I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (1) The principal of the university shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, be appointed by the council in the manner prescribed by the Statute.

I should like to move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (1) The principal of the university shall be appointed by the council.

I think there are a number of reasons one could advance why this clause should be changed and why the amendment that I am proposing should be accepted. One of the main reasons is this that, with the establishment of this university, we have departed from the traditional background as contained in the history of university development in South Africa. This is an entirely new type of university. We should also accept the fact that through the years we have gained more and more confidence in and respect for the autonomy and the good judgment in academic matters of university authorities. If that is the case, why not let them decide exclusively who shall be the principal of this new university. If we want to follow the example of other universities why not follow a good example. I think the procedure laid down in this clause, as it stands at the moment, is outdated. I think the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister is just an attempt to put it the other way round. It is unnecessary, in my opinion, to have the Minister’s approval when it comes to the appointment of the principal. It is an embarrassment to any council of a university, when it comes to the appointment of a principal, to obtain the approval of the Minister first before making the appointment. I believe we should have confidence, right from the start, in the matured judgment of these men who will constitute the council of this new university. We on this side have enough confidence in the men who will be appointed to the council of this university to make the right appointment. I am sure that the men appointed on this council will be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the establishment of this institution. They will also be aware of the great ideals envisaged for this university and I therefore believe that they will appoint the very best man who will best be able to give effect to the lofty ideals which we all hold out for this new institution. Why should the hon. the Minister have the right to prescribe who should be the principal of this new institution? Why should the hon. the Minister be subjected to possible pressure that may be exerted on him to disapprove of the appointment of a certain principal? I believe that will happen. Pressure will be exerted on the hon. the Minister; political pressure may be exerted on the hon. the Minister to have a particular person appointed as principal.

I do not believe that the hon. the Minister will tell us in this Committee that he has such a lust for power that he really wants to have the right to disapprove of an appointment. I do not think the hon. the Minister will admit that. So why should the right not be left to the council itself, and to them exclusively, to appoint the principal of this institution? For these reasons, Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name.

I thought that the hon. member who moved the amendment would prefer to accept my amendment after I have amended the original text, as announced in my second-reading speech.

In any event I agree with the hon. member that the members of the council will be people of high standing—and I am very pleased that the hon. member emphasized this so strongly—people who will be well equipped to make such an appointment. As far as I am aware no Minister of Education has ever dared to veto a recommendation for the appointment of a rector and to say that he is not satisfied with it. The hon. member is mistaken, however, in saying that what he proposes is the position at all the universities.

No.

I accept, however, that that is the position at most universities. Let me tell the hon. member, however, that most universities say that the council shall appoint the rector “as prescribed by statute”. That was the case at Pretoria University, amongst others. Only last year I had to approve of the reappointment of Professor Rautenbach. Pretoria University has a Private Act which lays that down, but they have a statute which prescribes how he is to be appointed. That was really a mistake and my Department asked them to amend the statute in so far as the Minister’s approval is concerned, because that is what their Act provides. The Act governing the University of Rhodes provides in Section 5 (1) that the principal shall be appointed by the council according to the provisions of the statute “subject to the approval of the Minister”. That is provided for in the Private Act of the Rhodes University. I had the honour, after Professor Alty had resigned or retired as principal of Rhodes, to appoint Professor Hyslop last year. That took place with my approval. The Act of the University of South Africa provides in Section 7 that the Minister’s approval is necessary for the appointment of the principal of the University of South Africa. I frankly admit that the tendency is, as stated by the hon. member, that the various universities with their Private Acts regard it as quite unnecessary for that provision to appear there. The only reason which I can find for it is that an interim council may be appointed, for example, and that half of the members of the interim council (that is to say, not more than nine of the 19) may be appointed by the Minister to keep the university going. I just want to mention here that it is the council which is going to appoint the rector but Clause 9 provides that there will be a permanent council and that the permanent council will have to accept the rector once he has been appointed. In these circumstances the Minister, according to this measure, will still be the guardian to a certain extent for a very short period actually, and I expect and foresee that within the foreseeable future the new University of Port Elizabeth, just as in the case of all the other universities, will also come forward with a Private Bill, and if the permanent council of that university then feels as the other universities do, there will be absolutely no opposition.

I repeat that I am not aware of any case where a Minister has ever vetoed the appointment of a rector. It would be a far-reaching step. And if one had to do so it would be purely because of the man’s academic capabilities, or otherwise because of certain personal qualities which he has and which make him incompetent for the post. Hon. members must bear in mind that the Government has a very great interest in the universities. When we talk about the autonomy of the universities, we very often forget that the Government and the whole of Parliament have an interest in the universities. The position which has now developed is that 71 per cent of the expenditure in connection with the universities is voted by Parliament; only 29 per cent comes from their own funds. Let us assume that such a mistake is made; it should then be possible for hon. members themselves to afford the necessary protection in such a case. I do not foresee that it will happen, nor do I foresee that that power will ever be used. I do not know of any reason why I should make use of it. Hon. members talk about stooges. In that regard I want to point out that I have the power to appoint to the interim council people who are a lot of stooges and to whom I could say in advance (since hon. members insist on sowing suspicion) that I am going to appoint them but that they will have to do this, that or the other thing. That is what I could do, if hon. members insist on sowing suspicion. I feel therefore that the amendment is altogether unnecessary and that the concession made by me in re-drafting the clause should meet with the approval of this House.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister stated that it would be a far-reaching step if any Minister were to veto the appointment of a principal. If that is the hon. Minister’s attitude, then surely he should be prepared to accept our amendment where we want to delete the words “the approval of the Minister”

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Streicher was withdrawn.

I now move as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science—

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accept the hon. member’s amendment to his amendment. On the contrary, I want to go further and express the hope that when the permanent council is appointed it will not depart from the procedure that the rector of the university is appointed by the council “with the approval of the Minister”. There are cases where universities do not have this provision, but I feel that the Minister should have a certain amount of power to act as arbitrator. We had the position last year, for example, that the council of the Rhodes University unanimously nominated a principal. The nomination was submitted to the Minister and he approved of it. But one can well imagine that there may be two candidates and that there may be an equal vote in the council. What would happen then? Surely there must be somebody then to decide. Or there may be a majority of one in favour of a certain person. Must the other members of the council, who form a minority of one only, then simply accept the decision of the majority?

Why not?

If one-half of the members of the council are not satisfied with a proposed rector, their feelings should be considered, and the only person who can do so is the Minister. After all, we must not lose sight of the fact that the State makes a big financial contribution to all the universities, and there may be cases where a council proposes the appointment of an undesirable person. In that case the State should have the right to protect itself against such a council, because the State does make a large contribution to the finances of the university. I should like to see a provision to the effect that the approval of the Minister must be obtained in all cases where a rector is appointed.

The argument put forward by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) would be sound if we were dealing with the appointment of a principal of a school in a Government Department; it might even be sound if we were dealing with the principal of one of the tribal colleges, as we call them, one of the Native university colleges, where the control is placed in the hands of the Minister. But in this case we are dealing with a body that has the right to make its own statutes approved by the Minister and by this House. Why not leave the thing to the people of Port Elizabeth? The case mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort may never occur, but should it occur, who is to be the judge? Surely not the Minister. I am sure that no Minister would like to take the responsibility of appointing a candidate supported by the minority against a candidate supported by the majority. I think that is a case where the members of the council should come together. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to act as he does in his own college at Potchefstroom. In respect of Potchefstroom it is laid down in the statute, and we are putting forward the Potchefstroom system here. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) is putting forward the Potchefstroom system, and I cannot see any argument against it.

Omission of sub-section (1) of the clause put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “subject to the approval of the Minister”, stand part of the amendment.

Upon which the Committee divided:

I move as an amendment:

It is not necessary for me to devote very much time to this amendment because it is clear and self-explanatory. The council consists of the principal of the university, two other members, elected by the council, the professors of the university and—now I come to my amendment—the persons nominated by the Minister.

As I said during my second-reading speech it is a wrong principle that a Minister, no matter who he may be, should have the right to by-pass the council of the University of Stellenbosch or the council of the University of Rhodes and to nominate people without referring the matter to the council. I am moving my amendment in order to prevent this and to ensure that he will only do so “with the approval of the universities concerned”. This will mean that the Minister will not arouse any suspicion in regard to what he seeks to do under these provisions. I am also convinced that there is no intention of arousing suspicion; that it is not his intention to try to by-pass the council of Stellenbosch or Rhodes University. That is why I want to ask aim to accept my amendment. After all, that is what is going to happen in practice, so it would be a good thing for this provision to be embodied in the Act. The provisions of the Act are what count outside and not what the Minister says or what his intentions are.

I wish first of all to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). I want to ask the hon. Minister to give it his serious consideration, because I feel that Clause 10 is one of the most important clauses in this Bill and it governs the successful working of this Bill. Mr. Chairman, under the Universities Act of 1955, the senate of the university has powers when it is consulted by the council on the formulation of the council’s statutes and this side of the House is deeply concerned with the composition of the senate.

Then I wish to move as an amendment—

As I have said, Clause 10 is the crux of all the other clauses dealing with the assurance of genuine bilingualism in the medium of teaching, but it is also the crux of safeguarding the independence of the senate of the university while at the same time accepting representatives appointed by the Government on this senate. In the Universities Act of 1955, Section 17 (1) in its second proviso reads that the “statutes and regulations dealing with the studies, instruction, examinations and discipline of a university shall not be framed, amended, added to or repealed except after consultation with the senate of such university”. It is for this reason that we feel that it is of special importance that the Minister should not have the power in his hands to appoint members that should not be less than other members of the senate, especially as such nominees would be drawn from two other universities. I feel it would be intolerable for the members of the senate who will be drawn from the professors of the new university to be outnumbered. In my amendment therefore I try to prevent that, because the sub-section as drafted and accepted by the hon. Minister sets no limit to the nominated members of the senate and therefore after that the whole independence of the senate becomes farcical. The statutes and regulations are subject to the senate’s approval in accordance with the already mentioned Universities Act, 1955, and these statutes would be entirely at the mercy of the senate with the powers it has without these amendments. So I wish to ask the hon. Minister that he should seriously consider the acceptance of my proposed amendment. All assurances that the hon. Minister has already given in this House at the second reading, even though given in good faith, lack the legal safeguard of legislation. This also has a very important bearing on the new Clause 14, which will be dealt with later on the relevant clause.

For the above reasons, I am putting forward this simple but important amendment which, if accepted by the Minister, will facilitate the smooth passing of this Bill.

I want to reply first of all on the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). It goes without saying that a professor at a university devotes his time exclusively to the university where he is employed. Where there is any question therefore of making use of the services of a professor outside the university it is necessary to ask the university to grant the necessary permission, and this is naturally done in all cases without any exception. One cannot simply walk in and say, “I am going to take away from you”. Both Stellenbosch and Rhodes were approached very specifically before the Bill was submitted for approval to ascertain in advance whether in principle such appointments would meet with their approval when a request to this effect was made to them. The proposal of the hon. member for Hillbrow is therefore worthless. It can, if incorporated in the text, be regarded as pro non scripto. I have consulted my legal advisers and they have given me the following advice: They say that we may find ourselves in very great difficulty if, for example, a university refuses to grant its approval in a particular case. It is quite possible that it may not be possible then to constitute the senate, because it is dependent on the approval of that university. But if hon. members opposite are so suspicious, if they feel that I am simply going to intervene in spite of the assurance which I have given, and if the hon. member feels that he wants to do something about it and he is prepared to withdraw this amendment of his, I shall be prepared to accept the insertion of the words “after consultation with the relevant university”, instead of “with their approval”. My action then would not be dependent on their approval. If the hon. member will withdraw his amendment and substitute this amendment for it I shall be prepared to accept it, although I still regard it as unnecessary. This is an interim arrangement. Rhodes and Stellenbosch have both given the assurance that they will do this.

In reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), I want to point out that the whole object of this provision is to safeguard the unquestioned recognition of the standard of teaching at the new university and the acceptance of any degree or diploma awarded to a student there. This is in the interest of the university and it is absolutely essential in the formative years. Rhodes University has already pointed out to me that presumably this would not be a permanent arrangement, and I have informed them by letter that their presumption is correct. It is, however, impossible for me at this stage, or for anyone else, to foresee when the time will come when we will be able to be in a position either to reduce the number of persons appointed from the two universities or to cease making such appointments altogether. For this reason it is not possible to formulate any provision to that effect at the present time, but as soon as circumstances make it advisable the number of outside persons will most certainly be reduced and will eventually disappear altogether from the senate of the new university and there will be none of them left. To accept the amendment of the hon. member would make it possible for the academic world to question the status of the degrees awarded by the new university, and this I am determined to avoid at all costs. I regret that I cannot accept it and I sincerely hope that the hon. member will agree with me. We have the same position in our non-White university colleges, but there the University of South Africa takes session in the senate and they see to it that the degrees awarded are acknowledged by the rest of the world and the Republic. I think we would make a very grave mistake if we altered this provision, and both universities which are concerned with the status of this new university are quite prepared to accept the position.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I do not quite understand the hon. the Minister’s reasoning. I am also surprised that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) does understand it! He is a member of the Council of Rhodes University and he ought to have protected the interests of Rhodes University here to-day and to have assisted me, but he is so much under the thumb of the hon. the Minister that he is afraid to do so.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

But I am discussing the clause. The hon. the Minister told me that the law advisers had told him that if he accepted my amendment he would not be able to do certain things that he wanted to do. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said that if he accepted my amendment it might happen, for example, that Stellenbosch would refuse, and this would make things impossible. But that is precisely what I want to make impossible; I want to make it impossible for the hon. the Minister to force his will upon Stellenbosch or Rhodes University. He himself has admitted that that possibility exists. [Interjections.] Then I do not understand his argument at all. But I feel inclined to accept the suggestion of the hon. the Minister. I believe that half a loaf is better than no bread.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp was withdrawn.

I now move—

While I appreciate the assurances given by the Minister in his explanation, I wish to say that I would still like to see my amendment stand. I feel that on the Minister’s part he should also accept that the legal safeguards for the freedom of the university should be enshrined in this Act. While things might change in the future, one would prefer to see in the Act the substitution of the word “less” by the word “more”

I wonder whether the Minister has given consideration to the suggestion I made in the second reading that the convocation of the university should consist of not only the members of the senate, and the graduates of the university, but the lecturers, the librarian and the registrar. That is the customary thing. I do not wish to labour the point. I put it in the second reading and I thought perhaps the Minister had taken cognizance of it. I have prepared an amendment and should the Minister say that he will accept it I will hand it in. It will then read—

1. (i) The convocation of the university shall consist of—
   1. (a) the members of the senate;
   2. (b) graduates of the university; and
   3. (c) the lecturers, teachers, librarian, and registrar of the university.

The Minister says in the Bill that in the convocation you have the members of the senate. The senate under this Bill consists of the professors only, but in terms of the 1955 Act the constitution of the senate was decided in this way—

In other words, in spite of this Bill, the council can override its provisions under Act 55. If the Minister wishes to accept my amendment I will hand it in.

I have given this matter very serious thought and we think that to make it as simple as possible for these people to start off they should be at liberty at any time to come forward with amendments in the form of a private Bill, and we expect that very soon. But it is very difficult for us to decide to-day what the local conditions will be. As long as you get a corporate body to start off, I think we should be satisfied, and I think we had better leave the clause as it stands.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

As I intimated, I intend to move a new Clause 14.

I raised this matter during the second-reading debate and at that stage the hon. the Minister gave me a reply with which I did not at all agree. I told him that his original idea and wording were better and in order to have this on record I want to quote the original provision so that it can be recorded in Hansard—

In other words, the council of the university will be consulted in this regard. Again in order to have it on record I want to quote what the hon. the Minister now wants to substitute for this provision—

That is the hon. the Minister’s amendment. Well, I think this wording is better but what I object to is the fact that the council which was to be consulted under the previous provision is now being omitted and replaced by the senate.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister unwittingly violated the truth in replying to me. He violated it because I think he did not do his homework properly. I want to quote now what the position is under the 1955 Act. The hon. the Minister has said that in terms of the 1955 Act it is the senate which deals with these matters after consultation with the council, matters such as instruction, studies, etc. I want to quote Section 17 of the Universities Act, 1955, which reads as follows—

And then we have this important proviso—

In other words, it is the function of the council to deal with matters such as studies, instruction and examinations but it must consult the senate in regard to these specific matters. This function is entrusted to the council but it must consult the senate. The hon. the Minister now entrusts this function to the senate and he says that it must consult the council. He reverses the position. That is why I said that the hon. the Minister’s original provision was better. He is turning his back on the conventions. He is doing something completely unconventional and he is going against his own law, the principal Act governing our universities. That is why I ask the hon. the Minister in a friendly way to avoid all suspicion. Otherwise I cannot understand his intentions, his purpose. Why does he suddenly come forward with this completely new idea that the senate must arrange and control these matters when his own Act of 1955 lays down that these things must be left in the hands of the council after consultation with the senate? That is why I appeal to the hon. the Minister to leave the provision as it stood originally and to consult the council in regard to this matter.

I want to be quite clear in regard to what the hon. member wants. He first read out for record purposes the original clause as it appears in the Bill, then he quoted the proposed new clause. Now he makes an appeal to me but I do not know precisely what he wants. Does he want me to leave Clause 14 as it appears here or does he want to have it amended? I am not clear what the hon. member wants.

I do not want to move an amendment. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that he can leave his amending clause as it is if he will just substitute “council” for “senate”

But the hon. member proposed a moment ago that I should leave the clause as it stood originally.

No, I said that I preferred the original clause but that the hon. the Minister could perhaps improve the wording of it.

On a point of order, is the position not that the amendment which the hon. the Minister wants to move after this clause has been negatived is not as yet before the Committee and that therefore the hon. member cannot discuss it?

The hon. member can only discuss the clause as printed. The hon. the Minister’s amendment has not yet been moved. He may not discuss it until such time as it has been moved.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; I thought that you had already put the amendment.

I asked the hon. member whether he was opposed to the deletion of Clause 14 and he said that he was.

Yes, but I would like your guidance. If I agree to its deletion, can I then move that it be re-inserted in the Bill?

No.

You see, Mr. Chairman, that is my difficulty at the moment.

The hon. member can vote against it.

Cannot we have both before us?

No, I have given my ruling and the hon. member must abide by it. He can speak against the deletion of Clause 14 but he cannot now discuss the amendment which the hon. the Minister is going to move.

I expressed myself as clearly as I could at the beginning of the discussion on this clause. Quite frankly I do not think that we can improve this Bill by including the clause, because the Bill says very clearly that the affairs of the university rest in the hands of the council. The council will decide anything pertaining to the government of the university. In every university organization in South Africa provision is made for very close liaison between the senate and the council. Two members of the council sit on the senate and two members of the senate sit on the council; so they know exactly what is happening. There is no difficulty there.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 14 as printed.

Has the Minister not moved his amendment yet?

Let me explain the position. Before the hon. the Minister may move his amendment, Clause 14 must be negatived or withdrawn, and what is before the Committee at the moment is Clause 14 as printed.

Clause 14 put and the Committee divided:

I move—

I do not want to repeat what I said before.

Please do not!

But I hope that what I said was grasped by my hon. friend opposite. The hon. the Minister knows what I want; he knows the provisions of the principal Act. The principal Act leaves this sort of matter in the hands of the council after consultation with the senate. I just want once again to quote this portion of Section 17 of the Universities Act, 1955—

I therefore want to move as an amendment to the proposed new Clause 14—

In other words, the new Clause 14 will then read—

In actual fact this clause, as I am proposing it here, is not concerned with statutes and regulations. We are dealing here with a provision in the Act which lays down how the two official languages will be used in the university. Where statutes and regulations are drawn up by the council with regard to matters concerning instruction, there the senate has to be consulted. I am going to accept the hon. member’s amendment but I just want to correct his interpretation of the Act of 1955. This does not concern the question of statutes or regulations, but where the statutes and regulations are drawn up by the council with regard to matters concerning instruction, there the senate has to be consulted. In other words the senate is the authoritative body as far as instruction is concerned, and that is precisely the principle which is being recognized here. It is unnecessary to insert “after consultation with the senate” because here we are dealing with matters concerning instruction. But if there is any doubt, if there is any danger that it may perhaps not be correctly interpreted in terms of the Act, as stated here by the hon. member, I am prepared to substitute “council” for “senate” and then to add the words “after consultation with the senate”. It makes absolutely no difference.

We have two bodies in the organization of a university, a council and a senate, and there is provision for close liaison because two members of the senate sit on the council and two members of the council sit on the senate. The functions of the council are stated very clearly in sub-clause (7) of Clause 9 which we have accepted—

That is the function of the council. Now we come to the function of the senate. The function of the senate is laid down in sub-clause (6) of Clause 10 just as clearly—

1. (a) reports on its activities;
2. (b) such recommendations concerning matters of interest to the University as it may deem expedient; and
3. (c) recommendations concerning matters referred to it by the council.

But, Sir, the introduction of this system of English and Afrikaans medium may involve extra expenditure; it is certain to involve extra expenditure from time to time, and that being the case the decision must rest with the council, not with the senate. The senate in these matters is a recommending body. The council is the body that decides, and the recommendation is generally brought to the council by the two senate members who are members of the council. I think it is perfectly clear that we cannot have the Minister’s amendment. I think it is much worse than the original clause.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I do not think that the provisions of this clause are adequate to meet the exceptional cases. There may be exceptional cases where the professor concerned may think that a student should complete his degree at, say, Rhodes University at Grahamstown after Rhodes University closes down at Port Elizabeth, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister can assure the House that some provision will be made in that connection by making available bursaries or loans for such students.

Adequate provision has been made in this clause—in fact very adequate provision. The clause provides—

That is already a very big concession. On the other hand, if there are any students who need bursaries, they are all treated on the same lines. I do not think that at this moment we should make provision in an Act of Parliament for students to obtain bursaries for that very special purpose. One can imagine that everyone will apply for a bursary and they will all profess to be in dire need. I cannot therefore accept that suggestion.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

At the second reading I suggested to the hon. the Minister that the concluding words “or by rules made by the council” should be deleted because “provisions prescribed by the statute or by rules” is quite irregular. It should be prescribed by the statute which is laid on the Table of this House for a period. It is quite unusual for the disciplinary regulations to be laid down in this way by rules made by the council, and I suggest to the Minister that he should delete those words. I am not going to move an amendment if he does not accept this suggestion; I do not want to delay the proceedings.

In this case the most up-to-date principle has been followed, namely that adopted by the Witwatersrand University in 1959 in Section 20 of Act 15 of 1959, and also by the Natal University in Section 20 of Act 7 of 1960, as a result of decades of experience by themselves and by other universities. The principle was approved by this House only two years ago in the two sections which I have mentioned; it was approved in two successive years, namely 1959 and 1960. I want to say here that the other universities are also considering the question of adopting the same line. I know for a fact that Potchefstroom University is really in a muddle with their discipline clause as it stands in their statute. We are only following the lead here, taken by the Witwatersrand University in 1959 and the Natal University in 1960.

Is the trouble the delay in publishing the statutes?

No, I do not think so.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

I move—

This Bill simply envisages increasing the maximum levy on wool which the Wool Board can impose, with my approval.

Section 34bis of the Wool Act (as inserted by Section 19 of the Wool Profits Distribution and Wool Amendment Act of 1952, as amended) provides for a maximum levy of lc per lb. It is now considered necessary to increase this maximum to 1½c per lb.

During the last year or two a threat to the wool industry has arisen in the form of a declining tendency in the prices for artificial fibres—the chief competitors of wool in the clothing, textile and carpet industries of the world. That is of the greatest interest to the wool industry because of the close relationship which has developed in recent years between the prices of synthetic fibres and the price of wool. The threat is constituted by the fact that the falling prices for artificial fibres may force down the price of wool to a level where in the course of time our farmers may be faced with serious problems.

The Board of the International Wool Secretariat, the body established in the interests of the promotion of wool by the three partner countries, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, was aware of this development, and decided on a long-term strategy in order to combat this threat to the 180,000 wool-growers of these three countries.

The Board and the staff of the Secretariat, inter alia, instituted an extensive investigation into the problems of wool producers in the three partner countries in respect of the sale of their wool clips at profitable prices in the years that lie ahead. In addition, a careful study was made of the probable pattern of expansion of the market and the objects of the manufacturers of the numbers of synthetic fibres which at present directly compete with wool.

As the result of rising living standards and the increasing world population, all producers of fibres can look forward to steadily expanding markets for wool and/or other fibres. The prospect for the wool industry is attractive.

The manufacturers of synthetic fibres have adapted their production to meet this increased demand. In fact, their production capacity is sufficient to comply with the total increase in the demand, and they are even able to capture an appreciable part of the market for wool at present.

The companies producing artificial fibre are spending gigantic amounts of money on research and technical services. Their expenditure for these purposes is much greater than that of the wool interests, and increasingly more emphasis is being laid on it. The technological progress resulting from this not only results in the creation of all kinds of new products, but is of particular importance in so far as, in the course of time, it will enable them to reduce costs.

The prices of the various artificial fibres which may be used to replace wool in practically all its traditional uses may possibly within the foreseeable future drop to a level at which the wool producers, if their industry is to be continued on a profitable basis, simply cannot compete. The matter is of particular interest because of the aforementioned close relationship which has developed in recent years between the prices of synthetic fibres and of wool.

The main object of the International Wool Secretariat’s plans is to ensure that wool-growers—subject to general economic world conditions—will continue to receive profitable prices for their wool, despite any reduction in the price of competitive fibres.

The programme for the coming years is planned to bring home to consumers the value of pure wool products of good standard and design, but not of a luxurious quality. In order to make this propaganda more effective, provision is made inter alia for granting much more support to research in wool to serve as the basis for improved manufacturing techniques, the development of new techniques, and for imparting this knowledge to the industry.

When consumers can be persuaded to pay a premium for pure wool products, beyond the price of other fibre products, the prices of wool will no longer be so dependent on the prices of synthetic fibres.

In recent years the International Wool Secretariat has succeeded in establishing a particularly efficient world organization. The South African Wool Board has the fullest confidence that the Secretariat is capable of coping with the difficult task that lies ahead of it. It enjoys the respect and confidence, as well as a large measure of co-operation, of all sections of the wool textile and carpet industries in the 17 countries where it has branch offices, laboratories or demonstration installations. It is expected that its plans will receive the strong support of the textile industry, provided this programme can be implemented with sufficient energy.

The Secretariat has established a Technological Division, and 47 technologists have already been appointed. The object is to provide the factories with advice and services, with the object of having new processes and inventions speedily adopted. For this, experimental laboratories are also required. These already exist in seven of the most important wool-consuming countries.

Market research also plays an important role in the planning of promotional projects. Consequently, increasing emphasis is laid on this division of the Secretariat. The promotion of trade-marks of final wool products of guaranteed quality is another aspect to which much attention is being devoted.

These undertakings will, however, require appreciably more funds than in the past. For this purpose the Board of the International Wool Secretariat has asked the Wool Boards of the three partner countries to contribute their share to a larger budget, which in any case will still amount to only approximately 2½ per cent of the average annual value of the joint wool clip of these three countries. This percentage which, measured by competitive standards, is not high, will provide a budget which will be sufficient to cover all aspects of promotion, publicity, research, the development of products and technical services to the textile and carpet industries which are being envisaged.

The amount annually required by the Secretariat will gradually increase and it is estimated that eventually it will amount to approximately R26,000,000, as compared with the present amount of R7,800,000. Of this amount the South African Wool Board will have to contribute 12.3 per cent (R3,200,000) on the present basis, whilst New Zealand and Australia will have to contribute respectively 24.2 per cent and 63.5 per cent. It is true that this represents a sharp increase in the present level of expenditure, but the Board of the Wool Secretariat has come to the conclusion that the capital investment in the wool industry and the continued existence of the 180,000 individual wool-growers of these three countries cannot otherwise be effectively safeguarded.

The maximum levy of 1½ cents per lb. of wool, for which provision is made in the Bill, will be sufficient to cover the aforementioned increased contributions to the obligations envisaged by the International Wool Secretariat, as well as the inland expenditure of the South African Wool Board.

The South African Wool Board, as well as its two partner countries, is in complete agreement with the necessity for the steps envisaged by the Secretariat and supports the programme for the expansion of its activities. Also, the first reaction of the South African wool-growers to the proposed long-term strategy is one of gratifying unanimity. It is felt that drastic steps are necessary immediately if wool is to retain its place in the world fibre markets and strengthen its position vis-á-vis its competitors.

An increase in the wool levy has already been approved during recent months by three provincial congresses of the National Wool Growers’ Association, namely those of the Cape Province, Natal and Griqualand East and the Free State. The executive of the Transvaal Branch of the National Wool Growers’ Association (whose congress was already held in April) also at a special meeting gave their support to the principle of increasing the levy. At every congress the discussions in regard to this increase dominated the debates.

These draft resolutions were also dealt with by the National Congress of the National Wool Growers’ Association on 18th and 19th September in Bloemfontein, and that congress also expressed its approval of the increased levy.

The clip from South West Africa consists mainly of karakul wool and includes approximately only 60 bales of merino wool. It is not intended to increase the levy on karakul wool for the next few years.

This Bill therefore already enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of our wool-growers. Therefore I trust that the proposal to increase the maximum levy will be supported by all members of this House. As hon. members know, all expenditure by the Wool Board in this country, as well as that devoted to the International Wool Secretariat, is carefully watched by me. Care is taken to ensure that, in so far as it is controllable, good value is received for the money collected from wool-growers by way of levies.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have mentioned and because of the fact that the wool-growers are so unanimous in regard to this increased levy because it is a matter of great importance to them, I trust that this Bill will enjoy the support of both sides of the House.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. We fully realize that it is necessary to spend huge sums of money for the purpose of research and for the purpose of publicizing wool. The Minister has already made the point that the threat of artificial fibre is becoming a very serious one, that the price of artificial fibre is coming down, that the articles are prepared in the most attractive way and so forth. That threat is therefore a very serious one. We fully realize the necessity of spending huge sums of money on research so as to improve our article and on publicizing it. We are therefore quite prepared to support this increase in the wool levy. Mr. van Heerden said towards the end of last year—

In other words, he thinks we have now reached the stage, as far as the wool farmer is concerned, where the maximum wool levy is being paid under the present wool prices. As has already been pointed out, they pay more or less the same in Australia as we pay here, but nearly half the amount paid in Australia will be paid by the Australian Government; only about half is paid by the Australian producer. The Australian producer therefore pays little more than half of what we have to pay in this country. I think it is time for the Government to realize that it should start to bear its responsibility in this matter. At the present price of wool the wool farmers are prepared for this increased levy. But I do not think it can be expected, and I do not think it will be fair, to increase this levy in future. What is more, should the price of wool drop the wool farmer cannot be expected to pay this levy and the Government will then have to step in and make a contribution towards this amount. The wool industry is of national importance and it is only right that the Government should realize its responsibility towards the industry and step in, if the price of wool comes down, and bear a considerable amount of the increased levy that the wool farmer is now paying. In the circumstances we support this measure, but if there is any change in the price of wool then the Government must step in.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all sorry to-day that it is necessary for us to pass this amending Bill. Where we have to come forward with a measure to give the wool farmers the right to tax themselves further, we are pleased that there is unanimity. I may just add that the wool farmers are certainly not asking this House to agree to their taxing themselves with a further ½c per lb. wool because they want to be wasteful or extravagant, but they are doing it because it is necessary. The wool farmers think it is essential, in order to safeguard themselves, to collect this increased amount. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when animal products—I refer to wool and skins—were adequate to meet human demands in order to clothe and cover himself. I am, of course, not talking about the fig-leaf period but about the later periods. At a later stage plants were roped in and cotton was used to clothe man. With the development of science, however, artificial fibre made an appearance in the field of clothing for man. The position to-day is that 68 per cent of the textile fibre used is cotton; 22 per cent is artificial fibre and only 10 per cent is wool. It is clear therefore that less than half wool is used than artificial fibre. When you bear in mind that the production of artificial fibre is not so affected by climatic conditions as wool, not so affected by droughts, animal diseases, pests and plagues, it is understandable that wool has an uphill struggle to compete with artificial fibre. I want to mention the serious drought we experienced the year before last, a drought which resulted in South Africa’s wool clip dropping by 13,000,000 lb. weight.

If the wool producing industry of the wool producing countries—I think South Africa, New Zealand and Australia in particular—were to suffer a severe set-back you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, how that will upset the economy of those three countries. I cannot think of a single agricultural industry in South Africa in which more money is invested than the wool growing industry. And if this industry were to go under or if it were to become unprofitable it would rock South Africa’s economy to its very foundations. It is a fact that the producers of artificial fibre are not afraid to spend large amounts of money, not only on advertising, but on research. It is a fact that it is possible for the producers of artificial fibre to bring down their production costs still further. Only in the past few years there has been a downward trend in the production costs of artificial fibre as against an increasing tendency in the case of wool, an increase due to land prices, more expensive labour and so forth. Wool is in this fortunate position, however, that it has certain qualities which artificial fibres lack. It is more durable, it has elasticity, it can absorb moisture, etc. I do not wish to refer to all the admirable qualities of wool. That was done very strikingly by the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) in his maiden speech in 1929 when he drew our attention to all the remarkable qualities of wool. We are grateful to him for that speech and it is a speech from which he has repeatedly quoted in this House. As I have said wool has those remarkable qualities which place it in a more advantageous position.

That was a good speech

Yes, I notice the hon. Whip over there is laughing. He probably thinks I am going to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Green Point is usually dressed in silk when we discuss wool legislation. I notice we have made progress in that regard; he is wearing a woollen suit to-day.

It is mohair.

That is also very good. We shall not hold that against the hon. member for Green Point either. If wool has those good qualities it is necessary and essential for us to bring those particular qualities to the notice of the consumers. For that reason the approximately 200,000 wool farmers of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa organized themselves, not into their wool growers’ association but also in an international organization, the International Wool Secretariat. This organization has a programme to carry out, as the hon. the Minister has already stated, a programme of research as well as a programme of advertising. Where its budget came to R8,700,000 annually in the past it will be necessary in future to spend an annual amount of R26,000,000. South Africa pays a considerable portion of this amount. Our share amounts to R3,200,000. We have to contribute 12.3 per cent against New Zealand’s 24.2 per cent and Australia’s 63.5 per cent towards the expenses. For us that is a large amount, Sir. We should like to see other countries—I particularly have in mind those countries in South America, countries like the Argentine, Paraguay and Uruguay who are also large wool-producing countries and who do not contribute anything—contributing something towards this large amount which is spent on behalf of wool. My hon. friend over here mentions Russia. Yes, Russia is also a great wool-producing country. I should like to see them also making a contribution seeing that they too benefit greatly by the research that is done and the advertising. But if they do not contribute we cannot neglect to attend to those matters because we are too dependent on wool to wait for them. That was why the International Wool Secretariat, the international organization, suggested that this large amount should be spent on behalf of wool. The Wool Board approved of it, Mr. Speaker. It was submitted to the provincial congresses and they accepted it unanimously. I repeat, not because they wanted to be wasteful or extravagant, but because they felt that there was a need for it.

The wool farmers of South Africa are now asking this House for the right to impose that additional levy of ½c on themselves. It is unthinkable that we should decide otherwise and that is why I am grateful that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and his party have said that they supported this Bill and that we should give that right to the wool farmers. There are people who have misgivings and who say that when the National Woolgrowers’ Association come to the Government with that request they do not represent the majority of wool farmers. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. There are plus minus 30,000 wool farmers in South Africa, perhaps a few more. The National Woolgrowers’ Association of South Africa has a membership of 32,000. There are cases, of course, where a unit is counted, where both the father and son are members; that is why the National Wool-growers’ Association has more members than the number of wool farmers. But these figures prove clearly that the National Woolgrowers’ Association is the mouthpiece of the wool farmers in South Africa. That is why this Parliament has no alternative but to accede to the request of the wool farmers and to give them the right to tax themselves. The wool farmers are not asking the Government to assist them. As the hon. member for Gardens has said it will come in very handy if the Government were to make a contribution, but the wool farmers are not asking that, they are asking for the right to tax themselves. The Press has already referred to it and said that the example set by the wool farmers of South Africa was one that could very well be emulated by other producers, namely, of taxing themselves at a time when they are fairly prosperous so as to ensure that they will have a market in future. There are even people—I believe even in this House on both sides of the House—who feel that with the existing levy of lc of which the Wool Board gets 6c and the Stabilization Fund 4c the Stabilization Fund should manage with less seeing that there is already an accumulated amount of R25,000,000 in that fund. Some people feel that that fund is strong enough and that the compulsory levy should therefore be less. There may be justification for people to think that. It may be that I feel that way because I had the experience, during the depression years of 1932-3, of having to accept 6d. and 6½d. for long wool and 3⅞d. for short wool—

That was good!

Yes, but I produce good wool. And less than a penny for “locks”; and that during a period when you had to pay 8 per cent interest on your bond and when you perhaps had brothers or sisters at the university. We did not even have a university at Port Elizabeth at the time. After that experience I am one of those producers who believe that this is the right time for the wool farmers to ensure their future. As far as I am concerned that Stabilization Fund of R25,000,000 is by far not strong enough. When I subscribe to this point of view I think I am subscribing to a point of view to which the majority of wool farmers subscribe, farmers who believe that that Stabilization Fund must still be made much stronger than it is to-day.

The hon. member for Gardens has referred to what Mr. Van Heerden has said. I want to refer to what the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) said. I refer to a report in the “Farmers’ Weekly” of 25 December 1963—

Then it goes on—

I think the hon. member for East London (City) was wrong when he said that at this stage. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. But at this stage, on the basis on which the wool market has been maintained over the past few years, I believe that, even if the amount is high it is not “overstepping”.

Mr. Van Heerden said “breaking point”.

No, it has not reached breaking point yet. Nor will it break the hon. member for Gardens. I know him; he is far from breaking point. But the hon. member for East London (City) goes further and he asks for State aid. I said a moment ago that State aid would certainly be very welcome, but I want to refer to what is happening in Australia. I want to read what a correspondent wrote in “Die Wolboer” about the Australian wool farmers who get assistance from the state. They say—

Then it goes on—

What is the date of that?

That is an extract from “Die Wolboer” of October 1963—a few months ago. That is the attitude of the Australian wool farmers and the attitude of the South African wool farmer does not differ greatly from that of the Australian wool farmer. State aid will be welcome but if State aid is going to deprive the wool farmer of his autonomy—if I may use the word—then the wool farmer of South Africa does not want it. The wool farmer wants to manage his own affairs and the wool farmer is prepared, in these circumstances, to impose this additional levy on himself.

I conclude. We regret that it is necessary for the wool producer to make a greater contribution to the expenditure which he regards as essential. But in view of the fact that he regards it as essential, the wool farmer is prepared to saddle himself with this levy. I am pleased that there is unanimity in this House in regard to giving him that right.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) has already indicated that this side of the House supports the Bill as proposed by the hon. the Minister. But, Sir, there are some salient features in this increase in the levy and in the control which the Minister says he has over the spending of these funds which I should like to place before the House. While the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) quoted me may I just inform this House that in 1962 the levy was increased from a ½d. per lb. to 1 cent per lb.—an increase of substantially over 100 per cent. And now, in 1964, the proposal is to increase it by another 50 per cent. If we reduce that to figures it simply amounts to this that the wool farmer in South Africa is called upon to pay 14 cent levy to the Wool Board and another ½ cent to the Wool Commission. He pays 2 cent per lb. on wool but he pays the not so meagre amount of R6,000,000 per year by way of levy, and appreciably more than the 2½ per cent of his returns as quoted by the hon. the Minister. I believe and I maintain that what I said at the time, as quoted, is still correct, namely that this is overstepping the levy in South Africa at this stage. I say that with a full sense of responsibility and with all the authority that I have as far as the wool industry is concerned. I want to compare the position with that of Australia. Let me quote some statistics. I think I have reason to say that the wool industry in this country is almost as important as it is in Australia. Although it is not the mainstay of our whole economy it certainly is the mainstay of our agricultural economy and if the return of the wool cheque plus what is earned by the sheep is taken into consideration it is by far the largest return in our agricultural economy. It must be important to the country and it must be important to the Government. In the case of Australia, the Australian producer pays up to this stage—they are in the process of amending their legislation and having a higher levy—the Australian producer pays in Australian currency 10s. a bale in levy and added to that a special levy of 2s. a bale to the Research Fund. In the meantime the South African producer has been paying to the extent of a cent a pound or £1 5s. (R2.50) per bale. Let us get these figures clear, Mr. Speaker. While the Australian producer was paying 10s. per bale, the South African producer was paying £1 5s. or R2.50 a bale. The Australian producer under the new suggestions, which have not yet been finalized, will be called upon to pay £1 7s. a bale in Australian currency as against £2 5s., or R4.50 by his South African counterpart. That is the correct picture.

Let us now come to the Government contributions, the “unwanted” contributions according to the hon. member for Somerset East. I wonder where the hon. member gets that from that the South African producers do not want Government assistance? As far as Australia is concerned, the Australian producer paid a separate levy of 2s. a bale for research and the Government paid 4s. a bale into that fund; therefore their special Wool Research Fund has been receiving 6s. a bale on an Australian clip of 5,000,000 bales. It is easy to work out what a colossal sum that is. Under those circumstances it was possible for them to create inside their C.S.I.R.O. their Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a Wool Research Organization, both biological and scientific, to the extent that they are to-day the leaders in the world as far as wool research is concerned. Now don’t tell me that there has not been sufficient pressure applied on the hon. Minister and his predecessors and the Nationalist Government for more money for research. It breaks my heart to think that in these initial stages of our wool research, where the budget is something in the nature of a quarter million Rand, that even in the initial stages when we are trying to build up the research station in Grahamstown, we now have to undergo the painful process of pulling up our roots there and putting it in a different centre. But that is by the way. The fact remains that of the millions of pounds that the Government and the wool producers in Australia put up for scientific and biological research—and the biological research covers the whole sheep and wool industry right from the growing and the feeding up to the final product and its processing—we can now see some wonderful results. It breaks my heart to think that we have so much leeway to make up and that we now have to pay accounts to the Australian C.S.I.R. for research projects which cannot be undertaken in our country. But on top of that, what was the position when this increase in the levy came along? There was pressure upon the Government to meet this, and may be this scheme of theirs would not have gone through if their government did not concede the point that they would make up the balance by way of government contribution, and the difference between the 10s. per bale in Australia and what they are now suggesting is paid by the Government to the extent of 50 per cent, and whereas the Australian producer is called upon to pay something like 27s. a bale, the government is now footing the bill to the extent of more than 17s. a bale. That is what the Australian Government is prepared to do for the industry. While I am dealing with this, I said that there were three salient points that I wanted to touch on, having explained that the levy that the wool-farmer is called upon to pay is a very substantial one, far and above anything any wool-farmer in the rest of the world is being called upon to pay, I want to add that the South African Government, in a wool-exporting country, is doing less than any other Government of a wool-producing country is doing at present.

But when we eventually come to the final assessment of how this money is being spent, we find, as has already been mentioned, that the International Wool Secretariat will be spending approximately R3.2 million. If I go over the figures in the Annual Report of the Wool Board for the year 1962, this is what I find: The budget for the Wool Board internally was (R680,000) in that year. That was made up of various items, the most important one being trade promotion to the tune of R147,000. But the caption to the budget itself said this: “The Board’s contribution to the fund of the I.W.S. is not disclosed here, in accordance with I.W.S. policy.” In all fairness, to the wool-purchasers, approximately 32,000 of them in the Republic of South Africa, if a statement does not appear in the annual report on the financial returns of the Wool Board about the spending of the money on international ventures, where in the creation of cats can the wool farmer find that information? Can it be given to the wool farmers at their congresses, in committee sessions, or where? Is the producer in South Africa prepared to spend this money without any sort of assessment or statement or explanation at any particular stage as to how these various sums are spent in the international field?

Let me say that as far as scientific research is concerned, I do not think there is anybody in the world who would not be prepared to grant the international organization all the money they want for research. Now, even though some of these figures were not correctly quoted, the position is that wool and fibre represents 11 per cent of the clothing fibre of the world. And that is all the wool we have got. Every pound is being consumed. Nothing of it is lying in stock. And I think the argument that was used by the hon. the Minister that on account of the price differentiation that is now swinging in favour of the man-made fibre price, and because the prices of wool and man-made fibre were getting out of relation and that the international organization finds it necessary to spend more money on research and promotion because of that particular factor, is a fallacy. It is a complete fallacy, because two years ago when the price of the artificial fibre was high, the price of wool was low. Can anybody explain that to me? Can the hon. Minister explain to me why the price of wool did not go up two years ago when the price of the artificial fibre was high? No, Sir, there is no or very little relation between the price of the artificial fibre and the price of wool.

I never said anything of the kind.

Then I misunderstood the Minister and I beg his pardon. I thought he gave it as one of the reasons for this additional contribution. I repeat that there is very little relation between the price of the artificial fibre and the price of the natural fibre. And when I said that the wool farmers from the contributing countries would be prepared to give the international organization all the funds they can usefully spend on research, I meant every word of that. Because even though the wool fibre has all the natural attributes of a natural fibre, something that artificial fibre, man-made fibre, has never been able to duplicate, there are these dangers that the man-made fibres reach qualities of strength and many other qualities that the woollen fibre has not got. All the money we spend on research, biological research, scientific research, is money awfully well spent. But I put it to the hon. Minister: Does he really feel that he has anything like control over, or an insight even into the spending of the producers’ money in the international field?

You should know.

I have been called to give evidence before a parliamentary committee and to tell them about these things. I don’t know what has taken place after I left that sphere. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that ever since the constitution of the International Wool Secretariat was changed, and we were taken in tow by Australia, this amount has gone up by leaps and bounds, and money is spent on such a scale internationally that we are beginning to get disturbed about it, and those of us who still have an insight into how it is being spent, know that in respect of our traditional buyers of wool not so much more is being spent, but that the increases are taking place out East, the natural buyers of Australia and New Zealand. *This was the position in 1962-3, Mr. Chairman, that of the South African clip of grease wool, France took 177,000 bales, the U.S.A. 131,000 bales, Italy 122,000 bales, the United Kingdom 120,000, Germany 105,000 bales, Japan 90,000 bales, Belgium 43,000 bales and Spain 11,130.

And that without us changing our policy?

This was up to the end of June 1963. The change of policy is that more money is being spent in Japan and the East, and I pointed out last year in an agricultural debate that India was not in a position to buy any wool, that it never has been in a position to buy any wool for years, and that for many years to come, as far as I can see it will not buy wool. India is not in a position to buy one pound of wool off us. Its funds are being spent in India to support the cottage industry, but I am not criticizing attempts to get the cottage industry to use wool as well. But the one point we are critical about is that in terms of these old and established buyers of ours, we do not find the same increased ratio of spending in respect of Europe and the U.S.A. as in respect of the East. And don’t let us forget that in terms of the trade agreement that Australia has with Japan and that New Zealand has with Japan, Japan must buy 80 per cent of its grease-wool requirements from Australia and 10 per cent in New Zealand, and that Japan can only buy 10 per cent from South Africa, and *if Japan is buying 1,500,000 bales of wool a year, then inside that 10 per cent she can only buy 150,000 bales in our country. I don’t think it is serving the purpose of South Africa so remarkably well when this increased expenditure on wool publicity and promotion (I am leaving out research) is channelled to the East by and large and with a much lesser degree to the old established buyers of South Africa.

Getting on to point No. 2, and this was a point also made by the hon. member for Somerset East who said that we, the wool-farmers of this country and of Australia and New Zealand, would like the non-contributing countries of the Southern Hemisphere, in other words, the other exporters of wool, to make some contribution to our International Wool Secretariat, I would like to point out that the Argentinian clip alone for the year 1963, was 466,000,000 lbs. compared to our 300,000,000. So their clip was one-and-a-half times the size of the South African clip and if we add to that the Brazilian, Uruguayan and Chilean production, we find that they have almost three times the production of wool we have and they do not pay one single bean, one single cent toward the objects of the activities of the International Wool Secretariat, and from that it is clear that they have been riding on our backs for years.

What did you do about it?

We should have a government which steps in and does something about it. If the hon. member over there asks what I have done over the years, I want to remind him that we had two conferences, one in Buenos Aires and one in Montevideo in an attempt to get them to join up, and the whole thing was more or less cut and dried when the international set-up changed. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that with the assistance of the Republican Government and with sufficient pressure applied, the Latin American countries will be ready to come into the international organization, and I refer the hon. member to the minutes of the congress that was held three years ago and there he will find confirmation of what I am saying. But this wants some government assistance and the hon. Minister should know that as well as I do, namely that the producers only would not be able to negotiate a deal with the South American countries without the assistance of the South African Government for the simple reason that government liaison with the producers in the Argentine, Uruguay and Brazil is of a nature that differs from government liaison with the producers in this country, and the respective governments will have to appear in the picture if the South American countries have to be brought in so that they can make their contribution. I am only hoping that the hon. Minister will take this very seriously as a suggestion from this side of the House that in the very near future steps should be taken to get these South American countries to at least come to the debating table on behalf of both their governments and their growers on a basis of their contributing something towards our international venture and not forcing the position onto Australia and New Zealand and South Africa to spend R22,000,000 or R26,000,000, and those countries sitting by with a colossal clip, enjoying the fruits of research and publicity undertaken by these other countries.

Getting onto the third salient feature, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in this respect the hon. Minister will agree with me that it is a heartbreaking thing that the countries of the Southern Hemisphere and many other countries have increased their wool production over the last last ten years to an extent which is phenomenal, whereas South Africa is going down as far as its wool production is concerned. The world wool output, Mr. Speaker, wool production, increased in Russia, South America, Asia and Oceania, but decreased in Africa. It increased to an enormous extent in New Zealand and Australia, by some 12 per cent from the year 1958 to 1961, and a further increase is anticipated of 3 per cent for the current year. The hon. member for Somerset East knows as well as I do that we are sitting around 1,000,000 bales per year and we have been sitting around a 1,000,000 bales for more years than we care to remember, but the Australian clip has gone up from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 and while the New Zealand clip has gone up to about 22.5 per cent contribution of the I.W.S. funds ours has been reduced from 14 per cent to 12.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, how important is the wool industry to this Government and how important is it to the hon. Minister of Agriculture? If it is important at all, does the Minister think that his extension officers and the many people they keep on to educate people, could tell the farmers of this country that where merino sheep can be profitably kept, it would be a good thing to go in for merino sheep, and increase our foreign exchange earnings considerably? I contend that sheep must be produced in this country over more than half of the extent of the country because it is a semi-arid country, and there is nothing that the people in the Large Karroo and many other parts of the country can produce or farm with bar sheep.

And if the farmers do not want to do so?

There are large tracts in this country where sheep can be profitably brought in under mixed farming and I must lay this at the door of the Minister of Agriculture primarily and at the door of the Wool Board that more money is not spent internally, because their budget over a number of years in respect of internal expenditure has hardly increased. More should be done to encourage the growers, the producers in South Africa to increase the South African wool clip from this 1,000,000 bales per year to say 1,250,000 or 1,500,000 bales, which would mean that we would earn another R30,000,000 or R40,000,000 in foreign currency.

Now you are talking absolute rubbish.

I have said that this side of the House will support the increase in the levy because we think it is necessary, but we put this to the Minister very pertinently that if, as we believe, in the past he has not had an insight, if not a control-over, the finances and, this vast increase in expenditure on the international account, he should seriously go into the matter. Because from 1962 to 1964 the levy has been increased from three-eighths of a penny per lb. to 1½c per lb. He should make it his business to submit statements to this House as to how this money is being spent.

You have changed your opinion over the last few years quite a lot!

I gave the assurance, Mr. Speaker, that at no stage, in my opinion, would it be necessary to have a levy of more than ½d. per lb., and the hon. Minister knows it as well as I do. I thought it would never be necessary to have a levy of more than ½d. a lb. for the Wool Board and ½d. for the Wool Commission.

When there was a request of a general contribution to the Wool Board, you opposed it with all your might.

The hon. Minister will have to accept the responsibility that over the period 1962-4, this wool levy was increased from ⅜d. per lb. to what he is now proposing—l½c per lb., and that he has done nothing more to look after the international expenditure than he did in the past when it was ⅜d. per lb.

I repeat that we will support this levy and our request to the Minister is that he should keep an eye on international spending, more particularly with reference to publicity and promotion which has no yard-stick and cannot be measured, and that his Department should go all out to endeavour to increase the production of wool in this country, and that this Government lends a hand in getting the South American countries to make their equitable contribution to the International Fund, thereby relieving our South African wool farmers of some of the burden.

One is surprised at the hon. member who has just sat down for actually supporting this Bill. His entire speech amounted to a motion of no confidence in the organized farmers in South Africa, namely, the National Woolgrowers’ Association. Nor was it anything else but a motion of no confidence in the entire National Wool Secretariat. The National Wool Secretariat and our National Woolgrowers’ Association know more about the wool industry than the hon. member over there who has suddenly revealed such a big heart that it nearly burst on a few occasions. But, Mr. Speaker, what is behind all this is not the welfare of the farmer and the welfare of organized agriculture but party politics. I am very sorry that a person like him, a person who could have done better, dealt with the matter the way he did. Why does he not go to the National Woolgrowers’ Association and criticize them at their congresses, and tell them what his views are. No, instead of that a man like him comes here and criticizes everything the National Woolgrowers’ Association and the Wool Board and the International Wool Secretariat do. That same hon. member for East London (City) also opposed the levy at a wool congress in the past. I remember that very well. But what did he say about the honourable men who are there to-day? He said they were on a “spending spree”. I wonder whether he, too, did not go on “spending sprees” when he sat there? Why does he make a remark like that about honourable men, men who are as honourable, if not more, than the hon. member? I feel sick when I have to listen to attacks on honourable men. The whole difficulty with that hon. member is that he is jealous. That hon. member could have done much for the wool farmers but because he is in politics to-day he approaches everything from a political angle. The National Wool-growers’ Association is not a political body. That organization has been built on a sound foundation. There was a time, before the existence of the National Woolgrowers’ Association, when we had to sell our wool at the back door to somebody who paid what he wanted to pay for it. It was the National Woolgrowers’ Association who brought about orderly marketing and who built up the industry to where it is to-day. That is why I think it is wrong for anybody here to drag the good work which is being done by those people into the political arena. I remember the days when the wool producers were poor Whites. The National Woolgrowers’ organization placed wool on a sound basis. That same National Woolgrowers’ organization has grown from an organization with a membership of merely 800 to an organization with 32,000 members. If that organization had been such a bad organization surely the farmers would not have belonged to it. The hon. member wants to make us believe that it is such a bad organization. Suddenly everything they do is wrong. The International Wool Secretariat, which grew out of the National Woolgrowers’ Association, is being reviled. I am proud of the fact that I assisted in establishing the International Wool Secretariat. I deprecate the fact that people come along to-day and criticize the good work that has been done since 1936. I cannot understand how a man who knows better can act like that. I challenge him to voice the criticism he has voiced here to-day before the National Wool-growers’ Association where those people can defend themselves. But the hon. member sits here in Parliament where they cannot reply to him and he drags their good name through the mud. We have our representative on the International Wool Secretariat. Are we not proud of him? I am proud of a man like Mr. Abie van Heerden, a person who has sacrificed his whole life for the woolgrowers of South Africa. Why should people like that be criticized and dragged into politics? Why does the hon. member not go to the congresses and voice his criticism there? No, he lacks the courage to do so because he got such a hiding at Port Elizabeth that I am surprised that he can still get up here. Wool is not something that we should drag into politics. That hon. member assisted in everything the Government did. I accompanied him to the Minister in connection with the levies that were imposed and we said: Give us levy funds so that we can do research work and so that we can advertise. I remember when I went to Australia in 1936 we had a levy of 1s. per bale. The Wool Secretariat has now developed into a world organization. I do not think it is right to criticize that organization here seeing that the farmers have done their best all these years to bring about orderly marketing. The hon. member must not get up here and criticize: he must go and do it there. He must not try to make a little cheap party political capital out of it in this House.

Mr. Speaker, up to the time that the hon. member who has just sat down started to speak we were having a quiet, non-political agricultural debate, but now we might just as well be at a violent political meeting somewhere in the country. The hon. member has the nerve to talk about politics, but why was the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) put out of his position as chairman of the Wool Board and the Wool Commission? It was done purely for political purposes. The hon. member should not try to pull the wool over the eyes of this House. As Mr. Churchill said of a political opponent, he is indeed a sheep in sheep’s clothing. That is if you call a hamel a sheep.

I should like to know who put the hon. member for East London (City) out of his post as chairman of the Wool Board.

The hon. member knows that well enough. It was the Nationalists who put him out.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) told us that the total of the levy was 1 cent, of which .6 cent went to the Wool Board and .4 cent went to the Commission, but that is not so. The total amount of the levy to-day is 1.5 cent, for the Commission and the Wool Board together, of which the Commission takes only .4 cent at the moment and the other body takes its full cent. It is 1.5 cent now and if it is put up another ½ cent the possible total will be 2 cents for the two bodies combined. [Interjections.]

Your information is wrong. They are only taking 1 cent at the moment.

I am not wrong: it is the hon. member who is. It does not matter what they take; it is what they will be entitled to take if this Bill goes through. At the present moment, before this Bill goes through, the two bodies can take 1½ cents, of which one body is taking 1 cent and the other .4 cent. But the hon. member told us the one body takes .6 of a cent and the other .4 cent; in other words, that they were taking 1 cent. As a matter of fact, they are taking 1.4 cent now, and if the Bill goes through they can take 2 cents. Now we have the facts right, and I will go on to the Bill. The hon. member for Somerset East gave us the percentages of cotton, synthetic fibres and wool that were being produced; very interesting figures. The fact is that most of the synthetic fibres have to be mixed with wool, and the more synthetic fibres that are used, the more wool is used to mix with it. I am not talking about cotton now, but synthetic fibres. If you merely had wool and cotton, you could not clothe the world to-day. When weaving, you have to pull the thread tight, and with a synthetic fibre you cannot pull it tight enough to get a really close-woven material without breaking the thread; but if you mix wool with the synthetic material then in the “milling”, or what is called the shrinking process, you get such a tight weave that it is almost waterproof, and that is why the more synthetic fibre you have, the more wool you require if a really close-knit material is to be produced.

What about your speech you made in 1929? Do you want to insinuate that they cannot use wool without synthetic fibres?

Don’t be silly. I am saying that you cannot have a close weave of synthetic fibre without adding wool. One of the greatest industrialists in Britain, whose company produces rayon and who happened to be out here once, told me that the growers need not worry, because the more synthetic fibres that are used the more wool is needed to mix with it. I don’t agree that we need not worry: I think synthetic fibres are a grave danger to the wool industry.

The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) told us that the Australian Government pays half the levy, or at least part of it, and that the Government here derives great benefit from wool because it is a big earner of foreign currency. Therefore he feels, and I think so too, that the Government should make some contribution towards the levy if wool goes down in price. Now, we have had a very interesting speech from the hon. member for East London (City), who knows what he is talking about; and when hon. members opposite do not even know what the levy is, it is very pathetic.

Now, as the fifth speaker it is not so easy to say something new, but I want to say that we agree with raising the levy at the present moment whilst the price of wool is high and growers can afford to pay it. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Gardens, when he says that it must go no higher; and it must come down if the price of wool drops. Mr. Speaker, I remember the time when the highest fleeces fetched 6d. per lb. in the early 1930’s, and locks were sold at three-fifths of a penny per lb. I have a photostat of a telegram which a grower received from the B.S.B., saying that his wool was sold at three-fifths of a penny per lb., for locks. If the levy then applied a farmer would have to pay 2 cents on a lb. of wool worth less than ½ cent. Nearly the same thing occurred in the early 1920’s. I know what happened then. Shortly after the war the Japanese came into the market and wool went up to 5s. a lb., but within two years afterwards it was down to 6d. a lb., and that can happen again. Another point I want to raise, which has not been raised yet, is this. I do not think a fixed amount per lb. is the right way to apply the levy; and I will tell you why. The grower who gets 80 cents a lb. for his top-line wool pays 1.4 cents (and could be called upon to pay 2 cents) because he has a high yield. Now you have the grower who gets 30 cents because he has a lower quality and a low-yielding wool, and he has to contribute exactly the same amount as the grower who gets 80 cents a lb. He will also have to pay the same levy on wool that brings him in 12 cents a lb. For low-yield wool he may get (say) 12 cents a lb. for locks, and he will still have to pay the same levy of 2 cents per lb. I do not know how to work out the ratio: I admit it is difficult, and I lay myself in the hands of the Minister, but I do think the mere fact that you pay the same levy whether you get 90 cents or 6 cents per lb. for your wool is the wrong basis. I feel that some scheme should be worked out where the levy is paid in ratio to the price. Why I agree with the Bill is that the sudden drop in the price of artificial fibres has been announced by the I.C.I., and a tremendous amount of clothing from it. The hon. member for East London (City) has put forward a very sound argument by saying that the rise or fall in the price of synthetics does not seem to affect the price of wool at all. But the fact is that if big producers of synthetics like the I.C.I. can produce the synthetic fibres very much cheaper than wool, there is no doubt that it is bound to affect the price of wool sooner or later. Such fibres will compete strongly with wool, and it is essential that the wool-growers now have to meet this threat, and particularly at a time when they are still getting decent prices, and that is why this side of the House fully supports the Bill.

Now the only way to meet such competition is by means of research and still more research, and that is a very expensive business. The propaganda must be done along the right lines. I think there is a lot of very faulty propaganda being made at present. The next thing is public relations. Public relations has now become a profession. If you read the “Anatomy of Britain”, you will see that whereas a few years ago there were only a couple of dozen public relations officers in Britain or in Europe, to-day it is a very big profession and you cannot compete in the open market without having public relations. The next thing is the selling technique, which should be up to modern business standards. Now, I support this Bill, as I said, subject to the conditions I stated, and talking about propaganda I feel that money should not be wasted on things that are of no or little use whatever. We had the example of all these beautiful mannequins who were brought out here from France or Italy. I saw the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) sitting up in the gallery with all those beautiful mannequins, and obviously his blood pressure was rising every moment, as his mind was not on wool.

I want to emphasize that the levy must not go higher. I know it is very difficult, but I do think it is not impossible to work out some scheme where you have the levy in ratio to the price paid; and if wool drops in price the Government must step in and help to pay the levy, because then the farmers will not be able to afford to do so. Take my own case. I can be called upon to pay 184,000 cents by way of levy and that is a lot of money.

What an income you must have!

The point is that if wool drops to 10c a lb., and I have to find the same amount of levy, because I might be producing the same weight of wool, I will be in difficulties. The same amount of wool produced will pay the same levy, although it might be worth only 6d. a lb. I only mention that to show what could happen. In fact, to-day I would be paying a levy amounting to twice as much as my whole clip was worth in 1932, and the cost of production is steadily rising. In 1932 my entire clip could not have paid for the empty woolsacks I have to buy to-day, and that can happen again. That is why I say the Government must be prepared to step in and help if that happens. If Australia can do it we can do it too. The point I wish to make is that it is essential that whilst wool prices are high we must find the money to do the necessary research, etc., because if the price of wool drops the growers will not have the money to do it.

Mr. Speaker, on this youthful note of the pretty mannequins who sat in the gallery and the huge sums of money that is made out of wool, I think we require a whole night to consider these matters. I therefore move—

Agreed to; debate adjourned.