Animal Health Bill, Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill: final mandates

Meeting report

______________________________________________________________
CONTACT TRUST
Your experts in natural resource policy and legislation information services

Tel: (021) 426 1411
email: [email protected]
www.contacttrust.org.za
______________________________________________________________

The aim of this report is to summarise the main events at the meeting and identify the key role players. This report is not a verbatim transcript of proceedings.

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
31 October 2001
CONSIDERATION OF FINAL MANDATES ON THE ANIMAL HEALTH BILL AND THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL

Chairperson: Rev P. Moatshe

Documents handed out:
Final mandates of the Provincial Legislatures on the Animal Health Bill [B64-2001]
Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill [B 25-2001]
Draft Documents-Amendments Agreed to (Department of Agriculture)

SUMMARY
The Select Committee heard the final negotiating mandates of the provinces on the Animal Health Bill and discussed the concerns raised by the Eastern Cape on the discretion in certification of animals for export and the Western Cape's concern over animal health schemes. All the provinces supported passing the Bill and authorised their delegates to vote in favour. Final mandates on the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill were also discussed, and all provinces mandated their delegates to vote in favour of this as well.

MINUTES
The Chairperson opened the meeting and allowed the representatives from the Department of Agriculture to introduce themselves. He stated that the Committee would consider the final negotiating mandates of the provinces on the Animal Health Bill and the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill.

Animal Health Bill
Eastern Cape
Ms E. Gouws (DP) read the submission to the Committee. The provincial Committee resolved that the following final mandate be conferred: to support the Bill with the concern raised and the recommendation that the Chairperson of the Standing Committee, Mr Nkayi, be delegated as a Special Delegate to the Select Committee's consideration of the final mandates.

The Chairperson asked if there were any comments on the Eastern Cape final mandate.

Mr P. Nkayi, Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs of the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature stated that there were unresolved concerns over exports of animals and animal products.

The Chairperson asked what the Department's response had been on the issue.

Dr S. Meyer, from Veterinary Services at the Department, responded that there could be an agreement between South Africa and other countries that would override the need to certify each animal being exported and/or imported because the agreement would have been made upon the determination that the animal health conditions in the two countries were equivalent. He gave the example of the protocol on equivalency signed between Swaziland and South Africa.

Mr Nkayi stated that the protocol mentioned by the Department sounded like a gentlemen's agreement, which would not be legally binding.

Dr Meyer responded that equivalency agreements were not gentlemen's agreements. Instead, they were formal written agreements of the countries accepting the equivalency of disease control and status.

The Chairperson asked Mr Nkayi if the concern was that the agreement should be included in the Bill.

Mr Nkayi responded affirmatively and added that it was because there was no guarantee that animal testing was taking place if animal certification was not made mandatory.

Adv R. van Zyl, Head of Legal Services at the Department, responded that, when the agreement was made, the countries would have examined the situation of animal health in the other country and, only upon finding equivalency in animal health and procedures, would they agree not to ask for certification of animals for export. South Africa would not be responsible for accidental infection, but, if South Africa were concerned about the health of animals, the health of animals being exported would be checked. She reiterated that these agreements were not entered into lightly and added that veterinarians from the two countries entering into the agreement would investigate animal health status, and the agreement would be reached only after the investigation. Therefore, she stated that the legal safety sought by the Eastern Cape was included in these bilateral agreements.

Mr MacKenzie of KwaZulu-Natal revealed that it was a part of general agreements. He stated that, while the Eastern Cape had made a pertinent observation, the expressed concern had been adequately catered to.

Mr Nkayi stated that he had no wish to continue, but nothing had convinced him.

The Chairperson asked Mr Nkayi to elaborate on what remained to be clarified.

Mr Nkayi said that he was uncomfortable with the discretionary certification of animals for export because it was very risky and did not make economic sense. He said that economic consequences of an outbreak would be devastating, and, because the bilateral agreements were old, it did not make sense to say that it was acceptable to continue exporting.

The Chairperson responded that, although the agreement might be old, tests would obviously be done regularly to ensure the health of animals.

Adv van Zyl and Dr Meyer concurred with the Chairperson's response.

Mr V. Windvoel (ANC) stated that the point had been previously raised, and the Department had been defensive. He suggested that a compromise be found and added that, while the Easter Cape's point was taken, the Bill should be left as it was.

Rev M. Chabaku (ANC) accepted the Eastern Cape's concern but stated that there was no need in pointing out the challenges in the legislation if no solution was being offered. She suggested that the Committee make note of the Eastern Cape's concern and accommodate it by reviewing it next time.

Dr Meyer elaborated that export standards for the international trade of animals and animal products was set by the OIE, an international animal health organisation headquartered in Paris. The OIE had classes of lists corresponding to particular measures. Therefore, it was possible to export an animal that was free of a deadly disease but had another disease, as this was contingent on how the disease carried by the animal was classified. He said that exports were never free of risk, but the risks were manageable if there was an equivalency agreement between the countries.

Mr A. Van Niekerk (NNP) suggested that the Committee proceed by noting the concern as well as the bilateral agreements.

Mr Nkayi said that there should be no discretion in the testing of animals. He stated that certification must be demanded and added that the Eastern Cape would accept a compromise. He said that the Eastern Cape was pushing the Department to make amendments because the province was concerned over the opportunistic diseases that could proliferate quickly. He added that, when a disease did spread through the trade of animals and animal products, the bilateral agreements would be useless.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee should caution the Department to look into the issue and report next year to further discuss the issue.

Adv van Zyl was concerned with the fact that the Department seemed to perceive economic status not to be affected by infection of countries to which South Africa exported. South Africa would have discretion in following up risks of infecting these countries and certifying or even banning the export because the Department would want to protect the standing of South Africa in the countries receiving exports.

Mr Windvoel supported the Chairperson's suggestion because, otherwise, the discussion could be endless.

Free State
Rev Chabaku reported that the Free State Legislature and Portfolio Committee on Tourism, Environmental and Economic Affairs, and Agriculture conferred to the Free State delegation the authority to vote for the adoption of the Animal Health Bill as amended by the NCOP Select Committee.

Gauteng
The Chairperson read the submission from Gauteng to the Committee. The Gauteng Provincial Legislature adopted the report of the Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs Committee supporting the principle and detail of the Animal Health Bill and mandated the Gauteng delegation to vote in favour of the adoption of the proposed legislation.

KwaZulu-Natal
Mr MacKenzie reported that the Provincial National Council of Provinces Standing Committee on the Animal Health Bill mandated the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to the Select Committee to support the Animal Health Bill, as tabled in the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, and any further amendments, providing that such amendments did not alter the essential elements of the Bill and consensus was reached on such proposed amendments by the KwaZulu-Natal delegates.

Mpumalanga
Mr Windvoel reported that the province's Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Environment deliberated on the Animal Health Bill and conferred the Mpumalanga delegation to the Select Committee with the authority and mandate to vote in favour of the Animal Health Bill.

Northern Cape
The Chairperson read the Northern Cape's submission to the Committee. The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Affairs, Nature Conservation and Environmental Affairs mandated the delegation to the NCOP to vote in favour of the Animal Health Bill.

Northern Province
Mr R. Nyakane (UDM) reported that the Legislature of the Northern Province adopted the report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Conservation on the Animal Health Bill and conferred mandate to its NCOP delegates to vote in favour of the Bill.

North West Province
The Chairperson reported that the North West Provincial Legislature conferred authority on its delegation to vote in favour of the Animal Health Bill.

Western Cape
Ms Versfeld reported that the Standing Committee on Economic Development conferred on its delegation the authority to support the Bill and asked for clarity on three issues. The first was that Section 4 of the Animal Health Bill, which dealt with appointment of assignees made by the Minister, could be challenged in terms of the Constitution of the Western Cape. The second issue for clarity referred to Section 11, which dealt with control over quarantine stations and the need for assurances that a province, as the first line of defense against the introduction of disease, would have the prerogative to defend its own interests through its control over quarantine stations. The third issue referred to Section 16, which dealt with animal health schemes, and the need for clarity on whether or not the province could initiate its own health schemes.

Adv van Zyl, responding to the first issue, stated that the issue of assignees had already been discussed in detail. Responsibility eventually lay on the national government, so the government would ensure that the assignee could perform the task. Therefore, assignees would be selected carefully and used to extend the hands of government where there were financial or personnel shortages.

Ms Versfeld responded that the issue was unique with the Western Cape because the Western Cape was the only province with its own constitution. She asked what would happen if the Act was preceded by a constitution and sought legal advice on the conflict that could arise.

The Chairperson responded that legal expertise would be given by the Department and gave the Department a moment to confer. After having looked through the constitution, the Department's legal advice was that, according to Section 147(1)(c) of the constitution, the national legislation would override the provincial constitution.

Dr Meyer, responding to the second concern, stated that the province would have to make it a prerogative to defend its standards.

Adv van Zyl, responding to the third concern, said that the idea of schemes was to promote something in order to deal with disease, achieve objectives of training, or extend services. The provision for the schemes would empower the Department to promulgate a scheme to make money available. The reference to Section 16 should be removed because it was a mistake. The national government was empowered to make schemes, so the intention was not to legislate provinces.

Ms Versfeld asked why the provision allowing provinces to make their own schemes needed to be taken away.

Adv van Zyl responded that the reference to Section 16 was included by mistake, and eliminating the reference would not prohibit the provinces from making their own schemes. They would simply have to come up with their own schemes as long as it did not contravene national standards.

Ms Versfeld asked how the provinces could give their final mandates if additional amendment were made, and she added that the Bill would need to go back to the provinces after the changes were made.

The Chairperson stated that the clarification given was adequate.

Mr Windvoel suggested that the Committee accept that the Western Cape supported the Bill but note their concerns even though the Department's response had adequately addressed them.

Mr Van Niekerk stated that, if the Department brought change by amendment, although it was agreed upon, there would be procedural problems if the Committee allowed it to pass through.

Ms Versfeld agreed with Mr Van Niekerk's concern over amending the Bill after the provinces had already given their final mandates.

Ms J. Vilakazi (IFP) stated that mandates were given on the condition that no other alterations would be made to the Bill. Therefore, provinces would first need to be informed of any changes.

Mr R. Nogumla (ANC) stated that the provinces conferred final mandates under the condition that any further changes did not affect the principle of the Bill.

The Chairperson suggested that the Department put the amendment on paper.

Rev Chabaku said that she understood the amendment to be a consequential change.

Mr Nkayi stated that it was not a fundamental change and would, therefore, not require a mandate.

Adv van Zyl gave additional response to the concern. She referred to Clause 5, page 6, of the Bill giving provincial executives powers to make schemes. She stated that the error was clear when looking in the Bill because, although Section 16 was included in the list of things for the provinces to do, Section 16 referred to the Minister. Therefore, the reference to Section 16 in Clause 5 was a mistake in the Bill, and she apologised for the error and added that taking the reference to Section 16 out of Clause 5 would not exclude the provinces from making their own schemes.

Dr Meyer, adding to the response to the Western Cape's concern, said that the province could initiate its own schemes by legislating them.

Adv van Zyl concurred with Dr Meyer.

The Chairperson requested that the Department put the proposed amendment on paper.

Adv van Zyl read to the Committee the amendment to delete the reference to Section 16 in Clause 5 of the Bill.

Mr Van Niekerk said that the Department should be more careful in the future because the amendment could have affected the principle of the Bill.

The Chairperson agreed with Mr Van Niekerk on cautioning the Department and thanked the Western Cape for bringing the issue to the forefront.

Ms S. Naidoo, Legal Advisor for the Department, responding to the flagged issues during the consideration of the negotiating mandates at the meeting on October 23, stated that the Department decided not to insert a definition of "stray animal" in the Bill because the wording in the Bill was "animal that has strayed", so there was no need to define "stray animal". She added that "stray animal" referred only to animals straying across international borders.

The Chairperson, having concluded the discussion of the final mandates, moved to the formal adoption process.

Finalisation of the Bill
The Chairperson proceeded to read the Motion of Desirability for the Bill, and the Committee agreed. The Chairperson went through the Bill clause by clause, the Committee agreed to the Animal Health Bill with the proposed amendments, and the Chairperson signed the report on the finalisation of the Bill.

Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill
Eastern Cape
The Eastern Cape supported the Bill without any amendments that would affect the principle of the Bill and recommended the Chairperson of the Standing Committee, Mr Nkayi, as a special delegate to the Select Committee for the finalisation of the Bill.

Free State
Rev Chabaku reported that the Free State supported the Bill but asked that their concerns be noted. The concerns involved the criteria for nomination to the Council in Clause 1 of the Bill, and they proposed inserting a sub-section to Clause 9.

The Chairperson stated that the Free State should have raised these concerns during the consideration of mandates.

Mr Van Niekerk asked if the list of amendments the Select Committee agreed to during the negotiations were available because members would need them to ensure that all concerns were addressed.

The list of amendments agreed to by the Select Committee was distributed to the members (see Appendix 1).

Gauteng
The Chairperson read the submission from Gauteng. Gauteng supported the passage of the Bill and authorised its delegation to vote in favour.

KwaZulu-Natal
Mr MacKenzie reported that the Provincial Standing Committee on the National Council of Provinces mandated the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to support the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill, as tabled in the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, and any further amendments, providing that such amendments did not alter the essential elements of the Bill, and consensus was reached on the proposed amendments by the KwaZulu-Natal delegation.

Mpumalanga
Mr Windvoel reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, having deliberated on the Bill, tabled a report to the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, and the Mpumalanga delegates were mandated to vote in favour of the Bill.

Northern Cape
The Chairperson read the Northern Cape's submission. The Northern Cape Provincial Legislature mandated its delegates to the NCOP to vote for the Bill as recommended by the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, Nature Conservation and Environmental Affairs.

Northern Province
The Chairperson read the submission by the Northern Province. The Legislature of the Northern Province adopted the report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Conservation and conferred mandates on its delegates to vote in favour of the Bill.

North West Province
The Chairperson reported that the North West Provincial Legislature conferred the authority on its delegation to vote in favour of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill.

Western Cape
The Chairperson stated that the Western Cape's Standing Committee on Economic Development conferred on its delegation the authority to support the Bill.

Finalisation of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill
With the Committee having considered the final mandates, the Chairperson proceeded to formally take the Committee through the Bill in order to finalise it. He read the Motion of Desirability, and the members agreed.

The Chairperson led the Committee through the Bill clause by clause and the Committee agreed to the Bill with the proposed amendments, so the Chairperson signed the report on the finalisation of the Bill.

Discussion
Mr Van Niekerk asked the Department if anything had been done with the anthrax threat.

Dr Meyer explained that anthrax was a controlled animal disease, and animal owners were required to vaccinate against the disease. Therefore, the only defense for animals was to vaccinate annually, and he added that South Africa had the capacity to do that. In connection to human health, however, the issue would involve the Departments of Health and Agriculture working together. He said that the was not aware of any steps taken to deal with the anthrax threat and added that he was low in the hierarchy, so he would not be privy to all the initiatives taken.

Mr Windvoel supported Mr Van Niekerk's concern over the threat of anthrax.

Mr Van Niekerk expressed concern that Dr Meyer did not know if anything had been done by the Department.

Adv van Zyl said that they would enquire up the hierarchy and inform the Committee of their findings.

The Chairperson thanked the Department, Committee members, and members of special delegates from the provinces.

Mr Van Niekerk asked for feedback on the December tour.

The Chairperson said that the proposed tour failed due to the lack of finances. If the tour were possible, it would be early next year. He said that the Select Committees were not given the same finances that the Portfolio Committees received for visits. He added that he would raise this concern with the presiding officers.

Rev Chabaku suggested that the presiding officers be invited to the Select Committee to engage with the members in order to understand the importance of the issue.

The Chairperson agreed, and the meeting was adjourned.


The copyright in this material subsists with the Contact Trust. Further distribution or copying of this material is prohibited without the prior agreement of the Contact Trust.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1

[B 25C-2001]

DRAFT DOCUMENT
AMENDMENTS AGREED TO

__________

MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL

[B 25-2001]
_________

CLAUSE 8

1. On page 5, in line 14, before "to" to insert "proposed prohibition".
2. On page 5, in line 19, to omit "options" and to substitute "objections".
3. On page 5, in line 23, before "report" to insert "within 60 days of the publication of the notice contemplated in paragraph (a)".