I move—

The purpose of this Bill is in the first place to give effect to the taxation proposal in regard to excise duty on beer and stout to which the House gave its approval after discussion in Committee of Ways and Means. Provision is made for this in Clause 4 of, the Bill. On previous occasions I have explained the proposal and it is unnecessary to add anything to that at this stage. Furthermore there are three other isolated matters which are covered by this Bill. The first matter is dealt with in Clause 1 (3) of the Bill. The purpose of this provision is to obtain a more efficient control over the production of yeast. Our intention is to give the Commissioner of Customs and Excise the power to determine the quantity of yeast that shall be manufactured. This is necessary in order to make certain that no unnecessary surpluses can be manufactured which might be used for the brewing of skokian and other similar concoctions. The second matter is dealt with in Clause 2. This makes provision for a minor amendment of Section 76 of the principal Act of 1942, which deals with rebates and refunds of excise duty in cases of loss or damage. The result of the acceptance of this amendment will be that persons who are entitled to full compensation from other sources and come to a settlement with the other party, will not be able to receive compensation also from the Department of Customs and Excise. Furthermore there is still one clause in the Bill to which I wish to refer, viz. Clause 5. This clause deals with the rebate of excise duty of 2s. 6d. on brandy which has been matured for a certain period. Usually this provision applies where the maturation period is not less than three years. In view, however, of the increased demand for brandy during the past few years, it was found necessary to temporarily reduce this period to 2½ years, and as the circumstances in this connection have not yet changed it is proposed to extend the temporary assistance by also making it applicable to brandies which have been distilled during the years 1943 and 1944. These are the only matters of importance in this Bill.

As far as the provision in regard to yeast is concerned I believe that we will all agree that it is very necessary. I only feel that the Minister should have taken wider powers in regard to this matter. The use of yeast for the production of skokian makes it impossible for the police to exercise proper control. If the police raid a location and find a place where kaffir beer is being brewed and if they destroy the kaffir beer, it takes days before the people can produce another supply. As far as skokian is concerned, however, they have found out that if they add carbide, the process only takes four hours. It will be seen therefore that when the police come along and destroy this skokian, the people concerned can have another supply ready within four hours. For that reason it is essential that the use of yeast for this purpose be properly controlled and I think that the Minister could have taken wider powers in regard thereto. I understand that the use of yeast for that purpose is very great. Somebody who dealt with this problem on the Rand told me that from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent, of the yeast produced is being bought for that purpose. This is a very high percentage and a very large quantity. In any case, I think that more control is necessary. That is the purpose of this Bill and I hope that the Minister will succeed in reducing drunkenness due to skokian. When natives or coloured people are drunk it is very easy to say that the wine farmers and their product are to blame for it, but nobody says that is due to the skokian which the people themselves manufacture. For that reason we welcome all measures which improve the control and for that reason I am in favour of the principle embodied in this Bill. One cannot say much about the remainder of the Bill. I found it difficult to follow the Minister in regard to the “full compensation” dealt with in Clause 2 of this Bill. As I read it, it looks to me, to give an example, when one sends spirits by train and when owing to the handling on the train," the spirits leak out, one can receive a refund for the excise duty on that liquor. In the past the position was that when one could not get full compensation from the railways, one could still demand a full refund of the excise duty. Now, however, one must be entitled to full compensation, as otherwise one cannot claim a refund of the amount of excise duty. I consider, however that this is not a very important matter and that it is not necessary to spend the time of the House on discussing it. The actual reason why I got up was to talk about the rebate given in connection with matured brandy. There was a time when there was a shortage of brandy, when it was feared that the Government would not receive its full amount of excise duty or that there would not be sufficient brandy and for that reason the period was then reduced to three and a half years. The refund was 1s. per gallon per year, and when this was reduced to three and a half years the refund had to be brought down to 2s. 6d. I would like the Minister to understand that it is the desire of the wine farmers that the product which we sell should not only be potable but that it should be of good quality and I think that the Minister is going a little bit too far. I do not want to quarrel about it but I think that if he had made the provision for 1943 only it would have been sufficient. The war will be over and we can assume that the consumption will decrease. Now the Minister has also included 1944. Well we better leave it at that, but I should like the Minister to realise fully that the idea of the rebate is to obtain a matured brandy which is the best on the market. It is quite true that some experts maintain that particular brandies may improve more in two and a half years than other brandies in three years. That is quite true. But we should like to see that only the best brandy comes on the market. We should like to see that the one-quarter of brandy which now has to be three years old should be five years old. If the Minister were to allow the rebate for more than three years it would mean a step in the right direction. The Minister can give effect to that and he would thereby assist in the improvement of our product. The Minister said that he would go into the matter and see whether it can be done. I should like to know whether he has investigated the possibility of granting the rebate for five years. We much rather would see our people consuming our own product than imported liquor. For that reason I should like to hear how much progress the Minister has made with his investigation and whether he is able to give us some hope for the future.

I want to reply briefly to the points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). As far as the control of the manufacture of yeast is concerned I do admit that it is a very difficult matter. During the last few years we have made quite considerable progress and the position is no longer as bad as it was in the past. The position is no longer such as the hon. member suggested. An improvement has come about. It was as bad as he said but an improvement has come about and I w expect that with the powers which, as I hope, this Bill will give us, a further improvement will be effected. I have explained the position as far as Clause 2 is concerned. With reference to the example the hon. member mentioned, I want to point out that if a person is entitled to receive full compensation from the railways and if he comes to a settlement with the railways and accepts slightly less than the full amount, he cannot come to us, but if he is not entitled to full compensation we shall consider his case. In regard to the third point raised by the hon. member, I do agree with him that it is our intention to achieve the production of the best quality spirits and I have given the undertaking to consider the possibility of extending the period during which the rebate can be given to five years. I feel that the time has not yet arrived when such extension can be put into effect but I am still busy going into the matter and I hope that when circumstances change it may perhaps be possible to give effect to his suggestion. I fully agree with the hon. member that we ought to encourage the manufacture of the best spirits.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I object.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 14th May.

There is a small point which I would like to raise on this clause, but I merely want to ask the Minister to give it consideration. The purpose of Clause 5 (b) is to induce the early registration of shares by imposing a penalty. It is felt by some people who have put their point of view to me that the immediate enforcement of this clause may throw a very heavy burden upon company registers, upon the actual secretariat of companies, and it has been suggested that in this initial stage a longer period than 12 months should be provided so as to enable companies to register the great flow of shares which will result from obedience to this inducement. Thereafter, once the initial registration has been completed, 12 months may be quite a suitable period. I would like the Minister to consider whether in the initial stages a longer period cannot be provided for.

It may perhaps be remembered that during the second reading debate the suggestion wasmade that we should make the period nottwelve months but six months, but cognisantof the very point my hon. friend is nowmaking, I resisted that suggestion becauseI felt that especially in the initial stagessix months would be too short. On thewhole, although I realise that there areadministrative difficulties I do not thinkthat the provision of a period of twelve months is unduly burdensome. I am pre-pared to give further consideration to thepoint raised, but I would like the hon.member to know that it has not been over-looked.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6.

On a previous occasion thehon. Minister explained that the purpose ofthis amendment is to prevent certainevasions which in his opinion are takingplace in regard to certain policies, inparticular accident policies and similar ones.Two aspects of the matter have beendiscussed. The one was stressed inparticular by the hon. member forFauresmith (Dr. Dönges), namely theincreased premium on group policies. TheMinister said that he does not see his wayclear to reduce the premiums for groupswhere a large number of people are con-cerned because this is a matter of principle.I do not want to stress this point too muchbut nevertheless it appears to me that whena large number of people are affected by apolicy, it becomes a per capita burden with-out any relation to the amount insured. Iwould, however, like to have clarity whethercertain forms of insurance will be covered bythis Bill. There is for instance, theinsurance against accidents which may betaken out for railway journeys. I am underthe impression that the stamp duty on thetickets which passengers receive will not beaffected by this provision, but I should liketo be sure about it. Furthermore, there arefriendly societies insuring against illness andaccidents and against death.

Thisamendment will only apply to policiescovering more than one person. Therefore, the points raised here are actually of noimportance as far as this matter is concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill withoutamendment;

Bill to be read a third time on 14th May.

Duringthe debate on the second reading the hon.member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) put certainquestions to me, which I could not reply toat the time. His first question was in howmany cases, overseas insurance companieswith less than twenty years experiencewould be enabled by the passing of thisClause to expand their business. Thenumber of these companies does not exceedthree. This is a very limited number. Hefurthermore asked whether this Clause wouldbe applicable to companies with agencies. Ibelieve that the interpretation of the Actwould be to that effect, but there are nocases of agencies falling within the scope ofthis Bill. The acceptance of this Clause, therefore, will only result in a possibleexpansion in the case of three companies.

I thank the Minister for theinformation he has given. The furtherquestion, however, now crops up why thisamendment became necessary as theprincipal Act has been in force for a fewyears only and that Act was apparentlydrawn up with the intention to give a certainprotection to existing companies operating inSouth Africa. It was explained to us thatit was necessary to impose certain restric-tions in regard to overseas companies whohave done less than twenty years businesshere. I am of the opinion that the Ministerof Finance owes the House an explanationof the considerations which gave rise to theconclusion that the existing provision isundesirable. It may be undesirable ifcertain insurance services for which there isa demand cannot be given. I tried to obtaininformation but I could not get any informa-tion indicating that there is a field whereinsurance companies should provide coverfor which no provision has already beenmade. The impression has thus been createdthat in the case of these three companiesprobably a request has been made by out-side persons for an expansion of services.If these should be necessary services forwhich sufficient provision has not beenmade, no objection can be raised against it.But if the request has come from outside sources for an expansion so that they maybe able to compete against companies in ourcountry already providing those services, verygood reasons must be advanced for it. Itake it that the Minister is sufficiently informed to give this House the required information. This is our main point in regard to this Clause and I should like to obtain that niformation.

My hon. friend asked what were the considerations which gave rise to the introduction of the proposals contained in Clause 1. The position is as follows. After the existing Act came into force our attention was drawn to the fact that Clause 4 of the principal Act would have the effect of overseas companies with less than 20 years’ experience in the Union not being able to expand their activities. It appeared that this was in fact something which we did not intend to bring about in the original Act; we did intend to prevent companies who had done no business at all in the Union and who had less than 20 years’ experience, to start here. When that point was brought to our notice it appeared to me to be unfair to limit such companies as far as the expansion of their activities is concerned. The Act makes ample provision for financial guarantees and since only a very small number of companies are affected and because the original Act went further than we intended, we felt that we might make this concession. There are no financial dangers attached to it and there will be no considerably increased competition and for that reason this proposal is now being made.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I would like to get some more information. In this case the obligation of South African companies to reinsure is done away with. I take it that the interests of the insured are being fully protected.

Yes, the position is quite safe.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Apparently this verbal amendment is introduced in order to fit in with certain forms of overseas insurance companies.

Yes, that is the sole intention.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a third time on 14th May.

I should like to finish my reply to some of the points raised by one or two members. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) rather charged the Labour Party—though I do not think he meant to make it a charge—with being supporters if not the exponents of a system of making labour in particular directions in short supply; in other words of having a shortage of labour in order to keep up wages. I do not think he wanted to make it a charge but he was expressing an opinion. I want to tell him he is in the wrong entirely. Neither the Labour Party nor the trade unions are anxious to maintain labour in short supply, in other words, to have fewer workers in a particular trade than are required by the trade. That is not so. What we do insist upon is that there shall not be an over-supply—which is a very different thing —in order that those who cannot be provided with work may be used as a depressive wage factor against the others. Whatever system obtains, however we may develop our industries, the fact remains it would be very foolish to train more people in a particular direction than are required by the industries of the country. If you do that the natural result will be that you will have trained some uselessly, at all events some will have wasted their time in training because they will be walking about unable to find work in the trade they have been instructed in. So the necessity for arranging the supply to fit the requirements in respect of labour in any particular direction will remain, whatever system we may adopt. We do not want to maintain the scarcity.

Tell that to the trade unions ….

They accept that. That is their policy.

I agree.

I thought you said “Tell that to the trade unions”. The Government has the same view. The trade unions have that view. The Labour Party has that view. We do not want chaos in industry either by under-supply or over-supply in any particular trade or calling.

We on these benches have that view.

What do you mean by “we on these benches”?

I merely wanted to remove any possible wrong impression that may have been in the mind of the hon. member for Parktown; I think I have done that. The trade unions especially do want to adjust themselves to the requirements of the country whilst protecting the interests of their members, a very laudable object indeed in both directions. The hon. member also brought up the question of the difference between war-time work and the conditions in work and of work in peace-time. He said that you could not find full employment in peace-time as you can do in war-time. I do not agree with him. There is one very important factor the hon. member for Parktown overlooked that operates in war, that everyone is then working all the hours God sends. They are working beyond themselves and over themselves in order to produce vital requirements. The patriotic urge is something very substantial amongst the workers in time of war. The workers, male and female, work entirely beyond ordinary human capacity in war-time. But it can only be done for a time, it can only be done in war-time, in fact we have already seen signs of tiring, quite understandable tiring, on the part of the workers.

Go for a 35-hour week.

Yes; I have asked my hon. friends on the other side if and when the Labour Party re-introduces its motion for the progressive reduction of hours with the object of securing employment for everybody, whether they will support it.

They will vote against it next time.

Well, I implanted a thought in their minds and I hope ….

What is your Government doing?

Never mind the Government for the moment.

Are you not a member of the Government?

Of course.

And cannot you speak for it?

Order, order!

First and foremost I am a member of the Labour Party. Let that be thoroughly understood. That is the overriding consideration with me, and when the Labour Party re-introduces its motion for shortening the hours of work, starting with 35—we may require to shorten it still further, maintaining the odinary standard rate of pay per week, not per hour—I am hoping, and I have already implanted the thought in the minds of members opposite and I hope the seed will grow, I am hoping they will be prepared to support the suggestion. I know there will be a tremendous amount of support on this side of the House, but—well, I can only hope. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) raised a very important point, namely the question of the application of the Factories Act, or the interpretation of the application, to that section of the workaday population which has a five-day week, in short which does not work on Saturday mornings, and that is particularly so in the building industry. He says that in consequence of their not working on a Saturday morning normally, when a public holiday occurs on Saturday ….

Why should we work on Saturday morning?

My hon. friend can lead a revolution. What about a strike, Charles? I will help you carry the red banner.

I will give you the sickle and the hammer.

I do not want the Saturday morning any more than you do. I told one of my colleagues that I have lost many a job because I would not work on a Saturday afternoon ….

You are going, to lose the job you have now very soon.

That was to have been a further development of my remark. I want to say to my hon. friend that point has already engaged the department’s attention It does seem wrong that people working a little excess time to make up a five-day week should be deprived of the advantage of payment for a public holiday when it falls on a Saturday. I think it was the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who asked me whether it was a fact that all members of trade unions are obliged to belong to the Labour Party. The answer is no; I wish it were a fact.

I listened with attention to the Minister of Labour in the hope that he would have the decency of withdrawing the false charges he made. The Minister apparently is so devoid of all sense of fairness that he is not prepared to do that. He made all kinds of charges against Dr. Van der Walt and he even said that that person is an oragniser of this Party. He was not prepared to accept my word when I denied it and thereafter he accused Mr. Du Pisanie of being an organiser of this Party. That I also denied. He simply persisted in spite of my denials. Among honourable people there are certain ways in which we behave; there is a certain code of behaviour among honourable people, and it is to be regretted than from the manner the Minister behaved here, it seems as if he has no notion of that. He makes all kind of untrue and false charges and when he is told in all fairness that his information is incorrect he adopts an obstinate attitude and it does not matter what you tell him. Instead of getting up here and admitting that he has been supplied with wrong information and saying that he withdraws his charges, he simply remains obstinate like a mule and refuses to withdraw his false charges. I leave it at that. As far as the miners are concerned we on this side have in any case got the Minister so far that after two days of wangling he ultimately summoned up enough courage to say what his personal views are in regard to the miners’ demands for higher wages. His personal point of view is that the demands of the miners are justified. That is a little step forward.

I refer to all workers.

Yes, all workers, but we are dealing now with mineworkers. Afterwards we will come to the other workers. The Minister should not believe that we are finished with him. We are not like the Minister of Labour who runs through the whole alphabet. We are systematic people and we deal with matters in a systematic way. At the moment we are dealing with the mineworkers. He feels that the demand of the mineworkers is a fair one and that they should receive higher wages. He will at once realise that such a statement is not sufficient. We are not dealing now with Walter Madeley, the Leader of the Labour Party, but with the Government and with him in his capacity as a member of the Cabinet. If his personal point of view is that the mineworker should receive higher wages, we ask what the point of view of the Government is? He will realise that it will only be fair if he as an honourable man replies to that question. He cannot simply evade it and try to steer clear of it. As our Minister of Labour he owes it to this House to state what the attitude of the Government is in regard to the mineworkers’ demand for higher wages.

What has the Government to do with that?

The hon. member may vanish into the abyss of his ignorance. What has the Government to do with that! The Government is in so far concerned that it interfered in the dispute between the mineworkers and the mineowners, and the Government contributed to the point of view of the mineowners gaining the upper hand.

What about the farm labourers?

If the hon. member is so lacking in intelligence that he cannot realise that we are now dealing with the mineworkers he should rather keep quiet.

But he cannot keep quiet.

Apparently the trouble is that the hon. member cannot keep quiet and therefore we should really take no notice of him. I want to know from the Minister what the attitude of the Government is in regard to this demand of the mineworkers.

What has the Government to do with that?

The Minister said that he personally feels that this is a fair demand on the part of the mineworkers. He knows that the mineworkers are being underpaid and in all probability he is the person who was a party to the appointment of the conciliation board. Owing to the pressure by the Government acting under the influence of the mineowners the mineworkers were ultimately compelled to accept an agreement. First of all I want to bring Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement to the notice of the House. Section 5 reads—

And then Section 6—

I think I should also read Section 4—

This agreement was forced upon the poor mineworkers. The Minister says that he agrees with them that they should receive an increase in wages but in spite of that they were compelled to sign this agreement. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) is one of the signatories to that agreement and I maintain that the rights of the mineworkers have been sold away for the next five years. The Minister does not agree with the hon. member for Mayfair, for he admits that this agreement is unfair. He maintains that the increase of 30 per cent. is a fair one. They are now tied down for five years not to ask for any increase in wages and the Minister, as Minister of Labour, endorses that these people should be tied down for five years so that they cannot make use of their rights to demand an increase in wages. But as Walter Madeley, as Leader of the Labour Party, he says that it is unfair and that the mineworkers are entitled to higher wages. What an immoral position for any person! This is an immoral position to be in for any person with self-respect. As an individual he says that those people are entitled to their demands but as a Minister he takes up an attitude against it on the side of the Government and he thus robs the mineworkers not only of their demands but even of the right to put fresh demands. I, therefore, want to urge—and I want to tell the Minister at once that we are going to insist on it— that the Minister should state in this House what the attitude of the Government is quite apart from his personal point of view. When we discussed these matters here the Minister and certain of his members and supporters, who echo him like parrots because their Minister says it, state here: “What have you as Nationalists to do with the mineworkers?” Have we ever heard a more nonsensical remark?

Who said so?

You said so yourself.

I want to tell the Minister and also that hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who continually makes that interjection, that we, as a Nationalist Party, do not represent one section of the population only. We discuss this matter because we champion the interests of the whole population and for that reason we are a National Party. Our policy is not to advance the interests of only one section of the population and to see that that section can maintain a decent standard of living, but we have the interests of all sections of the country at heart.

Only for the Afrikaners.

If the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) is not an Afrikaner he should rather leave the country.

Only for the Afrikaans-speaking section.

The hon. member is now shifting his ground. We first of all champion the rights of the Afrikaners. The English-speaking people also claim to be Afrikaners. We applaud that. Whether a person is an English-speaking mineworker or an Afrikaans-speaking mineworker—that does not matter to us; we will step into the breach for all of them. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the other day, when this vote was under discussion, I asked the hon. Minister whether he was not prepared to reconsider the question of the recognition of native trade union rights, in view of two new factors in the situation. The first was the publication of the Workers’ Charter, which he has accepted, and the second new factor is the decision of the Transvaal Supreme Court in the case of Baloyi vs. The Industrial Council for the Clothing industry. That decision laid down in effect that not all native workers are excluded from the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act; that there are large sections of native workers, including native women workers, who at present under the law have full trade union rights. I asked him whether he thought that was a logical position, whether it was the logical position that certain sections of native workers—and that is all it comes to now, according to that decision —should be arbitrarily excluded from the ordinary trade union rights applicable to all workers. If I have time at a later stage I shall return to this point. I would like the Minister to answer that question, but if I have time later I will elaborate it, but I want now to put to him a matter of administration connected with his Department in relation to the trade union movement in the Cape. As the Minister knows the trade union movement in the Cape has always been of a multi-racial character many unions being composed mostly of coloured people; and the native workers in industry in the Cape are to a large extent in the minority. The trade union movement in the Cape has always found it necessary in its own interests, in order to maintain the unskilled wage position here to permit native workers to join the trade unions, and his Department, as far as I know, has not in the past objected to that. There is for instance one union, the Stevedoring Union, which has been functioning for many years in the Cape and which has always had a substantial native membership and which could not have concluded the successful agreements that it has with the stevedoring companies if it had not included the vast majority of stevedores within its ranks who are natives. As a matter of fact, the chairman of that union is himself an African, and there are other unions also which have a large native membership in the Cape. I am informed now that in two or three instances recently these unions have been told that they must dispense with their native membership; they must form their own separate unions. Now, I am going to submit to the Minister that to carry that out would in effect simply mean sounding the deathknell of many of these unions, and the only benefit derived would be by the employers. The Minister may say that his Department must carry out the law, and it is this particular aspect of the matter to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. The decision in Baloyi’s case in the Transvaal was that a native is not, as such, excluded from trade union rights. He is only excluded from trade union rights if his contract of service with his employed is governed by regulations under the Native Labour Regulation Act or the Urban Areas Act. I want to tell the Minister that there are thousands of native workers today in the Cape who are exempted from having their contracts of service regulated under the Urban Areas Act. For one thing, any native voter in the Cape does not have his contract of service regulated under the Urban Areas Act. He is exempted from that in terms of the law, and according to the decision of the Transvaal Supreme Court in the case I mentioned any native who is exempted from having his contract of service regulated by regulations promulgated under the Urban Areas Act or the Native Labour Regulation Act is an employee for the purpose of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Would you support native voters carrying contract service passes?

I am not dealing with that. They are exempted from the Act as it now stands. What I am putting to the Minister is this, that according to the decision of the T.P.D. these workers are entitled to trade union rights, and to be lawfully enrolled as members of the trade unions. It is there where I quarrel with the policy of the Minister’s Department. His Department tells these unions to get rid of their native members. But natives as such are not disqualified from being members of trade unions; it is only if the contract of service is regulated under certain laws. That is the effect of the decision of the court and to insist here in the Cape, on unions like the Stevedoring Union, dispensing with their native members, would be to smash the unions and the only beneficiaries would be the employers. The Stevedoring Union has operated in a responsible manner for many years. It has made very good collective bargaining agreements with the stevedoring companies. It has been able to win for its members a higher standard of unskilled wages than is normally applicable in the Cape, and I would be very sorry indeed to see this union disintegrated by departmental action, more particularly as the native as such is not, according to this decision, excluded from membership. Now, there is another departmental ruling which I take to be applicable throughout the country in regard to native workers, and that concerns the Unemployment Benefit Act. A ruling has been given here in the Cape. I can quote chapter and verse for it because it is a case which came to my attention, and the ruling laid down that a native worker cannot be a contributor to an unemployment benefit fund nor a beneficiary from such a fund if he is unemployed. I want to draw the attention of the Minister again to the fact that the Unemployment Benefit Act does not exclude natives from its scope, as such. It excludes labourers from its scope and defines labourers as people who do certain types of work and earn less than 6s. a day. At present large numbers of labourers in the Cape earn more than 6s. a day. The only other type of exclusion from the Unemployment Benefit Act of workers are again those whose contracts of service are regulated by the Native Labour Regulation Act or the Urban Areas Act. Here again there are thousands of natives in industry in the Cape who by virtue of the Unemployment Benefit Act are excluded, although they work in industries in which Unemployment Benefit Funds are established. I would be much obliged to the Minister if, acting again in terms of the Transvaal decision, he would give instructions to his department that a native worker who works in an industry in which there is an Unemployment Benefit Fund, and he is exempted from the registration of his contract under the Urban Areas Act, will be allowed to contribute to the Unemployment Benefit Fund and to draw benefits when he is unemployed. I understand, as a matter of fact, that the Government has some proposal to amend the Unemployment Benefit Act. I do not know what that proposal is. I do not know whether it will widen the scope of the law so as to cover more workers than are covered at present. I am therefore only addressing myself to the law as it stands at the present time. [Time limit.]

I do not know whether at the end of the war the Minister of Labour is departing from where he is and going over to that side of the House, but I do hope that before he does go he will come into this House with a great, bold policy of labour. If we do not get it from him it will be a long time before we get it from his successor.

You will be an optimist if you expect to get it from him.

I want him to say definitely that the time has arrived for us to have a 35-hour week and that we shall probably be able to double the wages of natives in South Africa. Then this country would not know itself, it will be so well-off. And the time has arrived in South Africa to recognise African trade unions and to carry that principle into the countryside. We must make up our minds to take our places with the other nations of the world, under the Atlantic Charter and with what is going on at San Francisco today. Our workers on the farms are probably the most poorly paid workers to be found in any country where the white man rules.

Nonsense.

The majority of those members opposite, who are always pleading for the farmers, are not themselves farmers. They are either briefless barristers or doctors without a practice. I say the time has arrived when we should carry to the countryside the policy of higher wages for the workers on the farms. Is this country a worse country than Australia? Are we worse people than Australians? They pay wages to the extent of £4 and £5 in that country for farm workers, and they produce butter and meat. They can produce those things and put them on our market at a price which undersells our farmers in this country. The Minister must do that before he goes. He will get a large amount of support from this side of the House, from the Left side of this part of the House. We cannot go on as we are doing. We are carrying out a labour policy today which my friend the Minister and I fought for 40 years ago. The Labour people in South Africa must take the lead in the country. I do not say the Labour Party, but the socialists. They must bring the country up to date as they have done in New Zealand and Australia. But you cannot do that without taking the black man along with you. The Minister must see that the native trade unions are recognised. My hon. friend the member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) suggested something here. But we must go further. What have we on the Rand today? Those strikes are all strikes of natives who belong to trade unions which are not recognised. The only way to run a modern country is through the trade union movement. There is no other way. If you try to do it in any other way, it leads to chaos. The trade union movement is the only way of saving the country. Otherwise you will have exploitation of chaep labour and you will be going back to 1922. Negotiate you labour through the trade unions. Strengthen the trade unions as much as you can, not only in the cities, but also in the countryside. Once the farmers wake up to the fact that the trade unions are good things, which they are, they will never let go of the trade unions.

Are you going to be the leader?

There you have another parson without a sermon. I am not interested in being a leader. I am only interested in the future of the country and you will have to organise your labour, shorten your hours and increase your wages. The sovereign is already down to 9s. 6d.; we shall have to increase wages. As an employer of labour I know. The industry to which I belong has a closed shop and 100 per cent. trade union. We are prepared to meet anyone in the world in turning out first-class work and in employing first-class men, and the majority of those men are born in South Africa, and half of them are Afrikaans-speaking. When I first went into business they were getting £3 a week. Those boys are now making £10 or £11 a week and they are able to live. We must do the same with the black man. If we do not do it with the black man, the time will come when the black man will cut our throats; he will undercut us, and the man who will suffer is the man like my Nationalist friends. They are afraid > to tackle the question of the farmers as regards employment. If they had an eight hour day on the farms tomorrow, and higher wages, they would produce twice as much. I put that to the Minister. The Minister is a man with courage. Do not be afraid of the Party you are sitting with today. You can take them with you. There are many young men on this side of the House who have ideas of a new world, and the only thing to do is to say: We will have a new system; double the wages of the black men; give a 35-hour week to the rest of the country and the country will not know itself.

What about the colour bar?

I am against it personally. I have always been against the colour bar. The colour bar in industry leaves me cold and always has. If you continue with the colour bar in this country the Congo will beat you. The Congo has no colour bar. Do away with the colour bar and train these men to be good workers force them into trade unions, close the shops and give good wages, and the only trouble you will have in South Africa is to teach people how to play. I had a 40-hour week. The men did not work on Mondays. But first the women said they did not know what to do with their husbands on Mondays, but they got used to it. Send them back to the universities and schools and teach them a hobby. That is the only hope of this country today. If we go on like we do today, carrying on the old story of the survival of the fittest, we cannot meet this new world which is coming. I say in all seriousness that it must be done. It has been done by other parts of the world.

What about Rhodesia?

I am not worrying about Rhodesia. I am thinking of this great country of ours. The Nationalist Government, when it was in power last time, with the Labour Party, brought about some remarkably good industrial legislation. They can do it again. I am not interested in parties. This is a national question and unless this is done we will not be able to take our place in the world. [Time limit.]

After having listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who has just sat down, I can only say: God preserve South Africa were such people to govern this country, people who say in this House that they want to remove the colour bar completely and create one race. He has made a song about the farmers and said that the farmers pay their labourers too little. He knows as much about farming as a monkey knows about religion, and then he comes along and tells the House that the farmers pay their labourers too little. I only want to say to that hon. member that in this country the farmer pays better wages and provides his labourers with better food than the farmers in any other country.

And he gets a free house.

And over and above that he gets a free house. If that type of person, such as the hon. member, were to govern South Africa, then I wonder what would become of us, and I wonder how many of the members of his Party agree with him when he says that he personally is in favour of the removal of the colour bar.

Do they agree?

I go so far as to say that not one of them on the other side would have the courage to go to their constituencies and to make the kind of speech which the hon. member for Hospital made here.

That is not necessary. We do not agree with him.

The hon. member for Hospital said that the whole Party on the other side would support the Minister were he to carry the policy into effect which he, the member for Hospital, advocated.

Particularly the young men.

Yes, he said that particularly the young members would stand by the Minister.

He spoke of the “left wing”; what Party are you referring to?

We have no “wings”. I would like to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with the Wage Act which is in force. We have his assurance that he will not apply the Wage Act to agricultural co-operative societies, and we trust that the Minister will keep to his promise of not applying the Wage Act. But meanwhile things have developed and the Minister is now applying the Wage Act to tobacco co-operative societies. The tobacco co-operative societies are also agricultural societies, and if the Minister is going to apply the Wage Act to the tobacco co-operative societies, I just want to say to the Minister that it is going to bring about a terrible catastrophe as far as the tobacco farmers are concerned. The Minister undertook to enter into a gentleman’s agreement with the tobacco co-operative societies, under which a basic wage would be fixed. I just want to tell the Minister that the wages were already increased before he brought this Wage Act into force in the country. In the meantime the wages have gone up more than 200 per cent. and in some cases by even 300 per cent. in connection with native labour at the various co-operative societies. Take for example the cost of living allowances which have to be paid today. You give the native his monthly wage; you have to feed him; you must afford him sleeping accommodation and everything else as a co-operative society, and then you still have to pay him a cost of living allowance of £1 6s. per month.

But the price of mealies has gone up.

That hon. member should not discuss mealies. He knows nothing about mealies. I would have no objection to the Minister applying the Wage Act, but then at the same time he must ensure a reasonable price to the farmer for his product; provided he gives the farmer a reasonable price-plus, it can be done. But if the Minister takes the profits which the farmer makes today, he will see that the farmer makes a meagre livelihood on the farm, and they are the people whom the co-operative societies have to keep going. But, as I have already said, the wages have already gone up, and I want to appeal to the Minister not to apply the Wage Act to tobacco co-operatives and to agricultural co-operative societies. Those societies will not be able to exist if the Wage Act is applied to them. Some time ago the wattle and timber growers sent me a telegram. I took the telegram and handed it over to the department of the Minister of Labour. He was at that time not here—I understand he was in Johannesburg. But I was then informed that if these people did not want the Wage Act made applicable to them, they should invite one of the members of the Wage Board to consult with them and furnish their reasons why the Wage Act should not be made applicable to them. I want to tell the Minister that if he applies the Wage Act to those people, they will be unable to make an existence. Those people today have to pay increased railway tariffs. From the 4th September, 1939, up to the present time railway tariffs have gone up 25 per cent. and wood prices have not yet risen with the result that those people are almost working at a loss, and if the Wage Act is applied to them what is going to become of the tree planters? For that reason I want to appeal to the Minister not to apply the Wage Act to those people. If he should do so, it will have disastrous results, and that is why people are trying to do everything in their power to urge the Minister not to apply to Wage Act to those people. Labour costs have gone up and those people’s labour costs have risen from 200 per cent. to 300 per cent., and if over and above that the Wage Act is applied to them, they will simply not be able to make a livelihood, and they will be compelled to leave their trees as they are; they will not be able to cut them. For that reason I am making this appeal. We will be quite satisfied if the Minister applies the Wage Act, but then he must give the farmer an increase in his wood prices; give the farmer an increase in the price of bark; then those people will not mind paying their labourers higher wages, but under present circumstances they cannot do so. Before I sit down I want once more to ask the Minister not to make the Wage Act applicable to the wattle and timber growers and to the tobacco co-operative societies. Then I should like once again to have the assurance from the Minister that he will not at a later stage apply the Wage Act to agricultural co-operative societies.

I would like to express a few thoughts in regard to the employment policy of the Department of Labour. The hon. the Minister yesterday stated quite definitely his policy and the Government’s policy, namely that it is a policy of full employment for the whole of the country, for every, man, woman and child who is employable. Now, obviously that can only be done in one way, in my opinion, and that is by a policy of industrial expansion. However, I fail to see any definite indication either from this ministerial department which is concerned with labour or from the Department of Economic Development as to the Government’s policy in regard to this Vital question of industrial expansion. I have mentioned before in this House that there are three possible avenues in which industrial expansion can take place, which I divided as follows, firstly mining and base metals, secondly agriculture, and thirdly secondary industry. In assessing the possible development in either of these avenues I think it is as well to take into account the possible consuming capacity of the country as a whole. We know that there has been a great degree of industrial expansion in one avenue, secondary industry, during the war, but it has mainly been in the production of non-consumer goods, like armaments. Now, it becomes important to ask ourselves whether it is possible to retain that degree of expansion, and to expand further to take care of the additional employment requirements which we must envisage as the result of the termination of hostilities and the returning of our men. Personally I should like to see a definite Government policy formulated and I may say here that it does not only affect the Department of Labour. It also affects the Department of Economic Development. The two must work together in formulating this policy, and also if I may say so the Department of Demobilisation. They must work together in formulating a definite employment and industrial policy. Yesterday the Minister mentioned amongst other things great developments in the engineering industry. He gave us to understand there was in process of formation a huge engineering corporation in Vereeniging. I hope I am not talking out of my turn when I ask the Minister if he will not give us a little more information.

I cannot.

Then I shall not pursue that subject any further, though it seems to me vital we should know. But if the Minister definitely answers no ….

I only know it is in existence or about to come into existence. I am not in the councils of the mighty financiers.

Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether this corporation of proposed corporation has Government backing. Is Iscor interested?

I believe so.

If Iscor is interested I take it the Minister should be able to give the House some information as to the possible lines this corporation may take.

No, I cannot.

In any case it seems to me we must be very careful as to what policy of industrial expansion we undertake. I am very afraid as I read the signs and listen to the speeches made in this House than the emphasis is being placed on the definite expansion of the one avenue of industrialisation, and that is the secondary branch. I should like to point out, as far as I am concerned, I cannot see how secondary industry can obtain the markets for its products in the immediate post-war period to enable it to attain the expansion we require to achieve full employment. Therefore I should like to see the Minister in collaboration with the other Ministers I have mentioned, formulate a definite Government policy, a bold and constructive policy, a policy of encouragement and expansion of the gold mining industry. And when I say that I do not mean for the benefit of the so-called capitalists.

Hear, hear.

I feel that the working men, European and non-European should have their proper share out of the profits, and it must not be forgotten that the Government is a big shareholder in that industry. It may not be amiss at this stage to support what was said by the Minister’s own Party just a few days ago, that the Government, for its own sake, and for the sake of the industry as a whole, should by way of remission of taxes or otherwise encourage that industry. We know there are vast, almost illimitable future prospects for the gold mining industry. There is a vast field awaiting opening up in the Free State, which must provide avenues of employment for many thousands of Europeans and natives. Then there are all the auxiliary services, roads, transport and railways, which must of necessity provide employment for a number of years. That brings me to this point. We should have some definite statement of Government policy as to what their intentions are. At present we seem to be drifting. There is no definite Government policy in regard to industrialisation. We have the bald statement: The Government intends to give full employment; But how? How are we going to achieve it? At this moment the statement is being made by various Government departments that they have so many vacancies. On the other hand we have a statement from the Minister of Demobilisation that these departments are going to absorb ex-volunteers. But when our war effort comes to a stop—and here let me pause to warn the country against the danger of a too sudden cessation of the war effort; that must not occur—there will be many thousands seeking employment. At the same time I would like to warn the country about too drastic a reduction of our armed forces. I should like to see a South African navy, a permanent navy, and a permanent air force of say, 15 squadrons, a permanent defence force, to help, at least in the transition stage, to absorb some of the unemployment that is bound to occur. I am not one of those optimists that is content with the word of any Minister that the Government accepts it as their responsibility. I should like to hear some indication of how the Government intends to set about it.

I am participating in this debate to ascertain whether hon. members on the other side who represent farmers agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), who rose this morning and said that working hours on farms should be decreased to 35 per working week. I want to enquire whether hon. members over there will rise and repudiate this statement.

It is not necessary. We do not agree.

The hon. member can rise. We want to ascertain whether unanimity exists among the Party on the other side. If we go to the platteland and say that it is the policy of the Government Party that working hours shall be reduced to 35 or 40 hours, then we would like to know whether all the hon. members over there agree on this point. We on this side say that if the working hours were to be fixed at 35 or 40 per week, then our country would suffer starvation and famine. But they go further. That is not all that hon. members on the other side say, but they are, I think encouraged by the Minister to go further. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) stated that if we were to pay for labour just as he does, then we would have labourers. He said that at Green Point they pay 10s. per day, and if we were to pay 10s. per day, we would have as many labourers as we wanted. Good, if we have to pay that, will the Minister then ensure that the prices of products are fixed four and five times as high as they are today? Then we will be able to pay that wage. But what will the consumers do? The position has now reached the pitch that we should get the views of hon. members on the other side as to what the Party’s policy is. The hon. member for Hospital says that the working hours should be reduced, and the hon. member for Green Point wants the wages to be increased to 10s. per day. The hon. members who represent farmers should not remain passive. The farming population must know what is in store for them, and whether they will still be able to make a livelihood out of farming. As far as the Minister is concerned, the Government has gone ahead and paid the rich gold mines £1,850,000 for the increase of natives’ wages. But the rest of the population do not receive a similar subsidy to increase wages. I trust that the Minister will rise and will reply to what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said. The Minister says that he is not satisfied with the mineworkers’ wages. What does the Minister intend doing? Let him tell us candidly. Then I want to say a few words in conjunction with what was said by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) in connection with co-operative societies. The Minister and his Department are slowly compelling co-operative societies to bring their wages into line with the Wage Act. If however, we refer to the Wage Act of 1925, we see that the Act is not applicable to the farming industry, and as yet that Act has not been amended. The Minister says that they do not really want to apply the Act, but they want to enter into a gentleman’s agreement. I think the Minister of Labour should rather leave farming interests to the Minister of Agriculture. He should not interfere in matters concerning the farming industry. The natives receive reasonable wages at the co-operative societies, but if wages are fixed on the Minister’s scale, it will be the ruination of co-operative societies. A co-operative society is not really a place where tobacco and mealies are processed. It is actually a receiving depot, and it is therefore not fair to place a co-operative society under the Wage Act. I want to ask the Minister all the same not to go out of his way in applying the Wage Act to co-operative societies and tobacco co-operatives. But there is still something else which seems very strange to me, namely that the Minister of Demobolisation told us a few days ago that there are 25,000 people who are occupying temporary posts and when the soldiers return these posts will once again be taken up by returned soldiers. He told us that we need not be anxious about the 25,000 people. Work will be found—on the railways, the Department of Lands, and other departments. But the Minister of Demobilisation also told us that in all the State departments, including private places, only an additional 11,000 men can be absorbed. What then will become of the returned soldiers who have no old positions to return to, and what will become of the 25,000 people who will be thrown out of employment? It seems to me that the Minister of Labour is creating unemployment instead of solving it. He said thè other day: Look at what we did after the explosion in Pretoria; within a week we had found employment for all those people. But that is not the case. Six weeks went by and then there was a demonstration in Pretoria, and then only did the Minister rouse himself and start to make room for these people and to ensure that they were once again absorbed in employment. It could have been done immediately, but first of all an agitation was needed— practically a riot—before the Minister did his utmost to obtain employment for these people. The hon. member for Waterberg quoted two instances, namely the case of Dr. van der Walt and Mr. Du Pisanie, who were both styled as organisers of the Nationalist Party. It has been denied that they either are or were organisers of the Nationalist Party, but the Minister did not have the decency to accept the word of the hon. member for Waterberg, who is the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Transvaal. Surely there is such a thing as courtesy, that if members of Parliament make a mistake, they have the courtesy to accept another member’s word and to admit having made a mistake. The Minister refused to do so. It certainly does not suit the Minister to adopt that attitude, and it does not lend to the promotion of co-operation in this House. Before I sit down, there is just one final point. I see that there is an amount on the estimates for £500 for flood relief damage. I do not know whether it is intended for the floods of last year. If so, I must say that it is nothing less than a scandal. When floods occurred last year, the Minister of Lands went there and said “leave it to the Government”. I can see no other amount except the £500. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) will raise the matter. Houses were washed away in his constituency and great damage was sustained. [Time limit.]

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

I know the hon. Minister has a very kind heart and I know his interests are wholly wrapped up in the returned soldiers, and so I sincerely hope that my appeal does not fall on deaf ears. I wish to refer in particular to the ex-volunteer who wishes to set up business in the engineering trade. The hon. the Minister is aware of certain cases I have submitted to him and I know full well his difficulties. I would also like to say that Mr. Walker, in his capacity as Controller of Manpower, has done a tremendous lot to help, and I appreciate his efforts the more. But I would be Very glad if the Minister would in the interests of the ex-volunteer agree to some relaxation of his policy. I have repeatedly on occasion in this. House stressed the importance of the study of the individual, and I hope that that study will be applied by the Minister, especially in regard to those cases which I have submitted to him. That is all I wish to say, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give me some help.

I will give you a lot of hope.

I also wish that the hon. the Minister will be able to give me some hope.

I wish to some extent to express satisfaction that the Minister has now made an attempt to abandon his extravagance of last Tuesday. It would appear that he has accepted the good advice, and I would like to give him some further good advice. If he is desirous of speeding up the discussion on this vote, he should reply to our questions as quickly as possible. If he refuses to reply to reasonable questions, We will continue to harp on them until he does so. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has put two very fair questions to the Minister. It so happens that he is unable to be present this afternoon, and that is why I am again putting those two questions on his behalf. The first is: What is the reply and attitude of the Government in regard to the question of mineworkers’ wages? I would draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that as early as last year he committed himself when he said that we in South Africa have need of legislation to make provision for a decent livelihood for the people in the country. The position is thus in the hands of the Government, and I do not think that the Minister is going to agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who stated that the Government is unable to do anything in the matter. When last year we were concerned with the increase in wages of natives, the Government granted a subsidy to the mines for that purpose. Now we find that the European mineworkers as well have since last year been, pressing for increased wages. We asked him what the Government’s attitude was, and we expect him to give us an answer. He, as the responsible Minister, must reply on behalf of the Government; what prospect do he and his Government hold out as regards increased wages for the mineworkers? I think it is a very fair question and we have every right to insist on a reply. If we do not receive a reply to that question, then he must expect us to continue pressing for one. The second question which was also put by the hon. member for Waterberg bears relation to the attack made by the Minister —it can be that he only did so once again in his irresponsible way—in connection with workers in shirt factories. He said that Dr. Van der Walt is the director of a company which underpaid its workers. At the commencement of the sitting the Minister delivered a similar attack. He spoke in his speech of a certain Mr. Van der Walt and he said further—[Translation]—

He accused Mr. Van der Walt of playing his part in ‘the exploitation of garment workers in the Transvaal. I then asked the Minister on the 15th February, 1945, in what way Van der Walt had exploited the poiple. To that the Minister gave no answer. But now he has come along and quoted certain figures, and he asserts that those people in that particular factory with the concurrence of Dr. Van der Walt were underpaid. I want once again to put the qusetion to the Minister which was put to him by the hon. member for Waterberg: Are these the only particulars which the Minister has in his possession relating to people who were underpaid, or are there other factories which he is acquainted with who have also underpaid their employees? If this is so, why did he only bring this case to light; did he do so because it concerned a predikant of one of the Dutch churches? If he sought him out for that reason, I might tell the Minister that if ever before in his life he has committed a blunder, he should continue with those attacks on ministers of the Dutch church.

He only attacked him because he was not paying his workers properly.

There would appear to be an underground interest on the other side. I now wish to ask the Minister, as the responsible Minister, whether he is aware of any other underpayment which has been made. If he is aware of any others, why does he not give us the whole list of names of all those cases? These are two very fair questions which have been put to the Minister, and if the Minister desires to speed up the discussion on his vote, he must reply to them. Then I wish to refer again to what I said yesterday, and that is that we on this side endeavoured to be of assistance to the Minister and to criticise him on a constructive basis. The Minister himself has admitted this in the past. We also put some of these questions to him in February of this sitting, and in his reply the Minister referred to me and to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) and to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) in the following words ….

Was that when he spoke of “Serfie”?

Yes, he was not referring to lemons. He spoke about me and the two members who followed after me, and he said—

He said that we showed a desire to be constructive.

I only hope that you will not leave that path.

What is the Minister’s attitude when constructive criticism is being made? He then does the two things which I accused him of. He fails to reply to questions, or he promises certain things, and when we come here the following year, those things have not yet been done. These questions were put to him in February and most of them he has not yet replied to. I want to remind the Minister once again of what I said to him. I do not know whether the interpreter interprets so badly, but the Minister does not reply. I do not know whether he deliberately fails to reply to questions, but systematically the Minister is trying to shift the responsibility on to someone else, and he uses various methods of doing so. To bring the responsibility home to him, I just want to tell him that labour is an important factor in the economical life of a nation, and labour is going to play a very important rôle in the economical structure of our country, as in any other country in the world in the post-war period which we have now entered. Conditions in the postwar period will largely depend on what is done in respect of labour. I will explain my proposition by way of illustration. I will take a farmer on his farm. If he wants to work economically, there are certain constitutional principles he must take heed of. He must know what is the most necessary work that has to be done on the farm. He must then have the labourers to do the work. And if he wants to produce systematically, he must do two things. [Time limit.]

I will not react upon what was said by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). However, I want to state that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has no right to say that the policy which he advocates is the Government’s labour policy. In addition, he has no right to declare that this side of the House endorses the policy which he adumbrated here.

The “United” Party.

Have you the right to proclaim the policy on behalf of the; Government?

The hon. member can put that question to me later during the course of his speech. The hon. member for Hospital spoke here of a “Left wing”. I am not aware of such a thing on this side of the House. Perhaps he is a feather which has been pulled out of a “left wing”. We as responsible members on this side of the House follow the policy that we want to treat our labourers fairly, on our farms as well, and proof of that is to be found in the fact that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Social Welfare are negotiating with the South African Agricultural Union, on which all Parties are represented and which is a representative body. They speak with responsibility about the position of the workers, European as well as coloured and also of the natives, and I take more notice of the negotiations and the Minister’s attitude towards that body than of the attitude of a member on this side of the House or on the other side of the House who I regard as less responsible. I am speaking as a producer, and I have touched upon this matter because I, as a farmer, realise fully my responsibility towards the workers. The hon. member for Boshof said that labour will play a big rôle after the war. Quite so. I hope that hon. members on the other side will also realise that they must not only plead for one worker, for the mineworker for example, but that whether it be a mineworker or a farm labourer, we must try to raise them all to the standard where we would like to see them. I can state that the farmers are only too willing to do so, provided they receive reasonable prices for their products. There will be no objection on their part to paying more, and where it is the Government’s policy to look to the producers as well and to protect them, I am convinced that the producers will also look to the workers, be they mineworkers or farm labourers.

You should come and sit here.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) spoke of the application of the Wage Act to tobacco co-operatives. We know that there are fixed wages for factories, but they are not applicable to agricultural co-operatives. The hon. member is endeavouring to make the House and the public believe that the Minister of Labour, and accordingly the Government of the country are threatening the tobacco co-operatives with the Wage Act. I challenge the hon. member to indicate where the Minister has ever done so, for if the Minister were to act in such a way it would have to be with the approval of the Government. I challenge the hon. member to say when the tobacco industry has ever been threatened with the application of the Wage Act. He said that the Minister and the Department of Labour were negotiating with the tobacco co-operatives in order to work out the wages.

If the people working there ask for it.

The hon. member said that the tobacco co-operatives are already increasing wages. He said that in some cases the wages had been increased by 300 per cent. Now I as a producer maintain that if it is necessary to increase workers’ wages by 300 per cent., no further word is necessary to prove that the wages were too low. That is my argument. I come from a district where much tobacco is produced and I know that the wages of people working at co-operatives has been increased, and accordingly the Minister does not deem it necessary to try and apply the Wage Act. He is convinced that the co-operatives, as far as it is in their power, are paying reasonable wages. I say this to try and refute what the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is trying to make the House believe. If we act in a responsible manner, not only in this House, but also outside, then there is hope that these matters will be solved. We have managed to cope with our problems during the war and we must do our utmost to do so after the war. But to condemn the Minister without any proof, and thereby the Government, is a big mistake. The public outside are not as stupid as we are apt to think on many occasions. Last year the application of the Wage Act to co-operatives was also discussed, and I then asked these people whether they put the Wage Act into practice. They replied that they had heard that it would be made applicable and that they would have to pay £8 to natives who worked in the cellars, etc. with tobacco. If we so wilfully mislead the nation and create unrest in its midst, then I say that our actions can only be described as irresponsible, and nothing else.

It would be much better if the United Party kept their differences to their caucus rather than parade their dissention before the world. We have listened to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who stated that what he advocated was the policy of the Government. Now the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) comes along and says that the very opposite is the Government’s policy. What right has the hon. member for Rustenburg to ask us to accept his word as against that of the hon. member for Hospital?

I did not say I announced the Government’s policy.

You said this and that was the policy of the Government.

No, I did not say so.

Well, will anyone else stand up and tell us what the Government’s policy is? The peace is not yet cold and division within the United Party has come to light. When in the past we asked them what their policy was, the reply was “There is a war on”. Hardly has peace come than they have had difficulty. No longer can they conceal what their policy is, but they are so divided that they cannot say what it is.

Now another war is in progress.

Yes, a war in the United Party. The hon. member for Hospital spoke about a wing of the United Party. The difficulty is there are so many wings you do not know what sort of bird it is. Cracks in the Party have been revealed almost before peace was there. I should like to invite the Minister’s attention to a matter that now the war is past, should enjoy his attention and the attention of the Government, a matter that in the near future will be so urgent that he will have to devote his attention to it. Last year he could still avoid it, and give evasive answers, but he can no longer do that this year. Last year we asked him to tell us two things. We asked him: Tell us how many trade unions there are in the Union, under your jurisdiction as Minister of Labour, to which Europeans and nonEuropeans both belong, where they sit together in the same trade union; and tell us how many non-Europeans and Europeans sit on the same executives of trade unions. We also put a third question to him, namely whether the Minister was prepared to effect an alteration in these conditions. To the first question the Minister in his reply gave us the names of a number of trade unions to which non-Europeans and coloureds and Europeans belonged together. The number was 55. To the question whether he could state how many mixed executives there were, he replied that he had not that information as his disposal. To the last question, namely, whether he intended to effect an alteration in the position, his answer was no. Now I want in the first place to ask him why he told us that he had not the information available in regard to the executives when he knew that on the form on which executives made application for registration they have to give the Minister the names of the executives. Why did he give this misleading answer to the House? That is my first question. The Minister knows that on the forms for registration for trade unions the names of the executive have to be filled in. The information is in the possession of the department, and the department has assured me that the forms have to be completed in this manner. The second question I should like to put to him is this. Is it still the Government policy to effect no alteration and to allow the 55 trade unions to continue so that Europeans, natives and coloureds may be members together. We should like to know what the policy of the Government is, and whether its policy remains the same as it was last year, namely, that it is not prepared to bring about any change in the present state of affairs. Then I wish to ask how many supporters of the Government are attached to that policy? I have before me a list of 55 trade unions in which non-Europeans and Europeans can be members together, and sit on the executive and otherwise. I think it is necessary that the names should appear in Hansard. The Minister has laid the list on the Table of the House, but unfortunately according to the rules of the House (which I think wrong) documents laid on the Table are not published in Hansard, with the result they are withheld from the public. If you want to examine them you have to get hold of the minute book, which is in possession of the Clerk of the Papers. Accordingly I want to object and to assert it is wrong that such important documents that are laid on the Table are not included in Hansard. In order to have the names in Hansard it will be necessary for me to occupy the time of the House in reading out the names. I shall take the most important of the 55 names, and I hope that Hansard will publish the whole 55. I shall hand the documents to Hansard and see whether they do this. I shall take only the Transvaal, because with few exceptions, the trade unions are those of which both Europeans and non-Europeans are members. Before the Select Committee we had an example of where the policy of the Government is leading us to. A short while ago a trade union was represented before the Select Committee by a European woman as vice-chairman and a native as chairman, and there was also a European woman secretary. That is the policy the Government side is following.

What trade union was it?

It represented the fishing industry. Now I shall read out a number of the names on the list in the hope that the 55 will be published in Hansard. I am selecting the Transvaal, because there we have the most flagrant instances, and I say this is the Minister’s policy because he has the right to refuse registration if he wishes to. He is not refusing registration, and that is why we begged him last year to effect an alteration if necessary by legislation, in order to prevent non-Europeans and Europeans belonging to the same trade union together. We see the results when it has come to the pitch that a European woman and a native appear before a Select Committee to give evidence, shoulder to shoulder. The time has come to cry a halt. No longer can it be said there is a war on. We should know what the policy of the Government is in the future. I shall now read out the names ….

What is the year of registration?

That has not been given by the Minister. I shall be glad if the hon. member finds that out. It will be interesting. I shall now give the names of trade unions whose membership is comprised of both Europeans and non-Europeans.

You talk of intermingling. Have you the names there?

These are all trade unions who have Europeans and non-Europeans as members.

But you spoke about the names of individuals that appeared on the forms.

What does it matter, so long as non-Europeans and Europeans are mixed up there. [Time limit.]

I am afraid hon. members opposite can draw but very scant consolation from the fact that they now imagine they can discern a thin superficial crack in the plaster outside the edifice in which this great Party to which we have the honour to belong is established.

Sez you!

They need only scan this morning’s paper and see what happened in South-West Africa.

Hear, hear.

Have you to go beyond the borders of the Union to find consolation?

Our building stands secure on its foundations of unity of purpose.

That is the best joke of the Session.

But if hon. members look round them they can only see all their hopes strewn around in utter ruin. They seek further consolation in the fact that the interpreter might be at fault. I do not wish to saddle the hon. member who has so gratuitously and kindly undertaken the task of interpreting to the Minister with any further vicarious responsibility, and therefore I speak to the Minister in English. In all seriousness I would say to the Minister that in the application of the Wage Act under the terms of which people employed on agriculture are supposed to be excluded, in the indirect application of that Act it has very often been effected in such a way as to nullify the protection agriculture is supposed to enjoy. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J, G. W. van Niekerk) has mentioned the investigation into the woodworking industry. That is an industry in which the area I have the honour to represent is vitally concerned. The Eastern Transvaal is a vast area for the production of timber, and in the result of this investigation, which is still pending, they are naturally very much concerned. Now it is possible for the Wage Board, in its recommendations, to define the activities which they seek to bring within the orbit of any recommendation in so wide a manner as to make it impossible to say when a man is employed in agriculture and when he is no longer so employed. I wish to issue a grave warning to the Minister, because in the last resort it is the Minister who must accept responsibility. Admittedly the investigation is made by the Wage Board. They make their recommendation to the Minister. But it is for the Minister in the last resort to say whether he is going to make a determination or not. And when the Minister has finally decided the responsibility for that decision rests with the Minister, and consequently with the Cabinet. There has been glib talk about a minimum wage of 10s. Why stop at 10s.? Why not make it £1, or £2 or £3? The simple reason is that it is not within the capacity of that industry to bear the impact of the increased wage. Hitherto sufficient attention has not been paid to the capacity of the particular industry affected to bear any substantial increase in wages. The Wage Board is supposed to take that into consideration. But I say with emphasis that sufficient attention has not been paid to that aspect, and to the further aspect, Mr. Chairman, of ascertaining what the effect of any award will be on the immediate neighbourhood and on other industries who may be directly or indirectly affected by any immediate award. We all talk about food. The hon. Minister has himself admitted to the House that agriculture is the backbone of the country.

I said it, not admitted it.

He said it, that is better still. If we apply a wage determination which raises the wages of the rural workers by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. it follows that agriculture of necessity must follow suit or lose its labour market. Are we then in a position to assure agriculture that instead of getting 8d. or 9d. a gallon for cheese milk it will now get 2s. a gallon for cheese milk? Can we say to the producer of mining timber he will get more for his product? Incidentally he only gets one-fifth of the nett return for which his timber is sold in Johannesburg. Where it averages 30s. in Johannesburg the nett return to the farmer is 6s., which has to cover cost of production, capital outlay and all the trouble entailed in the task of production. Are we then in a position to say that if we raise these wages by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. the farmer will get 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. more for his products? We must face up to the position. Do we want agriculture to survive or not? If we do we must either subsidise the consumer and say: You cannot afford to pay more than 2s. a lb. for butter, and the farmer cannot expect to produce it for less than 4s. a lb., so therefore there will be an internal subsidy of 2s. a lb. to the consumer. We have reached the crossroads and the Government must say which industry is entitled to survive and which must go down. I know the hon. Minister has a big heart for the little man, but I ask him to take into consideration whether many of the steps he contemplates do not have directly the opposite effect to that he has in mind. That is so with many of these determinations. To mention one. The effect of the wage determination on the milling industry has definitely been to drive many a small miller out of business and to build up the big concerns. Wage determination in rural industries will have one effect Only, to drive the small man out of production or business. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) that it would be a greater pleasure to pay a man 10s. a day instead of 5s. if we could afford to pay that wage but it is no good asking industry to pay a wage such industry cannot bear. That is the crux of the whole matter, and that is the matter we must face up to and on which we must decide. You cannot by a stroke of the pen simply say: We are going to increase the spending capacity of the work-people by giving them either double or treble wages. By doing that you might be rendering a disservice to the very people whose interests you espouse, because you will be killing the industry in this way, or it will only be able to give employment to a much smaller number. I do not wish to labour the point. The implications are obvious. I want to say again that before these wage determinations by the board are made by the Minister he must consider, and consider carefully, whether the industry to which the award will apply directly or indirectly is able to stand it.

I think it is about time I intervened to stop the extension of this misunderstanding. In the first place, I want to lay this down. No industry has the right to exist if it starves its workmen, and I do not care whether they are natives or Europeans. We have no right to build up an industry on a wage level which leaves nothing to the employee. It was pointed out, I think by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow)—and this has nothing to do with policy. In England, hitherto they have had much the same attitude as that expressed by the hon. gentleman just now. They regarded 10s. a week, a pig, and a piece of land to cultivate cabbages as all that the agricultural industry could afford to pay the labourer. Today the standard rate of pay for agricultural labour in England is £4 a week. Now then, Australia and New Zealand pay higher rates of pay than that even, and they can push their produce into this country cheaper than we can produce it ourselves.

They have better labour.

Take my own country. My hon. friend was referring to the very lowest price in some particular production. For instance he referred to cheese-milk. I take it I have the right to develop from cheese-milk to other dairy products. I have got it on the very best authority, from the Price Controller himself, that there is a most remarkable difference of prices of milk in this country. It varies to the farmer from 9d. to 1s. 9d. a gallon. I refer to the price which the farmer gets for his milk.

You are quite correct. That is what we cannot understand either.

Before we condemn wholesale this question of the application of wage levels enforced upon rural employers, before we consider that with the insufficient information we have, we must go into the whole question in all its ramifications. Let us have a scientific survey which shall include whether this, that or the other type of person is conducting his farming organisation on the right lines, whether the organisation is correct, and if not whether some machinery should not be employed, and whether a higher level of intelligence induced by higher rates of pay will not cheapen the product. All these things must be examined. But let us come down to what was said by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). I do not wish to press him too hard. We are quite prepared to suffer other people’s troubles gladly. My friends over there say: “Go on now, Madeley, and insist upon the mineowners paying higher wages, but do not touch our co-operative societies; they are sacrosanct. Do not touch the farm labourer. Do not touch the small miller, the fringe industry” which strangely enough my hon. friends have succeeded in coagulating into one small combine. It is remarkable how big organisations are prepared to buy up these smaller industries. That also needs investigation before we can come to a conclusion. As I say, let us get down to the hon. member for Ermelo. He speaks about 30s. a ton being paid for mine props, of which the farmer gets 6s. Is that the unfortunate worker’s fault?

It is the Government’s fault.

It used to be the Government’s fault when you used to be in power too. Apropos of that I am reminded of the time when I was a member of the Government which included that hon. member also. Do you know that the Cabinet was inclined to take to itself credit for a good season, because the weather was fine? So naturally they also had to accept responsibility for a bad season. It is stupid to throw epithets at the Government, saying that this and that is the Government’s fault, or the Government’s policy.

Is that the third version of the Government’s policy. This investigation you are speaking about, is that the Government’s policy.

I have always found the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) a very charming companion, but let him have patience. Now then, we were talking about the 30s. paid by the mines of which the farmer got 6s. Where does it melt in between? That is what we have to examine. I say we must investigate.

Is that your policy?

No, that is not the policy. [Laughter.] How easily children laugh. But what has happened with regard to this timber business? Let us take the labour end, the production end, as reflected in terms of labour costs. The Wage Board has made an investigation and it has made a recommendation. That is the stage which has been reached, and an investigation has ensued in the course of which any objection or any reasons why these rates should not be applied were received. Now, what have I done in order to show that we are prepared to examine every aspect of the question, so that there should be no misunderstanding? I have already appointed on the Wage Board the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) who is interested in this very question. His constituency is interested. The Wage Board, contrary to its usual custom is going to the various centres to get information, and under the guidance of Mr. Cilliers these objections will be brought up in proper concrete form, and again the Wage Board will examine. But I resent, on behalf of the Wage Board, the imputation, in fact the direct accusation, that the Wage Board does not properly investigate all the conditions surrounding an industry.

It does not pay sufficient attention.

It is the same thing; but they do. And having, after their first preliminary investigation which was of a very exact nature—they called a meeting and heard objections ….

Where did they hold the meeting?

They generally hold the meeting where the investigation is taking place. In the rural areas they are going from place to place. But in addition to that the whole question of what one may call the impinging industries, i.e. those which are geographically and by reason of their nature on the borderline of the farming industry, are being examined, and we are at the moment investigating representations about the farming industry.

That is as the result of our intervention.

I beg your pardon, that was started long ago. But what does it matter?

Carry on with your story.

It is a good story. So much for my friend from Ermelo. I am going backwards.

You always do.

That is in order to adjust myself to your intelligence. But I am speaking chronologically. The hon. member for Moorreesburg gave me the impression that because he had got names on forms sent into the Labour Department, he was able to say that the Executives of these various organisations consisted of mixed natives and Europeans.

You yourself received the names of the Executives.

Yes. I understood that the hon. gentleman for the purposes of the Hansard record, was going to read out these names, but he did not do so.

I was going to give you the names of the trade unions.

The hon. member must not break his usual rule. He never makes a noise. Now, why did the hon. member not read out the names?

Because they are not available. We did not get them.

The hon. member said that according to the names on the forms he was able to tell whether they are natives or Europeans.

No, that is all wrong. I was trying to explain to the Minister that he receives the forms on which are the names of the people, and that from the names he could understand who they are, whether they are natives or Europeans.

I want to read out a note from the Department itself. I have to refer to the Department for these things. The note says: “It is true that we obtained the names of executive members of the unions. We do not ask for their race. The names do not convey this.”

But surely it is possible in South Africa, when you get the names, to know whether they are white or native’

One finds people called McKenzie who speak only Afrikaans. The hon. member said that the Department gets the names and they can tell.

Our accusation is that you are wtihholding information.

I am not.

Have you any power to put the race and the names on the forms?

I suppose I can do that. The note further says: “There are no native members of registered trade unions as far as the Department knows; only coloured and European.” Now I have given all the facts. If he takes his stand on an objection to mingling Europeans and coloureds I can understand.

I have given you the names of natives on the Garmant Workers’ Union and in the speech I quoted a certain native said that he was glad that he was not the only black spot on that congress.

There have been congresses of the Trades and Labour Council. He may have been a member of one of the constituent unions.

What are you saying there?

I am accused of withholding information.

Do you say there are no native members of the registered trade unions?

Yes.

Do you seriously say that?

If there are natives the Department will enquire and tell us what the position is. Now, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen.Kemp) ….

You have not replied to my question whether your policy is to change all this, to introduce legislation to prevent natives and Europeans being on the same union

I do not know about legislation, but what I am trying to do is to induce the unions to start separate parallel unions for the natives. That does not apply to the coloureds. They have their rights.

Is that the policy of the Government?

Then we know where he stands.

The policy of the Government is then that non-Europeans can continue to be members.

I have just had a note which rather indicates that hon. members there are mixed up as to where these natives belong. Makabene is a member of the African Clothing Workers, not of the Garment Workers’ Union. That union is not a registered union. So there you have the complete information. Now, let me deal with the matters brought up by my hon. friend. He is rather worried, and quite rightly too, about the £500 for special flood relief. He says that in his own constituency houses were washed down and £500 is a ridiculous sum. I agree that it would be a ridiculous sum if that is what it was for, but the £500 is for subsidising the labour employed in the replacement. Social Welfare and Irrigation also have to contribute larger sums towards rehabilitation. I believe Irrigation contributed £25,000. This is only the sum we contribute to subsidise labour and I think the hon. member will be satisfied with that. I would be very much concerned too if that were the only sum spent. I think the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) will remember that Social Welfare contributed large sums for the floods at Beaufort West.

They promised it. I do not know whether they paid it.

Be decent now. The job was done.

I will make enquiries and let you know. Is the promise still open?

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) referred to the exclusions from the Unemployment Benefit Act namely that natives, as natives, were excluded, and he pointed out that labourers only were mentioned there. He is quite right. Labourers earning less than £78 per annum and persons whose contracts of service are régulated under thè Native Labour Regulation Act are excluded. Let me give him the assurance that the rumour he has heard is correct and that the new Unemployment Insurance Bill will embrace all natives engaged in industry. As far as the judgment is concerned which now ordains that natives with an exemption certificate can be classified as members of the union, the Department is enquiring carefully into the matter as to how we can extend that all round. I think he will accept that assurance. Someone wanted to know who was interested in the new engineering institution at Vereeniging. I want to tell him that the proposed works is designed for the manufacture of spares for Iscor, heavy engineering equipment. The capital is being put up by Iscor and the Anglo-American Corporation, according to the information supplied to my Department. I am assured that many hundreds of skilled workers are to be employed. I do want to draw attention while we are busy with this, in view of the necessity for the expansion of our engineering industry, to the fact that one of the stumbling blocks in the way is the price of steel. I have had that from various sources. I think the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) has experienced it, and Delfos in Benoni have experienced it, and also other engineering firms. They find it very difficult to compete with importations in peace-time, the price of steel being what it is. There again there is room for exploration and representation, and representation is being made on that point. A good deal has been said by the other side in the form of question but it is meant to convey an assertion: What is the Government’s policy about the industry of the future, unemployment, etc. I have already outlined what is the Government’s policy, but, Sir, is not this future expansion of industry in this country a matter which concerns us as a nation? Must it all be left merely to the members who compose the Cabinet to decide what the policy is to be and how it should be brought about? Have we not the right to frame our policy on expert knowledge or ideas on the question? Have we not the right to expect the Opposition, which is after all part of the Government of the country and representative of a large number of constituencies? Cannot we expect them to give us what information they have and their ideas? I ask hon. members on both sides of the House. I ask the hon. member for Boksburg who very clearly and almost explosively asked what the Government’s policy was. I ask him: What are you doing.

You have not got a policy. Tell us your policy. Why keep it secret?

We would welcome assistance in this direction from anyone. Public-spirited people are helping outside the House, and I expect it to be reinforced by members on both sides of the House. One hon. member wanted to pave the way to something by referring to the kindness of my heart; he wanted to know about ex-soldiers starting their own businesses. He gave me some examples. Under the special circumstances pertaining they have to be prevented from starting. Let me remind the hon. member that the war is now over in Europe and the whole question of control is now going to be gone into, to see whether it should be continued or modified or abandoned. It is being considered and I think we shall have some good news for him shortly.

Now we are going to hear his policy.

The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) is still worried about my attack, as he calls it, on Mr. Van der Walt. He asked why I struck at him, whether it is because he is a predikant. To some extent the answer is yes. I do not know whether he knows the Good Book, but I have some knowledge of it and it says definitely: “Ye cannot serve two masters. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Surely, if that is an injunction to all people it is of particular significance to the predikant.

Which side have you chosen? Or is that like your policy, so that you will not tell us?

It lives in my deeds. Now, that is a fact. But he goes on to say that I have picked out this person and have not told the House about any others who have not paid. Singularly enough, they have all paid, as far as my information goes, and it was only this particular firm that did not pay. It has paid now, under compulsion.

You mean as far as your information does not go.

I will give you one at Robertson which did not pay.

I am not conscious of any others which have not paid and I assure you that we will make every one pay.

Who gave you that information?

That does not matter to you. Is the information true? Of course it is. It is an official return from the Industrial Council concerned. I do not know of any other firms who have not paid. Now I want to reply to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) who is not here unfortunately.

What about the Government’s policy on the wages of miners.

The Government’s policy does not affect the position with regard to the mineworkers’ wages at all. That is a matter for agreement. My hon. friend wants me to say that I shall make the gold mines do so and so. I would like to know if at any time I was personally satisfied with the wages paid by the gold mining empoyers ….

Are you satisfied now?

No, I am not satisfied, and I am not satisfied with the wages you are paying.

What would happen if you attempted to interfere?

I would be kicked out.

Of course, you would be kicked out.

And if I got kicked out of this Party, my hon. friends opposite would accept me with open arms.

You flatter yourself. We had to get rid of you once.

Yes, and because I wanted to pay better wages. For his own sake, I advise the hon. member not to refer to that. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. My hon. friend here replied very effectively to the remarks of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, but I want to say this. For two years we have been in the course of negotiations with the tobacco farmers and they have kept on pushing us off. This is the accusation that I was prepared to force a wage determination upon them for two years. Everybody but Paarl and Worcester agreed to a gentleman’s agreement fixing the wages. The others agreed upon the wage that should be fixed, but the other two would not agree and because they would not agree we could not come to finality. Nor were we able to get from them a suitable date for a further meeting, but in view of the fact that we are having this all-round conference with the Agricultural Union we are leaving that in abeyance until we have had the result of that, and I hope that negotiations will result in an authoritative agreement as to which employees are farming employees and which are industrial employees, and I hope we will arrive at a settlement which is to be satisfactory to all concerned.

It is with disappointment that I listened to the reply of the hon. Minister of Labour. When we regard the policy that has been followed in recent years, while he has been associated with that Government, we all have a feeling of disappointment over what has been done; we are all very disappointed with the Government’s weak contribution to the promotion of Labour interests in South Africa. That cannot be denied. If we look at the legislation that has been passed in connection with labour interests and the policy that has been followed generally in the past few years it cannot be characterised as a constructive policy. We find very little that is constructive in it. The fact is that in the past few years the Minister has simply sat in the lap of his capitalist nurse, and so comfortable has that lap been that he has even tied his colleagues in the House to the apron strings of that capitalist nurse so that they, too, sit there quite powerless. When you survey South African legislation and the conditions of the various groups of workers in South Africa and compare them with corresponding conditions in America and England, you are forced to the conclusion that we have not kept pace with the progress that has been made throughout the world in connection with labour interests. When we turn to America we observe that labour interests have made considerable strides and that they have been placed on a fairly firm foundation. In England we note the same progress. It is true the Beveridge Report has, to a certain extent, arisen out of the clash that occurred between capital and labour, and the fresh readjustment that has been made by the capitalistic groups in respect of labour interests. We have seen in countries like America and England that the labour move1 ment has constantly remained the force that has strived and struggled for the interests of the labour groups. To use the term that has been employed there they have always remained “pressure groups”. What do we find in South Africa? In South Africa we find labour has not remained a pressure group. On the contrary, it has become a “low lying group” as far as labour interests are concerned. Someone wrote a book a little while ago about the facistic system. This is the title he selected for the book he called it “The Rape of the Masses”. When the history of labour interests in South Africa is described this period in which the Minister of Labour has sat in this Cabinet will be described as the period of the “Rape of Labour”. That represents the Labour Party’s contribution during the past few years to the interests of labour in South Africa. The Minister has a very good opportunity to place labour interests on a sound footing, but nothing has been achieved in that direction. I repeat, when we compare conditions in South Àfrica with conditions in other countries in the world we find we certainly have not kept pace with their progress in respect of labour interests. There is one matter that makes me very anxious. It has already been touched on by members on that side, and the Minister is simply unable to give a reply to it. It is this: What are we going to do about the thousands and tens of thousands of workers who today hold temporary positions? The whole policy of the Government has a temporary complexion. We do not know at all where we stand in regard to the future. Daily we receive letters from the people saying: We are now in work, but what is going to become of us? Reference has been made by the Minister to the Department of Social Welfare, but the Minister cannot give us an assurance that his department has produced an appropriate plan that will deal with the matter in an effective way, and on that account we are very worried. The people in my constituency are in a state of anxiety. The working classes are beset by a spirit of apprehension when they peer into the future. Nothing of a constructive character is held out for them by the Government. For that reason we cannot remain silent, and we must make an earnest appeal to the Government to produce a propêr policy for our working classes. In contrast to that there stands the policy of the Nationalist Party. We present a policy in black and white; we come with something that we can hold out as a prospect for the people of South Africa. We do not act like the Minister who says that he indeed has a fondness for this policy or that, but that his Government have no sympathy for it. We cannot follow what is the policy reflected on the opposite benches when one front-bencher stands up and expounds his policy in reference to native workers, and the next moment another member rises in his seat and says: But that member is not interpreting the policy of the Government. No, as far as this side of the House is concerned our whole Party stands on a definite and firm foundation and in regard to which there does not exist the slightest difference of opinion, because we really and truly have at heart the interests of the working classes, believing that those working classes should not be isolated from the nation, and that they must indeed remain an integral part of the nation. That is our policy, and I say that we come with a vigorous policy in black and white for the people.

More black than white.

I have felt very disappointed with the hon. member for Mayair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers). He is a man I always thought of as one who came here in the interests of the workers, but he has followed the example of his leader in bartering away the interests of the Labour section with the Chamber of Mines who in recent years have paid out dividends such as no other enterprise has paid out. The dividends paid out by the Chamber of Mines runs into millions and millions of pounds. But notwithstanding that fact the hon. member for Mayfair goes and couples the mineworkers with the Chamber of Mines. That we feel represents an injustice towards the mineworkers, and we believe that this side of the House dare not remain silent. An allegation was made by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Wanless) to which I wish to reply. He asked us how we came by the right to act for the Afrikaner women. We are representing the rights of those people because we can no longer bear to see these people led astray by a few organisers, led away not only from their rooted Afrikaner traditions, but to a great extent being made the victims of the capitalists. For that reason we wish to see those women securing their rights in any sphere of labour in which they may be engaged. Just look at the organisers of the past few years. I mention the name of Harris and I mention the name of Broderick. They became capitalists, and that too while these women always had to pay the price. For that reason alone this side of the House would not have been able to remain silent. We want to see those women preserved for the country, and accordingly we take off our hats to that Afrikaner predikant who has today taken that work in hand. We ought to be grateful that we still have Afrikaner predikants who cherish the interests of those women. For that reason we on this side of the House cannot remain silent on the interests of our daughters. Let the Minister stand up and say he is finished with all this dancing about of the past few days, and let him admit squarely to the House that his Government has no policy. We are not dealing here with the Leader of the Labour Party. We are dealing with the Minister of Labour, a member of the Government who is at the head of affairs, and the people look to the Government that is in power and if the Government has no policy it is the duty of the Minister to stand up and to tell the House and the country that the Government has no policy as far as Labour interests are concerned. He should not stand up and say that he feels for labour interests, but that his policy clashes with the policy of the Government. No, that is playing a double game with the people. That is the sort of game that the Labourites have played in the past few years. They have simply sold the interests of labour right through the country in a way the working classes will never forgive them for, and it is time the people knew that.

On the strength of the debate which has taken place in this House on this vote of the Department of Labour, I wish to offer the Minister two warnings. One is against the attempts which are obviously being made to divide the European from the non-European workers in this country, and the second is against the attempt which is equally obviously being made to limit the range of the activities of the Wage Board.

Are you against separate trade unions?

If the hon. member would just wait he will hear what I am against or for.

It is a simple question.

I wish to deal first of all with the question of the Wage Board, and I trust I shall then have time left to deal with the trade union situation. My warning on this occasion arises out of the speech that was made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). This is a type of attack on the work of the Wage Board that is becoming increasingly frequent. There is probably no more unpopular weapon of social advance in this country than the Wage Board, and its unpopularity is growing steadily as the range of its activities widens. That, I think is understandable. The peneration of the Wage Board into smaller industrial areas is bringing the influence of the Wage Board indirectly, as the hon. member for Ermelo said, into a field from which it was specifically excluded by the terms of the Wage Act, that is, agriculture, and the forces are now gathering not only to prevent the direct influence in that field but to stem the tide of this indirect influence. I am hoping sincerely that the Department of Labour is going to keep a very watchful eye indeed on that situation. The Wage Board is one of the most important instruments of social advance in this country owing to the fact, which is the basis of all this trouble, that we have nothing approximating a living standard for the people at the bottom of the economic ladder here. Instead we have a deeply entrenched traditional standard reinforced by prejudice and maintained on a basis of inefficiency. The basis of my warning is this: It is that the situation is not quite as the hon. member for Ermelo suggests it. He chose, as a matter of fact, an industry and a rural occupation which does not yet fall under the control of a control board, as far as I know. But I want to remind the hon. Minister that the bulk of agricultural operations are now under the control of control boards which fix the prices which the consumers must pay, under penal sanctions. Those prices are supposedly fixed on a basis of costs and one of the main costs of the farmer has always been wages. I defy any farmer to prove that the prices that have been fixed under the control boards do not make possible the payment of a much better wage than the farmers were paying when the control boards began to operate. I am absolutely certain that there is no single control board that does not take into consideration the question of wages, and I am pretty certain that there has not been a single control board fixing prices in the last five years since the war started that has not yielded to the claim of farmers that they were paying anything up to 100 per cent. more wages than they were paying up to 1939.

We still do not know the costs.

We still do not know the costs, but that does not prevent the fixation prices on a basis which takes into consideration every change, supposed or real, in the wage position. And when we get outside the range of agricultural activity. I am certain that a careful investigation by the Department of Labour would reveal that any wage determination which even remotely touches the fringe of the commercial and industrial processes which bring the products of the farmer on to the market, responds immediately to any wage determination which is issued by the Department. That is what is actually happening. Increased costs due to wage determinations are being carried over immediately, even where they only indirectly affect the situation. In my experience, they are being carried over immediately at every level on which prices of agricultural products are being fixed. In the circumstances it is a very specious claim indeed that the activities of the Wage Board are pushing up the costs of farmers and reducing their profits. I hope that the Labour Department is going to watch that aspect of the case extremely closely in the negotiations of this conference, which I hear of for the first time today.

The fundamental is to set up a line of demarcation; that will be the first thing.

So I understand, but it is that very line of demarcation about which the Wage Board has to be very much alive not merely in respect of the immediate effects of its own determinations but of the indirect effects so that there will be no question of bluffing us out of such advantages as we can get out of the Wage Board by advancing the claim that the activities of the Wage Board are pushing up the costs of the farmers, which is an entirely false argument in my own personal experience. On that subject again. I want to press the Department of Labour, through the Minister, if possible to see that every wage determination is followed up by a careful investigation by the Department as to the way in which the increased costs are carried over to someone else. The function of our Wage Board is to try to get up the wage standards of this country to something approximating a living standard. We are handicapped in respect of all our social advance in this country by the absence of the basic acceptance of a living standard for all the people, which is the foundation of industrial legislation in countries like Australia and New Zealand. We are still struggling to establish a living standard, and in my experience again, there are strong influences at work to frustrate the intention and the purpose of the Wage Board. At the present moment, to my certain knowledge, the Department of Native Affairs has a whole list of applications from municipalities to be allowed to increase the rents of the houses in their native locations, and one of the grounds on which they are asking for an increase in these rents is that the Wage Board has increased the wages of those who occupy the houses in the locations since the rents were fixed. That is to my mind a most disgusting and discreditable movement. It is another case which shows so clearly the necessity for an integrated policy in this country. I also wanted to appeal to the Minister to make an enquiry into the conditions on the small mines in the outside areas of the country. The question of these small mines links up with this question that was raised by the hon. member for Ermelo, that is the differentiation between industrial employment of a man and his farming employment. I have reason to believe, again on information from the reliable source of the Native Affairs Department, that many of these mines work with native labour which is being paid as farming labourers because part of the time they do farming work, the mines themselves belonging to the farmers. I think it is absolutely essential that we should have an enquiry into conditions on those small mines to see that the differentiation between the industrial employment of a man and his farming employment is drawn in the interest of the worker and not in the interest of the maintenance of a starvation wage. Finally, in regard to the trade unions, I deprecate most strongly the attempt that is now being made by the members of the Opposition to divide non-European workers from the European workers, and I deprecate it not only in the interest of the non-European workers, but I deprecate it on behalf of the European workers themselves. In this policy the members of the Opposition are, as usual, sacrificing the interests of the workers to their own Party platform which is to drive this non-European issue to the very utmost. [Time limit.]

I would like the Minister to get his department to make enquiries into the facilities available for the training of coloured youths as apprentices in order to become skilled artisans. It is a well known fact, and I have it on information that in the Cape for year after year the number of coloured youths taken up as apprentices has been steadily dwindling. Every person in the Cape Province knows that all the beautiful old Dutch homesteads and the Cape furniture were made by coloured artisans, and when I was a youth, in the rural areas of the Cape Province and in most of the urban areas all the skilled artisans were coloured men. I have no objection to European boys getting every facility to be trained as artisans. But I feel that there has been something wrong with our policy in the last 15 years that gradually the coloured youth has been pushed outside and getting only the slightest chance of receiving training as an artisan. It is a fact that coloured youths, when they leave school, have only one opening, and that is in the teaching profession. Very few of them can go to university. The majority of those who leave school after passing Std. VII are absolutely at a dead end and it is not fair to make it a sine qua non that he must become an unskilled labourer simply because facilities are not available to train these men who have a first class dexterity. I have felt for years that there is something wrong in our policy in regard to the training of coloured youths.

Are you asking for the removal of the colour bar?

I am not asking for the removal of the colour bar; I do not want to enter into that difficulty. All I ask is that the Government should make available training facilities for coloured youths to become skilled artisans.

And if you train them they cannot get jobs.

They can get jobs. I can tell the hon. member that the plumbers in Rondebosch ….

In Wynberg they can get more work than they can do.

…. the plumbers and carpenters in Rondebosch and in Wynberg too can get more jobs than they can take on. There is no difficulty in getting work once they are trained.

That may be true of plumbers, but what about the other trades?

There should be no difficulty in finding jobs for them in all trades today, and for a long time to come.

Plumbing is only one trade.

If there is a colour bar in the Cape it is not because of legislation. There are enormous contracts going out for the building of sub-economic homes for coloured people, and I would like to go so far as to say that if there is a colour bar amongst Europeans and non-Europeans, then I would force the contractors to employ coloured artisans when building these homes for the coloured people.

Would you force the coloured people to pay for it?

In any case they pay the rent.

Not for the building.

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) seems to be the expert of the Opposition on gold mining. I am not a gold miner nor a gold digger, but I have shares in gold mining companies. The hon. member stated that the Chamber of Mines was paying out millions of pounds in dividends. But has he told the House of the millions of pounds put into capital? I think the Mineworkers’ Union can look after their own affairs very well. I only want to say this that gold mining shares are available for everybody to buy and it is a very peculiar thing that there seems to be a glut today and certainly the gold mining shares I have have gone down in value and in some cases the dividends have dropped nearly 100 per cent.

That has nothing to do with the capital. The cost of the shares has nothing to do with the capital.

The hon. member knows that the cost is relative to the capital. It is quite plain that if you put one side of the case you should at least put the other side of the case too, and I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the hon. member for Wonderboom did not do so.

The hon. member for North Rand (Mr. van Onselen) read a letter the other day. He could not say where that letter came from. I will tell him. It comes from a girl who was with Mr. Broderick. She did not write the letter to him but to the hon. member fot Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), and the hon. member for Mayfair gave the letter to the hon. member for North Rand to read. For that reason he could not say where the letter came from. I do not know what the relationship is between the two of them, whether she is his wife, or daughter, or typist, or what, but in any case that is the position. The hon. member also said that she is willing to make a sworn affidavit. I just want to tell the hon. member that I think I know a little more about sworn affidavits than he does. If one whose word is doubted threatens one, the first thing to say is “as true as there is a God above my head”, and if one does not accept his word at once, he speaks about a sworn affidavit. That is the experience of all who deal with persons of this character. I think, however, that we have spoken enough about that. I just want to tell the hon. member for Máyfair that as far as he is concerned the position is that questions were put to him to which he did not reply; he had all sorts of excuses. He was chairman of the deputation which met the Chamber of Mines and he entered into the agreement, and I now want to tell him that as an attorney I have made many settlements, but if I were to have made a settlement like the one he made I would have been reported to the Láw Society long ago. The hon. member can say what he likes, but that is the position. There is dissatisfaction amongst the members of the Mineworkers’ Union, and I think they have the right to be dissatisfied. They do not consist of one, or of fifty, but of thousands. They have meetings and we see the reports about it in the newspapers. Then they come here with all sorts of things. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) went so far as to speak about murderers. Those people are dissatisfied, and there is not one member of the Labour Party in the House, there is not one member who is honest, who will not agree that those people were shabbily treated and that they are entitled to an increase in wages. The Minister himself admitted it. They received no increase. The contract was entered into. They are dissatisfied. And now the Executive of the Mineworkers’ Union wants to use a steamroller to flatten out the dissatisfaction. A decision was taken that no election would be held. They cannot be put out of power. Broderick knows that if there is another committee he will have to go. The excuse now is that there is a war on, and there are other excuses. The position is simply that they are afraid of their own members. For that reason the constitution was altered. The Minister knows it just as well as I do. If that is the position I should like to know from members concerned why they used all kinds of arguments which have nothing to do with the matter. They say that I must look after the interests of my constituency and that I have nothing to do with the mineworkers. They are our flesh and blood, it is our people who are being exploited by them, by the imperialists and the capitalistically inclined Labourites, and it is our duty to protect them. I am a member of Parliament and it is my duty towards my people. The Minister also admitted that we have the right to do it. The hon. member for North Rand must understand that that is the position. It will be a sad state of affairs if each member can only speak about his own constituency. If the hon. member does not know it he ought to learn it. I do not think it is necessary to say much more about that. No replies are given. The defence consists of insults and dragging in other matters. It is clear to me that they have a bad case. Ever since this thing started I am more convinced of it than ever that those people who entered into the agreement are people with no brain or no integrity to defend themselves against those whom they are exploiting, or there is something else behind it. They are entitled to more, as the Minister himself said. They are busy expecting from the miners something which they know is wrong. There is dissatisfaction now. Why do they not give the miners an opportunity to express themselves? The argument is now being used that the reason why the 30 per cent. increase cannot be given is that the mines would have to close down if they had to pay that. I have already said before that I do not allow myself to be scared by the mines any more. When we speak about the gold mines we see that a member like the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), a very nice fellow who never allows himself to be upset, jumps up and carries on, and the hon. member for Troyeville even speaks about murderers. It is peculiar to see how those hon. members are afraid of the mines. I am not afraid of them. I say that if the mines do not pay they will not continue to operate. I do not allow anyone to tell me that the mines are kept going to help the workers. Their only object is to make a profit, and if a mine does not pay it is bettter to close it down now while there is still plenty of other work. But what will they do? As soon as a mine no longer pays it is closed down, and people have no work, and then they use this agreement to decrease wages, instead of increasing them, because while no increase has taken place’ the agreement lays down that when the position becomes worse a decrease of wages will take place. I do not take any notice of the stories of the Minister that we aim at breaking up and dividing the trade unions. That is just a stinking fish dragged across the path to kill the scent. I am convinced of it, after having heard these people and their excuses, that they are not able or capable of representing the interests of the mineworkers, or that something else is wrong. Otherwise they would not have acted as they have done. I think that the Department of Labour should keep an eye on such things. If they do not do it, or have not the power, they ought to get the power. But if they have not the power, why did the Minister then go and sit there as chairman? Did he represent the worker? And did the Minister of Justice represent the mines? At one time it was said that the mineowners stand behind the Minister of Justice and support him as the future leader. Is that the reason why he was the chairman there? They had two chairmen. What is the policy? The Minister says that the miners ought to have an increase in wages, but what steps did he take to put that into practice? He shrugs his shoulders; nothing is done. [Time limit.]

I wish shortly to follow up the argument used by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). The Minister in replying to the hon. member said he had made an accusation against him. I do not think the hon. member for Ermelo intended to charge the Minister with any accusation. He simply wanted to bring a few facts to his notice, and I wish to do the same. I am of opinion that probably the Minister, being a townsman, is not fully aware of what is going on in the platteland in connection with the development and advance of rural industries. The position is this. We in the country are used to paying our farm labour mainly native labour, according to wage scales which have established themselves and which have risen in the course of the past four or five years. Now, owing to the application of the Wage Act in some districts, the wages paid to farm labourers have risen automatically and artificially. It has happened in my constituency owing to the fact that a slate quarry industry has been started there and a wage determination having been made in connection with it. The natural consequence was that the wages of native labourers on surrounding farms were increased to the level they claimed. I wish to bring this to the notice of the Minister. The Wage Act has laid down that a wage determination will not be applied to the farming industry, and I maintain that indirectly, and I submit probably without the knowledge of the Minister or his Department, the wage determination has virtually applied, and is in fact applied indirectly to the farming industry. In this particular case wages have been increased in industries in a farming area. That step Jias compelled the surrounding farmers to raise the wages of their native labourers working on the farms. I have no objection to the average wage of farm labourers being raised in the way suggested by the Minister himself, after a thorough investigation has been made, and after a thorough survey has been made of farming activities and it is found that the general level of wages should be raised. I have no objection to that being done provided the farmer is also repaid on the basis of the payment he is making for his labour. But my objection to the present system is that in a roundabout way some farmers are now forced to pay higher wages to their natives owing to the fact that a wage determination has been applied to industries in their district. There is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s attention, and that is he is in fact forcing the rural industries to close down. It is the policy of the Government, I take it to spread new industries to the rural areas so that they may open up there as far as possible. I personally think that will be a very good scheme. It will eliminate the congestion in the towns and do away with traffic problems arising from the conveyance of labourers to and from their places of employment. If it is advisable to open up rural industries then we have to offer certain inducements to employers and to industrialists, to open up these now industries in the country. I maintain that can only be done by allowing them certain privileges, by allowing them certain reductions in wages paid in the country industries. The Minister will reply and say: Why should I discriminate between the town labourer and the country labourer. I wish to point out to him that in effect the worker in the country is in very many instances in a much better position than the worker in the towns. The Minister, 1 notice, accepts that.

There is no need for an investigation then.

There must be an investigation to take into account the amenities a worker in the rural industries possesses over and above those possessed by the worker in the towns, and this applies especially as far as the Afrikaans-speaking worker is concerned. He would prefer to be employed in the rural areas than in the towns. He would then have an opportunity of carrying on farming as a sideline, perhaps as a hobby; he would be able to keep his own cow in his backyard and have an area in which he could grow vegetables. I would like the Minister to keep in mind, in applying the Wage Act, that he is to a certain extent interfering with the principle laid down in the Wage Act itself, that the farming industry must not be touched by the Wage Act; and if wages have to be altered it must only be done after a thorough investigation.

I see the Minister of Agriculture has just made his appearance and I think it is the psychological moment for him to participate in the debate. Matters are now being discussed of vital interest to agriculture, namely the application of the Wage Acts to the farming industry. The Minister of Labour made a very important announcement, namely that in the near future a conference will take place between the agricultural unions and the Department of Labour and the Department of Social Welfare in order to fix what the Minister calls “a line of demarcation”, separate spheres. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) also made an appeal to the Minister of Labour to keep a watchful eye when the line of demarcation is drawn. Let me say at once that the line of demarcation has already been indicated, and it is to be found in the Wage Act of 1925, where it is clearly provided that agricultural co-operative societies, or at least the farming industry, would not fall under that Act. I want there to be clarity about that, that the Government should clearly state what their position is. One now has the position that in the same Cabinet there are two Ministers, the one the Minister of Agriculture and the other the Minister of Labour, and they hold two different conceptions about the Wage Act as such. I do not want to force the two colleagues to be up in arms against each other, but with all due respect I wish to point out to the Minister of Labour that last year the Minister of Agriculture announced that the Wage Act in his opinion cannot be applied to the farming industry. Now I just wish to remind the Minister of the following; At the end of 1942 the Wage Board, by virtue of Government Notice No. 452, I think, in the Government Gazette of 13th March, 1942, started to investigate the scales of salary, working hours and conditions of service in general of the employees in tobacco co-operatives in the Union of South Africa. We do not blame the Minister of Labour. We on this side are also in favour of the labourer receiving the wage he earns, but the Minister of Labour cannot blame us for putting our point of view clearly in this House, and that is that the M.K.T.V. and the Central Co-operative Tobacco Planters’ Association adopted a decisive attitude against the conception which is in process of development in connection with the application of the Wage Act, and those tobacco co-operatives are supported by thousands of small producers of tobacco who protested against the policy the Minister is busy developing. They set out from the standpoint that the Wage Act and the Factory Act, the Industrial Acts, are not applicable to agricultural co-operatives, and that the Wage Act in general is not applicable to farming activities. Can the Minister blame the farmers, seeing that the Minister of Agriculture sits in the same Cabinet with him and declares unequivocally that the Wage Act cannot be applied to farming activities? Can the Minister blame the farmers when they feel that there is no clarity in connection with the Act? Can he blame them when he, the Minister of Labour, replied in the Senate to a question of Senator Teichmann that the Wage Board reported that the legal position of farmers’ co-operative societies in regard to the Wage Act is not clear. In other words, the Minister said that according to the Wage Board the legal position as regards the application of the Wage Act to agricultural co-operatives is not clear. The Wage Board is in doubt, but the Minister of Agriculture is clear on the point. We therefore have the right to put the question to the Minister of Labour as to whether it is his honest opinion that he can apply the Wage Act to agricultural co-operatives, or not. I wish to bring this argument to the attention of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, and also of the Minister: What happens in a tobacco co-operative is just the same as what happens on the farm of the farmer. What the farmer does individually on the farm, farmers collectively do in the agricultural co-operatives. The co-operative is nothing else but the concentrated, collective action of farmers.

Do they not trade?

There is no manufacturing of products. What the farmer does on the farm is what the co-operative does collectively. The progressive farmer has come to the realisation that by making use of collective action he can market a standardised product, and if the Wage Act is applied to the co-operative it is a blow at the farming population as a whole. If the Wage Act is applied to agricultural co-operatives, the Minister will be separating agricultural co-operatives from “farming activities”. What is the difference between farming activities on the farm and in the co-operative? They are identical. The farmer is the co-operative and the co-operative is the farmer. Therefore before the conference takes place I want to put the point of view of this side clearly.

That is one of the subjects for discussion, the line of demarcation.

The fact that you are busy demarcating is a clear indication that you are busy developing a policy of applying the Wage Act to agricultural co-operatives, although the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) who sits there so pathetically wishes to deny it.

I am convinced that the Minister will not do it.

I hope that the hon. member speaks on behalf of his Party and on behalf of the Minister of Labour, that he can give the assurance to the farming population that together with the Minister of Labour he assumes the responsibility of saying that the Wage Act will not be applied to the co-operatives. But if that is so, why are there negotiations about a line of demarcation?

Because in more than one respect uncertainty exists in regard to the agricultural co-operatives.

According, to the Wage Act that ought not to be so. I fear that this action of the hon. member and of the Minister caused the difficulties by evading matters and making matters more vague. The action of the hon. member for Rustenburg gives the hon. member for Cape Eastern the opportunity to make passionate propaganda to the Minister of Labour for including agricultural activities within the provisions of the Wage Act, and I make bold to prophesy that in whichever way they may set to work, eventually the gentleman’s agreement may become the jumping off place for later applying the Wage Act generally to agricultural co-operatives.

There is no agreement at present.

I am glad that the hon. member says that. I hope he speaks with authority. Our experience is that the Minister acts fairly sympathetically, and we wish to request him in future to act sympathetically. To a certain extent he has up to now acted psychologically and sympathetically. And where the negotiations take place about the gentleman’s agreement we wish to ask that if demarcation takes place, very cautious action will be taken with regard to applying the Wage Act to agricultural co-operatives.

The hon. Minister has enabled the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) to congratulate him today on his policy of allowing coloureds and Europeans to be members of the same trade unions. I then said by way of interjection that we now know where we stand. In other words, we know what the policy is on that side, what the Government’s policy is and that of members who support the Minister, namely the policy that coloureds and Europeans should be members of the, same trade unions.

Just to correct the interjection. You spoke of “non-Europeans”. Now you are using the word “coloureds”. Non-Europeans can also mean natives.

Does it make any difference to you whether they are coloureds or natives?

The hon. member is now adopting the standpoint that he has no objection to joint membership by coloureds and Europeans, but he apparently objects to Europeans and natives.

I said nothing of the sort.

It is the Minister of Labour who proclaims the Government’s policy. The Minister says that he is going to do nothing to ensure that there is no intermingling of coloureds and Europeans in trade unions. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Rustenburg definitely this time whether he agrees with the Minister.

You know what my attitude is.

Don’t be so secretive. The hon. member will pardon me if I say that he is afraid.

I stated my attitude emphatically and the hon. member knows what it is.

But the Minister proclaims your policy. As far as the Minister himself is concerned, he is now endeavouring to give the House the impression that natives do not also belong to trade unions, such as those names I have here. He is trying to shield behind the fact that native trade unions are not registered separately. Naturally not. That is by no means the argument. It is not at all what I said. But what we maintain is that there are natives who are members of trade unions together with Europeans, that there are natives on the management of trade unions together with Europeans, registered trade unions. I challenge the Minister to deny it.

He denied just now that there are natives in the trade unions.

The Minister denies that native trade unions are registered, but he did not deny that there are natives who are members of registered trade unions.

He did deny it.

I would rather hear it from the Minister than from the hon. member; let the Minister deny it. In the short time at my disposal. I would like to read out the names of the trade unions whose membership includes both Europeans and non-Europeans, as furnished me by the Minister. I understand that I cannot have the names recorded in Hansard unless I read them out. Therefore I will read out the Minister’s reply. They are the following trade unions—

This includes, together with the names which I read out earlier this afternoon, the 55 trade unions where Europeans and nonEuropeans are together. How many of the non-Europeans are natives and how many coloureds, we do not know.

Does that not rest with ‘the trade unions?

The act stipulates that it does not matter whether they are Europeans or non-Europeans. It is the registrar who allows both. We say that there are two contradictory policies in the country. Public opinion in South Africa has been roused to such an extent in recent years as far as this question is concerned, that no Government can proceed any further, as far as trade unions are concerned, without looking this matter in the face. It will no longer be of any avail for members on the other side to try and hide behind a smokescreen either on the platteland or even in the towns. They will have to declare their policy. I am glad that we have progressed so far that we now know what the policy on the other side is, namely that the United Party does not intend to bring about any change in connection with joint trade unions. I hope that I am not stating the policy incorrectly. I trust that I have done them no injustice. It is their responsible Minister who has put the matter in this manner. The Acting Prime Minister is present, and if it is not the policy of the United Party as I have stated it here, then he can put me right with an interjection. I will state it again: It appears from the statement of the Minister of Labour, that the United Party is unwilling to draw a line of demarcation between Europeans and non-Europeans as far as trade unions are concerned.

If they want to do so, they must amend the Act.

And the Minister replied that he is unwilling to amend the Act.

Now Oom Kalie is sitting there.

That Act existed in the time of the Nationalist Party.

The Act was piloted through this House in 1937, and the trade unions were thereafter registered by the office of the present Minister. I am speaking here in the presence of the Acting Prime Minister, and because it is a matter of such a far-reaching nature, I want to put a direct question to him: Am I stating the United Party’s policy correctly, that it is as the Minister of Labour proclaimed here, namely that they will not separate Europeans and non-Europeans as regards the trade unions.

On a point of order, the hon. member is not stating correctly what the Minister said here. He uses the words “Europeans and non-Europeans” whereas the Minister spoke of coloureds.

That is not a point of order.

I have read the Minister’s reply to my question. These are trade unions whose membership consists of both Europeans and non-Europeans. Now we say to the Minister that among those non-Europeans there are not only coloureds but also natives who are members. I challenge the Minister to deny it, and not the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). While the Minister is now trying to understand what I am saying, I want to turn again to the Acting Prime Minister. It is a matter of such far-reaching interest that he must listen to me. I am asking whether the Minister of Labour stated the Government’s policy correctly when he said that he did not intend to bring about a line of demarcation between the Europeans and the non-Europeans in the trade unions. If the Acting Prime Minister does not reply. I must surmise that he agrees with the Minister of Labour. [Time limit.]

I had not an opportunity to conclude what I was going to say before on the issue which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) is determined to drive to the uttermost limits. I began by saying, and I will repeat, that I deprecate most strongly the attempt made by the Opposition to drive a wedge between the workers of this country, to keep the African divided from the European and to separate the European from the coloured. Now, in the first place I would like to ask on what authority and by what right the members of the Opposition claim to dictate to the trade unions how they shall conduct their business.

They are Statutory bodies.

They are Statutory bodies which are functioning according to the law. What the hon. member for Moorreesburg is really asking for is an amendment of the Industrial Conciliation Act. He wishes the Government to change the Industrial Conciliation Act, not so that the native workers shall not be allowed to be members of the trade unions, since that is already the law, but so that the coloured man shall be brought under the disability which now applies to the native. He is asking for a change in the Act. He is not asking what the Minister thinks of the present administration of the Act; that is a very specious argument. At the present moment the Act is being applied in its full terms. We know just how effectively the Act is being applied by the department. And I think the House and the Minister should be quite clear about the hon. member’s intentions. And again I want to know by what authority and on what justification do members of the Nationalist Party claim to dictate to the working class movement how it should organise its business and defend its rights. Trade unions are the means by which the working classes protect and extend their own rights, and those people there have no knowledge of this instrument or of the workers, yet they dare to say how the workers shall use the instrument. I want to say from my own experience what the result is of the policy on which the hon. member for Morreesburg insists, and why I deprecate this policy not only in the interest of the non-Europeans but also of the Europeans. It is one of the most direct means. … I hope the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) will let me have the Minister’s attention on this point. I lost a very important point before through his distraction of the Minister and I am hoping to make this point to him now as I feel it is important.

I was only getting information.

I want to relate my experience of the labour market and of what is happening there at present. In my own experience, the industrial situation in the country has moved to this point that the non-European has proved himself to be extremely valuable in the industrial field; employers know just how much they can use him. And they also know that there has been a great swing in public opinion. There has been a strong swing of public opinion in favour of extension of the rights of the non-European, of his claim to development of these rights, a swing backed by the need of industry to find a market. That strong urge is being felt in industry today and industrial employers today want to do as much as they can for the non-European, if there is a chance to do so. The hon. Minister knows that also. There was the clearest indication given of this last year in the commercial distributive trades when the employers were prepared to separate the non-Europeans from the Europeans and were ready to negotiate with the non-Europeans with an offer of considerable increase in wages for them, but were not prepared to negotiate with the Europeans. The Opposition does not care two hoots about that. They do not worry about dividing the workers and endangering white standards of living. As a matter of fact, they just do not know what is happening. They do not know that in dividing the labour market, as they are doing now, they are handing over the workers gagged and bound to the employers. Perhaps that is really what they want to do. Now, if you divide the workers as they are proposing to do there will be nothing to prevent the employers negotiating terms with any section of the workers that they like; and whatever may be said by hon. members over there about uS—and they have taken the opportunity on many occasions lately to say things which I consider to be thoroughly improper—we have always in this House defended the standard of the white workers in this country and we have always stood for a policy designed to keep all racial groups together instead of setting them at each other’s throats. That was our policy and it is because we are still working, and will continue to do so, in the direction of keeping all racial groups together, that we are not prepared to support the type of policy which the hon. member for Moorreesburg is now pleading for. That policy will ruin the cause of the workers in this country. It will not serve us or anyone else. Our business here is to maintain the standards which have been established and to move everyone up towards those standards, and towards wider standards for all. In all the circumstances I trust that the hon. Minister will make no concession to the Opposition; and I wish to goodness we could have some voice from the Governnient side of the House which pretends to reflect what liberal opinion there is in the country in support of those who know that the only safety in this country lies in a better standard of living for all. I challenge the members of the Government Party to support our contention in this matter. So far we have heard nothing in the discussion on this vote except the voices of people who want to keep wages down. Is it not time that some of the Government members who know what the position is should come to our assistance?

It is tragic to listen to the plea delivered here by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) for equality. One would have expected her to plead for better wages for the nonEuropeans, but instead of her fulfilling her function by pleading for that, she pleads here for equality. She asks what right we on this side have to plead for segregation in the trade unions. Let me point out to her that we have the fullest right to discuss that matter, because the fact that she sits here today is due to segregation. The fact that Parliament adopted the policy of segregation gives her the right to sit here, so what right has she got to say that this side of the House has no right to plead for segregation as regards the trade unions.

She did not say that.

It would do that hon. member a lot of good if she would study the psychology of the inhabitants of South Africa a little, because then she will be able to be much more effective in her calling, which in the first place is to improve the social conditions of the natives, and not to plead for equality, because if she fully understands the psychology of the very large majority of the population of South Africa, she will realise that she is doing nobody in the country a favour, least of all the non-Europeans, by pleading here for a policy of equality. Because where we have non-Europeans and Europeans in the same trade unions we find friction; where we find them together in the social sphere there is friction.

That is the policy followed by the old Nationalist Party.

That hon. member makes use of the sad argument that we should always look to the past. A young man looks to the future and not to the past. But that is the habit of members opposite. As soon as they get into difficulties they look to the past. We are here to see to the interests of the Europeans and the non-Europeans in the future. I wish to congratulate the capitalists in South Africa on the fact that they manage so well to pull a zipp through the mouth of the Labour Party. They took the Labour Party leader into their midst as a Minister, and in that manner they pulled a zipp through the mouth of the whole Labour Party. For more than a day we have been dealing with the vote Labour, but not one of the members of the Labour Party had the courage or the inclination to attack the Minister of Labour and the Government in connection wtih the conditions of the Workers in South Africa. No, they come here to honour the capitalistic point of view.

But you are also a capitalist.

Amongst us it is not a question of who is a capitalist and who is not. We are here to plead for the interests of the poor man. It is tragic to see how Government members opposite jump about when they are dealing with the Labourites. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) put pertinent questions to the Minister of Labour and even to the Acting Prime Minister. They cannot or will not reply, but members opposite felt so uncomfortable and anxious that they moved about in their seats and one after the other jumped up to reply on behalf of the Minister. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) even rose on a point of order to defend the Minister of Labour, but he himself was out of order. We have sympathy for him. That shows once again the lack of unity opposite. The lack of unity in that Party is so great that members themselves become ashamed of their own Minister. We witnessed the scene here that the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) stated that farm labourers should receive 10s. a day, and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said that their wages should be doubled, in spite of the fact that we on this side pressed the Minister of Labour to state his policy to us. Which of those two tendencies does he support—that of the hon. member for Green Point with his 10s. a day or that of the hon. member for Hospital with his doubling of wages? But we can receive no reply from the Minister of Labour? Therefore we feel anxious about the position. Now that workmen will be returning to the labour market on a large scale it is our duty on this side to force the Minister to state a firm policy. There are people who return and others who are being removed, and we want to know, together with those people, what awaits them. But the Minister of Labour brings up the old worn-out argument that there must be an investigation, a scientific survey. While that investigation is being made, while that scientific survey is in progress, those people want food, they want a house and they want work. If the Minister is at this stage going to institute a commission of enquiry I am convinced that it will be much too late to supply those people with work when the report is published. The Minister in a dramatic way stood up and spoke here, saying that he expects advice from his side of the House and from this side and from everyone. I can give the Minister the assurance that if he resigns and we are in his position we will not run to everybody for advice but will know what to do. He must bear the responsibility as Minister. He is in that position, and the country has the right to demand that he should have a firm policy and to give the workers of South Africa the assurance as to what fate awaits them. But that is what we cannot obtain from the Minister of Labour. I also wish to direct an appeal to the Minister, to make a clear statement of policy. He also indicated here that farm labourers should receive double wages. I can point out to the Minister that in the past the endeavour always was to keep the costs of living as low as possible. The first persons affected by that were the primary producers. It is much easier to control the price of a bag of mealies or a bag of wheat than it is to control the profits of othér industries, and therefore we in the past had the position that the primary producer had to bear the greatest burden brought about by this attempt to keep the costs of living for the population low. It is so often said that if maize is 19s. a bag and wheat £1 19s.—the producer can pay a higher wage to his labourers and make a good profit. But those people do not realise fully that it is not so easy to control a farmer’s production costs as it is to control industrial costs and profits, because the farmer’s production is subject to the vagaries of nature and of the climate. One year he has a good harvest and the following year nothing. In one year there may be good rain but the following year there may be drought as we have now, with the result that the farmer has to sell his cattle. A little while ago farmers could still keep cattle on their farms because they still had grazing. Now they must sell the cattle because there is no more grazing, and many people argue from the point of view that the farmer receives a fixed price, so much for an ox and so much for a sheep. But they lose sight of the fact that the meat, under these circumstances, is inferior and that the farmer does not receive what he was theoretically calculated to receive; they do not take into account that he suffers damage in all directions. All these facts are not taken into account by them, and they want to compare the position of the farmer with that of a factory which has a more or less constant production and a more or less steady income. It is high time that those who are always so concerned that farm labourers should receive higher wages should take all these matters into consideration. [Time limit.]

I will not detain the Committee long. I just want to remove a misunderstanding. I do not want to say anything about the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, because he evidently was already dealing with the agricultural vote, and with droughts and such things. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) said here that the Minister of Labour clearly stated that non-Europeans could not belong to a trade union together with Europeans. The hon. member, with his experience, ought to know that it is wrong to represent the matter in that way. The Minister said that coloureds are members of the same trade unions as Europeans, But when the hon. member’s speech is read in the northern provinces, and he speaks of non-Europeans, it is not understood to mean coloureds.

Allow the Minister to reply for himself.

I have nothing to do with the Minister now. He is man enough to reply for himself. But I have to prevent the misrepresentation which will result if we do not put the matter in the right light now. When it is read in the northern provinces that Europeans and non-Europeans both belong to a trade union, the question is put to members opposite whether that means natives, and they say yes. I am not in favour of coloureds belonging to the same trade unions as Europeans. I just want to guard here against the misrepresentation which will take place in the northern provinces. Last year already I heard it said that natives and Europeans belong to the same trade union, and that is not true.

Are you against natives and Europeans belonging to the same trade union?

I can state with authority that since the Act of 1924 was passed, there has been no change in that article. In that Article there is no discrimination as to who may be members of the trade union and who may not, and on that point the Act of 1924 has not been amended.

When was the Act passed?

In 1924, and up to the present there has been no amendment to the clause to the effect that there should be differentiation between who can be members of a trade union and who cannot be. But on the authority of the Department of Labour I declare that when it is found that natives belong to a trade union to which Europeans belong, those trade unions receive notice that those native members must be dispensed with, or else the trade union will not be registered.

Leave it to the Minister to make that statement.

That is a fact. If members opposite make statements which are facts, we accept it. We do not ask them to leave it to the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) to make those statements. The fact is that this Government consistently follows that policy of not allowing natives to belong to the same trade union as Europeans. That is something which nobody opposite can controvert. If it is a matter of such deadly earnest to the Opposition, they had time enough in the nine years they were in power to amend the Act, but they did not do it. The Minister of Labour spoke here about coloureds, and members opposite wish to make use of that to drag in natives. That is the whole object of their actions, to derive political gain from it.

I should like to explode all this talk about segregation, about coloured people and such things by the Nationalist members. In the 1911 Mines and Works Act there appears a clause that lays down that certificates of competency may only be issued to white persons who are of European descent. In 1926 Act No. 25 was adopted—I think it was still during the time when Mr. F. W. Beyers was Minister of Mines—and in connection with that Act I should like to read out the following—

In other words, blasting certificates for the mines may be issued to those nationalities. They can undercut the European workers and work for less, and now members on the other side argue that these people should not be admitted to a trade union to insure that they do not work for less than the white man’s wages. But let us leave that there. I did not rise to deal with that. I am obliged to rescue the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) from his ignorance in connection with the chairmanship of the committee that brought about an agreement between the Wineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines. The chairman was Mr. C. A. Cilliers, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, not I.

Then you should correct that in your paper.

I am not responsible for the publication. I am not responsible for what appears in it. I have no control over that periodical. As far as mineworkers’ wages are concerned I have always taken the stand that £10 a day is too little for the dangerous work these men do and the risks they run underground. They know that. But let us continue. During the term of office of the Nationalist Party Government a wage board was appointed under Judge De Villiers. His finding was in favour of a minimum wage of 25s. for the mineworkers. That did not suit the book of the then Government and it was not brought into effect. Later another wage board was appointed under Mr. F. A. W. Lucas. He fixed the minimum wage at 21s. a day for certain work and 17s. 6d. a day for other work. That was adopted and brought into effect. Hon. members there talk a great deal about the past and about justice under the republics. I am told on good authority that the late President Kruger was approached at that time by the Chamber of Mines to help them to make labour cheaper. He came to a shaft, looked down and exclaimed: “Pay a pound to the man for going down; for the work he does pay him what you like.” Now I must accept that what the late President Kruger said was also accepted by them, and they fixed the wage at 21s. a day. So they reckoned that the Chamber of Mines can pay the mineworkers 1s. a day for their work.

Hear, hear.

There you have logic!

When the circus was in progress on Tuesday and the clowns were making such a noise that you could not hear your own voice, I concluded speaking where I should now like to begin, namely, in regard to the wages of the garment workers and the mineworkers. What did that Party do for the garment workers when their trade union was poor and unorganised? Then the late Mr. A. P. J. Fourie let the girls who were working in the factories be ridden down by the police horses. Where were the Van der Walts then? Where was the present Nationalist Party then?

Where were you then?

That is my business. What was the intention of hon. members in regard to the efforts they made in connection with the Mineworkers’ Union? Their intention was to sabotage the war effort. If they could have caused a strike when our men were making a stand at El Alamein and every effort was required to assist them, they would probably have ruined the war effort. That was the reason. The second reason is that they wanted to secure a bridgehead on the Witwatersrand as far as their politics are concerned. If they can get into their hands the Mineworkers’ Union and the Garment Workers’ Union, the two big trade unions on the Witwatersrand, they would have a big political force in their hands. This is the second reason they want to get these organisations into their hands. The hon. member for Swellendam stated that members of the public told him they imagined this was Parliament House but they saw it was a circus. I am not surprised in view of the way hon. members carried on making such a noise and showing no respect for the Speaker. That must have brought the public under the impression that this was a circus. There has been talk here about the intelligence of a rooster, but after listening to all the crowing in this House it is not necessary to enquire where the rooster derives its intelligence. In regard to the improvements the mineworkers have received in respect of their remuneration I should like to give some information, because hon. members on the Opposition benches are so ignorant in regard to these things that everything they mention is more or less wrong. I stated that the then Government granted a minimum wage of 21s. to the mineworkers which in most cases is the maximum. Notwithstanding this the mineworkers from that time received the following benefits, though I have not got them all here: They get a week longer leave; instead of 24 days they get 30 working days. Their leave money is now £54 instead of £24. They obtain a sick fund allowance of £7 10s. 0d. The investment fund is £16 a year; there is a special grant of £7 10s. 0d.; the cost of living allowance is about £60 a year. I do not say it is enough.

Since when is that?

On the fixed wage of 21s. a day it amounts to £327 12s. a year; that is the minimum wage for a mineworker. And the total of the items I have mentioned is £121. [Time limit.]

I should not have taken cognisance of the remarks made by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) if it had not been for two mis-statements he made, or rather one mis-statement and one disgraceful statement. The disgraceful statement he made was when he attempted to ridicule the memory of President Kruger.

I mentioned that by way of example.

He referred to a so-called incident in the life of President Kruger as proof that President Kruger also wanted to give too little to the mineworkers, namely 21s., and he said that the late President Kruger’s proposition was to give the mineworkers £1 to go down and 1s. for their work.

On a point of explanation. I stated that at that time there was a wage dispute. The mines wanted to reduce the wages. They first paid the mineworkers £1 per day. Then President Kruger said: “What you pay the mineworkers for their work is your affair, but for going down the shaft you must pay them £1.” That is what I said.

And he followed up by ….

Rubbish.

The hon. ill-mannered member has become too big for his boots. His arrogance exceeds all bounds. If he will only listen he may understand what is being said. He should cut out his uncouth interjections. It is correct, as the hon. member stated, that immediately after that he mentioned, the Lucas wage award, which brought the fixed wage up to 21s. and he said that was what President Kruger meant—£1 per day, and 1s. for the work. I regret, and it is lamentable that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) should have applauded this nasty reference. Well, that is his affair.

I cheered what the hon. member said in reference to what the Nationalist Party had done.

Now I come to the Lucas award. That occurred during the period of the Nationalist Party’s pact with the Labourites. It shows how stupid the hon. member’s allegation is. The Lucas award represented an increase on the wages in force before that time under the S.A.P. Government. The hon. member for Rustenburg says it was shameful. Does he know that it was an increase on the wage that existed before that time? And in those days was the hon. member for Mayfair a Nationalist or a Labourite?

A Nationalist, unfortunately.

And the hon. member for Mayfair approved the award at that time.

No.

He was a Nationalist at that time and he approved it. But what is more, his present leader was a member of the Pact Government and he also approved it, and the Minister of Labour, who approved it, was at that time a member of the Labour Party. That is the sad position in which the hon. member finds himself, and in this way he is now endeavouring to make an attack. I hope the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) now finally understands what it is about. But I go further. It is now stated we should not argue for segregation of European and non-European in trade unions, because, they say that was also the case during the time of the Nationalist Party. The fact is it is the policy of this side of the House that in the trade unions there should invariably be a line of division between Europeans and non-Europeans. The policy of the other side and of the Labour Party is that there should be no division. That is the difference between the two big Parties.

That is a disgraceful perversion.

Let the Acting Prime Minister stand up and tell the House that he is prepared so to alter the law that separation will be introduced.

Separation of Europeans and coloureds?

The hon. member is now prepared to say that he is willing to sit alongside coloureds. He is satisfied with that. He is content to sit alongside coloured people, but not with natives. We sáy we neither want to sit alongside natives nor alongside coloured people. That is the difference today.

You should put your case better than that.

I will state it fairly and clearly by saying it is the policy of this Party as far as coloured people and natives are concerned that there should be a dividing line in the trade unions between white and black, while the United Party’s policy is that there should indeed been a dividing line between Europeans and natives in trade unions but not between Europeans and coloured people. Is that correct? Please answer.

Yes, I am not afraid to say that; it was the position for many years in the days of the old Nationalist Party.

I am putting the facts as they are. That is the difference today between us and them. Then they say that this may be our policy today but what was the Act of 1924? Why has it not been altered? I shall reply to that.

Exactly.

In 1910 when Union was established the laws of the country, as they were then adopted, were that as far as the franchise was concerned and similar things there should be no distinction between European and nonEuropean between Europeans on the one hand and coloured people and natives on the other hand. That is what was accepted at the time. But we do not stand still. We have moved. Subsequently the Nationalist Party accepted the policy that as far as the franchise and so forth was concerned there should be a distinction between the white man and the native. The S.A.P.—hon. members on the other side are the heritage of that Party—combated that. There was this difference between us and them. In regard to the coloured franchise both sides accepted the position that the coloured franchise should be maintained in the same way as the European, and also as far as trade unions were concerned they could be members. But I maintain we have advanced. We have adopted the policy that there should be a distinction.

You have gone back.

I know that the hon. member has no intelligence but surely he has enough to understand this. I am putting the facts. That was the difference between us. Eventually the South African Party, when fusion came, accepted our policy in regard to the native franchise, separation of the white man and the native. Then the Nationalist Party went a step further and said that the time had also arrived for separation to be made as between the white man and the coloured man. Hon. members opposite will not accept that.

That was not under fusion.

In 1932 the Nationalist Party went a step further and said that separation should also be effected between the white man and the coloured, and since then that has been the policy of this side. But the Party on the other side of the House has remained stationary, and they still follow the policy of there being no separation of the white man and the coloured. Thus have we arrived at the present position. We want to go a step further and say that as far as trade unions are concerned as well there must be absolute separation of the white man and the coloured—not only of the white man and the native, but also of the white man and the coloured. But the Party on the opposite benches are following the old Unionist policy as regards the coloured man of there being no dividing line. I have summarised the facts without any criticism just in order to establish the historical background.

Why have you changed your standpoint?

Because we saw the danger. Hon. members on the other side have themselves changed their attitude as far as the natives are concerned because later they also accepted the standpoint that the native should not have the franchise with the European.

In the Transvaal the native has never had the franchise.

In 1910 Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts, as Transvaalers, and Gen. Hertzog and others, as Free Staters, adopted the standpoint that the natives should retain the franchise with the Europeans.

In the Transvaal?

The native only had the franchise in the Cape Province, but even as regards this the Party on the other side underwent conversion, for eventually they said that the natives should not have the franchise with the Europeans. Is this correct or not? Then I ask how did the change come about on your side? I want to make this prediction that just as this Party has accepted our policy in regard to separation between Europeans and natives they will eventually also accept our policy in regard to separation of Europeans and coloureds, because whether they today parade with the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour they will as Afrikaners eventually have to realise that if you wish to maintain the position of the Europeans in South Africa you must draw a line of demarcation between Europeans and coloureds as well. I make the prediction that in the long run they will perceive that our policy is the right one in order to save white civilisation from going under. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has now indicated definitely that the Opposition which is talking all the time about development, instead of being prepared to go forward is now advocating a policy of going backward in the policy of industrial development. The hon. member for Waterberg tried to draw a red herring across the trail by introducing the electoral law, and even there he was quite wrong in what he said, because as a fact during the whole period of the Pact Government—I happened to be a supporter of that Government and knew what the position was—the Pact stood solidly and strongly for the policy of retaining the vote for the coloured people, so much so that when the late Gen. Byron introduced a Bill into this House to extend the franchise to European women the Nationalist Party then opposed that extension on the ground that they could not agree to the extension of the franchise to European women without an extension to coloured women. Then the hon. member for Waterberg comes along and ’says they altered the policy in 1932. That is not the case. As long as Gen. Hertzog was at the head of the Pact Government their policy was exactly the same. It was only after 1933, and really after they drove Gen. Hertzog out of public life, that the Nationalists changed their policy and the same thing applies to the colour bar. The position is that prior to the 1922 strike we had a law which intended to apply a colour bar, but it was found not to be effective. There was the Hildick Smith case on the mines and it was found the law was ultra vires, and they introduced an amending law under which they specifically provided that the coloured people were no longer subject to the colour bar. That law has obtained until today. Now they raise a question about the native. It is true that as the law stands the native is not entitled to be a member of a registered trade union. The coloured man is entitled to be a member of a registered trade union. In the question that was put to the Minister they used the word non-European in a general way, and the answer was perfectly correct because it simply applied to coloured members who were members of the trade union. And because natives are not allowed to become members of registered trade unions the very natural development arose for the native workers to form their own trade unions. In the past in Great Brtain, and indeed in every industrial country, the employers at one stage were opposed altogether to any trade unions. They wanted to be able to exploit the workers without any check being imposed on them at all. But here it was recognised in 1924—after the 1922 strike— by the Government, the Brace Commission having meanwhile reported, that the best way to develop the country was to have economic peace and co-operation between employer and employee, and that the best way to have that was to have trade unions which could negotiate with the employers’ organisations. I say without any hesitation that the object in not recognising African Trade Unions or not allowing natives to become members of registered trade unions is to create a wedge between all sections of the workers and so enable employers to exploit the workers to a much greater extent. And those are the people who talk about capitalists. I say without hesitation, and I put it to the Minister, that we are now at a stage in the industrial development and the general development of South Africa when it is becoming essential that the native also must be allowed, either by amendment of the law to become a member of the registered trade unions, or alternatively the African unions must be recognised in order that they can by negotiation effect an improvement and a general rise in their standard of life, which is the only method by which we can develop this country for the benefit not only of the non-European but also of the European section of the community.

The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has censured us for being 100 per cent. against equality. It is an honour for us to bear that blame. She glories in being 100 per cent. for equality between European and coloured. And what is more, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) approves this. We are not opposed to the coloured people in our country obtaining their rightful share of the labour. We are in favour of that. We also want to see the coloured people living decently and having their rightful share of the work. But there should be no equality, not even in the trade unions.

But what about the natives?

We are 100 per cent. in favour of the coloureds and the natives getting their rightful share in our country. They have to live and we should like to see that they are able to live, but there should be no equality with the Europeans; they should stand apart. The hon. member for Cape Eastern is 100 per cent. for equality, but nevertheless those three members sit there as Europeans in the place of natives, to represent the natives here. Why are they not in favour of natives sitting with them? Why do they refuse this equality?

You helped to place the native representatives there.

There is tremendous dissatisfáction in the country over labour conditions and the tremendous dissatisfaction that exists is not directed so much against the Labour Party as against the Government Party, because plans have not been laid for providing work in the country. I say the dissatisfaction is against the Government and not against the Labourites. Here in the House the hon. Minister is acting as he acted a few days back when the galleries were crowded. We must say we rather like the Minister. We do not like him as Minister of Labour because is making a hopeless failure of labour, but we like him as an acrobat. The other day I was afraid he would eventually find himself standing on the floor of the House so that he might be seen by the whole House. The Minister pleaded here as a champion of labour, but when he comes to his own Party he says to his Party: I am the fifth wheel on the coach I can do nothing, it is the Government’s fault, it thwarts me. Then the Minister throws all the blame on the Government and he is square with his Party. I say the cause of the feeling that no proper labour policy exists is the Minister of Labour, who does not really function in the interests of the working classes, and who endeavours to antagonise them against the Government Party. I am surprised hon. members opposite have not long since observed that, and that they still encourage the Minister of Labour. They fail to appreciate that this is at the expense of their own Party, that the Minister is engaged in undermining the Labour Party. This side of the House is not making propaganda to obtain power. Our whole object is to see that this country is properly governed, that there is a proper policy in regard to labour as well as in other directions. When a government is set up that has at heart in an unqualified way the interests of the working classes and takes control in a proper manner we shall not be opposed to such a government. But we are completely hostile to maladministration and to a government that has absolutely no labour policy. It must be understood that we are opposed to such a government. Steps are not taken to ensure that South Africa and South Africa only is having its interest cherished by a policy that is South African and not foreign. We are against such a government and the hon. Minister is in this connection a satellite. He welcomes equality between Europeans and coloureds — between our trade unions. That section of the House who are really charged with the responsibility of government ought so to act that they will put an end to this unholy relationship that exists. We want to have a solid policy that will endure and that will cherish the interests of the workers. We feel that the worker of the country is underpaid but with the rest of the population he must live. We want to see the worker gain a rightful share, whether in industries or anywhere else, and we feel that justice cannot prevail in respect of the workman in this country, and it is on that our protest hangs. Therefore we are passing criticism, and we would like to assist the Government where they fall short in regard to their obligations. We do not want to damn them, we only want to wake them up.

This question of the separation of European and non-European, especially in reference to trade unions, is of such great importance that it is not only necessary that we should have clarity over the present position but that we should also have the historic background in its right perspective. Accordingly, I have put the case how the whole policy of the country and of the Parties has developed, how it has come about that not only this side of the House has departed from its old policy in respect of the coloureds as well as the natives, but how that side of the House as far as the natives are concerned has also altered its policy under pressure from this Party in reference to the native and the European, and that too in the right direction. Now unfortunately the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) comes along and he casts doubt on that. He says he was a supporter of the Pact Government and consequently he knows everything about what the Party’s policy was in those years. It seems to me that the hon. member for Troyeville forgets that in 1929 he ceased to be a supporter of the Pact Government. The alteration to which I have referred occurred in 1932. Now the hon. member questions that. Let the hon. member listen quietly instead of waving his hands around and nodding his head. I shall give him the facts. The facts are these, that in 1932 at the Nationalist Party Congress in Stellenbosch it was decided that the time had arrived when the coloured man and the white man should be separated as far as the franchise was concerned, and in the same year the Free State Congress under the chairmanship of the late Gen. Hertzog took a similar resolution Unfortunately after Fusion Gen. Hertzog refused to apply it as his policy any longer. The Nationalist Party of the Cape as well as the Nationalist Party of the Free State took this resolution that the time had arrived when separation should be brought about between the white man and the coloured. The hon. member for Troyeville should not now question the facts because those are the facts. After that we had Fusion, and when there was a division among the Nationalists those who remained with the Nationalist Party persevered with the policy that separation should be effected between white and coloured, and that is the difference existing today between this side of the House and that side. As far as this matter is concerned I do not despair for the future because it is clear to me that this idea that there should be separation in every sphere between the white man and the coloured is an idea that begins to take root amongst our friends opposite. There are many members on the other side, it is not only the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) who when you converse with them in the Lobbies adopt the same attitude as we on this side. Consequently I maintain as far as the future is concerned that Party will also eventually accept the policy we have pursued since 1932, namely that the line of demarcation should also be drawn between the white man and the coloured and not merely between the white man and the native.

It will come of its own accord.

Death also comes of its own accord. When one listens to the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) one is forced to this conclusion that it does not avail a man to do anything, you simply have to sit still and everything will come right. The best advice I can Offer the hon. member for Swartruggens is to stay at home, because everything will right itself and then let the Swartruggens constituency be represented by some one else in this House.

But you are to blame for it.

Yes, the Afrikaners are perhaps to blame for sending people like the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) here.

That will also come right of its own accord in Rustenburg; he will not be sent back here.

Yes, that will also right itself in Rustenburg. The hon. member for Rustenburg will not be here after the next election unless he is Wise enough to accept the policy we have been preaching for years, because otherwise he is not a bad chap. If he alters his policy it may be even that he will be able to regain the confidence of Nationalist Afrikanerdom.

He will find that difficult.

It will be rather difficult, but there is no need for him to despair. I say this is a serious matter and it is so serious that if white South Africa —whatever the native representatives in this House may say and whatever the Minister of Labour may say—does not realise that you can only keep the white man white by having a dividing line in every sphere I can only foresee the grave for the white man.

If we all realise that the white man can only remain a white man by the maintenance of the dividing line in every sphere and if we all accept that policy, in regard to the legislation of the country as well, and as regards the trade unions, and if we carry out that policy there is no reason why the white man should have doubts about the future.

I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) suggest a moment ago that the white man could not maintain his existence as a white man if he conceded trade union rights to the non-Europeans. That is what he said in effect. I think it is an aspersion on the white race to suggest that the European will lose his racial identity if he conceded trade union rights to the non-Europeans. I would not cast such an aspersion on my own race.

You might put that question to members opposite and see what their answer is. Ask the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) what he thinks.

At the moment I am dealing with the hon. member for Waterberg and not with the hon. member for Rustenburg. I was interested in the explanation given a little earlier by the hon. member for Waterberg as to the reason why his colleagues and he have changed their attitude on the question of trade union rights, and the racial character of trade union rights. As we know when they were in power, all employees had trade union rights except the pass bearing native under a law that they could well have changed. What was the explanation of the hon. member for Waterberg? He said in effect that at Union the Cape came in with a policy which gave equal rights according to standard of civilisation and not according to race. That was not the policy elsewhere and that is why the Nationalist Party had ( to go step by step. I understood that to be his argument. The hon. member must correct me if I misunderstood him. I personally have always supported the policy of the Cape. It was the policy of my grandfather. It was a policy the spirit of which was laid down by people who were deeply rooted in this country, by men like the late Mr. Henry Burton, the late Sir James Rose-Innes, the late Mr. J. W. Sauer, and the late Mr. John X. Merriman. That was the policy which they introduced in all fields. Apparently, according to the hon. member for Waterberg, it was the policy of his party gradually to undermine in every field the policy which these people whom I have mentioned, laid down, and if that has really been a matter of deliberate intent by gentlemen of his way of thinking in all these years, I think it would have been a greater tribute to their political integrity if they had made it a little clearer many years ago. At any rate, when they were in power they did not carry out the policy which was pressed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) today. Apparently they are very careful to go step by step in developing this policy which has been outlined by the hon. member for Waterberg. I want to know exactly what his attitude is. Is it simply the separation of Europeans and non-Europeans in trade unions or is it that non-European workers should not have the right of collective bargaining with their employers. That is an issue which has got to be faced, and that is a question, of the answer to which there was no hint in the hon. member’s speech. Does he agree that the nonEuropean workers should have the right of collective bargaining, and if so, should that right of collective bargaining be exercised separately from the Europeans? Does he conceive of separate negotiations on the part of non-Europeans with the employers? Because if so, I want to know what is his safeguard against the dangers which the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) outlined this afternoon? What is the safeguard, if the trade union movement is split in that way, against employers using cheap non-European labour as a means of undermining the Europeans’ standard of wages? We, as the hon. member for Cape Eastern said, have always stood firm for the maintenance of existing standards. If the Nationalist policy means separate industrial agreements by separate racial groups, what is the safeguard against that being used by employers to undermine the general standard of wages in this country? It is not a question of the relations between Europeans and non-Europeans. It is a question of maintaining existing wage standards by application of the principle of collective bargaining, labour standing together to safeguard existing wage standards and to improve those standards. We have had experience in the past of a division of this kind being used to bring down the standard of wages of European labour, and if it is the Nationalist policy not merely to provide for separate unions for Europeans and non-Europeans but to deny the right of collective bargaining to non-Europeans then they are simply creating the possibility for the employers to pick up cheap non-European labour. If that is the policy of the Nationalist party we should know it. Those are points which have been entirely avoided this afternoon, although the hon. member for Cape Eastern specifically asked what their policy was on these issues. If their policy, as I have reason to suspect, is to deny collective bargaining rights to the non-European workers, then their policy is one which has nothing to do with the relation between Europeans and non-Europeans, but it is simply a policy of cheap labour for the benefit of the employers.

I should like at this stage to put a few questions to the Minister. He has placed us in a difficult position by the statement he made here. The statement is quite clear and it has been put up by him as the policy of the Government, that this Government is in favour of there being no separation in the trade unions. This was the Minister’s statement. This question of intermingling and the way it affects the trade unions is another important question.

What separation are you referring to?

I am referring now to the Minister’s statement that he does not want any dividing line between Europeans and coloureds in the trade unions.

Between Europeans and coloureds, not between Europeans and natives.

He put it that way this afternoon. The Minister made a statement to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and his statement is that he cannot exert himself for the establishment of the line of demarcation between Europeans and coloureds as far as the trade unions are concerned. He stated he is going to create separate trade unions for natives. The Minister went further and said he was announcing this as a policy of the Government. This is the point around which it revolves. Now this question affects another very important matter. The Minister will recall that for some years past we have been trying to get him to the stage when he will intervene as Minister of Labour to draw a dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans, including coloureds where they work in factories. I do not need to go into that again; in the past cases have been repeatedly mentioned where Europeans and non-Europeans are working together in factories. We have the instance where members who support the Government party investigated the conditions in the factories and they found there were numbers of cases in the factories where Europeans and non-Europeans work together without there being any dividing line. The Minister once before stated, in order to find a way out, and he did the same here today, that he will see whether he cannot effect a separation between European and non-European in the factories, but he went on to say that he did not have the inspectors. He said that as a result of people from his department having joined the army he had not a sufficient number of inspectors to investigate the position. I have been informed that is what he stated. But now I would like to put the pertinent question to the Minister: If he and the Government are the people who champion Europeans and coloureds remaining within the trade unions on an equal footing, that Europeans and coloureds should belong to the same trade union, that they should deliberate together, that they should serve on the same committees together, that they should urge equality in every respect, if he propagates this sort of thing how can he expect there to be a dividing line in the factories where they work? We can make no other deduction from what the Minister has told us this afternoon that he has not been sincere all the time he has been in the House and tried to bring the country under the impression of him wanting to set up a dividing line in the factories. He knew this would not be done. He cannot promote equality on the one hand, and say on the other hand that he wishes to lay down a dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans in the factories. The Minister knows that the question of Europeans and non-Europeans working together in the factories has been mentioned year after year in the House. In the first instance, the Minister came and refused to meet the committee of clergymen in order to discuss the matter with them. After pressure had been exercised on him he agreed to meet the members of the church committee and to discuss the difficulty with them. He would also meet the women who had been suspended in a factory in Germiston. He gave the impression that he would do everything in his power to rectify the matter, and now I want to ask him what the position is today; has he made any progress in that work that he gave promise of doing, namely to effect that separation? This year the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) stood up here and testified to the alarming conditions he had observed in the factories. In his reply the Minister stated that it was not so bad as the hon. member for Losberg made out. This question of the intermingling of European and nonEuropean at work in the factories affects the whole question of the continuance of white Afrikanerdom in the country, and it affects those four Dutch churches whose clergymen have interested themselves in this matter. The Minister must not postpone this matter indefinitely. The Minister’s statement gave me the impression that we can expect nothing from him in regard to the establishment of a line of demarcation between Europeans and non-Europeans in the factories and if that is so I want to tell him that white Afrikanerdom will not rest so long as that state of affairs endures. When I spoke last I was making the point that labour plays a very important role in the economic life of any country. Labour is one of the fundamental bases of the economic life of any country. There must be work for the workers, and there must be workers to do the work. There must be satisfaction as between employer and employee. Everything must be done to prevent friction that can lead to clashes, and if you wish to prevent clashes it ’is necessary that you should avoid that unhealthy contact in the factories between European and non-European. So long as that unhealthy contact is there the friction will be there, and so long as the friction is there we shall have clashes. We want to create conditions in which goodwill shall prevail between employer and employee and as a result of which we shall derive the highest degree of productivity. Consequently it is something more than a mere question of sentiment with us when we plead that there should be a dividing line between European and non-European in the factories, because the productivity of our labour is also involved in that. You must create conditions making for contentment, and if there is no contentment among the workers you will not have the highest degree of productivity from your labour. Now I want to ask the Minister to say frankly and freely what his policy is and what is the policy of the Government. Are they going to draw a demarcating line in the factories? Are they going to institute separation in the factories? Are they going to improve the conditions and are they going to see to it that those unhealthy contacts which are present today are not aggravated any further? We simply cannot carry on like this, merely saying that everything will right itself. Everything is going wrong while as the Minister is sitting there doing nothing. We are now experiencing conditions in the country in which elements are propagating more strongly than ever the policy of equality. It struck me that the Minister, amongst others, seized every opportunity to speak about other things that we cannot do so long as we have a capitalistic system in the country, and in addition he held out the prospect of another system. I want to ask the Minister what that other system is that he holds in prospect that should replace the present system. Let him stand up and tell us that. We want to know. What is that system he is pleading for and that he is propagating? Whatever it may be we would like to know that under that system a line will be drawn between Europeans and non-Europeans in the country.

Much has been said here today about the Nationalist Party’s policy by people who know very little about the Nationalist Party. But in addition certain serious misrepresentations have been made, inter alia by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), as regards the amendment of the Mines and Works Act of 1926. I played an active part at that time in the amendment of this Act, and I know what it was. The hon. member for Troyeville has brought the House under quite a wrong impression. He said that in 1926 a special Act was passed to afford coloureds and certain other classes the right to carry out certain work in mining industries. This is by no means the case, and he ought to know it. He was there himself, and I say that it is nothing less than a deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

The hon. member may not say that and he must withdraw it.

I bow to your ruling. I think that the hon. member knows well enough what he is saying. The position was that under the regulations attaching to mines and works which resulted from the Act of 1911, there definitely was a colour bar in quite a few of those regulations. Then the Chamber of Mines came along and violated those regulations by allowing certain works to be carried out by natives. There was the case of Hildick Smith in which Judge Tindale declared that regulation ultra vires, and the result was that the Chamber of Mines began allowing the natives to work everywhere which was forbidden beforehand. The Nationalist Party Government plus the Labourites then proposed in 1925 to amend the Act on Mines and Works in such a way that it would be lawful to promulgate regulations to exclude natives from certain activities in mines and works.

But not coloureds.

Coloureds and Malays were excluded, but not as he said, namely that the Act was specially passed to give them the right to do that work. The party to which that hon. member now belongs, opposed that legislation of the Nationalist Party in this House and on account of their majority in the Senate, it was rejected. The same happened in 1926, with the result that a united meeting of both Houses took place by which the proposed legislation was ultimately accepted. The then South African Party were opposed to it. They did not want the colour bar there. They did not want to apply it to the natives. The member also spoke of the franchise. We have the proof that when the Nationalist Party extended the vote to women, it did not grant it to the coloured woman and the native woman.

What about Gen. Byron’s Bill?

When the Nationalist Party made that Act, it only granted the vote to the European women, but the present Prime Minister of today took the standpoint, both as regards Gen. Byron’s Bill and the Nationalist Party’s legislation, that the native woman and the coloured woman should have it. In the case of Gen. Byron’s Bill, Mr. Petrus van Heerden proposed that it should only be given to the European woman, and the present Prime Minister said: No, where the man has it, the woman must also have it; if the native pian has the vote, then the native woman must have it as well. And that is how he and his party voted. I do not want the hon. member to misrepresent the facts of the case. The point which I wish to bring more specifically to the Minister’s attention —I do not know whether it will help, for it is probably the last time that he will appear here before us as Minister of Labour—relates to the unemployment which will probably confront us in the near future. When there is unemployment, then the Government comes along with all sorts of schemes designed to provide the people with work. Now I want to plead for a policy which will ensure that men are not separated from their families and sent to distant places to work while their families remain behind. It is decidedly a wrong policy which is not in the interests of the building up of our nation. We must not make it imperative for a person, in order to be the bread-winner, to leave his family and have to go and earn his living far away and live in a tin or wooden shack, with the result that he may perhaps visit his family once during the month or once in six months. The danger is ever present that when emergency work has to be provided, that sort of thing is done, and I cannot urge the Minister in strong enough terms not to adopt that line of action. Before such emergency work is done, the Government should erect colonies close to such emergency work, so that the man can take his family with him, or otherwise the man should be provided with work nearby his house so that he can lead his usual family life. The Minister must, as long as he is still there, apply this policy and also make it the traditional policy of his Department.

I want to speak to the Minister in English because I do not want there to be any difference of opinion between him and myself. I am afraid interpreters do not always interpret correctly. There are certain questions which I put to the Minister when I spoke the first time a day or two ago. I asked him two questions and he has not replied to them. I take it that he did not make a note of them and consequently forgot. The first question was: In Hansard, in reply to questions put by me, there were two replies given. I have Hansard here but I do not wish to read it. The one was that the committee had no right to alter the constitution of the Mine Workers’ Union. Another thing which the Minister said was that the Board members were elected direct at the shaft. I have the constitution here and I can read what it says. In both cases the Minister was wrong. The committee has the right to alter the constitution and it did so.

I concede that.

The other is that they are not elected from the shafts; they are only elected representatives, and from these representatives the Council is elected.

No, the representatives at the shaft form the General Council.

Yes, they have the right to vote for a few and so this General Council is elected.

That is really a misunderstanding. In that I was wrong. I was not aware of it.

There is another matter. Did I understand the Minister to state his policy and that of the Government to be that there should be separate spheres of work for Europeans and non-Europeans? I am not referring to trade unions but I am referring to people working together, that Europeans should not mix with nonEuropeans.

Yes, that was my point.

Did I understand further that the Minister said he would see to this but that he did not have enough inspectors and that when the troops came back he would have more inspectors and would look after this matter?

May I tell you at once. I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. I think you refer to my reply to the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) that we could not investigate because we were short of staff. My answer is that immediately we got that information from the hon. member we investigated. We gave instructions at once for the inspectors to investigate but we were unable throughout the war to keep an eye on all the factories because we did not have enough inspectors. But I put the inspectors on the job. I want to give the assurance at once that my policy is separation in factories.

I am very pleased to hear the Minister’s explanation. My only objection is that I do not see how we can carry out that policy. There is the Machinery and Building Works Act. The original Bill submitted to the House and subsequently withdrawn made provision for separate working spheres, for the Minister’s right to discriminate between races and to make provision for separate working places. These were the exact words of the section—

That would have given the Minister the power, if he made the regulation, to send his inspector to the factory and to force them to carry out the policy. But that Bill was unfortunately withdrawn and when it came back to the House those words I quoted had been altered and it now read—

In the new Bill the Minister took the right to carry out the policy.

Yes, but I may make regulations under the Act.

We fought it out at the time. It was generally accepted that you could not.

We do it. I think you will find that regulations are made. May I tell you what the thing is which gives me the power? It is (h). I may make regulations controlling the conditions of work of employees in any factory where in the opinion of the Minister special provision is necessary to safeguard the physical, moral or social welfare of such employees, and under that, I can do anything I want.

If the Minister holds that opinion and makes those regulations I will be happy, but I am afraid that if he goes to the courts they will hold that he cannot discriminate between races.

The hon. member raised the point during this debate that as the result of the intervention of the Agent-General for India I made the alteration, but that is not so. He objected to this. That is what he objected to, but I would not budge.

At the time the matter was altered you did not have the right to make the regulation. In the Bill itself it was quite clear that it had been altered. The native representatives accepted this and amongst them there is a barrister who holds the view, as I do, that you will probably find that the court will not accept it when you come to discriminate on the ground of race.

Our law advisers agreed to it.

If the Minister says that he can discriminate on the ground of colour I will accept it.

I give you that assurance.

There are some other matters I should like to bring before the Minister. I think most of those matters have been debated ad nauseam, but I want to ask him whether he is aware of the fact that the crayfish workers in Namaqualand had a wage determination, and a wage was fixed at 7s. 9d. a day. The factory there has discharged all the Cape Coloureds they had and brought Swahilis from Central Africa. They are paying the wage but to punish us they have discharged the Cape Coloureds and those who work there.

I am glad you have told me about this.

They bring them there by boat and use them, and the coloureds who used to do the work are practically starving. The employer is the canning factory near O’okiep, but I do not know their name. T do not know how the Minister will stop it. The same state of affairs is in progress there as that we had once before when we had to take our own people away there because the copper mines closed down, and we had to bring them back here. That is now being repeated. These people have to be fed there because they are starving. A thing like that should not be allowed to happen.

They may have a union, and I am surprised that the union has not told me about it.

They probably have not a union. I am sorry that the native representatives are not here because I would like to tell them what the position is about coloureds and Europeans being in one trade union. The first year I came to Parliament there was a Bakers’ Assistants Union, and the majority of them were coloured. As usual, because they were in the majority they put one of the white men out and he could not get employment and had to leave. He appealed but it never went further and eventually he went back to the Karroo. I think coloureds should not be mixed with Europeans in the same union. If you mix the two and there is a majority of one section, they will try to victimise the other. [Time limit.]

I would like to put a question to the Minister in connection with apprentices. Last year we warned him in this House that events were taking place overseas which would have an effect in South Africa. We pointed out that the Minister of Labour in England, Mr. Attlee, was engaged on a large scale in recruiting or urging mechanicians and artisans in England to come to South Africa, and the late Col. Reitz was doing the same. I have here before me an article with the following captions: “Ban on more apprentices”; “Engineering firms perturbed”; “Legality of move questioned”. It amounts to this, that apprentices are now being refused admission by the committee. They are not being enrolled and it has been made known that after a four months’ probationary period, for four or five years there will be no further opportunity for enrolment. When one sums all these facts up as well as the motives behind them, in view of the importation of artisans on a large scale, then this ban on any more apprentices is of particular moment. There is an organised movement to hold back apprentices, and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to this. It would appear that there is an attempt being made to obtain artisans from overseas as we will have need of skilled artisans in the future on a large scale, but here they are going ahead and putting a stop to the enrolment of apprentices. I want the Minister to give serious attention to the matter. The firms themselves are urging that more apprentices should be taken on. Can the Minister guarantee that all apprentices who volunteer, for example in the electricity industry, will be accepted; will he use his influence to ensure that the necessary number of apprentices are accepted for the following five years? Further I want to point out to the Minister that the system of apprentices serving a five year apprenticeship is very antiquated. All the apprentices do not need to serve five years. Some of them need three years and others again seven years. That system must be reviewed, and it is an important point which the Minister must take into consideration, namely that some apprentices can complete their course in three years, while others again need six or seven years.

We have appointed a commission to go into the matter.

I am very glad to hear that from the Acting Prime Minister, and so I shall say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. Then I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a point of local interest for my constituency. Money is being voted for a relief fund. Christiana sustained the worst damage caused by floods. Eighty houses were swept away and 200 were damaged. I don’t know who is responsible, but so far none of this money has been spent there. I would like the Minister to give serious attention to the position in the near future. Those 80 houses have not yet been rebuilt. At the moment the people are living in small houses loaned by the central Department of Social Welfare from the Department of Irrigation. Those houses will have to be rebuilt in the future and an amount should be voted to assist those people. I hope that the Minister will give serious attention to the matter.

I would like to learn from the Minister what plans have been formulated by his department in connection with the assistance which will be necessary and which is already needed as a result of the impoverishment which has taken place in the northern portion of the Transvaal as a result of the drought. I know that the Department of Social Welfare has enquired into the matter. I have seen some of the reports, and according to the report of the representative of the Department of Social Welfare who visited those parts, the position is critical. There are going to be many people who will, temporarily at any rate, have to leave their farms. The drought in those northern parts such as Potgietersrust and Pietersburg is so bad that many of the people are having to leave because there is no food for them or their animals. Those who are able to work, want work. It will not be permanent employment, for if it rains they will want to return to their farms. There is only one department which under the circumstances can assist those people, and it is the Department of the Minister of Labour. I do not wish to enlarge on the position. But matters are serious, and I would like to know what the Minister’s department intends doing in the immediate future to come to the assistance of those people as regards temporary relief work. The other aspects of the matter fall under the Department of Social Welfare. I am only dealing now with temporary relief work.

The hon. member wrote to me and from that I deduced the widespread nature of the trouble. I have asked my Department to do the very best they can. The first thing to do is to provide them with work. The difficulty is that it is only temporary, but I promise my hon. friend that we will do our very best to provide work for them. In the meantime Social Welfare must do something for them. They cannot starve. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) asked me whether we are prepared to spend money at Christiana to replace houses destroyed by floods. I think my reply to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) fits the bill in my hon. friend’s case also, except that I have to expand it in his particular case by saying that Social Welfare are the people responsible for that. We only subsidise the labour for him. But he asks me particularly to see what I can do in that line and to get labour sent there. I will see what I can do about that. I promise that. He is very worried about the period of apprenticeship being reduced. He is very worried about apprenticeships being refused. Apprenticeship committees in engineering have held up apprenticeships pending the new Apprenticeship Act coming into operation and pending further examination of the position of the C.O.T.T. trainees. Apprenticeship was part of the big scheme. But the apprenticeships that were held up are now being granted. Much more important is the question he has drawn my attention to regarding propaganda overseas, I suppose particularly in England and America.

Probably Russia.

You could not persuade a Russian to come here.

Why not?

Because he is too happy in his own country.

We want to send you there, to Siberia.

I am too old to be uprooted. Why not keep me where I am? I do not know who is making this propaganda to attract people from overseas, but I can give this assurance, we are not going to allow any importation of skilled labour until we have placed our own. That brings me to the wider question. South Africa can do its own work. It can train its own artisans, and they are equal to any in the world. We have proved that during the war and we can prove it even more in peace.

You are getting back to your old politics.

You are moving backwards.

These are my old and my present politics. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asks me to make certain that when working schemes are introduced we should keep the workers as near to their place of residence as we can. He will remember that was my old policy, and we shall carry that out as far as we can.

I have another complaint to lodge, and it concerns the control of manpower in this country. I would like to know from the Minister how long the control will continue to function. There is control today, but although it is said that there is a pro rata distribution, you find that the control is used to place the rich man, who is able to help himself, in a beneficial position in contrast with the other man who needs workmen, for example, to bring about improvements. I also asked the Minister to see to it that when applications are made to the Controller of Manpower, he should reach a decision before six or nine months have elapsed. I submitted a case to him of someone who was in the employ of a rich firm. He only earned £20 or £25 per month, but he was offered employment in a part where his type of work was more in demand with an increase in salary. Later he showed the correspondence he had exchanged with these people who had made him the offer, to his employers, and they then also offered him £35. But he was initially prevented by the Controller of Manpower from accepting the post. I take it that as soon as control is dispensed with, that firm will again revert to paying him £20 or £25. Naturally I cannot blame the Minister. All these applications do not come to his notice, but I want to ask him to keep an eye on them, and to avoid a repetition of such cases. These people are today without anybody. The application was made ….

I know about that case.

Yes, I discussed it with the Minister, but I do not know how many of these cases there are. Each district ought to receive its rightful share of artisans and preference should not be given to the rich man who can use his influence and money.

I want to ask the Minister, seeing he is in such an accommodating mood, that seeing we are now very likely to pass on to another point, will he accept the adjournment of the debate?

Not on your life!

It came to my knowledge that the Minister is not very considerate or well-disposed towards Progress College, which he discussed last year. We should like to know whether he really intends to close it. He has the power under the Apprenticeship Act to grant them permission to continue as an institution in which skilled men can be trained, although they cannot be accepted by the various trades as artisans. There is, however, a great part of our country where apprenticeship does not apply and numbers of lads who come from the country and who have not been in a position to get the trade training have gone to the college for a short time and have there been trained. The Minister knows the history. I should like to know whether he intends to close this institution. It has been of value to my part of the country and also to other parts. I have before me a number of letters from young lads who went there from the platteland; they were trained there, and today they make a good living and draw a good wage. But as soon as they come to the towns they are shut out; then they are unskilled, although they can provide just as good labour as the men who have served an apprenticeship in accordance with the law. The Minister may think the institution is unnecessary, but does he intend to close it down or to impose restrictions on it? It has come to our notice that various branches of the institution exist and that they require additional petrol, but that it has not been granted because their existence has riot been considered to be justified. I should like to know whether that is the attitude of the Minister. Then there is another matter. The Minister should not take exception to it, but I feel that this afternoon he said something which I cannot leave where it is. He spoke in connection with our attitude as regards small millers, who were referred to by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). If the Minister is going to make the wages that apply in the large mills in the big centres applicable to the small mills in the small districts, which have not such a big turnover and which have not the quota and the revenue, then he is going to throw a large number of people on the streets. He spoke about our interest in these people. Our interest is simply that we want to prevent them being deprived of the means of earning their bread. The cost of living is not so high on the platteland as in the large towns, and the Minister should give immediate attention to the matter because at the moment it is moving in one direction, and that is to make the big mills bigger and stronger, and to kill the small mills which perhaps have been in existence much longer and which have been instituted with the capital of the small man. The small man cannot compete with the big miller, and consequently a company has been established to which all the small mills belong today. Now I am asking the Minister whether he is going to meet these people. In the Cape Province I know of at least five mills that will have to close. This has been brought to the notice of the Minister. I hope that he will not view this from the angle of large capital but from the angle of the man with small capital, the man who has perhaps invested £2,000 in it and who has worked for years to bring the mill to the position it is now in and who is at present making a meagre living. Subsequently they pooled their interests, and I want to ask the Minister that the wage scales should not be made to apply to them. They have not the big turnover of the large companies and if it is the purpose of the Minister to kill them he should tell us. They cannot pay these wages. The result of the Minister’s action otherwise will be that the whole of the milling industry will fall into the hands of one or two big companies and we shall be dependent on them and they will be able to do what they like with us. In the meantime a group of people who have been perhaps 40 or 50 or 60 years in the business will be ruined. They approached the Minister to ask him to give his serious attention to the matter and to give them a chance to continue to exist.

Yes. The hon. gentleman brought that particular matter before me a month or two ago, and I at once placed it before my department. They are examining the position. I want to assure the hon. member of this, and he knows it to be correct, I do not want to protect the big industry against the small one. I do not want the highly capitalised concern with all its power to ruin the small one. In addition, I want industries in the countryside; I want to spread them away from the towns as far as possible. Take that as a condition precedent of my remarks. It will require further investigation into the financial position; he would not expect me to do it without knowing all about it. That is being done. It will be a question of exemption, and if a case can be made out for exemption I will grant it. About Progress College, that is also being enquired into. My hon. friend will remember he was the protagonist for Progress College when we were discussing the Bill, and I told him then and I repeat now, if Progress College or any similar institution can convince us it can teach a trade thoroughly to an individual, we are prepared to grant a certificate. The enquiry is taking place now. In addition, the board to which reference was made, the Apprenticeship Control Board, has that under their jurisdiction, and I await their advice on the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 31.—“Mines,” £815,000, put.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 14th May.