacting. They work under abnormal conditions; their work is such that it destroys the root of national life. It undermines soul, body and morale. This House is the guardian of the worker, and the Labour world in particular depends on the support and the love of their champion, the Minister of Labour. The Minister and his three members are sitting there in order to represent the Labour world. They are the guardians, and I can assure the Minister that this side of the House is prepared to support him, because we are in sympathy with them, and we feel deeply the cause they stand for. We are not capitalists, we live together with the workers, and we are anxious to assist the Minister to regain his old reputation as the workers’ champion, and when that is achieved he will not only have four members with him but he will have a great many more; if not, he will be weighed and found wanting.

He has a hope.

If he really takes an interest in the workers and if he co-operates with this side of the House there will be a revolution in the Labour Party. It will be a good thing for the Labour Party if he gets away from capitalism. There is one Department which may be described as a model department. I am referring to the Department of Education. That department has a 40-hour working week. Hon. members may possibly say that they have a 25-hour working week, namely five days per week each of five hours. But that is not correct It is a 40-hour working week because every teacher, in addition to working in the school, does three hours additional work in connection with sport and, after the classes are finished, in assisting the weaker scholars; they prepare themselves for their lessons and so forth. There we have a department which really gives more satisfaction than any other department in this country and that is due to the fact that the teacher is properly treated. They enjoy perfect health, they are inspired with energy, they do their work and their duty with pleasure and if that Department treats its employers in that fashion why cannot other departments do the same? Why should we continually have complaints? Why should we continually have calls for help, and a constant degree of agitation?

May I remind the hon. member that we are now dealing with factories.

I only mention it in passing in order to make a comparison between the educational world and the labour world. The Education Department is a model department, but what can I call the Department of the Minister of Labour—I might call it the starvation department, the slave department and nothing else. Forty-six hours work underground in some respects and other workers have to carry on their labours under electric light for 46 hours per week. It is the work of slaves. Has the Minister an eye and a heart for the interest of the workers? We are dealing here with industrial matters in which 20,000 and more young lives are involved. Young people who are at the threshold of their careers, who still have to feel their way, and who want to create a future for themselves and those young lives are broken at the very start; they are lost—those young people lose courage, they lose spirit at the very beginning of their careers and their future is destroyed so far as they are concerned, and this applies not only to men but there must be 10,000 soft and tender young girls in the factories. They are driven by poverty, by want, to go and work in the factories, and this 46-hour working week under abnormal circumstances destroys their young lives. Conditions oppress them. What are we to expect? Afterwards we find that we have a nation which is hopelessly deteriorated in regard to its health, energy, courage and morale. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to come to the fore and to tackle this whole question in the right spirit. The question arises whether these young girls are being treated in the way they should be treated. There may be cases where they are treated as they should be, but there are definitely large numbers of instances where they are being dealt with in an unsympathetic manner, and where they are driven by a harsh hand, by people who are indifferent towards them, who degrade and oppress them and who force them to lose heart on the very threshold of life. What else can we expect when later on we try to build up a nation—no, not to build up a nation but to destroy a nation, a nation which has lost itself, a nation with a dark future. We cannot take up an attitude of indifference towards the young girls working in those factories; they are the future mothers of the nation, and the future of the nation is at stake; and for whose sake are they being exploited? They are being exploited in order to fill the pockets of the capitalist. The life and the future of the country is being-undermined in order to fill the pocket of the capitalist. Is it fair, is it just, is it human? Our civilisation will continue to deteriorate while the people are being exploited in order to fill the pockets of the capitalists. We can tolerate it no longer, the cruel greed of the capitalists is being satisfied at the expense of our youth. A new world opinion is arising and we must take heed of it. In England, America and other countries, a new order, if one wants to call it that, is coming to the fore. Every country may perhaps call it by a different name, but in order to make the position clear I shall call it a new order which is to-day making itself felt all over the world, and what is it? It is the salvation, the protection of the poor man and the worker, and it is going to put an end to the greed of capitalism. An end has to be put to it. The capitalistic dragon has to be destroyed, and the Minister of Labour must help us. For the sake of civilisation, for the sake of religion a new world order has to come. There should be no poverty in our country. We should put an end to poverty, because to-day the assets and the money of this country are making their way into the pockets of the capitalists at the expense of the workers and the poor of the country. So far capitalism has held sway; I believe that nobody is more grateful than the capitalists themselves for the easy manner in which they have been able to turn the streams of money into their pockets. They know better than anyone else how to achieve their object. They laugh up their sleeves at the easy way in which they succeed in getting the money into their hands. They are proud and they are satisfied and grateful, but the workers are in the deepest misery and are suffering under the yoke of poverty and misery. Millions of money are made out of industries and factories. Huge dividends are paid out. The capitalists are getting richer. Is it right, it is fair? We are entitled to demand that a change shall be made; we are entitled to demand shorter working hours and higher pay. If these things are achieved more people can be employed and that is the only true solution for unemployment in our country. Shorter working hours mean work for more people. A larger number of people will be employed. In passing I want to remind this House, and refer, to one of the greatest employers of labour in America, Henry Ford. I wish hon. members would get to know the Ford factories better, so that they might see in what way Mr. Ford treats his employees.

Have you been there?

That does not matter, or does the hon. member want to deny it? But I have read books about it, and I know the details. We have the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) here, our respected Free State Leader. He has been there, and he assures me that it is a model factory, and he tells me that what I am saying is correct. If Henry Ford can look after his workers so well, why cannot we do the same thing in our country? The capitalists will have to make sacrifices, and we have the right to demand that they shall do so. An end must be put to the terrible poverty prevailing in this country. This is known as a rich country. We are asking for a minimum wage of 10s. per day for our factory workers. I challenge the Minister of Labour to vote against it. I further want to draw the Minister of Labour’s attention to the fact that provision must be made for the young people working in factories. Provision must be made for comfortable homes for them close to the factories. Is the Minister aware of the fact that those young people have to come for miles in order to be at the factories when the whistle blows? Should not the owners of the factories and of the industries be compelled to provide decent homes for the young men and young women close to their work? I want to ask hon. members to pay a little attention to the places where these young girls have to take their meals in the middle of the day. Whether it rains or whether the sun shines, one finds them at the Botha statue, or they take their meals in the gardens. It is not my place to suggest what should be done. It is the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who claim to represent the workers, who should see to it that provision is made so that the workers can have decent homes near their factories and proper places to take their food. We must pay some attention to the health of the workers. We see those children in the afternoon under the open skies, eating their bit of dry bread because they have to save their small earnings to keep their fathers and mothers alive, and to keep their brothers and sisters at school and to feed and clothe them. Is it fair that our youth should be destroyed in that manner? I want the Minister to give his attention to this. Those children need a home and a place where they can have their meal during the midday break, and where they can rest, so that there will be no need for them to sit about in the streets. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to this: he raised a number of matters in his speech, but he left out a great many things, many urgent points which he is aware of, and which he knows to be very necessary, were not touched on by him. For instance, there is the question of sick leave with full pay. Why did the Minister not refer to that? What does he mean? What about those people who receive very poor pay —what is to become of them if they get ill in the course of their work, and when they receive no wages during the course of their illness? Is that fair? Are officials of the Staté treated in that manner? Every official is entitled to sick leave on full pay, and why should not the workers in the factories be treated on the same basis? And I want to add that sick leave with full pay is not sufficient. The people who are sick must be paid until they are quite recovered. Until such time as the doctor certifies a person to be thoroughly restored to health, leave should be granted and pay should be given. What is going to happen if a child gets ill and is paid for only one month if at the end of that month the child is still ill? That child with its sick body is going to re-start work, because it cannot live without pay. It has to work to keep its parents alive. The result is that the child returns to work with a sick body and re-starts work, and the child’s health is completely ruined. Is that right? Should not hon. members opposite try and help this side of the House to do something in the real interest of those factory workers? We can no longer allow those young lives to be sacrificed in order to fill the pockets of the capitalists. Large profits are made by the factories, and they are well able to give the workers these comforts and amenities, and it is our duty to see to it that they do grant them those amenities. We cannot rest until that object is achieved. There are other amenities, such as free medical services, uniforms to be worn in the factory—that is something which is done all over the world. Those young people cannot afford to wear their own clothes in the factories and to spoil and dirty them there. Factory clothes should be provided for all the workers in those factories. I had expected the Minister, with his wide experience of labour conditions, and his great knowledge of labour conditions, to have come before us with a different kind of Bill. He comes here with a very restricted measure containing only a few things, but leaving out the most urgent and the most necessary things. Why? Is it due to the fact that he does not feel for the workers, that he does not sympathise with them? That we cannot believe, because it would mean that he would be renouncing his past. It would mean that he had never been honest with the workers. Why are these very necessary things left out? Why, we ask, does the Minister come before this House with half a measure? Is it a fact that he has already compromised with the capitalists? Just one final point in regard to industrial segregation. I listened to what hon. members opposite had to say, and to the objections they raised, but not one of them could put forward any practical reasons to show why there should not be separate working places for natives and coloured people. All they said was that it could not be done, but none of those hon. members produce any facts to show that these things could not be given practical effect to. Talk is cheap, but we want evidence and facts. Why is it not possible to separate the natives and the coloured people from the whites? We do not want to throw the natives and the coloured people out of employment. That is the last thing we want to do. They also have to live, and we do not begrudge them their work, and we want to be reasonable. If hon. members opposite want to create the impression in their Press that we begrudge the natives and the coloured people their work, then they are saying something which is untrue, but we want to put an end to this practice of mixing the two races in the factories. [Time limit.]

I invite the Minister’s attention to some of the representations made to him and others by the engineering profession in South Africa, and more particularly the profession in Natal. The profession feels that the omission of clause 11 in the existing Factories Act from the present Bill is unfortunate. I want to invite the Minister’s attention, first of all, to clause 4 of Act 12 of 1911, which says that the Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act in respect of or in connection with all or the following matters or things—

In respect of that the present Factories Act, as amended by Act 26 of 1931, frames this clause—

I would like to quote from a letter received from an eminent engineer in the Transvaal. He says—

I put it up to the Minister that when the minds of eminent engineers and the Natal Institute of Engineers are exercised over this omission, and that they view with alarm the omission of this clause from the Bill, then I think it is worthy of very grave consideration, because I find that this Act, almost clause by clause, deals with the powers and efficiency of the inspectors. I want to suggest to the Minister that at the Committee stage of the Bill he will seriously consider adding to clause 30 of this Bill such wording as may satisfy the engineering fraternity of South Africa who, as I say, view with alarm the omission of this safeguarding clause. It is a fact undoubtedly that the efficient supervision by officers who know their job has built up a feeling of confidence right through the country. We want to be sure that no one is appointed as an inspector of machinery who does not possess the full qualifications laid down in the existing Act, and I do ask the Minister to seriously consider whether it is not essential for the safety and welfare of workers in factories, that they shall possess the necessary qualifications prescribed in the Mines and Works Act of 1907.

I want to address a few remarks to the hon. Minister of Labour, and as I am directing my remarks to the Minister personally, I will speak in his own language and not in mine, so that he can follow me and not have to rely upon indifferent interpreting. It has been an old-established tradition of this House, a tradition of the old Cape Parliament which has been carried on in this Assembly, that certain standards of conduct are required not only from members of the House, but more particularly from Ministers of the Crown. That tradition has been set up by the old Cape Parliament and maintained by this Parliament, and one of those traditions, one of those standards of conduct, has been that when a Minister of the Crown makes a statement dealing with the work of the House, or when the Minister gives an assurance to this House, and more particularly to the Opposition, members must be able to rely upon such an assurance. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not expected to mislead the House in a matter of that kind. He may do so in regard to political matters, but not in matters relating to the work of the House, or more particularly relating to his own work, or to a Bill which he is introducing. Now what happened here? On Monday the hon. Minister of Labour moved as an unopposed motion that the order be discharged and that he be given leave to re-introduce the Bill. He moved that as an unopposed motion. It would have been free for any member on this side of the House to have objected. But before you put the question, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) interrupted to ask whether there was any change in the principles of the Bill. May I say before going any further that the Minister, in moving that the order be discharged, gave as the only reason for his motion that there had been certain mistakes in the translation, that it was necessary to rectify those mistakes, and for that reason it was necessary to come to the House and ask for the order to be discharged. The hon. member for Fordsburg interrupted to ask whether there were any changes of principle in the Bill, and to that the Minister replied, from his bench, that there were no changes in principle, and he went further and said that, in fact, the principles of the Bill were being accentuated. I think he will agree with me that that was what actually transpired, and I think that Hansard will bear me out. No objection was raised on this side, and the proposal was accepted. Now what do we find? On Wednesday, the new Bill is laid before the House, and we find in this new Bill certain most important changes of principle. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that only two days previously the Minister had assured this House from his Ministerial bench that there were to be no changes in principle, we find most important changes, the most important being in regard to the segregation clauses.

No others?

Yes, there are others, but this one is quite sufficient. This is the most important one, because we are dealing here with the most important principle, a principle which has been the subject of motions in this House, and a matter which has been an important plank in this party’s political platform, a matter on which elections have been fought in this country, a most important principle, sir, the principle of segregation which was contained in the previous Bill. When the new Bill is introduced, we find that section 24 (4) has been omitted entirely, thereby creating a departure from the most important principle which had been embodied in the previous Bill. The Minister has asked me whether any other principles are changed. Yes, sir, in Article 24 (3) the Minister’s powers of discrimination and differentiation are restricted. This is a most important change of principle. Another change, also most important, relates to the very last section of the existing Act, which says: “This Act shall bind the Crown,” whereas in the new Bill the section reads: “This Act shall bind the Crown except in respect of the activities of the Railway Administration.” This is a most important change, viz., to leave out of account the largest employer in the country, the Railway Administration, which has large workshops employing very large numbers of people. What, I am afraid, leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth is the fact that the Minister, in moving on Monday for the discharge of that item on the Order Paper, gave this House the assurance that he was doing it only because of certain faulty translations in the Afrikaans text, and Mr. Speaker, we are obliged to come to the conclusion that the Minister, in making that statement, was misleading the House. That is a charge of a very serious character. It seems perfectly clear that the onus is upon the Minister to satisfy the House that at the time he gave that assurance he had no intention of making these changes in principle. If the Minister is able to give the House that assurance, then, sir, I am prepared to withdraw what I have just said, but, sir, we will have to be satisfied. Here we have the fact—at any rate it seems to be perfectly clear—that the new Bill must have already been in the printers’ hands at the time he gave the assurance, and one can only come to the conclusion that the Minister, in making that statement, was misleading the House. One can only surmise that what happened was, as stated here this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, that in the meantime pressure had been brought to bear upon the Minister. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned here this afternoon that numbers of protest telegrams were sent, more particularly to members on the other side of the House, but also to a member on this side who happens to have a large number of coloured voters in his constituency. These telegrams were sent by coloured people protesting against this segregation principle in this Bill. A quotation was read from a newspaper circulating amongst the coloured people stating that when it appeared that the Minister seemed to be in favour of maintaining the segregation principle, the coloured community then appealed to the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the only conclusion to which we can come is that the Prime Minister then turned to the Minister of Labour and told him: “Well, you had better cut it out, there is trouble with the coloured voters”. That seems to be what happened, pressure was brought to bear, and the Minister of Labour did not have the moral courage when he got up in the House and asked for the order to be discharged, to tell the House the real reason for asking that the order be discharged. He did not have the moral courage to tell the House that he was departing from certain important principles of the Bill. That, sir, is the complaint which we make. I regret the necessity of having to make such a charge, because the Minister is one of the old members here, not perhaps in years, but in service as a member of Parliament, and I think we can say we have always had the greatest esteem, if not for him as a Minister, at any rate for him as a member of Parliament. But we are faced with certain facts. Having regard to the very short time which elapsed between the Minister asking for the order to be discharged and the introduction of the new Bill into this House, one is forced to the conclusion that the Minister was not frank with the House. I say, therefore, that the facts show that the Minister, when he made that statement, was misleading the House, and was not giving the House the true facts. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. It is an old tradition of the House that the members must be able to rely on ministerial assurances, and if the facts are as I state them, then the conduct of the Minister is a very serious lapse from that standard of conduct which we have always expected from Ministers of the Crown. Then I want to mention one other matter in connection with this. The excuse brought forward by the hon. Minister is that there is a provision in the new Bill that the Governor-General may, by regulation, provide for what is provided here in Section 24 of the Act. The Minister has been long enough in Parliament to know that that power given to the Governor-General is purely permissive. It is true there is a provision in the new Bill that the Governor-General may make regulations as to the conditions to be observed in order to prevent undesirable contact between employees, but it is a well-known fact that, although in many Acts power is given to the Governor-General to make regulations, that power is, in fact, never exercised, and I think we can be fairly certain that so long as this Government is in power, this particular regulation will never be put into practice. What has happened is that this provision for regulations was put up as a smokescreen, so as to provide the Minister with a convenient answer when he is charged with not adhering to the assurances given to this House, that there had been no material change in the principles of the Bill. I hope the Minister, in reply to the debate, will be able to satisfy the House, but it seems to me that, having regard to the very short lapse of time, viz., one day, between the withdrawal of the old Bill and the introduction of the new one, that a very strong case has been made out to support our contention that in this instance the Minister has lapsed from that standard of conduct which we expect from him.

I think it would be an impertinence on my part if I were to attempt on behalf of the Minister of Labour, to answer the very serious indictment made against him by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). The hon. Minister of Labour is very well able and capable of looking after himself, and I have no doubt whatever that he will reply very successfully and very definitely to the charges made, and will prove that the charge brought against him is, as I think my legal friends would say, vague and embarrassing, but not necessarily embarrassing to the Minister, only embarrassing to those who have brought the charge. It is very much like, if I may say so, most of the criticisms that have been offered on this Bill. They have been vague and embrrassing to the members of the Opposition, so much so that at a very late hour of the debate the hon. Leader of the Opposition had perforce to enter into the debate, and come to the rescue of his sadly stricken side. He was brought into the debate presumably to answer the strictures passed and the challenge thrown out to him by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). Although he made a very definte exposition of his party’s segregation policy, he had certainly not answered in any way the hon. member for Cape Eastern, he had not said what his party proposes to do once it has prevented the non-European from taking his proper part in the labour machinery, nor has he said how he proposes to deal with the effects of the policy which they put forward. I don’t for one moment dispute the fact which the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) laid before the House about certain conditions of affairs which he found in a particular factory. I naturally accept that statement exactly as he made it, but I do think it might be as well if he were to hand the particulars as to that factory, where it is and so on, to the Department of Labour, so that they may make an investigation into the whole affair, because I am not prepared for one moment to believe or to allow that state of affairs, as outlined by the hon. member, is in any way representative of conditions generally in the industrial undertakings of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that generally speaking the industrial undertakings of this country are conducted in a manner which leaves very little to be desired. I should be very glad if the hon. member for Piquetberg would allow me to arrange a personal tour for him round any of the factories in this neighbourhood, and I can assure him that they are all so very busy at the present time, that there would be no question of any window dressing for his benefit, and no altering anything of their ordinary procedure on account of his visit. I should be very glad indeed to do that, because as I said before, I am not prepared to admit, for one moment, the condition of affairs that he has painted as being in any way representative of the great bulk of industrial undertakings in this country. I do not think it is fair or right to base an argument upon what I consider to be one of a few isolated instances. The hon. member for Germiston North (Mr. Quinlan) based the whole of his argument on one unfortunate isolated instance which he quoted. I admit you will find black sheep in every family, you even find black sheep on that side of the House, but I say it is absolutely wrong, and the hon. member for Germiston North was wrong in basing his argument on the one isolated instance of which he spoke. I rather resented the hon. member’s reference to the back benches on this side of the House. After all, we have not had the opportunity of translating ourselves to the front benches by reason of belonging to so many parties. When he referred to the back benches on this side as “dunderheads”, I would suggest that a man may appear to be a “dunderhead”, and he may not be able to help it, while a man may suffer from a swollen head, and it may be entirely his own fault. But the chief critic on the Opposition side was my hon. friend the member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). He, of course, made an unfortunate start. He started by an unwarranted attack on the Minister of Labour, and he never really recovered from that. I would suggest to my young friend opposite that he would get on very much better if he were not quite so aggressive. There is another Ben in the world, Benito, who thought he would get along through a policy of aggression, and at the present moment he is in a very unhappy state in consequence. I merely make that remark to my hon. friend lest he also may fall by the way. He based his chief criticism of this Bill on matters which have no place in this Bill at all. He talked at great length about wage conditions, and matters of that nature, which are really entirely out of place in a Bill of this nature. We have very definite and very comprehensive wage legislation in this country, and I do not think for one moment that any of the workers of this country would like to see that particular wage legislation scrapped in order that wage conditions should be included in a Factories Bill of this nature. His chief argument, as I understood it, was that these things were done in New Zealand. Well, I may suggest to him that if he is so fond of New Zealand, he might go there and perhaps there he may be appreciated at his own proper value. But I would like to point out to him that if he did go, and if he expanded there his pet theory about the victory of Germany, he would not be at all popular in that part of the world. The hon. member might remember that his great friend and prototype, Adolf Hitler, has stated very conclusively and very recently, that gold had no place in the Nazi regime. I would like to ask the hon. member for Fordsburg, who apparently not only is the champion of the worker, but particularly, if we are to listen to what he said this afternoon, particularly the champion of the mine-worker, I would ask him what would become of his workers, indeed what would become of this country if we adopted his national socialist ideas and eliminated gold as a medium of exchange? No, Mr. Speaker, our young friend who is presumably our coming labour legislator on the other side, has still a very great deal to learn before he really can pose as a critic on these matters. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about the hours of labour. Personally I think the Minister, in selecting his 46 hours as a basis, has really shown a very sound and proper appreciation of the position. It is said by the other side frequently that the basis of the Shops and Offices Act should be taken. Well, there is a very great difference between the factory, and the shop, and the office, and you must remember this, that in the shop hours …

That is altogether different.

If the hon. member will allow me to speak for once I shall appreciate it. The hon. member has had ample opportunity. In most factories people have erected at great cost lines of machinery which may be valued at £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000. In order to get value out of that machinery it is essential that it should work to capacity. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) should know as well as I do what is the actual effect of not working machinery of this nature to capacity, and what the actual loss represented in money means. And, therefore, I say it is quite a different matter to speak of working hours in a factory and working hours in an office. A factory has to be kept going if the best results are to be obtained, and after all you must take into consideration your costs of production. They must play a very large part in every industrial undertaking. Because in all circumstances industries must be competitive and in whatever new order may be involved, and whatever arrangement may be come to, there are certain fundamental principles which one must adhere to, which must remain, which are hundreds of years old and which must remain no matter how much you may endeavour to alter them by artificial means, and therefore I consider that the Minister in making the suggestion he has made, has shown himself really alive to the need of the situation and has kept a sane and even balance—has kept everything on an even keel. There are one or two points which should obviously be considered with a view in some cases to alteration, and in some cases with a view to discussion. For instance there was a point touched on by the hon. member for Cape Eastern when she talked about the elimination from the effect of the Bill of products produced actually on farms by individuals. Whatever is produced on a farm and is to be canned we have to remember that canning is canning, and food is food, and if there is anything that has to be rigidly looked after and inspected, it is food which is going into consumption. Because I do think that no food should be allowed to escape from the provisions of this Bill, and it is very important that these things should be looked after. There are various other criticisms which I could offer, but I have been told that I must cut my remarks short. I just want to refer to the remarkable speech made by the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé). I wish he were here. I was very impressed by what he said, because it had the hallmark of truth in it. I find on the 26th March the hon. member for Potgietersrust, making a speech in the House, said this—

I saw no blush on the damask cheek of the hon. member for Potgietersrust, so we can only conclude that he must have swallowed the Nazi Socialist business hook, line and sinker, and it will not be long before we shall see him pirouetting round the country at the heels of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), seeking that peace which he envisages, should all he wishes for come to pass. But there can be no peace where the hon. member for Gezina is. Let me remind the hon. and reverend member that it is written—“Had Zimri peace who slew his master?” I am not going to say much more. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) used an expression which was new to me, but which rather appealed to me. He said that half an egg was better than an empty shell. That may not necessarily be so, because the egg may be bad. I am not suggesting that the hon. member for Mossel Bay is a bad egg or that he is an empty shell—though, judging from his speeches, it is difficult to say which he is; but I am using his words in reference to the Bill. Now this is not a bad Bill. It is a very good Bill. This Bill is a first instalment, and it is a step in the right direction; it is a Bill from which a great many people are going to derive a great deal of benefit, and I can only assure the Minister that I think that far from it being badly drafted, as the hon. member for Fordsburg tried to make out, I have it on the authority of many people who have dealt with industrial legislation all their lives that this is one of the best drafted Bills they have ever seen. And I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister and his Department on what they have produced.

We notice the holy indignation of hon. members opposite, we notice how shocked they were at our pleadings in favour of segregation in industries. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is one of those who is so shocked. He was a member of this House in 1925, and in 1925 legislation in connection with the colour bar was brought before the House. The hon. member voted for that Bill. The hon. member now asks what the Nationalist Party did in order to bring that colour bar into force by means of legislation. He tried to create the impression that he would never have voted in favour of a Bill of that kind, and he says: “We are now in 1941, and in this enlightened age we on this side of the House are asking for a provision of that nature in the Bill before us.” The hon. member for Troyeville put up his hands in holy indignation. The hon. member has a very short memory. What did he say in 1925 when the Bill to amend the Mines and Works Act was being discussed here?

That Bill was in force since 1911.

In 1926 the Nationalist Party introduced the colour bar into the law, and the hon. member in those days was a supporter of the then Government, and what did he say after the then member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger) earnestly discussed the question of discrimination in the law? The hon. member for Troyeville, who was a Labour member, got up and said—

And then the hon. member goes on to say this—

The hon. member clearly stated that if there was equality the white man would eventually go under. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said here this afternoon, and that is what the hon. member for Troyeville said before he got into the hands of the capitalists. At a later stage in the debate the hon. member for Troyeville went on to say this—

He referred there to the South African Party. The hon. member for Troyeville on that occasion said that the old South African Party Government was inspired by hypocrisy. They did not want that provision in the law, but in practice it was their intention to apply it. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) spoke about equality, but I am convinced that if it affected her children, if it was a matter affecting her personally, she would not tolerate equality. Would she allow people living on a lower level than her children to be placed on a footing of equality with her children, and would she allow them to drag her children down? That was the thing the hon. member for Troyeville struggled so hard for in those days. In those days he was a member of the Labour Party, and this legislation was passed in a joint session of the two Houses of Parliament, and the hon. member voted in favour of the colour bar. I notice that among the 89 who voted in favour of it the name of the hon. member for Troyeville appears, and now I want to ask him and other members opposite this: If they are so deeply concerned with the colour bar, why don’t they get up and remove the colour bar? Why are they not in favour of equality, of equal treatment in the mining industry? Not a single member from the Rand, neither the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), nor the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip), will dare get up here and say that so far as the mining industry is concerned, white and coloured should be put on an equal footing. Not one of them will dare do so. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) is sitting in a hornets’ nest there. He knows what the position is, namely, that they are talking against the colour bar while all the time they want it to be applied in practice— “but don’t pass it as a law”. The hon. member for Troyeville should not try to mislead the House; he should not come here and say that the Nationalist Party has never done such a thing as to introduce colour bar legislation. He was one of the champions of that legislation. I believe that the Minister of Labour feels his conscience pricking him. If he were free, free from any bonds, he would vote with this side of the House. When I was a young member I used to sit here and listen to the Minister while he was a front bench member on this side, and he was always an inspiration to me because of the way in which he fought for the worker. I am convinced that the sort of legislation which we want would be welcomed 100 per cent. by the working people of this country.

The tactics adopted by the Opposition in this debate follow very much on the lines of those followed in a debate a few years ago when the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) introduced an amendment to the Electrical Wiremen’s Bill to try and get the colour bar put in there. It is interesting to see what the Minister for the Interior said on that occasion. Here are his remarks:

The hon. members opposite whom the hon. the Minister referred to were the members now on the other side of the House who supported the Government’s policy when they were still members of the Fusion Party. They also fought the then Purified Nationalist Party. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) made an accusation in this House. He said that during the last general election a canvasser called at a certain factory in Cape Town where he was horrified to find a white woman sitting next to a native man and eating out of the same basket. I called out “Name the factory”? He did not reply. I now challenge him publically to name that factory, because if there is any truth in the statement he made then, the matter requires investigation, for not only does it reflect very badly on the inspectors of the Labour Department, who could not be carrying out their job properly, but it also does not conform to the practice in any existing factory in Cape Town or surrounding areas.

They are working in one room and at one table.

I can give the hon. member hundreds of cases of fruit packing hands where coloureds and Europeans work at the same table. One cannot help that, and as long as the economic position is as it is that position will have to continue. We hear this cry for industrial segregation, but have hon. members ever shown us the way to carry it out? The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon said that there were certain types of factories where we could put the coloured people, and others where we could put the Europeans. He did not tell us the particular kind of factory, nor did he tell us what kind of trades we could open up for the coloured people, nor whether he would include the skilled trades in his scheme. We want to know something more before we can ever think of going in for this kind of thing. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) associated himself, to a certain extent, with what had been said on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Rosettenville is a young member and at times he is rather carried away, or he would not have made the statement he did, because if he meant what he said in regard to segregation then he disclosed a colossal ignorance of the true position. Now, what does the Government’s policy lay down? This is what it says:

We on this side of the House stand by that statement of policy which was laid down first by General Hertzog and then by the present Minister of the Interior.

That was in 1938.

And again in 1940. We stand behind that, and we are satisfied that as far as this present Bill is concerned there is not going to be any sort of segregation. There are one or two other matters I want to refer to. They are not directly connected with the Bill, but they are connected with our factories. In the first place we find that in regard to industrial agreements out of 15 trades provision is only made in four of them for sick pay. I consider that this is a matter requiring the Minister’s attention. I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of making sick pay compulsory in each of these industries. The agreements are drawn up between the employers and employees, but I do believe that a certain amount of guidance from the Minister would result in better provisions being made for these individuals, and if that is not done I hope the Minister will be prepared to consider the question of some form of contributory insurance. Then there is one other point: It is laid down in the Provincial Ordinance that free education for Europeans and coloureds is only up to the age of 15. The result is that many children leave school at that age, but they cannot become apprenticed in most trades until they are 16. Therefore there is a gap of one year. Now under the new Bill they can be taken into industries at the age of 15 and I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible for youths, who are going to become apprenticed, to spend that period, between the ages of 15 and 16, in a particular factory having in view the intention of their eventually becoming apprenticed, and further to allow them to count that year in their indenture period. It would stop a lot of youths from following blind alley occupations. I want to give the Minister the opportunity of replying to the accusations levelled against him tonight by hon. members opposite, so in conclusion, I just want to say that the country is grateful to the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is legislation which has been long needed and the Minister can be assured of the wholehearted support of the whole of this side of the House.

I feel that the Minister of Labour has been very severely criticised during this debate. None the less so far as this Bill is concerned we can see that here and there he sympathises with the workers, and that he has made an effort to do something for them. There is a glimmering in this Bill showing that in various directions he is anxious to bring about improvements. If he had not been unfortunate enough to be a member of the capitalistic party on the other side of the House he would have been able to come forward with a very much better Bill, and he would not have felt as unhappy as he is feeling to-day. Unfortunately he is on the wrong side of the House and that being so he is unable to do what he would like to do. We know that the Minister is anxious to do something for the workers. As a woman, however, I none the less want to express my appreciation of what he has done for the married woman by extending the period granted to her before her confinement. It certainly helps, but I do feel that the Minister should not be satisfied with raising the allowance from £1 to £1 5s., but that he should raise it to at least £2. Hon. members should realise that during that particular time woman requires a great many things, not only for herself but also for the child she is expecting. She does not only need medicine, but also clothes, and the extra money would come in very useful, because those women work for very poor wages in the factories. A man, if he is worth his salt, will not allow a woman to go and work when she is in that condition, but very often the man himself is only an unskilled worker on the roads or somewhere else, and that being so he has not sufficient money for those difficult times, times when the woman needs more money than she does under normal conditions. I want to ask the Minister to raise the allowance to £2 per week. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) asked this afternoon why we objected to coloured people and whites working together in the same factories. She says that we housewives allow the natives to work in the kitchens, and that in our kitchens we work with natives and coloured women. That is so, but the hon. member was not born in Africa. She did not grow up in our country and she does not realise how strongly we feel on this question of drawing a line between white and coloured. She does not understand the position. She should bear in mind the fact that the woman in her home is the employer and that she is not on an equal footing with the native there—she does not do the work which the native does, she gives orders which the servant has to carry out. The position there is totally different from what it is in the factories. The position in the factories is that the white girls are on a basis of equality with the natives, and they even sometimes have to take their instructions from a native. Under the social movement which is proceeding in Johannesburg the white girls are placed on a basis of equality with the coloured girls, they have to belong to the same trade unions as the natives, and they have to address the natives as “brother”.

It is a disgrace.

Yes, I say that the position which prevails in those factories is a scandal. I personally have visited a large number of those factories; in a tobacco factory I found a native sitting in the very centre of a bench with white girls on both sides of him. He pushes the scale down and puts the tobacco in. He sits tightly wedged among the girls. I consider this degrading for an Afrikaner girl who has grown up to look down on the native as her inferior. She feels that she is degraded if she has to sit next to a native, but on account of the fact that she needs the money she is compelled to do so, and she has to sit alongside a native. Some of the mothers have come to me with complaints about their daughters having to sit and work alongside of natives. Nor can the girls wear stockings while doing their work in the factories. They cannot afford it, and natives are crawling about picking up papers and all sorts of things and they touch the girls’ legs—I will not say they do so deliberately. I do not think these things should be allowed. I feel with the mothers that it is a humiliation and a degradation for those girls to have natives touching them while they are at work. I want to ask the Minister, even if he has to do so at this eleventh hour, to amend the Bill in this respect so that a dividing line may be drawn between white and black. The Afrikaner cannot allow women to work with natives and coloured people in the way they are doing now. I also want to ask the Minister to give further consideration to the question as to whether it is not possible to pay people who are ill and cannot go to work, a wage while they are absent. Some of them are fathers and mothers, and they cannot afford to stay away from work. Even though they are ill they have to go to work because they need every penny. They continue their work and the result is that the health of those people is ruined, whereas if they had the opportunity of taking a fortnight’s rest on full pay—so long as they can produce a doctor’s certificate to the effect that they are ill—they might recover completely, and their future might be saved. For that reason I ask the Minister to take this question into consideration, and to give the person who is sick the opportunity of getting at least fourteen days’ pay when on sick leave. We have a provision to that effect in regard to the municipal council employees. If an individual is ill he can go on sick leave and receive full pay for a certain length of time. After that he goes on half pay and finally on quarter pay until he is completely restored to health, or until he is so bad that it is impossible for him to return to work. As far as factory workers are concerned we should have a similar system, so that the present position may be changed. I have been asked to speak only for five minutes and I therefore do not want to say any more on the subject. I only want to ask the Minister to consider these few requests of mine and to grant concessions if at all possible wherever he can do so.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the very short time allotted to me it is only possible for me to touch on one or two points upon which I feel strongly, but first with regard to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who challenged me directly. If one were to judge from his speech alone it would appear that we were taking part in a segregation debate instead of discussing a Factories Bill, so I do not propose to waste time on his challenges. But to deal with the Bill. And, to begin with, I want to add my quota of congratulation to the Minister and the Government for bringing in a Factories Bill even at this time of stress. I think it will encourage the whole country to find that even in wartime the Government have time at their disposal to pass a Bill of this kind, which will ensure the workers better living and working conditions when they come back from the war. It is at least an earnest intention to build a better post-war world. But while I feel this Bill is an advance on anything we have had before, it does not go far enough, it does not go as far as I would like. Forty-six hours is an improvement on 48, but I for my part would have preferred 44 hours. But inasmuch as the Minister has made it 46 hours, I would ask him to do one thing, and that is to see to it that there is a ten-minute rest interval morning and afternoon. Let me remind him that many of the industrial agreements, many of the wage determinations have a ten-minute rest interval laid down at least in the morning. The Minister knows as well as I do that scientists who work on industrial schemes and industrial fatigue have proved conclusively, overwhelmingly, that where that ten minutes break is observed in factories so far from detracting from the volume of work done in the course of the day, it in fact increases the amount of work. Then, sir, there is the question of overtime. It seems to me that an increase of pay from one and a quarter to one and a third for overtime is not sufficient, and it would have been better to have increased overtime pay to one and a half time ordinary pay. And in addition to that it seems to me that where work is done on Sundays and holidays double time should be paid, more particularly in view of the fact that the cost of living is undoubtedly rising on account of war conditions. One point concerns me greatly, and that is the maternity benefit. As the Bill stands at present, the Minister may not exceed a maximum of 25s. per week for maternity benefit. Now, sir, the Minister is well aware that inasmuch as a maximum is laid down, private members cannot make amendments to the clause, though I would like to move one, because that would increase expenditure, which is a matter for the Treasury. And so I would urge the Minister most earnestly to take this maximum out of the Bill. He would be pursuing a much more far-sighted policy if he laid down 25s. a week, which is an increase on the former 20s., but allowed himself the power to increase the grant as the cost of living goes up. As it is, he has laid down a maximum, and I for my part strongly deprecate that, particularly where the maximum is so low as 25s. In most countries there is no maximum laid down; it is usually in proportion to the amount of money the worker earns, and I would ask the Minister in this particular instance not to tie his own hands, and to leave the opportunity open for an increase when the cost of living rises. I want to object, too, most strongly to the power that the Minister takes to make conditions for this grant. A maternity benefit of this kind should accrue automatically to the woman worker as soon as she has to go off work because she is pregnant, and it should accrue without any conditions of any kind. The sum is paltry enough and for it to be overlaid by conditions is intolerable. The health of the coming generation depends on liberal maternity benefits and I hope the Minister will take the long view and delete conditions from this clause. One other point. I see there is no clause in this Bill providing for the compulsory reinstatement of the woman who goes off because she is pregnant. It is true that she is allowed four weeks before and eight weeks after, or it may be eight weeks before and eight weeks after, but there is no specific clause which compels the employer to reinstate her after she comes back, and I think it would improve the Bill enormously if the Minister would include such a clause; otherwise, if there is no guarantee for reinstatement there is no security and no peace of mind for the woman worker who goes off to take advantage of this maternity benefit which the State is now endeavouring to give her. Now with regard to sick leave, I think until we have some system of health insurance the Minister should, in the meantime, put in some clause granting the employee at least a fortnight’s sick leave per year. In my view it is essential. And now for my final point. I am one of those who view with grave concern the Minister’s powers of exemption. These powers, sir, if the Minister chooses to exercise them, can vitiate the whole Bill and destroy what is a factories’ charter for the workers. If you look at the clause, you will see that the Minister has power to exempt the factory owner from complying with nearly all the improved conditions of labour which the workers have fought to obtain for the last 50 years. You will see that the Minister may exempt them from complying with the 46-hour week, for instance, or with paying overtime. Or he may exempt them from factory inspection and accident prevention. The Minister may well do away with the power of inspectors, or he may, in fact, destroy the Bill. Now I make no reflection on the present Minister, but he may not always be in office, and I do regard these very wide powers with grave concern. I realise it is because of the war, but it seems to me that it would be very much better to deal with these powers that the Minister has taken here under the War Measures Act and the Emergency Regulations. If the workers are being given a new Factories Act, let it be a definite Act that Parliament passes, and not one which an ill-disposed Minister or his delegate may vitiate. Let the worker have security. It is his great need. These are the points which seem to me to be of cardinal importance, and I ask the Minister to take them into serious consideration when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am only allowed a few minutes, so I shall have to cut my speech very short. After listening to the arguments of the Opposition I have come to the conclusion that they are purely out to make political capital out of this Factories Bill, which I consider a great pity, because we ought to discuss this measure from a very different standpoint. I admit that there are a few black sheep amongst the employers, but according to the Opposition they are all black sheep. I can assure the House that employers, as a general rule, are against overtime and strongly in favour of a living wage.

Then why don’t they give them a living wage?

They do; as an industrialist myself I can say that. Industrial peace for some years past shows the good relationship existing between employer and employee. There is no getting away from that. Shorter hours than 46 per week will mean that the consumer will have to pay more. It is possible that the Opposition is in favour of that? As a matter of fact, in many industries we already have a 46-hour week. The Opposition do not seem to grasp the position of industry in South Africa, a young country like this. An export trade must be built up, and with careful administration there is every possibility of building up that export trade to the satisfaction of everybody. If, however, you are going to introduce further difficulties, there is little future for our industries here. Big industries have a general fund which provides for hard times and unemployment. The Opposition don’t know anything about that. I give you, as an instance, the printing trade. That industry has a fund amounting to £150,000 subscribed by employers and employees in case of bad times.

You seem to have forgotten to congratulate the Minister.

That shows that the employers are concerned about their employees. I do congratulate the Minister on including Government departments in the Bill. That is a very important step. You people never thought about doing that, but the present Minister has done it, and it is an important step forward in the Bill. I cannot congratulate the Minister on allowing farmers to have privileges that are not given to industrialists. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that there is no reason why the farmers should receive that privilege. We may be able to move an amendment at the Committee stage.

You have a hope!

I should like the inspectors to have power to grant overtime in the case of female workers. Very often when there is a rush of work, and if there is nobody to appeal to, it only makes it very difficult. I should like the Minister to give the right to inspectors to allow overtime when it is absolutely essential.

It seems to me that so much dust has been raised by hon. members opposite that none of them has made a serious effort to answer the criticism which has been levelled from this side of the House. Throughout the debate I have listened very carefully and everyone who has got up to talk on this Bill started off by congratulating the Minister. But as soon as the congratulations were finished criticism of the Bill was embarked upon. The result has been that we have now got to such a state that it appears as though the majority of members opposite do not know at all what the position is. That being so I feel it my duty to state clearly what we on this side of the House think of this Bill, what our attitude is, and what our contentions are. We have a Factories Bill with all its provisions laid before this House and we, as an Opposition, definitely realise the fact that our existing legislation in regard to factories, etc., is obsolete. It dates back to 1918 and we, as responsible individuals, realise that it is necessary now to introduce certain changes. We realise that with the progress which legislation has made in other countries in this respect the time has long since arrived for new legislation to be introduced in this country in connection with this matter. We also fully realise that with the progress of industries in our country it has become necessary to amend our obsolete legislation. To that extent we welcome this Bill which gives us an opportunity of discussing these matters and of putting these things right. I want hon. member to understand, however, that we are not satisfied with the Bill as it is before us now; we are not at all satisfied with it, but we welcome the opportunity for its introduction so that we can have a chance of discussing the matter, and we are honest in our intentions when we say that we are anxious to get the best possible piece of legislation we can get, because we realise that this is the opportunity, and if we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity we may possibly have to wait another 22 years—the last Factories Act was passed in 1918—before we may get another opportunity of discussing legislation of this kind. All that we realise and it is because of that that we feel that it is essential to discuss this Bill very thoroughly and to argue it from every point of view so that we may get the best possible legislation in all circumstances. Let us take note of the fact that all the speakers on the other side of the House have said, even if they have not said it in so many words, that half a loaf is better than no bread. I understood the Minister of Labour to tell us that this Bill was as much as he could get—was all he could get. That was the only arrangement he could make on the other side of the House—it was as much as he could get, and it was on that understanding that he introduced the Bill. I want to tell the Minister that we are not satisfied with half a loaf—we want the whole loaf—we want the whole egg, and if the egg is rotten then half the egg is also rotten. That being so we feel it our duty to see to it, in view of the knowledge we have and with the information from other countries at our disposal, that we avail ourselves of this opportunity to place a good Factories Act for this country on our Statute Book. We naturally realise that it is essential from the point of view of our factories. We also realise the attitude of the factories, but we say that the industries are there to serve the welfare of the people and of the country. In other words, if an industry is unable to pay proper wages and is unable to achieve something good for the workers in that industry, then there is something wrong with that industry. But what we shall certainly do is this—we shall endeavour to care for the poor workers. We have always taken the side of the poor. That section of our people has to be protected against capitalists and against organised money power, because we fully realise that those workers are not able to protect themselves against the financial magnates who are in a position to hire men with brains and knowledge, to further their ends. Those people have had no training, they are unable to stand up for themselves, and we realise that it is our duty to look after those people and see that they are not being exploited. And those industries should not be established merely for the benefit of the owner. It must not be made possible for anyone to exploit the workers in order to fill the pockets of the owners. Having said that, I feel we have made our attitude perfectly clear. All the members on the other side of the House who have spoken tried to make out that we want to derive party political gain from this Bill.

That is a fact.

Very well, those hon. members are entitled to their own opinion, I am not concerned with that. It does not worry me. I know that that is not my attitude and I am not concerned with what they think. They are always suspicious of other people. We realise very thoroughly that it is our duty to protect those people and we have therefore studied this Bill as thoroughly as we have been able to, and this is what we feel about the matter. One of the speakers said that this Bill had been very well drafted. I have been reading bills and laws for the past thirty years; it is my business to do so. I say it has been badly drafted, and I shall produce evidence, if hon. members want it. Let me at once mention one clause in which A, B and C appear twice; how are we to know which paragraph is referred to? That, however, is not a very important point. If the Bill has been badly drafted, it is our duty in the Committee stage to see to it that it is improved, and with that object in view we have moved—in order to get the best possible legislation for those people which can be secured—that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. I have already said that not a single member on the other side of the House has answered the criticism which has come from this side of the House. All they have said is this: “If this Bill is referred to a Select Committee it cannot be made law this session.” Apart from the fact that we have another two months in which to go thoroughly into this Bill if we want to do our duty and to pass it, the position still is that the Minister of Labour has no right to make that charge against us. No member on the other side of the House has the right to allege against us when we want to do our best for the workers by sending this Bill to a Select Committee, that that will be the cause of the Bill not passing this session. I want to remind the Minister that if this Bill is not made law this session it is his responsibility and not ours, because this Bill was submitted to certain Labour circles as long as a year ago together with all its principles, but it was made a condition that everything should be kept secret. That being the position the Bill could have been printed some considerable time ago, we could have considered it a long time back and criticised it, so that the Minister of Labour would have been able to have come before this House with a Bill which would have been more acceptable to all of us, or a Bill in which the changes would not have been so considerable that it would be necessary to send it to a Select Committee. Although the Minister of Labour knew as long back as a year ago that he was going to introduce this Bill and although we believe that the Bill has been in the hands of certain Labour circles for a long time, we find that on the morning of the day when the Minister moved the second reading, the measure was handed to us. I did not carefully study the first Bill; I did not study it because I was told that there were certain errors in the translation and that a new Bill was to be brought in. This Bill was handed to us on the Wednesday morning and the Minister moved the second reading the same afternoon. All of us admit that it is a very important Bill. It is particularly important, and I now ask the Minister whether it is reasonable to expect us, in view of the fact that the Bill was handed to us the morning of the day when the second reading was moved, to have been able to criticise the measure. We get the Bill in the morning; the Minister moves the second reading in the afternoon; is it fair to expect us to proceed with the discussion at once? In the light of all those facts it is clear to me that the Minister of Labour himself has been at fault, and if he has been at fault he must not place the responsibility on us. The House has been in session since January, and if the Minister had given us the Bill in January there could have been no question of our not being able to properly dispose of it. But he waited until the middle of the session, and now he comes along with this Bill. Consequently, I reject any allegation of guilt so far as we are concerned. I reject the allegation that if this Bill is referred to a Select Committee the fault will be ours if it is not passed this session. I say that the blame rests with the Minister, for the reasons which I have already explained. The reasons why we should refer this Bill to a Select Committee have been clearly stated by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). He stated clearly that we want a Select Committee to be given the opportunity of going fully into the Bill. One of the reasons given by the hon. member was that the Bill has been so badly drafted. As I have already said, we may perhaps make an effort to bring about improvements in that respect during the Committee stage, but the hon. member also said this, and he said so rightly, that all the principles contained in the Bill are not new principles. There are no new principles which are not already contained in some of our legislation or other. It is not an improvement on the existing state of affairs. The previous Government already introduced certain Bills, the Shop and Office Hours Law, in which the principle was laid down in regard to a 46-hour working week. That has already been adopted. It is not a new principle, and it has been said over and over again that where the wages and hours have been laid down under agreements of the various bodies a 44-hour week has even been agreed upon. The hon. member who lats spoke mentioned a few instances. The Minister, therefore, comes along with this Bill and proposes a longer working week than exists under certain agreements in respect of our factories. How can the Minister expect us to accept a proposal like that without more ado? The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) stated that that was the irreducible minimum. I can give him the assurance that if 46 hours are laid down in the law, then the working hours will in practice not be less than 46 hours. The employers will adopt the attitude that this House has decided that the working week is to be 46 hours, and the result will be that the industrial agreements will increase the number of hours, with the result that in certain cases there will be an actual deterioration of the position. The Minister told us that he would have liked to have had 35 hours, but that he had been compelled to accept 46 hours. That was all he could get from the Government. In other words, that was the compromise he had to make with the factory bosses on the other side of the House. He had to make an agreement with them, and he had to take what they were prepared to give him. What has become of his boast, what of his challenge? He told us that he had voted for the Government’s war policy and for its domestic policy because he was going to get a Factories Act, and this is the Factories Act which he got! I want to be honest; I do not like hurting anyone, but to me it appears that this Bill is the biggest bit of bluff that has ever been perpetrated on Parliament, and now the Minister is trying to justify himself, but he is sitting in the lap of the Imperialists, the capitalists. They have got him there, he can do nothing, and he has to do as they please. It is pathetic to hear the Minister speak. I have often sat here and watched while he was speaking, and I have often listened to him with pleasure, but I have never yet seen him tremble as he did when he introduced the second reading of this Bill. One could see that he was nervous. He continually had to look up and watch his masters on the other side. They were listening very carefully to see to it that the Minister would say nothing and do nothing which might cause them trouble.

Would you not have liked to have been in my position?

No, thank you. I never want to be in a position like that. The Minister says that the workers are not satisfied. I, too, tell him so—they are not satisfied, nor is the Minister himself satisfied. Why cannot he get up like a man and say so? Why cannot he get up and say “I want a 44-hour working week”? Now he comes along here with a 46-hour working week in place of a 48-hour working week, and the effect of his proposal is practically nil. The workers in the factory have to work for 46 hours a week; we feel that if a 44-hour working week were introduced, it would mean that something was given to those people. The Minister has now made a compromise with the other side of the House. He had to make a compromise, and now he comes along with a Bill which he himself does not approve of, and which he himself objects to, and does not like. How, then, can he expect us to accept it? We have given reasons why we cannot be satisfied, and the Minister agrees with us. He has to agree. There is no provision in this Bill for sick leave. The Minister admits that it is necessary, he himself has often proposed it. There is no provision in the Bill for sick leave together with sick pay, and a provision like that is extremely necessary. The Minister himself has always pleaded here for the introduction of a minimum wage. Where is it? He knows that we as Nationalists at the last election, in our programme of action, strongly pleaded for the introduction of the minimum wage. He is well aware of it. Where is it? And now the hon. the Minister comes and tells us that he had to take what he could get.

Don’t forget that you were in power for nine years.

I was not.

But your party was.

If I had been in power we would have had a better law. There we have those honest people sitting on the other side of the House. They come to us now with innocent faces, and they plead for two things, or rather they have put up two things to us. The first is that they say we were in power, and they ask why, when we were in power, did we not introduce the kind of Bill we are now asking for. The second is that they want to include the farmers. That is the answer they give to our criticism. They know perfectly well that there is not one solitary member on the other side who would dare to get up and move anything like that, and people who know anything about farming know that it is nonsense, know that it is impossible, but they put it forward because we on this side of the House represent the farmers, and that is their honesty! Look how they got up, the one after the other and said: “Why is it not being applied to the farmers?” They know as well as I do that no Government can do it, and they also know that it would be unfair and quite wrong. They know perfectly well that when the farmer has ploughed and has planted his seed and has finished his work on the land, he does not know what he is going to get at the end of the year; but a factory owner knows, after he has paid his employees their wages, and after he has covered his expenses, what he has over. He knows what his profit is going to be. We also know that if the workers in the factories are paid better wages they will be in a position to buy our surplus products. If we are able to sell our surplus products in that way, we shall also be able to make better provision on our farms. But there are two or three factory magnates on the other side of the House. I want to ask them whether they pay the people who work for them better than the coloured men are paid who work for the farmers. The coloured people on the farms get 3s. per day, a house to live in, wood and water for nothing; often they have a garden, and they get milk and sometimes also they get food from their master. Are they going to give as much as that to their factory workers? But they have the temerity to come here and to say that these provisions should be applied to the farmers; they want to scare the farmers. We are not going to allow ourselves to be scared by a lot of bogeys. We are old and wise enough to know what the position is. I must hurry up.

Give the Minister a chance.

Yes, I can well understand that the hon. member over there is feeling hurt. Now let me say a few words on the segregation policy. I do not want to say a lot about it. I think the Leader of the Opposition has fairly well knocked out the native representatives, and I do not think that after he had spoken anything was left of the arguments used by the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger); the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. C. C. E. Badenhorst) also showed what the position was. If the hon. member for Cape, Eastern, wants to be honest, she must not come here with that kind of nonsense. She spoke about the coloured woman and native working in the kitchens. Surely it has already been shown that these are very childish arguments. How can anyone with her intelligence use arguments like that? She cannot be honest in speaking like that. She pretends to represent the natives. She has often told us that she is a Socialist, but it seems to me that there is something lacking in the hon. member. I assume it is her balance. The other day she stood up very strongly for the capitalistic bus owners as against the municipalities. To-day she gets up here and has the temerity to say that natives, coloured people and whites should all be treated alike. We have the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit), who tells us that white girls and natives do not work together. I can take him to any factory. I have been in at least half a dozen of them, and found white girls working at the same table with coloured men. I remember asking an employer recently why he allowed it; his reply was: “The white girl sits at the head of the table.” It is the same kind of argument as that used by the hon. member who spoke about “helmets”. I asked him where the head of the table was, and he said: “There, where the white girls sit.” I then asked him how he knew that that was the head of the table, and he could not answer. The white girls have to work together with coloured people—they belong to one union, and they go out together. I would rather have no factories at all if it means the bastardisation of my people. I cannot imagine that the hon. member for Cape, Eastern, has so lost her sense of balance that she wants that kind of thing. I know that the native representatives are very bitter against us, and that they do not allow an opportunity to pass to show their hatred of us. The hon. member for Cape, Western (Mr. Molteno), never lets an opportunity pass to make biting remarks against this side of the House. The other day when we were discussing the question of a change in the name of our holidays he had to avail himself of the opportunity to be caustic. He said that the workers thought more of May Day than of Dingaan’s Day. Why did he not say Victoria Day?

It is not mentioned in the Bill.

That hon. member will do anything to hurt us on this side of the House. I do not blame him, but let him stand up for himself and let him say exactly what he wants to say. I do not want to say much more about segregation; I think he has made out a strong case and the other side of the House has not produced any evidence in favour of their attitude. What is the attitude of hon. members opposite? I know that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) has a factory himself, and he has said that he is in favour of segregation. He would not say that if it were impossible to apply it to his factory. Consequently they cannot say that it is impossible. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, North, (Mr. Johnson) stated that it was economically wrong and the hon. member for Cape Eastern also stated that it was not economical. They will use any argument to get their way. Let the Afrikaner girl be degraded as a result of this mixed working— they do not mind that even if it should eventually lead a bastardisation: they are quite indifferent. We have gone further and said that inadequate provision is being made for various other things. I am unable to go into everything. One of the things we object to are the powers of the inspectors. If one looks through the Bill and notices how often the word “inspector” arises, one finds it on page after page. On one page alone it appears six times, on the next twelve times, and on the third page four times. Do hon. members realise what powers they are giving the inspectors? The inspector first of all has to be a health inspector, next he has to be an architect, then he is the boss of the municipalities—the municipalities have not the right to consider a plan unless it has the approval of the inspector; then the inspector has to be a doctor. He has to decide how many weeks a woman is to be allowed to remain away from work after certain things have happened. He has to go further and is given the right even to determine the age of people. His estimate has to be accepted. Consequently he is health inspector, architect, the boss of the municipalities, a doctor, and also the judge. He notifies people and sues them and puts them under oath, and he does just as he pleases. He can have them prosecuted for perjury and put in gaol, because they have made an incorrect statement. He prosecutes people and in the seventh place he is also the Minister. The Minister can make over his powers to him, and the inspector becomes the master. It seems to me that under this Bill the inspector can be there as long as it pleases the Minister. Now I want to ask the Minister who is a human being just like I am: “Who are the people who will try to bribe an inspector?” Not the poor workers. The Minister knows as well as I do that if there is any bribery—I do not say that all of them will be bribed but they are only human and the Minister has enough experience to know that attempts will be made—the bribery will be done by the rich bosses, by the factory owners. That is the position. The inspector has power over the building of the factories. He can compel a factory owner to make improvements. Plans and specifications have to be sent to him and he can tell them what they must do. The factory owners cannot put in a door or a window without the inspector’s consent. The inspector can also condemn existing factories. If a window is put in which he has not approved of he can withdraw the licence. Those are the powers you are giving to the inspectors. They talk about Hitler as a dictator, but I do not think Adolf Hitler has as much power as the inspectors have. They have power over the life and death of those people. Assuming I have a factory and the inspector comes there and threatens that he is going to have my licence taken away, I am a rich man, and I stand to lose a lot, what is going to happen? Can the Minister give me the assurance that no inspector will allow himself to be bribed? The Minister has enough knowledge of human nature to know that there is such a danger. I shall leave it at that, but the powers given to the inspectors are too great. Now we come to the reasons adduced by us why this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I think I have mentioned very sound reasons, but in addition to that we have objections to the powers given to the Minister under this Bill. The Minister is given the power to exclude certain parts from the law and we on this side feel that the Minister should not have such powers. We can realise that if regulations are drafted such regulations may apply more severely to one section of the country than to another but we fail to understand why he should have the power to suspend the Act in regard to a certain section. Why should he have the right for instance to suspend the provisions of the Law in respect of a factory at Robertson? I cannot understand why he should object to coming to Parliament and to giving his reasons for taking such a step. We therefore feel that this matter should first of all be referred to a Select Committee. So far as the other side of the House is concerned I am afraid that not one hon. member over there has made any serious attempt to level any criticism except in regard to the segregation question. They just get up and congratulate the Minister and immediately after that they level a little criticism. But in view of the fact that there has been criticism from his own side of the House I feel that we are entitled to ask that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, but I should like to deal with the arguments which have been used by the other side of the House in answer to our criticism. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, North (Mr. Johnson) practically speaking was the only hon. member who made a serious effort to level any criticism. He said that this legislation was not as good as New Zealand’s legislation, but he said that we should bear in mind the fact that New Zealand got its first factory legislation as far back as 1887. That the hon. member with his experience can use the argument that because New Zealand started as far back as 1887 we must necessarily be backward with our legislation, is something I cannot understand. Our legislation should be better. We should build on their experience. But eventually the hon. member came along with another reason. He said that in New Zealand they had no poor whites. That is so, they have no poor whites there whom they can oppress, trample on and exploit, as is being done here. For that reason we cannot get the legislation which we want here and that being so we have to be satisfied with legislation which is not as good as that of New Zealand and of other countries. Then we have the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander). He used a funny arugment which showed how little in earnest the hon. member is. He said that clause 24 had nothing to do with segregation—that is to say the clause in the original Bill, and he referred to the memorandum, and stated that the memorandum was issued before the new Bill was printed, and he thereupon read out to the House that clause 24 was intended to prevent undesirable contact between workers in view of the spread of disease etc. and he said that had nothing to do with segregation. But he omitted to read the last few lines of the memorandum in which it was stated that clause 24 was intended to prevent undesirable contact between persons of different races or sexes. The hon. member conveniently omitted to read that. The hon. member may perhaps use the term separation or some other term.

It is a question of interpretation.

But you have not even read it. You only read the first part. That is the kind of criticism which we get from hon. members opposite. I do not want to reply to all the arguments used by hon. members opposite. I think we have made out a good case and there has been no serious effort made from the other side to answer our criticism. All we have had has been accusations and invective which do not help at all. There is just one further remark I want to make and it is this, that the Minister of Labour stated that he would never again have a private conversation with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). The Minister said that the hon. member had repeated what had been said by him, the Minister, in a private conversation. Let me refresh the Minister’s memory a little. On the occasion when the Minister spoke to the hon. member for Fordsburg we were sitting in the tearoom. Five of us were sitting at a table and the hon. member for Fordsburg called the Minister over to our table. When he got there the hon. member for Fordsburg said to him: “Look here, have you withdrawn your segregation clause?” That was said in our presence. All of us heard it and his answer was: “No, I shall never do that”. There was no question of a private conversation, the place was full of people. But apart from that we still have the right to go to the Minister and ask him to give us certain information in regard to legislation. No, there was no private conversation, it was in a public place, the Bill had already been withdrawn, the new Bill was finished and in the hands of the printers, and consequently there could be no objection to his giving us that information.

At 10.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 11th March.