National Assembly - 12 February 2004
THURSDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2004 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:00.
The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
THE CRUEL KILLING OF MR NELSON SHISANE
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) expresses its deep sense of shock and sadness at the circumstances surrounding the death of Nelson Shisane;
(2) notes that -
(a) Mr Shisane is alleged to have been thrown into a lion enclosure
by four people at a farm near Hoedspruit in Limpopo; and
(b) crimes of this nature are not only in violation of our criminal
laws, but are also in direct conflict with our Bill of Rights in
respect of guarantees of the right to life and freedom, and
security of the person; and
(3) calls upon all South Africans to be tolerant and respect human rights.
Agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No other motions without notice? Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, I think you did ask if there were any members’ motions and it happened so quickly that Ms Kalyan never had a chance to respond. May I ask that she puts the motion to the House?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I actually gave her an opportunity. [Interjections.] What happened?
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Speaker, as you can hear from the member’s response behind me, the hon Ms Kalyan did stand up but you did not really look at her. It happened very quickly.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ms Kalyan, did you stand up?
Ms S V KALYAN: [Inaudible.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. I will give you an opportunity to give notice of a motion.
Mr M J ELLIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Ms S V KALYAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hereby give notice that I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes with serious concern that the Hon Minister of Health will not join her departmental officials in meeting with a delegation of dissatisfied doctors to discuss the problems in the health sector; and
(2) therefore resolves to call on the Hon Minister to stop running away from the problems caused by her Draconian policies, and to resolve them in the interest of health care in our country.
ILLEGAL SMUGGLING OF COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS INTO SOUTH AFRICA
(Member's Statement)
Ms O R KASIENYANE: Madam Speaker, South Africa is still confronted with the problem of the illegal smuggling of counterfeit products of questionable quality into the country.
It should be noted that the illegal smuggling of cheap products robs South Africa of much-needed revenue which is critical for the eradication of poverty.
We need to strengthen our border and port control measures and vigorously support the Proudly South African campaign.
Motlatsa-Mmusakgotla, go a makatsa gore batho ba ba tsena jang mo melelwaneng ya rona. Go botlhokwa thata tirisano-mmogo ya puso ya bosetšhaba gammogo le bommasepala ba rona go batlisisa ka batho ba. Ba tshwarwe, gobane ga o lebelela dikgwebo tsa batho ba rona di phutlhame. Ke bone jaanong ba e leng gore ba di tshotse. Batho ba rona ga ba sa tlhole ba na le dikgwebo. Ke a leboga. (Translation of Tswana paragraph follows.)
[Deputy Speaker, it is surprising how these people cross our borders. It is important to have co-operation between the national Government and municipalities to conduct investigations about these people. They should be arrested because this is leading to the collapse of our people’s businesses. Criminals are the ones who now own businesses. Our people no longer have businesses. Thank you.]
BY-ELECTION RESULTS OF LADYSMITH MUNICIPALITY REFLECT
(Member's Statement)
Mrs G M BORMAN (DA): Madam Speaker, yesterday the DA triumphed in a municipal by-election fought in the New NP’s former stronghold of Ladysmith in KwaZulu-Natal. The DA won 446 votes to the 227 votes casted for the New NP-ANC alliance candidate. The vacancy occurred when a New NP councillor resigned, rather than accept his party leadership’s decision that incorporated the ANC into running of the municipality. This DA victory comes as the general election campaign gets under way and it shows that former New NP supporters are choosing the DA to bring about real change. Of even broader significance is the fact that the ANC openly canvassed on behalf of the New NP and encouraged their people to vote for their former apartheid bosses. Almost two thirds of the votes cast for the New NP were from ANC supporters.
This by-election shows that the voters are sick and tired of the duplicity of the New NP and that they reject its relationship with the ANC. These voters agree that South Africa deserves better. [Applause.]
PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE HON DR BUTHELEZI BY THE HON DR JORDAN
(Member's Statement)
Mr J H VAN DER MERWE (IFP): Madam Speaker, the IFP Caucus today discussed the uncalled-for attack on our leader by the hon Pallo Jordan in the House the day before yesterday. We unanimously regard the attack as being on a personal level; solely aimed at embarrassing Minister Buthelezi, and not in line with the ANC’s usual courteous style. It is apparently not supported by the leadership in the ANC.
Minister Buthelezi has faithfully carried the burden for this country for longer than half a century and he will continue to do so, long after Mr Jordan has disappeared from the political scene. [Applause.]
TASK TEAM SET UP BY MINISTER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY
(Member's Statement)
Ms N V CINDI: Madam Speaker, the ANC welcomes the task team set up by the Minister for Safety and Security to investigate the suspected serial killing of women in Dinukana Village in Zeerust, North-West province. We commend the Minister’s prompt action in the spirit of partnership against crime. We appeal to the community of Dinukana to co-operate and assist the police and task team with their investigation.
The ANC believes that the people’s contract to create work and fight poverty also requires the strengthening of the partnership between the police and the communities to create safe neighbourhoods. We support the ANC Government’s efforts aimed at creating safe and secure communities. [Applause.]
COALITION OF THE IFP AND THE DA
(Member's Statement)
Mev ANNA VAN WYK (Nuwe NP): Mevrou die Speaker, wanneer Suid-Afrikaners op 14 April gaan stem, moet hulle partye beoordeel op grond van hoe goed hulle kan regeer en nie hoeveel beloftes hulle maak nie. Die Wes-Kaap is die provinsie in die land met die beste regering. Dis nie ek wat so sê nie. Dis die mense van Suid-Afrika wat so sê. Nou vra ‘n mens jouself af wat die verskil is tussen die Wes-Kaap en ander provinsies. Die antwoord is baie eenvoudig: Die Nuwe NP maak ‘n verskil. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Die IVP en DA het in die debat oor die President se staatsrede baie kritiek gelewer op die hantering van MIV/Vigs. Wat moeilik is om te verstaan is waarom is die Wes-Kaap, daar waar die Nuwe NP en ANC regeer, myle voor KwaZulu-Natal met die behandeling van die siekte met antiretrovirale middels? En dit is nie ons wat so sê nie. Dis die Treatment Action Campaign wat so sê.
Die desperate koalisie van verandering tussen die IVP en die DA is aan die bewind in KwaZulu-Natal, maar hoe goed gaan dit waar hierdie party regeer? Die KwaZulu-Natal regering stuur vanjaar af op oorbesteding van meer as R2 miljard, sowat dubbeld die skuld in 1999 wat die nasionale Regering gedwing het om in te gryp en beheer oor die KZN-administrasie oor te neem. Ook die Kaapstadse Stadsraad is nou weer besig om kop bo water te kry nadat die DA sy geldsake vernietig het tydens ‘n baie kort tydperk toe hulle daar aan die bewind was. Wat is die gemene deler in albei hierdie sake? Dit is die DA wat deel van die Regering geword het … [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Mrs ANNA VAN WYK (New NP): Madam Speaker, when South Africans go to vote on 14 April, they should judge parties on the basis of how well they can govern and not on how many promises they make. The Western Cape is the province with the best government in the country. It is not I who say this. It is the people of South Africa who say this. Now one asks oneself what the difference between the Western Cape and other provinces is. The answer is very simple: The new NP makes a difference. [Interjections.]
During the debate on the President’s state of the nation address the IFP and the DA were very critical about the handling of HIV/Aids. What is difficult to understand is why the Western Cape, where the New NP and ANC govern, is miles ahead of KwaZulu-Natal regarding the treatment of the disease with anti-retroviral remedies. And it is not we who say this. It is the Treatment Action Campaign that says this.
The desperate coalition of change between the IFP and the DA is governing in KwaZulu-Natal, but how well is it going where this party is governing? This year the government of KwaZulu-Natal is heading for overspending of more than R2 billion, approximately twice as much as the debt in 1999 which forced the national Government to intervene and take over control of the KZN administration. The Cape Town City Council is also once again getting its head above water after the DA ruined its financial affairs in a very short period when they were governing there. What is the common denominator in both of these cases? It is the DA that became part of the Government … [Time expired.]]
INAPPROPRIATE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES AND TREATMENT FOR HIV/AIDS
(Member's Statement)
Ms C DUDLEY (ACDP): Madam Speaker, the escalating crime and the scourge of HIV/Aids, alleviating poverty and unemployment, addressing land issues, improving education and restoring family values are the main focus of the African Christian Democratic Party’s 2004 election manifesto launch in Parliament today.
The primary function of Government is to protect the lives, liberty and property of its citizens and the ACDP’s tough policies on crime send a clear message that criminals must be held accountable for their actions. Education is also a priority and the ACDP committed itself to providing quality value-based education and establishing the central role of parents in the education of children.
The issue of land and housing was addressed and the ACDP emphasised that land acquisition in South Africa must be based on a principle of willing buyer, willing seller.
With more than 600 Aids-related deaths in South Africa per day, the ACDP criticised Government for inappropriate preventative measures and inadequate treatment. The ACDP believes that moral denegeration in South Africa is a direct result of certain Government laws and policies, such as the legalisation of abortion, the acknowledgement of same-sex relationships, the legalisation of pornography and gambling, explicit sexual education in schools and access to contraception and abortion for children without parental consent. We will pursue all legal means possible to protect the right to life for the elderly, the infirm, the unborn and the disabled. We will strive to ensure that our children enjoy the benefits of growing up in a safe and secure environment … [Time expired.]
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS IN THE EASTERN CAPE
(Member's Statement)
Ms M P MENTOR (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, the urban-renewal and rural- development projects of the presidential nodal points currently unfolding in Galeshewe, Kgalagadi, Alexandra, Winterveldt, KwaMashu and other parts of the Eastern Cape have brought joy to South Africans living in these areas. These efforts are progressively improving living conditions and environments, pushing back further poverty and squalor. The people celebrate this delivery, singing joyously, saying, ``Today is a bright day but tomorrow will be even better.’’ With their dignity being restored, they renew their schools, build their roads in townships, villages and remote rural areas and reconstruct our infrastructure. As we do all these things together with the people, we see that our despair has turned into hope and our future is bright, because the ANC lives and the ANC leads. [Applause.]
DROP-OUT RATE OF PUPILS
(Member's Statement)
Mr G T MADIKIZA (UDM): Madam Deputy Speaker, the UDM is shocked and dismayed by the fact that a large number of pupils in the country drop out of school at a very young age. Official statistics show that one in five pupils nationally drop out before they reach Grade 3. If pupils continue to drop out in this early phase of education, it means that the Department of Education is sowing seeds that will haunt this country for many years to come. These shocking figures give urgency to the national policy of free and commensurate education until Grade 9. The UDM calls on the Minister of Education to thoroughly investigate this high drop-out rate. We suspect that educators are not properly trained to implement the outcomes-based education curriculum. Poverty and HIV/Aids presumably also contribute to this drop out. The mere fact that in the Eastern Cape Province alone 40% of pupils drop out before reaching Grade 3 clearly shows that the South African education system is failing the poorest in the country. The UDM calls for a bigger education budget to improve teacher training, increase teachers’ salaries and improve its infrastructure. Thank you.
PASSING AWAY OF BILLY PRINCE
(Member's Statement)
Ms H M MPAKA (ANC): Deputy Speaker, the passing away of stage personality and comedian Billy Prince last week robbed South Africa of one of her most talented artists. Prince, who grew up in an orphanage, having lost his father as a toddler and seeing his mother for the first time when he was an adult in his 30s, died at Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital after being involved in car accident in November last year.
He was a comedian of note, fluent in 11 languages and a regular guest on the TV programme Maak ‘n Las. We salute Prince who, despite his deprived background, provided endless pleasure to audiences throughout South Africa and rose to become a role model and a shining star. We urge our youth to take a leaf out of this exemplary life of hope and courage, and to persevere in their studies so that they will in future lead this country in a people’s contract to create work and fight poverty. Thank you. [Applause.]
ALLEGATIONS OF ARMS DEAL AND IRAQI OIL FUNDING FOR ANC ELECTION CAMPAIGN (Member’s Statement)
Ms R TALJAARD (DA): Madam Deputy Speaker, colleagues, in recent days former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein has restated that two key ANC NEC members alleged that the ANC received election funding from arms-deal contractors. This follows calls in Sweden in November last year for a formal probe of allegations that the ANC received US$35 million to secure the JAS Gripen contract.
Furthermore, recent reports have highlighted worrying visits by ANC heavyweights Kgalema Motlanthe and Mendi Msimang to pre-war Iraq and placed the cosy relationship between the ANC and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein squarely under suspicion under the banner of the oil-for-diplomatic- patronage scandal.
This House must express its disapproval of the unavailability of the Minister of Foreign Affairs during question time today to answer these allegations before the South African people. And we must call on the ANC to reassure the voters and this Chamber that its election campaign is not being bankrolled by either crude-oil cash from the Baathist group or arms- deal cash. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN BARBERTON PRISON
(Member's Statement)
Mr D V BLOEM (ANC): Deputy Speaker, it is with great concern that we note the grave incidence of fraud, corruption and intimidation that occurs at the Barberton Prison Farm. The illegal practice of warders, who accept bribes from families of inmates to secure the early parole of these inmates, is unacceptable.
Seven alleged syndicate members, four prison officials, a prisoner and two civilians have been arrested and appeared on charges relating to this crime. The Department of Correctional Services must be commended for their action in setting up a task team to investigate the syndicate. It is hoped that all those arrested will be shown the full might of the law and that all prisoners released as a result of this corrupt practice will be rearrested and face supplementary charges. I thank you. [Applause.]
DA ATTITUDE TOWARDS AFRIKANERS
(Member's Statement)
Dr W A ODENDAAL (Nuwe NP): Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, verskeie politieke partye vry tans erg na die Afrikaanssprekende stem. Dit is nie verniet so nie, want ons gáán van Suid-Afrika ‘n sukses help maak!
Die bedenklike wyse waarop die DA Afrikaners van alle rassegroepe as stemvee probeer misbruik, steek ons egter dwars in die krop. Kyk maar na hul kandidatelyste. Afrikaners is goed genoeg om DA te stem, maar nie om DA- parlementslede te word nie. [Tussenwerpsels.] Nog erger is die vernederende wyse waarop die DA-leier van ‘n geliefde Afrikanerleier, mnr F W de Klerk, praat. Om hom as ‘n verraaier en ‘n rugsteker uit te kryt gaan sleg by ons af. [Tussenwerpsels.]
As dit die minagting is waarmee die DA van Afrikanerhelde praat, dink net wat sê hulle agter ons rug van ons gewone Afrikaners! [Tussenwerpsels.] Die mees arrogante van alles is die neerbuigende wyse waarop die DA-hoofsweep sy leier as die ware Afrikaner-ikoon in ons kele wil afdruk. Verbeel jou: ou Kleintoonikoon! Afrikaners laat nie met hulle ploeg nie! (Translation of Afrikaans member’s statement follows.)
[Dr W A ODENDAAL (New NP): Madam Deputy Speaker, various political parties are at present trying hard to get the Afrikaans-speaking vote. There is a good reason for this, because we are going to help make a success of South Africa!
However, what we find most offensive is the alarming way in which the DA is trying to abuse Afrikaners of all race groups as voting cattle. Take a look at their candidate lists. Afrikaners are good enough to vote DA, but not to become DA members of Parliament. [Interjections.] Even worse is the humiliating way in which the DA leader speaks about a beloved Afrikaner leader, Mr F W de Klerk. We do not appreciate his being branded as a traitor. [Interjections.]
If that is the contempt with which the DA talks about Afrikaner heroes, just imagine what they say behind the backs of ordinary Afrikaners! [Interjections.] The most arrogant of all is the condescending way in which the DA Chief Whip wants to impress upon us that his leader is the true Afrikaner icon! Imagine: Old ``Kleintoon’’ icon! Afrikaners do not allow themselves to be used!]
STDs AMONG TEENAGERS
(Member's Statement)
Ms C DUDLEY (ACDP): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the Public Health Conference in Washington DC in December 2003, doctors cited evidence of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the teenagers of all nations and cited safe-sex programmes … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon members.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? Is one member allowed to have two statements in one afternoon? I don’t think that the rules allow for that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, is it possible for your statement to be made by another member of the ACDP?
Mr S N SWART: Madam Deputy Speaker, at the Public Health Conference in Washington DC in December 2003 doctors cited evidence of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among the teenagers of all nations and cited safe sex programmes and condom distributions as contributing factors of the problem.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I rise on a point of order? Is one member allowed to repeat what another member has already said? [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, please allow the ACDP to make their statement.
Mr S N SWART: Thank you for the assistance, Chief Whip of the DA. Many of these STDs cannot be cured, leading to long-term health problems, including infertility and even cancer. Ninety-five percent of all cases of cervical cancer are associated with HPV infection, yet teenagers continue to be the most targeted group for the safe-sex message, which advocates condom use to prevent the spread of STDs, including HIV. According to groups such as Planned Parenthood and Love Life, safer sex allows couples to reduce their sexual health risks. New statistics and studies, however, have concluded that condom usage have also increased STDs amongst teenagers.
The popular claim, therefore, that condoms help prevent the spread of STDs is not supported by the data, as condom usage increases the incidence of STDs. I thank you.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ANC COUNCILLOR
(Member's Statement)
Ms S C VAN DER MERWE (ANC): Madam Deputy Speaker, the ANC would like to congratulate the councillor who achieved an overwhelming victory in a Gugulethu by-election yesterday in Ward 42. We wish to note that only one other party was brave enough to contest the ANC in this ward and that was the PAC and congratulate our new councillor for the overwhelming 86% majority. [Applause.]
VALUE-BASED EDUCATION AND SEX EDUCATION
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Hon Deputy Speaker, there were two different and discrete interventions on education. In response to the ACDP, we on this side look forward to the details concerning your quality and value-based education. We regret to note, of course, that until now your value-based education has largely been anti-life and certainly contrary to the general assumptions of the National Curriculum Statement.
What we must remember, the ACDP and this House, is that the Constitution says two things in relation to rights. The first is absolute equality - political equality, equality in terms of voting, the right to leave your country. We know this absolute equality - it is what we fought for.
The other part of the Constitution that the ACDP refuses to accept is the absolute right to be different from one another. What the Government has said, with the overwhelming support of this House, is that women have the right to choose. We are not compelling anyone to have an abortion, it’s an available facility. It’s antihuman and undemocratic to say women should not have the right to choose while men have the right to choose. The same applies to books - the absolute right of people to choose the books they want to read. It’s a right to be different. You may have a particular inclination to only read books on creationism; other people want to learn about evolution too. So, it goes down the line of what we on this side of the House are trying to do in this democratic society - absolute equality in all areas and the absolute right to be different.
I think the ACDP must learn that lesson and not go on a provocative tour across the country and say that the ANC Government is doing this and that. I don’t understand the issue around this explicit sex education. I have asked the ACDP for information as to where this explicit sex education is occurring. What we are trying to do is to have education on sexuality - that is a different thing altogether. And this is the only way to protect women, for example. Part of this whole design is the right of women to say no, and for men to understand their own responsibilities in this situation. That is pro-life.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon member, your two minutes for the first response has expired. The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Thank you very much. [Applause.]
ARTICLE FROM NEWSPAPER AND MORE MONEY FOR EDUCATION
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF EDUCATION: Deputy Speaker, this response relates to the other statement by the UDM. I regret to say that the UDM will come back with fewer members of Parliament after the 27th - if this is an indication of your capacity to bring a statement here. You have lifted, word for word, an article from page two of This Day. Frankly, I think it is an abuse of the process of this House. I’ve ordered an investigation into this. The document is incomplete, and there is no statistical basis on which I can come to a conclusion. Nobody has told me about the research, because newspapers are full of so-called statements of that type. Members must be informed - it’s not worth the candle to bring questions here based on a newspaper article that has not been verified.
Regarding the other question, it shows that the UDM is unqualified to be in Government - absolutely. [Laughter.] More money? Seventy-four billion rand for education - where do you find more money? What we want is for the quality to be there. The fact is that the provinces are doing their work, for which they are allocated over R60 billion - that’s the fundamental issue - and we’ve all helped to do that.
And, of course, there is this nonsense about bigger salaries for teachers. You have to work out that three years ago 90% of the Education budget was spent on salaries. We’ve brought it down now to 83%, so we have 17% more money to spend on facilities for the running of schools. That’s how we should do it, and we are going to give performance-related payments to teachers, particularly to teachers who don’t want to be principals and administrators. They want to be bloody good … sorry … [Laughter.] … they want to be good teachers. [Laughter.] And we will pay them on the basis of performance-related activities in schools. That’s why the UDM should learn a bit more about education policy and then they might get more than four or five members of Parliament after 27 April. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mind your language, hon Minister. Hon Nqakula, I expect you want to respond?
CONTRABAND GOODS; MURDER INVESTIGATIONS; DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY: I want to respond, Deputy Speaker, to the three statements by the hon members Kasienyane, Cindi and Mentor respectively.
There have been many instances, and I am sure many of the members are aware of this, in which the police have confiscated a lot of contraband items that have come into South Africa by way of a dumping process. This has bedevilled our situation for quite some time. I do wish to say to people that it will help tremendously if they informed the police when they come across such goods, because it is not right that items and commodities are dumped on our soil; it is not right that contraband comes across our borders into our country. Our people should assist so that we can handle this situation.
The matter of the various murders in Dinokana is a very serious matter. But I’m sure hon members have also noted that these days our investigations are prompt and yield results very quickly. We’ve had situations in which crimes have been committed and within a matter of days the police, through intelligence-driven investigations, have apprehended the criminals. Dinokana is one of those instances in which there was a rapid investigation followed by the apprehension of criminals.
Hon Mentor referred to our programme of development, which is part and parcel of the developmental state that we are building as the ANC in South Africa. Indeed, various programmes have been established in various centres of our country. What many of those programmes do is that they contribute towards crime prevention, because these are programmes that respond to our urban renewal and Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programmes, which assist in fighting poverty and thereby also in removing the conditions that create the possibilities for crimes to be committed. I am certain that our Government, as it indeed accelerates the programme to establish more centres that will benefit from our developmental programme, will also reduce crimes in which poverty has acted as a cause. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are there any more ministerial responses?
BARBERTON FARM PRISON
(Minister's Response)
The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, let me thank the hon member, Mr Bloem, for raising the Barberton Farm Prison issue. I must say that, yes, regarding the war on corruption, I believe it’s a front on which we need to intensify our efforts very much, and it is something we should face squarely in our prisons and within our society. I think that is why we have put in place the special investigation units and the task teams, and also the judicial commission of inquiry, to deal with these issues.
However, we should also bear in mind that we should keep things in perspective when it comes the old and the new. Some of the things that are coming out are old things, because some of these things have been embedded in the prison system for many years, and it will take many more years for us to eradicate that type of practice.
I think members should also look at the prison system and remind yourselves that prisoners - rapists, murderers, thieves and drug pushers - are not born in prison and they are not born on Jupiter or Mars. They come from within our societies. Now, how do we prevent this from happening? Even in our societies, clearly, they are not born as rapists, murderers or thieves. They are the spawn of the badlands. How do we prevent that from happening with this influx into the institutions?
When they get into the institutions, the prison facilities, rapists do not stop their practice when they go through the prison gates or prison doors. The influence, the element and the psyche is still there. The murderer and the gang leader do not stop their practice simply because they are going through the gates of a prison.
So, those elements are still there and they try to assert themselves within the institutions, and then we find that our prisons officials are facing things which they were not even trained to deal with. I think we ought to bear that in mind.
ITEMS TO BE PLACED BACK ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Draft Resolution)
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, we move:
That the following items that appeared on the Order Paper on the last sitting day of 2003, and that lapsed in terms of Rule 316 and Rule 298 respectively, be placed back on the Order Paper:
(1) Consideration of Report of Ad Hoc Committee on Powers and Privileges of Parliament (Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports, 26 November 2003, p 1620); and
(2) Second Reading debate - Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Bill [B 74 - 2003] (National Assembly - sec 75).
Agreed to.
EDUCATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
(Consideration of Bill)
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, we move that the Bill be passed.
Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, the DA … the DP … the DA requests that the objection of the party be noted. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’m quite dizzy. I’m not sure which party …
Mr M J ELLIS: It is, very definitely, the DA, and those people over there will know all about it after the elections.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The objections of the DA/DP are noted.
Ms C DUDLEY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the ACDP requests that their objections be noted as well.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ACDP’s objections are also noted.
Motion agreed to (African Christian Democratic Party and Democratic Alliance dissenting).
Bill accordingly agreed to.
COMMUNAL LAND RIGHTS BILL
(Second Reading debate)
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Madam Deputy Speaker, three times in my youth I attended speeches by Dr Verwoerd. I’m sure there are members here - I can see at least two or so - who had to suffer more than that in their lives; I’m sure Mr Colin Eglin listened to him a lot.
He had an almost hypnotic way of speaking, with his high-pitched voice. The reason it was almost hypnotic was that he always tried to give a moral basis or justification for what he was doing and proposing and talking about. His whole idea was that he would sell the apartheid system by presenting it as a system of fair emancipation. Yesterday I looked at some old books. I found a book that was part of a prize I got after matric, ``nogal’’, as Prof Kader Asmal always says. It had the title Die Apartheidsgedagte. It was very interesting to look at a book from those days today. It contains quotes, for example, from Dr Malan. Let me read this one for you. Dr Malan said:
The difference in colour, as the most evident racial difference, became tantamount to a difference between one way of life and another, between barbarism and civilisation, between heathenism and Christianity. … This colour consciousness remains as active as ever; it has become a tradition into which almost every white child is born, an indivisible part of his mental make-up.
So, you must understand that it is with great humility that I stand before you today, honoured to have had the opportunity to make a contribution - a small one - to tearing out the heart of apartheid, which we are doing today with this Bill. It is simply a debt that I owe to all. You know what Verwoerd did - a masterstroke in an evil sense - was to add to the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts, once he got them, the 1951 Black Authorities Act and also the 1959 Promotion of Self-Government Act. That was one way in which he wanted to give a moral basis to whatever he was selling. What he did was to integrate the political and constitutional aspects of his policies with land administration.
That was the key to understanding why this was the heart of apartheid, because grand apartheid was built on that basis. There was nothing wrong with traditional authorities as such. What was wrong was the way in which apartheid used the traditional leadership, in conjunction with the land question, to make it a building block of grand apartheid.
The key was that the apartheid state remained in ultimate control of these traditional lands. The ownership remained with the state. It was state- owned land. Even later, when some of the land was held by the SA Development Trust, the state never divested itself of dominium. That is what we must address before we can say that we are tearing out the heart of apartheid in that sense.
That is why the land question lies at the core of the problems in South Africa. That is also why when the Government now comes with a balanced approach towards land administration, we stick to the rule of law. We do, however, expect that both from the extreme left as well as from the extreme right we will get attacks on the land reform programme. Just today in Pretoria, Dr Philip du Toit presented or launched his book, which is actually quite an unscientific study, quite spurious, and there are racist undertones in it. His basic message is: Blacks can’t farm. That is the type of attack which we can expect from the right wing.
Now, you can’t have any development without empowerment, and there will be no empowerment without asset empowerment, and you won’t have any asset empowerment without security of land tenure. We already said that in the Reconstruction and Development Programme. I can give you this quote from the RDP: The land policy must ensure security of tenure for all South Africans, regardless of their system of land-holding. It must remove all forms of discrimination in women’s access to land.
In another part of the RDP document it says that the Government must support the development of new and innovative forms of tenure, such as community land trusts and other forms of group land holding.
In June 1999 Minister Thoko Didiza concluded that the policy direction of the then Communal Land Rights Bill was, in fact, a continuation of the model adopted by the apartheid government. It was a continuation of a bifurcated state. That model was based on the continued state ownership of communal land and the continuation of the status quo.
What we simply do with this Bill is to provide a system and to provide administrative structures to transfer communal land to communities and to make it possible to acquire individual title or full ownership - exactly what we said in the RDP.
The Communal Land Rights Bill responds directly to what the Constitution provides, which demands from us to obtain security of land for those people whose title in land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices. It enables communities to become the architects of their destiny on the land that bears the scars of the forefathers, the scars of being dumped in the homelands and left to their own devices to survive.
One of the most important provisions of this Bill is to give effect to the constitutional entitlement to secure tenure to a person, including a woman. The Bill also confers the right of ownership of land on women in their own right. The reported perception that the Bill maintains and even exaggerates the second-class treatment of women has no foundation at all when examined and analysed against the provisions of the Bill.
Secondly, the criticism to the effect that the Bill confers second-class status on a woman is baseless. The Bill goes so far as to state that regardless of marital status, customary law, practice or usage, or any other law, a woman has an equal right to land in the same way as a man.
Further to this, the Bill entrenches the principle of women representation in institutions that deal with the welfare of the community, such as the land administration committees and land rights boards. At least a third of the total membership of the land administration committees and the land rights boards must be women. This does not, of course, detract from the fact that the community can elect more women to serve on such institutions.
Women form the backbone of our communities, and most of them are also de facto household heads. It is exactly for this reason that we are ensuring that women have secure tenure on the land on which they work and reside.
Let me just refer to chapter 7 of the Bill, which deals with the land administration system. What we tried to do was to draft it in such a way that it struck a balance between community norms and traditions on the one hand, and our democratic ethos and practices on the other hand. There is simply no way that anyone with a sane mind can wish away the institution of traditional leadership, which is so inextricably linked to the people’s social, cultural, economic and political milieu.
The need to strike a balance between the recognition of customs and traditions on the one hand, and the democratic ethos on the other hand, has been recognised, also in the recent judgment of the Land Claims Court, which said: ``The conflict must be resolved by legislation. It is not for the courts to do so.’’
It is not our intention nor duty to dictate how traditional leadership should govern. The task which we have as the Ministry and the department is merely to provide a framework as to how a traditional council, when it acts as a land administration committee, must conduct its business with regard to the land owned by that community - a fair balance. You know that in the ANC manifesto, one sentence for the elections says it all. It says that what we want to do is to fully integrate the institution of traditional leadership into democratic governance and development, and that is exactly what this Bill is doing.
In the process of the administration of the Bill, the Bill makes provision for two types of communities: on the one hand, a traditional community or, on the other hand, a nontraditional community. This is in order to ensure that those who do not regard themselves as a traditional community are still able to administer their land in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.
It is imperative for us to note that the powers and duties of a land administration committee are subject to a well-regulated system in this Bill. For example, clause 19 deals with community rules that will be vetted by the Department of Land Affairs to make them compliant with the Constitution and the Bill. Those rules will then provide the ideological and legal basis for the administration of communal land, or, for example, clause 24(1) says that the land administration committee represents a community - it is the representative of a community - owning communal land and it has the powers and duties, as conferred by this Act, and by the rules of that community.
The land administration committee, in other words, is an organ of a community as such. In its administration of communal land, it has to function within the rules of the community and the prescriptions of this Bill.
We are therefore calling for a realistic and purposeful - one can say, pragmatic or eclectic - approach to the administration of communal land in a traditional community. The Bill provides this pragmatic approach to land administration by bringing customs and traditions and a democratic ethos and practice to coexist in a symbiotic relationship with each other.
The land we are talking about is still registered in the name of the state, or held in trust by the Minister for the benefit of the rightful owners. By divesting the state of ownership of the land in question, the Bill confirms the rightful ownership, as should have been the case all the time, in the hands of the community.
So, to put it simply: We give the land to the people. The state gives the land to the people to whom it has belonged since ancient times, or from a long time ago, as it should always have been.
The provision of security of tenure for millions of people living in these communal areas is the crux of the Bill. We are talking about an area about four times the size of the Netherlands, with perhaps more than 13 million people living there. We hope this will be the start of development, because you cannot have development, you cannot have a system of empowerment, without secure tenure of land.
There is provision in the Bill for comparable redress, which is absolutely necessary. We say in the Bill that the Minister may, on application by the holder of an old-order right which is insecure and cannot be made legally secure, determine an award of comparable redress to such a holder. Again, here, we respond to the call of the Constitution to ensure that our people on the ground not only have security of tenure but also access to land on an equitable basis. Hence, the importance of such comparable redress in helping to deal with the legacies of the past in land ownership patterns.
Within the framework of this Bill, we can solve the central problem with regard to the land question in traditional areas. I do not say that it will be an easy task. It will be a difficult and complicated task. It will need the utmost willpower of the Government to follow this task through, to implement this Bill in a way that will not create conflict. I’m sure we are capable of doing that, and we will create the capacity to do that.
Let me just say this, which is the message I have today: It is abundantly clear that the national Government has lived up to its promises to provide forms of ownership that accommodate different choices. The intention is to provide people with a range of options from which they can choose, and also to design the system to be flexible enough to accommodate change over time.
Let me just say thanks to a few people - firstly, to Vuyo Nxane, the head of that branch of the Department of Land Affairs; a special word of thanks to Dr Sibanda, the thinker; and to Colin Brocker, the lawyer. Thanks go to the chairperson of the portfolio committee, the hon member Neo Masithela, and to all the portfolio committee members for enriching the discussion. I must also say thank you to our extraparliamentary opposition, who also gave us a lot to think about and we used many of their ideas.
We are using the terms in this Bill of old-order rights'' and new-order
rights’’. Antonio Gramsci, in one of his letters from prison, said the
following …
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon member, your time has long since expired.
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr D K MALULEKE: Madam Deputy Speaker, according to section 25 (5) and (6) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, this Bill seeks to: Firstly, recognise and formalise the African traditional system of communally held land within the framework provided by the Constitution; secondly, legally secure land tenure rights of communities and people, including women, the disabled and the youth within the tenure system of their choice. Therefore, the DA supports the Bill. This Bill is long overdue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to focus a little on a matter raised by the Director-General for Land Affairs in our portfolio committee meetings, which was a matter of concern. Can the Deputy Minister tell this House if the department is about to include racial classifications on title deeds; if so, it raises the question: Will the department reinstate the notorious pencil test to establish people’s race?
Dr Gilinqwe Mayende, Director-General for Land Affairs, told the portfolio committee on 4 April 2003 that racial classifications, which were removed from title deeds in 1996, would be included again. Clearly, somebody is going bananas in that department.
This is another example of the Government’s insistence on the use of racial quotas to inform everything from employment practices to the composition of sports teams and now private land ownership.
The ANC’s obsession with race is disconcertingly similar to apartheid thinking. The reason given - that this information will be used to assist in land reform - is vague and could in truth imply anything.
Dr Verwoerd and the former NP government also used a myriad reasonable justifications to rationalise racial classification. Determining race is a murky issue at best, and it becomes more so as South African society becomes increasingly integrated.
One also wonders what Government plans to do with this information. Will it be used, in the long run, to influence national policy, or will it impact on individual land deals by private citizens? Is Big Brother watching? While acknowledging that a great deal still has to be done to correct the past injustices, employing mechanisms used by the former oppressors is not the way to go. Ga se tsona. [It is not the way to go.]
Can the Minister account for the Chief Land Claims Commissioner Tozi Gwanya’s statement of 5 February 2003 that said the Government is considering opening a six-month window period for the Eastern Cape? Such a move would be nothing more than an election manoeuvre to try and appease people in the Transkei and Ciskei. Extension cannot be granted because the land restitution legislation stipulates that the window period has already passed.
It would be highly problematic to single out one province for special treatment. People in other provinces who had missed out on the deadline would definitely have grounds to challenge the constitutionality of such a move. If two million people in the Eastern Cape lost out because of bureaucratic bungling on the part of the Government, then the Government has a case to answer, and those people should be encouraged to claim against the state for its maladministration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are told that land restitution is to be completed by the year 2005. Can the Deputy Minister inform this House how that can possibly be when it is known, to the DA, that numerous claims remain unresolved in Limpopo and Eastern Cape? This was through no fault of the claimants, but were not finalised due to bureaucratic bungling by the Department of Land Affairs, resulting in the affected communities missing the window-period deadline.
In the case of the Limpopo Province, which has six municipal districts and about 5 000 claims, 40% of those claims are only at the research stage to verify legitimacy. This is mainly because of the commission’s ad hoc staffing and losses of staff members to greener pastures due to the insecure status of the Land Rights Commission.
At best they process and complete three claims minimum per annum. How on earth are they expected to complete 5 000 claims in 18 months? Where are those resources going to come from? One example is a claim in Tzaneen, Mamatlola, which cost the department R47 million. What if out of the 5 000 remaining claims, 100 of them are valued at a similar price of R47 million? Can the Minister explain where those resources are going to come from and where such capacity to deal with business of that magnitude comes from? So, the notion that land restitution will be complete in the year 2005 is nothing but an electioneering ploy.
In the case of the Eastern Cape, members of the Keiskammahoek community were promised payment of R55 000 per household as a result of their forced removal from Theresa Farm. However, through some convincing cohesion … [Interjections.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
MR D K MALULEKE: Thank you. South Africa deserves the best. [Applause.]
Mr J H JEFFERY: Madam Speaker, I was rising on a point of order. This is a debate on the Communal Land Rights Bill. I heard the hon member speaking about land restitution and other such matters. He didn’t appear to be addressing the issue of the Communal Land Rights Bill at all. [Laughter.]
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe you will be pleased to know that he is through.
Mr N H MASITHELA: The debate today is about what I regard as the most transformatory legislation ever in South Africa, after the passage of the Constitution of this country, namely the Communal Land Rights Bill. This Bill will contribute to changing the land ownership patterns in this country. For the first time in the history of South Africa, people living in the former homelands will no longer feel like outsiders in this country. They will also have a right to occupy land and will be full owners of the land they use and occupy.
Deputy Speaker, allow me to briefly take the House through what people went through. From the time when the white settlers arrived in South Africa, black people were pushed off their land. Land dispossession of the black population was driven by the need to reduce competition with white farmers and to create a pool of migrant cheap labour on the farms and in the mines.
The Native Land Act of 1913 was the main nail to the land dispossession of black people by the apartheid government. I cannot agree more with the then Secretary General of the ANC, Sol Plaatje, when he said the Native Land Act of 1913 was ``the start of a deliberate and systematic framework to deny black South Africans their birthright’’.
Through that Act, black people could only reside in areas reserved exclusively for them, which later became homelands where only 13% of the land was available to black people. This meant that 70% of the total South African population who lived in the former homelands was allocated only 13% of South African land, while the minority whites occupied the largest and best portions of land that was suitable for both farming and housing.
What this meant was that our people were just pushed into overcrowded areas where they even struggled to produce food for their survival. These areas were characterised by severe poverty and isolation from economic growth and developmental opportunities. It is the lack of clarity about the status of land rights in these communal areas that inhibits development in the communities.
Even though black people occupied and used the land for many years, they were not allowed to register them in their own names. Instead most of the land in these areas was registered in the name of the state as state land or registered as being held by a trust in the name of the Minister or the Ingonyama Trust, in the case of KwaZulu-Natal.
As a result of the lack of clarity on the status of land rights and the breakdown of the land administration system in the former homelands, people who occupied land were sometimes pushed around and dispossessed of their land to allow investors to come in and develop their land without the owners benefiting from it. Thus a legislative intervention is needed urgently to clarify and secure the land rights of people who occupy and use the land to facilitate development in these areas that will benefit them.
People are asking: How will the rural people benefit from the passage of this Bill? Let me briefly deal with this matter. This Bill, for the first time, is going to give people living in the communal areas an opportunity to own land like any South African. It will put an end to discrimination towards people living in former homelands or rural areas. It is going to secure tenure rights to communities and individuals living in these areas. The land will no longer be registered in the name of the state, Minister or the Ingonyama Trust in KwaZulu-Natal.
At the moment, land tenure rights available to people living in communal areas are largely based on customary law or on insecure permits granted under the laws that were applied to African people only, for instance, permission to occupy. These rights do not have legal status and holders of such rights cannot use them as security in banks to get loans for development in the particular areas.
This Bill seeks to reverse the historical legacy of colonial apartheid and strengthen the land tenure rights of the people living in these communal areas. This Bill also gives the rural people a chance to decide on how they want land to be administered. As the ANC we do not just decide for the people, as the previous government did; what we do, if we are to decide, is that we consult our people. That’s what the ANC believes in.
For the first time, people in the communal areas are given an opportunity, through this Bill, to decide whether they want their land to be registered in the name of communities, households, families or individuals in full ownership.
Furthermore, communities are also given a choice to decide on how their land has to be administered because they are the people who develop community rules that will serve as guidelines for the land administration committees. The communities are given rights to establish a land administration committee in a democratic fashion to manage and administer communal land in their areas. The communities will also have a right to reject the land administration committee process if it does not qualify to deal with matters that benefit them.
This Bill goes further to protect the land tenure rights of the most vulnerable groups in our society, like women and children-headed households. It also ensures that these groups participate in decision- making processes in both the boards and the traditional councils. My colleagues in all political parties, but specifically from the ANC, will deal with this matter intensively to disprove the argument that women’s rights are not protected.
For the first time in the history of this country, the people of the former homelands will be able to hold their title deeds with dignity as rightful owners of the land they occupy or use. It is with pride that I note that the registration of land tenure rights in the name of the communities and individuals will provide an enabling environment for socioeconomic development in communal areas, and the participation of our people will actually be taken care of.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had never seen such a crowd of people. When we were dealing with the public hearings, we had more than 32 organisations, including statutory bodies, academic institutions doing research on the land issues, community organisations and NGOs, and interested parties representing workers, women and traditional leaders presenting their views.
We had public hearings for approximately four days. They started very early in the morning and ended very late in the evening and we ensured that everybody participated in these public hearings, including people who were not scheduled to address the committee.
During the public hearings, most important issues were raised. The complaint that the department did not consult was also an issue that was dealt with. However, regarding this point, we are convinced that the final submission presented to the committee was the twelfth version of the Bill because that Bill went through the process of consultation for about nine years. As a committee, we asked the department to give us the list of people who were consulted; the list is endless.
We are convinced that most of the people in this country were consulted. We, further, gave everybody a chance to present the matter before the committee so that we could take their views and opinions on board. On this topic, let me thank the communities who participated in this matter. Because of them, we are able to present this Bill before this House today. The amendment that was made was because of the contribution made by the public.
Let me briefly touch on issues that were raised during the public hearings. The main issue that was raised concerned the discretionary powers given to the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs to determine whether the rights of holders of old-order rights are to be converted into new-order rights, and the context and the extent of such rights. It was argued that it is unconstitutional to give these rights to the Minister because we don’t have guidelines that dictate how the Minister should operate regarding this matter. However, this committee did acknowledge this point, conceded on that matter and amended the Bill.
It is also important to note that, regarding every Bill that deals with land reform, the powers of the Minister have been under serious scrutiny. What people fail to realise and understand is that like any other Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs would not execute her responsibilities outside the confinements of the Constitution of this country. As a committee, we sought advice about the constitutionality of the Bill. Legal advisers from Parliament told us that the Bill is constitutional, hence we present this Bill before Parliament today.
The second main issue raised was that the Bill did not protect women’s rights. There is no way that the ANC would actually allow the Bill to go through without taking women’s rights into cognisance. I’m happy to announce and report today that that gap in the Bill was successfully amended. As we speak today, women’s rights are enshrined in this Bill. I will not deal with this matter extensively because the hon member who represents the ANC will elaborate on this issue. However, what I think is important for people to understand is that women’s rights are already enshrined in the Constitution of this country. The Constitution of this country takes precedence over any other legislation.
A third issue raised is around the composition of traditional councils. Most of the critics said that there was no way we could allocate the administration of land to the traditional leaders because they were prone to corruption, abuse their power and so forth. I am convinced that this matter has been handled efficiently.
However, it is important to clarify to the public that in terms of the composition of traditional councils, the Bill before the House today could not be amended by the committee because it was not under the jurisdiction of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs. It was under the jurisdiction of the committee on local government because ``composition’’ in the Bill comes from the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill, which provides that at least 30% of representatives who participate in these councils should be women. It further suggests that at least 40% of the people who will participate in these should be democratically elected and the remainder should be appointed by traditional leaders. People should also understand that traditional leaders would appoint people from their communities. Therefore, it’s not going to be predominantly traditional leaders on that particular board or council.
Before I sit down, I would like to, on behalf of the committee, commend the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs and the Ministry in particular, because this Bill would not have been where it is today had they not played a pivotal role.
Let me conclude by saying that through this Bill, the dignity of black people in communal areas will be restored; through this Bill, people will be proud owners of the land they occupy and use; through this Bill, people will have title deeds as legal documents to show their rightful ownership of communal land - and no one will take that right away from them; through this Bill, no more black people will be treated as outsiders in this country, particularly in the land of their ancestors; and, through this Bill, the ANC has delivered a major piece of legislation that benefits all South Africans, especially the rural poor and traditional leaders in particular. People need to understand that traditional leaders have played a pivotal role in land administration in the past. Democracy should not in any way undermine their culture but should be used to develop this cultural institution and to make sure that they are accountable to the people. President Thabo Mbeki put it very nicely when he said, and I quote, ``This Bill will not undermine communal relations and elements of culture consistent with democracy and human rights.’’
The ANC understands that the role played by communities and traditional leaders in the past is very important to our society. The role that we played was to democratise traditional councils. In our opinion, as the ANC, we think this is the right step in democratising the traditional council institutions.
This shows that the ANC, despite the many obstacles faced in ensuring that our people get security of tenure in their communities and the imbalances of the past are redressed, will not stop but continue to ensure that the rights of women, children, the disabled and traditional leaders are not trampled upon. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr M V NGEMA: Deputy Speaker, the IFP wishes to congratulate the traditional leaders of our land for standing together yet again to defend what belongs to the indigenous people of this country. It is this unity of traditional leaders that enables the hon iNkosi S P Holomisa to speak as he did in the article published in the Business Day of yesterday, for which he and all amakhosi of our land get a big hallelujah from the IFP.
For centuries, Africa and her children have been denied the right to define to the rest of the world who she is, where she comes from, where she is now and where she is going. In South Africa, the indigenous people saw themselves defined according to the agenda of those who conquered and ruled over them. The right of the African majority of this country to define themselves with their institutions of culture and governance became the centre of the liberation struggle. The defence of this right was the basis and core foundation of the liberation struggle even before 1912.
It is ironic that at Codesa the IFP found itself alone in this historic mission when it called for a clear and unequivocal definition in our Constitution of how our indigenous institutions would be promoted as part of our democratic future. It is against this background that the traditional leaders, as a form of self-governance in this country, were quite amazed by the onslaught they were subjected to when local government and powers of municipalities were imposed through an Act of this Parliament.
The earlier drafts of the Communal Land Rights Bill reflect the original thinking of the ANC regarding traditional communities and their governance structures. This is in line with its standpoint on local government, which sought to eliminate any semblance of an indigenous form of democracy inherent to a way of life in traditional communities.
Thus, the IFP celebrates and welcomes the change of heart on the part of the ANC. This enables both of these parties to agree on this particular Bill, after opposing each other on the content of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill. The IFP, therefore, appreciates the improvements effected in the Bill after the hon Minister negotiated with traditional leaders in this country.
The sensitivity and understanding on the part of the Cabinet is demonstrated and shows a marked difference between the Bill as presented before Parliament today and that draft of 2001. However, the Bill to be passed today still falls far short in restoring pride and a sense of value necessary to form the foundation of a democratic state.
As much as one swallow does not make a summer, so do the actions of one President of Zimbabwe, which is a democratic state, not mean that democracy must be thrown away. In a similar fashion, corrupt practices by a few isolated traditional leaders should not be used as a pretext to condemn what is our way of life. It is known in African languages that ``Inkosi iyinkosi ngabantu.’’ [A chief is a chief because of the people.]
Allowed the freedom to flourish, the traditional way of life has its internal checks and balances to sort out and rid itself of negative elements. The serious flaw in the thinking of the critics of this Bill in its current form is that whether they be university academics or analysts, they either come from other cultural backgrounds or they are too young and uninformed to understand what they criticise. In their book, these critics see any concept of governance other than the western democracy as undemocratic and primitive.
In African culture, any form of abuse against women and children is not allowed. Certain changes have been made in the Bill to strengthen both the participation and protection of women and the interests of children. The Bill will unlock the potential of rural economic development as it gives security of tenure to communal land. Limited protection against land disposal through sale or otherwise is assured for the next 10 years only.
Iqembu leNkatha yeNkululeko yeSizwe likubona kahle ukuthi izibonelelo ezenziwe uNqgongqoshe nesigungu sikaHulumeni kulo mThethosivivinywa kaziyivimbeli imbedumehlwana yokunyundelwa nokuhlakazwa kohlelo lomdabu lwempilo, ikakhulukazi ubukhosi. Ngenxa yokhetho oluzayo, ngomhlaka 14 April 2004, i-ANC kungenzeka ukuthi ibone kufanele ukukhohlisa imiphakathi yomdabu namakhosi sengathi iyalalela okufunwa yile miphakathi ngenhlalo yayo. [Ubuwelewele.] Iqiniso ngukuthi emva - ngisho okubhalwe lapha kulo mthetho - iqiniso ngukuthi emva kweminyaka eyishumi lo mthetho uvumela noma ubani onobufakazi bobuninimhlaba ukuba acele imvume kuNqgonqgoshe yokwehluka ohlelweni okuqhutshwa ngalo kuleyo ndawo akuyo. (Translation of Zulu paragraph follows.)
[The Inkatha Freedom Party could see very clearly that the provisions made by the Minister and the Cabinet with regard to this Bill did not prevent a very unpleasant situation where there is bad-mouthing and dissolution of the traditional system, and of traditional leadership in particular. Because of the election that is due on 14 April 2004, the ANC saw fit to deceive traditional communities and leaders, as if it were listening to their social needs. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is - I’m talking about what is written in this Act - that after ten years this Act allows anybody who has a title deed to ask for permission from the Minister to divert from the system that is used in that particular place that he or she lives in.]
The second hidden time bomb is that land disposal is not outlawed but merely delayed by a period of 10 years. The IFP takes this opportunity to assure rural communities and their traditional leadership that it will attempt to firmly restore and secure power, to put the control of their lives back in their own hands, and not in the hands of Government officials. It is in this context that the IFP has been calling for the land rights boards to become more accountable to the communities they will be serving, as opposed to these boards that are effectively tools in the hands of the Minister. This demand is no reflection on the current Minister.
This Bill is not going to be properly implemented in spite of the hopes it raises. Its implementation is dependent on the success or failure of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, which establishes traditional councils on the one hand, and local government legislation, which conflates the role and powers of traditional leaders with those of municipalities on the other hand.
These two laws face enormous problems of implementation. The department has repeatedly been telling us that implementation of the Bill depends on the conclusion of the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights, which the President has ordered to be completed by 2005. Given the backlog in finalising claims … [Time expired.]
Adv S P HOLOMISA: Mhlalingaphambili, zinkosi eziphakathi kwethu, malungu abekekileyo ale Ndlu yoWiso-mthetho, ingqungquthela yesizwe sama-Afrika, i- ANC, iwuxhasa ngaphandle kwamathandabuzo, iwamkela ngazo zozibini lo Mthetho uYilwayo ongaMalungelo kuMhlaba woLuntu, eneneni kumhlaba wezizwe, iCommunal Land Rights Bill ngesilungu.
Eneneni i-ANC, njengombutho owalwela inkululeko yeli lizwe nabantu balo, ayikwazi kwenza ngakumbi. Kaloku abaseki bayo yayiziingqondi, izifundiswa nabefundisi ababengamafanankosi, kanti ke neenkosi ngokwazo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] Eyam ikumkani, uDalindyebo ngokwakhe, uBhexesh’ ilanga, aliqal’ elwandle aye kuliyeka eGqili, apho litshona khona, umfo kaNgangelizwe,
Irhamb’ elineendevu lakwaMtirara, Elabonwa ngabafazi bakwaMbanga bephangela. Ukhalakhulu lilumla abantwana. Yakhuph’ iinkabi zeenkomo laa mhla wasekwa lo mbutho, Isithi: ama-Afrika mawatye, Angalambi ngemini yokuxoxa ngendlel’ entsha yokulwelwa komhlaba. Watsho esithi, ngolo hlobo, uyalela bonke abaThembu Ukuba babe ngamalungu e-ANC. [Uwelewele.]
Ngaloo mhla zazikho neenkosi zelakwaMshweshwe, ezintabeni, kanti nezakwaSobhuza, kwelamaNgwane, zazilapho. Zazingasalanga nezabaLozi, kwelaseZambiya. UDinuzulu, isihlobo sakulo Dumehlezi kaMenzi, uMshay’ akashayeki, ilembe eleq’ amanye amalembe ngokukhalipha, kwagqitywa kwelokuba makawunike isidima lo mbutho ngokuth’ abe ngumongameli wewonga (honorary president). Kanti ke uMongameli wokuqala, umfundisi uLangalibalele Dube, uMafukuzela, yena ngokwakhe wayengumntwana wasebukhosini kwisizwe samaQadi.
Lo Mthetho uYilwayo wenza elawo igalelo ukubuyisela isidima sama-Afrika nobukhosi bawo. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo uthi: yayingekho kakade into yokuba bathi abelungu bathi basigcinela umhlaba wethu ngokungathi izizwe zakokwethu zingoontemekwane. Ngolu hlobo, sifumana ithuba lokulungisa umonakalo owenziwa ngoorhulumente babarhwaphilizi nabacinezeli, ekutolikeni imithetho namasiko omz’ ontsundu ngendlel’ engeyiyo.
Ngalo Mthetho uYilwayo, umhlaba wesizwe ngasinye uza kulawulwa yikomiti yolawulo-mhlaba, komiti leyo eza kwenziwa ziinkosi apho zikhoyo, abantu ezibaphetheyo abantu basetyhini, abakhubazekileyo, abantwana abaziinkedama ezigcin’ imizi yakwamawazo, ulutsha nabadala. Ikomiti le, khon’ ukuze amalungelo amakhosikazi anganyhashwa, iza kuthi ibe nenkosikazi enye kumalungu amathathu (one-third). Nabameli besebe lemihlaba, bebhodi yamalungelo omhlaba, bomphathiswa wolimo ephondweni, bomphathiswa woomasipala ephondweni naboomasipala waloo ndawo umhlaba lowo ukuwo baza kuba nelungelo lokubakho kwiintlanganiso zekomiti leyo yolawulo lomhlaba. Ngubani na ke ngoko onokuthi abemi bomhlaba baza kuhleleleka? Umntu onokutsho ngulowo kuphela uzixelele ukuba ama-Afrika akakwazi ukuphatha izinto zawo ngeendlela zawo. [Kwaqhwatywa.]
Le komiti, kaloku, iza kulawulwa ngemigaqo yoluntu, ngokwamasiko esizwe eso, kusetyenziswa wona lo Mthetho uYilwayo kwaneminye imithetho efanelekileyo, kwakunye noMgaqo-siseko weli lizwe. Ngokwesiko lomz’ ontsundu, umhlaba wesizwe ngowabantu bonke nenkosi yesizwe sabo. Umhlaba, isizwe, inkosi, azohlulwa ezo zinto. Indoda yokwenyani ithi xa izazisa kubantu basemzini ixele ukuba uyise ngumthile, unina yintombi yasemathileni, iphuma ekuthini, kwisizwe sikankosi ubani. Ingawuxelanga umlambo esela kuwo nesibuso senkosi yayo, ayigqibanga ukuzazisa. [Kwaqhwatywa.]
Umhlaba lo ke, ngoko, lilifa lesizwe ekuthi ke kufuneke wabiwe, usetyenziswe ngobunono. Awabelwa nabani na. Kufuneka kucace kuqala ukuba unabantu abaxhomekeke kuwe, ukuze babe nekhaya, bafumane ukutya nezinye izinto zempilo. Indoda enomfazi iyaliphiwa inxiwa. Elo nxiwa lelaloo mfazi nabantwana bakhe. Xa iswelekile, lilungelo lakhe umhlolokazi nabantwana ukuhlala kuloo mzi, bangahlutshwa mntu.
Umntu othi uyindlalifa kamfi, ngumsebenzi wakhe ukunonophela, ukondla nokukhulisa abantwana bakamfi. Izinto zikamfi azizizo zendlalifa ukuba yenze ukuthanda kwayo ngazo. Uthe ke umlungu esakungenelela kwintlalo yomntu ontsundu, wayiguqula impilo yethu. Wath’ umfazi akanalungelo kumhlaba womzi wakhe. Uthe xa ebhalisa amanxiwa kwimiqulu yakhe, wabhalisa indoda yodwa, wamshiya ngaphandle oyena mnikazi wenxiwa, umfazi nabantwana bakhe. Neenkundla zakhe ke, umlungu, ziwutolike ngolo hlobo ungelulo, umthetho wamalungelo omhlaba nalowo wamafa ngokwesintu. Silungisa loo manxele ke ngalo Mthetho uYilwayo. Bonke abanelungelo kwisiza nomhlaba baza kubhaliswa kuxwebhu lwamalungelo omhlaba khon’ ukuze kungabikho mathandabuzo nakuqhatheka.
Awuthengiseki ke umhlaba wesizwe, umthetho wawo. [Uwelewele.] Masikhumbule ukuba sithetha ngesiqwentshana nje seshumi elinesithathu ekhulwini xa sithelekisa nomhlaba osezandleni zegcuntswana labamhlophe. Nalowo sisalindele ukuba wabelwe wonk’ umntu, ngobulungisa. Kambe ke noko kunjalo, lo Mthetho uYilwayo uthi xa ikomiti yolawulo-mhlaba ifumana isicelo, sisenziwa ngenjongo zokuba kubolekwe imali yemveliso nophuhliso, isicelo eso ingasikhaba okanye isamkele. Xa isamkela isicelo esinjalo, ikomiti leyo isigqithisela kwibhodi yamalungelo omhlaba phambi kokuba sibe siphumelele. Ngale ndlela sinqanda abarhwaphilizi ukuba bangaxhaphazi ubuhlwempu babantu, ngokubafaka ematyaleni abangena kuphuma kuwo.
Ndiqinisekile ukuba izizwe, Madlokovu, neenkosi zazo ziya kuwuxhasa nazo lo Mthetho uYilwayo. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo uhamba namaxesha esiphila kuwo, amaxesha amalungelo oluntu ngohlobo lwasemzini, olugxininisa lona esiqwini nangaphezulu koluntu jikelele. Ukwahlonipha imbali yethu, amasiko nezithethe zobukhosi bomz’ ontsundu. Akukho mntu uqhathiweyo kulo Mthetho uYilwayo.
Xa kukwesi sithuba, mandiqaphule malunga neBhodi yeNgonyama yoMhlaba kwaZulu-Natal. Le bhodi iza kuhlala ikho, isebenza, ichotshelwe yikumkani ngokwayo. Iza kuthi ke lakuphela ixesha lamalungu ayo akhoyo yakhiwe ngokutsha, ngokwendlela yalo Mthetho uYilwayo. Le bhodi nayo iza kuthi gqolo ukunikezela kwizizwe zobuya bukumkani amalungelo kwimihlaba leyo, njengoko kunjalo kwezinye iindawo, ngokwalo Mthetho uYilwayo. Ikumkani yona, uBhejan’ ephum’ esiqhiwini, ukade bekuvalele, uya kuhlala engumhlalingaphambili webhodi leyo. Kuse kuhleni ke, ndiqinisekile, ukuba ekuhambeni kwexesha, naxa sel’ usebenza lo Mthetho uYilwayo, nezinye iikumkani zeli ziya kulungiselelwa indima ehambelana nesikhundla sazo.
Kwakhiw’ ilizwe, mawethu. I-ANC isebenzela ukuba isizwe soMzantsi Afrika sihambe sonke, kungabikho basala ngasemva. Ngoko ke, imithetho efana nalo, siza kusoloko siyiphumeza ukuze kungabikho kukhwina kubhekele phi. Njengoko besele nditshilo, iimfuno, iimfanelo namalungelo abo bonke abathe bahleleleka ngexa langaphambili abuyiselwe kwaye akhuselwe ngulo mthetho uYilwayo. Masiwuthembe, singabi nadyudyu, akukho nto ingaphaya. Awenzelwa voti. Sekukudala kakade zedlula iintsuku zokuphunyezwa kwawo. Iminyanya, ndithembile, ixoliwe nayo. [Uwelewele.]
Besenditshilo ndathi: i-ANC, ithambo lenyoka elihlab’ abayizondayo, iyawuxhasa lo mthetho uYilwayo. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of Xhosa speech follows.)
[Adv S P HOLOMISA: Hon Chairperson, traditional leaders among us today, hon Members of the National Assembly, the African Union, the ANC undoubtedly supports and welcomes with both hands the Communal Land Rights Bill.
The ANC, as an organisation that fought for the freedom of this country and its people, could not avoid this moment. We should bear in mind that its founders were very intelligent, learned people and priests, while some were traditional leaders. [Applause.] My own king, King Dalindyebo, is the one who leads the sun from the sea up to the Orange River where it sets. The son of Ngangelizwe.
Irhamb’elineendevu lakwaMtirara, Elabonwa ngabafazi bakwaMbanga bephangela. Ukhalakhulu lilumla abantwana. Yakhuph’iinkabi zeenkomo laa mhla wasekwa lo mbutho, Isithi ama-Afrika mawatye, Angalambi ngemini yokuxoxa ngendlel’ entsha yokulwelwa komhlaba. Watsho esithi ngolo hlobo uyalela bonke abaThembu Ukuba babe ngamalungu e-ANC. [Praise song for King Dalindyebo.] [Interjections.]
On that day, traditional leaders from the royal family of Moshoeshoe, up in the mountains, were present, as well as those from the Sobhuza royal family, the Ngwane. The Lozi royal family from Zambia did not deny themselves that opportunity. Dinuzulu, a relative of the family of Dumehlezi kaMenzi, uMashay’akayishayeki, ilembe eleq’amany’amalembe ngokukhalipha, was chosen as honorary president of this organisation. The first president of the ANC, Rev Langalibalele Dube, Mafukuzela, was himself born of the royal family from the Qadi house.
The objective of this Bill is to restore the dignity of the African people. Its aim is to prove that what the white oppressors did - taking our land and justifying it by saying that they were going to look after it for us as if we were small children - was stupid. In this way, we are getting an opportunity to correct the wrong and fix the damage that was caused by a corrupt government that interpreted laws, the culture and customs of black people falsely to disadvantage them. This Bill provides that land issues will be administered by a land administration committee, which will comprise local traditional leaders, their subjects, women, the disabled, orphaned children that look after their families, the youth and the adults. Women will form one third of this committee, and that is to guard against abuse of their rights. Representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, of the Land Rights Board, of the MEC for agriculture, of the MEC for local government, as well as those of local authorities or municipalities, would attend meetings of the Land Administration Committee. Who can say, therefore, that the rights and interests of the citizens of this country are being compromised? It can only be the one who thinks that African people cannot handle their matters in a rightful manner. [Applause.]
This committee will use traditional and cultural institutional structures supported by other legislation as well as by the Constitution. According to African tradition, land is the soul of the nation; it belongs to the people and their chief. Land, the nation and the traditional cannot be separated. A real man introduces himself by saying whose son he is, who his mother is and from which tribe or clan he comes, and from chief so-and-so’s kraal. If he would not tell the river whose water he drinks and the salutation of his chief, he would not have completely introduced himself, thus he will not be welcome. [Applause.]
The land, therefore, is the soul of the nation and needs to be shared equitably amongst the citizens of the country. Not everybody can lay claim to it. It must be clear that the one who is granted a piece of land has family that he would be expected to take care of by building them a home and providing them with food. According to the African tradition, a man who has a wife must be given a piece of land. That plot becomes the property of the wife and their children. When the man passes on, it is the right of the widow and children to remain in that home and not be bothered by anybody.
It becomes the responsibility of the deceased’s eldest child to take care of the household and look after the siblings. The property of the deceased is not for this child of his to waste. When the white man came into the lives of black people, things changed. Traditional tenure security was effectively eroded, thereby alienating the indigenous people from their cultural and governance aspirations. The white man said a woman had no right to her late husband’s land. When entering names in the property register, the woman’s names would be left out, although she and the children would be the rightful owners of the entire piece of land. The courts, too, perpetuated that wrongful interpretation of our cultural law. This Bill is aimed at correcting precisely that historical situation by addressing the needs of the previously disadvantaged masses. All those who have rights to land are going to be registered in the Land Register to avoid corrupt activities.
Land is a national asset and is for sale. [Interjections.] We should remember that we are talking about only 13% of the land compared to the rest that is in the hands of the white minority. We are expecting that that land also will be distributed among the people of the country. Notwithstanding that, this Bill says that if and when an application for land has been submitted to the Land Rights Committee for purposes of development, the committee should forward it to the Land Rights Board for verification. This is aimed at curbing fraudulent activities that may arise.
I am certain that traditional leaders will support this Bill, Madlokovu. The Bill has been drafted to do away with minority individual tenure. It goes with the present times, the times that emphasise individuals more than communities in general. It is aimed at developing new laws that reflect black African realities. This Bill has undermined nobody.
I would like to talk briefly about the Ingonyama Land Rights Board of kwaZulu-Natal. The King himself will chair this board. When its term of office expires, new members will be appointed according to this Bill. The board will administer land transfers, as happens in other areas as well, according to the new Bill. The King, Bhejan’ephum’esiqhiwini ukade bekuvalele, will always remain the chairperson of the board. It is envisaged that in due course, when the Bill has been passed into law, other kings of the country would be granted their rightful place with regard to the land issue.
We are building the nation, fellow countrymen and women. The ANC is striving for the whole of South Africa, wishing that no one should be left behind. We are therefore going to continue drafting legislation such as this so that there shall be no complaining. As I have already said, the needs and rights of the disadvantaged masses have been taken care of in this Bill. We should trust it; there is nothing sinister about it. It is not being used as a weapon to garner votes. It is long overdue. I believe our ancestors are happy wherever they are. [Interjections.]
I did say that the ANC, the bone of a snake that pricks the one it hates, that is regarded by many as an enemy and that others would like to see dead, supports this Bill. [Applause.]]
Mnr A S VAN DER MERWE: Voorsitter, wanneer ‘n mens deur die voormalige tuislande ry, besef ‘n mens dat die stelsel van beheer oor grond beslis verander moet word.
Hierdie grond maak 20% van die totale landbougrond van Suid-Afrika uit. Hierdie grond is egter in staat om tot 40% van totale landbouproduksie van Suid-Afrika te produseer, mits daar volgens volhoubare landboubeginsels geboer word.
Ek moet dadelik sê dat hierdie wet beslis nie die alfa en omega is wat hierdie grond betref nie. Dit is hoogstens ‘n beginproses om dié grond wat van sulke hoë potensiaal is, te bestuur om sy volle potensiaal te kan bereik. Gebruikers van die grond het geen sekerheid gehad nie. Dit het tot gevolg gehad dat broodnodige kapitaalbesteding nie plaasgevind het nie.
Geen drade, geen kontoere, geen instandhouding, geen watervoorsiening en geen infrastruktuur nie. Dit is die rede hoekom baie skade aan die bodem aangerig is. Ek hoop dat die ander elemente wat nodig is om armoede te help verlig in hierdie gebiede spoedig in werking gestel sal word.
Laat ons nou maar vir mekaar vandag sê: kommunale boerdery is en was nog nooit ‘n sukses nie. Om van kommunale boerdery ‘n sukses te maak, vereis ‘n baie belangrike element en dit is ysere dissipline. Dít is een eienskap wat in ons nuwe demokrasie verlore geraak het. Dit is baie goed dat trustgronde onder gemeenskapsrade se jurisdiksie kom, sodat ons kan toesien dat individue gebruiksreg van die gronde kan kry. Dit moet langtermynhuurkontrakte tot gevolg hê. Die adjunkminister praat van vrypag. Dit moet ook verwelkom word, maar kan ook beter wees. Tradisionele leiersgrond moet gemeenskapsgrond word sodat die gemeenskap kan besluit oor die gebruiksreg. Tradisionele leiers se mag in toekenning van grond het in die verlede tot misbruik gelei. Dit sal egter ‘n groot fout wees indien tradisionele leiers nie betrek word nie. Hulle het groot invloed en met die regte gebruik van hul invloed kan hulle help om die proses suksesvol te maak.
Individue wat gebruiksreg kry, moet ten minste ‘n tydperk van vyf jaar kry om hulleself te bewys. Slaag hulle hierdie toets, moet hulle kwalifiseer om vir minstens 50 jaar gebruiksreg te kry. Hierdie kleinboere moet sekerheid kry oor die gebruike van die grond. Dis die enigste sekuriteit wat hy kan gebruik, om byvoorbeeld finansiering te kry. Hy het geld nodig om sy insetkoste te finansier. Ek wil weer eens pleit dat ‘n skema geskep word wat bestaansboere en kleinboere kan bystaan, al moet hulle ‘n jaar of twee geen rente betaal nie en daarna ‘n lae rentekoers totdat hul lenings na tien of vyftien jaar afgelos is.
Dit is noodsaaklik om nuwe landbouers op die grond te vestig. Hulle moet ondersteuningsdienste kry, soos onder meer hulp met bemarking.
Ek mis ‘n hoofstuk in die wet, naamlik een rakende gebruiksreg. Sekerheid daarvan moet verkry word in terme van huur, sekuriteitswaarde vir finansiering vir erwe, vroueregte moet aandag kry. Dit is egter in die proses verbeter in die komitee, maar dit mag nodig wees om dit in die praktyk vorentoe verder te verbeter. Wat word van inkomstebelasting wat verbruikers moet betaal? Wat word van nie-betalers? Wat van individuele verbruikersregkontakte indien die verbruiker van grond regsekerheid kry oor sy regte dat grondhervormingswette op diesulkes toegepas word?
Die staat het ‘n geleentheid om sy grondhervormingsdoelwitte ‘n groot hupstoot te gee. Hierdie wet bied ‘n groot uitdaging aan die Minister en die Departement van Landbou om die foute van die afgelope 10 jaar in suksesse te omskep. Dan sal dit ook nie nodig wees om ongetoetsde bewerings, soos by Trompsburg, die wêreld in te stuur nie.
Die NNP steun die wet as ‘n beginpunt en wens die Regering sukses toe met die uitvoering daarvan. Dit is moontlik my laaste optrede in hierdie Raad; ‘n voorreg wat ek oor 16 jaar kon geniet het. As ‘n aktiewe landbouer in die Raad, wil ek graag ‘n gedagte met u deel. Ek wil ‘n pleidooi aan hierdie Huis se lede rig. Ons kom uit verskillende kulture, agtergronde en opvoedingsgeleenthede. Dít het in die verlede konflik gebring. Ek pleit dat hierdie verskille vervaag en laat ons ons liefde vir Suid-Afrika voorop plaas. Die President se strategiese plan oor die pad van die landbou vorentoe kan nie verbeter word nie. Die uitstaande kenmerk is om volhoubare landbou te skep. Moenie dat die baie geleenthede wat hierdie ideaal bied, verlore gaan nie. Moenie vergeet dat ‘n land wat vir sy landbou sorg, vir sy toekoms sorg nie. Onthou Suid-Afrika beskik oor swak landboutoestande. Suid-Afrika is egter een van die weinige lande in die wêreld wat surplusvoedsel produseer en kos uitvoer en dit terwyl landbou in Suid-Afrika geen staatsubsidie ontvang. Ek salueer my mede-boere, klein en groot, in hierdie land! [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr A S VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, when one drives through the former homelands, one realises that the system of control of land must definitely be changed.
This land comprises 20% of the total agricultural land of South Africa. However, this land is capable of producing up to 40% of South Africa’s total agricultural production, provided that sustainable agricultural principles are followed when farming.
I must say immediately that this Act is certainly not the alpha and omega where this land is concerned. It is at best a process to start managing land with such high potential, so that it can reach its full potential. Users of the land had no security. The result was that the necessary capital spending did not take place.
No fences, no contours, no maintenance, water supply and no infrastructure. This is the reason why a lot of damage was done to the surface. I hope that the other elements that are necessary to help alleviate poverty in these areas will be implemented as soon as possible.
But let us say this to one another today: Communal farming is and has never been a success. To make a success of communal farming, a very important element is required, and that is iron discipline. This is one aspect that has been lost in our new democracy. It is very good that trust land is being placed under the jurisdiction of communal councils, to ensure that individuals can obtain the right to use the land. This must result in long- term lease contracts. The Deputy Minister speaks of freehold. This must also be welcomed, but it can also be better. Land belonging to traditional leaders should become community land so that the community can decide about the right of use. The power of traditional leaders with regard to the allocation of land has led to abuse in the past. However, it would be a big mistake if traditional leaders are not involved. They have great influence and can, with the correct use of this influence, assist in making a success of this process.
Individuals who obtain right of use must have at least a period of five years to prove themselves. If they pass this test, they must qualify to receive right of use for at least 50 years. These small farmers must have certainty regarding the uses of the land. This is the only surety that he can use, for example to obtain financing. He needs money to finance his initial production costs. I once again want to appeal that a scheme should be created to support subsistence farmers and small-scale farmers, even if it means that they do not have to pay interest for a year or two, and thereafter a low interest rate, until redeeming their loans after ten or fifteen years.
It is essential to settle new farmers on the land. They must receive support services, such as, among other things, assistance with marketing.
I am missing a chapter in the legislation, namely the one concerning right of use. Certainty about this must be obtained, in terms of lease, security value for the financing of erven and women’s rights must receive attention. This was, however, improved in the process by the committee, but it may still be necessary in the future to improve it in practice. What becomes of the income tax that users must pay? What happens to those who do not pay? What about individual users’ rights contracts, where the user of land receives secure tenure over his rights in order that land reform laws could be applied to it?
The state has an opportunity to give great impetus to its land reform aims. This law presents a great challenge to the Minister and the Department of Agriculture to transform the mistakes of the past 10 years into successes. Then it will not be necessary either to send untested allegations, like in the Trompsburg case, out into the world
The NNP supports the law as a starting point and wishes the Government success with its implementation.
It is probably my last appearance in this Council; a privilege that I have enjoyed for the past 16 years. As an active farmer, I would like to share a thought with you. I want to appeal to the members of this House. We come from different cultures, backgrounds and educational opportunities. In the past this has brought conflict. I plead that these differences would fade and that our love for South Africa would come first. The President’s strategic plan for agriculture’s way forward cannot be improved. The critical feature is the creation of sustainable agriculture. Do not let the many opportunities presented by this ideal be lost. Do not forget that a country that cares for its agriculture cares for its future. Remember that South Africa has poor agricultural conditions. South Africa, however, is one of the few countries in the world that produces surplus food and exports food, and this while agriculture does not receive any state subsidy. I salute my fellow farmers, small and big, in this country! [Applause.]]
Ms E NGALEKA: Chairperson, Deputy Minister, hon members, comrades and
friends, the ANC slogan Mayibuye iAfrica'' was and is precisely a demand
for the return of the land of Africa to its indigenous inhabitants. The ANC
recognises that other oppressed people deprived of land live in South
Africa. The white people who have made South Africa their home and are
historically part of the South African population are as much entitled to
land. Therefore,the land shall be shared amongst those who work it’’, as
stipulated in the people’s document, the Freedom Charter.
On Freedom Day, 27 April 2003, the President said in his address:
Since 1994, we have entered into a social contract, as South Africans, that central to the realisation of our strategic goal is the eradication of poverty and the defeat of underdevelopment in every corner of our country.
In 1997, approximately 32% of South Africa’s population lived in the former homeland areas. A breakdown of this figure indicated that 63% had permission to occupy the land where they lived and 26,6% lacked permission to occupy, and the remaining 9,6% were uncertain whether they had permission or not. Tenure reform in South Africa is mandated by section 25(5) and 25(6) of the Constitution. Tenure reform is seen as comprising two main areas of focus, that is security of tenure for people living on farms and improving security of tenure for those in communal areas, largely the former TBVC areas. One of the objectives of the Bill is to grant land tenure rights, individually or communally, to approximately 2,4 million rural households which are largely concentrated in the former homelands. This land is currently owned by the state and held in trust by traditional leaders.
Women, and in particular black women, have been severely marginalised with regards to access to land. Customary laws denied women the right to be allocated land in their personal capacity. Women’s tenure was linked to their status in relation to male members of the family as wives, mothers, daughters and sisters. Married women who lost their husbands stood the risk of losing what belonged to their husbands although they were forced to marry in community of property, especially if she did not have male offspring. Girls could not inherit a homestead when both their parents died. A greedy brother-in-law, the father’s brother, could grab all that belonged to his brother. If the brother’s wife was still alive, he could place her and her children under his control. If he so wished, he could take his brother’s wife as his additional wife. He could then use his late brother’s possessions to support his own family and that of his brother, literally inheriting his sister-in-law as if she was a piece of property and a perpetual minor.
The Bill before us changes these old-order rights and ushers in new-order rights. In terms of new-order rights, the wife is a co-owner with her husband of whatever land has been allocated to them, irrespective of the marriage regime. Communal land and new-order rights are capable of being and must be registered in the name of the community or person, including a woman, entitled to such land or rights in terms of this Bill.
In the old system, through customary law and practices, the land was traditionally reserved for men. Women were excluded from owning land through the Permission to Occupy system, the PTO system. It is these PTOs that are referred to in this Bill as old-order rights that will be transferred to new-order rights. The concern raised on the issue during public hearings was that, since women were excluded from owning PTOs, they are discriminated against to get new-order rights.
This Bill does not leave the poor and vulnerable community members, including women, unprotected. On the contrary, it provides a number of safeguards aimed at minimising some of the risks and problems identified by the organs of civil society, land activists and respected academics. The reported perceptions that the Bill maintains and even exaggerates the second-class treatment of women have no foundation at all when examined and analysed firstly against section 4(1).
The importance of the statutory provision is that it gives effect to a woman’s constitutional entitlement to security of tenure. Secondly, the criticism to the effect that the Bill confers second-class status on women is baseless when section 4 is read together with sections 14, 18, 22, 26 and 3 of the Bill.
Thirdly, the Bill makes it very clear in terms of section 4(2) that an old- order right derived from or recognised by old-order law, including customary law, held by a married person is, despite any law or practice, usage or registration contrary to that, deemed to be held by all spouses in a marriage in which such a person is a spouse, jointly, in undivided shares, irrespective of the matrimonial property regime applicable to such marriages and must, on confirmation or conversion in terms of section 18(3), be registered in the names of all such spouses.
Fourthly, the Bill also provides for entitlement of a woman in her own right, irrespective of her marital status, to the same land tenure rights or rights in land or interest in land as a man. This will put to an end discrimination faced by women in communal areas where they were treated as minors who could not hold title deeds on their own. Women, for the first time, will be able to use their title deeds to secure bank loans to assist them to farm or develop the land. This will eradicate poverty and ensure the economic emancipation of women, as women are the majority in communal areas and many are heading their own households. Having new-order rights would be of benefit to the whole of the community.
The new-order rights empower women, including single women and female- headed households, to own land in their own right as part of the emancipation of women. There is no doubt that the ANC Government has made great strides in achieving a legal framework where the rights of women and men are equally guaranteed. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, of which South Africa is a signatory, recognises women’s rights.
Article 14 of Cedaw obliges state parties to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas in order to ensure, on the basis of equality of men and women, that they participate and benefit from rural development. This would, in particular, ensure to such women the right to obtain all types of training and education - formal and nonformal - including that relating to functional literacy, and to have access to agriculture, credit and loans, marketing facilities, appropriate technology and equal treatment in land and agrarian reform, as well as in the resettlement schemes.
In some traditional structures, women’s representation are at present being addressed. Some existing structures, like the Royal Bafokeng, has approximately 40% women representation in decision-making. To those traditional leaders we say, keep it up and do better in order for you to be emulated by others.
The overall best female farmer of the year for 2003, Tendani Sinoamadi, took over farming at a Hillcrest estate after the death of her husband in
- She created work for 11 other people and hires temporary labour during planting, harvesting and debushing. This example of a female farmer should inspire other women to do likewise.
The Land Bank Amendment Act, Act 21 of 1998, gives women access to financial assistance from the bank. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, Act 19 of 1998, makes reference to women and notes that special consideration should be given to the rights of certain vulnerable groups, which include female-headed households. Land is an important source of capital used in economic activity and a factor of production.
In conclusion, we in the ANC can proudly say, truly the tide has turned. In the mere space of 10 years the Government has brought changes that have completely confounded both friend and enemy. I thank you. [Applause.]
Ms C DUDLEY: Chairperson, the ACDP respects traditional structures and leadership and views them as instruments for change and development and not as an obstruction. Traditional leaders are rightly ambitious for their people and need to be on board with transformation in a way that does not threaten, but inspires.
We believe the prospect of real development, which will benefit all, will do just that. Traditional leaders have an important role to play, which should not be undermined, and their inclusion in a structure like the NCOP would create an opportunity for them to make a relevant and positive impact.
The ACDP shares the hope of many that the Communal Land Rights Bill will not unnecessarily undermine traditional authority, but will help alleviate poverty and hardship and bring prosperity. We believe it is a sincere attempt to address the injustices of the past without tearing down traditional structures, while at the same time facilitating freedom of choice and individual enterprise.
It is reformation and not revolution that will transform our society in a sustainable manner on which we can build and expand, and the long-awaited draft Communal Rights Bill will begin this positive process of resolving urgent land tenure problems in the fertile former homeland areas.
Finding solutions to these complex issues presents many challenges, and whether or not the Bill provides appropriate solutions only time will tell. However, the urgent necessity for such a Bill is obvious to all. If we opposed the development of homelands before, then we must stand for transformation today. The key to this transformation is private property rights for farmers and residential and commercial development alike.
Research shows that communal farming with no individual incentive does not promote productivity, and where individual families farm their own land and enjoy the fruit of their labour, there is far greater success. Individual enterprise applies the Biblical principle, ``As you sow, so shall you reap’’, which encourages productivity.
People have a tendency to view the former homelands in a manner that keeps them in bondage. These areas in fact have the most potential of all the land in the country, being the most fertile and having the highest rainfall in a country, where there are severe water shortages.
With this in mind, the ACDP believes, we must not help perpetuate poverty by continuing to lock these potential gold mines into the mind-set of low- value staple-food production only. Is is time to help these areas make a leap in the value chain by growing high-value organic food for export.
This labour-intensive industry would necessitate skills transfer and quality control, which the state can provide, plus private joint marketing and distribution arrangements. The IDC has done this before with tea and coffee plantations in Venda, and must look at doing it again. Ventures in IT, flowers and other industries should be encouraged. These areas should also be ring-fenced and free of labour restrictions for a period of 20 years to give them the best possible chance of pulling out of poverty and flourishing.
The content of this Bill, which has changed continually throughout its six years in the making, will impact on the lives of as many as 30 million people. It is essentially a compromise between traditional practices and democratic principles, aimed at addressing issues of land ownership and security of tenure, especially for women.
While communal farming remains an option, the Bill rightly encourages individual ownership which will encourage greater responsibility and greater achievement. Communities can opt for traditional councils to administer land affairs, or elect land administration committees to do so. The ACDP will support this Bill.
Mr G T MADIKIZA: Chairperson and hon members, the intention to extend security of tenure to people in rural areas is a noble one. Firstly, it is commonly believed and accepted by most people that the right to own property, especially land, has a high emotional value.
Owing to racial and gender discrimination in the past, many people were deprived of their land and the right to own land. For many people the extension of the right of property ownership of the land they live on is truly a matter of dignity and pride. It makes them feel like full participants in this new democratic society.
It is also important to remember that the institution of traditional leadership, supported by millions, is directly linked to the communal land issue. Secondly, security of tenure is a step in the right direction in terms of helping as many as 15 million rural South Africans to gain access to the formal economy.
Without property to offer as security, these people remain on the fringes of the economy, unable to access formal-sector financing. This could be one of various steps that need to be taken in order to stop the social and economic stagnation of rural areas.
For these two important reasons the intentions behind the Communal Land Rights Bill cannot be faulted. However, intentions alone are not sufficient, especially on such a critical and emotional matter. Unintended consequences could have disastrous effects and undermine some of the noble goals of this legislation.
There is far too much criticism from far too wide a spectrum of civil society regarding the Bill and the lack of consultation during its drafting for Parliament to accept this Bill. However, despite the above concern, the UDM supports the Bill. I thank you.
Moh M A SEECO: Modulasetulo, batlotlegi, maloko a Palamente a a fano, UCDP ya re mmu mmelega batho, ra re setshwarwa ke ntša pedi ga se thata. Ke tlotla e kgolo mo go bomme go itseela ka tsebe, fa ba akarediwa mo thulaganyong ena ya lefatshe. (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.) [Mrs M A SEECO: Chairperson, hon MPs present, the UCDP says that the soil is very important to the people and that unity is power. It would be a great honour to women to hear for themselves if they can be included in the land issues.]
Let the land go back to the people, and the people go back to tilling the land for a living. The question of the right to land has been a source of concern to South Africans of a darker hue. Questions have been asked about how some people came to own land, whilst sons and daughters of the soil remained landless.
I do not want to delve too deeply into how Africans were dispossessed of their land - except to say that this happened through simple bartering, in some cases, and as rewards for some soldiers after the war, while Africans were given overcoats and bicycles.
We need to applaud the presentation of this Bill. The Bill sets out the procedure to follow in the transfer and registration of communal land. In the spirit of service to and respect for people, it is required that in making a determination on land that is not state land, the Minister must bear in mind that the person or people in whose name or names the land is registered should be the first port of call. This makes it clear that people will never again lose or be removed from their land without their consent.
We in the UCDP believe that when the Bill becomes law and the contents thereof are followed to the letter, there will be no further complaints. However, we wish that the Minister state categorically what the situation is in relation to claims such as those in the Eastern Cape, which are being brought long after the cut-off date.
While we appreciate the resolution on cut-off dates, we bring it to the attention of the powers that be that our people are not so sophisticated as to appreciate the setting of dates. We raise this question of delays in complying while having noticed in the memorandum to the Bill that the Minister conceded that the Bill would require an expensive communication strategy because even the officials still have to be trained to implement the Act once it is in place. The 50 workshops which were run in preparation for this Bill were insufficient. I thank you. [Time expired.]
Mr T GODI: Chairperson, comrades and hon members, may I state from the outset that the PAC supports the Bill. We are particularly pleased by its progressive form, character and content.
The transformation project, which is an agenda of the democratic and progressive forces, must reach every nook and cranny of our country and affect every facet of the people’s lives. We must resist the impulse that seeks to deny people in rural areas full democratic benefits and practice.
The PAC is content, especially with the provisions of chapters 2, 3 and 5, which specifically deal with the recognition, empowerment and protection of women’s rights to land ownership and administration on the basis of absolute equality with everybody, which is a revolutionary departure from the feudal practices of the past.
However, we decry the fact that other pieces of legislation dealing with agrarian reform have not been this far-reaching. Whereas this legislation protects and empowers communities and individuals on communal lands, our people in vast farming estates throughout the country continue to suffer horrendous atrocities, ranging from brutal murders to inhuman evictions by white farmers. Their security of tenure in farms is violated almost with impunity.
The challenge for us is to tighten existing legislation to also empower and protect the toiling serfs on the farms. The PAC guarantees itself as a ready and principled partner in the transformation programme. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr A J BOTHA: Hon Chairperson and hon members, the object of this Bill is set out very clearly in the memorandum. It seeks to formalise the African traditional system within the framework of the Constitution by legally securing tenure rights of communities and people within the tenure system of their choice.
The transfer of ownership from the state to resident communities is a major advance away from a century of inequity, but it is less clear how individual people, particularly women, will be able to effectively communicate and exercise the choice provided for them in this Bill, especially when this choice does not coincide with the entrenched establishment of the community. I do believe that this Bill, comprehensively amended as it is now compared to the disaster presented to us at the end of last year, does - although somewhat vaguely - attempt to achieve just that, namely to free up the individual. [Interjections.] If you listen, you will learn more. But only time and experience will tell whether it will actually succeed in doing this.
The background statement to this Bill spells out that the existing paternalistic system prevents social and economic advancement in those areas. It now remains a question for the future to answer whether the latent paternalism, that could very well remain entrenched despite this Bill, will continue to stall social and economic advancement if it manages to prevent the flowering of individual enterprise. And that would be the acid test for this Bill.
The commercial farmland of this country is highly developed and productive, because the individuals, and not communities, who take the risk to till the land and graze it enjoys security of tenure, while the communal areas are undeveloped and unproductive because neither individuals nor the community enjoy such security. It is the individual risk taker who develops and maintains the commercial heart of this city, and not communities. And it is individual risk takers who provide commercial services in the townships, not communities. It is these individuals who must be fostered, whether inside or outside traditional custom, to achieve the desired social and economic advancement that we are talking about here.
Let us therefore hope and trust that the department will be able to develop the capacity and the skill to implement this Bill, because it is arguably the most important Bill that this Parliament has deliberated on in the last five years, since it directly and intimately affects probably fifteen- million people. At present the department has neither the capacity nor the skill having underestimated, by their own admission, the implementation costs of this Bill by at least 800%. And this must surely be addressed.
Agb Voorsitter, met die genade van bo en baie geluk, kan die departement miskien die nodige vermoë ontwikkel, maar beide die departement en die ANC het reeds die reg op vertroue verbeur met hulle wangedrag rondom hierdie wetsontwerp. Hierdie twee instansies, plus hulle nuwe skoothondjie, het ‘n skrale drie maande gelede hierdie Parlement verseker dat restitusie onmoontlik afgehandel kan word sonder dat die Minister ongeoorloofde magte oorneem by die hof met betrekking tot wie die regmatige eienaar van grond is.
Daardie einste mense vertel nou vir ons, in artikel 18 van hierdie wetsontwerp, dat … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Hon Chairperson, with mercy from above and lots of luck the department may possibly develop the necessary abilities, but both the department and the ANC have already jeopardised their right to be trusted owing to their poor conduct concerning this Bill. These two institutions, along with their new little lapdog, assured this Parliament barely three months ago that restitution was impossible to conclude without the Minister taking over unauthorised power from the court with regard to who the rightful owner of land is.
Those very people now tell us in Section 18 of this Bill, that …]
The Minister may not make a determination if there is a dispute. Until the dispute is resolved …
… en blaa blaa op verskillende wyse, en dan op ‘n einde … [… and so on in different ways, and then at an end … ] all by a court. So in the last instance, a court must resolve the dispute.
Ons moet baie mooi verstaan, net drie maande gelede vertel daardie agb adjunkminister Du Toit vir ons dat die DA en ander instansies histeries is deur die ministeriële magte met die restitusie teë te staan. Maar as dit kom by dieselfde beginsel verander hy van standpunt met betrekking tot kommunale eienaars. Hieruit moet nie afgelei word dat die adjunk uit onkunde so rondtrippel nie. So erg moet hy nie onderskat word nie, want hy weet waarvan hy praat. Dit is bloot uit politieke dienstigheid wat hy so optree. En die rede daarvoor is dat daar slegs 50 000 kommersiële kiesers is, maar daar is etlike miljoene in die kommunale gebiede wat kan stem.
Hierdie uiters belangrike wetgewing word dus blatant deur die ANC gebruik om stemme te werf. Suid-Afrika verdien werklik beter as dit. Maar dis verreweg nie die ergste misbruike nie. Die droogtekrisis word net so blatant uitgebuit om stemme te koop.
Rampbystand met droogte - wat die ANC terloops in die verlede gesê het - sal nooit weer gebeur nie. Ons sal nooit weer rampbystand in droogte kry nie. Dit word heeltemal tereg aangewend om ook kleinboere en bestaansboere, hoofsaaklik in die kommunale gebiede, wat dus geen voedsel sal hê nie, by te staan. En niemand kan daarmee ‘n probleem hê nie. Dit sal absoluut onrealisties en onredelik wees. En dit lyk vir my of ek van my bladsye verloor, maar laat ons aangaan.
Wat nou gebeur … [Gelag.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[We need to understand very well that just three months ago the hon Deputy Minister Du Toit told us that the DA and other institutions are hysterical when they oppose ministerial powers with the restitution. But when dealing with the same principle concerning communal owners, he changes his standpoint. One should not conclude from this that the Deputy is hopping about like this because of ignorance. He should not be underestimated to that extent, as he knows what he is talking about. It is merely because of political expedience that he does so. And the reason for this is that there are only 50 000 commercial voters, but there are several million in the communal areas who can vote.
This very important legislation is therefore being used blatantly by the ANC to canvas for votes. South Africa surely deserves better than this. But this is not the worst abuse by far. The drought crisis is used just as blatantly to buy votes.
Disaster-relief assistance in times of drought - which is what the ANC said in the past, by the way - would not happen ever again. We will never again receive disaster-relief assistance during droughts. It is quite rightly being used to assist small-scale farmers and subsistence farmers, mainly in the communal areas, where they would otherwise have no food. And no one could have a problem with that. It would be absolutely unrealistic and unreasonable. And it would appear to me that I am losing some of my pages, but let us continue.
What happens now … [Laughter.]]
I wonder what you will do if you stand here and you lose one of your pages. Watch me and let’s see how I do.
Wat nou gebeur, is dat dieselfde ramphulp aan plaaswerkers aangebied word teen ‘n bedrag van R900 oor drie maande. Dit is nie om te verhoed dat plaaswerkers hulle werk verloor omdat die boer, die werkgewer, nou in die knyp is as gevolg van die droogte nie. Hoegenaamd nie. Die boere is gister in die Vrystaat baie, baie duidelik gesê dat hulle daardie mense ten volle sal bly betaal terwyl hulle die R900 kry. Nou wat op aarde kan die doel hiervan wees? Dit kan net een ding wees, en dit is om stemme te koop vir die komende verkiesing. Dit is die diefstal van belastingbetalers se geld. Julle almal wat hier sit, insluitende julle, se geld word gebruik om stemme te koop vir die ANC. Daar is geen ander verklaring nie. Indien dit nie so is nie, dan daag ek die adjunkminister nou uit, wanneer hy netnou hier kom praat om daardie optrede te ontken en dit stop te sit. Anders kan ek u verseker die DA sal alles onder die son doen om dit stop te sit en al die ander belastingbetalers opkommandeer … (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[What happens now is that the same disaster assistance is offered to farmworkers in the amount of R900 over three months. This is not to prevent the farmworkers from losing their jobs because the farmer, their employer, is in trouble because of the drought. Not at all. The farmers in the Free State were told in no uncertain terms that they will pay those people while they received the R900. Now what purpose on earth could this serve? It can only be one thing, and that is to buy votes for the upcoming election. It is the theft of taxpayers’ money. All of you who are sitting here, including you, your money is being used to buy votes for the ANC. There is no other explanation. If this is not the case, then I challenge the Deputy Minister now, when it is his turn to speak, to deny it and to put a stop to it. Otherwise I can assure you that the DA will do everything under the sun to put a stop to it and will appeal to all the other taxpayers …]
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, hon member, your time has expired.
Mr A J BOTHA: Dankie. [Thank you.]
Dr E A SCHOEMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll come back to the DA, but first just a cursory remark. [Interjections.] The DA, by their own admission - and they can shout and howl as much as they want to - says it has been the most important Bill, at least over the last five years, but then they come here and they talk about everything but this Bill.
They talk about restitution. They talk about drought aid, but the Bill is on the back burner. And it just indicates how you rate the interest of the people in the communal areas. And the voters will talk. [Applause.]
When enacted, this Bill will provide the basis for a blueprint of the future utilisation of a vast area of land on a sustainable basis. It should provide a mechanism to rectify the results of the injustices of centuries, where land was alienated from the indigenous peoples of South Africa. This occurred through conquests, trickery and ideology, resulting in the eventual overcrowding and degradation of the communal areas. This, in conjunction with the abuse of the traditional system, contributed to the incorrect utilisation of land, as well as the violation of human rights, especially women’s rights. The lack of access to capital, inadequate infrastructure, training and support services, market access, etc. are all contributory factors to the current desperate state of affairs in most of the former homeland areas.
The legal entrenchment of the tenure rights of people working the land, whilst recognising the de facto system of traditional leadership, demanded extreme wisdom and insight from both the drafters of this legislation and the portfolio committee.
This Bill, because of its importance and its potential to create divisiveness, demands the support, not only of civil society but also of the total political spectrum. And one is therefore grateful that it would seem that all the political parties do support this Bill. It is therefore regrettable that the DA, however, chose, even before its final approval by the portfolio committee, to shout it down in the public media. And I refer to an article by the hon Graham McIntosh in the Natal Witness of 4 November 2003, in which he stated, amongst other things:
Apart from the aspect of human rights and democracy, the Government’s Communal Land Rights Bill is not progressive enough in building a gradual regime of modern property rights. It entrenches rights for traditional leaders who have clearly shown, with few exceptions, that they have neither the capacity, nor the energy, nor, as hereditary holders of office, the accountability to administer land rights in a way that will bring development and a market in property rights. Now he has cast a shadow of suspicion over all traditional leaders, and one would like to know what their allies in KwaZulu-Natal say about it. [Interjections.] Is Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi one of these leaders? What is his position? Are you prepared to stand up? Is the king of the Zulus one of those leaders? One would like to hear. And I don’t think the DA must answer. I think the IFP must answer. The IFP must say what they think of these bedfellows.
This epitomises the political opportunism, which manifested itself again last weekend, and I refer to Die Burger of 7 February 2004, where the hon Andries Botha was quoted. In reaction to the possibility, as expressed by the Chief Land Claims Commissioner, Mr Tozi Gwanya - and we heard it from hon Dan Maluleke - that in view of special circumstances, 1 500 restitution claims in the Eastern Cape might, after careful scrutiny, be reconsidered. Mr Botha said:
The re-opening of claims would amount to bureaucratic interference and would be irresponsible and unacceptable.
Now I recall that the hon Dan Maluleke gave notice to the portfolio committee, when the relevant legislation was discussed, that he intended tabling members’ legislation to re-open the whole process of restitution claims countrywide. I presume that he did not only have the sanction of his party’s leader but also of his party’s caucus to make this statement. He was not repudiated by his party colleagues. And I am sure the voters will appreciate an unambiguous reply. And it is interesting to look at the DA component at the portfolio committee. They have got the hon Kraai van Niekerk, who acts as the DA leader when the DA leader is out of the country, but he is still here under the FA banner. But Kraai van Niekerk represents the old order. He represents the thoughts of Andries Treurnicht and Jaap Marais. Then you have the hon Graham McIntosh, who represents the thinking of KwaZulu-Natal and Zimbabwe … Mr M J ELLIS: Mr Chairman. On a point of order, Mr Chairman.
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order, please take your seat, Dr Schoeman.
Mr M J ELLIS: I do seem to recall the hon John Jeffery who, while one of the DA speakers was speaking, tried to take a point of order about the relevance of the speech. I think that this is far more pertinent, Sir. And I do have to ask the question: To what extent is the hon Dr Schoeman speaking on the subject of this afternoon?
The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Dr Schoeman, will you please confine yourself to the matter before the House. [Interjections.] Order! Not that I agree with Mr Ellis. Please continue.
DR E A SCHOEMAN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll confine my thoughts to the delegation of the DA in our committee. Then you have the hon Stuart Farrow, and he, I think, sort of represents the DA more and more. But then you have the hon Andries Botha, and he is the unguided missile. [Laughter.] He extinguishes fires all the time. And then of course you have the hon Dan Maluleke, who quite often represents views quite close to that of the ANC. Now I want to tell the hon Maluleke, the DA will chew you up and spit you out when it is convenient. All you are expected to do is provide them with voters. [Laughter.]
Many inputs regarding the Communal Land Rights Bill were made during the
period that was set aside for hearings. The portfolio committee listened
very carefully to these and attempted to accommodate as many suggestions as
possible in the final Bill. Much reference was made to the
constitutionality of the draft of the Bill, as it was tabled originally. In
this regard, the legal opinions of Adv Gilbert Marcus, as sought by the
South African Human Rights Commission, and that of Mr H J de Waal, as
sought by the Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town, and a summary and analysis
of the Bill by Ms Aninka Claasens, a document entitled The Communal Land
Rights Bill and Women'' and a document entitledApproved version of the
CLRB gives extraordinary power to Chiefs, as issued by the NLC’’, were of
particular relevance.
Adv Marcus identified three constitutional flaws relating to the discretionary powers of the Minister. Firstly, the failure to give effect to the underlying constitutional right. It seeks to transform a constitutionally guaranteed right to a discretionary benefit, the granting of which is entirely subject to ministerial discretion.
Secondly, there is the problem that, whereas the Constitution states that the extent of the right to secure tenure or comparable redress legally is to be determined by an Act of Parliament, the Bill states that the extent of the right is to be determined by the Minister.
Thirdly, the Bill makes the realisation of constitutional rights subject to the exercise of official discretion in a manner which does not give constitutionally adequate guidance to those officials as to how they should exercise such discretion. The portfolio committee referred these objections to the Department of Land Affairs for legal opinion. The conclusion was that the Bill does give effect to the entitlement contained in section 25(6) of the Constitution, but conceded that the transformation of a constitutionally guaranteed right to a discretionary benefit, the granting of which is entirely subject to ministerial discretion, is arguable. It was also conceded that the Bill does not determine the extent of comparable redress and could be unconstitutional.
As to the question whether the Bill gives constitutionally consistent guidance to decision-makers, the opinion was that no such discretion exists, and that if such discretion did indeed exist, the principle laid down by the Constitutional Court, that guidance must be provided where a wide discretion is conferred upon a functionary, should be complied with.
The portfolio committee noted the problem areas regarding constitutionality and amended the Bill substantially to ensure compliance with the Constitution. In clause 4 the aspects of securing an old-order right or comparable redress is stipulated comprehensively. This also guarantees gender equity. The procedure of assessment which the Minister must follow with comparable redress is outlined clearly in clause 12, as amended.
Clause 18 of the Bill, which instructs the Minister how to act on a report by a land rights enquirer, was also amended substantially in order to provide greater clarity and be more specific. According to the assessment of this side of the House, these amendments, which have been alluded to in conjunction with other minor amendments, ensure compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and effectively deal with the reservations expressed by Adv Gilbert Marcus, Ms Aninka Claassen and the National Land Committee.
Mr H J de Waal, in an opinion furnished to the Legal Resources Centre, expressed the view that the Bill, read in conjunction with the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Bill, establishes a fully fledged new sphere of government, specifically in circumstances in which it would be unelected and unaccountable. The contention is that it unconstitutionally creates a fourth sphere of government by clause 24, read with clause 19, which vests public-state administrative powers in the Land Administration Committee.
It was also stated that the traditional leadership Bill increased the power of a land administration committee when such a land administration committee is established as a traditional council. It supposedly confers additional functions, which also define the structures and entrench the status of the fourth sphere.
In terms of the legal advice obtained by the portfolio committee, however, neither the Bill nor the traditional leadership Bill creates a fourth sphere of government, and that such conclusion misconstrues the overall statutory scheme of both Bills and the thrust of a number of their direct provisions.
Mnr die Voorsitter, hierdie wetsontwerp sal die gebruiks- en verblyfreg van die bewoners van kommunale grond verseker. In wese het dit dus betrekking op die grond van die voormalige tuislande en ander geïsoleerde gebiede. Hoewel dit dus in hoofsaak betrekking het op die gebruik- en verblyfregaspek van grondhervorming, het dit ook betrekking op sekere elemente van herverdeling. In klousule 38 word die Minister onder meer bemagtig om vir die doelwitte van die wet grond aan te koop en te verkry én op enige ander manier onderhewig aan artikel 3 van die Wet op die Bevordering van Administratiewe Geregtigheid van 2000, grond te onteien, hetsy ‘n gedeelte grond of ‘n reg op grond.
Hierdie onteieningsmagte van die Minister, soos uiteengesit in die restitusie van grondregtewet, is niks onheilspellends nie. Dis egter nie verbasend dat daar in sekere geledere, soos byvoorbeeld die Transvaalse Landbou Unie en die DA, ‘n histeriese herrie losbars - soos ons netnou gesien het - elke keer wanneer die woord ``onteiening’’ gebruik word nie. Dit moet gesien word as ‘n refleksreaksie waar die apartheidregering onteiening gebruik het om honderde duisende mense met weinig of geen vergoeding van hul eiendom te vervreem.
Herhaalde uitsprake van die agb President en die Minister van Grondsake, dat grondhervorming in Suid-Afrika binne die voorskrifte van die Grondwet én volgens die bepaling van die wet sal geskied, word doodeenvoudig geïgnoreer, of eerder, nie vertrou nie. Aan diesulkes het ek ‘n boodskap: die ANC en sy voorgangers ken die onregverdigheid en ongeregtigheid van kolonialisme en apartheid. In sy boesem dra hy die sweet, bloed en trane wat voortvloei uit ongeregtigheid. Sy strewe was na demokrasie en geregtigheid, nie na wraak en vergelding nie. Inderdaad is die boodskap van die ANC een van inklusiwiteit - Suid-Afrika behoort aan al sy mense, swart en wit. Kom op die speelveld, word deel van die volkskontrak om Suid-Afrika vir almal ‘n beter plek te maak én ‘n beter lewe te verseker.
Ek daag almal uit wat voorheen bevoorreg was om ook ‘n kontrak te sluit, dit wil sê ‘n vaste verbintenis, om te verseker dat die oneweredige besitpatroon van grond in Suid-Afrika reggestel word. As daarin geslaag word om suksesvolle nuwe boere op ‘n volhoubare basis te vestig, sal die vrese van bestaande boere vir altyd besweer word. Hierdie ANC-beheerde Regering was en is, en sal altyd ‘n verantwoordelike regering bly. Ons steun graag dié wetsontwerp. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Chairman, this Bill will secure the right of use and occupation of the dwellers on communal land. In essence, therefore, it refers to the land of the former homelands and other isolated areas. Although it principally refers to the right of use and occupation aspect of land reform, it also relates to certain elements of redistribution. In clause 38 the Minister is, inter alia empowered to purchase and obtain land for the purposes of the Act, or consistent with article 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000, expropriate land, a portion of land or a right in land.
These powers of expropriation of the Minister, as set out in the Restitution and Land Rights Act, are nothing sinister. However, it is not surprising that in certain ranks, for example the Transvaal Agricultural Union and the DA, a hysterical uproar erupts - as we have seen just now - every time the word ``expropriation’’ is used. It should be seen as a reflex reaction to where the apartheid government used expropriation to alienate hundreds of thousands of people from their land with little or no compensation.
Repeated statements by the hon President and the Minister of Land Affairs, that land reform in South Africa will take place within the regulations of the Constitution and according to the provision of the Act, are quite simply ignored, or rather not trusted. To those I send a message: The ANC and its predecessors know the injustice and inequity of colonialism and apartheid. In its bosom it carries the sweat, blood and tears that flow from injustice. Its aim after democracy and justice was not revenge and retribution. Indeed, the message of the ANC is one of inclusivity - South Africa belongs to all its people, black and white. Come onto the playing field, become part of the people’s contract to make South Africa a better place for all and to ensure a better life.
I challenge everyone who had been privileged before also to conclude a contract, that is to say a firm commitment, to ensure that the unequal pattern of land tenure in South Africa can be rectified. If we succeed in settling successful new farmers in a sustainable manner, the fears of existing farmers will be allayed for ever. This ANC-led Government was and is and will always be a responsible government. We gladly support this Bill. [Applause.]]
The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Thank you, Deputy Chairperson. It remains for me to thank the great majority of the members who participated here. It’s quite enjoyable to get the type of support which we received. I especially want to thank the hon Ngema, and also say ``hallelujah’’ that we are here, and that they support the Bill. We will have to talk a lot more in the future.
The hon Seeco referred to the problem of betterment areas. I can assure her that we have a good communication plan available. The issue of betterment areas is one of the great problems we have in these traditional areas. It led to a lot of bitter problems with the people. What basically happened was that some of those people who had five hectares had to come down to a quarter of a hectare so that profit-making harvesting could take place. In other places, where this did not happen, there was no real participation of the communities - this was done autocratically and technocratically, and actually contributed largely to the destruction of subsistence and self- sufficiency in the traditional areas. We have to attend to that also in the context of this Bill when we implement it.
But, of course, as always, the great disappointment has been the performance of the DA. Regarding the hon Maluleke, perhaps one of his senior Chief Whips should tell him that Question Time is something different to the debates we have when we debate Bills. [Interjections.] Then, of course, my old friend hon Botha was talking about latent paternalism, and then he went on and demonstrated the open paternalism of the DA, especially when he wants to push ultra-individualism down the throats of people who have a completely different culture. The only message he really gave was that he is against the culture of the majority of blacks in South Africa. [Interjections.]
Now, he also got on that old horse - and rode it again - of expropriation in the restitution Act, which is completely irrelevant to the context in which we are now. He also talked about the drought, which, if I were to answer him on that, the Chairperson here would have to rule me out of order, because that is not the subject today.
Let me put it like this.
Wat ek miskien moet sê, is my agb vriend het wel in ‘n stadium sy bladsy verloor, maar teen die einde van sy toespraak het hy kop verloor. [Gelag.] Volgende keer hoop ons dit gaan beter. [What I should point out is that my hon friend lost his paper at some stage, but towards the end of his speech he lost his head. [Laughter.] We hope he will fare better next time.]
I couldn’t finish my main speech earlier - I had started to quote Gramsci. So I will close with that. Gramsci said in one of his letters from prison, and he used the following words: ``The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.’’ Today we have seen the morbid symptoms demonstrated by the official opposition. Today we bury what I call the heart of apartheid and colonialism, and today the new-order land rights can be born. I thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 18:32. ____ ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces
- Assent by President in respect of Bills
(1) National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Bill [B 39D -
2003] - Act No 57 of 2003 (assented to and signed by President on
11 February 2004).
- Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent
(1) Bill passed by National Assembly on 12 February 2004:
(i) Education Laws Amendment Bill [B 38D - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 76)
(2) Bill passed by National Council of Provinces on 12 February
2004:
(i) Telecommunications Amendment Bill [B 65B - 2003] (National
Assembly - sec 75)