Mr Speaker, before the adjournment of the debate last night I was referring to the tremendous development potential for the livestock industry in South Africa, particularly if the scientific possibilities which were latent in this Bill were further developed in practice. Since the commencement of the principal Act, various performance schemes have gained momentum. This has already had a tremendous effect on the productivity of our livestock, and also as far as our pedigree livestock in South Africa are concerned. However, it is particularly important to note that the respective livestock breeders’ societies have accepted performance testing. They have begun to realize its advantages, although there was considerable initial resistance on the part of a large number of the livestock breeders’ societies, and fortunately we have now reached the stage at which most of these societies are accepting performance testing. It seems that a process simply has to develop over the course of years.

A colleague has informed me that when the first bull selection scheme was developed in the ’thirties—that was when the bull still had to be branded before he could be used—some of the largest protest meetings of farmers were in fact aimed at this bull selection scheme. When we think back to those events today, we cannot understand how it was possible. In the livestock breeding industry, however, there are always prejudices against developments of this nature. I believe, however, that we have now reached the stage at which the farmers are accepting these scientific developments in the livestock breeding industry.

This means of course that the genetic value of stud animals, as far as their productivity is concerned, is constantly improving in South Africa.

Cannot we simply continue to use the traditional methods?

No, they will not work, particularly not with that hon member. [Interjections.] We have now reached the stage at which stud animals can no longer be assessed, as they were in the past, merely on the basis of their appearance. The days are past when the best-looking stud bull was necessarily the best bull. The days are past when one only had to look at a bull’s head and horns. [Interjections.] Yes, at his heels as well. [Interjections.] There are other imperceptible characteristics which are extremely important for the growth and development of the livestock industry.

Performance testing has of course been in operation for a number of years. I want to refer here to the milk recording scheme, which has played an extremely important part in the development of our dairy herds in South Africa. The department, as hon members will probably know, has its own dairy herd at Irene, near Pretoria. This dairy herd, too, is of course regularly subjected to a diversity of testing schemes, including the milk recording scheme. Over the years the standard of this herd has been raised to such an extent that if that standard of the herd were to be developed further, so that it was equal to that of the national herd, the situation could ultimately be reached in South Africa in which we would be able, with half of the present head of cattle, to produce as much milk and dairy produce as we are producing today. The potential is therefore tremendous. The advantages attached to this are of course obvious, because the unit costs of fresh milk and other dairy produce can decrease, because the tremendous pressure on feed supplies in South Africa can be reduced and because—a very important factor too for the consumer,—if it is possible for increased productivity by the livestock herds to be maintained, the cost involved would also be lower and consumer prices would therefore not rise so steeply.

Consequently this is legislation which is not only in the interests of farmers in South Africa, but which at the same time will also entail certain benefits for the consumers themselves.

When we take note of the standard of livestock at agricultural shows—and we know that show animals are usually well cared for and well-groomed; that they receive special nourishment and exhibit extremely well—and taking into consideration the quality of show animals, while we compare them at the same time with that of our national herds—we can really say that we have enough good nuclear herds in South Africa to improve our overall livestock population in this country tremendously. For that very reason the legislation under discussion is tremendously important, and it will also be able to make a major contribution in this connection. Of course we shall have to move far more purposefully in the direction of extension and persuasion, particularly because of the economic advantages attaching to it, so that the scientific facts which are revealed by way of this legislation may also be used beneficially by the normal producers. As far as I am concerned, there is great scientific potential in this legislation. However, it must also be properly controlled, and also effectively applied in order to improve the livestock in South Africa.

This brings me to the speeches made by hon members during the course of the debate, as well as to the statements they made in regard to certain aspects.

†First of all, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Albany made certain remarks which are very important. He complained about the importation of semen, and also made reference to a specific case in his constituency.

Semen may be imported only upon the written authority of the Registrar of Livestock Improvement. Such authority, however, is granted upon the recommendations, firstly, of the Livestock Breeders’ Society, secondly, the Stud Book Association, and thirdly, the Artificial Insemination Committee. The regulations relating to the importation of semen determine that imported semen should comply with all requirements for locally collected and processed semen. The importation of semen as well as animals, ova and eggs, is restricted to ensure that only breeding material which will firstly benefit the genetic production potential of the importer’s herd, and, secondly, contribute to the improvement of the breed concerned as a whole, is being imported. However, since the importer is the only person who is in a favourable position to determine whether the quality of the animals, semen, ova or eggs would have that effect and that it would otherwise comply with the prescribed requirements, he can blame only himself for any financial losses which he may suffer from such importation. If there is any further information the hon member would like to put forward, he is welcome to do so. I shall investigate this matter further.

The hon member also referred to the question of the export of ostriches. The fact is that control over the export of ostriches was exercised by way of regulation. However, problems were experienced with this system of control and therefore we thought it wise to incorporate this provision in this particular legislation. The hon member may find it interesting to know that according to the latest census there are 125 000 ostriches in the ostrich industry with a value of approximately R31 million. The trade turnover of this industry amounts to plus minus R30 million annually, 80% of which is earned in foreign currency. At the present time the world market for certain ostrich products is oversupplied to such an extent that there is little scope for increasing the market for these products. The industry has invested several million of rands in a sophisticated abattoir and tannery but since this industry is based on the fashion industry, any unrestricted expansion of the ostrich population could have a disastrous effect upon the ostrich industry similar to that which took place at the beginning of this century, which I think is well known to everyone. Restrictions in respect of the export of ostriches and ostrich eggs must therefore be regarded as measures to protect the industry which has been developed locally over decades and which is unique to the Republic and especially the little Karroo and Oudtshoorn.

*Sir, the hon member for Smithfield apologized for not being able to be present here. The hon member made a very valuable contribution which I appreciate very much indeed. He is a member of the executive committee of the Stud Book Association and is therefore in a position to speak with exceptional authority on this legislation. He made a very important contribution which I greatly appreciate.

In particular the hon member commented on the computerization programme: This programme for the registration of pedigrees is making a substantial contribution to the livestock breeding industry. Although deficiencies still occur in many respects, there is no reason to cast suspicion on the programme. We do have problems in that certain of the breeders societies are trying to resist this computerization programme. However, we know that computer programmes are so adaptable these days that we believe we will ultimately be able to solve our problems with the necessary know-how.

The computer of the Department of Agriculture which the Stud Book Association is using at the moment is definitely, to our knowledge, the best one available on the market. That is why we have all the more reason to expect that when the programme is fully operational, we hope by the year 1992, and when the performance tests have been incorporated, there should be no further problems. It is estimated that the cost of the computerization programme upon completion will have amounted to approximately R18 million.

In order to redeem these costs it will be necessary to obtain financial contributions from all branches of the livestock industry. If we take into consideration that the livestock industry itself earns R390 million, in exchange only the expenditure of R18 million over 13 years would not appear to be such an astronomical amount, particularly if one bears in mind the tremendous advantages attached to it, which are that this is a programme which will lead to an improvement of the genetic production potential of our livestock population.

We believe that the more schemes that are developed, the more breeders societies that are incorporated into the programme, the greater the potential and the greater the possibility that the unit costs will come down. Consequently I do not think that the amount of R18 million need be a major problem if one compares it with the advantages.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also made a very good contribution. Of course, he himself is an animal scientist. I am privileged to be in possession of his thesis, which he wrote on the subject of calves. I have very great respect for him as an animal scientist; it is a pity, though, that his politics are not up to scratch these days. [Interjections.] The hon member made a very appropriate observation on the rapid improvement of the high potential of breeding animals. This is possible precisely as a result of the fact that the genetic characteristics can be distributed by means of artificial insemination and embryonic transplants. The strict selection of animals will have to take place in the case of semen and ova, and this will have to be controlled by law. The hon member pointed out that one cow could produce as many as 24 calves per annum. Not the cow itself, of course, but by means of embryonic transplants.

Consequently it is in the interest of the livestock industry that breeding animals should not be judged merely by their external characteristics. In animals certain breeds, particularly meat-producing breeds, specific characteristics such as their conformation can be externally perceived. The question which must in fact be answered, though, is, according to the hon member, whether those qualities will be transferred to and perpetuated in the progeny. This question can of course be answered only by performance testing. I thank the hon member for his positive contribution.

The hon member for Prieska also made a positive contribution, particularly in respect of the co-operation between the animal scientists and the veterinarians. He spoke about these two important disciplines in the livestock industry. As far as I know the hon member himself has done research in the field of animal husbandry. I should like to make one or two observations on the question of animal scientists and veterinarians in the livestock industry.

When the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1954, it was primarily aimed at preventing the spreading of venereal diseases among animals, but as a result of the shift from disease control to livestock improvement in the legislation and the incorporation of that Act into the Livestock Improvement Act in 1977, it goes without saying that disease aspects began to play a “more subsidiary” please note that I say “more subsidiary” and not “subordinate”—role. The contributions which animal scientists could make to the genetic improvement of animals by means of artificial insemination and inovulation were consequently emphasized to a far greater extent in the 1977 Act. In any event, animal diseases are controlled in terms of the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act, 1956. A Bill which is aimed at replacing the 1956 Act and in which wide provision is made for control over animal diseases will quite probably be explained to this House today, if nothing unforeseen happens, by the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture.

It will still be possible for veterinarians to exercise the necessary control over the health of animals involved in the AI industry and inovulation. Matters have progressed to such an extent in practice, however, that animal scientists are controlling AI stations and centres to an ever increasing extent because, in terms of the Livestock Improvement Act animal scientists—a profession which is today recognized as an exceptional profession in the livestock industry—have begun to assume positions of greater control at these centres. This does not mean, however, that the disease aspect is being neglected in the process.

†The hon member for Mooi River seems to have difficulty with the grammar in paragraph (ii) on page 15 of the Bill. He want to see the words “at which” be substituted by “in respect of" and that a similar change be made in the Afrikaans text. Although what the hon member suggests is a grammatical improvement, the law advisers assured me this morning that the existing words clearly convey the meaning of the relevant provision. If it was not for the high costs involved in having this changed I would have liked to accommodate the request of the hon member.

He also raised the question of departmental importation of semen and requested that livestock breeders’ societies be informed of any importation of semen by the department. Clause 13(a) provides that the authority of the Registrar is not required for the importation of animals, semen, ova or eggs by the department for purposes as determined by the hon the Minister. Such importations are for research purposes only, and animals originating from such importation will seldom find their way into the livestock industry. With that I think the hon member will agree. Clause 13(b) provides that the Stud Book Association be notified of any imports. Since such animals are normally of a kind and of a breed in respect of which there are no livestock breeders’ societies, the amendment suggested by the hon member will serve little purpose. Should such an animal eventually find its way into the livestock industry, the Stud Book Association would be aware of it because it has been informed of the importation and the purpose thereof.

*The hon member for Humansdorp also supports the Bill, and I thank him for doing so. He wanted to know whether we could not be stricter in regard to the importation of breeding material. Let me concede at once that from time to time criticism is expressed in regard to the control in terms of this legislation. Under certain circumstances some of the criticism is justified because the restrictions imposed do not always have a bearing on the aims of the legislation. There is one livestock breeders’ association—I shall not mention it by name—which we feel is too strict in this connection. However, I am prepared to inform the hon member in private which livestock breeders’ association it is. Such problems are constantly being scrutinized and eliminated by way of negotiation and mutual discussion. With the wholehearted co-operation of all the interested parties the control over insemination, inovulation and imports can only benefit the livestock industry.

The advisory board has a tremendous task in this connection, because it is that body, which in its composition contains representatives of the various livestock industries, that is constantly engaged in negotiation with the various livestock societies in connection with certain problems, the application of the Act and the development of certain schemes. This board is one of the most important advisory bodies. A Minister of Agriculture has an enormous number of advisory bodies, but I consider this body to be one of the most important advisory bodies because it ensures greater productivity in regard to our livestock in South Africa.

I can give the hon member the assurance that we shall look into this very carefully and do everything in our power to develop the various breeds in South Africa. We are doing everything in our power to prevent the occurrence of restrictive actions as a result of prejudices on the part of certain of our livestock breeders’ societies because that would prevent that particular industry or herd from developing.

Mr Speaker, I think that I have with this replied to hon members who participated in the debate. I thank hon members on both sides of the House once again for their support, and I wish to express the hope that we shall be able to apply this legislation with great success.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act was placed on the Statute Book during 1970. Since then it has been amended five times to close loopholes that were found in it and to eliminate problems in its implementation. That this Act has been successful is evident from the following words of Mr Justice Baker in his finding in the Supreme Court in regard to a case arising out of the Act:

The implementation of an Act requires that the concepts it deals with must be precise. Where such concepts are taken over from other legislation in which specific meanings are ascribed to them, the meanings must correspond. The Provincial Administration of Natal replaced the reference to “public health area” in Ordinance 20 of 1941 by the expression “development area”. Since Act 70 of 1970 deals specifically with such areas, it is imperative that the Act be adjusted accordingly.

†The insertion of the definition of “sale” in Act 70 of 1970 was necessitated by land transactions involving the subdivision of land prior to consent being given for such subdivision. Since legislation regarding suspensive conditions in deeds of sale does not exist and the case law in this matter is rather incompatible, it was deemed necessary to introduce measures into the Act to protect the public from certain unscrupulous land dealers. The restrictions thus introduced also apply to mining companies, with the effect that, if agricultural land is involved, no contract for the purchase of a portion thereof can be entered into until the Minister has consented to the subdivision. When entering into contracts for prospecting purposes, mining companies are therefore effectively prevented from taking the necessary action to secure the right to purchase the portion concerned should the results of prospecting disclose a mineral deposit. After careful consideration of representations in this regard from the Chamber of Mines and of the resulting consequences, it was decided to grant exemption in regard thereto to mine developers. The result of this exemption would be that transactions involving agricultural land for mining purposes could be concluded at an earlier stage. Consent for the subdivision of agricultural land for such purposes will still have to be obtained in due course.

*Due to the transfer of Sea Fisheries to a different Ministry, the title of the Minister has also changed. The necessary rectification is therefore being effected at the same time. The Bill has been drawn up in consultation with all interested bodies and enjoys the support of the South African Agricultural Union.

Mr Speaker, we in these benches will be supporting this Bill. We do so in the knowledge that the powers of the hon the Minister with regard to subdivision are in no way compromised.

We are not in favour of unrestricted subdivision, and we support all the provisions of the principle Act. There are obviously occasions when subdivision of land becomes necessary, but this is catered for by the discretion the Minister has in terms of section 3(a) of the Act. Requests for subdivision have to be motivated and put before the hon the Minister.

Currently we have a case in the Western Cape where a company wants to open a quarry on valuable agricultural land. The farmers of that area are of the opinion that such a quarry would be detrimental of their vineyards. The farmers are, however, protected because before the subdivision takes place, the hon the Minister has to give his approval. That kind of discretion would obviously not be distrubed in any way by the provisions of this amending Bill. If it were, we in these benches would not have been able to support this Bill.

Having said that, and having the assurance from the department that this is not in fact the case, we have no furthere comments. Reservations which could have arisen are taken care of entirely satisfactorily. The SA Agricultural Union has also seen fit to give its blessing in this amending legislation and that is a strong factor to be taken into consideration.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Albany made a meaningful contribution to this debat and also promised his party’s support for the Bill. When the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1970, it had two main purposes. One of these was to prevent farms from being further subdivided or carved up into uneconomic units. It was already realized at that stage that if a farm was too small, a farmer could not make an economic living from it. For interest’s sake I want to point out that it was estimated in 1970 that a man with a wife and four children would have to make a net profit of at least R1 500 per annum from a farming unit to be able to live decently. Seven years later, in 1977, it was estimated that the same farmer would have to make a net profit of at least R4 000 from the farming unit. Today, 14 years after the Act was placed on the Statute Book, it is estimated that a man would have to make a profit of at least R10 000 per annum before he and his wife and four children could earn a living from that farm. I am merely pointing this out to indicate all the factors we took into account at that stage to prevent the fragmentation of agricultural land and to prevent the land from being carved up into more uneconomical units. The other aim of the legislation was to prevent agricultural land from being withdrawn from production and carved up into smallholdings or small pieces of land which are only used by people to live on and on which no food can be produced. The Bill before us today has exactly the same aims. Our land is rich in minerals and new resources are constantly being sought. It is also important for us to increase our mineral resources, so that the mineral resources of our country do not remain static. It is important for new mineral resources to be discovered and exploited continuously, because this creates job opportunities for a rapidly growing population. The present Act handicaps the mines when they seek to enter into prospecting contracts with landowners. If minerals are discovered somewhere, due to the present Act the mines are now inclined to purchase the entire farm and not merely the piece of land they need to exploit the minerals or to prospect further. If an entire farm is sold, the result is that the land which is not needed for mining purposes is usually under-utilized or left unutilized. A great deal of this land is high-potential land, and South Africa simply cannot afford that land being withdrawn from production.

We have to bear in mind how much food we shall need in the future to feed the country. It is estimated that one needs at least 0,07 ha of land to provide one person in the country with food. Then one realizes that legislation which prevents more land being withdrawn from agriculture and used for purposes other than agricultural purposes, cannot be too stringent.

Having said this, I want to add that the SA Agricultural Union and the Chamber of Mines have given the Bill their blessing. It therefore gives me, too, great pleasure to support the Second Reading.

Mr Speaker, of all the agricultural laws placed on the Statute Book thus far, the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, Act 70 of 1970, is probably one of the most important. I concede that there may well be other agricultural Acts more important than this one, but if there is one Act which, since it came into effect, has affected not only the South African farming community, but the entire community of South Africa, it is without doubt this one. This Act has played a unique role in the history of South Africa, with its limited agricultural potential. We should also take cognizance of the fact that the role which the South African farmer plays in the country is very much in the limelight, particularly now that our country is being ravaged by droughts and floods.

Last week a group of MPs, the media and consumer organizations had the privilege to undertake a tour through those parts of our country where the farmers have been worst hit by the terrible drought prevailing at present. Particularly after one has been there, one is very much more aware how precious South African agricultural land is to our country.

When this legislation amending Act 70 of 1970 found its way to our tables, it made us look twice as attentively at the relevant legislation. When we refer to Act 70 of 1970, there are many of my colleagues and former colleagues present—I include you, Mr Speaker—who have dealt with the Act since its inception. We have dealt with this particular Act many times because this is an Act which intimately affects not only the farming community but the entire South African community. The hon member for Winburg pointed out that this Act came into force 14 years ago. That is correct. During those 14 years there have been only four amendments of the Act. This proves that this was a sound Act. It was well drafted and it has been most scrupulously enforced in practice by the relevant department. These facts have to be mentioned. It is a fact that the Act probably made some of the most serious encroachments on the agricultural industry and the community in general. Sir, you will be able to attest to the fact that in many respects it infringed upon the farmer’s free right to dispose of his land. However, it also infringed upon the right of other people to dispose of land, for example developers. We have to bear in mind that our country has developed tremendously in the industrial field. The increase in the urban population of our country has meant that claims are constantly being made on land, and frequently on good agricultural land. If there is one Act that we as a farming community are very jealous of in many respects, it is this very Act 70 of 1970. On previous occasions when the Act had to be amended, those amendments were looked at very closely because, as had already been indicated, the main purpose of that Act was to control the incorrect utilization of agricultural land as far as possible. I want to emphasize that in the past there were frequently frustrations and heartbreak as regards this Act which limited many things. However, I also have to admit that one really has to pay tribute to the department which dealt with so sensitive a matter with so much sympathy for so many years.

And that includes the former Minister of Agriculture.

I do indeed include the former Minister in this praise. He was a very good Minister of Agriculture, but I cannot say the same about him as Minister of Transport, because now he is making a hole in our pockets.

You are making a very good speech. [Interjections.]

When we approached that hon Minister with real problem cases, in many instances where the merits of the case justified it, he even went over the heads of his department and gave the final consent, after the relevant application had gone through many channels and passed through the hands of many departments. Sometimes the hon the Minister’s department was also opposed to the subdivision, but he used his own discretion anyway. Moreover, I expect our Ministers of Agriculture to act in this way. As a matter of fact, I know they will do so, because after all, their primary concern lies with the farmer of South Africa.

However, the proposed amendment now makes an exception to all these things I have just referred to, and what bothers me is the fact that we are dealing here with an ad hoc amendment in the interests of a specific group. The purpose of this amendment is to benefit the mining industry, and in my opinion there is no justification for this. In my opinion, the arguments in favour of it have been totally unconvincing. It is not in the interests of the South African farming community that this concession be made. I cannot see why the mining industry should be treated differently, particularly since we are dealing here with an ad hoc concession of a retrospective nature to one specific mining company. I am not referring to the mining industry in particular, but some of my colleagues here have had experience of mining companies in their area where in many respects, mining activities have become an evil to the agricultural, industry. I should therefore like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether this is an ad hoc concession in favour of, for example, a chrome mining company. It is essential for the hon the Deputy Minister to furnish us with a reply to this, because there are farmers throughout South Africa who have already experienced this insidious injustice in the past. I am therefore not at all in favour of a specific sector of the industry being benefited.

If we have to begin discriminating in this way, where will it all end? We have already, quite rightly, resticted the activities of land developers. Of course this is quite right. However, surely it was good enough for the mines, too. I really cannot understand why the mining industry should now be benefited. By taking this step we are denying the farmer his free hand in negotiation. [Interjections.] It will now no longer be possible, as it used to be, for the farmer to exercise his right of negotiation under the protection of legislation. [Interjections.] It is true that the farming community can rely on the relevant Minister eventually having to give the necessary consent; the same, of course, applies to the mining company. If I or anyone else am prevented from entering into a contract with the farmer with regard to the subdivision of land, why should the mining company be benefited in this connection? This is simply no good enough. That mining company should be able to compete under the same conditions as apply to every other individual. What is happening now is not fair. We do not feel happy about this matter. We want to make it clear that we are not being malicious. However, we have taken cognizance of the fact that the South African Agricultural Union looked into the matter.

However, I do not find this convincing enough.

I am referring to specific problems we came across. However, now the entire mining industry is being excluded from this restriction. I believe that it is not in the interests of the South African farmer to do this. Mr Speaker, that is why we shall vote against clause 2 of the Bill in the Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker, never before have I watched anyone polish legislation until it shines so brightly, only to shoot it down in flames. The important principle contained in this statutory amendment is that until this legislation comes into effect, any person wishing to work a mine at a specific place is required to purchase the entire farm on which the mine will be situated.

However, before I elaborate on this any further, I should first like to put a question to the hon member of the CP. Are they opposed to the mining industry in South Africa?

Do not ask stupid questions now. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, we are not working mines on the moon yet. We are working mines here, on planet Earth, and we are also farming here. For that reason we should not begrudge the mining industry its rights. [Interjections.] However, the important principle is that in terms of the present Act a prospective miner has to purchase an entire farm, although he will only be working his mine on a section of the farm. Meanwhile the rest of the farm becomes infested with burrweed and vermin. This is the actual state of affairs at the moment.

In actual fact the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act is one of the most important instruments for bringing about greater stability in agriculture in South Africa. The fragmentation of agricultural land is one of the most important causes of farmers in our country being impoverished and having to eke out a precarious existence. The most common malpractices before the present Act came into effect, were that large landowners near towns and cities, and particularly around mines, proceeded to subdivide their farms into small units of 10 ha each, and then alienated these units to other people, who were employed in other professions.

One could compare these small units into which the farms were then subdivided with the CP—too large for a serviette and too small for a table-cloth. [Interjections.] Those small units of 10 ha each were really too large for a serviette and too small for a table-cloth in the sense that they were too large for dwelling units and at the same time too small to serve as economic farming unit.

This part-time farmer on his small fragment of a farm is at a disadvantage, firstly because he does not have sufficient time to run his farm because he is usually a part-time farmer. He does not have an economic unit either and for that reason he cannot buy implements to cultivate his little farm properly. It goes without saying that a farm such as this is not planned properly either. These units were harmful to the image of our agriculture and in the process they also destroyed the aspirations of prospective farmers. In the process a few individuals also grew wealthy.

There is another problem which will also be solved by this legislation and that is the matter of the dividing up of family farms. There are many people who are more fruitful than their land. They have large families and the farm remains small and then that farm is divided up into small units with the result that the children inherit uneconomic units. The coming into operation of this legislation will prevent the creation of uneconomic units on which it is impossible to farm efficiently. These units also resulted in failure to apply proper soil conservation measures owing to inadequate planning. As I mentioned a while ago, these small units became the breeding ground of proclaimed weeds.

When I was still an extension officer, it was my privilege to undertake bull inspections on these farms. The farmer asks you to come to his unit and tells you that he has a bull he would like to have classified. While you are wandering about outside looking for the bull the fellow kicks the side of a fowl run and something resembling broomsticks attached to an empty crate staggers out and he then presents this to you as a bull. [Interjections.] Sir, I am not exaggerating. This is really what conditions are like on these small farms.

Any amendment which makes the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act more meaningful ought to be supported.

Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that this Bill before us is divided into two completely separate sections. Quite obviously, we support the first portion of it namely the definitions contained in clause 1. We see this as an attempt to bring the definitions into line with local health commission ordinances of the Natal Provincial Council. We realize, of course, that this position has applied for many, many years and it is only right, therefore, that this Bill should come before Parliament in this particular form.

With reference to clause 2, I want to say that, having investigated the matter very carefully, I regret that I cannot agree with my hon friends on my right—in more ways than one. I appreciate the fact that the intention of clause 2 is to obviate delays in obtaining the approval of the Minister before provisional agreements of sale are entered into between landowners and prospecting or mining companies. This means that prospecting undertakings can be proceeded with immediate effect once the initial agreement has been reached.

We on these benches support the concept that the approval of the Minister must be obtained before final transfer can be effected. We are satisfied with the assurances given by his department that this does not mean that there will be any departure from the provisions of Act No 70 of 1970 in regard to the subdivision of agricultural land and that they will not in any way be relaxed or minimized.

With those few words, Sir, it gives me great pleasure to say that we on these benches support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak after the hon member for Mooi River. I want to thank him for the support he pledged for this Bill on behalf of his party. That is why I find it so strange that, on the other hand, the hon members of the CP, through the hon member Mr Theunissen, have come forward here with an agitation against a specific mining group or a specific mining company. Because they have made this agitation and they are obsessed with one group, they are ignoring and forgetting the entire broad spectrum of the legislation.

We were told here in detail how effectively the legislation was applied in the past and the success which followed after it was placed on the Statute Book. Because economic farming units vary from one area to another, it is not possible to determine by definition how large an economic unit should be. That is why the legislation provides that the Minister shall decide after thorough deliberation, consultation and study in regard to why the subdivision should take place.

It is not the intention of the legislation to hamper development, and that is in fact what the hon members of the CP want to do. They want to hamper development. At present the legislation does not make provision for subsidivion for mining purposes, and now I want to refer specifically to the mining of agricultural lime. I want to ask the hon member Mr Theunissen, since lime has to be conveyed thousands of kilometres at tremendous expense to our field husbandry areas, whether he would be opposed to lime being mined in a specific field husbandry area. Do they want to deny the consumers of lime in our field husbandry areas the right to be able to purchase lime locally because they have something against a specific mining company? I do not think the hon members of the CP gave decisive thought to this legislation before they put forward their objections.

It is therefore essential to the agricultural industry as well for an amendment to be made in the legislation so that lime may be obtained cheaply in specific areas where it is needed.

Do you want to control lime?

That just shows how much the hon member knows about agriculture. Hon members cannot now try by means of wisecracks to extricate themselves from the dilemma in which they find themselves; they should rather consider the facts and the circumstances and then they will admit that they had not thought the matter out before they objected to the legislation.

The legislation only makes provision for the kind of circumstances which may arise. After all, the efficiency maintained by the Minister in the past will not be thrown overboard now to benefit certain people at the expense of the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. Consequently there have to be actual advantages before the Minister will decide whether or not subdivision is justified. The principle is not being changed now. That is why it gives me pleasure to support the Bill and I hope that it will be put into operation without delay.

Mr Speaker, before I get around to my criticism of clause 2 of the Bill I want to discuss Act No 70 of 1970 for a moment. To my mind it is an exceptional Act. It was approved by the State President on 28 September 1970, on my birthday therefore and on the birthday of the hon member Mr Theunissen. I maintain that this Act is a unique Act because before that time we had the alarming phenomenon in South Africa that productive agricultural land was being subdivided on a large scale and in many cases was being fragmented into inferior pieces of land. This resulted in the original farms being lost to agricultural production. Fragmentation and subdivision took place for two main reasons. The first reason for subdivision was bequests. The second was that land speculators saw their opportunity to make large profits by purchasing large farms and then subdividing them into small uneconomic units. This led to that land being totally lost to agricultural production.

Of course one also has unavoidable subdivision of land. The two organizations principally responsible for this are the various roads departments and the Railways. In this case subdivision takes place without the land-owner wishing it. When a railway line or a road has severed 10 or 20 hectares of land from an agricultural unit, those pieces of land are of no use to the farmer. Act No 70 of 1970 then provided that an application could be made to the Minister for the alienation of those pieces of land. The pieces of land could perhaps be used now for an economic chicken farm. If the Minister could be persuaded that an economic chicken farm could be operated on those pieces of land, he would give favourable consideration to such an application.

I now come to our objection to this Bill. Act No 70 of 1970 applies to everyone. It is stated in this Act for example that the Minister may refuse or grant an application under such conditions as he sees fit. However, hon members opposite now come along and say that a mining company has to purchase an entire farm if, say, it wants to work 40 or 50 hectares of that farm for mining purposes. In terms of the present Act that mining company or the land-owner or the two of them jointly may apply to the Minister for authorization to excise and alienate 40 or 50 hectares. Why should this one group of people now be singled out and benefitted above anyone else in South Africa affected by this Act and having an interest in in it? We cannot agree with this. The Act is very fair and reasonable as it reads at present.

I want to get back to the 10 or 20 hectares which is of necessity cut off by a road or a railway line. I have said that that piece of land could perhaps be used for an economic chicken farm, for example. The Minister may now argue that he cannot approve this because in five or ten years’ time that man will no longer be able to farm economically there with chickens. Then the piece of land will lie fallow and no longer be an economic unit.

Yet I maintain that when that poultry farmer leaves that piece of land, he will leave it in better condition than a mining company would have left it after five or 10 years.

I want to tell my hon colleagues in the NP that the CP realizes the absolute necessity of mining in South Africa. A mining industry is a large-scale provider of employment in South Africa. That does not mean to say that if this Bill is not passed the activities of the mining industry would be hampered or would come to a standstill. Certainly not. They would carry on as usual. We also realize the value of agriculture in South Africa because it earns us essential foreign exchange.

There is another reason why we are not in favour of mining being given undue preference. We feel this legislation is an extreme form of discrimination in favour of the mining industry as against other interested parties affected by the legislation. That is why we want to express our strongest opposition to this measure. We are not in favour of one group of people being given undue preference over another group of people when they all have an interest in the same matter.

Mr Speaker, in its eagerness to practise destructive obstructionism the radical right-wing party made a very serious mistake today. I feel that what they wanted to indicate to us was that they were interested in the agricultural industry and that with their agitation they wanted to protect the agricultural industry and the available agricultural land at our disposal. This would seem to be the message they wanted to convey to us. However, as I have already mentioned, in their eagerness to practise senseless obstructionism, they misinterpreted this legislation entirely. They fail to understand what this legislation is all about. I should like to explain to the CP what it is all about.

I want to say in all modesty that it was my privilege to help to administer this legislation for quite a number of years, and it just so happens that you, Mr Speaker, as a lawyer, were able to deal with many of those transactions. I should like to point out what the deficiency in the legislation was with regard to prospecting, the taking up of options, and mining activities on such land.

A mining company wishing to prospect first had to obtain the approval of the Minister before it could take an option on a farm, so that if it should discover minerals or whatever it is looking for there, it could then purchase that piece of land, set up its mine and continue its mining activities there.

That is not quite true.

It is true. What happened? Options were taken on pieces of landat 5 ha, 10 ha, 300 ha, or whatever, and in some cases permission was given for that land to be purchased. If the mining company has purchased the land, and it does not find any minerals or whatever it was looking for, what happens then? It could be that a 50 ha piece of land which had been excised from a farm was now in non-agricultural hands. Agriculture has been deprived of that land. It can either be resold to the farmer, or it can be offered for sale to anyone else. The mining company has a separate title deed because subdivision of the land took place. There were no minerals on that land and mining activities could not take place on it. Yet what is the CP doing here today? They want these activities to continue and the deficiencies in the Act with regard to this kind of action to remain. We should continue with the subdivision of agricultural land for prospecting and the like. The CP certainly did not study this Bill thoroughly. All they want to do is criticize and oppose blindly. They want to attack the mining industry and they also want to set themselves up as the protectors of agriculture. This is the kind of psychosis they are trying to create. In this way they are achieving exactly the opposite of what they would like to achieve.

I want to give another example of what happens. In many cases mining companies are not interested in going through all the administrative procedures to obtain the approval of the hon the Minister to purchase that piece of land. They prefer to purchase the entire farm. An entire farming unit then falls into the hands of the mining industry. They certainly do not need the entire farm but they purchase it because that eliminates a great deal of administrative work. When they have finished mining, the piece of land lies fallow and is not used for agricultural purposes. It frequently happens that mining groups have large areas of agricultural land. This is still the case today, and some companies use this land very effectively and productively. However, many of them leave the land to lie fallow. As the hon member for Gordonia said, all one finds on those farms is burrweed and jackals.

However, the Conservative Party wants this to continue. They do not want us to eliminate this loophole in the legislation in order to benefit the agricultural industry. They are merely doing so in their eagerness to express meaningless criticism. I think the Conservative Party made a very big mistake. They still have the time to get up and admit courageously that they made a mistake. On the other hand, if they want to continue with this destructive behaviour, they may do so, but they will be condemned for it.

Mr Speaker, over the years it has been my experience that it has become a tradition in this House for us not to turn agricultural debates into petty party-political squabbles. I am merely rising to say that this afternoon the hon member Dr Odendaal seized upon the justified doubts which Conservative Party speakers voiced regarding this legislation in an unfair way in an attempt to indulge in petty and despicable party politics. We are taking cognizance of the fact that if it is the attitude of the governing party that we should drag agriculture in this country into the party political area, we also see our way clear to doing that.

Mr Speaker, there appears to be some confusion in regard to this legislation. I am very grateful for those hon members who support the legislation.

†For instance, I want to thank the hon member for Albany for his support. He made a statement which is very much to the point. That is that besides this amendment to the legislation, the owner of the land, before he can sell that land, is still subject to the permission of the hon the Minister.

*That is the important point that we must not overlook. We are not throwing open the subdivision of land now. A mining company cannot simply buy a piece of land and subdivide the land without the permission of the Minister. I think that that is what the hon member Mr Theunissen is overlooking. The Minister still has the right to control subdivision. If in the opinion of the Minister an iniudicious subdivision of land was going to occur, he could still refuse it in spite of contracts entered into between the mining company and the owner of the land. The contract entered into between the mining company and the owner of the land is therefore still subject to the approval of the Minister. However, we can argue the matter further during the Committee Stage and therefore I do not wish to go into it in too much detail at this point.

Act 70 of 1970 was amended in 1981 by amending the definition of the word “sale” and “sold”. Immediately after the Act was amended in 1981, the Chamber of Mines advanced an objection in a very well-considered submission to the Department of Agriculture. The hon member Mr Theunissen said that he had given double attention to this legislation. I can assure him that we have really given this statutory amendment triple attention. We had a very thorough investigation carried out in this regard. I went so far as to obtain the best legal advice on the precise effect of this amendment. I want to give him the assurance that this is by no means an ad hoc arrangement for the benefit of any specific mining company.

The present provisions of the Act create a certain embarrassment for the mining industry as a whole, but also create a certain embarrassment for owners of land who wish to negotiate with mining companies, in the sense that at present, the landowner cannot grant the mining company an option to prospect and then demand compensation for it. This is specifically prohibited by the Act in terms of the amendment we effected in 1981. If the hon members of the CP were to consider that, they would see that the amending Bill of 1981 brought about a change in the Act which made it impossible for mining companies and owners to enter into agreements with one another.

Say, for example, a mining company suspected that there were mineral deposits on a certain farm and wished to begin prospecting. The mining company cannot begin prospecting before having made sure that if it found minerals, it would be able to obtain the land. At present it cannot approach the owner and say: “I wish to enter into an agreement with you to do prospecting there and, if I find something there, I wish to purchase the land from you.” At present it cannot do so. Therefore the mining company has to do its prospecting in good faith in the hope that the owner will be prepared to sell if the company obtains anything there. If the mining company approaches the owner after having carried out its prospecting activities, then surely that is a clear indication that it has found what it was looking for. It is unfair to expect mining companies to do business on this basis, because what will happen as a result? The owner of the land will say: “No, we do not yet have any agreement with one another. You prospected and now you want to buy the land. Now I know. Now my price is going up.” Or he can say that he is no longer interested in selling to that company, but is looking for another buyer.

All we are trying to do by means of this amendment is to rectify this impossible situation. The amendment does not effect in any way the essential character and good intentions of the Act. It does not give the farmer a weaker bargaining position; it gives him a better bargaining position. It is still for the farmer to choose whether he wants to allow the mining company on his land or not. He still has the final choice as to whether he wants to sell the land or not. This gives him more bargaining power because he can now enter into an agreement with the mining company and conclude a contract before the mining company has begun prospecting on that land. I think that we can take this matter further during the Committee Stage, because the issue here is not the principle of the Bill but the detail of this specific clause.

Then, too, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to those hon members who support the legislation. I refer here to the hon member for Winburg, the hon member for Gordonia, the hon member for Mooi River, the hon member for Parys and the hon member Dr Odendaal. They all made very positive contributions.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The Republic’s abattoirs, like those of most extensive meat producing countries of the world, are built mostly in the areas of sale. The vast majority of these abattoirs are operated as public service abattoirs because private initiative has taken little interest so far in the erection of abattoirs.

†In 1967, when the former Abattoir Commission came into being, most of the abattoirs in the controlled areas were inadequate and outdated. The reluctance of local authorities to invest large amounts of capital in the renovation of abattoirs, compelled the commission—I want to stress this—to take over these abattoirs with the consent of the Government. By 1976 the commission managed and operated all the abattoirs in controlled areas, with the exception of Cape Town and Kimberley.

The Abattoir Corporation took over the management of abattoirs from the former Abattoir Commission during 1977 without having any capital of its own. Factors like cost escalation, inflation and high rates of interest forced the corporation to increase its tariffs drastically. These increases resulted in the Jacobs Committee’s recommendation that grounds existed for the Government to consider a measure of financial assistance to the corporation in order to ease the financial burden and in this manner keep the marketing costs of producers within reasonable limits. Arising from this recommendation, a committee of experts was appointed with the object to investigate the debt as well as capital requirements of the Abattoir Corporation.

*The committee’s findings and recommendations may be summed up as follows: Firstly, the problem of the Abattoir Corporation is not so much one of obtaining loan capital, but is caused primarily by the magnitude of its requirements and the high cost of loan financing, as well as by the lack of its own capital to serve as a buffer source of finance. Secondly, the capital requirements of the Abattoir Corporation up to the year 2000 are estimated at approximately R300 million. In terms of ordinary business principles, these requirements should be met in equal parts from own capital, own reserves and loans on the capital market. Thirdly, the State should provide the corporation’s capital by taking up shares in it, but with the proviso that attention should be given to the privatization of the corporation in the long term. Fourthly, no provision should be made for the payment of dividends before the corporation has been able to consolidate its own reserves substantially.

†Fifthly, the board of directors of the corporation should be enlarged so that an officer of the State can be appointed on the board to watch over the State’s interests.

The primary purpose of the Bill before the House is to give effect to the recommendations of the committee. Furthermore, provision is made that the corporation be exempted from the payment of interest to the State on its outstanding loans as from 1 October 1983 and that this amount, which is approximately R56,5 million, be used for payment of the shares which are to be taken up by the State.

*Furthermore, the Bill contains certain amendments to administrative provisions of the Abattoir Industry Act of 1976 which have proved to be problematical. In this way, for example, the payment of the tariffs for services at abattoirs is being further regulated, and the Minister’s powers of expropriation are being extended so that it will also be possible to expropriate servitudes for railway sidings, access roads and power and water conduits which may be necessary for abattoir purposes.

It is my conviction that the committee has performed its task extremely thoroughly, and I should consequently like to thank the committee for the well-considered recommendations which it has produced. In the long term, their implementation will contribute a great deal towards stabilizing the abattoir industry in the controlled areas, and the meat producer as well as the consumer will derive great benefit from this.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to a printing error on page 4, line 14. The Afrikaans text should read “paragraph (a)” instead of “subsection (1)”. I believe it will be possible to correct this error administratively.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House have voiced a great deal of criticism in recent years with regard to the way in which the Abattoir Corporation has done its work. Although we could still criticize, I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we are going to support this Bill.

The primary objective of the Bill is to modify the structure and functioning of the corporation so that in many respects it will function like corporations such as Escom or Iscor; in other words, to convert this institution into a true corporation. Because this is so, provision must also be made for the State loan of approximately 57 million to be converted into shares with a value of R1 each, all of which will be held by the State.

Furthermore, I understand that provision is being made for this share capital to be increased over the next 15 or 16 years to approximately R100 million, for the corporation itself to build up additional funds up to an amount of approximately R100 million, and for this to be done by operating the corporation in a more knowledgeable and expert way.

It also appears that the corporation will not pay any dividends or interest to the shareholder, ie to the State, but that instead the State will obtain further shares in that way. In other words, the State will in this way obtain shares worth between R57 million and R100 million.

Furthermore, the committee which investigated the matter recommended that the corporation should be in a position by the end of this century to obtain loan capital amounting to a further R100 million. In other words, it is envisaged that when the corporation has capital available to it amounting to approximately R300 million, it will then be able to function more or less according to normal business principles. We have no fault to find with this. I believe that one should also point out at this stage that in order to achieve this objective, the directors and the experts working for this organization will have to know what they are about. While building up that capital, after all, they will at the same time have to limit the cost of the services they have to render to the producer and indirectly to the consumer. For example, if slaughtering costs were allowed to increase too rapidly, it would in the long run be to the detriment of the entire community—producers as well as consumers. It is in the light of this that provision is also being made for the appointment of an additional director, who will be a public servant, or who will come from the ranks of the officials.

I should accordingly like the hon the Deputy Minister to give as the assurance that that appointment, as well as any further appointments of directors, will only be made when he is absolutely convinced that the candidate concerned possesses the expertise to be able to do the work. This is not the occasion to criticize the other directors of the corporation. However, I believe that even the hon the Deputy Minister will agree with me when I say that the way in which the task has been performed in the past has not always been satisfactory, and that the functioning of the Abattoir Corporation and the services it has rendered have not always been at a high level. Indeed, this is part of the reason for the desperate financial position in which the industry found itself.

While we support this amending legislation, however, I think it should also be pointed out that in a certain sense, the creation of this corporation involves the creation of a monopoly. I think we should be very careful of that. We have a situation here where the Abattoir Commission and the Abattoir Corporation are both directly or indirectly responsible to the State, while the recommendations which may be made by the commission can be made in such a way that it will only promote the activities of the corporation. Furthermore, we must remember that the corporation also competes with the private sector. I understand that at the present stage, the animals slaughtered at abattoirs controlled by the Abattoir Corporation represent approximately 50% of the total number slaughtered in South Africa. What is perhaps even more serious is the fact that the corporation’s abattoirs are working at only 71% of capacity at this stage. Therefore they are under-utilized. Consequently the temptation will be there to force the producer to make use of the corporation’s abattoirs, at the expense of …

But you and your party supported that amendment in the legislation in 1981.

Well, Mr Speaker, perhaps the hon member for King William’s Town can bring that up when he delivers his own speech. I hope that I will then be able to respond to it.

*The temptation will arise to force the producer to have his cattle or sheep or pigs slaughtered at the bigger centres, at the expense of the smaller abattoirs. We already have the position where the commission has introduced certain standards in respect of health and hygiene which are applicable to the smaller abattoirs and which are making it impossible for many of them to effect the necessary improvements or expansions. Some of them have already closed down, therefore, and others may soon be forced to close their doors. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no example worth mentioning of tainted or unhygienic meat being distributed by the Worcester, Paarl or Strand abattoirs—I am simply mentioning these three as examples of smaller abattoirs. I have nothing against the Paarl abattoir and I believe that it should actually not have closed down.

They are opening a new one shortly.

The problem is that we have a competitive situation. The hon the Minister of Agriculture will have to guard against the Abattoir Corporation using its power to force the smaller abattoir out of business.

While we are debating this matter, I hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will take this opportunity of saying what his policy is going to be in respect of the erection of additional private abattoirs. The decision taken by the hon the Minister was to have been taken at the recommendation of the commission, and the Abattoir Commission is likely to make a recommendation which will promote the viability of an abattoir operated by the corporation.

I have already said that we support this legislation. We do see certain problems in the industry, and I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to react to these and to take this opportunity of discussing the matter in a slightly wider context than that of the legislation.

Mr Speaker, we thank the hon member for Wynberg for supporting this legislation on behalf of his party. The hon member coincidentally expressed some criticism regarding a trend which, it would seem to me, he has detected with regard to monopolies in the abattoir industry. I want to tell the hon member that it is a possible danger we shall always have to bear in mind. If I understand the hon the Minister and his department correctly, it is something they are, in fact, bearing in mind. I shall possibly come back to this during the course of my speech.

The fact of the matter is that through this legislation, the State is being empowered to contribute an amount of R100 million to the funds of the Abattoir Corporation by way of share capital. This is a large sum of money of which account will have to be given continually. We shall also have to consider why the Abattoir Corporation was established in the first place and whether at this stage the corporation still has a right to continue to exist and whether it really is still going to play the important role it is playing in the industry at present. If one wanted to know why the corporation was established, one would have no choice but to refer briefly to the passing of the Animal Slaughter Hygiene Act, 1967. That Act compelled the abattoir industry to comply with certain minimum standards of hygiene. In 1970 officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Health visited local authorities in control of abattoirs and explained the act to them. They were also told that the Act would be strictly implemented, as its provisions demand.

What happened after that? Local authorities in controlled areas claimed that they were unable to implement the Act for financial and other reasons. Of course, for obvious reasons abattoirs still had to be operated in controlled areas. That is why the Abattoir Commission, which later became the Abattoir Corporation, took over the operation of abattoirs in controlled areas. If we come back to the reason for the establishment of the Abattoir Corporation, we have no choice but to say that the corporation originated, firstly, to maintain the minimum standards of hygiene in controlled areas.

Today we must also ask who will benefit from this contribution of R100 million by way of share capital on the part of the State. Will it be only to the benefit of the Abattoir Corporation as a body? If this were true, I would hardly support it. The fact of the matter is that the contribution of R100 million will also be directly to the benefit of the producer. It is to the benefit of the producer, since as a result of this contribution slaughtering tariffs are being prevented from rising unrealistically in abattoirs under the control of the Abattoir Corporation.

I have before me a list of slaughtering fees charged by abattoirs under the control of the Abattoir Corporation. Slaughtering fees in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Krugersdorp—all these abattoirs are under the control of the corporation—amount to R21,65 per beast. In Kimberly it is R22,88. In Benoni and Springs they charge R20,51; in Cato Ridge, R20,18; in Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth, R18,95; and in East London R19,03. In my opinion, these slaughtering fees are as high as we would want them to be at this stage; we would not like to see them go any higher. This must be compared with the slaughtering fees of a relatively larger abattoir which does not fall under the control of the corporation, for example, the one in Pietersburg. The slaughtering fee there is R13.

What I am saying, therefore, is that if the State makes a contribution in order to make the operation of abattoirs under the control of the Abattoir Corporation more favourable financially, it is to the benefit of the producer in the first instance, because the net price he will realize for his slaughter stock, will definitely be influenced by the size of the slaughtering fee. This aspect will be able to be kept under control, due to this contribution from the State.

However, there is another advantage to be gained by the farmer, viz that abattoirs that fall under the control of the Abattoir Corporation, are abattoirs of which some are suitable to serve as abattoirs from which meat can be exported. Now we are aware that at present there is not such a large volume of meat being exported by South Africa as we would like. Particularly as a result of the drought we are experiencing at present, one would like to see surplus meat being exported overseas much more easily and in larger quantities. The fact remains, however, that the Abattoir Corporation is the body that can maintain suitable facilities for the exporting of meat. As far as I am aware, there is already one abattoir in Johannesburg which is suitable for exporting meat to all the countries of the world. I think application has been made for two other abattoirs to be classified as such by an international committee. Making it possible for the Abattoir Corporation to retain those facilities for the farmer in South Africa, is a sound development one takes pleasure in supporting. However, I think one should be careful not to see this benefit as being only in favour of the farmer. It is also a benefit which applies to the consumer, since the price the consumer will ultimately pay for meat will also be influenced indirectly by the slaughtering fee charged by an abattoir. If this slaughtering fee can be kept within limits through this contribution by the State, it will definitely also be to the benefit of the consumer. It is also in the consumer’s interests that when a large quantity of meat is being handled, it is handled under conditions which comply in all respects with standards of hygiene that are acceptable to the consumer.

This is also beneficial from the general taxpayer’s point of view. The taxpayer will gain a share in the assets of the Abattoir Corporation as a result of this contribution by the State to the share capital.

I do not think we would be able to conduct a complete debate on the abattoir industry without referring to the smaller abattoirs, as the hon member for Wynberg did. After the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act was passed in 1967, the smaller local authorities controlling these smaller abattoirs found themselves in the unenviable position that, on the one hand, they were not easily able to meet the demands the Act made, and that on the other hand, these abattoirs could not be taken over by the Abattoir Corporation either. This led to a great deal of uneasiness on the part of the owners of these small abattoirs, the smaller local authorities. These people began to suspect that for reasons other than maintaining the minimum standards of hygiene they would be compelled to close down these abattoirs. In addition, the policy of the department with regard to the rationalization of the abattoir industry made these smaller local authorities suspect that they would be compelled to close down their abattoirs for reasons other than maintaining the minimum standards of hygiene. We are aware of the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister. He stated this in the debate on this matter last year, viz that the process of rationalization has progressed far enough, and that consequently the smaller abattoirs need no longer fear that they will be closed down. Another fear the smaller abattoirs have is that they will have to be closed down, because by doing so they would be contributing to the financial benefit of the abattoirs under the control of the Abattoir Corporation. This fear is being allayed, however, mainly because the State is making a larger contribution to facilitate the operation of the abattoirs under the Abattoir Corporation financially.

For these reasons I think this Bill should be given the wholehearted support of the entire House.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Fauresmith by saying that the Conservative Party gives the Bill its wholehearted support.

The most important provisions of this Bill are clauses 5, 8 and 13, clauses which really go hand in hand. It is imperative that since the State in now providing the full share capital for the Abattoir Corporation, it is obvious that the hon the Minister of Finance will be consulted in the appointment of an additional director. This is a sound development, and no fault can be found with it. In particular, it is to be welcomed that the State is now exempting the Abattoir Corporation from paying any further interest. As has been repeatedly stated, this can only be to the direct benefit of the meat producer and to the indirect benefit of the consumer.

It is easy for us to debate about the underutilization of, or the lack of abattoirs, but I think it is probably one of the most difficult industries in which to determine in advance what the future demands are going to be and what one should plan for. There have probably been cases in which people have been over-optimistic about the future demands they would have to meet, and the producer possibly has to pay for that over-optimism today. I believe that there have been such cases. On the other hand, the Abattoir Corporation was established, not because of the need to produce a new bureaucracy, but because private initiative could not meet a real need in the interests of the country’s meat producers on the one hand and the meat consumers on the other.

The hon member for Wynberg mentioned the danger of the possible development of a monopoly. It is true that one should watch for the dangers of a possible monopoly. On the other hand, however, there is the danger that monopolistic conditions could also develop, and are already developing, in which the development of an industry is left solely in the hands of private initiative.

We are grateful for this legislation, since it is in the interests of the producer, the consumer and South Africa, and we therefore take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, one is particularly grateful that thus far everyone has intimated that they support this legislation on an important aspect such as this. The hon member for Wynberg is concerned about a monopoly, and I think we all share his concern in that regard. One should not forget that the Abattoir Corporation was not established by the State because it necessarily wanted a share in the abattoir industry. This was done because the abattoir industry was unable to make ends meet or to maintain the necessary standards. We should therefore not be too critical. We should really express our gratitude to the State for the assistance it is affording the abattoir industry, and then guard against monopolistic conditions developing.

The recommendation of the committee of inquiry into the exceptional debt burden and capital requirements of the abattoir industry in South Africa, viz that provision must be made for a capital amount of approximately R300 million, indicates that the abattoir industry finds itself in financial straits. The question then arises as to why something like this happened. I think it is necessary to take a brief look at what has happened in the abattoir industry over the past few years. Then one notices that the abattoir industry has come a long, tiresome way since the early days when abattoirs consisted of two poles with a crossbar on which a carcass that had to be slaughtered was hanging. These “slaughtering poles” (“slagpale”), as they were known in the old days, were usually erected in some isolated little kloof or another, or on a little hill near the town, and they provided for all the slaughtering requirements of the town. In my day I was also a meat inspector, and it was my experience in 1946 and 1947 that one still found such conditions in a little town like De Rust near Oudtshoorn where those two poles with the crossbar were the only facility the municipality offered the butchers of the town.

This was opposed by the health authorities because of the extremely unhygienic conditions that arose at slaughtering poles of this nature, which gave rise to a drastic improvement in the standards of hygiene at slaughterhouses in South Africa. As I have already said, the old slaughtering poles consisted of two poles with a crossbar. Usually there was no impenetrable covering under the poles; there was usually just an earthen floor. Only in rare cases was there a concrete covering under the poles. There was little water and no drainage. Blood, dung, innards, offal, wet skins—everything simply lay about. [Interjections.] The hon member for Kimberley North is adding horns to the list. He is familiar with big holes; that is why he is speaking about horns. In those days there were also few meat inspection services. Flies, meat flies and dreadful odours were the order of the day, and anyone who knows anything about hygiene would agree that such conditions where food was being prepared for human consumption, could not be tolerated. Local authorities were compelled to provide better slaughtering facilities for use by the butchers of the town to supply the people of the town with meat. These first improvements, the first indoor slaughtering poles, as we knew them in those days, were not up to much either. They complied with elementary hygienic requirements. For example, they had concrete floors and whitewashed walls. It was noticeable in those days, before people became so conscious of hygiene, that many institutions painted the walls of their abattoirs, and even the walls of their butcheries, PWD brown, so that one could not see the splashes of blood so clearly. These first indoor slaughterhouses also had open concrete canals in which blood and waste flowed into a “cesspool”, as we called it, which was pumped out periodically. The pens next door were usually made of wooden poles and did not have concrete floors, but earthen floors.

As a newly qualified meat inspector, it was my privilege to perform my first duties in the service of the municipality of Riversdale in a slaughterhouse of this nature. In those days the father of the hon member for Mossel Bay was a member of the municipal council and I had the honour of working under him. Those were interesting days. The rejection of carcasses for health reasons was a loss to either the producer or the butcher, with the result that there was always a great fuss if an inspector rejected a carcass. I recall very well that the late uncle John Van Wyk—the hon member for Mossel Bay will remember him—was very concerned when I rejected a sheep that came from his farm. Uncle John tried to convince me with a great deal of fuss and with all the knowledge he had gained after 30 years’ experience as a sheep farmer that every ewe that dries up develops a little abscess like that in her udder. [Interjections.] The only unconvincing fact was that the little ewe was none other than a young wether. [Interjections.] I was able to convince uncle John that a young health inspector at least also knew something about the anatomy of a sheep.

In those days—perhaps even today—the butchers also took their chances. Once I came face to face with the fine carcass of a calf, beautifully inflated as the carcasses of calves are to make them look a little better when they are hanging up on the hook, otherwise they look like wet rags. When I had to examine the carcass, the head was missing. I looked for the head, for one likes to have all the parts of a carcass when one is examining it. In fact, one must have them at hand. I began examining the carcass and I noticed that the kidneys, the hooves and the lungs were missing. So I rejected the carcass. The reason I did this was because it was the carcass of an unborn calf. Old Witlies, who was slaughtered that morning, was supposed to calve the same day, so they slaughtered the calf as well and hung it up. These are all the things that happen in practice. Hon members will probably be wondering how one can identify the carcass of an unborn calf. [Interjections.] The gums around the teeth are not yet formed, the hooves have not yet been used for walking, the lungs do not have any air in them and the fat around the kidneys is still jelly-like and has not yet set.

Order!

Which clause of the legislation is the hon member dealing with now? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am speaking about the share of the State in the Abattoir Corporation.

These conditions also had to be improved, however. If we were to visit a modern abattoir today, we would find that it is nothing but a sophisticated building which complies in all respects with the standards of hygiene.

I have heard that the municipality of Riversdale recently applied to construct an abattoir at a cost of R450 000; the same municipality I worked for in my day. For this average rural municipality R450 000 is a considerable sum, and it places a tiresome burden on both the butcher and the consumer of meat. In this regard I just want to mention that I am pleased to hear of the appointment of a committee that will go into the financing of abattoirs outside the jurisdiction of the Abattoir Corporation. I think this committee will probably reach the conclusion that the increase in the price of meat as a result of stringent requirements with regard to hygiene ought to level off slightly. Smaller municipalities will then be able to erect abattoirs and still supply consumers with hygienic meat.

No one would deny that stringent standards of hygiene ensure that the consumer gets uncontaminated and healthy meat. No one would deny that an abattoir where blood, raw meat, wet skins and innards abound place high demands on maintaining hygienic conditions. What is worrying, however, is the question of whether the balance between standards of hygiene and the cost involved in maintaining those standards is realistic, or whether perhaps it does not cause costs that are too high in the industry. Is this perhaps not one of the fundamental reasons the abattoir industry ultimately found itself in financial difficulties? These are matters we shall certainly have to look at in the future, since subsidies cannot be allocated continually, nor can the State continually be helping unstable industries. We shall also have to examine the industries and try to make them more viable economically so that the State does not have to carry such a tremendous burden.

Nowadays the general trend is to demolish old abattoirs summarily and build new ones in their place. Take Ashton in my constituency, for example. At present the abattoir fee in Ashton is approximately R6,50 per beast. The municipality is now being compelled to build a new abattoir, or to alter the old abattoir at a cost of R250 000. The slaughtering fee will then be R18 per beast, ie approximately three times the present fee. With all due respect, I can say that in my day the hygiene in an abattoir and a butchery existed as a result of the fact that one always slaughtered neatly, no matter what the circumstances. As far as I am concerned, hygiene really depends more on the deed than on the wall against which the animal is being slaughtered.

I should therefore like to make a plea—and I do not wish to criticize now—to undertakings that act as consultants to municipalities in this regard, please to take more note of the economic aspects of the matter instead of concentrating on the structural aspects of the matter. In so doing, we shall come to a better agreement in this respect as well, and we shall be able to establish more realistically economic abattoirs in our country in the future.

Mr Speaker, it was indeed refreshing to listen to the hon member for Swellendam giving us indications of his experiences in the past as a health inspector. I think this comes back to the old story again that the proof of the pudding, whether it be steak and kidney or whatever else, is indeed in the eating. I would even venture to say that possibly the succulence of that meat that was slaughtered under those, what we might call, primitive conditions, would be very much more superior to the succulence of the meat which we eat at the present time. I want to congratulate the hon member on the manner in which he made his speech. It was interesting indeed. It was a speech in which he obviously drew on his extensive experiences in the past; a speech from which a number of lessons can be learnt.

I should like to make it clear from the outset that we in these benches will be supporting this legislation. There are, however, certain observations which I should like to make. The first is—and I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is not in the House now—that in 1982 the NRP was the only party that raised objections to the Abattoir Industry Amendment Bill introduced here in the House at the time. We were severely criticized for doing that but it is beginning to show now that our actions and the stand that we took were indeed correct. [Interjections.]

In respect of this legislation I think it is also important that we make a study of the abattoir industry since the corporation was established in 1977, and at which time it came into full control of the municipal abattoirs in the controlled areas. It is quite correct that those municipalities refused to finance these undertakings. I think the very points the hon member for Swellendam has raised bear testimony to why this decision was taken by so many of those municipalities.

Of course many questions have been asked from time to time regarding the functions of the Abattoir Corporation and Abattoir Commission. I agree with the hon member for Barberton that it is no good going into the whys and wherefores to any great degree in connection with where the weak points have been. I do think, however, it is quite clear that this is an occasion when one must make particular reference to certain aspects, and I do so because there are lessons to be learnt, which must also be taken into consideration in respect of the future functions of the corporation.

Projected figures of increased slaughterings which have taken place regularly since 1960 have not been fulfilled, and have not materialized. The result of it is that this has been a very heavy burden on the livestock farmer by virtue of the fact that he has been called upon to pay ever-increasing levies in order to meet the expenses involved. I can remember far back when the whole concept of resurrecting and reconstructing the abattoir system in the country was launched. One of the main ideas was that these abattoirs would be built to conform with export standards. It is indeed regrettable to note that a number of the very expensive abattoirs that we have in this country do not qualify. I may be correct in this statement in that I read in the 1982 report of the corporation that the overall export demands emanate from privately owned A-grade abattoirs. I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if this is correct. It it is correct then it makes the position even more disappointing.

The question I think that we must ask ourselves is to what degree the financial position of the corporation has been affected by the over-ambitious planning of abattoirs as a whole and the setting of too high a hygienic standard. One must also query whether the policy of the centralization of abattoirs is or has been in the interests of the meat industry as a whole. I think there is a very big query hanging over this particular aspect.

In terms of this legislation we now see that the taxpayer is being brought onto the scene. I am pleased to note that the board of directors is being increased in order to make it possible for an officer of the State to serve on that commission. This is most essential because it is inevitable and most important that the Minister keep an eye as far as possible on capital development and expenditure. At this particular juncture I wish to associate myself with the point made by the hon member for Wynberg and ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give us some idea of what lies ahead. What large-scale undertakings has the corporation in mind?

As I said a little earlier, what is of concern is the fact that projections in respect of increased slaughtering have not materialized. One has only to read the De Villiers report of 1960 to see that it was estimated that the slaughtering at the Johannesburg abattoir would amount to 1,5 million—this is in respect of cattle—by 1990. One would have assumed from that that cattle slaughterings at the Johannesburg abattoir would have been in the vicinity of 1 million at the present time. When one considers the activities of the corporation one is concerned to note that there was an increase in expenditure of almost 30% between the years 1979-80 and 1981-82 in spite of an increase of some 50% in abattoir fee income over the same period. The point at issue here is that the surplus of income over expenditure is less that 3%. It is quite clear that better planning is needed in the future and that greater attempts must be made to make abattoirs more economically viable. They must be economically efficient and the abattoirs must take cognizance of the manner in which they can also increase their productivity.

It is undeniable that the producer has derived considerable benefit from many of the activities of the Abattoir Corporation. I must warn that it is absolutely essential that the abattoir industry does not become a monster within the ranks of the livestock industry itself. The livestock farmer has a problem in regard to his high cost of marketing and this is an aspect which must be borne in mind and not surreptitiously overridden at every possible opportunity.

It is quite clear that the focal point of the legislation lies in clause 8 in respect of which the committee of inquiry recommended that capital requirements of some R300 million would be required by the year 2000; in other words, a mere 16 years hence. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is intended to bring private sector involvement into the Abattoir Corporation’s activities and its financial institutions.

It is quite clear that while we have gone so far in the development of abattoirs in this country, the carpet cannot now be summarily pulled out from beneath the feet of the meat industry. In submitting these points I trust that they will be taken in the spirit of constructive observations rather than being regarded as destructive. We support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is with gratitude that we note that the Opposition parties are giving their support to this important legislation. I wish to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department on having taken the initiative in anticipating these problems in the meat industry in general and the red meat industry in particular, because this has become a vital matter. Therefore I regard it as very important that we take a broad view and that some of the hon members raised real problems which we shall have to consider.

Reference has been made to under-utilization, and this is a fact. At the present stage there is under-utilization of the facilities of abattoirs. Reference was also made to competition, and it was said that there had to be good competition in the meat industry. It was also mentioned that excessive provision may have been made for hygiene, so that the situation has arisen that buildings that could almost be called marble palaces have arisen, whereas the facilities have not always been geared for export. This may have entailed unnecessary expense, with the end result that the price of meat has become far higher, even unnecessarily high, for the consumer. It is very important that we should consider this matter, because we in the red meat industry are in a parlous state in comparison with the white meat or chicken industry. We must admit today that the chicken industry is rapidly overtaking the red meat industry—white meat is pushing red meat off the table, so to speak. Therefore the industry must examine itself and take note of all aspects. The Abattoir Corporation has carried out sound financial planning, so that costs will not rise further, and may even be reduced. The whole aspect of the financing of the industry must be thoroughly reviewed. The goal of the Abattoir Commission and of the industry as a whole must be to make the price of red meat as competitive as possible with chicken. The unfortunate drought of the past two years has adversely affected the red meat industry and has resulted in slaughtering at abattoirs increasing by 8% during 1983, largely due to emergency slaughtering. Unfortunately a period of recession coincided with the drought, and this had extremely detrimental consequences for this industry. One need only consider the increase in the number of chickens sold over the past two years. I think that up to 200 million chickens are offered for sale annually. The chicken industry is very well organized. Chickens are slaughtered in the production areas and distributed country-wide. The cooling chambers are kept full so that the market can always be supplied. One must concede that this industry has done its work well and that their product is always very competitive. Expenditure is kept to a minimum. The natural resource of the beef industry is natural grazing. Due to the drought, but also due to over-utilization, this asset has suffered such a setback that nowadays red meat producers are largely dependent on the State for assistance. Then, too, there is the factor of high transport tariffs. It was an historic development when slaughtering facilities in South Africa were built not in the production areas but in the consumer areas. This means that live animals have to be conveyed over long distances. I think we are all in agreement that it would have resulted in less expense for the industry as a whole if animals had been slaughtered in the production areas themselves and the carcasses then conveyed to the consumer areas. It is far cheaper to convey the cooled carcass than to convey a live animal, which takes up a great deal of space. However, it is now the case that abattoirs are situated far from production areas and we shall simply have to ensure that in future abattoirs are rather built in the production areas. In this way decentralization can be promoted and employment opportunities, too, can be created on the platteland.

Another phenomenon that we shall also have to encourage is the private ownership of abattoirs. At present, abattoirs are in the hands of the Abattoir Corporation, whereas on the platteland, and outside the controlled areas, abattoirs are in the possession of local authorities. I think that private ownership and local authorities are not always as efficient in the operation of the abattoirs. If private companies or individuals, farmers’ associations or corporations were to take the abattoirs over and run them properly, costs would be cut. We must definitely consider this. I should like to see the trend of slaughtering within the production areas, encouraged.

It is interesting to note that the consumption of red meat among Black people runs to 18,4 kilograms per annum. I think that the market for red meat among Blacks is not being fully utilized. Black people are traditionally red meat eaters and not chicken or fish eaters, but due to our actions in the past the Black people have been weaned from the product. Look at the situation in the platteland. If a Black man wants to obtain meat there nowadays, he finds it almost impossible, due to the stringent requirements set for abattoirs. That is why many of the rural abattoirs have disappeared entirely. The opposite of what we wanted to achieve has occurred. We have encouraged backyard slaughtering, and this is not conductive to hygiene.

The situation today is that abattoirs are conducted on a centralized basis. The person who does not wish to slaughter on a centralized basis must convey the live animals to the regional abattoirs and the carcasses then have to be conveyed on a different vehicle. These are factors that have caused consumption among Blacks to drop. If we could increase Black consumption by 5 kilograms to 22 kilograms per annum—which is still very low—the red meat industry would have an additional turnover of 110 000 tons of meat per annum. Do hon members see what I mean now? At the moment we are pricing ourselves out of the market and organizing ourselves out of the market. This is to the detriment of the meat industry as a whole.

There is talk of a drop in production at abattoirs. If the present situation continues, this trend will persist, because there is a reduced demand for red meat, whereas in fact we want to increase the demand.

I have already mentioned that 200 million chickens are slaughtered annually and are subsequently brought virtually to everyone’s threshold. In every café or store a dealer will be able to open the freezer and take out a chicken for one. This does not happen in the red meat industry. No one can buy red meat in a remote place. Certain aspects of the meat industry will definitely have to be investigated. We shall have to decentralize to the production areas. We must not permit any further expansion of slaughtering facilities. We must carry on with the facilities we have at present in the consumer areas. The aim must be to provide the consumer with cheaper meat in competition with other meat. Serious consideration must also be given to transport in this industry. Producers are moving away from rail transport, and the greater percentage of livestock is at present being conveyed to the abattoirs by road. The guidance provided to abattoirs by the Abattoir Commission in regard to slaughtering costs is an important input and we must see to it that these slaughtering costs do not increase further.

I have already mentioned that the distribution of red meat must be given serious attention. We are far behind the chicken industry as far as this is concerned. The chicken industry supplies the consumer with ready-packed products. We must see to it that there is enough competition. I think that the meat industry must certainly ensure that there is sufficient competition in the slaughtering industry so that the consumer may derive the benefit.

Where a person or body runs an abattoir—I am now speaking about the rural areas—I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider giving the relevant local authority, private person, farmers’ association or cooperative a wholesale licence so that the distribution of the carcasses within that area may be undertaken by the person or body concerned. We must seek methods of encouraging these people to operate the existing non-profit abattoirs in such a way as to make it profitable for them. I think we must certainly consider allowing farmers’ associations and co-operatives—apart from private persons and companies—to take over the abattoirs on the platteland in particular and to run them, together with a feedlot and the distribution of carcasses so that they can present the consumer with their own product. We must put a stop to the practice one encounters in my constituency, for example, where the farmer’s cattle are taken as far as Durban and the end product is conveyed all the way back to the consumer. Thus the live animal is conveyed 300 km in one direction and the slaughtered carcass is conveyed 300 km back. All this entails extra costs for the consumer.

I thank the hon the Minister for what he has done and I want to ask him to attempt to rectify these deficiencies in the industry. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Vryheid raised a few very important and interesting points. I believe that we should approach the question of the small abattoir in particular with a very open mind and should heed his suggestions as well as those of the hon member for Swellendam, because from an economic point of view the retention of the small abattoir is of great importance to the industry.

I want to emphasize a few points which have already been raised by various other hon members.

†I want to refer particularly to the principle involved here where the taxpayers’ money is now to be used as the capital base for the abattoir industry, initially by way of converting an existing debt of R56,5 million to share capital, and subsequently, of course, by way of adding additional amounts to make up the required capital base to put the industry on a firm foundation. As has been mentioned already, the concept of having mono-control over the larger part of the abattoir industry enters the discussion and therefore also the question of the monopolies, exactly how efficient this will be and where the application of taxpayers’ money will stop. One must of course consider the history and background of abattoirs and the role played initially by the Abattoir Commission and subsequently by the Abattoir Corporation in propping up an ailing industry which found itself in dire straits where local authorities were unable to finance a very necessary part of local government’s functions, particularly as regards the health aspect. It goes without saying that, if it was impossible for local authorities to manage the abattoirs effectively, some form of assistance was required, and it was also forthcoming. The point I want to make is that up until the point when the Government did in fact advance money in the form of loans to the Abattoir Corporation, all the money required both for erecting and operating abattoirs came out of the pocket of the producer in the form of levies. Of course one could debate for a long period whether the ownership of some of those abattoirs does not rightfully vest in the producer. I think it is important for the country to know that it has in fact been the producer, and the producer only, who to a large extent has financed the entire operation. Here we have a situation where in fact the corporation will continue to have a levy function. So more funds from the producer will be fed into the system, in addition to State funds. One will therefore really have a situation where the State and the producer are co-owners of those abattoirs where the Abattoir Corporation is in control.

It has already been mentioned that we have striven for too high a standard in some cases, that there have been over-projections of future slaughterings and that therefore we have been too lavish, resulting in extremely high capital outlays, high interest rates and a debt situation. We must learn very carefully from the mistakes of the past.

In this regard I should like to make a few points concerning the East London abattoir. As the hon the Minister knows, the Abattoir Corporation has taken over the municipal abattoir. They are on the brink of doing extensive renovations and improvements to the tune of approximately R7 million. During this period, for six months, the abattoir will be closed to producers; necessitating their slaughtering largely in Port Elizabeth but naturally in abattoirs of their own choice elsewhere too. The closest, however, would be Port Elizabeth. This will necessitate additional transport costs of something like R16 to R20 per beast.

I want to cover two areas in this regard to make quite certain that we have not repeated the mistakes of the past. Firstly, is it not possibly that insufficient investigation has been made in relation to the needs of Ciskei and Transkei? Have we done projections in relation to their livestock industries? Are we really certain about exactly what the needs are in East London, in terms of weighing up whether it is best to spend R7 million on renovating existing facilities where in fact one might be better off spending R14 million on building a new abattoir? One hopes it is the former because the less money one spends the smaller the burden is on the corporation and hopefully the lower the levies. One would hate to find in the not too distant future that the capacity was in fact inadequate and that we had to spend R14 million in addition to the R7 million. In the light of past mistakes made with projections I feel we must be extremely careful that we are in fact taking the right decision.

As has already been mentioned, bush slaughtering in that area is absolutely out of control. There are no other abattoirs for miles around. The nearest one, in King William’s Town, is on the point of being closed as a result of the enormous amount of money that is needed to upgrade it to the required standard. The amount involved would be such that the local authority would be burdening its ratepayers beyond what it is possible for them to do. They would therefore make use of the East London abattoir in preference.

Sir, I think it is probably fair comment to say that the corporation has an image of being somewhat high-handed and autocratic. It’s approach to these matters affects the producer to a great extent. Apart from the aspects that affect the consumer and the fact that some of these costs must naturally be passed on to him by the meat traders and in that way cause higher meat prices, there are areas where they definitely appear to have an imperious sort of approach. In fact, I have on my file a telex from the corporation sent down to some farmers’ organization in regard to the East London abattoir, and it sounds very much as if they are trying to say that they will either renovate it or close it down, and that the farmers can take their pick. Once again in this situation it is the producer that has paid for the abattoir—in this case for six months he is going to pay an additional amount in transport costs—in my view this kind of approach ill befits that organization. I feel that they should display a little more tact in dealing with the people who in the first place are largely responsible for keeping the industry on its feet.

When are you coming to the meat of the matter?

That hon member does not understand that we are in the middle of it right now. If he had been listening, he would understand the position.

Let me come then to the meat of the matter, because the problem with the PFP is that they do not quite know where they are, so I am going to describe the position very aptly to them. In 1981 the PFP supported an amending Bill in the House which today the hon member for Wynberg has contradicted completely.

Maybe we are muttonheads.

I think that is probably quite right, and I am sure the hon member for Albany supported it with “lang tande”, but being a practical farmer, he probably let it pass by. However, it is interesting because the PFP is supported by capitalist big money. It is a hybrid of socialism and anti-monopolies, supposedly supporting capitalism. That is why those hon members are so confused and today we have had an exact example of that. Three years ago they went in one direction, in aspect of small abattoirs today they take the opposite direction. [Interjections.] In fact, their attitude towards the meat industry as a whole is really one that is rather in tatters, and they do not have a clear concept of what it is all about.

The question of protections and the needs of Transkei and Ciskei is very important in respect of the financing of the abattoir to be renovated or, if necessary, replaced by a new one in East London. We hope that the hon the Deputy Minister, through the Corporation, will make quite certain that the needs of the area are, in fact, dealt with by means of a properly planned and well-researched approach to the situation and that, if possible, some form of relief during the period of construction or renovation will be afforded to those people who will have to bear the extra burden of cost.

Mr Speaker, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister this legislation. In my opinion it should have been submitted long ago I also wish to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his pragmatic approach to the abattoir industry. The Deputy Minister has found that the centralization of slaughtering facilities in the platteland has not, perhaps been the most successful task we have tackled thus far, and he has displayed the courage to effect changes in this regard.

I should like to discuss the Abattoir Corporation. The first aspect to which I want to refer is the philosophy that ought to apply at abattoirs. The situation at abattoirs is that there are two parties that meet one another. The one is the farmer. He brings his product, which he must market. The other party is the meat trade. Therefore, if one looks at the matter logically and objectively, the farmer’s interest ends at the abattoir where his animal is slaughtered. The farmer has the responsibility of loading up the animal and delivering it at the abattoir. As soon as the animal has been slaughtered at the abattoir, the contribution made by the abattoir in the farmer’s interest ends.

As the hon the Minister of Transport will be able to attest, the farmer pays for the conveyance of his livestock to the abattoir as far as the siding to the abattoir, and even into the shunting yard. Therefore the farmer has to pay for the conveyance and handling of his animals until they are eventually slaughtered. As soon as the animals have been slaughtered the carcases are cooled, for the benefit of the consumer. The carcases are first rapidly cooled and then stored in the refrigeration chambers. This is in fact the expensive aspect of an abattoir.

Up to to the present farmers have paid all the operating costs of the abattoirs, even those aspects which in fact, if one were to consider them critically, were the responsibility not only of the consumer but also of the trade. Thus far the farmer has paid for all of this. Therefore I am very grateful that the Cabinet has decided that in future the consumer, or in any event the trade and the industry, will contribute at least three cents per kilogram to the abattoir industry. However, I have a problem with this. Having explained how far the responsibility of the farmers extends at the abattoir, and what the consumer, the trade and the industry are responsible for, I believe the three cents per kilogram is inadequate. On average, cattle carcases weigh between 150 and 175 kilograms. What this amounts to, therefore, is that the contribution of the consumer is approximately R4,50 per carcase, whereas at the moment the contribution of the farmer is, on average, R21 per carcase. To this one still has to add this special levy for which the farmer is responsible. This brings the farmer’s contribution to R27 per carcase. Therefore, the levy of three cents per kilogram is far from adequate to compensate for those facilities used by the consumer and by the trade and the industry. Accordingly I wish to request the hon the Deputy Minister to reconsider this amount of three cents per kilogram. I am very grateful about the decision on the principle that has been taken in this regard. Nevertheless I am convinced that the amount itself is not in proportion to the cost that the farmer has to bear, and that it may be somewhat unjust to the farmer. The following aspect to which I should like to draw attention is the composition of the capital of this new corporation. Hon members will note that the money made available by the Government amounts to R56 million. This amount represents loans which have been made available to the Abattoir Corporation thus far in the form of loans, and on which the total interest to date has been covered by contributions by the farmers. In effect, therefore, the farmers have run the Abattoir themselves.

Quite apart from the fact that this corporation possesses the R56 million which was made available by the Government for the purposes of loans, and that its authorized capital will eventually amount to R100 million, the corporation already possesses assets of approximately R80 million. This means that apart from the moneys paid by the farmers to operate this corporation and redeem interest on loans, a net asset of R30 million has already been built up. One must take this into account and then compare that with the three cents per kilogram paid by the trade and industry. When this is done one can only come to one conclusion and that is that the farmers are making a far greater contribution than the consumer and the trade. Therefore, I ask that the other parties should in future make a bigger contribution or, if the profits are large, that the contribution of the farmer be reduced. It seems to me that the latter is the best alternative.

If we proceed to examine the capital of this corporation, an advance estimate of the corporation’s finances for the year 2000 indicates that by that time it will have built up capital of R100 million. Where will that money come from? As contributions stand at present, the corporation has no income apart from slaughtering fees, the fees contributed by the farmer and also, under the new dispensation, the contribution of the consumer, the trade and industry. Therefore we have here a corporation which is going to become profitable. Now the question is this: What is to become of this corporation? Are we to continue to operate it as a State corporation or will it, as may be requested, be transferred to private initiative? If we do transfer it to private initiative I want to ask that the various assets of the corporation be sold to various interest groups in order to guard against the establishment of monopolies in this sector which, to us farmers, is a very important one.

I think that the corporation’s biggest problem is behind it. The corporation has already spent the large amounts of money it had to spend. Very expensive capital works have already been built. I am convinced that it is unlikely that those capital works will again be built to that standard, particularly if one bears in mind the example of Cato Ridge. Therefore it is gratifying to be able to say today that in my opinion the corporation can now look forward to far better times. If the corporation is well run, the contributions that have to be made in respect of interest redemption of the expensive structures built will, due to inflation, no longer be a major factor and the only major factor that will have to be watched will be the direct operating costs.

I have already said that in my opinion the corporation can expect better times ahead, but I want to add that it is unfortunately the case that we in the rural areas are saddled with certain abattoirs which were built earlier on the advice of the Abattoir Commission or the Meat Board, which were of the opinion that the idea of centralization would succeed on the platteland. The people who made these calculations totally overlooked the question of distance. Therefore, in some of our rural towns we are saddled with expensive abattoirs that were built with a view to centralization. I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to use his influence with the corporation to ensure that consideration is given to these city councils. I am not speaking about people who merely wanted to build showpieces. I am speaking now about people who did in fact build on the advice of the Abattoir Commission or the Meat Board at the time. The composition of the board of directors of the corporation provides that a person is appointed as chairman by the Minister. Provision is also made for persons representing the trade and the industry and who are acquainted with the abattoir industry. Provision is also made for the appointment of a person from Government circles and on the advice of the Minister of Finance. However, the people with the biggest interest in this, the people who have put the most money into the industry, are not represented per se. The farmer, the meat producer, has not been given representation. When I speak of the meat producer, I wish to state clearly here today that any farmer who participates in any meat industry, whether it be Vleissentraal or OCHE, SVM or any other cattle dealer, is per se someone who represents the farmer because he also has an interest in the consumption, the processing and the industry. Accordingly I wish to appeal to the Minister to appoint a farmer, and in this regard he may perhaps be guided by the SA Agricultural Union so that the interests of those of us who contribute most to this industry may also be looked after. Particularly if new projects are tackled, we should really be sure that they will not be too dear for our pockets, because when everything is said and done, we are the people who contribute the most.

Mr Speaker, I want to react at once to the last point made by the hon member for Heilbron, and that is that the meat producer is not represented on the board of directors of the Abattoir Corporation. I am reacting to this remark at this stage because it is a very important point and I do not want it to remain unanswered if I forget about it later on. What the hon member is saying is not correct. The chairman of the corporation is a meat farmer and there are at least two further members who are farmers too. Therefore I can assure the hon member that the producers are very well represented on the board of directors of the corporation. I am just saying this in passing before I forget.

We have listened to some very interesting speeches. This has been another pleasant debate in which we have had general consensus. The various point that were raised were very interesting and of vital importance.

Before I proceed, I want to say that the committee which undertook this investigation into the abattoir industry did an excellent job. I have the report before me. Let us look at the composition of the committee. We notice at once that it is a very well-balanced committee, for who were the people who served on the committee? Two members of the Abattoir Corporation served on the committee—the chairman and another member. The committee also included a representative of the Department of Agriculture, one of our directors. The chairman of the Abattoir Commission also served on the committee. It is important that we distinguish between the functions of the Abattoir Commission and those of the Abattoir Corporation. There is often confusion about which is the corporation and which is the commission. The commission advises the Minister while the corporation is there in an administrative capacity; it has to do the practical work. Another person serving on the committee was a representative of the Directorate of Public Finance. The committee also included a representative of the Treasury. The SA Agricultural Union had representatives on the committee. I just want to say that it was a well-balanced committee and that it did an excellent job.

The hon member for Wynberg apologized for not being able to be here. He made a few interesting remarks in his speech. In the first place, he said that he doubted whether the corporation had been very successful in the past. But I believe that one can only have the greatest praise and appreciation for the work which the corporation has done since its inception. The corporation has succeeded, to mention only one aspect, in keeping its average slaughtering fee lower than that in the rest of the abattoir industry. One cannot do this with big abattoirs such as the ones administered by the corporation if one’s administration is not sound.

The hon member also mentioned the possibility of a monopoly. In this connection I just want to say that I cannot imagine people wanting to obtain a monopoly in an industry which is not profitable. I cannot see why anyone would want a monopoly in an unprofitable industry. Therefore I do not believe that the Abattoir Corporation will degenerate into a monopoly which would be harmful to the industry. We would all be very glad if someone were to offer to take over the abattoirs operated by the corporation. In fact, every time an application for a new abattoir is submitted to me, I ask whether there is not perhaps someone from the private sector who is interested in that abattoir. When a municipality approaches me with plans for the expansion of an abattoir or the construction of a new abattoir, I always ask them first whether they have spoken to the butchers and whether there is not perhaps one of them who wishes to take over the abattoir. If a butcher were to ask me whether he can take over the municipal abattoir, I am saying in advance that my answer to him will be “yes”. The hon member for Wynberg asked me what our policy was concerning the opening of private abattoirs. I want to tell him that we are very much in favour of that. We would be only to glad if the meat industry were to take over the abattoirs themselves. However, it is not a profitable industry. When a butcher wishes to take over an abattoir, it is usually because he has a meat processing factory, because it is convenient for him to do so and he can probably operate the abattoir at a lower cost. We are only too grateful when we receive that kind of request.

The hon member for Mooi River raised a few points in connection with standards.

†The hon member said that his party will support the legislation, and I thank him for that. He said, however, that a heavy burden was being placed on the livestock farmer. That is quite true.

*It is true that there is a heavy burden resting on the producer. How can the producer go about marketing his animal? He has to have his animal slaughtered and in this connection he has only two options. He can provide his own slaughtering organization, in other words, he can build his own abattoir, co-operatively if he likes, or support a company which will provide him with this service. His other option is to have his animals slaughtered at the municipal abattoir, some of which are in the hands of municipalities and some in the hands of the Abattoir Corporation. However, the slaughtering of an animal is an unavoidable marketing expense. I cannot see how we can avoid the producer having to pay for marketing his product.

It is certainly desirable that we should keep that cost to the producer as low as possible. I agree with the hon member for Mooi River as far as that is concerned. But the same should apply to the consumer. The hon member for Vryheid pointed out that if we do not keep down the cost of red meat, we shall not be able to compete and people will not consume more meat. We want greater consumption, of course. It is a difficult problem. There are certain costs involved in marketing the product. To a large extent, these are borne by the producer. However, it is quite right, and I am glad that the hon member for Heilbron pointed this out, that after many years, as a result of the new arrangements that have been introduced, an obligation is finally being placed on the trade, even if it is passed on to the consumer, so that its obligation may be met. An abattoir consists of a number of components. There are the pens, the slaughtering section and the marketing section. I do not think it is fair that one party should bear the entire cost of the total operation. It is just as important to the trade to have good auctioneering premises and cold storage facilities as it is to the producer. If the trade does not have these, that product cannot be profitably marketed anyway.

†The hon member for Mooi River also asked to what degree the Abattoir Corporation will go into the export market. The Abattoir Corporation is mainly interested in supplying the local market. It is not really interested in supplying the export market.

*We should like export abattoirs to be operated and slaughtering for export to be undertaken by private initiative, whether by co-operatives, companies or individual persons.

I also want to say something in connection with export standards. We recently had an investigation conducted in Australia by members of the Abattoir Corporation. My instruction to them was to find out what the export standard in Australia was. They found that abattoirs in Australia which were exporting meat to the European Common Market would not even get municipal grading in this country. In this country we lay down extremely stringent requirements which we try to meet, but it is costing us a lot of money to do so.

There is another matter which I want to raise, and that is the question of the utilization of abattoirs. I do not wish to accuse anyone. Various circumstances have contributed to the present situation. I want to make the statement today that we could have saved millions of rands in capital investment in abattoirs if the abattoir industry had been a multi-shift industry. Strangely enough, the position has developed over the years that the abattoir industry, unlike the milling and baking industries, is a one-shift industry. Hon members can work it out for themselves. When one considers the millions we have invested in a one-shift industry, and the fact that we cannot fully utilize the facilities, the cost is bound to be much higher than it would have been if we had built smaller facilities and operated them in shifts. We could have employed more people with the same capital outlay. I want to say that in approving abattoirs in future, we shall give very careful consideration to this particular aspect.

I want to make the statement today that I think there are abattoirs which could double their output without incurring any capital costs if people were prepared to work two shifts. The shifts do not have to be impossibly long. An abattoir is of course cleaned while the slaughtering is in progress. However, there are certain cleaning processes for which the slaughtering in the abattoirs has to stop. The meat hygiene people tell me that one can slaughter for eight hours, stop for an hour and a half, and then slaughter for another eight hours. They say this can be done without any problem. I was afraid that the meat hygiene people, who are very fussy, would tell me that there would be a build-up of bacteria and I do not know what else. However, the meat hygiene people tell me that slaughtering can continue throughout the night without any problem. However, our people must be prepared to do this. Perhaps we are not yet under enough pressure to be prepared to make this kind of adjustment in our economic life. However, I want to predict that it will come. In any event, we could effect an enormous saving if people were prepared to do this.

I must say something about the question of the East London abattoir which does not comply with the requirements at present. The market there is a developing market and there are two possibilities: The East London abattoir could be closed down and a new abattoir could be built, which would cost approximately R14 million to R15 million, or the existing abattoir could be renovated, which would cost R7 million and would mean a few months’ inconvenience. However, it would bring about a saving of R7 million. What is more, we have recently started building modular abattoirs, one of the objectives being to save capital. I want to prevent a town coming to me and saying: “But I am building now to meet the needs which will exist in ten or fifteen years’ time.” That is why we have instructed engineers to design plans for us of abattoirs in a modular form, so that one can start on a small scale and build an abattoir for normal requirements, and then, when one finds that one is slaughtering in two or even three shifts and that extra facilities are still required, one can simply add another module. Then one would do this when it was necessary, in order to avoid a lot of capital being tied down in useless capacity until it was required at some future date. I think it may interest hon members to know that what we have in mind for the East London abattoir is in fact something of this nature.

†I see that the hon member for King William’s Town is back. I can tell him that that is the way in which we intend renovating the East London abattoir. We shall renovate it to meet the immediate requirements and not with a view to requirements in ten years’ time. If further facilities are required after ten years, we can simply add another module and do not have to break the whole thing down again.

*I think that in this way we can also save a great deal of capital.

The hon member for Vryheid raised a matter here which I also consider very important. He spoke, among other things, of the chicken abattoirs. Of course, the chicken abattoirs are mainly in the hands of private initiative, and according to reports I have received, they are very efficiently operated. Several of them are multi-shift abattoirs. Some of them slaughter right through the night. The point I actually wish to make is that people should not think that they are not subject to the same hygienic standards as red meat abattoirs. They have to comply with the same requirements. They are subject to the same inspections. I want to give the white meat industry credit for having built its own abattoirs and operating them very efficiently. Perhaps we could learn a great deal from them.

The hon member for Fauresmith made a very interesting contribution, for which I thank him. He compared abattoir fees. I know we have removed a great deal of the anxiety which he felt in the past with reard to smaller rural abattoirs. We are continually working on a better dispensation for the smaller rural abattoirs.

While I am on the subject of the smaller rural abattoirs, I want to mention another matter as well. I believe the hon member for Swellendam has already mentioned it, but I want to repeat it all the same. Since there are quite a number of municipalities which are experiencing serious problems with regard to the financing of their abattoirs, we have appointed a committee, just as we appointed a committee to investigate the financing problems of the Abattoir Corporation—a committee which has published a very good report—to investigate the financing requirements of municipal abattoirs, ie abattoirs outside controlled areas. I may mention that this committee, too, is well structured. We have once again made use of the chairman of the Abattoir corporation, who has a special knowledge of the industry. We have also included someone from the Department of Finance, someone from the Treasury, someone from the South African Agricultural Union and someone from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. The financing of municipal abattoirs also has a bearing on a much larger problem, namely the general financing of local authorities. This is creating enormous problems. That is why we felt that a person from the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning should also serve on the committee so that it would be possible to examine the financing of local authorites in more general terms. We also have a representative of the United Municipal Executive. From the Abattoir Commission we have appointed the chairman to this Committee and from the Transvaal Municipal Executive the vice-president. I think this should be good news to many hon members who have abattoirs in their constituencies which are experiencing problems.

Are they going to look at Piketberg as well?

Yes, they will look at Piketberg as well. I hope that when we receive the committee’s report—I trust it will be soon, but I cannot say exactly when—we shall be able to eliminate many of the financial problems experienced by our smaller abattoirs.

I should like to thank the hon member for Barberton for his support of this legislation. He made the point that private initiative could not meet the requirements that had been laid down for the construction of the bigger abattoirs in controlled areas. I thank him for that important point which he made.

The hon member for Swellendam commented on the costs involved in operating smaller abattoirs. Yes, it is true that those old abattoirs consisting of two poles with a few hooks attached to them were, of course, the most economic abattoirs one could operate. It is an unfortunate fact that when one starts spending money on abattoirs, slaughtering costs go up. I keep warning municipalities, when they submit applications, to be mindful of their slaughtering costs. We have all the machinery available these days to calculate the cost extremely accurately in advance. We can tell a municipality exactly what its abattoir will cost, what its throughput will be and what its slaughtering cost will be. However, there are some municipalities that are absolutely deaf; one cannot influence them in any way. They simply go ahead and build structures which are often unnecessary. I thank the hon member for Swellendam for his contribution, therefore.

†Although I have already replied to the hon member for Mooi River, I think he raised one more point that I should deal with. He asked to what degree the corporation had been influenced by over-ambitious planning. I must point out that over-ambitious planning is always a problem.

†However, I want to point out to the hon member that the corporation has not been guilty of this to the same extent as the municipalities. The municipalities have erred much more than the corporation in the planning of over-ambitious projects. The corporation is now enlarging many of its abattoirs because it has become necessary, but it is mainly the cold storage facilities that are being expanded. I am very reluctant to grant approval for any expansion of slaughtering facilities, but I am in favour of the creation of more and bigger cold storage and processing facilities, to enable us to handle the fluctuation in the supply. In the implementation of the drought relief scheme we are also providing for the withdrawal of stock. This inevitably leads to the emergency slaughtering, and we must have the necessary cold storage facilities to be able to store the great number of carcasses. I believe that we shall be able to handle almost any situation with the slaughtering facilities available to us at present. The problem really lies with the colg storage facilities.

I should like to thank all the hon members who have participated in the debate for their positive contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move;

The Animal Diseases and Parasites Act, 1956, consolidated and amended the legal provisions relating to animal diseases and parasites which, at that stage, reached all the way back to 1908. Subsequently, that Act has been amended on four occasions to adapt the provisions to changed circumstances. Since 1970, when the last amendment was made to the Act, conditions and circumstances have changed to such an extent that many of the erstwhile provisions had to be adapted to give the livestock of the Republic the necessary legal protection against animal diseases.

After all the essential amendments had taken shape, it became clear that further patchwork in regard to Act No 13 of 1956 would not have the desired effect. It was therefore decided to replace the Act by a new one in which comprehensive provision is being made for the control of animal diseases, thus granting the necessary protection to the livestock and the livestock industry.

†The livestock industry was responsible for 43,6% of the gross value of agricultural production during 1982-83. Livestock products formed 31,3% of the major agricultural exports and earned the country R390 million in foreign currency during 1982. Most of the countries to which these exports are made, have already eradicated some of the more dangerous animal diseases. The occurence thereof in the Republic could therefore adversely affect such exports. The combating of animal diseases cost the producers of livestock products some R67 million during 1983 in comparison with about R35 million during 1978—an increase of nearly 100%.

This expenditure represents approximately 5,5% of the direct production cost throughout the Republic, whilst in the major cattle production regions, this figure is as much as 15,5%. The Department of Agriculture spent R400 000 on foot and mouth disease vaccines annually. Salaries, transport costs and subsistence allowance of officers involved in immunization campaigns should be added to this amount to calculate the costs involved in the immunization of cattle along the northern boundaries of the Republic against that disease. In spite of these precautionary measures, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred on one farm during 1983, and the department spent R76 000 to combat that outbreak. The costs involved in the sheep-scab eradication campaigns during the past five years amounted to R3,6 million. The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme cost the department in the region of R16,5 million since 1969. These are only a few of the hard facts concerning animal diseases, which illustrate the necessity of drastic measures to prevent the introduction into and occurrence in the Republic of animal diseases; the control over the spreading and combating of an outbreak, as well as the eradication of such diseases. The Bill now before the House is an instrument to achieve these objectives.

*Those basic principles of the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act, 1956, which are still applicable under changed circumstances, have been incorporated in the amendment Bill. Some of them inevitably had to be adapted to achieve objectives for the control of animal diseases. Modern-day conditions, however, require provision to be made in the Bill for new principles to facilitate the achievement of those objectives. In order to facilitate the administration and implementation of the proposed provisions, and under certain circumstances to speed this up, some of the functions and duties for which provision is made in the existing Act have, in the light of current administrative law, been adapted, with provision being made for additional functions and duties.

Every contravention of the provisions of the Bill could have serious consequences for the health of the livestock of the Republic. It could also adversely affect certain branches of the livestock industry, and even give rise to shortages in animal products. There have already been representations, from both organized agriculture and the judiciary, for the penal provisions in the existing Act to be fully reviewed and the penalties increased so as to emphasize the seriousness of the offences. The offences and penalties now being proposed have been drawn up in consultation with the Legal Administration Branch of the Department of Justice.

The Bill before the House today has, over a period of several years, been prepared in consultation with all branches of, and bodies concerned with, the livestock industry in order to improve on the existing legal provisions. From several quarters there has been confirmation of the fact that we have succeeded in this and also that the Bill, as a legal instrument, will succeed in granting better protection when it comes to ensuring the health of livestock in the Republic. It can be stated unequivocally that this Bill is supported by all relevant bodies and that its implementation is being eagerly awaited.

Mr Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting this Bill. To a certain extent it represents a consolidation of many of the laws in operation at present. We have been through the Bill with some care and in some detail and we feel that it represents a comprehensive and thorough piece of work on the part of the draftsmen who drew it up. We would like to compliment the officials concerned on all the hard work that they have obviously put into drafting this Bill.

As mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister, the Bill deals with all aspects relating to the control of animal diseases in the Republic of South Africa which, as was clearly pointed out by him, is in the interests of all of us, not only of the farmers of this country but of the consumers, exporters and the whole of the livestock industry. The Bill provides, inter alia, for the establishment of quarantine stations and the control over the importation of livestock, animals or parasites or any infectious things that may come into the country. It also provides for the establishment of animal health schemes as the hon the Deputy Minister mentioned, such as the TB testing scheme, as well as providing for control of various infectious diseases in the country such as scab, foot-and-mouth disease and similar diseases. It also gives the Director-General power to take over control of certain land where it is necessary for him to do so in order to implement control measures.

There is one aspect which may perhaps go a little wider than the scope of the Bill which the hon the Deputy Minister may care to comment upon when he replies. I refer here to the question of many of our neighbouring states both within and outside our borders, where provisions such as those contained in this particular Bill before us do not apply. Although many of us would wish them to apply they in fact do not. I know of cases where, for example, fanners have had their farms placed under quarantine which has resulted in serious problems, financial and otherwise, for the farmers concerned. Perhaps the most recent example in this regard is the scab outbreak. Another problem of some interest to hon members here is that there have been reports in neighbouring contries of incidents of rinderpest. I do not know whether there are any hon members in this House who remember the ravages brought about by rinderpest in earlier years. Perhaps the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs may remember. [Interjections.] Perhaps the only remnants of the rinderpest era are aspects of the policy of the NP! [Interjections.]

The Bill also makes provision for the construction of fences and works of a similar nature which the Director General may envisage as part of the control of the spread of these diseases from neighbouring states.

I should like to say in conclusion that there is an old saying which says that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Perhaps we could change that saying somewhat and, in connection with this Bill, say that the price of a healthy national herd is eternal vigilance.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South for his support for the Bill, on behalf of his party, in this very important debate that is being conducted here today. In saying that it is a very important debate, we must bear in mind that the Republic of South Africa’s livestock are spread across the length and breadth of the country. I do not think there is a farm on which there is not some or other animal, even if merely for the love of animals or by way of a hobby.

The Republic’s livestock have been built up over many decades and today, as far as livestock are concerned, the Republic does not have to take second place to any country in the world. In this connection one is reminded of our South African wool fibre, and then there is also mohair and karakul pelts which are sought after throughout the world. So a set-back in the livestock industry would not only have an effect on our ability to produce food, would not only effect merely the individual farmer either, but would actually be a disaster for the country as a whole, because what is involved is the foreign exchange that it has earned for our country.

The legislation has only one primary aim and that is the health of animals, because in conjunction with feeding, animal health is a primary aspect when it comes to stimulation of production. A poor quality animal, with deficiencies in these two fields, produces less than an animal that is well cared for and in a good state of health. Earlier today we finished dealing with the Livestock Improvement Amendment Bill which is geared to optimal production in this country. Modern-day production has become expensive—the price of land and fodder is high and therefore maximum production must be achieved in order to be economical.

Annually the State spends millions of rand on extension services and research at agricultural colleges, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and so on to achieve maximum production and optimal utilization of the land, apart from the large amounts that farmers have to spend on ensuring the health of their livestock. When a farmer perhaps displays recklessness or carelessness in dealing with this precious asset of ours in this country, or recklessly wants to derive financial benefit from it, it is necessary to take strong action against him, and that is the intention of the legislation, and because the 1956 Act no longer meets this need, we have the new piece of legislation before us today.

As a result of the good work being done at Onderstepoort, these days we have the chance of keeping all livestock diseases reasonably under control and of perhaps even being able to eliminate them completely. One would do well to look at the degree of success already achieved along these lines. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to rinderpest. Nagana, East Coast fever, diseases of the spleen, etc are other that have disappeared in this day and age. They disappeared as a result of sound control measures and efficient counter-measures.

I can point to a further example to indicate how difficult it is to keep livestock diseases under control. Take the case of sheep scab by which we have been plagued in recent decades. When the legislation was dealt with in the House in 1956, the then Minister, in reply to a question about whether sheep scab still occurred, said: Yes, on our borders, and particularly goat scab. Almost 30 years later we have, for four consecutive years, had compulsory dips to get sheep scab under control again—not goat scab, but sheep scab. Sometimes the movement of a single animal from one area to another is responsible for spreading the disease to an area in which it had not previously occurred. The compulsory dip costs livestock farmers millions of rand. I therefore fully support stronger control measures and lodge a plea with our farmers to make use of the available measures. By way of Onderstepoort we have all the necessary remedies at our disposal today to prevent infection of our animals. I am thinking, for example, of means to control bluetongue, Rift Valley fever, Wesselsbron disease, etc. We must make free use of these remedies so as not to prove a risk to the livestock industry. Large portions of our country are solely dependent on their livestock for survival. It is the only source of revenue for those people and the only product they can produce. We must therefore protect our livestock in those areas like the precious assets they are. These areas are now bowed down by burdensome and difficult conditions, but one cannot neglect to dip animals, even during these drought conditions.

Mr Speaker, I think that here we are dealing with good, sound legislation. I also want to link up with the congratulations conveyed to those people who drew up this legislation. Areas can now be declared controlled areas so that a specific disease can be combated there. Today, for example, the Western Cape is a declared tuberculosis-free area. Now areas, no matter how small they are, can be demarcated so that control measures can be adopted. In co-operation with private companies, parasites can also be efficiently combated today. Farmers would now be able to obtain guidance from the department on the best and cheapest remedies to be employed for a specific purpose. I should like to support this legislation and say that I hope and trust that in future this will be nothing but beneficial to livestock in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I agree with what the hon member for Beaufort West said, but I shall not be taking his argument any further at this stage.

The CP support the Bill. The condition in which our country’s livestock find themselves is of the utmost importance to us and to the inhabitants of our neighbouring States. Our livestock furnish an extremely important contribution to the prosperity of our country. In 1982 our livestock earned us R390 million in foreign exchange, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that the health of our animals should have the largest possible degree of legal protection.

The amendments that had to be brought about to the existing Act began to take on such gigantic proportions that this Bill became necessary. To exercise efficient control over animal diseases timely action must be taken. Delays can be fatal, particularly in situations in which diseases can spread rapidly through livestock herds. We welcome the arrangement that the Director of Veterinary Services of the Department of Agriculture, his officers and others authorized by him will administer this measure. In terms of the Bill the hon the Minister will nevertheless still exercise full control over the actions and decisions of officers. It is also a good thing that the offences that are the product of the stricter measures are being outlined more clearly here than was the case in the principal Act. The establishment of schemes for the improvement of the general health of our animals is also welcomed.

Mr Speaker, with the great potential we have for animal production in South Africa, the old Animal Diseases and Parasites Act of 1956 was an instrument in the hands of the State to improve our livestock in South Africa. The tremendous technological development we have experienced in other fields of our national activities has not lagged behind in respect of animal production either. Apart from the tremendous progress made under the performance testing schemes and the development programmes of the Department of Agriculture, the producers and stock farmers have also begun making more use of, and have attained achievements by using more sophisticated methods and animal technology.

The achievements with regard to production of the South African stock breeder and the stock farmers in the more stable climatic regions of our country in particular, are amongst the best in the world. I refer, for example, to wool sheep farming. If one looks at the body weight and wool production of our sheep, we see that it is much higher than in other wool-producing countries of the world, and in many cases it is equal to the best. Taking the history of the breeding of dairy cattle into account, one finds that the achievement of our dairy farmers in the field of increasing production has been a world-class achievement over the past four years alone. If we look at the progress in the field of grazing, it is also an achievement—probably encouraged by our difficult climatic conditions—that can be compared with the best in the world.

Seen as a whole, our progress and the achievements of our stock farmers in the field of animal production can be compared with our achievements in the field of mine engineering and other scientific industrial achievements, such as for example, the manufacturing of oil from coal. This achievement makes us world class. To attain these achievements, it was in fact necessary for the State to introduce certain infrastructure measures of which the Livestock Improvement Act of 1977, the Livestock Improvement Amendment Bill, which we passed today, and the Animal Diseases Bill are examples. This amending Bill adapts the existing Act to new circumstances and demands and will therefore contribute to a continuation of our past achievements.

However, there is another aspect to which I want to refer. It is not only the duty of the State to introduce infrastructure measures. It is also the duty of the primary producer to make the frequent implementation of punitive measures in terms of this infrastructure necessary. If one looks in this field at the participation of stud breeders of sheep, cattle, et cetera, this group of farmers is contributing in the field of breeding and the restriction of diseases because it is in the interests of their business. Unfortunately, it is true that there are still too many commercial producers who do not co-operate in making these measures succeed. There is a proverb which says that if two people are sitting in one boat on the water, one of them does not have the right to drill a hole under his own seat. In this regard it is necessary that commercial producers, commercial stock farmers, must take cognizance of the fact that as far as the combating of animal diseases is concerned, we are engaged in a war, and since this is the case, everyone involved in this industry is compelled to participate in this war.

I wish to conclude. With the fine example the State is setting in creating this infrastructure in terms of this legislation, I wish to appeal to commercial producers who do not have the discipline of a private stud breeder not to make it necessary for the State to implement these punitive measures in terms of this legislation frequently. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I knew that the hon member for Caledon was an expert when it came to perlemoen, but it came as somewhat of a surprise to me today to realize that he is also an expert on the livestock industry.

We in these benches will be supporting the Bill. We recognize that it is largely a consolidating measure and an attempt to cast a very much more realistic light on the control of animal diseases than has been the case in the past. I must, however, make it very clear from the outset—and here I want to refer to a point that was raised by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South—that, if the implementation of this Bill is to be successful, a far greater degree of liaison with the neighbouring self-governing and independent States will be required. One has reason to suspect from reports that have been emanating from neighbouring countries that disease control is not receiving the attention it deserves in those countries, and there is no doubt that, unless we have close liaison with those countries, we are going to be faced with a crisis before many years are out. We have a situation in Natal—the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South also referred to this—where controlled animal diseases such as scab have become evident and almost ineradicable in areas bordering on certain independent states because in these independent states the disease appears to be almost endemic. The result of this is that farmers who have been affected in this manner have suffered considerable financial loss and have been put to very severe inconvenience which has affected the profitability of their enterprises.

This brings me to a further point in regard to the role played by the inspectorate staff of the Veterinary Division, that is to say, the stock inspectors. It would be an act of folly for the department to reduce in any way the numbers of such stock inspectors. They are playing a very important role in these areas and, with their contacts, they are the people who could play a vital role in tracing the origin of diseases that enter particular districts from time to time.

I wish to deal briefly with the animal health schemes. I want to deal specifically with TB and with CA eradication. The hon the Deputy Minister said in his introductory speech that the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme has cost the department in the region of R16,5 million since 1969. I can only say that this has been a very sound investment indeed. However, I would ask that it be extended more forcibly and effectively in regard to the control of contagious abortion or brucellosis. Brucellosis particularly is a disease which requires more active steps if it is going to be successfully eliminated or controlled. One realizes at the same time that it is a threat to human health. As such we must do all we possibly can to minimize its encroachment.

In this context I also want to appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to give consideration to introducing stricter measures under this Bill to control an undesirable practice that is taking place. It is a practice that has been brought to the attention of his department from time to time. One is witnessing incidents of animals being offered for sale—I refer particularly here to dairy animals—at dispersal sales and these animals are purported to be CA free. The only basis on which this can be confirmed is by virtue of the fact that the owners who are selling their herds have merely had the herds tested whereafter only the positive reactors have been removed. The auctioneers themselves have happily gone along and conducted such sales as CA-free. That is flouting the whole question of disease control in the more intensive areas particularly. It is here that one would like to see unscrupulous auctioneers brought to book. I want to refer to an area in my constituency where a reputable firm of auctioneers declined to auction a certain dispersal herd that was being offered because of the very facts that I have just enunciated, with the result that another firm of auctioneers situated many hundreds of kilometres away was called in to act on behalf of the owner who was selling his animals. That is a flagrant misuse and abuse of control measures that become applicable under this particular Bill.

Finally, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give this House some indication as to the reasons for his amendment to omit (i) in line 44 on page 51 of the Bill. I would appreciate it if the hon the Deputy Minister would be good enough to give me an explanation as to why he feels it necessary to omit that particular subparagraph. Without further ado I would like to reaffirm that we on these benches will be supporting this very important Bill.

Mr Speaker, the gross value of livestock products in the country increased from R369 million in 1960-61 to R3 400 million in 1982-83. This makes one realize how essential it is to have the most efficient legislation possible to ensure the health of animals. The efficient implementation of measures in this connection does, of course, firstly depend on the ability of the officials. One of the amendments now being proposed provides that certain of the functions thus far vested with the Minister, should now be transferred to the Director of the Division of Veterinary Services. I think that this is a step forward in the process of streamlining the legislation and that it will now be possible to implement it more efficiently for the purpose for which it was introduced. In terms of the Bill it will be possible to impose heavier penalties and take stricter measures, and in my opinion this accords with the important role played by animals husbandry in this country.

In the Bill we find a few new approaches not reflected in the old Act, and I should like to refer to that briefly. The first new approach is that a legal obligation is now being placed on the owner of livestock, something for which similar provision was not made in the old Act. The owner is now being held responsible for the prevention of animal diseases and the combating of endoparasites in his flocks. I consider this as a definite step forward because it facilitates, to quite an extent, the burden on the shoulders of the officials who have to implement the legislation.

A second new approach is that it will now be possible to compel the owners of livestock to keep themselves abreast of the state of health of their livestock. This provision has become necessary because of the continually increasing percentage of farmers who do not themselves live on the farms. The livestock herds of those people would be a source of infection for other farmers if they were not subject to the legal obligation of keeping themselves abreast of possible infectious diseases amongst their livestock.

A third new approach in the Bill is that animal health schemes are now being made compulsory by the Minister. I believe that in future such schemes will prove the most effective means the Minister has for combating animals diseases. In this connection let me refer to the great success already achieved in the Western Cape in regard to tuberculosis amongst dairy animals. I think the hon member for Mooi River has already referred to undulant fever amongst beef cattle, and I want to suggest that the hon the Deputy Minister should perhaps give urgent consideration to introducing a health scheme for this disease and also for mastitis amongst dairy herds. South Africa is a country of climatic regions in which virtually all livestock diseases can occur—I am not only referring to diseases occurring in temperate climatic regions, but also those in subtropical and tropical climatic regions—and therefore we need efficient legislation to promote this extremely important cause, ie the prevention of animal diseases in this country. I therefore support this Bill.