FRIDAY, 19 MAY 2006 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

                                ____

The Council met at 09:39.

The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                         APPROPRIATION BILL

                           (Policy debate)

Debate on Vote No 25 – Agriculture; and

Vote No 29 – Land Affairs:

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Ngizothatha leli thuba lokubiza umhlonishwa owengamele ezokulima nezomhlabathi, uNkk T Didiza, azokwethula inkulumo yakhe. Sinephodiyamu ngapha Ngqongqoshe, uma uthanda ukuyisebenzisa. Ngibona sengathi kungcono khona. [Ihlombe.] [I will take this opportunity to call upon the hon Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Miss T Didiza, to deliver her speech. We have a podium on this side, Minister, if you would like to use it. I think it is better to use the podium. [Applause.]]

The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Ngiyabonga mphathisihlalo, mangisho ukuthi kufuneka ngilokhu ngiza kule Ndlu ngoba sengathi ngizolahleka. Ngagcina sikhuluma sihlale ezihlalweni, sekujikile namhlanje sesima epulpithi kuhle okwabefundisi. [Thank you, Chairperson. Let me say that I have to come to this House more often, because it seemed as if I might get lost. We used to speak sitting on chairs. Today, things have changed. We stand in pulpits like pastors.]

Hon members of the NCOP and delegates from the provinces, members of the executive council responsible for agriculture from the different provinces, honourable guests, ladies and gentlemen, on 8 May 2006 this Parliament celebrated the 10th anniversary of our democratic institution. Interestingly, this event took place within a period that we have defined as the age of hope. Indeed, the functioning of the different spheres of government and the state as a whole will prove and confirm the correctness of the fundamentals we have inserted in this most important document, which is the foundation of our democracy.

Our Constitution, among other things, has created a framework around which we as government have to redress the imbalances of our past, while at the same time giving us a framework for what we have to do to build a functioning state. Land reform is one of those elements about which the Constitution asks of us to make good to those who were dispossessed as a result of our previous legislative framework as a country.

It is with interest that this difficult and emotional area of our work has been handled in a way that has sought to bring justice, equity, sustainability and reconciliation in our rural landscape. When one travels in the various regions of our country it is gratifying that there are many South Africans with goodwill who have extended a hand of friendship and support to the newly established farmers. I am reminded, amongst others, of Mr Motlock, who works with the women in the Goxe Cut Flower Project in Kokstad in the Alfred Nzo region in the Eastern Cape. There are many others like Mr Motlock in all the provinces.

We have sought to acknowledge the need for redress and the need for sustainability at the same time without standing on the fence like proselytes, as Dr Mgojo said at the funeral of the late Minister Stella Sigcau. There are those who do not want to take up the difficult task and would rather remain on the fence. But there are many like Mr Motlock, who decided that the future of South Africa lies in our diversity and, therefore, took the responsibility to ensure that they would work with those newly established farmers in their neighbourhood.

The women of Goxe Cut Flowers are an example of Zenzele at best. These were the women who used to work on the farms and when they lost their jobs they did not sit down and said what next or what grant would come from government? They decided to approach our land reform office in the Eastern Cape and indicated that there was a farm they were interested in and that there were 41 women and men willing to put in their sweat equity to ensure that they turn that landscape around and that rural village into a productive one.

Convinced that indeed these were entrepreneurs at best, we provided funding through our land reform programme for agricultural development and, supported by the local economic development of the Alfred Nzo District Municipality together with the provincial department of agriculture in the Eastern Cape, we supported those women in acquiring about 600 farms. Today they are producing proteas in Goxe, Kokstad.

It is an age of hope indeed, because who would have thought that in those hills and valleys, in those most rural areas of our country, you would find such entrepreneurs who would before long enter the market? But it is because of the goodwill of people such as Mr Motlock, who decided to contribute through his own set equity to ensure that he gave his time as well as knowledge to those women in support of their success.

I said there are many Motlocks in our country. Working with some Afrikaner communities in the Free State region, we have recently launched a programme. After being challenged by our President to ensure that they themselves plough back into our communities, these Afrikaner communities have worked with our Department of Land Affairs and come up with a support programme to ensure that the land reform beneficiaries, who otherwise would have had to wait for a long period of time to get support, get it as soon as possible, even if in the beginning it would be training and capacity- building.

I raise these things because they are very important to all of us in this debate. As we grapple with the challenges of redress as enshrined in our Constitution, it is important that we are not scared to dirty our hands.

Last year on 12 April in this very august Chamber, I pointed out that as we make increased progress with the implementation of both agricultural and land reform programmes, it has become clear that the success of the said implementation depends largely on intergovernmental relations, that is, co- operation between the three spheres of government as well as across government departments.

Still on that occasion, I lamented the fact that this much-needed co- ordination is sometimes extremely lacking. In the same breath I also commended the proposed legislation that was piloted at the time by the provincial and local government on intergovernmental relations. Such legislation has been passed to become an Act. I am happy to report to this House that our last Minmec formally set up in terms of that law an agricultural national forum which will include the local government as one of our structures that would help co-ordination and improve intergovernmental relations.

This phenomenon will ensure that collectively, as the MECs, the Minister and the Deputy Minister responsible, we can take our responsibility fully, knowing that what we agreed upon is not for the paper, but is what ought to be done. It also gives us the responsibility that even we as national government need to go beyond norms and setting of standards, but give effective support in ensuring that delivery does take place at our provincial and local government levels.

I think this is one of the areas that will create clarity on how we could work best with our municipalities. We all know that for the majority of municipalities, particularly in the rural landscape of our country, one of the economic stimuli that can assist them to reach better economic growth where they are would be through agricultural development. Therefore, local government for us has become a very important sphere of our government, in which we have to work together with the provinces. I must say that I am confident that the leadership that we have in these nine provinces governing the sector is capable and will be able to do so.

This Act will help us enhance our capacity to deliver on our mandate as government. In my view it will also help in alleviating some of the challenges we have already identified, particularly in spending resources allocated to our many programmes. This very House last year raised certain questions about the spending pattern on comprehensive agricultural support programmes together with the land-care programme, acknowledging that these are important programmes because indeed their delivery has a capacity and a possibility to change the quality of life of our people. We agree and concur with hon members that this is so.

I think it is also important to indicate to this House that our own reflection on this programme enabled us to identify some of the challenges that we had to deal with. One of those challenges has been the very capacity of the arms of government at provincial level.

I must say that it has also raised the challenge of the capacity of national government to give that effective support, apart from monitoring and setting standards. One of the things we are trying to do is also to assist one another to improve the capacity for planning. It is also to take a new look at our procurement procedures so that we can shorten the turnaround time that sometimes bedevils the process of delivery.

We have also acknowledged that it is important that we align some of the work that we want to do through these programmes with some of the provincial growth and development strategies, as well as local economic development so that indeed we do not work in a disjointed manner but rather in a coherent manner.

It is also clear that at national level, while we might have tried to assist by sitting down with our provincial counterparts, what is needed even more is the bodies of people who can sometimes go and spend time in the various provinces to work with their counterparts to unblock challenges. I must say that this has indeed raised the issue of capacity within the state.

I am confident that the work that our heads of department, together with the directors-general at national level, and their senior management team, are doing will enable us to come back to this House to indicate what plans we have to turn around this unpleasant situation. I am sure all of you, as you enter this debate, will raise some concerns around the spending patterns.

It is true that one of the important factors for agricultural development is agricultural credit. We would all appreciate that last year we started with the launch of the micro-agricultural finance scheme. We decided in consultation with our Cabinet that instead of rolling it out in all the provinces, we will start in the three districts, particularly those that were part of the rural development nodes in the three provinces: Limpopo in Ga-Sekhukhune, Eastern Cape in the O R Tambo region, and the Umkhanyakude district in KwaZulu-Natal.

I must say that presently we have started spending in those three areas. We have allocated 236 loans through our various financial institutions. In Limpopo it was about R34 million, which was disbursed to about 236 loans. In the Eastern Cape R2,1 million, which was disbursed to 51 loan applicants. In KwaZulu-Natal we have received 1 000 applications, which cost us about R8 million. These are at final consideration stage.

However, it is important for me to raise some of the challenges that have faced us as we implemented these projects. One of the problems has been the quality of project proposals that have been received for funding. Secondly, it is these very applicants’ capacity to pay it back. It has also raised the need for quality support once people apply for such loans so that they could have the ability to pay it back.

Therefore, one of the things we have had to do was to ensure that we do some kind of social mobilisation, educate our people to build their consciousness and awareness about the importance of saving. One of the requirements that we had to do was to build in, at the expanding of our loans, factors to mobilise people to save so that we would be able to assure ourselves that these people can take the responsibility of the funding. It might be one of the frustrating areas of work but in my view it is the necessary foundation. It sets our people free from continuous indebtedness and inability to service their loans.

I must say that through this programme we have also linked the work that we are doing with Mr Percy Barnevik and the Tamil Nadu Self-help Group of India, where we work together in trying to improve co-operative mobilisation of women into business enterprises in rural areas where they can pool their resources. I must say that such work has given clarity to the state on a level that we sometimes missed with our programmes, particularly the level of the poorest of the poor, who are among us.

We are working with the Departments of Trade and Industry; Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Arts and Culture, particularly with regard to the cultural industries; as well as the Department of Water Affairs, because there are critical stakeholders ensuring that those who require water for production are not actually frustrated or stranded.

It has also improved our capacity to work with Post Bank, Khula and other financial institutions that are very critical in terms of microfinance. In my view, this will enable us to pull our people out of poverty and the mentality of dependency.

Through this co-operative development, which is partly linked to agricultural development, we will be able to create many producers who can become enterprises in their own right. We would also be able to link them to the markets and in the chain be able to bring other small people into the process.

Last year, in the same debate, one of the issues that Rev Moatshe, who is the chairperson of the select committee, has consistently raised with us has been the lack of policy on aquaculture. I want to assure you, hon Chair, and hon members that …[Laughter.] [Applause.] … that finally we have worked and finalised the policy arrangement. That gives dual responsibility to both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, while the focus of environmental affairs would be largely on marine culture, as you know that farming continues to remain an agricultural activity.

However, the take-up on implementation is not quite as fast as we would have liked. What is good is that we now have a framework within which we can work. I am sure the chairperson will be the happiest person today.

I also want to say that we have developed - and it is ready for publication

• the ranch, forage as well as game farming policy. As you know, one of the challenges that we have been facing is that game farming in our country has continued to be unregulated, and also sometimes used as a way of evicting people by introducing wildlife.

What we have sought to do is to work out an arrangement because we think that this is an important sector of our economy that does need development and must work in a structured way. So, soon we will be publishing a document for public comments on that policy to allow more participation from the various stakeholders so that we can finally bring it to Cabinet and then to implementation.

With regard to the AgriBEE process, I must record that indeed in December we had an Agricultural BEE indaba where we were able to narrow the gaps in terms of what we are expected to do. This took into consideration the codes of good practice that have already been published by the Department of Trade and Industry. And I am hopeful that before the end of this year we will be able to finally sign on the AgriBEE Charter to allow for implementation and openness in our agricultural economy.

Chairperson, you know that one of the issues that have always been a matter of concern between the provinces and at national level is the management of veterinary services. In this area we have improved and, it is important for me to convey thanks for the collaboration that has always been expressed through action by our various provinces. When we have a problem in one province we have been able to add capacity by taking veterinary specialists from other provinces to focus on that area.

To this end, I want to thank all the provinces for supporting us on the work we had to do in the Eastern Cape on classical swine fever, as well as in the Western Cape. We know that it had had an impact on you, but we know that you did it because you understood the importance of co-operative governance and managing this sector as one rather than as different entities.

My colleagues, the members of the executive council, will deal with the other matters of detail on the implementation of our programmes. I would hate to steal their thunder, because it is one of the areas where they would need to share with you as NCOP what they are doing with the resources that the legislature has given them.

Lastly, as I conclude, I want to say thank you to this House for having invited us as the key department in participating in your Taking Parliament to the People campaign. That has been one of the ways in which we have been brought closer to the challenges that face our communities with regard to our policies.

It is sometimes difficult to be able to attend all the programmes that you have set up. But we have tried to ensure that we do have either the Deputy Minister, or the Minister when necessary, the senior officials and the MECs to be able promptly to answer the questions that people may raise as their concerns. I would like to congratulate this House on that work. [Applause.] It has brought us much more closely to what we have envisaged as a Parliament of the people. I thank you. [Applause.]

Moruti P MOATSHE: Modulasetulo, Tona le maloko a lefapha, Ditona tse di tswang mabatoeng a Aforika Borwa, baemedi, maloko a Khansele ya Bosetšhaba ya Diporofense, bana ba etsho le dikgaetsedi, ke ema fa ke le motlotlo e bile ke itumetse. Ke rata gore Tekanyetsokabo e e leng fa pele ga Ntlo e, ke kgwetlho e e re gopotsang kwa re tswang teng. Re lemoga gore lefatshe le botlhokwa tota. Kwa ntle ga lefatshe, isagwe ya rona e tla bo e le letobo. Ka baka leo, taba ya lefatshe e tshwanetswe go lebelelwa ka leitlho le le ntšhotšho.

Fa ke lebelela kwa morago, pele ga 1652, Shaka, kgosi ya mazulu … (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)

[Rev P MOATSHE: Chairperson, the Minister and members of her department, Ministers from other departments, delegates, members, brothers and sisters, I am very proud and happy to be here.

The Budget Vote being discussed today is a challenging reminder of where we come from. We notice the importance of land and the fact that without land our future is bleak, therefore the land issue must be given every consideration.

When I look back, to before 1652, Shaka, King of the Zulus …]

… ilembe elehlula amanye amalembe, unodumehlezi kaMenzi, wathi, “Ngibona izinyoni ezimhlophe zidlula olwandle ziza eNingizimu Afrika.” [… the hero of heroes, said: “I see white birds flying over the sea coming towards South Africa.”] [Interjections.]

The white birds that crossed the sea to South Africa and to the continent of Africa – that was the beginning of the threat to land. That is where it started. These are facts that cannot be disputed by anybody. The question of land has become imperative and that is why we are debating this Budget Vote today, which is an endeavour to address this legacy of 1652.

It is therefore very important that those who have the land and those who do not have the land must reach a point of agreement that those who occupy it shall share the land. These imbalances cannot be allowed to continue forever and ever and ever, hon Minister, when the indigenous people of Africa and South Africa were dispossessed of their own land, dispossessed of the soil, dispossessed of the mother and dispossessed of the father. That is why the ANC came to the fore.

They had foresight and a vision to address the legacy of 1652, not 1913. That is why they came up with the Freedom Charter. Indeed, in the Freedom Charter, we can see that those men and women had the vision and foresight to address this legacy. That is why this budget tries to address that, as a drop in the ocean, and attempts to address this serious legacy that has affected the people of this country.

The land shall be shared among those who use it. There are still great imbalances 12 years down the line. Where do we stand on the question of land? Are we really moving at a speed that will satisfy the masses of this country? Are we not going to be caught up between those who have the land and those who are thirsty for land? We have to speed up this process.

But, again, when you read Leviticus, Chapter 25, it talks about the jubilee year – that the land shall go back to the rightful owners. The Bible came with the white birds from overseas. The very Bible they used to dispossess people of their land says in Leviticus, Chapter 25, that jubilee is every 50 years. The land must go back to the rightful owners. That is what the Bible says.

We have had more than 100 years of dispossession and we have had approximately seven jubilee years after dispossession. Therefore the question of land is long overdue, Kgoshi Mokoena. The land must go back to the rightful owners. This government is negotiating with those who have land but those who have land are unwilling to comply with the echoes and sentiments of the Freedom Charter that go: “We shall share this land.” The Freedom Charter does not say that those who came must go but it says white and black in this country must share the land. The land belongs to the people of this country. Therefore we extend this challenge to those who have the land that they should make up their minds; otherwise it will be too late. The people who are yearning for land are running out of patience, unless we are blind not to read between the lines that pressure is coming. The people of this country are becoming much more politicised regarding the land question. Therefore the land must go back to the rightful owners, in the spirit of Leviticus, Chapter 25. The jubilee is now and is long overdue.

If our government seeks to achieve 30% redistribution of land by 2015 to the previously disadvantaged people, the pace of land reform must be accelerated considerably. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights plans to settle a total of 8 651 land claims during the current financial year ending 31 March 2007. Although the process of settling rural claims is fraught with innumerable difficulties, the challenge is the provision of adequate support to beneficiaries of the land restitution programme. The commission will try to ensure that developmental plans are in place within six months of approval of claims by the Minister.

It is 86,2% of the total of 79 696 claims lodged that had been settled by December 2005. The total number of outstanding claims is 10 977. Out of the outstanding claims, 8 055 are in the rural areas. These are scheduled to be settled by 2008. It is planned that all urban claims, totalling 2 922, will be settled by the end of the current financial year ending 31 March 2007.

The President, in his 2006 state of the nation address, indicated that the Cabinet intends to review the following during the 2006-07 financial year: the willing buyer-willing seller policy, land acquisition models, suspected manipulation of land prices, and the regulations governing the sale of land to foreigners. I am emphasising the question of land because without land we cannot talk about agriculture. How do we talk agriculture …

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, your speaking time has expired. [Interjections.] [Applause.] Order! Hon Tau, when the Chair says, “Order”, you don’t continue laughing.

It has been brought to my attention that the interpreting service keeps breaking down. Could we please look into that because people want to understand what other people are saying? I would want to encourage people to speak their languages as it’s the policy of Parliament. We did not put them here not to be spoken. If you speak your language, I am very much happy.

Mr J W LE ROUX: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Watson asked me to thank you and all the colleagues who conveyed messages of good wishes to him. He is feeling much better and he says he will try and come back as soon as he possibly can.

As most farmers are Afrikaans speaking, I will address you in Afrikaans.

Agb Voorsitter, agb Minister en kollegas, gebeure in die landbou ontketen altyd ernstige debat en is gewoonlik gelaai met emosie, soos ons nou net gesien het hoe dit geartikuleer is in die toespraak van die voorsitter van die komitee.

Dit is nie net in Suid-Afrika die geval nie, maar ook elders in die wêreld, dat boere nog altyd ’n belangrike groep was en daarom word boere in die meeste lande baie versigtig behandel. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and colleagues, events in agriculture always unleash serious debate and is normally very emotive, as we have just seen, as articulated in the speech of the chairperson of the committee.

It is not only the case in South Africa, but also elsewhere in the world, that farmers have always been a very important group and that is why farmers are handled very carefully in most countries.]

I would like to remind the Chairperson of a very clever man who once said that if you are confronted with a very difficult problem that has to be solved urgently, and he said this in Afrikaans, he said: “Haas jou langsaam.” [Make haste slowly.] I think we must really take that into consideration because we are dealing with a very emotive issue.

Vandaar dan ook die groot subsidies in ander lande wat deur die politici aan boere gegee word. In Suid-Afrika is dit nog nie die geval nie, maar namate die bemagtigingsproses vorder, sal dit sekerlik hier ook gebeur. Dit is baie kortsigtig van die regering dat ons landbouers nie beskerm word wanneer ons meeding teen gesubsidieerde goedere van ander lande nie. ’n Goeie voorbeeld hiervan is die kommissie in die Departement van Handel en Nywerheid wat tariewe bepaal en wat vir die tweede jaar geen verhoogte tarief vir koring wil toestaan nie. Dit is ondanks die feit dat koringboere moet kompeteer met goedkoop koring uit Argentinië, wat feitlik op storting neerkom. Wat die bemagtiging van nuwe boere betref en die regverdige verdeling van grond, is die oorweldigende meerderheid van die boere gemotiveerd om die proses te laat slaag. Die oorweldigende meerderheid boere is positief oor grondhervorming.

Wat die bemagtiging van nuwe boere betref, is dit duidelik dat daar aanvanklik baie meer mislukkings as suksesse was. Net soos die kafee op die hoek, die vulstasie of die drankwinkel, moet die nuwe eienaar kennis en ondervinding van sy beroep hê, anders is daar geen hoop op sukses nie. Wat in die landbou gebeur het, is dat boere sonder die nodige ondervinding en sonder die nodige kennis plase bekom het en net eenvoudig nie kon slaag nie.

’n Tweede belangrike faktor is natuurlik die verkryging van kapitaal en die nodige landboutegniese dienste. Sonder hierdie twee faktore is dit feitlik onmoontlik om ’n sukses in die landbou te maak. Wat landboutegniese dienste betref, is ek bevrees dat die standaard van hierdie bystand ’n gevaarlike laagtepunt bereik het.

In die vorige bedeling kon enige boer enige plek in Suid-Afrika net die telefoon optel en dan was daar hulp en tegniese bystand wat onmiddellik beskikbaar was. Die vraag is: waarom dan nie meer nie? Daar is hopeloos te veel kundigheid buite die Staatsdiens. Die regering sal dwaas wees as hierdie kundige persone nie weer teruggebring word nie.

Wat die koste van grond betref, word bestaande boere verkwalik dat hulle astronomiese pryse vir hulle plase vra en sodoende die grondhervormingsproses dwarsboom en vertraag. In ’n demokratiese stelsel is dit so dat elke persoon wat ’n bate besit die hoogste prys vir sy bate wil kry. Dit geld nie net vir landbouers nie, maar vir elke persoon wat iets besit; hetsy ’n motor, ’n huis of wat ookal. Die markprys van enige artikel moet bepaal word deur vraag en aanbod. Waar vraag en aanbod ontmoet, ontstaan wat bekend is as die “normale prys”. As ons torring aan hierdie beginsel, tas ons die fondament van die vrye ekonomie aan. In die geval van landbougrond, soos met alle ander bates, kan markwaarde redelik akkuraat bepaal word. Die gebruik van geakkrediteerde waardeerders om waardes te bepaal, is standaard praktyk en hoef nie bevraagteken te word nie. Wat bevraagteken kan word, is die rompslomp binne die departement. Daar is genoeg bewyse dat die probleem nie primêr by die boere lê nie, maar eerder by die departement self. Die oomblik toe daar bespiegel word rondom die konsep van gewillige koper- gewillige verkoper was daar groot spanning en onsekerheid in die landbou. Sulke spanning ontmoedig beleggings en werkskepping.

Die Transkei-gebied in die Oos-Kaap het enorme landboupotensiaal en die ontwikkeling van hierdie gebied moet deel word van die gronddebat. In Transkei het ons uitstekende grond, genoeg water en ’n oorvloed arbeid. Dit is verstommend dat meer aandag nie aan hierdie gebied gegee word nie.

Daar is uitstekende voorbeelde - en die Minister het daarna verwys - van boere en groot sakemanne wat in vennootskap met nuwe toetreders groot suksesse behaal het. Dit lyk na die regte pad en ons moet voortbou op hierdie wenresep. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Hence the major subsidies that farmers are allocated by politicians in other countries. In South Africa this is not yet the case, but as the empowerment process advances, it will certainly also happen here. It is very short-sighted of the government that our farmers are not protected when we are competing against subsidised goods from other countries. A good example of this is the commission in the Department of Trade and Industry that determines tariffs and for the second year running refuses to introduce an increased wheat tariff. This is despite the fact that wheat farmers must compete with the cheaper wheat from Argentina, which almost boils down to dumping. With regard to the empowerment of new farmers and equitable land distribution, the overwhelming majority of farmers are motivated to making the process a success. The overwhelming majority of farmers are positive about land reform.

Regarding the empowerment of new farmers, it is evident that initially there were many more failures than successes. Just as in the case of the corner café, the petrol station or the liquor store, the new owner should have knowledge of and experience in his profession, or there is no hope of success. What happened in agriculture is that farmers without the necessary experience and without the required knowledge acquired farms and simply could not succeed.

A second important factor is obviously securing capital and the necessary agrotechnical services. Without these two factors it is virtually impossible to succeed in the area of agriculture. As far as agrotechnical services are concerned, I am afraid that the standard of this support has reached a dangerously low level. In the previous dispensation any farmer, anywhere in South Africa, could just pick up the telephone and assistance and technical support would be available immediately. The question is: Why is this no longer the case? There is hopelessly too much expertise outside the Public Service. The government would be foolish not to bring these knowledgeable people back.

As far as the cost of land is concerned, existing farmers are resented because they want astronomical amounts for their farms and in so doing thwart and delay the land reform process. In a democratic dispensation it is simply that each person who owns an asset would want to gain the highest price for his asset. This does not only apply to farmers, but also to anyone who owns something; whether that is a motor vehicle, a house or whatever. The market price of any article should be determined by supply and demand. Where supply and demand meet, what is known as the “normal price” starts. If we tamper with this principle, then we are interfering with the foundation of the free economy. In the case of agricultural land, as with all other assets, market value can be determined fairly accurately. The use of accredited valuators to determine value is standard practice and need not be questioned. What could be questioned is the red tape in the department. There is enough evidence that the problem does not lay primarily with farmers, but rather with the department as such. The moment speculation arose concerning the concept of willing-buyer, willing-seller, there was great tension and uncertainty in agriculture. Such tension discourages investment and job creation.

The Transkei area in the Eastern Cape has enormous agricultural potential and the development of this area should become part of the land debate. In the Transkei we have excellent soil, sufficient water and an abundance of labour. It is astounding that no attention is given to this area.

There are excellent examples – and the Minister referred to them – of farmers and big businessmen who, in partnership with new entrants, achieved huge successes. It appears to be the correct route to take and we must continue to build on this winning recipe. I thank you. [Applause.]]

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Chairperson, Comrade Minister, comrades and hon members, in the past our people owned the land communally. A person’s wealth was determined not by money and immovable property, as it is today, but by how much one contributed to solving social problems.

This principle can easily be seen to be testimony to the philosophical belief of our forbears when they drew up the Freedom Charter. The provision of the Freedom Charter I am referring to above is the clause which says, and I quote: “The land shall be shared amongst those who work it.”

True to the spirit of this clause, our government, since 1994, has been doing everything in its power to realise its content. To start with the supreme law of our land, the Constitution, in section 25, protects property rights while placing an obligation on the state to implement land reforms.

In pursuance of the obligation, the Land Restitution Act was passed in 1994 and subsequently amended, so as to enable the government to put programmes and strategies in place to get back the land that had been unlawfully taken from them by colonialists.

The Act, in principle, accorded our people land rights, which then meant that that the government had to return the confiscated land to its rightful owners. Having rights to land, our people can, firstly, produce food of their own in the form of crop and livestock individually or collectively. They are able to improve household food security and permanent settlement. On the part of land redistribution, agriculture is the main priority. The government, for its part, acquires arable land and then distributes it among the people for agricultural purposes.

The aim of the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs is to create an equitable and sustainable land dispensation that promotes social and economic development. Therefore, the department has the responsibility of providing access to land and extend rights, with particular emphasis on the previously disadvantaged communities.

The budget of the department has been increased to reflect, to a greater extent, the willingness of the ANC-led government speedily to address the issue of land reform and redistribution, especially restitution. Policy directive, as stated in the state of the nation address in February this year, commits the government to do the following: Review the willing- seller, willing-buyer policy; review land acquisition models and possible manipulation of land prices, Mr Le Roux, and regulate conditions under which foreigners buy land; ensure that the land distribution programme is aligned to provincial growth and development strategies, as well as the integrated development plans of municipalities; and attend to the proper use of the funds that have been available for the productive utilisation of the land.

This directive has a significant impact on the budget of the department. More resources must be made available to attain given targets and have an impact on the pace of the land redistribution programme. The possibility of introducing land tax to discourage the holding of large tracks of unproductive land, setting land ceilings or maximum farm sizes to promote the subdivision of land and a moratorium on the sale of state land is envisaged.

As the Minister has said, land reform is to address the imbalances of the past, and we are talking about this year today, more especially in trying to encourage and in celebration of the biggest anniversary in June, which is a challenge to the department because there are youth who are interested in becoming farmers, but who do not, in the rural areas of Limpopo, know exactly where to go.

They are using the constituency offices, but the most important thing is that it takes a long time, like in Eldorado, where my constituency is, hon Minister. While we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the women’s march, in Eldorado, hon Minister, I have women who are able to plant tomatoes and spinach, which are even sold on the markets, but the unfortunate situation is that they need training and they need to access the departments, more especially the provincial departments. We are in the process of assisting them to do that at the present moment, so that they would be able to get the market and sell their crops and survive and put food on their tables.

What the colonial land grabs did was this. Firstly, in the past our national groups were living in peace with one another and there were rarely wars between them. But the colonialists attacked them one by one and took over their land and ruled them. In the end they created the so-called homelands, and these are the wrongs for the Land Restitution Act to correct.

As we celebrate these anniversaries, I ask the Minister to say that we need these women to be assisted. They acknowledge that the government has done a lot, but they are in the remote areas of Limpopo and they need to be attended to.

Mr M B MASUKU (Mpumalanga): Hon Chairperson of the NCOP, Minister, permanent delegates of the NCOP, my colleagues, members of the executive council, indeed, hon Moatshe, the Minister’s budget reflects that the journey to the promised land, as charted by our forebears in the struggle, as adopted at the Congress of the People in 1955, goes on unabated. It shows that we are firmly on course and committed and determined to achieve the goals and visions in this document. Your commitment, Minister, to the fast-tracking of the land reform through expediting the recommendations of the Land Summit, that you indeed convened, is appreciated. I must point out that up till today I have met in my province with 225 new farmers, new owners of land and this really shows that the programme is actually moving forward.

When I met with them they reflected on their successes and part of the challenges that they have, but, however, to the contrary, hon Le Roux, they are looking forward to their success. Almost 5 000 title deeds in my province have been made available to the people who didn’t enjoy tenure before, and not long ago I chatted to members of the traditional leadership and they expressed that they were working on the meeting that you had with them. We appreciate it that you met with the traditional leaders to chat about a way forward in terms of how we can deal with issues of land use.

Despite all these benefits that I spoke about, I am told that there are still many more to come. I believe so, because you have demonstrated this through the course of this year when you appointed the able commissioner Mangwane, who shocked me by setting out a programme and asking for an appointment to celebrate the last land to be given out in Mpumalanga in 2008.

It is living proof that 30% shall indeed be achieved and that one day this land shall indeed belong to those who live in it. I want to reiterate that it is a true and honest fact that without land there is no food; and without land there is no shelter. Without land there is no sustainable development and livelihood. I hope that in my province we won’t have those who are going to dig in their heels when we are dealing with the issue of prices.

Hon Le Roux, ek weet nie wat is … [Hon le Roux, I don’t know what it is that is …]

… known as a “normal price” on the market. We all said that the prices must be set at the market level. However, if you set them at market level, I believe that one of the players in the market is the government. In a situation where there is a distortion, then government must come and say: hang on, we cannot stagnate like this forever.

In the case of land, I think it’s appropriate that we review the procedures we use when we deal with willing-buyer, willing-seller. I haven’t heard the Minister or the President say that they were going to scrap willing-buyer, willing-seller, but what I have read is that those who are willing and those that have been doing so will continue to enjoy market principles. But those who dig in their heels and make their prices high will require the government to come in to say: “This is enough, and we will determine the price for you, because you cannot do it.”

I spent three quarters of yesterday in Coromandel in Thaba Chweu. Contrary to what we always hear and what the hon Le Roux said, that the land is given to people who are inexperienced, I was shocked when I saw what it was those farmers wanted to do from now until they reach their breakthrough: a turnover of R12 million per year. They were very clear in terms of their product. They have a good tourism product; they are breeding cattle; they have crops. They are very clear about what it is they are supposed to do, and they are even clear in terms of the sort of help they require from government.

They expressed their deep disappointment anyhow in that in the past years they had been having, again contrary to what has been said, continual assistance from government in terms of productive loans and productive grants - they even showed me the kind of capital investments they had made through those loans – but they were so disappointed that the banks were not of assistance.

I think the issue of the micro loan, that the Minister referred to, is very critical in this case. On our part, as Mpumalanga, the Mpumalanga Agricultural Development Corporation is ready to roll out Mafisa – the Micro-Agricultural Financial Institutions of SA. It was interesting that when I delivered my budget speech last week, the hon Watson and all other members at the legislature were really united. It was the first time that I saw unity around the particular fact that we really needed to jack up micro loans on the side of the MADC.

Minister, the intergovernmental relations that you have started are highly commended. Your joint reflection, integrated planning and co-ordination with us as provinces have begun to yield results. We agree with the point that you made in your budget speech - that through co-operation and partnerships we can realise our dream. Through intergovernmental interaction we have managed to enrich our thinking - from our side, and I think my colleagues agree with me - and our plans in terms of a better and prosperous agricultural sector.

Our visit to India - and when I accompanied you to Mali - and also the views that have been shared by my colleagues arising from all the other visits when they accompanied you and those trips that you delegated to them, really have shed light on how we can confront the challenges of the first and the second economies within this sector.

To enhance this as a province, we are exploring the idea of what we call “munimecs” in which we are going to meet with our counterparts that are responsible for agriculture, because you will find this very interesting. Further than that, Minister, I have indicated that once, when I visited my colleague in the Eastern Cape, I found something very interesting there. I think I’m going to borrow from that. I’ve started rolling that out in that all assistants and our extension officers be deployed to municipalities to work with municipalities in order to make sure that their LEDs include agriculture.

I think that that is also going to address the issue of land usage in different areas. I was surprised to hear that the Eastern Cape is not aware of things that are supposed to be done, because when I went there they made me aware of the land, where it was, how much it was, where they had problems and where they had potential. So sometimes when some members raise issues, I get scared because they don’t reflect exactly what we are going to do.

On the issue of Casp, the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, and land care, this is a programme that has helped us a great deal, because for the past few years we had a problem in terms of how to intervene to assist farmers. I think Mpumalanga has made a major contribution.

In the past financial year, for example, 63 Casp projects were funded. This year we learned some lessons. We have consolidated them into 23 projects, because through the implementation of this programme we realised that we had a problem in terms of the funding model we had, as it wasn’t sustainable. It was leaving people out.

Isibonelo ukuthi uze uzofakela umuntu amahhoko kodwa engenazo izinkukhu noma ngesinye isikhathi umakhele amadele ezinkukhu kodwa engenawo amahhoko endaweni yakhe. [An example is where someone comes to put up chicken coops for someone, while s/he does not have chickens, or sometimes like building an abattoir, while s/he does not have his/her own chickens.]

So we have actually consolidated, and are dealing with our projects in a way that is sustainable and allows municipalities to benefit from them. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr M A MZIZI: Sihlalo, uNgqongqoshe nePhini likaNgqongqoshe, ozakwethu, ngithi okumhlophe kodwa. [Chairperson, Minister and Deputy Minister, colleagues, I greet you all.] Vote No 25 – Agriculture - is something that we see as the backbone of our lives. It is essential that we look at the budget with a critical eye. Agriculture received R1,9 billion for 2006-07. This is about R40 million less than last year. The Livelihoods, Economics and Business Development subprogramme receives the biggest slice of the budget, some R750 million. The Sector Services and Partnerships subprogramme receives the second biggest part of the department’s budget, which is about R477 million.

We know that we have come a long way in addressing the problems experienced during the dark days of apartheid. However, this is the 12th year of our democracy and we should, therefore, be in a position to pinpoint some of the things we have achieved.

In the agriculture budget we can focus on genetically modified organisms, but we have to ask some tough questions. Did this exercise bear fruit? Is it sustainable? Which parts of the provinces can we cite as examples. How much has been set aside for this project? Is there any danger we can see or experience in terms of these imported commodities? How often has this GMO exercise been subject to review and monitoring?

Another matter that also needs review is promoting the sustainable use of our natural agricultural resources. We know that an area of approximately 5 000 hectares has been reclaimed from soil erosion. What we should ask is whether the previously marginalised are also sharing in the benefits of this project.

Sihlalo, ngenxa yesikhathi esingekho ngizothi nje ukuthinta kancane laphayana kwezomhlaba. [Chairperson, because of time constrains, I will speak only briefly about land.]

May I also add my voice in commenting about the Land Affairs budget.

Agb Voorsitter, ons weet dat grond iets is wat so skaars soos hoendertande is. Daarom moet ons dit met die grootste sorg hanteer wanneer ons dit bekom. [Hon Chairman, we know that land is something that is not to be had for love nor money. That is why we have to look after it with the greatest care when we obtain it.]

The Land Affairs budget for this year amounts to R4,8 billion, a sum of R900 million more than last year. The Restitution and Land Reform subprogrammes consume 88% of the total budget. In looking at this budget, we can say that the project of land reform can easily be achieved within the stated timeframe. What about productive land owned by the state? Should this land not be released and equitably shared to assist the people? If this is done, land reform could be fast-tracked.

Another question relates to what happens to the land owned by the Ingonyama Trust. If this trust is to be placed under the communal land rights programme, who will then own the land in question?

Ngiyabonga Sihlalo ngoba uzakwethu uMoatshe uke wathinta ilembe eleqa amanye amalembe ngokukhalipha.

USIHLALO WE NCOP: Lunga elihloniphekile, isikhathi sakho siphelile.

Mnu M A MZIZI: Hhayi kahle bo! Awu! Bengizokuhasha mfana. [Ihlombe.][Uhleko.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[I am glad, Chairperson, that my colleague Moatshe spoke about His Majesty, Shaka, the axe that surpasses all other axes in sharpness.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, your time has expired.

Mr M A MZIZI: Wow! I was still going to praise you. [Laughter.] [Applause.]]

Ms N NKOMO-RALEHOKO (Gauteng): Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP, Chairperson of the NCOP, Mr Johannes Mahlangu, in absentia, Minister for Land Affairs and Agriculture, Madam Thoko Didiza, MECs from the provinces, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, in welcoming and endorsing the Budget Vote of the Department of Agriculture, I first want to confirm that urban agriculture is not a myth, especially in Gauteng, to be more specific.

Gauteng is the smallest province in our country, covering 1,7 million hectares or 1,4% of the total area. Of this, 438 623 hectares are potentially arable and 293 571 hectares of this area are utilised, leaving 145 052 hectares not utilised. There clearly is spare agricultural potential that can and should be utilised, not only to extricate our people from the clutches of poverty.

According to Statistics SA, during 2005 Gauteng contributed 7% to the gross farming income of the country. The dominant farming practice, according to the same statistics, is animal farming at 45%, followed by animal products at 23%, horticulture at 20% and with field crops standing at 20%.

The total area planted with maize in the province amounts to 105 000 hectares, of which 60 000 hectares under white maize and 45 000 hectares under yellow maize. Grain sorghum is planted on about 3 500 hectares; sunflower seeds on 15 000 hectares; soya beans on 5 000 hectares; and dry beans on 4 000 hectares. These are relatively low-value crops.

The largest contribution to livestock sales was made by beef cattle, followed by pigs. However, I acknowledge that Gauteng absorbs livestock and other products from other provinces. Be this as it may, the contribution from our urban agriculture is certainly not insignificant.

Friends and colleagues, for us the more pertinent issue to discuss in relation to the Budget Vote is collectivity. What more should we be doing, all of us, in the agricultural sector to ensure that the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa bears fruit? What else should we be doing swiftly to extricate more of our people from the clutches of poverty and general destitution, which is one of the chief features that characterise the lives of ordinary people trapped in the reality and totality of the second economy.

In the current Budget Vote speech, Minister Didiza talks about the implementation of sectoral strategies to increase productivity, employment, competitiveness, sustainability and the fight against poverty. In confirming the accuracy of her analysis, I wish to point out that on 23 February we launched our Gauteng Agricultural Development Strategy. Through this strategy we intend to significantly better our output in a number of areas. We should be able to use biotechnology, maximise agricultural productivity through agroprocessing, to create more agroprocessing sectors, and also contribute to job creation and further economic development.

As a matter of common cause, the fundamental principles enshrined in the broad-based black economic empowerment policy guidelines shall also not be forsaken in the implementation of this strategy. In this regard, we shall focus on, among other things, promoting equitable access and the participation of historically disadvantaged individuals in the entire agricultural value chain, and on further deracialising land and enterprise ownership skills and management in existing and new agricultural enterprises.

Earlier I indicated that Gauteng has 145 052 hectares of unutilised, potentially rich agricultural land. Part of this land is in smallholdings. We conducted an audit of the 21 000 smallholdings in the province. The audit shows that only a few of the smallholdings rely solely on the income derived from agriculture.

Most of the occupants have another source of income. It is quite important not only for the province but for the country as a whole to bring this land back into productive agriculture, also especially given that Gauteng has a disproportionally high percentage of high-potential agricultural land.

Given this situation and as a matter of principle, we have decided that we will not allow absentee landlords and the “unattainable, unwilling seller” concept to hold back our accelerated and shared development objectives. Constitutional provisions exist and allow us to effectively deprive people who hold land unproductively or against the public interest.

Informed by the imperatives I mentioned earlier - the importance of ensuring that the democratic dispensation we enjoy is also quickly translated into material benefits for all of our people - we are finalising a process that will enable the unutilised land to be gainfully used. This entails, among other things, mapping and appropriately zoning available land within the province.

Lastly, I wish to support the current Budget Vote speech, understanding that it certainly will contribute immensely to the broad strategic objective of our government - the objective of making the lives of all our people better than they were yesterday. In supporting the Budget Vote, I certainly believe that it has all the elements of further contributing to the nation-building project, and the leading party in government is pursuing that.

In conclusion, I wish to leave you with the words of Franz Fanon, who observed in The Wretched of the Earth that:

This cult of local products and this incapability to seek out new systems of management will be equally manifested by the bogging down of the national middle class in the methods of agricultural production which were characteristic of the colonial period.

The national economy of the period of independence is not set on a new footing. It is still concerned with the ground-nut harvest, with the cocoa crop and the olive yield. In the same way there is no change in the marketing of basic products, and not a single industry is set up in the country. We go on sending out raw materials; we go on being Europe’s small farmers who specialise in unfinished products.

The Budget Vote under discussion clearly departs from the unrevolutionary development trajectory observed by Fanon. I thank you, Madam Chair. [Applause.]

Mr G NKWINTI (Eastern Cape): Thank you, hon Deputy Chairperson. Hon Minister, colleagues … oozakwethu abasuk’ emaphondweni [our colleagues from the provinces]

… hon members of the House, thank you very much for the opportunity. The Minister said, when we had a special Minmec meeting: “I am not going to speak for provinces. They are going to have to speak for themselves.” I thought she was joking, but was listening to the speech. She went on and on and really kept away from provinces as much as possible.

I will only provide a few highlights and low points of agriculture in the Eastern Cape. The key programmes are programmes concerning massive food production, Siyakhula and Siyazondla, and then the normal programmes in the Department of Agriculture that cut across all provinces in the country.

With regard to the 2005-06 financial year, we produced 50 000 tons of maize. As a result, this year we decided to project delivery of 80 000 tons. We are doing that also because we are in the process of reviving some of the maize mill plants in the province. There is the New Amalfi Mill operating in Kokstad, so most of our farmers are taking their maize there for milling. We also have portable maize mill plants that are very useful, especially for communal farmers.

The Siyazondla programme is really a very effective programme for cutting down on hunger in villages. In the last financial year we provided R13 million, but because it is so good and effective, we have increased that to R31 million for this financial year, particularly because it focuses on at household level. Women are running the project in the main.

In this regard we have established a pilot site in Mbashe local municipality, using 12 wards, where right now we have more than 300 households running this project, and there are a number of households, about 15, in a group, whom we are providing with implements. We have upped that support now to include a 2 500ℓ water tank, because in some areas it is dry, but during rainy seasons there is a lot of rain. So we are also in the process of constructing stock water dams in the area, like other areas, which we will do soon.

In these areas we are focusing a pilot project that we think is actually working very well. Because of the level of production that has been increased as a result of the support that has been given there, we have also given each ward a tractor and now we are busy arranging training and capacity development in terms of managing, handling, servicing and maintenance of tractors by the community.

With regard to Casp, the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, we are doing a lot of projects here. One of the significant things we have found about it is the importance of sorting out sheep’s wool. Because we are beginning to be more market oriented, with the support of the National Wool Growers Association, we budgeted R4 million for them in terms of that support, and in terms of marketing for improving the quality of our rams, particularly in the area of Transkei. That is where we have a preponderance of this and we are building a lot of shearing sheds, because we have found out from them that, in fact, the quality of the wool is the same across the province, whether it is commercial or communal. The difference is in the sorting capacity of the rural areas; that is where the quality of the wool goes down. That is why we are focusing a great deal on building these shearing sheds.

We are challenged. Hon members may say that we haven’t spent R6,2 million of Casp’s money. I must take full responsibility for this, because we allocated that money to the Tyefu Irrigation Scheme in Peddie. We allocated that money, we made arrangements with the Skye Development Corporation, but we then found out that there was conflict in the community. There were two groups: one group had appointed its own consultants from Johannesburg and the other group, which was in collaboration with the department, appointed another. I think we are going to court in that regard. The Minister is aware of that. So I said we are not sending money there and that money was not sent there. Everything had been done, the plans were there and the appointments made, but, because of the conflict, we realised that money would be locked into that conflict. So we pulled it out. We did not use that money. I take responsibility for that money, but we are working very hard.

Yesterday, 18 May, our team was there. We were working with the community. We have come to realise the conflict is about one group preferring a developer and the other preferring an investor. With the investor saying: We are going to invest, we are going to take 70% and leave you with 30% of the products. And the community saying No. So these are very practical and real challenges. That is why we withheld that money. It’s not because we couldn’t spend it.

About land care; land care is a wonderful project and, Minister, we in the province were very pleased when you were appalled at the state of the erosion in the province and said “we are going to make sure there is a programme dealing with this”. We are very pleased with that. Thanks, Minister, for visiting and seeing that area.

The challenge then is that, when it comes to land care, this one area again provides an opportunity for the Expanded Public Works Programme. It takes a bit of time to get people to come in and you either want to do it fast, when you have to get a ready-made company to do it for you, and then you forfeit the opportunity of getting people to be involved, or you follow the Expanded Public Works Programme, in which case you are talking about a slightly slower process, but a more empowering one in terms of our communities. Really, when we say not all of the money has been spent, it is not because the money is not committed on the ground. The Minister and the director-general have advisors, and say that some of the accounting processes are not very good in the province; we do not commit ourselves and we shouldn’t be doing so, because the work is going on anyway. So these are some of the practical things being assisted by the Minister and the department nationally. We appreciate that.

Finally, we have some low points, as I was saying. I have already mentioned some of them, but there is a point that the Minister made about our capacity to contain and even obviate the onset of animal disease. And indeed, I must echo the Minister’s words in thanking our colleagues in other provinces, including Gauteng, who really threw their weight behind us and some of the provinces here. [Interjections.] And supported us very strongly when we had the outbreak - it is still continuing – of swine fever. We appreciate that support from the national Minister as well. So, we have a shortage of that in the province. We are looking forward to the opportunity, which will probably be created under the leadership of the Minister. There will be an upgrading of the conditions of work of these professionals.

The classical swine fever really dealt us a huge economic blow, because we had to cull more than 300 000 pigs during the period and this means a lot to the communal economy in rural villages, particularly of the Transkei. That is where we were hardest hit by classical swine fever.

Now we have . . . of course I am not trying to respond to the hon member, but I must say that in the Eastern Cape, 80% of our development budget in agriculture is going to villages; it’s going to the Transkei, it’s going to the former Ciskei area. That is 80% of our development budget.

If you go to Nqobo, there is a co-operative there. You’ll be surprised by the way. I must just say because you find a whole range of agricultural businesses there – beekeeping, hydroponics, massive food production – also Four-H Clubs, children’s schools . . . there is so much activity, because it has been created by what we popularly refer to … [Time expired.]

Mr N D HENDRICKE: Hon Deputy Chair, Madam Minister, hon members, I would like to raise some pertinent issues relating to this department, some of which may or may not have budgetary implications.

The slow pace of land claims settlements has left applicants frustrated. This, understandably, could be linked to the willing-buyer, willing-seller argument and the limited funds the state has to purchase land from sellers. What exactly is the current policy around this issue, given that there were indications that if this concept impeded settlement, then expropriations could be made? The second question is whether market value is taken into account when expropriating land, or is there a discount element involved?

Perhaps I should just respond to hon Le Roux’s point here, having been a victim of the Group Areas Act myself. Perhaps the Minister could take a leaf out of the previous government’s book, where government people came and valued your land - not at the market value - or they simply expropriated it. If you were allowed to sell it, 50% of the amount they paid you went into government coffers. So, Madam Minister, you’ve actually been very soft on this matter so far, and I think we make no excuse for expropriating land; it’s overdue and land must now go to the people. On the question of land being given to people to farm on, who then fail in their endeavours, yes, perhaps we haven’t given them all the technical expertise they need and we haven’t been able to give them all the money. Madam Minister, we would have liked to see your budget doubled, so that farmers can get the kind of subsidies that they previously enjoyed. In the past, even when their farms were going down, farmers were still driving Mercedes Benz.

An HON MEMBER: BMWs! [Laughter.]

Mr N D HENDRICKSE: Related to the above is security of tenure, especially on farms where it seems that farmers continue to evict workers from farms despite protective legislation preventing this practice. Government needs now to take a firmer position on evictions and convict guilty farmers where this is taking place.

The implementation of the Communal Land Rights Act could prove controversial, and we envisage that much consultation is needed with the National House of Traditional Leaders.

Intergovernmental relations have proved challenging in the areas of land redistribution. The time it takes to apply for, purchase and develop land for residential purposes is lengthy, and often there is little communication between provinces and city metros on the demarcation of this activity. Rezoning takes far too long and people are waiting for land. We agree with your budget, Madam. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Ms T JOEMAT-PATTERSON (Northern Cape): Hon Deputy Chairperson, we got to know you like this in the Northern Cape. So we know that when you say the time is up, you mean that the time is up.

Hon Minister, hon MECs for agriculture and land reform, Chairperson of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, colleagues, it is with great excitement and humility that I wish to congratulate and support the Minister for once again prioritising the realisation of a people-centred developmental agenda that revolves around basic human needs.

We have certainly been granted a beacon of hope in an age of hope, which reinforces agriculture as one of the most critical vehicles for the eradication of poverty and underdevelopment. We once more got to grips with the fact that a developmental paradigm can never be separated from the prerequisite of the expansion of the agricultural economy, which involves increased investment and skills development.

I can proclaim without any doubt that the economic and moral vision that has been put before us is the only path to be pursued in order to extricate millions of South Africans from the vestiges of colonialism, which are laid in our agricultural landscape. The visit by the hon members of the NCOP to the Kgalagadi region of the Northern Cape last month reminded us that although we have challenges, there are opportunities aplenty. And to this effect, the community of Kgalagadi was tremendously grateful for your visit, hon members. One community member, after your departure, commented in isiXhosa “silufezile ugqatso” [mission accomplished], and since you left, “die rottang is nou geknak” [the rod has snapped]. I thought the rottang [rod] was only used in education. They saw your visit as a beacon of hope, breaking the vestiges of colonialism in this age of hope.

The Northern Cape, like many other provinces, has been experiencing dramatic climate changes. The continuous dry spells in most parts of the province, particularly in the Namaqua district, and the recent floods in parts of Hartswater in Taung, further testify to the characteristics of a province of extremes.

The challenge, therefore, is how to sustain the current and future agricultural production under these circumstances. We support the Minister’s call during the Budget Vote debate: “. . . to galvanise resources to combat the effects of climate change on agricultural production”, since this is a matter that will impact tremendously on agriculture in the Northern Cape.

Our strategy for the implementation of the Land Summit recommendations includes a proactive land acquisition programme. The department of agriculture and land reform is working with the Northern Cape provincial land reform office and the regional Land Claims Commission on a plan to make this happen.

Collectively we are working towards meeting the Northern Cape’s redistribution target of 625 000 hectares per annum. Now if this was not done over the past 10 years, we would have to expropriate land.

The Northern Cape had a total of 2 905 claims. Of these, 2 101 have been settled, and we commend our commissioner for the sterling work done in this area. However, 760 claims still remain outstanding. We will, through the land reform co-ordinating committee, ensure that the necessary post- settlement support is provided, as well as that the settlement of outstanding claims takes place in order to meet our December 2008 deadline.

Post-settlement support is still a matter of priority and difficulty for us. During the NCOP’s visit to Kgalagadi post-settlement support requirements and critical matters centred mainly around land, water and agricultural support. Hon members should remember that in Kgalagadi we still have humans and animals drinking from the same water resources.

Linked to the issue of accelerating land and agrarian transformation, we have driven our core objectives as a provincial government and set ourselves a target in line with that of national government, to halve poverty and unemployment by 2014. In this regard, our department has identified with the national department’s programmes and projects, and further explored the aspect of agricultural corridors and hubs. The Orange River Emerging Farmer Settlement Programme, the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme and, more importantly, the commercialisation of our goat industry, with 76 successful co-operatives, are giving our emerging farmers, particularly the poorest of the poor, our rural women, an opportunity to enter the mainstream economy.

Regarding AgriBEE interventions, while noting that market mechanisms alone will not achieve the kind of fundamental structural changes required, we agree that access to the market needs major state intervention.

The Northern Cape has received R15 million for cash payments and R5 million for land care respectively. A number of people are grateful that they will benefit from these initiatives. However, we learnt very harsh lessons last year, and we do need to intervene in our departmental spending.

In conclusion, hon Deputy Chair, we are committed to supporting the Minister through important intergovernmental relations, as set out in the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act. However, we cannot emphasise enough the fact that without growing the economy of the Northern Cape there will be no developmental growth for the poorest of the poor. Thank you. [Applause.] Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson. Ja, ek sal ook in Afrikaans praat. [Yes, I shall also speak Afrikaans.]

Voorsitter, ek het slegs drie minute en ek wil my kortliks vereenselwig met die gedagtes wat agb kollega Le Roux uitgespreek het ten opsigte van vraag en aanbod en waardeerders. Ek ondersteun dit volmondig.

Die grondhervorming is ʼn vaste gegewe. Ter wille van regsekerheid word aanvaar dat dit in alle opsigte noodsaaklik is dat die departement en die ministerie en alle ander belanghebbendes die aangeleentheid rasioneel moet benader. Wat word met rasioneel benader bedoel? Die verwagtinge en emosies rondom grondhervorming moet op ʼn verantwoordelike manier getemper word. Produksie moet voortgaan en bestaande boere moet sekerheid hê oor wat aan die gang is.

Ek wys die agb Minister en die Raad ook daarop dat die NP-regering veral in die tagtigerjare – die laat tagtigs, die middel tagtigerjare - spesifiek in Qwaqwa groot grondgebiede onteien en swart boere daar gevestig het. Dit was een groot mislukking, omdat daar nie infrastruktuur was om hierdie mense behoorlik te vestig en aan die gang te kry nie. Gevolglik het produksie tot niet gegaan en die spilpunte, windpompe en heinings is alles vernietig. Dit was ʼn vrugtelose uitgawe. Die realiteite van produksie en die verwagtinge van bepaalde opkomende boere moet verreken word. Daar ís suksesverhale en dit word verwelkom, want die voorspoed of die teenspoed van my buurman het inderdaad ook ʼn invloed op my. As dit met my buurman goed of sleg gaan, gaan dit met my ook goed of sleg. Dis baie belangrik.

ʼn Mens vind dat grondeise soms toegelaat en ingedien word sonder dat daar werklik enige substansie is. Dit frustreer bestaande boere en maak dit moeilik vir hulle. In hierdie geval wil ek – na aanleiding van hierdie onbevestigde eise – my by die radikale toespraak aansluit, ek kan dit nie anders opper as die radikale toespraak van die voorsitter van die komitee, agb Moatshe, nie. Ek weet nie wat sy doel met die toespraak was nie. Die toespraak behoort eerder in Zimbabwe gelewer te word.

Die agb Moatshe het verwys en gesê: (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Chairperson, I only have three minutes and I just briefly want to associate myself with the ideas that hon colleague Le Roux raised with regard to demand and supply and valuators. I wholeheartedly support it.

Land reform is a fixed given. For the sake of legal certainty one may assume that in every respect it is important that the department and the Ministry and all other interested parties must approach this matter very rationally. What is meant with approached rationally? The expectations and emotions around land reform must be tempered in a responsible manner. Production must continue and existing farmers must have certainty about what is happening.

I also wish to point out to the hon Minister and the Council that the NP government, especially in the eighties – the late eighties, the middle eighties - specifically in Qwaqwa expropriated large tracts of land and settled black farmers there. This was one big failure, because the infrastructure properly to settle and get these people going did not exist. Consequently production stopped and the centre pivots, windmills and fences were all destroyed. It was fruitless expenditure. The realities of production and the expectations of certain emerging farmers must be offset against one another.

There are success stories and they should be welcomed, because the prosperity or adversity of my neighbour certainly also has an effect on me. If my neighbour is experiencing good or ill fortune, I will also experience good or ill fortune. It is very important.

One finds that land claims are sometimes allowed and submitted that have no real substance. It frustrates existing farmers and it makes things very difficult for them. In this case I want to – arising from these unconfirmed claims – associate myself with the radical speech, and I cannot but call it the radical speech of the chairperson of this committee, hon Moatshe. I do not know what his objective was with this speech. This speech should rather be delivered in Zimbabwe.

The hon Moatshe made a reference and said:]

“Those who have the land must make up their minds, or otherwise it’s too late.” Read between the lines. Those were his words and those are threatening words. It’s an injustice and an embarrassment to the level of this debate and I strongly object. And I think that the hon member is doing an injustice to the position that he holds in that particular committee. I thank you.

Mr M C MOKITLANE (Free State): Hon Chair, hon Minister, my colleagues from the provinces, hon members, I think we are only 12 years into our own democracy as against their 40 years … it is a long period. So, we can’t expect the Rip van Winkels to have awoken by this time. There is still 28 years to go. So, that is what we have to expect from the FF Plus; they still have 28 years to go.

But, let me simply say that we are not only bound by the dictates of the Constitution and other pieces of legislation concerning agrarian reform and agricultural development. Rather, the historic and socioeconomic conditions peculiar to our country require us to do more to ultimately usher in the best agricultural industry to our own benefit.

Although the income bracket is very low in this sector, agriculture is one of the main job creators, especially in the province of the Free State. The summit of African leaders held nearly two years ago is a pertinent reminder of the importance of agriculture, as in that meeting it was agreed to help create jobs and to promote agriculture. The Nigerian finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is quoted recently as saying, and I quote:

Though there may be economic growth occurring in sectors that are more capital intensive, what we need is more growth in the agricultural sector, which is becoming a big job creator.

The statement could not be truer and more relevant to us. It should also serve as a motivating call that will carry us beyond; to a united and prosperous agricultural sector.

We are building self-reliance and resourcefulness in the developing farmers to prepare them to contribute meaningfully to a sustainable and vibrant economy. We are further continuing to build developmental communication between farmers at their respective levels and in organisations and between government and the business sector to increase capacity so as to build mutual understanding among all stakeholders for maintained growth. We have just over the past two weeks, as part of our regular meetings, met with one of our important stakeholders with a view to strengthen communication ties and planning together within the framework of agricultural development.

Communication has been identified as one of the most important factors in a developing environment. A systematic programme of communication that is interwoven in specific strategic plans and the growth and development strategies should be mounted, if we require changes that significantly raise the profile of agriculture so that it is able to increase its economic output. Our communication must be overarching and all- encompassing, from extension services to the highly sophisticated and competitive marketing arena.

The Free State province has distributed 22 720 hectares of land, benefiting 556 farmers in 49 projects in the province. In 2005-06 the province was allocated a budget of R45 million. This is for land affairs to enable those people who aspire to become farmers to access land and we are grateful that the amount has actually been increased to R74 million. This time it will indeed assist greatly.

We have invariably embraced the mentorship programme to support and develop those farmers who want to get into the mainstream agricultural business. The programme will hopefully help acquire the required skills to enable developing farmers to graduate into commercial farmers. We have as late as last week met with the private sector. This is the meeting that we held with the Deputy Minister. We held this meeting at a farm and jointly put up a flagship project that will form part of an accelerated movement to assist black farmers to develop even faster. This project is more research-based and we hope that it will determine accurate directions for development.

We have made some perceptible inroads in our policy domain towards farmer support, and transforming the agricultural sector and building it into a sustainable and prosperous industry. Infrastructural development is one important element within our broader vision of democratising agriculture and empowering people. Our understanding of infrastructure includes a whole range of issues, not limited to agriculture alone, but also including those that relate to the broader development spectrum in other areas as well, for example Public Works, Local Government, Housing, DWAF, etc.

The province has invested in infrastructure support to emerging farmers through initiatives such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, Casp, Land Care and the provincial infrastructure grant, PIG. Unfortunately we don’t have this for this financial year, which highlights the problems that the department would be facing in terms of creating the right infrastructure for emerging farmers.

Casp and Land Care allocations for 2005/06 in fact had a cap of R36,463 million. We used all the amounts budgeted and we used the R3,5 million which was also budgeted for Land Care. We were also able to use all our PIG of R24,305 million. The Casp and Land Care allocations were spent on infrastructure such as animal-handling facilities, water reticulation and fencing.

To speed up Casp and Land Care spending for this year, we have actually put in place a monitoring mechanism that will ensure that those who are responsible for decision-making are consistently privy to the developments with regard to spending in that particular arena.

A substantial number of farmers in the province benefited from the Production Inputs Project, where the province provided farmers with vouchers to purchase production inputs like diesel, seed and fertilisers. The province has implemented this project in collaboration with some of its strategic partners to support farmers with production inputs to the value of R3,9 million.

The province supported 114 farmers in the area of Maluti-a-Phofung with dry beans input and further supported other farmers in this district with wheat production. In the Motheo district we assisted Thaba Nchu farmers with the improvement of wool production. The province also donated high-quality animals to emerging farmers to improve livestock production through the Livestock Improvement Project. We have established a relationship with financial institutions with the purpose of creating a conducive market environment for these developing farmers.

In pursuance of commonage development we have, for example, built fattening and holding kraals to assist developing farmers in the Xhariep district. We hope to extend this infrastructure to other areas where the need arises. We have also provided developing farmers with agricultural mechanisation in the form of tractors and implements.

Our Food Security Programme enjoyed significant progress and managed to provide 1 300 households with chicken layers in the last financial year and chicken feed worth R1,4 million. A total of 1 929 households were provided with agricultural starter packages, such as garden tools, seeds and fertilisers, to the value of about R1,2 million.

We are in partnership with the Department of Education to provide 50 schools with garden essentials as a pilot project in the province. Infield water harvesting projects, participants received agricultural starter packs to improve on what they are presently doing. This was done in partnership with Agricultural Research Council, ARC. The World Food Day was successfully celebrated in Qwaqwa.

Then, we actually managed to spend R16,9 million for the purposes of the areas that were experiencing disaster as a result of drought. And then in actual fact 3 960 emerging farmers and 34 000 of their livestock benefited from this, and 2 615 commercial farmers benefited and about 39 000 of their livestock were supported.

In addition to that R16,9 million we spent, we also received a further R16 million at a particular time in November. We have been able to spend R10 million of that and we hope that the rest of the money which is left, R6 million, will be further used for the purpose it was intended for.

We have also participated, as the Minister and colleagues have alluded, in the issue of animal disease control, and as a province I think we further commit ourselves. It is imperative for us to do that. I think with these few words I would like to stop. Thank you, hon Chair.

Mr J P GELDERBLOM (Western Cape): Hon Chair, hon Minister Didiza and members of the House, at the opening of Parliament this year the President placed emphasis on the season of hope that we are entering at the start of the second decade of our new democracy.

At the same time we are mindful of the words of the late Inkosi Albert Luthuli who said:

The task is not finished. South Africa is not yet a home for all her sons and daughters. Such a home we wish to ensure. From the beginning our history has been one of ascending unities, the breaking of tribal, racial and creedal barriers. The past cannot hope to have a life sustained by itself, wrenched from the whole. There remains before us the building of a new land, a home for men who are black, white, brown, from the ruins of the old narrow groups, a synthesis of the rich cultural strains which we have inherited.

Our integration with the rest of our continent remains to be achieved. Somewhere ahead there beckons a civilisation, a culture, which will take its place in the parade of God’s history beside other great human syntheses, Chinese, Egyptian, Jewish, European. It will not necessarily be all black; but it will be African.

In the Western Cape we are deeply aware of our responsibility to provide the basis for that hope, which our people need to build on in order to fight joblessness, hunger and poverty.

It is clear that the agricultural sector in the Western Cape is a major contributor in our fight against poverty. In this regard, I think it is important that I indicate to you what the current performance of agriculture is within the economy in the Western Cape, and why we need to find workable solutions to the challenges that lie ahead. It is acknowledged that agriculture is one of the primary pillars of the Western Cape economy. Although the province contributes some 14% to the country’s gross domestic product, it generates about 23% of the total value added to the agricultural sector in South Africa, which was R25 billion in 2001.

Agriculture accounted for 5,2% of the Western Cape’s gross regional product in 2001. As many as 11 commodities contribute significantly to agriculture production, with fruit, winter grains, viticulture and vegetables together comprising more than 75% of total output.

I don’t want to go into the detail of the statistics of the various industries in agriculture. I would, however, by way of example, like to stress the importance of the role of one of these industries in the total performance of the economy in the Western Cape. South Africa is home to 70% of the world’s 495 000 commercial ostriches.

In Julie 2004 het voëlgriep op twee volstruisplase in die Oos-Kaap voorgekom en dit het tot ’n vyftien-maande-lange verbod op uitvoer gelei. Hierdie verbod het ’n verlies van R700 miljoen tot gevolg gehad. Sowat 4 000 werkgeleenthede is ook in die proses verloor.

Die Wes-Kaap is die hartland van die Suid-Afrikaanse volstruisbedryf, met sowat 70% van die totale produksie wat hier plaasvind. Die Suid-Afrikaanse volstruisbedryf verskaf werk aan sowat 16 000 mense en verdien R1,2 miljard per jaar aan buitelandse valuta vir die land. Dit is ’n bedryf wat 90% uitvoergerig is. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[In July 2004 bird flu occurred on two ostrich farms in the Eastern Cape and this led to a fifteen-month embargo on imports. This embargo resulted in a loss of R700 million. Approximately 4 000 job opportunities were also lost in the process.

The Western Cape is the core of the South African ostrich industry, where approximately 70% of total production takes place. The South African ostrich industry provides jobs to about 16 000 people and earns the country R1,2 billion per year in foreign currency. It is an industry that is 90% directed at export.]

The ostrich industry, however, grasped the challenge and embarked on an intensive awareness and marketing campaign within South Africa that also led to a five-fold increase in the local consumption of ostrich meat.

When exports resumed in October 2005, the ostrich industry gave local consumers the assurance that the industry would continue to serve the growing South African market. The industry is still in the process of regaining the shelf space and the market share that were lost in Europe and, as that materialises, some of the job losses may also be mitigated. The challenge was ours to give hope to the industry and the thousands of workers who stood to lose their jobs. Together we worked and won the battle.

The prosperity of the agriculture sector is linked to the extent to which primary production is aligned to the needs of the economy, both in terms of direct consumption of primary commodities and the demand for agriculture and raw materials at the manufacturing level. It is important, therefore, that the vision for agriculture is a broader view of the larger economy, rather than a narrow focus on primary agricultural production.

Tydens die Nepad-vergadering van staatshoofde in Julie 2002 is landbou- en marktoegang deur Nepad as een van ses prioriteitsareas bevestig. Daarom is daar reeds ’n projek van stapel gestuur om te fokus op landbounavorsing en

• ondersteuning. Ek glo dat ons ’n betekenisvolle bydrae hier kan lewer. Die ontwikkeling van landbou moet aktief ondersteun word. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[During the Nepad meeting of heads of state in July 2002 access to agriculture and markets through Nepad was confirmed as one of six priority areas. That is why a project has already been launched to focus on agricultural research and support. I believe that we can make a valuable contribution here. The development of agriculture must be actively supported.]

The G8 heads of state at their summit in Canada subsequently endorsed Nepad. Importantly, for this purpose the G8 heads of state pledged an increase in their overseas development assistance of $12 billion per year by 2006. Owing to the unique income demand in developing countries this, in turn, will again lead to increased demand for agricultural products and therefore to the start of a new cycle or, in other words, to an upwards spiral in economic growth. It is therefore clear that productivity in the agricultural sector can play an important role.

The agricultural development of Africa is also, in the long term, to the advantage of South Africa and the Western Cape. However, given the nature and the extent of the natural resources in the rest of Africa, it is evident that this agricultural development will eventually lead to pressure on the local agricultural production base, specifically table grapes, grains, vegetables and animal products.

Dis tyd – en ek sê dit vandag as Christen, wit, Afrikaanssprekende Suid- Afrikaner – dat ons mense op landbougebied ook besef dat om met ons medelandgenote te deel baie meer inhou as om vir onsself op te eis. [Tussenwerpsels.] Dis tyd dat ons in Suid-Afrika vrede maak met die veranderde omstandighede. Dis tyd dat ons besef dat ons as Christen- Afrikaners ’n bydrae moet lewer om ons medelandgenote aan die hand te vat. Die beloning vir ons mag tydelik miskien nie so groot wees nie, maar in die finale instansie en wanneer die finale oordeel kom, sal die beloning groter wees en sal ons saam bou aan ’n vredeliewende Suid-Afrika.

Goddank vir ’n minister Thoko Didiza, wat ek vir baie jare ken, en vir die sensitiewe wyse waarop sy die landbousituasie in Suid-Afrika hanteer. Ons sê vir haar baie dankie en mag God haar seën om landbou nog baie jare lank te dien. Baie dankie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[It is time - and I say this today as Christian, white, Afrikaans-speaking South African - that our people in the agriculture industry should also realise that to share with our fellow-countrymen entails much more than claiming for ourselves. [Interjections.] It is time that we in South Africa accept the changed circumstances. It is time that we realise that we as Christian Afrikaners must make a contribution by taking our fellow- countrymen by the hand. Our reward might not be so big in the short term, but in the final instance and when the last judgment takes place, the reward will be greater and will we build a peace-loving South Africa together.

Thank God for a Minister Thoko Didiza, whom I have known for many years, and for the sensitive way in which she handles the agricultural situation in South Africa. We want to thank her and may God bless her with serving agriculture for many years to come. Thank you very much. [Applause.]]

Mr R J TAU: Chairperson, hon Minister, MECs present and comrades, I find this debate to be quite interesting precisely because to me it is not just another policy debate. It is a pity that some people at times miss such opportunities to make a real and meaningful contribution in transforming the lives of our people. As a way of reminding ourselves, in the manifesto that ensured that the ANC is overwhelmingly supported by our people, we made the following commitments: To complete the restitution programme and speed up land reform with 30% of agricultural land redistributed by 2014, combined with comprehensive assistance to emerging farmers, to ensure involvement of communities in local economic development initiatives and to provide work, build community infrastructure and secure access to local opportunities and encourage the emergence of cooperatives.

I think that is the context in which the chairperson of our committee was in actual fact putting across that, together with our people, we, as the ANC, have committed ourselves to speeding up the process of land redistribution in our country, and ensuring that together with our communities we have buy-in in programmes that will satisfy each and every one who is involved in that particular process, rather than being quoted out of context.

Chair, having said that, the mighty movement of our people ensured that these commitments find expression in the policy of government. Such expression manifests itself through the characterisation of our developmental state, a state that does not do things for the people of course, but rather ensure that the people are the centres of their own developments. Therefore, by so doing we do not lose the thematic expression of our manifesto, which says that it adheres to a people’s contract to create work and fight poverty.

Together with the poor and the workers, our government has put in place programmes that seek to respond to all these challenges such as Casp and Land Care grants, etc. For this year we shall see a restructuring and clustering of some programmes for better co-ordination and improved service delivery. Because the key problem facing us today is poverty and food insecurity, let me take the opportunity to highlight some of the key areas that seek to address this challenge, which in terms of the sub-programmes is the livelihood development support.

Chair, of particular interest in this sub-programme is the focus on eliminating the skewed participation in the agricultural sector by reducing the inequality in land and enterprise ownership as outlined in the strategic plan for South Africa, hon Le Roux. In the adequate co-ordination and integration of efforts of different institutions of service delivery there is a clear commitment to move away from the perpetual characterisation of the previously disadvantaged and subjecting our people to emerging and emerging and never having emerged, by so doing increasing the number of viable commercial farmers and ensuring sustainability of the land and agrarian reform projects through devoting extra resources and human capacity, of course.

The department notes that the development of a three-tier financial services sector, inter alia, a focus on the unbanked is a major objective of the financial services and cooperatives development programme. And consistent with our manifesto, the department notes that agricultural production at household level needs promotion in the South African context, where more than 2 million households are food insecure. In this respect the development of food insecurity and vulnerability information mapping systems will assist in the design of well-targeted interventions. A key intervention on the food security front will be the provision of agricultural starter packs to support agricultural production as part of the integrated food security and nutrition programme.

Hon Minister, I stand to be corrected and I know you will definitely correct me in that with all these challenges and the good programmes that the department has in place, particularly with regard to emerging farmers, we always find it quite interesting that whenever emerging farmers are developed or capacitated, when we put to them where their market is, the first thing that they say is the export and international market. But the key question is why is there all this interest international markets, when we are noting that there is the problem of a lack of food in South Africa? There is so much hunger in South Africa but immediately when you get into the production of food, you think of your international market first. I think there is something wrong there.

We are proposing that perhaps it is important that the department work out a mechanism of ensuring that there is a paradigm shift. This mentality of our people needs to be changed so that they look at how best we can produce in order to survive and make the poor of South Africa capable of surviving under the circumstances that we find ourselves in. I think I would also be failing in my responsibility, in the limited time that I have, if I do no reflect on some of the challenges faced by the department. It is a well- known fact that our programme of Taking Parliament to the People has assisted us in identifying some bottlenecks in the process of fighting poverty and building a better life for our people. We have noted with concern the unevenness when it comes to the capacity of our provinces to deliver. In some provinces we have picked up that there is no capacity and if there is any, it is very little. Of course provinces have moved with great speed in securing the tenure rights of our people, monitoring the abuse of children, particularly child labour and other abuse-related matters. However, their capacity to spend their conditional grants is a worrying factor. And I think it is important that provinces must take note of that.

Recently we noticed an improvement of course in their ability to spend, but there are still some areas that need to be addressed in order to ensure that there is great improvement. One of the other areas that we have also identified during our process of Taking Parliament to the People is the understanding or commitment of our provinces to building co-operatives, but as we go and visit these projects, we find that not to be in line with what we think cooperatives are supposed to be. I think it is quite important that some capacity is built within the departments to ensure that when our people enter into these ventures they have a clear understanding of what they are, because most of these projects start well, the intention is good, but they collapse within two or three months because of in-fighting and so forth amongst the members themselves.

The level of co-ordination between the provinces nationally and local government needs to be improved. I must thank you, Minister, for the way you really put it, and therefore I would not deal much with that because it was a worrying factor within the committee that there is no co-ordination, and especially so at the level of local municipalities.

Hon Minister, we also noted that there is a need for the department to increase its efforts with regard to the capacitation of CPAs. A lot of work needs to be done in this particular area. Our people are receiving their rightful land but the vultures, big capital, come in with a speed that cannot be calculated and divide our people and our CPAs, and our people’s land is divided along the lines of who comes in and who has the resources? And these CPAs therefore cannot move. Who is then disadvantaged in the process? It is our communities. Therefore it is important that there must a clear programme by the department to capacitate these CPAs and to show them some of these things. There are instances where people received land through the Land Restitution programme, but would be bored by big capital that creates a lot of confusion and division amongst the people. So I think it is important that these kinds of things be looked at.

Let me join the priest at the funeral service of the late Minister Sigcawu when he said, and I quote: “Thina amaMpondo sinawo umhlaba. Siyalima. Asibulawa yindlala. Limani ma-Afrika ninawo umhlaba niza kuhlutha. Ndiyabulela.” [The people of Pondoland possess land. They cultivate it. We do not go hungry. Cultivate the land, fellow Africans, and you shall never go hungry. Thank you.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS: Thank you very much, hon Chairperson and hon members, for participating in this debate. I must say that I took to heart some of the instructions, that I need to be a bit tougher on certain things. [Interjections.] I have heard you, hon member. [Laughter.]

Before responding to the debate, it would be important for me to thank our commissioners who have requested to be relieved from the service to go and give some of the time that they still have left in their careers to other institutions. They are our former Land Claims Commissioner for KwaZulu- Natal, Ms Thabi Shange, and Mr Blessing Mphela, who will be joining the Western Cape province. We would like to say thank you to them for the work that they have done. Indeed, it is not an easy task. The tempo at which the commissioners for restitution have had to work actually cannot be underestimated.

In the same regard, I would like to thank the commissioners who are still with us. The majority of them are there. I can see Mashile Mokono, the tough, short man from Limpopo. Who else is there? Beverley Janssen from the Western Cape.

I want to say to hon members that considering the pressures under which the commissioners have had to work, with the timeframes that we as legislatures have set for settling the claims, the enormity of the challenge has not made it easy. I must say I am surprised that none of them have collapsed and gone to hospital because of stress. They work 24 hours a day. Sometimes they have to contend with the tensions between landowners and claimants. They bear the brunt of the impatience that we as legislators sometimes reflect but, to them, it occupies every hour, every minute. For that I would like to say thank you, and that they are still with us. [Applause.]

I would also like to welcome June Ngubane, who has now joined us to take up the responsibility of the regional commissioner of KwaZulu-Natal. She has been the non-executive chair of one of the utilities of water affairs in Gauteng. With the work that she has done in that institution and others before, we trust that she will be one of our cadres who will ensure that we complete our restitution process in 2008.

To all the teams, both in Land and Agriculture, I want to say that sometimes we speak here because we are impatient and we would like to see delivery happen quicker and faster, but it is not because we underestimate the role that you play. To all of you, I would like to say thank you, even to the members of staff who are not here. Indeed, we wouldn’t have travelled the miles that we have travelled in 12 years. [Applause.]

Bab uMokitlane said that the damage to rectify 40 years and beyond couldn’t be underestimated. I think the reason all of us are impatient is because we have seen what our own capacity is in this short space of time. That we owe to our civil service cadres who, through thick and thin, tried to excel, even with our impossible deadlines.

I would like to thank member Gelderblom because it is true that the success of South Africa lies in our hands. I think it is about acknowledging that change has happened, that we must embrace it, and we must ensure that we build this united, nonracial, non-sexist society, not through lip service, but by actual deed through what we do and how we do it.

I think it is important to respond to a few issues that have been raised by hon members, and to thank the members of the executive council for having elaborated on and shared with this House the many activities that they are involved in, in trying to ensure that our policies and legislation lands where it matters.

Bab uMoatshe and others asked where we were with land delivery, and whether it was moving apace. Are the things that came out of the National Land Summit being implemented? I would like to say, Bab uMoatshe, my own view, and I am sure this is the view you will share with me, is that, given the limited time we have had as a country, land delivery has gone further than we would have expected.

If you look at the restitution process in particular, out of 79 000 claims, 71 645 have been settled. It is not something that has to happen; they have already been settled.

Yes, we are grappling with post-settlement issues, but in terms of having resolved the question of those 71 000 claims, we have actually done it. So, regarding the few that remain, we are confident that, with the cadre that we have, we will resolve them in time.

I want to say that the resources that the South African government and its taxpayers have expended on just this programme amount to R6,1 billion. This does not include donor funds, but comes from the South African fiscus only. That is no small amount considering the competing needs that we have as a country. [Applause.]

I also want to say that, if one was to look at the decision that we had to take two years ago – I want to remind hon members of this, because sometimes we forget – it was to shift resources to restitution so that we could speed up that process, and that we would take those resources and frontload them after 2008 towards land redistribution. So, when we look at the redistribution figures as being low, we must understand that it was the choices that we had to make. The budget is about choices. We had to choose, within the milieu of land reform, this one to be fast-tracked.

I hope that, in our communication, we do not express it as a negative so that we create panic that there are no resources to support these programmes. There are. That’s why we had to give ourselves a timeframe, that in 2008 we will be finished with land reform. From 2008 to 2014, we will focus on redistribution. I am confident we will be able to do so.

With regard to the outcomes of the National Land Summit, we have undertaken a process. It was first consultation. Secondly, we had to set up committees that are reviewing some of those principles such as the willing-buyer, willing-seller one. I want to assure hon members that one of those that we will have to review is within the context of market-based land reform. What are the price mechanisms that have been used? Have they been consistent with the productive value of the land or not, so that we ensure that, whatever margin we reach, it is reflective of the value of the land rather than using other mechanisms that have disadvantaged us.

With regard to tariff setting, I want to assure the House that we are working with the Department of Trade and Industry, particularly with the Intergovernmental Trade and Economic Committee, to ensure that the tariff structures that are set take into consideration the challenge that our industry is facing.

Support for new farmers is one of the issues on which we agree with you. We will continue to undertake it.

With regard to the quality of wheat - as has been raised by members - we will follow up that matter if we can get the relevant information. There are various types of wheat that we receive, part for animal feed and part for human consumption. Quality control is done by one of our institutions, the PPECP.

On the issues that have been raised by Mr Le Roux with regard to Transkei and what is not done there, I think, hon Nkwinti has responded to that, and I don’t need to respond to that. Hon member Matlanyane, with regard to foreign land ownership, we will bring this report for discussion, because I think it raises very fundamental questions that we have to face as a country. I must say that one thing that surprised me as a South African is that when that report was released, it was South Africans first who were talking on behalf of foreigners, even before the foreigners spoke up. Till today, I have not heard any interested foreign individual complaining about the fact that government wants to set up a policy on managing foreign landownership in the country, because they know that in their own economies, they have limitations around ownership patterns. South Africans were the ones who started jumping and saying that this will move away investment and, I said, I think we are indeed international but, somehow, we must think nationally as well. I am sure we will be able to do that. [Applause.]

With regard to the issue of training, I agree strongly that this is one of the important elements that we have to undertake to support those who have been settled. Training is continuous, because even farmers that are in existence and have been there, depending on the change in the environment, may require certain skills, which we will have to take into consideration.

What we are doing in Limpopo – I would like to say to the hon Matlanyane – is that the people can go to our land office in the province, and the land reform office in the province is working together with the provincial department. What we are trying to do is review some of those settlement land acquisition grant projects to ensure that we do not penalise people who otherwise might have been assisted by the state, but actually were not interested in farming, but wanted a piece of land for space. We can then sort out those problems.

Yes, it was the first phase. There have been some failures. We have not denied them, but what we are saying is that it is our responsibility as the state to assist those communities to settle some of those issues that have created tensions and enmity, which is not one of the outcomes of the land reform process that we would like.

I would like to indicate, Bab uMzizi, that we will still come and debate the Genetically Modified Organisms Act. I said that yesterday, the whole day, I thought I myself had turned into a genetically modified organism. In the ANC caucus, we were debating GMOs. Everywhere else in Parliament, we had to amend and approve the legislation, which has now been referred to this House.

I must say that there are concerns that you raised in the debate, issues of safety, both for humans and the environment. In our own legislation, but also in practice, we have ensured that we have taken into consideration the safety of the genetic materials that are introduced to our environment. The approval system is very rigorous to ensure that we ourselves can be convinced that what we are doing will not have an adverse impact on human health and on our environment.

That is why we are even expanding the council in the new Act to allow for the Department of Arts and Culture, so that we can continuously look at the social impact. The Department of Water Affairs is included so that we can look at whether or not there are consequences for our water resources.

The Department of Environmental Affairs, in our committee on science, technology and health, is included to ensure that, on a continuous basis, we manage the safety of the environment and human beings.

The Department of Health amended its regulations last year to specifically put mandatory requirements for the labelling of GMO foodstuffs so that consumers can have a choice on the shelves and in the shops whether they want to buy it or not.

Also, in the new Act, we have inserted a clause on liability to ensure that those producers of GMOs, together with the users, if they are careless in their handling, could actually be held liable, and there will be penalties. I am convinced that we have taken into consideration those matters.

Regarding soil erosion, the Land Care programme in part addresses those questions. I must say that the beneficiaries have largely been our historically disadvantaged farmers.

The KwaZulu-Natal Ingonyama Trust Land Act, as we have said, will be dealt with in relation to what we have said in the Communal Land Rights Act. One of the things that we have done is actually to consult after the legislation was passed. We have gone to the various Houses of Traditional Leaders. So far we have gone to the Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga. We will be going to all the provinces further to discuss with inkosi how this legislation will affect them, how it will be implemented, what their communities are supposed to expect and, furthermore, have workshops with the regional houses so that by the time we start implementation, we are all at one.

I would like to appeal particularly to the Legal Resources Centre. I don’t think it is in keeping with the spirit of ensuring that we improve our democracy that we take one another to court even before the legislation is implemented, so that we can learn whether or not some of the clauses that we have put up are working or not working. I hope they will reconsider the stand that they have taken in this regard.

I would again like to say that I agree with Mrs Nkomo that urban agriculture is a critical element in the broad agricultural development arena. We are happy about the strategy that Gauteng has produced. We specifically looked at what it is that we can do in that urban hub, taking into consideration the arable land that is concentrated throughout Gauteng. I agree that the challenges of evictions, as raised by hon Hendrickse, is a matter that we must continuously engage in. We will be, this year, if possible, bringing back that legislation – the Extension of Security of Tenure Act – actually to look at how firm we can make it to ensure that we protect the security of tenure of our farmworkers. [Applause.]

Regarding issues of climate change, I agree that it is important for us, as the sector, to look at how we are going to continue to produce, given such challenges in our climate. I am sure some of us have seen a new phenomenon, this year in particular, where the rains have gone from being summer rainfall to falling in the winter season, something that is unheard of.

But what it requires us to do, particularly in the agricultural sector, is continuously to look for answers. That is why biotechnology cannot be ruled out of the equation of finding solutions for dealing with our problems.

Hon Van Heerden, I must say that I was very encouraged that at least there was one person who served in the former regime, maybe not yourself but some members of your constituency, who had the guts to accept that the South African Development Trust or aid projects that were started in the former homelands were fruitless expenditure. For the first time such an acknowledgement has been made. I am sure you will work with us in ensuring that we turn around some of those schemes that were fruitless expenditure to become facilities that can be used as we go forward.

I want to say to hon Van Heerden, though, that I don’t think we can stand here and say there are claims that are not claims. Our legislation allows us to go to court if we want to dispute and not continuously to make statements about something that we cannot prove. When we undertake to investigate a claim, apart from registration, it goes through a whole lot of rigorous research. We look at historical data, we go into the archives and even do a deeds search. We also look at the proclamations that were signed by the Minister and Prime Minister or even provincial administrators at the time. We indeed have to prove that people were forcibly removed, in relation to these proclamations.

If somebody wants to dispute something, the court is there. But I don’t think it will be worthwhile continuously to say some of the claims are not valid when we cannot prove the contrary. I would like, therefore, to say I indeed agree, regarding the issues of capacity-building for communal property associations.

One of the things we are also trying to do is to review the time at which, as the state, we can transfer the asset to ensure that we can build the capacity of those who will take over before we transfer so that we can even reduce these issues of litigation between the new holders of the land and the state when we want to intervene where there are problems.

In closing, this second term is for youth development, as we, as the ruling party, the leader in government, termed it in our January 8 statement. I hope that, as the agricultural sector, we will look at what it is that we can do to strengthen our engagement with the young people of our country, who will be our future producers.

I also want us to look at what the possibilities of national youth service are, particularly with regard to building a core of environmentalists or conservationists who will actually work as cadres to ensure that we can reclaim our soil that has been eroded. It could be one of the ways in which we can engage some of the young people who are unemployed and out of school.

I hope that during this period we can really focus on practical programmes around how we could engage some of these young people. But, also, the learnership programmes should continue to strengthen the capacity of those unemployed graduates in agriculture in order for them to be able to come into our government departments and into the agri-business entities, so that they can get experience and have the possibility of being self- employed, or employable.

I therefore trust that, as hon members here, we would do everything that is possible towards contributing to youth development, particularly because this year marks the 30th celebration of 1976. Regarding women, we will indeed, through our Women in Agriculture programme, continue to sharpen our engagement with the women of our country, particularly to make gains concerning some of the things they fought for in 1956, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the women’s march this year.

We trust that collectively we, as this legislature, will not only engage when it is this period of the budget but will continuously engage even on some of the other important matters. I would like to put it to you, Chairperson, that it would be good if at some time this House discusses the Comprehensive Agricultural Development Programme of Nepad, so that we can actually express our views as legislature in which direction we see this programme going and what it is that we as parliamentarians can do to support the executive. I thank you. [Applause.]

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Kgoshi M L Mokoena): Thank you very much, hon Minister, for your progressive intervention in our debate and for always being available to interact with this House.

Debate concluded.

The Council adjourned at 12:09. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

1. Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM)

 (1)    The JTM on 18 May 2006 in terms of Joint Rule 160(3) classified
     the following Bill, introduced in the National Assembly, as a
     section 75 Bill and as a Bill falling within the ambit of section
     18(1)(a) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework
     Act, 2003 (Act No. 41 of 2003):

     (i)     Deeds Registries Amendment Bill [B 5 – 2006].


 (2)    The JTM on 18 May 2006 in terms of Joint Rule 160(3) classified
     the following Bill, introduced in the National Assembly, as a
     section 75 Bills.

     (i)     Corporate Laws Amendment Bill [B 6 – 2006].

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2004/2005 of the Department of Land Affairs, dated 5 May 2006:

   The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having been briefed by the Department of Land Affairs on its Annual Report and Financial Statements of Vote 30 for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements of Vote 30 for 2004- 2005 [RP 132-2005], referred to it, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.

2. Report of the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs on the Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2004/2005 of the South African Veterinary Council, dated 5 May 2006:

   The Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, having been briefed by the South African Veterinary Council on its Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2004-2005, including the Report of the Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for 2004-2005, referred to it, reports that it has concluded its deliberations thereon.