Mr. Chairman, the House has accepted the principle of the Bill, and we are now dealing with the clauses in Committee. I must say that we in these benches find—and we have looked at all these clauses very carefully—that we are dealing with an interim situation and we believe that the drafting of the Bill is going to create significant problems. We have difficulties with the clauses as they stand, difficulties as to the details. First of all, clause one states a condition under which people can be disqualified and it equates the non-issuing of an identity document to a voter with an act of disqualification similar to treason, to murder or to an offence under the Supression of Communism Act or to having been convicted of any illegal practice under this Act. This is in fact the import of not being issued with an identity document. Mr. Chairman, what strikes us, is that there is no penalty placed on the State if it does not issue an identity document.

As the clause stands at the moment an application can be made, but there is no provision to a time limit by which such an identity document is to be issued. When one comes to the R.V. 1, which is merely the basis for registering, one sees that at the end of each month there must be a supplementary voters’ roll. There has to be a deletion list and there has to be a notification of those who have not been accepted. When it comes to the identity document there is no provision for this whatsoever. There is an absolute bar on a person being registered as a voter, through no fault of his own, if the officers in charge of a population register fail to issue him with a population register document. In other words, it is beyond his control and there is no machinery for putting it right.

When it comes to errors and omissions in drawing up the voters’ list there is a long provision for doing that under section 18. However, there is no provision made under section 18 for an error which may have been made by the population registrar. It deals with other conditions under which one can adjust this, but it does not deal with conditions under which this can be adjusted, should it be an error or an omission on the part of the population register office. Mr. Chairman, we want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us certain assurances in relation to this particular clause. It does not deal with the conditions under which one can register. This is an absolute bar to being registered.

First of all, can we have it in categoric terms that it will be possible to apply this from the date which is going to be mentioned later, under clause 8—1 July 1978?

Secondly, can we be given the assurance that no citizen will be penalized or be denied a franchise in South Africa if it is not through his fault, and if it is through the fault of the population register office? We raise this because there is no provision for adjusting the voters’ roll afterwards.

Thirdly, can we be assured that, if this clause is applied, nobody will be debarred from registration merely because of non-production of an identity document during that 90 day period? We raise this, because it may well be that this document is lost, and surely it is not the intention that anybody should be deprived of the franchise merely because of the absence of a particular document at a certain time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back and would like the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this, to tell us in what way is there a commitment on the part of the officer handling the population register to handle application with due dispatch? Is there any limit placed? Do they have to handle these within one month or within two months? Do they have to notify the political party if they reject applications for identity documents? In other words, if a voter, in good faith, makes an application, what certainty is there, because it does not say that he can get a vote within one month of applying? It says he can only have the vote if the population registry office has issued him with the relative document. Sir, it is entirely in the hands of these officers. It was considered so important that when it comes to the R.V. 1, there should be a monthly check. It has to be reported to the political party within 21 days. We believe it is imperative that where a voter is actually going to be deprived of the vote, that he should not be left entirely in the hands of officialdom, but that he should know that if he applies within a certain time—whether he is issued with that document or not—his application will be considered also as an application for a vote.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to Clause 1 and the various questions that were put by the hon. member, I may just mention that I tried to make a note of them. However, he spoke so rapidly that I could not keep up. If, therefore, there is a lack of clarity, the hon. member should repeat his questions. The first question that I shall try to reply to, is the question whether someone would be penalized if he were not to be registered due to a mistake that could not be attributed to him.

†Is that what the hon. member had in mind—that no person should be penalized if it is not his fault?

If it is not his fault that he has not been issued with an ID-card.

The position is that, in terms of the Act, a person can apply for an identity document within a specified time. If this application is sent to the Department and his application is in order, but the relevant document did not reach him for some reason, this is not a matter for which he can be penalized. His application, however, has to be in order. No one will be penalized if he cannot produce his identity document. There is, however, no reason why someone will not be able to determine whether an identity document has, in fact, been issued to him or not. He only has to approach the department. There is no intention of penalizing a person, as far as his registration as a voter is concerned, if he cannot produce his identity document. The whole matter revolves around the issue of the document.

A further question put by the hon. member, if I understood him correctly, was what certainty there was that registration would, in fact, be done in time. Is that what the hon. member had in mind? I put it very clearly during the Second Reading that the intention was that registration should be at such an advanced stage at a certain date next year that the compiling of voters’ rolls, using the population register as a basis, can be continued with. Should we not succeed in that, the Government will have to reconsider the matter, and there could then be another general registration of voters in accordance with existing procedure. What further certainty the hon. member wants, I do not know. The whole Government machinery is geared for that, and it is for precisely this reason that the Government is putting this legislation before the House. By means of the Bill we want to say to the House that we are intent upon making a success of this and that we shall make a success of it on condition that the electorate and all the bodies concerned with the electorate co-operate to make it a success. This goes for the voter concerned, the political parties and the news media, to whom an appeal will be made later to publicize this system further. If everyone co-operates, there is no reason why a success cannot be made of it. I do not know what other assurances the hon. member expects the Government to give. Unfortunately I was unable to follow properly the first question the hon. member put. If he is prepared to repeat it, I am, of course, quite prepared to try and reply to it.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister is misunderstanding the gravamen of my question to him. When it comes to the old system of the R.V. 1, which we want to abolish, we find that it has a specific provision that within so many days of its being received by the presiding officer, he has to tabulate all the additions and deletions at the end of each month and within 21 days he has to advise the parties of his action. There is, in other words, a very strict control of the R.V. 1 forms which are coming in. The electoral officer is required by law to issue voters’ rolls within a certain number of days after the receipt of R.V. Is, and there is a means of checking that this is done. My problem is that the new system is not related to the R.V. 1; it is now being related to the population register. There is no requirement in terms of the Act that the gentlemen who are handling the population register have to include people on that population register within a certain number of days. It is well known that there are many people who have been waiting for some months for their ID-card. We want to know if the individual voter is going to be completely at the mercy of the officer of the population register. Is it the intention that within one month of application, there should be a record of that application having been received and that the voter can go on the voters’ roll? Will the political parties be told if, for any reason, the application is rejected? One of the most precious things that a citizen has, is his vote. Under the old system one had the situation that this was carefully controlled. A person is not at the mercy of the electoral officer. Under the old system the electoral officer had to report and the parties would know if there was a delay of more than a month. However, there is no provision like this in the population register. The voter is completely at the mercy of the time-lag and the human error which may creep into the system of the population register. All that we are saying, is that if we are going to make the population register the critical factor for registering voters, we have to say to the people that provided you put in your application by a certain time, you will be taken up on the voters’ list the following month, and the political parties will be advised that it has been done. If this is not so, each individual voter is going to be at the mercy of the machines and the officials. I really do believe that it is important that we should be given an assurance that, before this becomes effective on 1 July 1978, the whole procedure is going to be tightened up. Provision must be made so that the individual voter will know that within a certain number of days of applying, he will have his application accepted or rejected—in other words, that he will not be left at the mercy of the time-lag which may exist in the population registration office.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point was in the Select Committee with us and felt, as we did, that we should base the electoral system of our country on the population register. Now the question is how all of us—the administration, the Minister and we in this House—can achieve our aim. There is only one way of doing that and that is by doing it in the way proposed, i.e. what is asked for by the Select Committee in its report. I should just like to say to the hon. member that if the voters’ roll has progressed as we all hope it will have progressed by a specific date next year, it will be for the Government to decide whether the voters’ rolls are going to be based on the population register in future. It is obvious that if a large percentage of the voters do not appear on the list at that stage or if there are a few hundred thousand unprocessed applications, the Government will decide to carry on with the old system. The hon. member therefore has the assurance that the Government will not decide to base the voters’ roll on the population register before it has been possible to give effect to all the assurances for which he asked the hon. the Minister; in other words, if a voter has applied for an identity document before a certain date— which is mentioned in the legislation—he will be assured of appearing on the voters’ roll. That assurance was given by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech. He gave the assurance that the matter would be decided on eventually and that the decision would be taken in the light of the progress made with the registration of voters in the population register. If, then, we have made so much progress that the Minister is certain at a given date that a document will be available for everyone who has applied for an identity document, people need do nothing more. There will be no registration and a voter will not be asked for his number on his identity document, because he will not register. A button will be pressed and the voters’ roll will appear. That voters’ roll can be requested for inspection by hon. members and their organizations at any stage after the specified date. If the opposite should happen and there are thousands of applications which have not been dealt with, or the public has not reacted as we expected, the Government would, of course, be obliged—which I really hope will not be the case—to decide that we shall have to have another general registration; then all the other complaints the hon. member has will fall away, because then we should again continue with the same old system, namely a registration of voters. If anyone does not have his identity document in his possession then, he would surely have the number, or he could even declare that he had lost his identity document, but that he did have the number. This could then be looked up. Then the lists will appear again as in the past and the parties will again be able to inspect them to correct mistakes, while the voters will also be able to examine them. However, it it my experience, and the experience of all of us who have a bit of practical knowledge, that the voter cares very little whether he appears on the list when a general registration takes place. 99,9% of them are never concerned about this. It is the parties that have to concern themselves with this. Since the parties are concerned about this, the channels will still be there to determine whether a voter appears on the roll or not. I do not think that we should put unnecessary obstacles in the way. We should see this legislation through and all put our shoulders to the wheel in an effort to prevent those things that the hon. member foresees from happening. However, I think he is meeting his troubles halfway.

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to place on record that we do not share the views which have been expressed by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Green Point and I served on the Select Committee with him and we decided unanimously that the introduction of a voters’ roll based on the population register would be the ideal and that if the population register were brought to the stage where it could be used, it should be introduced. I would be quite out of order if I followed the line of the hon. member for Sea Point, who was arguing a point of administration which falls under a different Act, namely the Population Registration Act. The question of notification or acknowledgment of applications has nothing to do with this Bill, but falls under the Population Registration Act. Therefore, I shall not transgress by replying to the points made by the hon. member for Sea Point. We stand by the view that we adopted unanimously in the Select Committee, and which I understood the hon. member for Sea Point supported, because he voted for it. We stand by it at this stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Chairman, nobody is arguing against the introduction of the population register, nor are we arguing about the date of 1 July 1978. In fact, we accepted this as a principle.

You are arguing on a Bill that is not before the House.

It says here “if an identity document has not been issued to him”, and I am arguing on that particular provision. We are taking over the Population Registration Act to become the basis of the registration of voters. In principle we have no objection to this. All we are saying is that we are not dealing with a general registration, and it means that if one wants to get on to the voters’ roll in terms of this provision which is now being added, one will have to have been issued with an identity document. In so far as one registers now, there is a control mechanism in the sense that in the month in which one receives the application the electoral officer has to produce a list of supplementary registrations and a list of deletions. Within 21 days after that, he has to notify each of the parties. In other words, there is a control of the people who have applied for registration. In terms of the Population Registration Act which we are now taking over, there is no time limit. If the electoral officer happens to have a backlog of work in 1982 and he cannot get the identification documents issued in time, it means that those people will not appear on the voters’ roll. Provision is made for remedying errors in the voters’ roll under section 18 of the Act, but there is no provision for the remedying

We are not touching that procedure in this Bill. Where do you see it in the Bill? What are you arguing about?

A man can be registered …

That has got nothing to do with it.

It has got everything to do with it. The Bill states that a man cannot be registered if an identity document has not been issued to him. Let us presume that an identity document has not been issued to him … [Interjections.] Let us presume that it is not his fault, because no limit is placed on the time within which the application must be in and the time in which the document must be issued. What is more, even if there is an error, no provision is made in the Act for remedying that in terms of an “aanvullende kieserslys”. Therefore, all we are saying is that if one takes over the population register, we want to ask the hon. the Minister in the intervening period, to see whether one should not have the same kind of control mechanism over applications for ID documents as there is, at the present time, over applications for registration of voter documents. If this is not done, the individual voter, however correct his application may be, is at the mercy of the official and the machine and there is no control mechanism for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I can see no reason why I should go on a futile fishing expedition with the hon. member for Sea Point this afternoon. The clause only provides that a person will not be entitled to vote if an identity document has not been issued to him.

That is what clause I is concerned with. There is no provision or indication whatsoever in the Bill before the House that any of the existing machinery is being tinkered with or changed. Why should we meet our troubles halfway? I think the hon. member for Parow has replied to this quite adequately, and I thank the hon. member for Durban Point for his support.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In a sense it involves a double negative, but it places a specific onus on the electoral officer in this particular field. As the clause stands at the moment, it merely states that an electoral officer shall include all those people who are qualified, but there is no indication of who will make the test and what the test will be. This means that on the present wording, if the electoral officer, for any reason, removes any existing voter who may be qualified or, in reverse, does not remove any voter who is not qualified, he would be acting irregularly.

There is, in other words, a total onus on him in respect of every voter. He should satisfy himself in respect of each voter who is not disqualified. I do not believe that one can place such a large onus on him by merely saying that everybody who is qualified shall be left on the list. There has to be a specific onus placed on the electoral officer to satisfy himself in respect of each person who is not so disqualified. There is another defect in this clause and it is in my opinion a more serious one. The intention is that instead of having a new registration of voters, one merely takes all those who continue to be qualified and leave them on the voters’ roll and thereafter add the names. I believe that is the intention. The legislation provides that voters on the current list, people who are qualified, will be left on the list. But there is no definition of who are qualified except at the time one fills in one’s original application. There is no reference in the Act to any disqualification. The Act is quite clear because section 13(1) provides—

1. (a) unless he actually resided in that division on the date of completion of his application for registration; or
2. (b) unless, if he did not so reside, he retained his home in that division.

Therefore the qualification for being registered in any division is not permanent residence. The only qualification stated in specific terms in the Act is where you were at the time you applied for registration. This would have been perfectly appropriate if it was grafted on to an Act which involved a new registration. One can fill in a R.V. 1 within that 42-day period and if one were registered at that time, one would be qualified. However, there is nothing in the Act to say that because one has left that area, one is disqualified. The Act lays down two conditions namely that if one applies for a change of address, one may have one’s registration altered or if the electoral officer is petitioned or gets a notice from somebody else saying that you have changed your address, then he may by a certain procedure contact you and may transfer your address. There is nothing in the Act, however, to say that if one is not in a particular place at a particular time, one is a disqualified voter.

Where do you see that?

I have put it very carefully. The Bill says that everybody who is qualified will be left on the list. The hon. the Minister’s speech made it clear that if a person was not resident at that place during the 90-day period, he would be deemed to be disqualified. There is nothing in the Act which provides that one is disqualified if one changes one’s address. There is nothing in the Act which provides that one is disqualified if one was not living there over the 42-day or 90-day period. What have we taken over? We have taken over a definition of “qualification” which relates to the old system whilst we have not updated it for the new system.

But this applies to the old system. Clause 2 applies to the old system.

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, because his speech was quite clear during the Second Reading. His intention is that if somebody has left a particular constituency and is living somewhere else, he would be disqualified.

Of course.

There is no provision in the Act for disqualifying a voter on that ground. The Act is very clear on that point. All that you can do is, by a certain procedure, to transfer a voter from one constituency to another. There is a very distinct difference between saying that you may disqualify a person and a situation in which you may transfer him. It is not even obligatory to transfer him. Until the legislation clearly defines what is meant by “disqualify”, we in these benches will argue that disqualification only applies to the time that one registers. If one is registered at that address there is nothing in this legislation which provides that one is disqualified if one moves. If it is the intention that one should be disqualified, then a new provision would have to be introduced to provide that if a person has permanently left his residence and has not been living in that area for a 42-day or a 90-day period, he will become disqualified. As it stands at the moment, however, the electoral officer will be acting illegally if he removes anybody from the voters’ roll merely because he was not living in his constituency during the registration period.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member neglected to draw a distinction between the usual state of affairs where a voter cannot be disqualified before he has done or neglected to do certain things and the fact that what we are dealing with here is making provision for a general registration. Why does the hon. member want a general registration? As the Act reads at present, all the old voters’ rolls are being discarded and if a person does not have himself registered during the general registration, he is simply not on the voters’ roll. However, the Select Committee discussed this matter at length and decided that if there were to be another general registration, we should not discard all the voters’ rolls. We should retain the old voters’ roll as a basis. But the idea of a general registration is nevertheless to afford an opportunity, firstly, to the supplement of the voters’ roll, and secondly, to correct it; otherwise we may just as well have a supplementary registration, and surely that is not the idea behind a general registration. The idea is also that the voters’ roll should be corrected to a certain degree. How on earth, then, does the hon. member want to apply in practice what he is suggesting here? Say, for example one is walking around Sea Point with a pack of cards which comprise the existing index. One comes to a flat in which a Mr. X lives. One tells that person that one has Mr. Y’s name on one’s list, and his reply is that he has been living there for a year and that Mr. Y has not been living at that place for more than a year.

He drowned in the swimming pool.

What the survey officer has to do, therefore, is to indicate on the card that that former inhabitant has left, and then he has to be taken off the Sea Point voters’ roll, whereas the new people there are registered on it. After all, if we merely retain the old voters’ rolls, there will be chaos. One will have such a packed list because a person can be registered at various places as a voter.

That is what he wants.

The hon. member must just draw the necessary distinction and realize that we are not dealing with the usual state of affairs here. This provision provides for a general registration in the event of another general registration—which is a moot point.

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House, the official Opposition, again stands by the point of view we adopted in the Select Committee, the point of view for which we voted. I want to quote from the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee. Under the heading “Section 8(2)(b)” the report reads as follows—

1. (1) the duration of a general registration of voters be extended from 42 to 90 days;
2. (2) general registrations of voters be undertaken on an adjustment basis instead of on a de novo basis.

That was the recommendation of the Select Committee for which the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Sea Point and I voted and I stand by it. Clause 2(b) of the Bill inserts a new subsection (2)(b) in section 8, which provides for a new registration de novo. The existing Act provides for a de novo registration where “the said list shall be prepared by inserting therein the names of persons whose applications for registration have been lodged” by a certain date. The only way one can give effect to the Select Committee’s recommendations is by providing that those who are qualified to remain on the roll will, in fact, remain, and therefore the amendment in the Bill reads—

1. (i) the names of persons enrolled on the current voters’ list who are qualified for registration as voters …

Those are the people who are already there, and therefore the recommendation is being carried out; it will be an adjustment, starting with those who are already there and entitled to be registered. The hon. member for Sea Point is incorrect in saying that you only have to be at a place on a particular date, because section 9 of the Act, which states by whom and to whom applications for registration are to be made, provides specifically that one must register at one’s permanent address. It states that a person’s application must be made to the electoral officer “for the area in which he actually resides or retains his home, or in which his place of business … is situate”. So, contrary to what the hon. member for Sea Point has said, you must register at the place in which you actually reside and retain your home. That has been determined by the courts as your “permanent residence”. The fact that you happen to be in a particular place for one night on the date of the general registration is not relevant. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we cannot support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that we have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee and the second is that if this amendment is accepted, it will make of every electoral officer a judicial officer. It means that every single one of the 2 million registered voters’ names, or registrations, will have to be checked by the electoral officer to satisfy himself that they are not disqualified. This is obviously an impossible task for any electoral officer to perform. The proposed paragraph in the Bill says that those who are qualified shall be included. That test is a factual one. The people concerned are on the roll, and unless evidence by the official concerned, who is doing the general registration, is presented that he has moved or that there is an objection or any other reason, that person will be a qualified voter. If, however, the electoral officer has to satisfy himself that every voter is not disqualified, it will place an impossible onus on him. We therefore support this clause as it now reads and as it was when we supported it in the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Sea Point. For the record, I would like to give the hon. member a further explanation to that which I furnished during my Second Reading speech. The procedure which has been followed up to this stage in respect of a general registration of voters has been that every qualified South African citizen is registered as a voter irrespective of the fact that his name appears on a current voters’ list. That is the present system. The procedure to be followed in the case of a future general registration of voters, if that should be necessary, will be, firstly, to register only those qualified persons on the voters’ list for the constituencies in which they have their permanent residence, if they are not already registered as voters in such constituencies, and secondly, to retain on the relevant voters’ lists the names of those persons already registered as voters in the constituencies in which they lived on the date of commencement of a general registration, instead of them having to register anew as voters. The Act provides very clearly who is qualified to register as a voter and who is not. I quite agree with the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Parow that we cannot expect every electoral officer in South Africa now to become a judicial officer in respect of every application that he handles. The Act makes provision for that, and it was this House which passed that Act. It must therefore be followed. The proposed insertion, by clause 2(b), of a new subparagraph (i) in section 8(2)(b) of the Electoral Act will make possible what I have said in connection with the intended change in the conduct of a general registration of voters. That is all it boils down to. There is nothing more to it than that. I cannot share the fear of the hon. member for Sea Point in this regard. It is quite clear, and I have tried to explain to him who will be regarded as a qualified voter and who not. If anybody is not registered at that particular address at the time or if anybody is not on the voters’ roll at that time, it is his concern to see to it that he is registered as a voter. But the question as to who is qualified and who is not qualified and what assurance one will have, as the hon. member has put it, I cannot take any further. There is no necessity to take it any further. The Act is very clear and the Bill is very clear, and I think that the explanation I have given to the hon. member in my Second Reading speech and now is quite sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem about the intention of the Act nor about the intention of the Minister. Our simple problem is, and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate it to me, which section of the Act enables him to take a voter off the roll if he is no longer living at a particular address. The Act only states where you must be registered at the time you register as a voter. It does not say because you move away from an address, you become disqualified. All I am suggesting to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that if he wants to make it quite clear he will have to say that a voter who is qualified is one who is still living at this address. There is nothing in the Act which says that if you move away from an address you become disqualified. I think this should be made quite clear, otherwise there will be people who will be taken off the voters’ roll and in terms of the Act as it stands, even with the amendment, this would be acting illegally and ultra vires. In the past, during the period of a general registration, you were eligible to be registered where you resided at your permanent address, but it does not say that you become disqualified when you move. All it says is that the electoral officer may change your address; it does not say he can delete your name. It says that all he can do is to transfer you upon adopting a certain procedure. All we want is to be quite clear that there is a definition of what is a qualified voter in terms of the residence, not for a registration of the old type, but for a registration of the new type.

Mr. Chairman, I may just confirm to the hon. member once again that the old rolls will be retained, but that the new system will be used with a view to future proceedings. That is what it is all about. As to the further assurances which the hon. member wants, there is no need whatsoever for these, I think, and they are not even relevant. It is not such a new system which is being introduced. The old system is being adjusted as provided for in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Mr. Chairman, as we indicated at Second Reading, we are not in favour of the inclusion of a reference to the provinces in this particular measure. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate further upon this. If it were possible for me, in terms of the rules, to do so, I would move an amendment at this stage to delete the word “province”, but I accept that it would be destructive of the principle which has already been adopted. Therefore, I merely rise to say that we are opposed to this measure.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in this measure it is possible for us to deal with the problem which I could not deal with under the Constitution Amendment Bill, and therefore I raise the issue of the inclusion of interprovincial arrangements between the executive committees of the various provinces being regarded on the same basis as arrangements between a province and a foreign State. I have already expressed our views during the Second Reading as to why I believe this is undesirable. 1 merely want to add that there is sufficient machinery existent through the conference of Administrators and executive committees for any necessary arrangement to be arrived at without reference to the Financial Relations Act.

I accordingly move the following amendment—

This means that paragraph (b) will then refer to the territory of South West Africa, and not to any other province as well.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I motivated the amendment to a certain extent during the Second Reading, but the purpose of this amendment is to soften the effect of the present wording of the clause. If one reads it as it stands at the moment, the new provision reads, inter alia, as follows—

I believe this can be abused by people who are not very fond of us, particularly in relation to such independent States as have come into being within the Southern African complex, and such independent States as may well come into being.

I understand that there may be some difficulty about the insertion of the words “financial obligations” instead of “province”, but I am prepared to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say in that connection. We can then possibly try to find better wording. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, we in these benches have no objection to it, because his motivation, we believe, is correct. The provinces do have the machinery, in that the interprovincial meetings between the Exco’s and the Administrators provide for this, but there may well be some reason why it is included in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Albany is concerned, I must say that one appreciates the reasons for his moving that amendment. I think that we came across the same area of misunderstanding or misconstruction by those hostile to South Africa when we dealt with the Defence Act last year. The Bill at that stage referred to military operations outside the border of South Africa for certain purposes, and it contained some wording to the effect that that area would be regarded as part of South Africa. I see it as a problem in drafting, but I do not think that the position is quite as serious in the case of this particular measure before us, because it is limited to the performance of a function by a provincial administration. It does not carry with it the weight or the implications of military action with which we dealt on the previous occasion. I would like to have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s view as to whether this amendment can be accepted. I do agree with the hon. member for Albany that to link it with financial obligations is a problem.

May I ask the hon. member whether he will be so kind as to motivate for me his own amendment? I was unable to hear his motivation for it.

My motivation is simply that in terms of the measure before us, arrangements between one province and another, in relation to assistance being rendered to one another, are put in the same category as arrangements between a province and a foreign State or a territory under some other administration. The position in regard to interprovincial matters is quite different. The hon. the Deputy Minister will be aware that a great deal is achieved through the consultation which take place annually and sometimes twice a year between the Administrators and also through the Administrators’ conference with the executive committees. When it comes to arrangements where one province is to assist another, it seems to me that it is not a matter which should be dealt with on the same basis as assistance rendered by a province to a foreign State. In any event, without having to get the specific approval of the State President, i.e. the State President-in-Council, there is already the restraint that the provinces, in rendering that assistance to one another, are limited by the financial resources which are made available to them in accordance with their budgets. It is sufficient, as I see it, that there is a measure of control and is then left to the convenience of the provinces to decide on these matters between themselves. As an example I can refer to one of the resorts at a dam on the Orange River where the Free State is doing something on its side of the river and a request came from the Cape that a similar project should be undertaken on the south side of the river by the same work unit which is operating for the Free State Administration—in other words, whether the Free State Administration would do that job for the Cape Administration. Surely that is not a matter which has to go through the entire procedure of obtaining the approval of the State President, because it is merely across the border between one province and the other.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point of view of the hon. member for Green Point, but the position is that the law advisers, having regard to all circumstances, felt that this was the correct procedure to follow in this case. We could debate the point of view of the hon. member, but I want to give him the assurance that although I appreciate his point of view, it will not really take us any further. Unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s proposed amendment under the circumstances. This was the best advice the Government received, and I should like to abide by that advice, i.e. that the provisions of the clause remain as they are. Consequently I am unable to accept the amendment.

†As far as the hon. member for Albany is concerned, I have had the opportunity of having a look at his amendment and also to discuss it with the law advisers. Unfortunately I also cannot accept his amendment either. The crux of this matter also turns around “any function”. All functions do not necessarily form part of financial obligations. I shall give you an example, Sir. There is, for instance, the transfer of personnel, the application of auxiliary services and the secondment of an official. These are not direct financial obligations.

In the second instance, the functions of a province are limited to their territory. In this case, we therefore have to work with a legal fiction, which boils down to this, that that part of the alien territory becomes the territory of the province. That is why the word “province” is used at the end of the clause. It is actually a legal fiction, which one must accept in this connection.

For these two reasons I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty with the reply the hon. the Deputy Minister has given with regard to the amendment I have moved. He has, as he has intimated, a great deal of sympathy, great understanding and a certain amount of support for the amendment, but he cannot accept it because the law advisers have not advised him to do so. Surely that is not a reply to the amendment. The hon. the Deputy Minister is well versed in the law. He and I have both practised law for a long time. I think it is no good telling the House that the law advisers say that this is the way in which it should be done. Why did they say it, and what motivated them? Surely we are entitled to know what motivated their decision or their advice! The House and the erudite lawyers, of whom there are so many in this House, can then apply their minds to the motivation of the legal advisers to see whether they can support it or not. So I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us the grounds on which the legal advisers gave him this advice which he seriously feels he must accept.

Mr. Chairman, I follow the reasoning and the motivation of the hon. the Deputy Minister in not wanting to accept the amendment which I have moved. I can see that it is necessary to create a legal fiction for a province to perform its function in another State, in another province, in another territory or in the territory of South West Africa. Therefore, with leave of the Committee I am prepared to withdraw the amendment which I moved earlier.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. H. D. Deacon, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I now move as an amendment—

In other words, the accent will now be on the performance of a function by a province in the State. The insertion of the word “in” before “that State” makes it clear that the function will be performed in the State. The insertion of the words, after “South West Africa,” of “such function” further accentuates the fact that the province will be performing a function as it were in another State, province, territory or in the territory of South West Africa. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to accept the amendment in this form.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Green Point that I am responsible on behalf of the Government for this legislation and that I have no intention of hiding behind a legal adviser for the explanations that I give in a debate in this House.

Why are you so touchy about it?

I am not touchy. My good friend, the member for Green Point is a legal man himself and he can take it; therefore that hon. member should keep out of this. I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point on behalf of this side of the House, on behalf of the Government, that we have introduced this legislation with the sole object of ensuring more effective control. That is the reason why we are bringing in the State President by this particular clause.

As far as the hon. member for Albany is concerned I cannot say off-hand that I accept or reject his amendment, but I give him the assurance that, although I cannot say I accept it at this stage, I shall have a look at it to see if anything can be done between now and the Second Reading in the Other Place.

Would the hon. the Deputy Minister be kind enough to explain why he says that it leads to more evffective control?

I have explained that in my Second Reading speech.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very surprised to hear the hon. Deputy Minister say that he is introducing this amendment for better control. For better control of what? What does the hon. the Deputy Minister want to control more effectively? He has not told us. He wants us to vote for this Bill, but he has not told us what he wants to control. I do not think the hon. the Minister has briefed himself properly on this Bill. I do not think so at all, because I should like the hon. Deputy Minister to know that I have noticed as far as the department of which he holds the portfolio of Deputy Minister, is concerned, the tendency is not to centralize, but to decentralize.

The impression the hon. the Deputy Minister gives this afternoon is that he wants to centralize and not decentralize. It is common cause between the Government and ourselves that the provinces should, as far as possible, be given more and more power. That is the general tendency as far as the department is concerned, namely that the provinces should be given more power and not that the Central Government should gather in more and more power and take power away from the provinces. What the hon. the Deputy Minister probably does not understand is that the provinces have been working together and have been arranging matters between themselves for many, many years, and these arrangements have become more and more sophisticated as time has gone on. At present there is a large number of precedents for this co-operation between the provinces, and that particularly applies to their common boundaries. That is why it is very important that the hon. the Deputy Minister should tell us what sort of control he has in mind. Does he foresee that Natal may agree with the Province of the Cape of Good Hope that it takes over the control of Griqualand East, or does he see that the Orange Free State would take over control of the northern Cape? Is that the sort of thing he is trying to avoid?

That is a weak argument indeed.

It is not weak at all. If the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot tell us what he wants to control, then I am at liberty to make guesses as to what he wants to control. He has not told us, and my guess is as good as anybody else’s guess.

That is control for the sake of control!

Yes. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Von Brandis is right when he says that it is control for the sake of control. That, surely, is nonsense, because one does not want to control for the sake of control. The hon. the Deputy Minister, if he cannot give us the full answer now, should ask the Chairman to report progress and ask for leave to sit again. He should then come back tomorrow or, if necessary, the next day and tell us what it is all about.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg is the last man who should adopt this kind of attitude. There is absolutely nothing sinister in this connection and there is absolutely nothing to hide. I gave the hon. member for Green Point a reply to the question he put to me, and if the hon. member for Wynberg wants to introduce an unpleasant note into this debate, he is welcome to do so. The fact remains that it has been stated very clearly, as I did in my Second Reading speech as well, that the reason for this legislation is achieving better and more effective control, and it was felt that by bringing in the State President this could be effected. That is the basic reason. Here we are dealing with provinces, with other states as well as the homeland territories. So three different territories are involved. There is no sense in making one provision for provinces, and another for cases involving the homelands and a state. For that reason it was thought that it was a good thing to make provision for all three sets of circumstances in one provision of this legislation. That is why all was included in one clause. Now, however, the hon. member is beginning to speculate, and if the hon. member wants to speculate, he may do so all day long. In reply to the Second Reading debate, however, I answered the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I told him that I was not prepared at this stage to express any opinion as to what the intention was in regard to Natal or East Griqualand or in regard to any of the speculations with which the hon. members occupied themselves, and neither am I prepared to express any such opinion now. Hon. members cannot expect me to join them in a speculation campaign. In what direction are we to speculate? I am not prepared to do that. The hon. member asked me why we were effecting this amendment in connection with the State President. That was the question he put to me. I think I have given an adequate reply to that question by saying that we, for the specific reasons I mentioned, are of the opinion that it will provide for more effective control. That system will work more effectively than having different systems for the various provinces in addition to having different systems for various states and territories. That is the basic reason for our having brought this amendment to this House.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that I accept the undertaking of the hon. the Deputy Minister to give the second amendment I moved this afternoon his attention, and I hope this affords him some criterion for an amendment in the Other Place.

On amendment moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. H. D. Deacon negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As long ago as 500 years before Christ there were herds of cattle and flocks of sheep and goats in the possession of the nomadic native tribes in Southern Africa. In fact, the presence of these herds and flocks was the main reason for the establishment of a refreshment station at the Cape. Jan van Riebeeck’s initial assignment was to concentrate exclusively on barter. Soon problems were experienced in obtaining regular and adequate supplies of livestock for trading ships. This was the reason why the first nine free burghers made a start with progressive livestock farming in South Africa exactly 320 years ago.

The Republic has a great potential for animal production. We are self-sufficient in respect of most commodities, although almost 25% of our beef requirements have to be imported from neighbouring States. If our own resources are systematically developed, we ought to be able to provide for our own needs into the distant future and to have supplies available for export as well. Livestock farming in this country has changed drastically since 1657. There is no doubt about the fact that there is still room for increased efficiency.

The Stud Book Association and its affiliated societies have exerted themselves over the years to provide the industry with breeding animals of a high quality. At the time of its 50th anniversary in 1970, this organization presented a symposium on which the future task and role of the breeding of stud animals in South Africa was examined. The conclusion was that animal production would become extremely intensive and fundamentally technological in the future, and that the future developments were going to present the producer with great challenges and demands. The symposium conveyed a clear message that adjustments in the livestock industry were essential to prepare it for future developments.

The Bill which is before the House today for its consideration was inspired by the follow-up work done by the Stud Book Association after the symposium. Basically, it contains no principles not already embodied in existing legislation, but it lays down a sound basis for development which will have to come if the livestock industry is to maintain its position.

The principles of the existing legislation have stood the test of time and are only being adjusted to contemporary terminology. For this reason, most of the proposed measures do not require much explanation. However, a few measures will be illustrated in detail.

The Bill provides for the establishment of an Advisory Board for Animal Production which will be representative of all parties involved in the livestock industry. This Advisory Board will devote itself to the continuous consideration of policy aspects affecting animal production and will also advise the Minister on these. In addition, it will co-ordinate the recommendations of the existing advisory committees in order to place in the right perspective the interests of every sector within the livestock industry.

†The use of artificial insemination as a means to promote animal production, will no doubt increase in future. The existing control measures regarding the application of artificial insemination and the sale of semen are being retained. Authority is also provided to regulate the collection of ova and the inovulation of animals. The existing provision to register breeders, which enables them to collect and sell semen, however, is withdrawn. It is imperative that only the best quality semen shall be used and the necessary requirements can be met only at artificial insemination centres, where veterinary supervision exists.

Various livestock improvement and performance testing schemes are at present included in the research and development programmes of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The techniques required for such schemes have been refined to such extent that the main objective now, is to evaluate the genetic production potential of breeding animals, as an integral system of livestock improvement. Participating breeders are benefiting more and more from these schemes and it is considered only fair that they should share in the financial burden thereof, as is the position in other countries. This could best be effected if such schemes are established in terms of legal provisions. The Bill therefore contains the necessary provisions, in terms whereof the existing schemes will in due course be promulgated.

Existing legislation provides for measures to control the importation of livestock. Importations of breeding stock have increased considerably in recent years. However, I regret to admit that quite a number of animals of absolutely inferior quality have been imported at exorbitant costs. It is generally accepted that we have a substantial source of superior genetic material at our disposal. Geneticists support the livestock industry in its views that the correct use thereof could substantially increase animal production in the Republic. There will, however, always remain the need to import selected genetic material to further improve the national herd. The livestock industry has requested stricter control measures regarding imports and the necessary provision therefor is included in the Bill. In terms of these proposals importations will not be authorized unless they have been recommended by the livestock industry. Similar provisions to control the exportation of breeding stock are provided.

The existing provisions for the incorporation of livestock breeders’ societies have been retained to a large extent. These bodies play a vital role in the promotion of livestock production, and their status in this regard has been set out more clearly. The Stud Book Association has always been officially recognized as the parent body of the stud-breeding industry. Provision is made for the retention of its status as such and also for the entrenchment of the exclusive powers which have through the years been granted thereto.

Thus far autonomy under existing legislation has only been requested by, and granted to, the Karakul Breeders’ Society. The overall interests of the stud-breeding industry could, however, be harmed by further fragmentation. Whilst the provision for the granting of autonomy to livestock breeders’ societies is withdrawn, it is provided that the Karakul Breeders’ Society shall retain its existing rights.

The Bill provides for the designation of an officer as Registrar of Livestock Improvement. The necessary measures are provided to enable him to effectively administer the proposed measures. It is also provided that an appeal may be lodged against any decision taken by him, and that such appeal shall be investigated and decided upon by an independent board appointed by the Minister.

Provision for the application of these measures in South West Africa is also included at the request of the Administration of the territory.

This Bill is the result of years of intensive study. The provisions thereof have been closely measured against the needs of the industry, and have also been compared with the legislation and practices in other countries. It has been compiled in the closest consultation with all concerned with the local livestock industry. It can truly be described as one reflecting the wishes of the industry, having been endorsed by the S.A. Agricultural Union, the Stud Book Association and the other organizations involved. In fact, the single objection which was received since the Bill was published last year, could be satisfied by an alteration to the clause concerned.

I would surely not be so pretentious as to believe that the Bill would end all problems of the livestock industry. It is, however, believed that, through the advisory board, the necessary instrument has been created for meaningful planning, proper organization and close co-operation between interested parties. I cherish the hope that this board will create the necessary stimulus for the rational readjustment of our livestock industry with a view to keeping abreast of future demands and developments.

Mr. Speaker, I hasten to say that I identify myself, as do the other hon. members of my party, with the last words expressed by the hon. the Minister when he said that he hoped the Advisory Board for Animal Production would have a beneficial influence on the whole industry in South Africa.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister started his speech by saying that this is an industry which started in 1657, and that all that it had learnt during the 300 years since then, is nothing compared with what is going to be learnt in future. I agree with him. The technological advances which have taken place over the last 30 years are probably more than had taken place in the previous 300 years, and who knows what is being held in store for the next 30 years?

Sir, we are here today dealing with a Bill to place on a proper footing an industry which holds a tremendous responsibility within the Republic of South Africa, a responsibility not only to feed our people, but to feed the peoples of the world, a responsibility not only to provide food, but to provide other by-products, such as wool, mohair, karakul, leather and other products which come from the livestock industry. It is also an industry which is there to provide entertainment for our people by way of, for instance, race horses, agricultural shows and things like that. As the hon. the Minister has said, it arises from a symposium that was held at the 50th anniversary congress of the Stud Book Association in 1971. It is my privilege and pleasure to pay tribute to the man who was the president of the Stud Book Association at the time, a man who today is a member of this House. I refer to the hon. member for Smithfield. [Interjections.] I agree with hon. members on that side when I say that tribute must be paid to him for the spadework which he did together with his executive at that time to get this legislation on the path to where it is today, here in this Chamber, where it is about to become law within the Republic of South Africa. Tribute must also be paid to his successor, Mr. Dodds Pringle, who served for two years and who, I know, also played a large part in bringing the Bill to the House. Tribute must of course also be paid to the present president of the Stud Book Association, Mr. Tim Murray, who held that post for three years. At the same time I believe tribute must be paid to the officials of the hon. the Minister’s department who have been closely concerned with the Bill and who have been associated with the executive of the Stud Book Association in the compiling of the Bill.

I believe the Bill can only be good for the industry and I hasten to add that we on this side will support the Bill wholeheartedly. We have one or two amendments which we will move during the Committee Stage, but apart from that I do not believe there will be any disagreement in principle with what is contained in the legislation.

Before I mention officials of the department to whom tribute should be paid to, I must not leave out the secretary of the Stud Book Association, Mr. A. B. Marshall. I am told that this man has worked tirelessly in the interests of the industry, particularly tirelessly to bring the legislation on to the Statute Book because of the good he believes can come to the industry. It is difficult to single out officials who have worked for the industry. The present Secretary of Agricultural Technical Services, Dr. Verbeek, who will not stay with us much longer, has worked very hard. His legal advisers and other officials of the department, some of whom we see in the officials’ bay at the moment, must also be paid tribute. However, one who is not here but to whom I think tribute should be paid, is Dr. Jan Hofmeyr of Irene. I am told that he played a very large part to advise the department and the Stud Book Association on this particular matter.

The Bill is a consolidation of four Acts which are repealed—the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act, the Registration of Pedigree Livestock Act, the Prohibition of Export of Ostriches Act and the Livestock Improvement Act. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so shy here this afternoon and why he does not take credit for all the new innovations which he has added. He really was rather self-effacing in his introduction of the Bill, but I want to say to him that we welcome these new innovations, the improvements which have been made and which I believe are a tremendous step forward. I believe that the improvements will lead to the reorganization and the revitalization of the whole animal industry in the Republic.

As I have said, when one realizes the onus which is placed upon this industry to feed not only the 70 million people who will be in our Republic within 20 years’ time, but to feed other people as well and also to supply the byproducts which come from the industry, one must say to the hon. the Minister that because of the importance of the industry and because of the powers which are given now to the registrar, the hon. the Minister has a tremendous task ahead of him in finding the right man to fill that post. He is a man who is going to play a most important and responsible part in the future of the livestock industry of South Africa. Not only must he be a senior and responsible official of his department, but he must also be a man who knows something about the industry and also “ ’n man wat in voeling met die nywerheid moet wees”. He must be a man who has a feeling for and sympathy with the industry, a man who will work with the advisory board which will for the first time gain legal status. I may add that the board will for the first time gain real status. The official will also have to work with the Stud Book Association. Particularly with regard to the improvement of our stock by import or the helping of other countries by the export of livestock, this man, whoever he might be in his department, is going to have a very responsible position. It is right that once this Bill is through, a permit may not be granted for the import of stock without the prior approval of the Stud Book Association, but this official, the registrar, will still have the power to gainsay a recommendation of the Stud Book Association. I agree that he will not have the power to issue a permit against the wishes of the Stud Book Association or the breed society, as has unfortunately happened in the past. The hon. the Minister mentioned that livestock of an inferior quality has been imported in the past. I hope this will not happen again, but I know, as the hon. the Minister knows, that permits have been issued for the import of livestock against the wishes of either the Stud Book Association or the breed society concerned.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon about a couple of cases which have been brought to my attention. I refer to a report in The Cape Times of 8 February of this year to the effect that a particular person has imported, or is in the process of importing, 12 yearling thoroughbred horses from New Zealand. It would appear that these 12 horses, which are being imported at a cost of over R240 000, are not being imported for the breeding industry, but for racing. They are not race-horses which are being imported for breeding, but racing horses that are to be used for racing. I am told that it is doubtful whether the quality of these horses is such that they will assist in any way the breeding of race-horses in this country.

I believe that in the last few months five further permits have been issued for the import of 17 more horses at a total cost of approximately R420 000. During the past few months we have had the situation where permits have been issued for the import of racing horses to a total value of more than R700 000. These are racing horses, not racehorses for breeding. I am being told that the permits have been granted against the wishes of the breed society concerned.

Shocking!

I am not at this stage saying that it is shocking or anything else. I am telling the hon. the Minister what I have been advised. [Interjections.] I am telling the truth; the hon. the Deputy Minister confirms that I am telling the truth. [Interjections.] I wish those hon. members would all shut up, as the hon. the Deputy Minister says, and allow me to continue my discussion with the hon. the Minister. I believe that it was wrong that these permits should have been granted. The Act as it is at present allowed the official concerned to grant those permits against the wishes of the breed society. That is particularly why today I welcome the provisions in this particular Bill, which will not allow this to happen again, because in future he may not grant a permit if it is against the wishes of the Stud Book Association. There is, however, one shortcoming. These horses have been allowed to come into South Africa at a tremendous cost. I believe it is an exorbitant price; it is more money than has been spent by the whole livestock industry on importation in a year. To allow these horses to come in, not for the benefit of breeding, I believe was a sad error in judgment of the official concerned.

Let us have alook at what the situation is going to be in the future. The situation for the future is something which I believe the hon. the Minister must look at—if I may have his attention for a moment—because he knows that the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association is not affiliated to the Stud Book Association. The breeders of racehorses are not affiliated.

Next month they will be selling more than 1 000 horses to the racing industry in this country. They have been prejudiced by the granting of these permits. It is not only they who have been prejudiced, but the country as a whole. We only have to look at the foreign exchange which has left the country. I do not believe that their situation is being solved by this Bill, because as I have said, they are not affiliated to the Stud Book Association. Unless the hon. the Minister will proclaim thoroughbred horses as animals in terms of this Act, he is not going to have control over the import of those animals. Those thoroughbred horses will still be allowed to come in without any control by the Stud Book Association or by the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association. I believe that it is in the best interests of the country as a whole that, in the first place, the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association should affiliate to the Stud Book Association, and, secondly that the hon. the Minister should proclaim thoroughbred horses as animals in terms of this particular Bill. It should be done soon, and I know the Stud Book Association will welcome the affiliation of the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association to them. At the moment the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association will not be able to control these imports in terms of this Bill, because it will also not be recognized or registered as a breeders’ society. To be registered as a breeders’ society, it must be affiliated to or have the approval of the Stud Book Association that it will accept it or grant it affiliate membership. Therefore, I ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness to look into the matter, because I do not think South Africa can afford to allow R700 000 in foreign exchange to go out of the country. It has gone out certainly not with the intention of assisting the breeding potential of the livestock industry in this country.

I support the hon. the Minister when he says that he hopes that in future, with the control of the Stud Book Association, which is the body which really knows the industry better than anybody else, we are not going to have the situation of livestock of an inferior quality coming in for breeding purposes. Similarly, we have to watch our exports. The hon. the Minister is aware of cases in the past where livestock of inferior quality has been exported. This can only do our breeding industry infinite harm. I know our industry is held in very high regard throughout the world, particularly in Africa. The African States have imported millions of rands worth of animals from the Republic of South Africa and they value the Republic of South Africa as a source of animals of the very highest quality. There is always, however, the man who is out to make a quick dime and the man who is prepared to take a chance and export animals of a low quality. In future the Stud Book Association will be able to control that. I do not need to tell the hon. the Minister about the cases of the swopping of animals so that the wrong animals leave the country and not those for which a permit has been granted.

I believe that the Advisory Board is now going to take a tremendous load off the shoulders of the department. If the board will act and operate in the way in which this Bill is framed, I can see only good coming from it.

There is a particular aspect of the Bill which I welcome more than all the others, namely the provision that is now being made for an appeal board. I know the problems which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has had in relation to appeals, not only appeals in terms of this Act, but appeals in terms of the Marketing Act, appeals because of price-fixing in respect of products and appeals for this and that. I believe that the farming community, more than any other community in this country, are quickest to run to the Minister. When they have a problem, they run straight to the hon. the Minister, because his door is open. I know that the hon. the Minister has had to carry a tremendous burden in this respect, and for that reason I welcome the innovation which is introduced in this Bill and which will be introduced in other Bills which we will discuss a little later in this House. When the hon. the Minister receives an appeal now, he will appoint an appeal board. It will be an ad hoc board, but I accept that it will be impossible to establish a permanent board because of the wide divergence of subjects that will be appealable. I want the hon. the Minister to consider an amendment which we shall move at Second Reading. It is an amendment to provide that the chairman of this particular board will be a magistrate or a retired magistrate, a judge or a retired judge. The provision which is contained in this Bill is that he should be a person who has a knowledge of law. Let us look at the powers which he will have. He will determine the procedure that will be adopted at a hearing of the board, he may summon any person to appear before the board, he shall administer the oath, he can call and interrogate a person and he can require him to produce any documents. When we look at the offences and penalties clause a little later on and we see the consequences of a failure to carry out the instructions or to answer a question of the chairman of the board, I believe that he should not simply be a person who has a knowledge of the law, but that he should be a person who has been versed in court procedure and who should have some idea of the manner in which a court is conducted. When we come to that final little clause which provides that no appeal shall lie against a decision of the board, my case is strengthened that this chairman should be somebody who has had more than just legal training and who has had training within the courts.

Similarly, I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider, when the time comes, an amendment which we will table in regard to the indemnity clause. This amendment will provide that if there is negligence the indemnity will not apply. This is only fair to any person who suffers damage through the negligence of an official whether he acts in good faith or not. I believe an official must act in good faith, but even when he acts in good faith there can be negligence. I do not believe that good faith implies that there is no negligence. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will consider that amendment when the time comes to move it a little later.

As I have indicated, we believe that this Bill will result in a tremendous step forward in the livestock industry in South Africa. It can only benefit us, provided the hon. the Minister, his department, the breeders’ societies, the Stud Book Association and all the persons concerned will enter into this in a spirit of goodwill, in a spirit of co-operation and in a spirit of doing what is good for the Republic of South Africa. It is for that reason that I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it very seldom happens that I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. However, I have the privilege of agreeing with him this afternoon except in regard to the proposed amendments. I had the privilege of attending some of the meetings at which the principles of this Bill were discussed and thrashed out. I can assure hon. members that we have here a Bill which has the approval of all the parties concerned. The hon. the Minister gave a very good indication of how the stock breeding industry developed in this country. I want to add that agricultural control boards are bringing about stability for the farmer with the administered prices, but that this often tends to entrench inefficiency because the prices are often determined in such a way that the less proficient producer can make a living.

I want to suggest that with every increase in the price of a product an excess of producers are attracted to that industry. This statement cannot be better illustrated than by the events of 1975 in the dairy industry in the Cape. The milk price was increased by 22% in that year, and the result was that 22% more producers were attracted to the industry. Production rose to such an extent that the bulk of that milk could not be sold at the fixed price. It had to be deposited in the surplus pool and the eventual payment which the farmer received was lower than the fixed price before the 22% increase. Therefore I want to make the statement that it does not always help simply to increase the price in order to accommodate the farmer. However, I want to say at once that I have nothing against the increase of the prices of agricultural products. Unfortunately, one always hears the public complaining about the increase in the prices of agricultural products, but one never hears about the increase in the price of Coca-Cola or cinema tickets. Nor does one hear any complaints about the fact that tickets for test matches at Loftus Versfeld cost R10. All one hears is that the prices of agricultural products have been increased, which is unfortunately the thankless task of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. A great deal is always said about these increases. Therefore I welcome this Bill which makes it possible for our farmers to produce more effectively and economically.

The most important part of this entire Bill is clause 14, in terms of which schemes may be established to improve the genetic production potential of animals. Artificial insemination is an extremely valuable aid in achieving this goal but, oh, how we, the pioneers in the field of artificial insemination, had to struggle for years to have this valuable aid to the improvement of our cattle accepted by the farmers. Artificial insemination is of great importance because it eliminates venereal diseases among animals and because a good bull can be used for so many more cows. With natural servicing, one can use a good bull for 50 cows per year at the most, but with artificial insemination one can use a good bull for anything between 8 000 and 12 000 cows per year. Therefore one can improve the quality of one’s stock so much more quickly.

However, artificial insemination alone cannot do all the good work. Artificial insemination must always go hand-in-hand with milk records, in the case of dairy stock, in order to be able to achieve the greatest possible benefit. In this respect, however, we are very far behind the leading stock breeding countries. Until very recently, we still determined the genetic production potential of a good bull according to the production of his dam and two grandams. However, I can mention examples of bulls where this method did not work at all. For instance I am thinking of a Jersey bull whose particulars are found in a report by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services concerning a bull performance testing scheme. Here we have a description of a certain Jersey bull, and I know that the production of this bull’s dam and two grandams was 10 000 litres and more per lactation period. However, according to this report of the department, that bull’s official particulars were negative. Although the dam’s and the grandam’s production was over 10 000 litres per lactation period, the daughter’s was not even 5 000 litres.

Therefore one cannot ascertain the value of a stud bull as a result of the production of his ancestors. There is only one method of ascertaining the real genetic production potential of a bull, and that is the production of his daughters. One of our large artificial insemination co-operatives has, for the past six years now, been doing important work in this connection. Every year a number of young bulls are bought and used shortly afterwards. With the co-operation of their members, these co-operatives have control over a large number of cows and the young bulls are used for an average of 400 cows each. Then they are laid off. They are not used again before their daughters have first shown what their production is. When those daughters have a high production, the bulls are then used on a large scale. The method used today in the leading cattle-breeding countries to determine the genetic value of those daughters, is no longer the old method of mother/daughter comparisons, but a method which is known as COC, i.e. comparison of contemporaries. When the daughters compare very favourably with their contemporaries, the bulls concerned are used on a very large scale.

The Department’s report gives an account of 40 bulls that have been analysed. According to the latest official analyses of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, of the 40 bulls which were analysed, only ten were worthwhile improvements on their daughters. The other 30 either brought about very slight improvements or were negative. These are all bulls which were purchased at a high cost at our national stud book auction or which were imported at a high cost. All that one can do with those 30 bulls, is to slit their throats because if they are used on the cows, the standard of the entire national herd is lowered. Therefore the only method of increasing the production of our national herd, is the COC method, according to which the young bulls are used immediately on a large number of herds and then laid off for years until the production of their daughters can be determined. After that the best bulls can be used on a very large scale. I want to repeat that the other 30 must be slaughtered, because they will lower the production potential of the national herd. Then I am not even speaking about the hundreds and thousands of bulls who are never even tested. Here we are dealing with only 40 exceptional bulls which the department has tested. What about the hundreds and thousands that are never tested?

Those are herd bulls like Jack Wainwright. He is a herd bull.

It sounds like a cock-and-bull story to me.

Mr. Speaker, is it a wonder that the average production of our national herd is not even 2 000 litres per year? This is disgracefully low. But, considering clause 14 of the Bill which is before the House at the moment, I foresee a very good future for us, because we are on the right track now and can select good bulls and then use them on a large scale. All the others must simply go to the butcher. Fortunately we can use the good bulls for between 8 000 and 12 000 cows per year by means of artificial insemination, as I have already mentioned. In this way we will be able to improve the production potential of our national herd much more quickly. Then our farmers will have to co-operate. It is a fact that an Africa State, Kenya, inseminates more cows successfully than we in the Republic of South Africa do. Kenya already inseminates more than a half million cows every year with successful results. We are nowhere near that figure yet. How on earth will we derive the greatest benefit from these well-tried bulls who are going to be made available to us in terms of clause 14 if our farmers do not use this method which is at our disposal? I repeat, our farmers will have to make use of this method, otherwise the production of our national herd will not increase to any appreciable extent.

Now I come to the question of price once again. Without increase in prices, the farmer can make a good living by using this type of bull, by effective control over his herds and effective management and feeding together with is wonderful method of breeding which is now being placed in his hands. In this way we will be able to make rapid progress. But then we will really have to ask our department to instruct our farming population and persuade them to make use of this means which is at the disposal for improving the production potential of our national herd very rapidly.

As far as the composition of the advisory board is concerned, I should like to submit politely to the consideration of the hon. the Minister that, when he takes this Bill to the Other Place, he should make a small change. Provision is made for the advisory board to consist of 16 members, inter alia, one each for the Milk Board and Dairy Board. I hear that the Milk Board and the Dairy Board are going to amalgamate soon. Then there will be one superfluous member. I should like that one member who will then be superfluous, to be allocated to the AI industry, because none of the institutions which are represented here, has already done so much and will do so much in the future to increase the production potential of our national herd than the AI industry.

Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to welcome and support this Bill very sincerely, clause 14 in particular. Together with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, may I also pay tribute to those men who worked so hard to draw up this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Paarl. Most of us know that the hon. member for Paarl is an expert when it comes to artificial insemination and that he is also a director of one of the companies in the Western Province which deals with that. However, I want to point out to the hon. member, regarding his suggestion that the Milk Board and Dairy Board be represented by one member, that provision is already being made for the Artificial Insemination Corporation to be represented. This is how I understand subsection (v) on page 6. I want to thank the hon. member for Paarl for thinking that the Dairy Board and the Milk Board should have only one representative. At a later stage I should like to suggest who should be appointed to the advisory board in the place of one of the two representatives of those two bodies, which will now become one.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not have been introduced at a more suitable time than this very moment. Throughout the world, and therefore in this country too, people employed in the agricultural industry are witnessing the population explosion and seeing how the earth on which we have to make a living and from which we have to produce sufficient food is systematically becoming too small to accommodate and feed the ever-increasing numbers. Therefore, this legislation could not have been introduced at a better time than the present moment.

The hon. the Minister is quite correct when he says that there is nothing really new included in this legislation, because, if we take note of the existing legislation— legislation which is now going to be repealed—we will find that many aspects of the Bill under discussion are already contained in it. Merely to make the South African public and ourselves aware once again of the immense role which animal production in South Africa plays in feeding people, it is a good thing, in my opinion, that this legislation is now going to be placed on the Statute Book in its amended form, and that an advisory committee is being formed, a committee which will be able to advise the agricultural industry and which can play an important role in the sphere of research and in encouraging production in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, if we bear in mind that there are approximately 35 million sheep and 12 million head of cattle in South Africa, and if we also bear in mind what the requirements of South Africa will be in approximately 25 years’ time, it is very clear—to me in any event—that we will not only have to improve the quality of our agricultural products, but that we will have to do our best to increase our herds considerably. With its extensive farming operations, South Africa has a very low calf and lamb percentage. We in these benches believe—and I have often said this before—that South Africa will not only have to increase its agricultural production immensely, but that it will also have to restrict its losses, losses of calves and lambs in particular, to a minimum. Therefore it is not only an increase in production which we need; there are also the great losses which we suffer as a result of disease, climatic conditions, poor management and poor feeding, things to which we will have to pay more and more attention, apart from the fact that we will have to improve our breeding methods.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South argued that South Africa spent a great deal of money on foreign exchange to import animals, for example race-horses. Now I immediately want to tell the hon. member what my standpoint is in this regard. If one does not have an animal available—it does not matter whether it is a racehorse, a ram or a bull—one has to get it from somewhere else. If it is necessary for us to improve our livestock in this country and the economic conditions of the country allow it, we must not hesitate to get the necessary animals from elsewhere. If we here in South Africa find that our animals are better than those of the next man and that we can therefore be of assistance to others, especially to people to the north of us in Africa, we must not hesitate either to make those animals available to them. If one looks at the history of breeding, one finds that this is the only way to improve the quality of one’s animals, i.e. that one must be prepared to make use of someone else’s animals which are better than one’s own. In this respect one ought not therefore to adopt a hot-headed attitude, because one must think how one’s stock can improve as a whole. What the advisory board will have to do in this regard and what will serve the best interests of South Africa and its neighbouring countries will be at least to put its own stock at the disposal of others.

I am not going to discuss the various clauses and details of this Bill; there will be an opportunity to do so during the Committee Stage. However, I want to urge the hon. the Minister to look at this country’s merino industry, our sheep industry. It is one of the industries which is very well suited to South Africa in extensive circumstances. We see that the S.A. Wool Board is now going to have representation on this advisory board, and I do not have any objection to this because I think that the people on the board are all people who are in a position to put expert knowledge at the disposal of the advisory board. However, there is a stud breeders’ association, the Ram Stud Breeders’ Association, which plays a major role in developing our meat industry and our merino industry in particular. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, when he brings about the amalgamation of the Milk Board and Dairy Board, should not also consider granting representation on this body to the stud breeders’ association.

The next point which I should like to raise in connection with the Bill is that I believe that when it comes to the advice which will have to be given to the advisory board, they will have to think in the direction of more intensive ways of improving our animal production in South Africa. These will have to be applied even in the extensive areas. For years we thought that in order to produce, an animal had to graze in the natural veld or on artificial pasturage. However, I am quite convinced that unless steps are taken to provide for more intensive feeding or to develop a more intensive manner of causing animals to produce, for example in smaller pens, etc., we will not be in a position to provide all the protein requirements of South Africa by the end of this century. After all, it is an accepted fact and general knowledge that someone who has a dairy and who allows his animals to graze on his pasturage does not have a bad production, but if he cuts down the pasturage and places his cattle under intensive conditions where he feeds them on concentrated feed and on the pasturage which he has cut down, his results are much better and he finds that his production increases tremendously.

Then he is bankrupt!

No, this does not happen in all cases. I can mention many examples of people who cut down their lucerne or other pasturage which can be cut down, because if they feed their animals under intensive conditions, they get much further and the production usually rises. We in South Africa will have to start thinking in this direction more and more, even when it comes to meat, lamb and wool production. The advisory board will have to move in this direction because we do not have enough natural resources at our disposal, and therefore we shall have to increase our production under intensive conditions. Indeed, this intensive method of production is being used more and more throughout the world. My honest opinion is that this advisory board will have to concentrate its research and guidance in that direction, because our land is not increasing and therefore we will have to produce more and more on smaller units. We will have to increase vertically our production on the smaller units. This is the direction in which it should be done. If the advisory board which the hon. the Minister is going to create in terms of this Bill is going to do its duty as defined in clause 3, I can see that it will greatly benefit our animal production in South Africa and South Africa will find itself in a position where it will not only be able to provide for its own requirements to a greater extent, but for those of others too.

The hon. member is now discussing food production at great length, and I am listening attentively. Is the hon. member convinced that our food production will be able to keep pace with our population growth by the end of the century?

I believe that our food production will be able to keep pace until the end of the century, if we are prepared to do certain things. I think I have already tried to explain that we shall have to increase our production in South Africa intensively, in a vertical way, if we want to provide for those requirements. I realize, of course, that the point implied by the hon. member for Carletonville is that one will also have to think of keeping the population explosion within bounds. I do not differ with the hon. member in that respect, but it is not always so easy for people—especially those who are in various stages of development—to keep their numbers within reasonable bounds. The rest of the world will always need food, in any event. Therefore we shall be able to export food. Africa needs food. Therefore it is necessary to increase our food production in South Africa. If the advisory board which is going to be created can provide for these requirements, South Africa’s agricultural industry will certainly achieve success.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the interesting situation has developed that even before the establishment of the advisory board representations are being made for some other body, in the event of the Milk Board and the Dairy Board amalgamating, to be given representation in the place of one of the boards. The hon. member for Paarl will see that clause 3(2)(b)(v) does provide for the artificial insemination centres. In other words, if his request were to be conceded to, it would mean that that body would have two representatives on that board.

The hon. member for Newton Park argued for membership being awarded to the Merino ram breeders of South Africa. I want to tell him that I foresee the Merino Ram Breeders’ Association gaining full membership of the S.A. Stud Book Association and being fully affiliated in the near future. I quote from the constitution of the Merino Stud Breeders’ Association as I have it here before me—

On page 12, section 14 provides—

In other words, here, too, we have the position that if a particular breeders’ association were to obtain representation on the advisory board, all breeders’ associations could, in my opinion, rightly claim membership. In view of the fact that this is a large board consisting of 16 members, I prefer requesting the hon. the Minister to reduce the number of representatives to 15 when the Milk Board and the Dairy Board form one board, so that the membership will not remain at 16 as the legislation provides at the moment. I shall endeavour to prove at a later stage that the entire livestock industry is united in these 16 representatives.

Over the past few years all sectors of the livestock industry as well as the Department of Agriculture have realized not only the necessity for a change to be effected in the methods employed in the livestock industry, but also the necessity for all facets of the livestock industry to be placed on a properly co-ordinated basis so as to enable the entire livestock industry to meet the future needs of the country. It is essential to have new legislation uniting all facets of livestock improvement. What is particularly essential is the establishment of the Advisory Board for Animal Production for the purpose of assisting the hon. the Minister of Agriculture in an advisory capacity with regard to the planning and development of the livestock industry, with regard to general national policy, with regard to auxiliary services and with regard to research. I want to contend that the Livestock Improvement Bill which is before this House, complies with all these requirements.

In the first place it provides for the establishment of an Advisory Board for Animal Production. Repeated references have been made to this body and its object is to plan and to develop all the various branches of the livestock industry on a co-ordinated basis. The advisory board will consist of 16 members of whom two will be officials of the Department of Agriculture and one an official of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The other 13 members will be representative of the livestock industry as a whole. We have already experienced a problem ensuring that, when the number was determined, every sector of the livestock industry could have only one representative.

In this way the S.A. Stud Book Association, with all its affiliations, has only one representative on the advisory board. Therefore I believe that when the Milk Board and the Dairy Board amalgamate, that particular sector will also be well represented on the advisory board and that it will not be necessary to appoint a replacement as the 16th member. I believe that the advisory board—provided it meets and operates regularly—will be able to undertake the planning, development and organization of the livestock industry in such a way that it will not only meet our local requirements, but will also ensure that the Republic will be able to hold its own on our sub-continent.

The legislation also provides for the appointment of a registrar so that the application of the Bill will be vested in one person in order to ensure the necessary co-ordination. It also provides for the registration of inseminators and artificial insemination centres as well as for the approval of animals for artificial insemination. As the hon. member for Paarl has already pointed out, we are living in a century of artificial insemination. Therefore it is essential for strict control to be exercised over the way in which artificial insemination is used in the whole livestock industry. Therefore it is very clearly stated in clauses 7 to 13, firstly, under what conditions semen may be collected and artificial insemination may be carried out. Secondly, the conditions under which semen may be sold are laid down. Thirdly, the requirements with which inseminators and artificial insemination centres have to comply for registration are laid down. Finally, the requirements for the approval of animals for artificial insemination are laid down.

Furthermore, the legislation also provides for the establishment of schemes for the evaluation and certification of the performance of animals of various kinds and breeds to be able to evaluate and subsequently improve the genetic production ability, to which the hon. member for Paarl correctly referred. The increase in the relative importance of animal production and animal products in the national economy of developing countries in particular, has become an important feature and can only be brought about by the progressive application of modern science and technology. Therefore the establishment of schemes for the evaluation and the certification of the performance of animals of various kinds and breeds in order to improve the genetic production potential of these kinds and breeds, is of the utmost importance, not only for the cattle industry, but also for the country in general.

The legislation also provides for the control over importing and exporting of certain animals, semen, ova and eggs. As the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South correctly remarked, a great many problems arose in regard to importing and exporting, but especially in regard to the importing of animals over the past few years, and a great difference of opinion, even great confusion, often prevails between the various stock-breeding associations, the S.A. Stud Book Association, and even between the various departments. Therefore the livestock industry welcomes clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill. These clauses provide that any person who wishes to obtain authorization for importing or exporting, has to submit his application to the stock-breeding association concerned. The stock-breeding association concerned has to present the application, together with the recommendation concerning it, to the executive committee of the South African Stud Book Association, who in turn present it to the registrar. If no such breeders’ association exists, the application has to be presented to the executive committee of the South African Stud Book Association and the same procedure is followed. I believe that as far as this matter is concerned, we shall quite probably solve the problem of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In other words, what these clauses actually say, is that importing and exporting will not take place in future without recommendation of the livestock industry.

Furthermore, provision is also made for the incorporation of the various livestock breeders’ societies, the S.A. Stud Book Association and the Karakul Breeders’ Society. These bodies have already been incorporated, but this Bill re-affirms this aspect. The S.A. Stud Book Association was incorporated as long ago as 21 April 1921. Since those years the S.A. Stud Book Association and its affiliated breeders’ societies have dedicated themselves to the improvement of farming stock. During 1971, when it celebrated its jubilee, to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has already referred, the S.A. Stud Book Association deemed it necessary, due to the rapidly changing conditions and requirements, to start an intensive inquiry on a high level to determine in which way the stud book livestock industry could make a greater and even more constructive contribution to stock improvement in this country. The need for new legislation, in which all facets of stock improvement were brought together, was very clear to the S.A. Stud Book Association, and this is why the Association took the initiative and played a leading role in the preparation of this Bill, something which we want to compliment them on this afternoon. Therefore the stud book industry also sees its future task as being not only one of keeping records of parentage but also considers stud book stock-breeding to be the centre of the livestock industry which has to provide the livestock industry with the necessary genetic seminal material.

I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who paid tribute to certain persons. I associate myself with this. I should also like to add the name of Dr. Laurence, for the record. I want to conclude by complimenting the hon. the Minister, the department and all the organizations concerned with the livestock industry, on the insight which they displayed in introducing this Bill. It can be said with complete justification and authority that if this Bill is approved and all aspects of it are fully implemented, together with the integration of the performance schemes and the registration systems on the same computer—and this is very important—this legislation will definitely place the South African livestock industry on the best organized and co-ordinated level of any industry in any country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Smithfield and other speakers today and I want to associate myself with their remarks too. The Bill satisfies a great need in our livestock industry and will be very beneficial. The creation of an Advisory Board is a step forward and the general framework of the Bill is a very good one. We therefore commend the hon. the Minister for the general principles and purposes of this Bill. However, with respect, the Bill is spoilt by certain aspects towards the end. In certain cases the Bill grants excessive powers to officials, and I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that these powers are, in fact, quite unnecessary. I do not think they are needed in the Bill but they are there. These excessive powers are inroads into the basic rights of individuals. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did just touch upon these aspects which, as I have said, I do not think are needed. I shall be referring to them in due course. We shall vigorously oppose those measures, but we will support the Bill at this reading and propose amendments in the Committee Stage.

Let me just say, however, that there are certain legal devices in this Bill that we approve of. One of them is that in clause 10(5) the Bill provides that, even without the request of the applicant, reasons should be given if an application has been refused. I wish the hon. the Minister of Justice had taken note of that short of provision in regard to the Liquor Bill. However, as I say, there are three excessive powers given to officials in this Bill.

Are you dealing with the “Bill” or the “bull”?

Let me say what these powers are. Firstly, in terms of clause 30(1 )(b) an official has the right to go onto premises and demand information from people on pain of a very severe penalty. Let me say that these officials in any event have very great powers in terms of clause 30. However, to most of those powers we have no objection. For instance, they can go onto premises, seize documents, seize animals, semen, ova or eggs, inspect any operation, and so on. To those powers we do not object. However, when the officials are entitled to demand information from people on pain of a very severe penalty, a penalty of two years’ imprisonment or a fine of R1 000 or both the imprisonment and the fine, one is intruding into the individual rights of people in a way which, I suggest, is not allowed in any other sphere of the law in South Africa. For instance, in 1964 the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court said in the case of Rossouw V. Sachs (Vol. 2 of the South African Law Reports, page 559)—

Furthermore, in 1946 the Appellate Division said in the Patel case—

In terms of the Bill before us officials will be entitled to go onto premises and question people about matters when they suspect that something is wrong—the clause provides that they shall not go onto premises unless they suspect that something wrong is being done on the premises.

Are you a farmer? What kind of farmer are you?

I submit that we have never had a law in South Africa which, ipso facto, made it a criminal offence for a person to fail to answer questions. There are cases, of course, where witnesses can be compelled to answer questions, but never do we compel a person, who is suspected of some wrongdoing, to incriminate himself by answering questions. I suggest that that intrusion into the individual’s rights should not be allowed. In fact, in addition to the cases I have cited, rule 2 of the Judges’ Rules in South Africa makes it absolutely clear that—

The next power given to officials which constitutes an intrusion into individuals’ rights is contained in clause 33 on page 42 of the Bill. This matter, too, was touched on by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South when he spoke of State indemnity. This clause indemnifies the State from any liability—in other words, the State will pay no compensation—in respect of any act done in good faith under this Act or a scheme. One of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House asked: “What kind of farmer are you?” I want to point out that, where such a clause is included, any official, even though he may in fact be acting in good faith, might come onto one’s property and handle one’s best bull, perhaps a bull costing R20 000, in a reckless or negligent manner as a result of which the bull dies. In terms of this clause the State cannot be held liable for that. An official might, come onto one’s farm and, driving very fast or recklessly, run over one’s child, injure one’s wife or injure some animals, but the State cannot be held liable for that. Why should the State be indemnified against negligence and recklessness of this sort? Surely an official, like any other person performing a duty, should perform it in such a manner that he is not negligent or reckless, particularly in the case where that official already has tremendously large powers and rights of entering, of seizing, sampling and examining, etc., as this Bill provides. We will therefore in the Committee State move that “recklessness” and “negligence” should not be indemnified.

Finally, the third category of intrusion into individual rights is found in clause 26(1)(a). The position there is that people may enter upon premises, they may enter vehicles, vessels, etc., when certain contraventions are suspected. We suggest that what it should say there is that they may enter upon those premises, etc., where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence. Many times these matters are brought before the courts and the courts have ruled that there should in fact be reasonable grounds. It is not merely a question of whether an official suspects; he must have reasonable grounds for suspecting. There is agricultural legislation in which, on many occasions in the past, that sort of phraseology has been used, i.e. where the suspicion should be on reasonable grounds. We shall move at the Committee Stage that that should be the test, and not merely a suspicion.

We do support the Bill, but I do ask the hon. the Minister to consider these intrusions into the basic rights of individuals, illusions which, as I say, I do not think are necessary for the good working of the Bill. It is a Bill which in other respects is a very good Bill and very beneficial to the industry.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is concerned about the severe penal measures contained in the Bill. I do not think the issue is merely one of an officer who wants to inspect the hon. member’s bull. I think it goes much further than that, because officers will very often have the task of visiting bull testing stations, carrying out inspections where dozens of bulls which are to undergo intensive tests, can be stabled. In the nature of the matter, these are expensive bulls that are sold by auction. When such a bull is sold by auction, his performance data are made available and this determines the price of the bull. In other words, there must be very strict control of these tests so that there can be no possibility of deception as regards the tests and trials. I think it is vital that the inspectors of the Government should have these powers.

It is a pleasure to take part in the discussion of a very positive Bill. We should all like to testify to the necessity for this legislation. I think it is high time for our animal production in South Africa, as embodied in this legislation, to be promoted further. To me the basic issue here is utilization of our agricultural land in South Africa. Only 15% of the surface area of the Republic is available for field husbandry due to rainfall and types of soil. The rest of the available agricultural land is comprised of extensive areas, due to low rainfall and mountainous conditions, and it is specifically these areas which must be utilized by livestock production. That is why livestock production is the most vital agricultural sector in South Africa, and I think it is high time that we should introduce legislation to comply with this requirement.

There is, however, another very important aspect. If we wish to promote livestock production in South Africa, we must also take into account the fact that we have extreme climatic variations in South Africa. There are different areas, which have to be farmed under different circumstances. In other words, the breeds that must be made available for livestock production in South Africa, must have an exceptional capacity for adaptation in various climatic conditions in various areas. This certainly sets the Animal Production Board, which has to announce the schemes, a very major challenge. One of our problems lies in the fact that although we have sufficient good genetic material in South Africa, it is not readily available. One of the solutions, as the hon. member for Paarl rightly indicated, is perhaps artificial insemination. However this, too, creates practical problems, inter alia, problems relating to the distribution of semen and the expense involved, and also management problems. Clearly one cannot train everyone to inseminate overnight. The management conditions of a farming enterprise are not such that a cattle farmer can change to artificial insemination overnight. This is, of course, a fine ideal to strive towards, but at the moment it is perhaps not entirely practical.

Mr. Speaker, there are the extensive areas to which I have already referred, areas which, for the most part, must be utilized, particularly for meat production. Meat livestock in those areas had to be specially adapted. Then, too, we have the intensive agricultural regions, regions which are dependent on intensive feeding particularly as far as meat production is concerned. I believe that we in South Africa are lagging a long way behind in this field. One of the reasons why we in South Africa have not yet been able to establish the feedlot industry properly, as has been done in America, is that we are saddled with the problem that we do not have good genetic material specially adapted for feedlot conditions. For this purpose, animals have to be bred with a particularly high daily feed turnover. We know that there are animals which show a daily weight increase of up to three kg.

However, such animals are scarce. Furthermore there is the problem that the sources of protein required for intensive feeding in a feedlot are very expensive. Consequently there has to be a very good balance between feed intake and the percentage yield per carcass. This is an extremely delicate economic problem and I believe that it is vital that we should in fact move in this direction as well, in order to determine whether we are able to come up with better genetic material in this connection. Simply to place animals in a feedlot today without further ado, and decide that they are going to be fed, is a very i dangerous thing. One can suffer financially in the process. We have experience of this.

Mr. Speaker, to me clause 15 is of great importance. This is the clause in terms of which the Animal Advisory Board has to establish its scheme. The scheme must, inter alia, determine the requirements and the evaluations which must be laid down with regard to a specific animal and a specific breed. This will mean that perhaps we shall eventually—and this is something to be idealistic about—be like the Americans, who simply make use of a catalogue to select a bull; a bull in a specific price category within the means of a specific buyer. When such a method is adopted, it is unnecessary for a buyer to go to the breeder to look at the animal in question. The buyer need not himself go and see if the bull does not perhaps have a crooked horn or a long tail or anything of the kind. He buys the bull from a catalogue and by making use of an existing code or indication in the catalogue in terms of which the performance records of the bull in question are indicated.

Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the days when I was a child. Two Afrikaner breeders in the Vetrivier region were carrying on a tremendous feud, and it was so bad that the church board had to appoint a reconciliation commission because the two did not speak to each other, and all this over a bull’s heel. Mr. Speaker, I believe that those days are past. It is no longer a question of a bull’s heel, or whether one horn is too high or too low. Those days are past.

Order! Was that Dr. Robert XII?

Mr. Speaker, you yourself will know.

Another aspect of the Bill which we are particularly happy about, is the fact that all the bodies concerned with animal production in South Africa are being co-ordinated, and this applies to the marketing sphere as well. It is of great importance that the four or five pastoral boards, namely the Milk Board, the Meat Board, the Wool Board, etc., should be linked to the Advisory Board. The reason is that one can never separate marketing and production and the marketing boards, too, are integrated into the whole system under the Bill.

Just one final remark concerning a matter of great importance to me. Through the offices of the Minister and the secretary, our department affords statutory recognition to all bodies that make a substantial contribution to animal production in South Africa. In their activities as overall controllers of the stock in South Africa, the department and the Minister have integrated with other bodies concerned with this aspect. To me this is an exceptional achievement. Instead of the department carrying on with research in isolation—this is not always the impression people have formed— this legislation is undoubtedly a sign of great co-operation and preparedness on the part of the department to give recognition and co-operation to the bodies mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, for many years it has been of urgent importance that consolidated and improved legislation should be introduced to furnish guide-lines for stock improvement and the stock-breeding industry in South Africa. The principal goal of the cattle industry, viz. that of promoting production, has in the past often given way to aesthetic and commercial motives. In the past, stock breeders bought fine fat animals in large quantities, whose functional production was inefficient. Many stud breeders became breeders. They became ram breeders and bull breeders who only thought in terms of the sale of their animals, irrespective of the production potential and genetic value of such an animal. The outer, phenotypical rating and selection of animals was wholly exaggerated. It was done on the basis of appearance, and if an animal’s appearance was good, it was good enough to be included in the stud, irrespective of whether that animal was really fertile or wellbred. A ram’s head was important, and every male animal had to have a ram’s head in those times, often irrespective of what the animal’s hindquarters looked like. A breeding animal was often only inspected from the front and what its rear looked like was not of great importance. Its weight increase, fertility, prepotency or the quality of the progeny was often not known. Often this is still the case today with animals sold at auctions.

Show successes have been a major consideration. I myself have seen farmers quickly “doctoring” their stud animals in a gravel pit just before the show. The black spots on the white hooves are concealed and the big fat tails of those fat-tailed Persian sheep are treated with black shoe polish to remove the few white spots. We have also seen how whims of fashion introduced by prominent breeders are sought after by the buying public. Among breeders of Afrikaner cattle we have often seen that the way in which the tail is attached to the body, the way in which the horn is curved, the colour of that horn and the “coffin head” of that animal was of great importance, irrespective of the fertility of the cow and the breeding efficiency of the bull.

In the world of Dorpers we have also had various whims of fashion. Whereas previously we chose the stocky animal with a good mixture of hair and wool, at present the animal with the long thin neck and peppercorns is sought after. In this way farmers have simply tried to copy these prominent breeders. We have seen how weak animals with the right colour and colour pattern have been fattened up and covered with a blanket in the stall in order to conceal that “duiwelsgreep” behind the shoulder blades and to conceal other defects as well by fattening the animals. These overfed animals have often become infertile due to fatty degeneration of the ovaries. Often young farmers have purchased expensive breeding animals which have subsequently simply failed to produce. Breeders have often walked off with show prizes, but in doing so have not really improved the breeding value of the breed. Often, preconceived notions of what a breed or animal should look like are imposed on the animal. The animal simply had to look the way it was supposed to look, irrespective of the physiological or climatic conditions that animal had to contend with in the veld or in nature. Stud animals with family trees longer than those of generations of aristocrats and dynasties have been sold at very high prices in the past without any mention of how well those animals really produced in the field or in the feed lot or how good the milk production of such an animal was.

There are many examples of how herds that have not been stud herds, have been better producers than the registered animals. Consequently this system has given rise to malpractices in breeding, which were rife in the past and still occur today in some cases. We have had overpampering of animals and overfeeding of weak animals. Then, too, there has been concealment of scrub cattle bred from registered animals whereas the sire, in spite of his poor breeding potential, has still been sold at a very high price.

Another example of these malpractices were that infertile animals were sold at high prices on shows. As a final example I point out that breeding animals with poor prepotency, particularly in the case of crossbreeds such as Dorpers and Bonsmares, are sold at very high prices of up to thousands of rands. There are cases of poorly adapted animals suited to a specific environment being sold and taken to a different environment For example, animals of the British meat breeds have been taken to the Northern Transvaal, but because they were simply unable to stand the heat, they did not do well. In the past we have had cases of animals with recessive genes due to inbreeding eventually landing up in a stud. The weak animals with breeding defects are concealed, but other animals in that stud are sold as breeding animals. Often one cannot see the recessive gene in the stud animal, but when it is paired with its own offspring, it appears in a dominant form. This has happened through the years, e.g. in the case of Herefords, where an attempt was made to breed stocky animals and at the same time there was selection for a dwarf-recessive gene which later occurred in a dominant form in various herds in the USA and here in South Africa as well, and as a result of which various top studs had subsequently to be rectified by the department. If we could eliminate some of these malpractices by means of this legislation, then it will have achieved a very important aim. In the past we have neglected the mensurable hereditary scientific criteria in favour of more dramatic show achievements and this has certainly not always been conducive to productivity. What ought the scientific aim of such stock improvement legislation to be? I feel it ought to be to further the maximum efficiency of production, whether it be eggs, milk, meat, wool or skins. The majority of these products can be measured scientifically. Another important characteristic for which selection ought to take place, is adaptability. How often have we not seen how various breeds are specifically bred to flourish in various climatic regions? For example, there is the ordinary merino sheep in the Karroo. It is at home there. However, there is the German merino, too, a sheep which has to be fed. We also have the Letelle merino, the Dormer and the Döhne which is adapted to the sourveld regions in particular. All these sheep are merinos but they have been bred specifically to adapt to their special ecological environments. I feel that not enough attention has been given to some of the breeds to make provision for the differences. The fertility of animals has often been neglected in the past, but through the measuring processes it can be substantially improved and the production of our stock can be increased.

Then, too, there is the efficiency of feed turnover—various hon. members have already referred to this—and the weight-forage, which has become a factor of great importance today, but there are still many stud breeders and breeders’ societies who ignore these important characteristics, which should be taken into account in breeding. We know that animals often have to consume ten pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. In some cases the manure is treated and fed to the animals again to enable them to derive further nutrition from it. Dorpers in the veld sometimes show a weight increase of only % pound per day, whereas other breeds are capable of increasing by ½ pound or more in weight. Such animals are usually selected for an efficient turnover. These performances can be measured. The efficiency of feed turnover is also hereditary to a high degree. It is very important that one should select the animals in such a way that the characteristics can be carried over to the progeny.

Today farmers can no longer afford to have poor producers on expensive land, and passengers must therefore be treated as scrub cattle. We so often find that passengers continue to graze in the veld, instead of being sent to the market. The reason is that the farmer himself does not know that some of the animals in his herd are passengers. The new stock improvement legislation ought to limit the malpractices and be conducive to sound methods. I think the legislation has already laid the foundations for doing most of these things correctly. I am told that the legislation is a product of about six years’ work. I want to congratulate the people involved on the outstanding piece of legislation they have submitted. To the hon. the Minister and his departmental staff I just want to say that we on this side of the House have been waiting for this legislation for many years.

The Advisory Board for Animal Production that is being established has 16 members, whose task it is to advise the hon. the Minister on matters concerning the orderly development and improvement of the different branches of the livestock industry. Advice must also be furnished with regard to research, the information services and the other services that are necessary. All are very important facets of farming and we are very grateful that the scope of this legislation is so wide, because the information service has one of the most important tasks to perform; that of teaching farmers how to farm judiciously and how to purchase breeding stock. The Advisory Board for Animal Production is an institution of vital importance. I only hope that the majority of its members will be agricultural scientists. There will also be a Registrar of Animal Improvement. We are particularly pleased that this legislation includes the improvement and control, on a responsible basis, of artificial insemination, about which a great deal has already been said, as well as breeders’ societies and the stud book.

One of the most important clauses is clause 14, which permits the Minister to establish schemes on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, for the evaluation and certification of the performance of animals with a view to improving the genetic production potential of kinds and races. That clause will cause our cattle-breeding industry to forge ahead rapidly. The various schemes relating to the performance and progeny testing of our animals are already in operation in the country. This has already been applied to sheep and cattle for some time, and we are pleased to see it combined here into one piece of legislation which will make it much easier for all of us to interpret. It has often been proved in practice that the best genetic progress is made in this way and that this really does contribute towards the improvement of the breed. The percentage of heritability for weighed teat mass in cattle is 30%. For growth potential it is 35%. The percentage of heritability for the mass at 18 months is as high as 60% and the heritability for adult mass is 80%. If, therefore, one selects for these mensurable characteristics, one immediately finds a vast improvement. I want to say that an animal ought only to be acceptable as a stud animal for registration if it has also been subjected to performance and progeny testing. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it is in fact the intention that the stud animals of the future will only be acceptable if they have in fact been subjected to performance testing. However, malpractices in the performance test scheme still occur too. We find that animals that have fared badly in the performance tests are sold to farmers as tested animals. They are sold as tested animals whether they have performed well or badly, and some of our buyers have not yet developed the discernment to realize that there is a world of difference between animals that have performed well and those that have performed badly. All have been tested, but the one has simply not performed well.

We should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that animals that perform badly be sent to the abattoirs. It has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Bethal that such animals should be slaughtered, and it could easily be arranged that all breeders who submit their animals for participation in a performance test scheme of this kind should also undertake that if animals fall below a certain standard, they can be sent direct to the abattoirs if they are ready for the market. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it is possible to do anything of the kind under this legislation. If we want to compete, we shall most certainly have to do this, or else we shall again distribute those weak genes among the breeding herds of our country. Provision has also been made for control of the import and export of breeding animals. I should like to know how these clauses will apply to the Bantu areas and Rhodesia. Then, too, I want information concerning the import and export of karakul sheep to and from South West Africa. In the past there was in fact a restriction on the import and export of karakul breeding animals to and from South West Africa. Subsequently, however, all restrictions were dropped, and it is not even necessary for me to mention the smuggling of karakul stud animals to and from South West Africa. How will the implementation of this legislation affect the karakul industry and the importation and exportation of animals to and from South West Africa?

In Clause 16(6) it is mentioned that if the registrar refuses to agree to such importation and exportation the reason will not be disclosed. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister why he and the department are not willing to disclose the reasons for refusing of such concessions. I do not think there is anything they need be ashamed of. There will undoutedly be good reasons. For example, I can think of various possible reasons. I know that many farmers misused the situation. They often went overseas to purchase stud animals. They then draw the full travelling expenses there and back for income tax purposes as farm expenditure when they return with a few breeding animals. This may be one of the reasons. Another is that it may be felt that we already have sufficient stud animals in South Africa. Then, too, another reason could be that of protecting our stud farmers here in South Africa. I think that any farmer of sense would be able to accept those reasons if they did in fact apply. I feel, therefore, that the hon. the Minister ought to be willing to provide those reasons if he does not want to grant concessions for imports.

I also get the impression that this legislation does not cover all the aspects of our livestock breeding industry. There is fish breeding, which is attracting growing interest, and there is a fish breeding station which devotes itself to the breeding of special types of fish such as trout, kurpers and even black bass. These are very adaptable fish with a particularly rapid rate of growth. I wonder therefore whether this legislation should not be made applicable to this aspect as well.

Then there are pigeon farmers, too, who breed homing pigeons and fancy pigeons and even pigeons for eating. I should like to know whether they, too, will fall under the jurisdiction of this legislation. Then, too, there are people who breed cage birds and also hunting birds, and who import pheasant and partridge eggs for release here. I am of the opinion that those imports, too, ought to be controlled by legislation of this nature. However, provision is only being made here for ostrich eggs, or does the hon. the Minister think that that aspect should fall under “poultry”. I should like to know what the position is in that regard. In South Africa there is quite a lot of interest in fur-bearing animals, too, animals like chinchillas and minks, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this legislation will apply to them as well. I should also like to know what became of the old Bull Improvement Act. Was it repealed, or has it perhaps also been included in this legislation? We regard this legislation as a major step in the right direction, legislation which will provide a sound foundation for the livestock industry in the future, and we are very grateful for it.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that there is a Bill before the House this afternoon about which there is unanimity, but which has nevertheless given rise to such a wide-ranging discussion. It is very clear from the discussions that have taken place thus far that the Bill finds great favour with all parties in the House. That, too, is why the Bill is welcomed with great acclaim. We all realize the importance of the Bill.

The Livestock Improvement Bill that we are dealing with today calls to mind the Plant Improvement Bill which the House passed last year. That Bill had the same objectives as the Livestock Improvement Bill. The Plant Improvement Bill made it possible for us to release, protect and preserve virus-free plant material bred at enormous expense by research institutes so that it would not be lost anywhere.

While I am referring to high costs, I want to refer in particular to what it costs in research to bring into being and make available to the public anything of good quality, anything of value to an industry. I could just mention as a matter of interest that it costs the State as much as R35 000 to make one new cultivar available to the fruit industry. We probably all know how much more it costs to make anything of value available to the livestock breeding industry.

Since we have had such a wide-ranging discussion this afternoon concerning the improvement of livestock breeding, I do not think we can omit to refer very specifically to what the research institutes of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are doing to make valuable material available to the cattle breeding industry, due to the fact that the demands made on food production in the country are increasing steadily. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the fact that these demands are increasing steadily and that in the future we shall have to provide food, not only to our own growing population, but for neighbouring states as well. It is a generally accepted principle that we shall have to concentrate on increased and more intensive production, because our available agricultural land is not increasing, but dwindling, and because the population is increasing at a very high rate, so that eventually we shall have more mouths to feed and less land available. I think it is fitting that we should refer this afternoon specifically to the share of the research institutes in the improvement and increase in production.

In the discussions that have taken place here, virtually all fields have been covered. Nevertheless, I should like to come back to the subject of artificial insemination, concerning which the hon. member for Paarl made a very interesting and wide-ranging speech. The bill provides for the control, collection and provision to breeders of the semen of well-bred animals. When a breeder buys semen, he wants to know what he is buying. He wants to buy in the secure knowledge that what he is buying complies with specific requirements. Provision is made for the existing sources of supply to be retained, and also for semen only to be sold if it has been collected by a trained person at a registered A.I. centre and complies with specific requirements.

I think it would be as well if we were to give specific attention at this stage to the importance of artificial insemination, to which the hon. member for Paarl referred so specifically. Artificial insemination plays a very major role in the stock improvement scheme. In stock breeding, the bull and the ram play a very major role, and comprise 50% of the herd, but can have a favourable or unfavourable influence on the herd of more than 50%. The use of a poor bull or ram can totally destroy years of constructive work. It is an extremely costly undertaking to acquire the best breeding material today, firstly as regards the purchase of the animal, but also in regard to the maintenance of such an animal. It is therefore only possible for the bigger established breeder to possess the best material. Due to the available A.I. sources, it is now also possible for a beginner to acquire semen complying with specific requirements and deriving from animals with outstanding characteristics. It is now possible, therefore, for the small breeder or beginner, for whom it was previously simply impossible to possess expensive male animals, to build up and improve his herds with the best available semen very rapidly, at a rate which would otherwise not have been possible.

Artificial insemination is therefore an instrument available to the industry which must be given due consideration. It is an instrument with which to develop stock improvement. Now we must take into account the fact that the artificial insemination centres have in the past been in the hands of corporations. Clause 10 provides that new centres may be registered, but only on the recommendation of an artificial insemination committee for which provision is made in clause 3(5)(c) of the Bill. Therefore it is now possible for private bodies to enter this sphere in future. The legislation provides for this. I want to say at once that it is also possible that private bodies will be able to make a very major contribution in this sphere.

The hon. member for Paarl spelt out how easily one can go wrong by using the wrong material. I foresee that private bodies may lack the financial means or facilities or will be unable to comply with the demands as regards testing the best material.

The co-operatives in the agricultural sector play a very major role, and farmers are very co-operative-conscious, which the hon. member for Bethal will most certainly be able to confirm. Not a single farmer in South Africa does not belong to one or more co-operatives. Now the question occurs as to whether we should not consider keeping A. I. centres in the hands of co-operatives in the future. There are major possibilities in this regard. In any event, it is of great importance that very clear guide-lines be laid down at this early stage in regard to A. I. centres and the control of artificial insemination.

Mr. Speaker, before going on to other subjects, I want to point out that when this legislation is passed and when it comes into effect as law, the Artificial Insemination Board will disband, and its functions will be transferred to a committee which will carry out its activities under the supervision of the advisory board. Provision is made for this in this legislation. The Artificial Insemination Board dates back as far as 1954, and has functioned for 23 years in terms of the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act (Act No. 23 of 1954). Since the board is now disbanding we should like to bear testimony to the outstanding service that the Artificial Insemination Board has performed. The existence of that board was necessary and we want to express our thanks for the valuable service which the board has rendered to the stock-farming industry in South Africa.

Seen as a whole, we can be satisfied with the fact that the House is dealing this afternoon with legislation aimed at placing the stock-farming industry, specifically its livestock improvement aspect, on a sound basis, improving it, and enabling the industry to keep pace with the growing demands made on it in these times. South Africa can no longer afford not to be concerned about the future of agriculture, and since meat still plays the most important role and is the most important item on the housewife’s table, we cannot allow a shortage of meat, specifically red meat, to occur in the future.

Mr. Speaker, this particular legislation will be a very major contributory factor in the establishment of our livestock industry on a very high level in the future. That is why I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a good piece of legislation and I, too, welcome it. It can only improve our industry. It is true that we have come a long, long way towards the improvement of all our stock—our stud stock and our grade stock. We have improved our stock to compare favourably with the best stock in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal briefly with clause 16, which deals with the importation of animals. We have had problems in the past, and I believe that we will still have problems unless we remain on our guard. On 1 July 1976 all import permits for cattle were withdrawn, apparently without prior consultation with breeders, or without timely warning to them. This created problems as our officials, and the hon. the Minister rightly know. We were faced with serious problems because of the import permits being withdrawn, and, as far as we know, without consultation or warning. It is for this reason that I welcome the insertion of a court of appeal, where in the past we have had to appeal to the department or to the Minister. From time to time it has been very difficult for the hon. the Minister. All of a sudden we saw in the Government Gazette that import permits had been withdrawn. This caused great inconvenience to importers and resulted in additional costs, costs which could have been avoided. I believe that the action taken on 1 July last year showed a lack of foresight and bad organization. I want to mention that one of our big stud farmers flew over to America in May last year and bought two bulls by public auction. The one bull cost him $4 000 and the other one, $5 000. He also bought three heifers by private treaty, which cost him another $2 000. So, he invested in the five cattle $11 000. He had the money in America and paid for the cattle, but when he returned to South Africa he found that the permits had been withdrawn on 1 July.

This is where he found himself in a very awkward situation. If it had not been for the co-operation of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture—and I am very grateful to him for having acted in the way he did—I do not know what would have happened to the cattle or the capital. [Interjections.] It is for this reason that I believe that we should have a court of appeal when permits are withdrawn overnight. Importers always have had to ensure that they had secured standing at our quarantine stations. This was the reason why this particular farmer did not have his import permit in time. Before you can get an import permit for an animal, you must secure standing at the quarantine station. Our problem in South Africa is that we lack proper facilities at quarantine stations for the housing of all the animals that we import. This causes the delay in the issuing of import permits. I believe that our quarantine stables and facilities are completely inadequate.

I also want to mention that a valuable thoroughbred stallion, costing no less than R700 000, was imported to South Africa in 1975. The horse was bought for that price in the United States. The horse was then flown out to Jan Smuts Airport. Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that this is no cock and bull story. [Interjections.] This story is about a horse. When the horse landed in Johannesburg, they could not find standing at the quarantine station and it consequently had to be railed down to the Cape Town quarantine station. For a valuable animal, costing in excess of R700 000, this is absolutely ridiculous. [Interjections.]

The man who bought the horse had to find a groom to escort the horse in the railway truck in which it was brought to Cape Town. The horse was flown right across America, from California to New York, then from New York to Jan Smuts and when it arrived here there was no standing in the quarantine station. It is absolute nonsense. After the horse passed through the quarantine station in Cape Town, it had to be railed right back to the eastern Cape where it is standing at stud at the moment.

Is it all right?

Yes, the horse is all right.

I am glad to hear that.

When the horse arrived at its destination, the station master phoned the owner of the horse and said: “Meneer, jou perd le plat in die trok.” [Interjections.] The owner asked: “Wat makeer?” The station master answered: “Nee, ek weet nie, maar die jong sê die perd wil nie opstaan nie. ” They raced to the station with a veterinarian and the horse carrier and when they arrived there the horse was standing looking out of the truck. The groom said: “Nee, meneer, die perd was net baie, baie moeg. ”

I want to mention another instance about a quarantine station. In 1975 more cattle were flown in from America. It was mid-winter there, and they arrived in South Africa, at Jan Smuts airport in mid-summer. There were six heifers in calf. Again no station in Johannesburg could house them, so they had to be railed to Durban. They arrived in Durban in mid-summer. Can you imagine the humidity in Durban in comparison with the snowbound country of the United States? The result was that five of these heifers cast or slipped their calves and only one calf survived. This was a great loss to the importers. It is no joke, these cattle cost a lot of money. Capital is sent out of the country for animals, which, for a year or two are then found to be a dead loss to the industry.

I see in clause 33 of the Bill that the Government places a limitation of liability on officials, exempting the State, the Minister, the registrar, an officer, person or body from liability. It was mentioned just now by a previous speaker, and I am not very happy about this clause, because it simply says “in respect of any act done in good faith …”. I am no legal man, but to me this phrase “done in good faith” seems very flexible and loose. I believe we should have a look at this during the Committee Stage.

In clause 22 I am pleased to see that the Stud Book Association will have additional powers conferred upon it. I believe that this is a big improvement. It incorporates livestock breeders’ societies of which, as we know, there are some 40 in South Africa today. This is what the majority of the societies want; they have been wanting it for a long time, and are happy about the words “With reference to any kind and breed”. For this reason I am happy with this legislation. I think it is a great improvement and our industry as such can only improve by it.

Mr. Speaker, to set the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest, I want to say that we still have other speakers on our side. I want to tell him that the interest which our side shows in the “boerestand van ons land” and in this Bill is a tribute to him. I must say that I was very concerned about the story of this poor race horse that arrived at its destination so tired. Does the hon. the Minister of Transport not realize that a race horse is supposed to go inside the truck and not run along outside? [Interjections.]

One of the most pleasing aspects of this legislation is that it is going to give us in South Africa, I believe a chance of emulating the really noteworthy progress that has been made, for example, in the case of the British Friesian breed. Anybody who knows anything about the milk breeds—I am pleased to see somebody here who knows something about the milk breeds—will agree that there has been the most tremendous progress made in Great Britain with that particular breed over the past 10 or 12 years. It has been done by a process of rigid selection, by progeny testing and by using proven sires.

One of the things that is worrying me about the legislation in South Africa, is whether we have enough knowledge—I mean genetic knowledge—to enable the breed societies here to make a real evaluation of applications to import stock from overseas. For the hon. the Minister’s information I should like to mention that I met up the other day with a person who is a geneticist and who has been doing an intensive study of the Friesland breed here in South Africa. He mentioned to me two important breeding lines in Holland. They were the Jan-Nico-Gerard line and the Albert-Jan-Ceres line. These two lines were bred in the period round about 1890. A third breed was Zeplin but the name Zeplin has disappeared out of breeding circles in Holland at about the turn of the century by reason of the fact that the last bull of the Zeplin line was exported to Japan and as a result was lost to the breeding in Holland. It has been established by this person, who is doing this intensive research into the genetic make-up of all the bulls standing at stud here in South Africa, that as a result of the Adema line which is coming into South Africa, the name of Zeplin is beginning to pop up again and again and it is becoming more important. I take my hat off to the Friesland breeders, because they are very well informed and they have the advantage of research like this. I am not pointing a finger at them in this respect, but the point I want to make is that here we have an animal of outstanding quality, an animal which, to the best of our knowledge, is in Japan. We have not yet established what is being done with it in Japan, but it might well be, however, that somebody from South Africa might be going to Japan with the intention of importing bulls from Japan, amongst them bulls with the name Zeplin, which will then be coming into the breeding without the full knowledge of the genetics of that bull which he is proposing to import. How does a breed society make an evaluated assessment of the bulls which it is proposing to import? My point is not that the Friesland breeders are going to have that sort of trouble, because they know a great deal about their breeds. There are, however, other breeders who do not have that same knowledge. My friend, the geneticist, believes that he will be able to put up a case to the ordinary breed society which would be most extraordinarily difficult to refuse.

I am merely asking the hon. the Minister for information as to whether there is available, in respect of all the breeds which are now going to fall under the provisions of this legislation, that sort of detailed genetic knowledge which is going to enable us to do in our country what is being done with the British Friesland breed in Great Britain. My assessment of the situation is that the information is not available. I think we have been acting almost by a rule of the eye in this regard whereby the appearance of the animal, etc., has been the dominant factor in the selection of breeding. I can imagine that this is also the case from the point of view of imports, people going overseas and merely looking at animals there, particularly in the beef breeds, which appear to fill a gap in our particular breeding pattern. One of the problems we now face and which all breed societies are going to have to face, is the attraction of the imported sires as against the attraction of our own home-bred animals. There will inevitably be a clash of interests to some extent, because the local breeders who have embarked on a policy of breeding which they believe to be the right one—this is quite natural—will find themselves in a situation where imports might challenge the entire line which they are breeding. It might introduce a totally different situation into our breeding. This friend of mine spoke about the use of preferent bulls here in South Africa and I quote what he said about them—

This is a problem which the breeders’ societies and the Advisory Board, which the hon. the Minister is going to appoint, are going to have to be cognizant of throughout. Last year, the people in my constituency applied for a permit to import Friesland heifers from Great Britain for the specific reason that they are of the opinion that the Friesland breed in South Africa is getting smaller. They accordingly want to breed back to a pattern of animals that will retain the size which, in their opinion, Frieslands had in the earlier days. However, the hon. the Minister stopped all imports at that particular stage. One is going to find the situation where people who wish to import animals for a specific purpose are going to be able to come with genetic knowledge set out in a table which the people involved in the breed societies are going to find extremely difficult to resist. They will find it difficult to refuse permits based on that genetic information.

Semen can be imported.

Yes, semen can be imported, but there are people who will want to bring sires into this country to found specific lines to correct things which they believe may be deficiencies. They may also wish to correct genetic lines in this country by bringing in desirable factors. There is going to be an enormous responsibility placed upon the breed societies in every case, and my problem is that I do not think that we really have enough information which is going to allow us to make really informed decisions. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what provision is going to be made in this regard. He is appointing numbers of people to the advisory board and there are breed societies that are obviously upping the breeding of their own particular breed of animal. However, the genetic content of the herd in South Africa is going to warrant an immense amount of research and it goes beyond mere progeny testing and beyond proven sires merely standing at studs or in A. I. stations. I would welcome from the hon. the Minister an indication of how he sees this working out and whether he believes that we are in a situation where we can cope with this problem, or whether he thinks we now have to undertake a great deal more research to bring ourselves up to date as far as that particular problem is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the Poultry Association. No one has referred to that association yet and I do not know why it has been left to me to do so. It is probably because I still have my eye for the birds! The Poultry Association is not usually associated with the meat producing industry. It is not thought of in the same terms as cattle or mutton and yet South Africa is rapidly becoming a consumer of chicken meat. It is said that we consume more white meat now than red meat. I therefore think that the poultry industry is a very important industry. Because it has not yet been referred to in this debate, I would like to make a few remarks and in so doing tie up this Bill with the report that has been circulated to us, namely the report of the commission of inquiry regarding poultry breeding material. Some very important questions are posed by this report. The Poultry Association welcomes this Bill, as it certainly must, because it controls stud, which is most desirable. It is very important that we realize that to control stud it is most important that very stringent measures are exercised with the import of poultry. This commission has discovered that it is in fact very difficult to exercise control in respect of the import of poultry. We welcome the report and we welcome this Bill because we realize that this gives an opportunity for the small man also to share in the benefits of the import of first class or the best materials and we hope that it will break the monopolies that have existed in South Africa in regard to these imports. The report of the commission stresses that the poultry industry is the most vulnerable of all the meat industries in the world through outside influences, undesirable influences and undesirable practices. Just one single disease can wipe out an entire industry virtually overnight. Some of these factors are of course beyond human control. This we realize, because contamination amongst poultry can come from outside, for instance from migratory birds and this nobody can control. Contamination can also occur by accident through tourists or holiday-makers, where people bring contaminated foodstuffs back into South Africa. It is said that Newcastle disease was introduced into South Africa in 1945 by a drunken sailor, a Lascar, who came from a ship in Durban harbour and brought a frozen chicken for his girl friend in Clairwood. I do not know whether this is so, but we do know the trouble that Newcastle disease has occasioned the poultry industry ever since. There is also the problem that is posed by purposeful smuggling. We know how much smuggling has gone on, and this report is virtually full of reports of methods of smuggling that have been used to get stock into South Africa.

Why people should be so keen to smuggle birds or breeding eggs into South Africa is very difficult to understand. They do so primarily for gain, of course. It is a question of making money. They also do so to improve their own strains and gain an advantage over their competitors since the improvement of strains can mean an improvement in table bird or egg-laying qualities. They also do so, obviously, to bypass the stringent quarantine restrictions we have in South Africa. Birds and eggs have to go through a long quarantine process. The smuggling methods have been detailed in this report. There are pages and pages detailing the methods. The smuggling is done by means of private aircraft. People take the trouble to fly in eggs from other countries. We also know of the tricks people get up to in the harbours to bring eggs off ships. They perhaps say that there are some eggs left over in the kitchens after the voyage and that such eggs could be consumed ashore. Amongst the surplus kitchen stores, of course, they conceal the smuggling stock. We also know of the bribery that goes on in the harbours and at our airports. This is also detailed in this report. Let us assume, however, that smuggling can be prevented, that something can be done to stop smuggling completely. The question is still whether there is such a thing as disease-free stock. This is a question which has never really been answered fully. Paragraph 224 on page 32 of this report stresses the importance of applying all the regulatory measures of the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act, 1956, to ensure absolute certainty as far as health strains are concerned. The question, however, is whether it is possible to ensure absolute certainty as far as health strains are concerned. I submit that there is no such certainty. It is said that in 1952 an epidemic of Tremor Virus, a disease amongst chickens, was introduced legally into South Africa from the USA. Although the United States veterinarians had assured us that the chickens were disease-free, this epidemic was nevertheless introduced into South Africa by those particular chickens.

It is also said that a consignment of Gouldian Finches imported from Australia with disease-free certificates from the Australian Veterinary Society were riddled with psittacosis, notwithstanding the assurances we received. Fortunately the disease was caught in time. Some experts maintain that it is possible to prevent disease by using antibiotics on all chickens that are in quarantine. It is said that if the chickens are regularly injected with antibiotics the spread of infection can be stopped but this does not take care of viruses on the eggs or on day-old chicks. How can the spread of such viruses be prevented?

The importation of wild birds also poses a threat to all poultry as well as to man. Diseases such as fowl malaria have been known to have been spread throughout the world by wild birds which have" been imported legally into certain countries. Paragraph 211 on page 30 of the report makes it clear that only the best quality products should be imported, and random tests are recommended to ensure a clean bill of health for the progeny, but it is alleged that this process could take up to five years, and if anything this should encourage smuggling. It is also pointed out that any exporting country can only certify that its stock is free of a couple of specific diseases such as pullorum, tuberculosis and mycoplasma gallisepticum. Some viruses in chickens are as small as the lassa, marburg and yellow fever viruses, and to date these viruses cannot even be detected except by the most comprehensive possible tests. The danger is that these viruses can spread from the quarantine stations and contaminate the population. They can also be carried by mosquitoes or flies, etc. This makes it necessary to have “hot laboratories” built at all quarantine stations. I hope this aspect has been taken note of.

The question is whether it is necessary to import any poultry stock into South Africa at all. It is obvious from comparative statistics from Glen and Irene that the results achieved with South African poultry are as good if not better than those achieved almost anywhere in the world. When one considers the dangers involved in the importation of stock, whether it be chickens or eggs, one wonders whether it is at all necessary to import poultry to South Africa. We have the very highest regard for our veterinarians. We know that the hon. the Minister is going to have the very best possible advice and that he is going to exercise the strictest control. We recognize his sincerity when he says that their efforts are directed at doing the best they can for the industry. We do not question this, but we would like to know from the hon. the Minister what regulations he intends to impose, and how he intends to carry out the recommendations resulting from the findings of this commission, in terms of this Bill which is now before us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South began by paying tribute to a number of persons, particularly to the hon. member for Smithfield, who made this legislation his lifework and who did the spadework for it. I want to associate myself with that, and also with the tribute which he paid to the other persons whom he mentioned. The hon. member referred to an imported racehorse costing R700 000. The year before last we imported animals to the value of R5 million, and with an unfavourable balance of payments we experienced problems in continuing to do so. With the importing of racehorses, however, we have to take the Owners’ and Trainers’ Association into account. The horses earn quite a large amount of money for the provinces in races. In that regard this legislation is also going to help us to exercise control over imports of this kind.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised various points to which I shall give attention during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Paarl, who is a director of one of our major artificial insemination co-operatives, made a very good contribution. He asked us to take cognizance of the price determination of commodities, for example fresh milk. I want to agree with the hon. member that a price increase is not always the solution. Efficiency is also important. It has happened in the past that, after there had been a price increase, there was a surplus as a result of good rains and the farmers were penalized to such an extent the next year that their realization was lower than in the previous year.

The hon. member referred to the amalgamation of the Milk Board and the Dairy Board. In October of last year we announced the engagement of these two boards. One has to have patience to get organizations of this kind together. Quite by chance it was arranged for the executive committee of the Milk Board to come and see me this afternoon, although not in regard to this matter, but in regard to other matters. Parliament is unpredictable, however, and I have had to spend the entire afternoon in the House. However, I am pleased that the executive committee of the Milk Board is present in the gallery, and was therefore able to hear the hon. member for Paarl announcing this afternoon the marriage of these two boards. We are therefore making progress. They have heard it themselves now. I want to tell the hon. member for Paarl that it is difficult for me to see how the artificial insemination industry could have an additional representative, for then everyone could come and ask us for additional representatives. I think we should rather give attention to gradually reducing the 16.

The hon. member for Newton Park made a contribution which I appreciate. In fact, they all made positive speeches. The hon. member said that the Merino Stud Breeders’ Association should receive the additional representative. However, the hon. member should bear in mind that we have many stud breeders’ associations. Not only do we have one for merinos, we also have one for the Drakensbergers, the Afrikaners and various other kinds of sheep. All these people have access through the Wool Board and their stud breeders’ associations. I think that that will be the solution for the future.

The hon. member for Smithfield has seen the results of his work and gave us a summary of what is stated in the legislation. I want to thank him very sincerely for that.

—The hon. member for Durban North amongst others, referred to the excessive powers given to officials and to the excessive penalties that are provided for. He must remember that we are working with very expensive material. A calf might be sold for between R4 000 and R6 000. The same powers are provided for in the plant improvement legislation. However, we can discuss all that in the Committee Stage.

*The hon. member for Bethal referred to the important aspects of the various activities. He is the chairman of a co-operative which also manages feeding pens. I have looked at this before. The hon. member told me that in future we would have to pay far more attention to progeny performance. The hon. member for Benoni also referred to that. The time is passed when one could simply hold a show and judge an animal on its appearance and not on its quality. The hon. member asked whether performance testing of stud animals would in future be compulsory. The time has arrived when one will no longer buy a bull unless it has first been tested at one of our testing stations. It is something of the past for a person, who is in earnest about the stock-breeding industry, to buy an animal on sight and on the performance of a fattened animal on a show, for the calf produced by the animal may be worthless. After all, one does not pay so much for an animal unless tests have been carried out. The department has all the machinery at its disposal.

The hon. member for Benoni referred to chinchillas, minks, rabbits, etc., and asked whether provision could also be made in this Bill for similar animals. At present they have no commercial value. If a great need arises, for example for rabbits, and they can be incorporated, we can do so at any time, but at present there is no need for the various fur-bearing animals. The hon. member also asked what control measures existed in respect of import and export between South Africa, Rhodesia and the homelands. As far as the B.S.L. countries, the old protectorates, are concerned, there is still a customs union and free trade between the countries. But the person who imports is not prepared to import a cull today. He takes the same animal and sends it to Armoedsvlakte or to Irene, or to wherever we have a experimental station, to check on how it improves.

The hon. member for Middelburg raised an important question, namely the cost of all these things to the State. We are spending a considerable amount of money for the very purpose—several hon. members referred to this—of raising our production to such a level that we are able to meet the needs of a growing population. At present the question of surpluses is being discussed. Three years ago hon. members on the Opposition side reproached me because there were shortages. Now, however, we have a surplus of wheat and maize, as well as a surplus of eggs, cheese and butter. Over and above meat, there is at present, too, a surplus in respect of several animal by-products. However, the hon. the Minister of Finance has not restricted us, in these times of a dearth of money, to such an extent that we cannot continue this work. I think the hon. member is on the right road when he encourages us to do more research in this regard.

The hon. member for East London North had a problem with a horse.

†I can tell the hon. member that we can quarantine 300 head of cattle or 300 horses at Kempton Park at one time. Anyone who wishes to import a horse or a bull must have a permit to do so and when he takes out his permit, we immediately arrange for quarantine facilities. If a man imports without first obtaining a permit or without quarantine facilities being arranged, the horse will have to go to Cape Town. Let me say that in one year we imported animals to the value of R11 million. This is the first time I have heard of a horse having to travel all the way up and down. Therefore I think the hon. member came with an exceptional example.

*The hon. member for Mooi River made a very important contribution, but he should not overlook the word “inovulation” in the Bill. He asked us whether we had the knowledge and could continue the specific breeding-line which, as he quoted to us, existed in England and in Friesland. A conversion to a computer system is in progress, so that a record may be kept of all these things, a record which did not exist in the past. In this way we shall also be able to keep a record of the country of origin. Suppose a farmer would like to import and would like to retain that breeding-line, but cannot do so as a result of our restriction. Then he may import the semen, but he may also import the ovum. That specific cow which he should like to have here and which has to be crossed with a specific bull, may be crossed in England or in Holland, and the ovum removed and transplanted to another animal and brought here in a smaller animal, or it may be in the form of quite a number of ova, for with hormone treatment, ovum secretion may take place, and this is the process of inovulation in which that ovum is removed here and transplanted to another cow. Then the farmer obtains that quality he is seeking. These are new developments to keep pace with the demand for them, and for that reason we have this Bill to make this law today so that it may take place in a controlled manner.

†The hon. member for South Coast mentioned the importation of poultry. Hon. members will remember the smuggling with which we had to deal at one time. At that time Mr. Douglas Mitchell helped me with the passing of an Act through Parliament to see whether we could put a stop to it. We eventually encountered too many problems. We arranged for quarantine facilities at Irene, and today one can import good material for broilers and for egg-production. The hon. member is quite right, as we have found that we do have the same material here as people overseas can supply us. But if a man wants to import he must bring the eggs or the birds under quarantine to Irene and then 10% or 15%, it all depends, of what he receives, must be dished out to smaller producers. This is to protect the small producer. This costs a lot of money and nobody is prepared to import if he has to pay all these expenses, provided that he has got exceptionally good material to import.

*The hon. member was concerned about certain diseases. If the hon. member would only consider the matter, he would see how widely scattered the chicken-houses for the production of eggs or broilers are. He will remember that we gave approval in this House, under the appropriation, for compensation for the eradication of a poultry farmer’s entire business undertaking owing to Newcastle disease. As a result of research carried out by the department we have not experienced any Newcastle disease during the last two years, because we introduced a vaccine against Newcastle disease, to be introduced into all drinking water, from the chicken right up to the adult bird. Consequently we no longer have that problem. We are therefore keeping pace with the prevention of diseases. I believe that questions in this regard all dealt with the positive things which hon. members will have for their information. I can inform hon. members that if they are concerned about diseases among poultry, we are keeping a watchful eye open to prevent this kind of occurrence.

The hon. members referred to progeny testing and to artificial insemination, and I am grateful to be able to say that everyone contributed to this fine piece of legislation, for it is a step in the right direction. However, if we do not stop talking about it now, the first calves will be arriving before the legislation is placed on the Statute Book.

Just before the hon. the Minister resumes his seat, I should like to ask him to give us a little more information on the question of the importing and exporting of Karakul sheep from and to South West Africa.

There is an arrangement between us and South West Africa. There is still a free flow. In the past it was very difficult, but now there is a more accommodating agreement between us and South West Africa. We have our research station at Upington. I have been there myself, and I also paid a visit to Neudam, where research is also taking place, as is also the case in various other places in South West Africa. There is a reciprocal liaison between the two. There is in fact a free flow, but there is also very good control.

They may therefore continue.

Yes. In terms of this legislation South West Africa is being incorporated. As I have said, there is at present a good flow between the two countries, and this legislation makes it easier to exercise control over this matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.