You get yours from Hitler.

I do not get mine from a fool like that hon. member. The hon. member for Troyeville began in a nice way ….

After having yesterday described us as murderers.

He began in a nice way and I want to congratulate him on that attitude, but he should be manly enough to stand up and say that his information is wrong.

This is the first time that this has been said.

It has happened before that that hon. member endeavours to show that he knows more about Afrikaner activities than we do on this side of the House, and as far as this side of the House is concerned I want to assure him there is nothing subversive. We have always done everything in the open. We have shown that we work on an absolutely democratic principle, not like hon. members on the other side who are now laughing who are accustomed to put people in gaol under a military dictator where they have no appeal to the courts, and I say again to the hon. member for Troyeville that when he stands up here to impute motives in connection with the activities of Afrikaners regarding the way in which money collected by Afrikaners is expended for the improvement of the conditions of Afrikaans workers, he should make himself conversant with matters, and then he would not stand up here to make such statements, because everything that he has said is devoid of truth. Then the hon. member for Troyeville comes and pleads for that £500,000 that the mineworkers obtained. That amount is spread over five years. All workers in the country have received an increase in wages as a result of increased cost of living. The mineworkers are the only workers who have not received it. Where is that £100,000 a year going to for housing? It does not represent even £5 or £6 a person. I think when we return to normal times and when things become normal again, we shall have to reckon with Broderick.

Have you ever seen the man?

There will be a reckoning with Mr. Broderick, because this side of the House is convinced that Broderick has sold the interests of the mineworkers.

Will you say, that outside?

A man does not need to worry about that hon. member, because everything he says outside is untrue, and he is incessantly challenging you to repeat outside what you say in the House. He is one of the members of whom we take little notice. Now I come to another matter—a very important matter—in connection with apprentices. Last year we passed a law in connection with apprentices, Act No. 37 of 1944. The. Minister realises that we on this side of the House take a great interest in that Act. There was a lot of dawdling about bringing the Act into operation. Why did this occur? Was it in order to constitute a national advisory board? If this is the case we should like to know in how far the Minister is making provision for representation of the platteland on this board?

Are you referring to the Central Board?

Yes, it is a very important matter. We are standing on the threshold of big industrial developments. We require workers. Even today as a result of the policy of the Government we see occurring a great flow of lads from the platteland to the towns. You know, for instance, that a number of lads have to leave the settlements. They come to the towns to look for work. The result is they cannot be indentured under the Act and under the regulations that are in force because they are too old. How far has the Minister’s Department gone in the direction of granting relief as far as the age limit is concerned. The Minister knows there are numbers of cases where the apprentice must have reached a certain age, say his fifteenth or sixteenth year, to be engaged as an apprentice, but the new law provides that exemption can be granted and that every individual case will be given consideration by this board. To what extent have the provisions of the law already been brought into efect in order to provide relief? This is a matter on which a statement is anxiously awaited. We would like to know today whether we will always be shackled to the old system or whether new conditions have yet been introduced on the lines laid down in this Act. We should also be glad to learn to what extent the courses laid down as having to be followed in the various trade schools have received recognition by the various trades. I should like to learn from the Minister whether proper co-ordination exists in connection wtih their apprenticeship. This is a matter that occupied us last year. Numbers of skilled workers will be required, and we are very anxious to avoid the position arising of our requiring people in this country, and of their not being available, as a result of the apprenticeship system that has been stabilised. This Act however, made it fluid last year; no longer is it so stable. The Central Board may take the various circumstances into consideratoin, and we should like to know whether the board has already commenced to function in that respect. There is another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister; it is in connection with the fixation of wages in mills in the country districts. The Minister is aware how difficulties arose in Johannesburg with the big mills about the prices that the millers receive, and then the Minister appointed an arbitrator and wage scales were fixed, but those wage scales were made to apply to the smaller mills in the platteland that also had trading rights but these were retail trade rights, and the small mills could not continue to exist if they had to pay these wages. I, as well as others, brought this matter personally to the notice of the Minister. If these wages must be paid by the small mills that have trading rights many of them will have to close down. There are, for instance’, cases where four or five mills I know of will have to close down. The mills have only retail trade rights, but they also serve the public in general. The farmers take their quota of grain to them in order to be milled and it is absolutely necessary that the Minister should give a reassuring answer in this connection, and that he should tell us whether he will consider this when an application is made for exemption in respect of the smaller mills.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something about the treatment of native labour in this country. We are well aware that we have not reached a state of perfection either in this field of labour or in any other, but we are making progress. When we examine native labour conditions twenty years ago, we find that they were not as good as they are today. When we compare other native territories and adjoining African territories with the Union, and compare the treatment meted out there with our treatment of the native, ours is infinitely better than that anywhere I know of outside the Union. It is common cause that the Union is known today as a magnet for native labour, and why is it a magnet? Because they come here and get better wages than they can obtain anywhere else, better and fairer treatment, and in many instances better housing and social services. As far as our own natives are concerned, these get better education facilities here than in any other native territory outside the Union. Our Natives are treated as well as we can possibly afford. The point I wish to come to is this. The war is coming to an end and there are many thousands of English boys here, soldiers, from England, who are going back again one of these days. I have discovered that these boys are being given lectures before they go on board the boat. They are given lectures. Some of the lectures are on very fine subjects and I have nothing to say about that, but there are other lectures given to these boys about the treatment of the native in this country to which I take the very strongest exception

Who gives these lectures?

I can tell you, but I do not wish to disclose names.

Are they societies?

I will give the hon. member that information later. But there are such people who are giving lectures to these boys and the facts are being distorted. They are telling them stories which will do this country and this Government and its native administration no good at all. They are left with wrong and false impressions. There is propaganda going on. Apart from the old propaganda, the old stock argument to the effect that if a native steals an ox he gets five years in prison but if one shoots a native one is fined only £5. There is a more subtle and sinister form of propaganda. I do not say all propaganda is bad. I do not object to propaganda, whether it be national propaganda or international propaganda so long as it is fair propaganda and facts are not distorted. These lectures have been given to these boys, and the result can do nothing but harm. I saw one of these soldiers and he told me what had been said to him. I do not think that the other side, our side of the question, was put at all. For instance, these boys were not told that the natives in this country have a vote and that they have their representatives in this House and in the other House. They were not told that the natives had advisory councils and vote for their own councillors. They were not told that the native, even today, possesses some of the best ground in the country. They were not told that the native children in the Cape Province go to school and that there are more native children in the schools here than Europeans. But the other side of the picture was put to them, and this is the type of propaganda I object to. Nor were they told what our attitude is towards the natives. That our policy is one of honesty, fair play and justice and, of course, the code of Christian virtues.

Can the hon. member tell me what this has to do with the vote Labour?

It has to do with the treatment of native labour in this country, and I contend that it has something to do with this vote. Now, this is what was said about the native and his treatment in this country. That he is downtrodden, that he is a slave, and that in Natal he has to work 180 days free on the land for his master in order to be able to live himself on the ground; that in some of the mining companies his hands are tied for three days and that he has to lap up his food like a dog; before he leaves the compounds that contracts are signed by them ….

Are you reading from “Mein Kampf”?

No, this is what an English soldier who is on the point of returning to England has told me. These are facts I have got from him. He said that these mining contracts signed by the natives took 25 minutes to read, the contract being in very fine print, that the natives cannot read these, and contracts are signed without being read. They were told that the white man in this country does not do any work; he simply presses a button and the native does the work. There may be some truth in these things, but the whole picture has not been put; it is a half truth, it is a distortion. They were told that the native works for l½d. per hour and generally that the native is treated like a slave. I take very serious exception to these things. It cannot do the country any good, this evil propaganda. I hope that when these people give lectures, these soldiers whose minds are susceptible and capable of taking up these statements, then it will be seen to that the lectures are given by responsible people who are well balanced and impartial, and who can at least paint a true and fair picture of native affairs and administration in this country.

What was revealed by the hon. member who has just sat down is of great importance, and seeing that you allowed him to discuss it I hope that we shall be able to come back to it at a later stage, and in any case that we shall be able to have a reaction to it from the hon. Minister of Labour who speaks so much and says so little. I do not want to enter into that matter now. I hope that later in the discussion of this vote it will be touched on again. I should like to return to the question of the mineworkers, and in this connection I wish to say that the Minister spoke much; he spoke for a long time and cracked jokes but said nothing. We now know just as little as we did before the debate started what attitude he adopts as against the demand of the mineworkers for an improvement in wages.

Why did you not listen?

Perhaps the hon. member can now rise and tell us what the Minister’s attitude is towards the demand of the mineworkers for increased salaries. If he heard it, he is the only man in the House who did hear it. The hon. member is old enough and has sat in this House long enough to behave himself better than this. Why does he say we must keep our ears open? I shall sit down in a moment and give him an opportunity to tell us what the Minister’s point of view is in connection with the demand of the mineworkers for increased wages. We want to know it because in the ranks of the mineworkers a serious situation is today developing. The mineworkers demanded an increase of 30 per cent. in their wages. I said yesterday, and wish to repeat it again, that after we went off the gold standard, after the price of gold rose so enormously, and therefore also the cost of living, the attitude was adopted that apart from what the State gets out of it, the mineworkers should also receive portion of the higher profits made by the mines. That was the point of view of our Party. If that was the point of view at the time, it became the more justified as a result in the rise in the cost of living due to the war conditions in the last few years. The mineworkers put forward that demand; they want an increase in wages. Now one wants to know in the first“ instance what the point of view is of the Mineworkers’ Union, what the point of view is of those who are supposed to represent the mineworkers. I shall come to their point of view in a moment. We do not want to know just that, but we also want to know what the standpoint of the Government is. There is no doubt about what the point of view of the Government is. The Government is a capitalistic one. It aims in the first instance at protecting the interests of big capital. Even the member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will not doubt that because in his newspaper he is continually writing against the capitalists. I say we know what the point of view of the Government is, and that is that in the first instance they aim at protecting the mineowners, and therefore the Government will hot in the least assist the mineworkers to obtain an increase in wages. We know what the general point of view of the Government is. But the country and the House and the mineworkers certainly want to know from the Minister of Labour what his point of view is.

Ask the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), he will tell you.

May I now direct an appeal to the Minister of Labour that when he gets up to talk again he should not imagine that he is in a circus and that he should not crack all kinds of weak little jokes here, but that he should tell the mineworkers what his attitude is as the Minister of Labour, as the Leader of the Labour Party; what his point of view is in regard to the claim of the mineworkers for an increase in wages, and not only what his point of view is, but what he did in Government circles to help the mineworkers. And if there is a difference of opinion between him and the Government, let him tell that to the mineworkers and let him then tell the mineworkers why he is not acting according to his convictions, if it is his conviction that the mineworkers are entitled to an increase in wages. If that is the case, let him then tell the mineworkers why he is siding with the capitalists and not with the mineworkers. The mineworkers, through the Mineworkers’ Union for what that may be worth, made representations to the mineowners. At one time they even threatened to strike. They negotiated to obtain this increase. In the first place we have to deal with the point of view of the Labour Party.

What is the point of view of your candidate for Germiston?

The mineworkers negotiated through the Mineworkers’ Union. In those negotiations they evidently suffered a defeat, because instead of receiving the increase for which they pleaded they were sent home with their tails between their legs and were fobbed off with this so-called £500,000 spread over a period of five years for housing and other co-operative purposes. I say that if we have to accept that the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) represents the Labour Party, then we know now what the attitude of the Labour Party is.

He is vice-chairman of the union.

Yes, he is vice-chairman of the union, and together with other members of the union he simply left the mineworkers in the lurch.

I was present when a motion of confidence in him was passed.

What difference does that make? Here we have the agreement made by him. He accepted the £500,000, this alms for the mineworkers.

What did A. P. Fourie and Beyers give the mineworkers?

We now live in other times. I say that the Labour Party is an accomplice through signing this thing. They are an accomplice to the destruction of the just demands of the mineworkers, because this document is signed by the representatives of the Labour Party.

In spite of that your membership on the Rand has not yet increased.

Will that rude member please shut his mouth.

If the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) does not cease his interjections I shall deal with him.

It is no use saying that the mineworkers are satisfied with it. They are not. I have before me the publcation of the mineworkers, “The Mine Worker”, and here the organiser, Mr. Basson, writes an article from which it appears that they are not satisfied but were practically forced to accept the agreement. They are not satisfied with the £500,000, but bitterly disappointed. It is very clear that they suffered defeat in the negotiations. What does the £500,000 amount to? If one considers that there are 20,000 miners who must be considered in regard to this sort of thing—I do not refer to all the Europeans employed on the mines, but take it that the underground miners, etc. number 20,000— it means, seeing that £100,000 per annum will be made available, that each miner will receive £5. Just imagine that money is set aside for housing, £5 per miner per annum. Over a period of five years it will mean £25 per member. Have you ever in your life heard of the rights of people being frittered away in worse degree than that? Supposing that this money is used for housing. At £1,000 per house—I do not know if one can build on the Rand for £1,000—it will mean 500 houses can be built with £500,000. But there is not £1,000 available for each mineworker; only £25. This provision is childish, and how any person who pretends to represent the interests of the mineworkers could ever put his signature to such a document, I cannot understand. [Time limit.]

There is one aspect of the speech made last night by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) which I want specially to stress. She made an appeal to the Minister that the mining industry should be brought under discipline of the industrial legislation of this country, more particularly the Wage Act. I know the Minister is sympathetic to this, but apparently there are very powerful interests which are making it difficult for him to apply the Wage Act to the mining industry, and I think the fact ought to be known. In the gold mining industry the demand of the unskilled workers for a Wage Board enquiry and later for an arbitration was met by the appointment of the Lansdown Commission. Now the experience of that commission both in its enquiries into the wages and conditions of the gold mines on the Rand and the V.F.P. Company indicated to us that the only way in which improvements will be brought about will be through the ordinary industrial channels. Actually the report of that commission in regard to an increase in wages and the provision of cost of living allowances, meagre though they were, were not even accepted in full, and in the case of the V.F.P. company they were departed from very radically indeed. If instead these had been the determinations of the Wage Board that were put before the Minister his decision would have been a simple one, simply whether the determination should be applied to the gold mines or not. It would not have been a question of going before the whole Cabinet and then deciding, presumably on other considerations, to turn down the recommendations of a commission. The industry which has shown very clearly the effect of not submitting the mining industry to the Wage Act is the diamond mining industry; it was not the subpject of enquiry by the Lansdown Commission. The diamond mining industry on a large scale is largely concentrated at Kimberley. At Kimberley there are wage determinations applicable to other industries, to garages, hotels, shopkeepers and so forth, more than one determination, but they do not apply to the diamond mining industry. I have here a petition sent to me a few days ago by unskilled workers employed in De Beers workshops in Kimberley. It states they receive wages at the rate of 4s. a day. They are not certain whether cost of living is included in that. The petition reads—

That is incorrect. It is 4s. 9d. a day.

Whether it is 4s. or 4s. 9d. does not make any difference to the case I am putting forward. The fact of the matter is under the wage determinations applicable to little garages or shops the employer has to pay 4s. 4d., and I think the minimum cost of living allowance is 1s. 2d., so the little garage has to pay 5s. 6d. a day and De Beers pay 4s. or 4s. 9d. a day. That is my case, and it shows what happens if these big industries like the mining industry are not subject to the discipline of the Wage Act. There are other differences too. In this petition the men say they work more than eight hours a day, which is I think the maximum hours applicable under the wage determination, and there are other things like sick leave which do not apply to them. I know that De Beers has a hospital, I think a good hospital, but provision for sick leave when a man is ill does not apply. I know the Minister is sympathetic in matters of this kind, but I think the public should know that the big industries like the gold and diamond mines and the V.F.P. company, which is of course an integral part of the mining industry, are not applying to their unskilled workers what the ordinary industries of the country are forced by law to apply. By “ordinary industries” one does not include only big industries but people like small shopkeepers and garage proprietors. They have to observe conditions, certain minimum conditions, laid down by law, after an impartial enquiry by the Wage Board. I am not saying for myself I am satisfied with every wage determination, but at least where there is a wage determination one has the satisfaction of knowing the matter has been carefully enquired into. Representatives of both sides have been heard, and having regard to all the circumstances an independent tribunal feels that its recommendation is the best that can be expected from the industry. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) may be proud of a wage of 4s. 9d. a day as opposed to a wage of 4s. in the light of the rocketing cost of living in this country since the war, but I submit that is nothing to be proud of, and the sooner industries of this kind are made amenable to law like other industries, the better. I do not want to go over the whole long history of the controversy to which I now wish to refer, that of African trade union rights, but I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to certain other new factors which have a bearing, I submit, on the question of the right of collective bargaining for native workers. The first new factor in the situation is the publication of the “Workers Charter”, which was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), and which I may say I regard as a very fine and progressive document. The Workers Charter, under the head “Labour Laws”, says this—

That is what we ask for. There is nothing illegal in native ‘workers forming trade unions now; they can do that. But what they lack is the right of collective bargaining. The Workers Charter in line with all good Labour tradition, asks that this right of collective bargaining, as reinforced by law, shall be applied to all workers. Now there is another fact in the situation; that is the judgment of the Supreme Court which was recently given by Mr. Justice Solomon in the Transvaal Provincial Division, in the case of Baloi and Another against the Industrial Council for the Clothing Industry in the Transvaal. What that case decided was this, that a native worker whose contract of service was not regulated by regulations promulgated under the Native Labour Regulation Act or the Native Urban Areas Act, was an “employee” for the purpose of the Industrial Conciliation Act, and therefore had full trade union rights. In other words, it established what those of us who have been taking an interest in the matter have been contending for many years, that not all natives are excluded from registered trade unions but only those whose contracts of service are regulated by the above laws. These regulations under the Native Urban Areas Act do not apply to any African woman as far as I know in any case.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

In this vote there is one matter which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, a matter of very great importance in our industrial development. I want to put to him the question whether he is of opinion that the National Apprenticeship Board could not interpret the Apprenticeship Act more liberally. I think we all realise that the industrial development of the country will continue and expand and we will need men. If we look at our building industry which is being held back by a shortage of workmen, we realise the gravity of the situation. The point which I wish to put to the Minister is whether he would not consider shortening the time for apprenticeship in certain respects so that in certain respects the apprentice can finish his time within a shorter period than that laid down in the Act.

It depends on what the work is.

I am not prepared to say where it should be considered, but I think the Minister is aware in which way and in which industry it can be considered.

It is being considered:

We feel that with the expansion we must have after the war it will be necessary to train our youth as rapidly as possible in order to prevent the importation of qualified artisans. I do not need to say anything further in connection with that matter as the Minister has said that it is being considered, and I have the same assurance from the Department, that a more flexible interpretation will be placed on the Apprenticeship Act. I want to come to certain remarks made by my friends opposite with regard to the reform movement in Johannesburg, and certain remarks in connection with the Mineworkers’ Union. Having listened to these remarks, all I can say is that I have never listened to more people who know so little of so much. I want to warn my hon. friends that they are on dangerous ground.

And so are you.

I have never in the history of the Mineworkers’ Union seen any responsible section of the community who are so much against organised labour. I speak with authority but none of my friends opposite have any knowledge of organised labour. They know nothing about it, and the only representative amongst them who comes from a centre of organised labour, the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) must admit that there is no unity amongst them in the matter.

What about your own ranks?

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) spoke about it this morning. I laugh about that, because he is only partly the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal. There is no unity in his Party so how can he speak about organised labour? He would cause a split in his own Party. Before I sit down I want to mention a statement made by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who in toto denied that the reform movement received £10,000 from Mrs. Marais of Stellenbosch.

From the Marais Trust. You said the Marais Trust.

It is only since the beginning of that movement that the money was donated by Mrs. Marais, and it was received by nobody less than Dr. Albert Hertzog, who was then the chairman of the Nationalist Party.

Your ignorance is abyssmal.

There is also Dr. Neethling of Stellenbosch, who is also a prominent Nationalist and had a part in it. I speak with authority on the matter. I can tell hon. members who handled the money, Mr. de Wet of Benoni, an ardent member of the O.B. and a Nationalist. But since that money from Stellenbosch was spent, neither Dr. Hertzog nor Mr. de Wet have been seen on the Rand. Let my friends opposite deny it, because it is their movement, an absolutely subversive movement to undermine the loyalty of the mineworkers. They know it. I would like to ask them who is at the head of that affair, and I would like their leader in the Transvaal to tell us whether there is a balance sheet as regards the money spent. The miners at least have a balance sheet. Let me tell my hon. friends this, that at no time has the position of the Mineworkers’ Union been more financially sound than it is today. But my friends are not satisfied with that. They are not satisfied with the movement of organised labour. They want the miners divided. They want the same disorganised hooliganism which they have introduced into politics. They want the same occurrences as the shooting of Harris, the leader of the Mineworkers’ Union, arid the assault of Boshoff, by that Party. They talk about the part the hon. Minister should have played in regard to certain attempts made by the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines. May I tell them that no man outside the Mineworkers’ Union interferes when an individual matter is raised between the employers and organised labour. I want to state emphatically that their statements in the House yesterday and today, and their actions in the past in connection with the mines on the Reef and the Mineworkers’ Union have been nothing else but exploitation for political purposes. I want to read one or two statements of theirs on previous occasions. One is to be found in “Forward” on July 25th, 1944, where the following statement is made—

That shows the origin of the Reform Party. We go further. I want to quote what one of the most responsible members of that Party, the supposed potential leader of the Party in the Free State, said. He openly declared in Parliament in April, 1937—

What is it my hon. friend wants to encourage? Does he want bloodshed? Let me tell the House what their support means as he will never dare do so. This movement of the Reform Committee was supported by the Nationalist Party in order to bring about an industrial upheaval, and in order to undermine the Government on the Reef, and they cannot deny that. Since the Reform movement is of such a character, since its policy is so acceptable as expounded by hon. members on that side, where are the leaders of that movement? Where is Mr. McDonald, secretary of the Action Committee? Where is Mr. de Villiers. [Time limit.]

Yesterday afternoon I concluded by referring to the unfortunate episode in connection with Hugo. De Wit was a prominent member of the Reform movement. Today we have in our possession a sworn statement in which he affirms that it is a subversive organisation with which he can no longer work. We have a similar affidavit from Simon Schoeman and another from Christiaan Boshoff and still another affidavit sworn before me by A. W. McDonald. I turn now to those “Dear friends and listeners in South Africa.” That letter “Dear Ou Baas” is nothing else than so many perversions of the truth. I go back a little, some years ago, when such an outcry was made against the management of the Mineworkers’ Union because the subscription was doubled from 2s. 6d. to 5s. with the object of being able to pay out £100 to the widows of miners who had died. At that time considerable agitation was made on the matter. I have the balance sheet before me which shows that last year the sum of £9,400 was paid out of the funds to 94 widows of deceased miners, 59 of them with Afrikaans names. From the balance sheet is appears—

It yielded £5,272 more, while the sum of £9,400 was paid out to these widows. I also have before me the auditor’s report declaring that the balance sheet gives a true reflection of the position on the 31st December, 1944. The big factor actuating the Nationalist Party in trying to obtain control of the Mineworkers’ Union is that their balance sheet today is so favourable. It shows a credit of £161,000. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has had something to say about the housing scheme, but unfortunately he is not acquainted with the position. I want to point out to him that with this sum of £500,000 houses can be bought to a value of £4,000,000, but in his ignorance he tries to make out that houses cannot be built with that money. If hon. members go to the Mineworkers’ Union and ask Mr. Broderick they may perhaps be able to learn something about the organisation of trade unions. I do not propose to give a long review this afternoon because I understand this is the last opportunity I shall have to talk, but I want to return to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). After he spoke here and after I spoke, I had another interview with Mr. Broderick and affidavits are available to substantiate what I have stated here. Affidavits are also available that Broderick challenged the hon. member for Swellendam to come outside and repeat the abusive term and he would then knock his head off. It is unnecessary to add that the hon. member did not accept the invitation. He had to run back here in order to make an attack on Broderick shielded by the privilege of this House. He was also obliged to apologise for the filthy language he used in the Lobby in the presence of a lady. I want to turn to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). He said that the mineworkers had received no increase of wages or increased cost of living allowances since 1934. The mineworkers have received an increase based on £1 1s. a day since 1934, representing an increase of about 29 per cent. These members do not know about it. I cannot be annoyed with them because they do not know anything about these people nor are they prepared to learn. He spoke about five miners who were thrown out of their jobs on account of their having been suspended as members of the Mineworkers’ Union. I should very much like him to mention the names of those five men. As far as concerns the statements of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) in reference to the agreement with the Chamber of Mines that there will be no pressure for a further increase until there is a drastic change in the position of the mining industry, or in the conditions of work as a whole, I would just say for the information of the hon. member that this agreement was entered into by Harris as far back as 1934, and nothwitrstanding the agreement on every subsequent occasion an improvement was secured by negotiation. The hon. member has accused me of having sold the mineworkers. That is also something he will not repeat outside. I want to tell the hon. member that it was just to that extent I sold the miners to the Chamber of Mines as he sold the dental mechanics to the dentists. The attack on Broderick is to be accounted for by nothing else than it being a case of sour grapes to those hon. members. I want to remind them that the last election that occurred on the Witwatersrand was under the supervision of the Department of Labour, and Broderick obtained more votes than the four candidates who opposed him for the post of “trustee” of the Mineworkers’ Union. So long as the Mineworkers’ Union was poor and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) had to ride round on his push-bike to collect subscriptions, sometimes having to wait three or four months for his salary, those hon. members did not display any anxiety to assist the Mineworkers’ Union, and while the Afrikaner girls were earning 10s. and 15s. a week—until Solly Sachs helped them— they took no interest in those girls. [Time limit.]

. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) that the point that he desires to have information upon, namely the consideration of the possibility of shortening the period of apprenticeship and other matters incidental to putting forth, as we should do, excellently trained artisans in this country has already had attention at the hands of the Department and the Apprenticeship Board which has been instituted under the Apprenticeship Act, to which the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has directed his rather painful attention. That board has been set up and adequate representation of the countryside is already on it.

Who are they?

I had better tell the hon. member the composition of the board straight away. As my hon. friend knows, the headings of appointment or representation are already enshrined in the Act itself. It is as follows: Representing technical education: Members, Dr. G. W. Eybers, L. W. Logie; alternate J. Moylen; to represent rural interests, Mr. S. J. Lombard and Mr. H. A. J. Wium. Alternates, Maj. E. W. Hunt and R. F. Camphor. They were nominated by the South African Agricultural Union. Then we have persons with special knowledge of apprenticeship matters, Mr. L. H. Badham and Mr. R. Glastonbury; alternates, R. Allister and J. Calder, all well-known names. To represent employers’ and employees’ organisations, Mr. J. W. Capstick and H. F. Tyler; alternates, C. H. Crompton and W. S. Carr. They have been charged with the responsibility of examining the whole field of apprenticeship. There was something else the hon. member said. When he referred to hon. members on that side of the House he took them to task for their interest in the internal affairs of the Mineworkers’ Union, an interest which, as the hon. member points out, is highly suspicious. Is it intended to improve the lot of the mineworkers? As I pointed out in the beginning, their sole object is to drive a wedge between the workers in order that they may—which is highly improbable— benefit from the division resulting therefrom. Is the sinister influence confined to mineworkers? No, some other member on that side of the House has already said: We will start with the mineworkers, we will continue with the garment workers, and then we will do our very best to intrude ourselves into the other unions elsewhere. With what object? Do we see them appearing on the public platforms and arguing with the employers for an improvement of the lot of the workers? No, we have lip service. Do not we remember not so very long ago when a meeting was held ostensibly under the auspices of the church? There was Mr. S. P. van der Walt, a predikant, and he urged upon the meeting to get a footing in the Garment Workers’ Union and to carry out a lightning strike, but not to let it appear that the Nationalist Party were behind this matter. Subsequently as a result of that there was trouble. The Garment Workers’ Union called a meeting of its members. They took the City Hall in Johannesburg, and what happened? The Rev. Du Preez, the Rev. Nicol (I think) and three predikants of a similar kidney who somehow or other are tied up with the Nationalist Party, were all present and tried to break up the meeting, and they posed as country innocents, till someone kicked one of them on the shins. When a predikant steps down from a pulpit he resigns the protection of his cloth, and when he intervenes in commercial life then he must take the knocks of the profit-maker. Now I am coming to the same S. P. van der Walt. His name appears on the letterheads as a director of a certain “Klere Fabriek”. So he has a dual personality. We have to look up to him on Sunday and all the week he bleeds the workers, and when the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) accuses me of not having done something in the interests of the workers his heart bleeds also, and all their hearts bleed! Why do they not practise what they preach? This Van der Walt is a predikant, he is a director of this particular garment factory and he is a local organiser of the Nationalist Party.

Why do you not practise what you preach?

I do not go in for sharp practice like you.

On a point of order, apart from all the offensiveness to which we have listened, the Minister of Labour has just said: “I do not go in for sharp practice like you.” I should like to know, quite apart from whether it becomes a Minister, whether he is permitted to say that?

I said it and I withdraw it at once. Why do they not practise what they preach? Note the association of Van der Walt with the Nationalist Party on the one hand, and the association of Van der Walt, the predikant, with a particular garment factory on the other. Why are these hon. members worrying about the mineworkers not having more money, and they have infinitely more money—and they should—than the garment workers are getting? I have here a list ….

If you say that Van der Walt is an organiser of the Nationalist Party it is a deliberate untruth.

I say it is true.

I say it is a deliberate untruth.

Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I said that deliberately so that I might explain. On a point of explanation I want to say that what the Minister has said is absolutely untrue. I withdraw my remark, but I do not want the people in the gallery to go away under the impression that that was true.

Shame.

The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.

I am afraid these hon. gentlemen are suffering from irritation of the skin. Now I call upon the Nationalist Party as a whole to help me protect the garment workers against Van der Walt, because Van der Walt’s company has had to pay out the following cheques for underpayment to their workers, and the Garment Workers’ Union forced them to pay. Let me read some of the names of these women: M. Eveling £1 13s. 6d. underpayment W. Prinsloo £2 3s. 2d. underpayment, H. Á. Walters £12 2s. 1d., T. Shellich £7 6s. 7d. These are all Afrikaner girls—the “dogters” they are making such a song about. There are others: E. J. Breytenbach £11 13s. 6d., C. van Rensburg £2 13s. 1d., E. de Beer £9 Os. 10d., and as a result of a demand by the Garment Workers’ Union £43 3s. 7d. to that body. Let us go on. Van der Walt is a shining light in this particular concern. That is the predikant. Here are some more names. L. Louw—that is the first man—18s. 4d., Botes £1 3s. 11d., Johnson 2s. 4d., J. S. Kruger £1 10s. 0d., Du Plessis £2 8s. 0d., J. du Plessis £2 13s. 5d. And so it goes on. Here is the list at the disposal of any hon. member who desires to see it. How interested those hon. members are in the workers of this country ! How concerned they are in the “seuns’-’ and “dogters” of South Africa.

Shame.

Shame! Why, they are covered with everlasting glory as the result of their efforts of today on behalf of the unfortunate members of the Mineworkers’ Union. Let me reinforce the point made by my hon. friend the hon. member for North East Rand, when ne points out that three of the most important, most active and most influential members of what is now known as the Action Committee, formerly called the Reformers—they altered the nomenclature because their name was beginning to smell in the nostrils of their people—Kraft, De Villiers and McDonald, who was the secretary of the organisation—came to see me with others, and the three men came to see me not in order to compose their differences, not in order that they might clean up the administration of their association, but to make it impossible for that organisation to carry on. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Cabinet pudding.

Not in their case. It was sour dough. They met me and were almost eloquent. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) was present on that occasion. They urged me to do anything and everything possible to compose their differences. I said to them: The best thing I can do, I cannot interefere but I can operate as a sort of mediator, and the best thing I can do is to arrange a meeting between you gentlemen here and the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union. They agreed to that. I then saw the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union. Now, that executive of the Mineworkers’ Union said that they would be prepared to meet the Action Committee, any day, a any time and at any place to meet the convenience of the Action Committee. I sent that agreement to the Action Committee at the address they had given me. They did not answer. Later on they had the impertinence to write to me and to ask me what I was doing about it as they had received nothing. That was in the best Nationalist style.

Do not repeat yourself. You said that yesterday. You are getting old.

I wrote to them again and transmitted the offer of the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union. They wrote back and said they were very disappointed as they had hoped I would order the other people to do something. It must be evident to any right-thinking person that the object of that Action Committee was not to improve the administration of the Mineworkers’ Union, because that administration has been improved a thousandfold since the trouble to which reference was made by hon. members opposite and since the commission investigated the circumstances, and their reports were given effect to. Hon. members on that side are fishing in muddy water, and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) the follower of Isaac Walton, who started out on a fishing expedition’ this morning, was very anxious to know what was the relationship between myself, the Acting Prime Minister and other colleagues of ours in the Cabinet. He does not care what the relationship is. He wants a split. He wants a split both in the Mineworkers’ Union and in the Cabinet. I have satisfied the hon. member’s curiosity. The relationship between myself and my colleagues is good.

The relationship is that you are merely a bootblack.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 11th May.