The hon Dlali is asking an important question. I will surprise him today. Normally there are two pieces of legislation which inform us of what we should do with regard to this problem of evictions. This problem is a medieval practice that continues. Normally we have the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, ESTA, and the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, with which we are trying to handle this matter.
Actually, there are three pieces of legislation. I think that we should start using the third one for the purpose of working against these evictions as in accordance with the 1993 law, and that is the Provision of Land and Assistance Act as we amended it extensively in 1998 - as I've mentioned earlier today. We cannot generalise regarding the protection of farm dwellers' rights. As you are rightly asking, there are serious things happening.
In problematic instances we have started using this Act, which for example, says that the Minister may, from money appropriate by Parliament for this purpose, acquire land for residential purposes and, further, for securing land and tenure rights may designate certain land and expropriate it. Now, if you start doing it in a few instances I'm sure this practice will stop in midair. We use the ESTA and the LTA. We are contracting firms of attorneys; we've developed a land rights management facility in the Department of Land Affairs; we are rolling out the national awareness campaign of rights; we are facilitating social mobilisation on these evictions and somewhere we always say, without explicating it really, that we will aggressively acquire land, including through expropriation, to secure long-term tenure security.
The cases that you've refer to are being followed up in court. It is unfortunate that these matters are continuing, as we see a stream of reportage on this matter. In the cases that you've reported the law will take its course. It is also true that this land support Act is our law and the government is expected to implement it. Thank you, Madam.
Thank you, Comrade Deputy Minister. Deputy Speaker, I've got this article here which clearly states the case of a child that has not been finalised until today. At that stage she was 14 years old. To date she has lost her dignity as a human being particularly because of the white commercial farmers. Today we are saying that we are free but the farmworkers are not free.
Then I want to know from you, what are the short-term, medium-term and long- term mechanisms to address this particular crisis? It is clear that the white farmers are not prepared to handle the farmworkers as human beings. These things are still happening even today, particularly in northern KwaZulu-Natal where people are being terrorised almost every day. Thank you.
I agree completely with you. I must say quite honestly that we don't have a separate short- term, medium-term and long-term plan. All that I can say is that we have to act seriously now; we shouldn't just play it softly anymore. There are cases similar to the one you've mentioned being reported. We must now start acting in a determined fashion as we have the powers and the co-operation of at least two of the agricultural unions on this matter.
Those people who are not members of those agricultural unions are just out on their own and dealing with this in their own way. They are just trying to throw people off their land. We must then send the message and the only way they will understand is when the land is affected and only then it will stop. The legislation is in place so it should be the strategy. Then of course we can come and implement our facility. Our land rights management facility is implemented in any event and it has all these management tools available. But you must have a place where the buck stops. I think that our Minister has repeatedly said that this must end. Yet, it doesn't end. If something which must end doesn't end, then we must act as a responsible government and do something about it. Thank you.
Speaker, ek wil eerstens s, ek maak ten sterkste beswaar teen wat mnr Dlali ges het. Hy het ges dat alle wit boere verantwoordelik is daarvoor. Dit is wat hy ges het.
Dit is absoluut nonsens. Ek dink die Minister behoort ook hierop te reageer. Daar is enkelinge. Die regte ding om te doen, is om hulle te vang en hulle voor die hof te bring en te straf. Om hier te kom staan en te s: Alle wit boere is skelm en hulle vat mense aan en hulle slaan mense, is absoluut onwaar. [Tussenwerpsels.]
Speaker, hierdie vraag is gebaseer op die Nkuzi-verslag van twee jaar gelede. Hierdie verslag dien so elke ses maande, dan voor die Raad van Provinsies en dan voor die komitee van die landbou. Dit is 'n verslag wat strek oor 21 jaar. Hier word ges, onder andere, dat 67% van die mense wat van die plase af is, vandag in die stede sit. Hulle s dat dit vir hulle beter is daar. Wat die verslag nie s nie, is dat in hierdie selfde tydperk is ongeveer tien ... (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Mr A H NEL: Speaker, firstly I want to say that I object in the strongest terms to what Mr Dlali has said. He said that all white farmers are to blame. That is what he said.
It is absolute nonsense. I think that the Minister should also respond to this generalisation. There are individuals. The right thing to do is to arrest them, bring them before the courts and punish them. To come and stand here and say: All white farmers are villains and they take people on and beat people, is absolutely untrue. [Interjections.]
Speaker, this question is based on the Nkuzi report of two years ago. This report comes up more or less every six months, sometimes before the Council of Provinces and sometimes before the committee on agriculture. It is a report that stretches over a period of 21 years. Here it is mentioned, inter alia, that 67% of the people who are from farms now live in cities. They contend that life in the city is better for them. What the report does not mention, is that in the same period approximately 10 ...]
Order, hon member. The time allocated ...
... is ongeveer 20 000 boere ... [ ... approximately 20 000 farmers were ...]
... for the follow-up question ... Will you please take your seat! Will you please take your seat, sir? Thank you. I think if you need to comment on that, hon Deputy Minister, you may.
Ma'am, perhaps the member didn't understand when I was speaking English. Let me tell him. Not that my English is that good, but ...
... nee, my broer, luister nou mooi vandag vir my. Ons het nooit ges ons veralgemeen nie. Daar is baie verantwoordelike boere. [Tussenwerpsels.] Nee, nee, nee, luister mooi wat ... Jy moes ook geluister het wat die Minister s. Daardie mense wat nie wil hoor nie, gaan ons nie net in die hof kry nie, maar ons gaan hulle grond ook onteien. Al is dit net vir daardie mense wat van plase afgesit word. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[... no, my brother, listen carefully to me today. We never said that we are generalising. There are many responsible farmers. [Interjections.] No, no, no, listen carefully to what ... you should also have listened to what the Minister said. Those people who do not want to take heed, we are not only taking them to court, but we are also going to expropriate their land. Even though it may only be for those people who are being evicted from farms. [Applause.]]
Hon members, let us then move on to the next question. What is the problem now? I can't listen to all three of you at the same time, okay.
Madam Deputy Speaker, is there a chance for another follow- up on this question, please?
Unfortunately there is. Will you please take that? Unfortunately for the people, I am saying that there is no more time allocated. There is time allocated.
Did you say: "unfortunately, there is a question left"?
You did not understand me. Listen.
What is this all about?
I think you have a problem. The people were saying that there was no other slot. I am saying to those people who are saying that there was no other slot, unfortunately, we do have another slot. What is your problem?
I accept that.
Minister, laat ek aangaan oor die Nkuzi-verslag. Wat die verslag nie s nie ... [Minister, let me continue with the Nkuzi report. What the report does not mention ... ]
Agb lid, laat ek eers ... [Hon Member, allow me to first ...]
Briefly I'd like to say don't give a speech; ask the question because that is how you lost your opportunity on the previous time. You wanted to react to something and I can't add any more time to the time allocated, so just go straight to the question and the Minister will respond. Thank you.
Wat die verslag nie s nie, mnr die Minister, is dat in daardie selfde tydperk min of meer 20 000 boere ook van die grond af is. Wat ek wil weet is, word dit in ag geneem wanneer oor uitsettings gepraat word in die land? Dit is as gevolg van mense wat hulle grond verlaat dat die arbeiders ook die grond moet verlaat. Dit word nooit in ag geneem nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Mr A H NEL: What the report does not mention, Minister, is that during that same period about 20 000 farmers had also left the agricultural land. What I would like to know, is whether this taken into consideration when evictions are discussed in the country? It is as a consequence of people leaving their agricultural land that labourers also have to leave the agricultural land. This point is never considered.]
In short, the report is the only real statistical report we have. It was done under the auspices of the UN and it is an important report. Of course there are economic reasons for which farmers leave their land and go to do something else. But, it is quite a different question around tenure rights and the problem of evictions. It is not the same question you are asking and we can talk about it in more detail outside. Thank you.
Implications of state's custodianship of mineral resources in terms of legislation
318. Mr S K Louw (ANC) asked the Minister of Minerals and Energy:
What does the state's custodianship of mineral resources, provided for by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Act 28 of 2002, (a) mean in terms of the advocacy of transformation and (b) seek to achieve in the long term?NO2097E
Deputy Speaker, hon members, the answer to the question is as follows: The principle of state custodianship of the nation's mineral resources confers on the Minister of Minerals and Energy the authority and power to drive, direct and enforce transformation in the minerals and mining sector.
The transformation referred to in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, MPRDA, is driven and directed within the context of government constitutional obligations enunciated in the section 9 equality clause of our Constitution and the transformation policy and agenda of this government.
The mining charter and the social labour plans - that would include the environmental management plan, as well as the BEE plan - are the instruments in terms of which transformation is enforced in the minerals and mining sector.
As a country which respects the rule of law, failure to implement transformation vigorously would amount to the violation and the undermining of the very foundation and fabric of this democracy, as well as the Constitution of South Africa.
In this regard my department will continue to drive, to direct and enforce transformation in the minerals and mining sector without fear or favour. This government's objective is to ensure that the South African minerals and mining sector reflects the demographic representation of this country.
I must say that the charter has gone a long way in ensuring that there is significant participation of previously excluded people in this sector. We have seen a lot of black people as partners in the industry. This is also happening at a professional level but we will ensure that the number of black-owned and controlled mining and minerals companies is increased over time and that the number of blacks at management levels in this sector is also increased.
We are confident that we will achieve the transformation objectives of this government through this Act. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Minister, the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is anchored on three legs, namely the social labour plan, black economic empowerment and an environmental management plan. Now, what are the other challenges affecting the transformation agenda as advocated in the MPRDA?
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I give the challenges that we are experiencing in the course of implementing this Act, I think we need to acknowledge that we can hail the charter as one of the most important instruments that have facilitated the participation of black people in the mining sector. But in terms of challenges, there are a number of them confronting us.
Fronting is a problem whereby there is a "rent-a-black" situation. Companies will employ black people as BEE employees or partners and in the process they come back to own the whole project. So, that is the problem and this amounts to dilution. Because our people do not have capital or funds available to enable them to participate as equal partners in these projects, they have to allow for dilution. This means, therefore, that the parent company would come up with capital, and in the process the smaller company would have to give away its rights to the parent company and, so to speak, the very rights go back to the parent company. That does undermine the transformation process.
The other challenge is the minimal participation of women in the industry. We still have a long way to go in terms of ensuring that more women participate in the industry.
The challenge also, as raised by the industry, is that some of the aspects of the Act are onerous for them and then it becomes difficult for them to comply with the requirements because they feel that some of these aspects are onerous. These are matters that we are beginning to address. For example, when it comes to the processing of the environmental management plan they do encounter problems when it comes to that, because of what the National Environmental Management Act requires of them.
So, we are beginning to address some of the areas without compromising on what the objectives of the National Environmental Management Act are. But we are looking at all of those. Those are the challenges that we have, Madam Speaker. [Time expired.]
Madam Speaker, the MPRDA has set a basis for transformation and in particular BEE, but has definitely had a negative impact on investment, particularly international investment. The MPRDA Amending Bill, which has not yet been passed by Parliament but by the portfolio committee, in our view, definitely does not achieve the objectives of the Bill as identified by the hon Minister at the Mining Indaba earlier this year.
Now, there is a newspaper article in Business Day which basically says that South Africa is still not reaping the full rewards of booming prices for gold and other key commodities. Is the Minister of the view that the MPRDA Amending Bill addresses the important long-term objectives of the Act with regard to investment in the mining sector? We are of the view that there are major problems in that regard, Madam Minister. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to dispute the point made by the hon member. We need to appreciate that the mining industry is characterised by booms and busts like any other industry. It's cyclical in nature. You will experience booms at some stage and there will be busts at some stage. So, that's the character of the industry. But to say that it's undermining investment, I don't agree with that.
This kind of Act is not unique to South Africa. Canada has a similar Act which opens things up for the participation of its indigenous people and at no stage has this disinvestment issue been a problem in that country. This particular Act has been designed along the lines of the Acts that open things up for the participation of black people in Canada. So, this is not new to South Africa. We undertook road shows, both nationally and internationally. We met with asset managers and got a sense of what the investors were concerned about in as far as the Act is concerned. We never had a sense that they were reluctant to come and invest in South Africa because of the MPRDA. So, all this kind of hullabaloo in the media is pure politicking. There is no evidence that shows us that the MPRDA has undermined investment in the industry.
Order! We now come to Question 325, asked by the hon D M H Gibson ... [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, is there an opportunity for another supplementary question?
There is. But you don't leave me to move from a question and when I go another question make that request.
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did ask my colleague to press the button and it did flash.
Why didn't you press the button yourself?
I am sitting at the speaker phone, Madam Deputy Speaker and as you can see it's about half a mile from my seat. [Laughter.]
That's not an excuse but I wouldn't really deny you an opportunity for a follow-up question. Would you put it then?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Minister, we do not take up cudgels at this point in time for this exercise about the transformation in the BEE requirements. What we are saying is that if you compare Canada with South Africa - and we don't dispute the fact that there might be relevant and similar legislation - look at the facts and the figures. Canada's profit has increased - I'm talking off the top of my head, Madam Minister - by between 40% and 70%. Our increase has been 16%. There is clearly a big disjuncture between the South African position and the Canadian position where in terms of Australian law they ... [Interjections.]
And the follow-up question is ...
Why is there a disjuncture? Why is there that big difference? Could you explain it, Madam Speaker?
Chairperson, surely the hon member is talking off the top of his head and he has given us no facts. The top of the head will always be top of the head until you give me the correct facts. So, really I can't respond to top-of-the-head facts. What you could do is put a new question, and then I can respond when you have the correct facts.
But, I think you must appreciate that change is not easy and embracing it has been a problem within the industry. Some of the companies in the industry have been very reluctant to embrace the charter under the pretext that they had a different interpretation of the various aspects of the law, for their own convenience.
So, I say that it has not been easy for them and for everybody to embrace the law - that is a fact - because transformation is not easy for anybody.
I also think that, although Canada has been successful in terms of achieving the intended purpose, we will be getting there. It is still new and it is only two years old. We only started to implement the Act in 2004. So, teething problems will be there and we are not denying that. But, to say that it is the MPRDA and transformation that is undermining investment in the country is not true.
Interventions and discussions around restoring the Zimbabwean economy
325. Mr D H M Gibson (DA) asked the Minister of Finance:
(1) Whether he or his department is involved in planning a rescue operation in respect of the Zimbabwean economy; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a)(i) for what plans and (ii) in what circumstances will South Africa commit funds and resources and (b) how much will South Africa spend in the (i) short and (ii) medium term;
(2) whether any discussions have taken place with the Southern African Development Community, the European Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, as well as financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, aimed at involving some or all of them in efforts to revive and restore the Zimbabwean economy; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?NO2107E
Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon Gibson is obviously not short on melodrama. His question is about whether we are involved in planning a rescue operation, kind of "De la Rey, De la Rey, sal jy sommer Zimbabwe ook lei?" [De la Rey, De la Rey, will you come and lead Zimbabwe too?] That's the kind of question the hon Gibson is asking. Nothing quite as dramatic. There is work in progress.
The SADC Heads of State Summit met on 16-17 August 2007 and took account of the work already done by the executive secretariat and also work on the mediation which was requested by the political organ of SADC, and which is led by President Mbeki and seeks to mediate between the different political organisations, both parliamentary and nonparliamentary. The Ministers of Finance were then asked to take responsibility for some work in the arena of the economy. The leadership for this process would be by both the executive secretariat and the new Chair of the SADC Ministers of Finance, Minister Magande of Zambia. A task team has been set up, and the Ministers will meet in early November to take stock of the situation, by which time we should have an evaluation of the needs and demands of the situation but more importantly also, that over which Zimbabwe will want to take decisions in the short term.
The Deputy Speaker and hon members should be aware that just last week there was a very significant announcement in Parliament by the finance Minister of the devaluation of the Zim dollar that brings it much, much closer to black market rates now. But in terms of decisions about the currency in Zimbabwe that is quite unprecedented.
To get to the heart of your question, sir: Under what circumstances would government lend or give money? I think that the circumstances are well founded in section 213(2) of the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear about the fact that money may be withdrawn from the National Revenue Fund only in terms of an appropriation by this House. So, there is no ``under-the-table deal''; it has to be by an appropriation and, if needs be, by special appropriation, as we will undertake this afternoon. That would be the route. If there are other circumstances such as a guarantee issued by government that would have to be provided for in terms of section 218 of the Constitution.
Since these are constitutional dictates, there is no room to manoeuvre around them - government will have to comply with the letter and spirit of the Constitution before it can provide support to any country in any circumstances. [Interjections.]
Order, hon Minister. I've a problem because you haven't touched the second part of the question. I would therefore allow you a few seconds to do that.
In respect of the second part of the question - SADC - I have covered it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't know whether the government and the people of Zimbabwe have been involved with the other agencies - the World Bank, China or the US. I have no knowledge of that but as a sovereign state we are involved in the SADC relations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for that undramatic and factual response to this dramatic question. There are of course many people in South Africa who care deeply about the plight of our fellow Africans in Zimbabwe and this is not confined to De la Rey's fans. I think there are people on both sides of this House who feel the same.
Now, the Minister has made it quite clear what the constitutional position is. I would like to ask him whether that same constitutional position applies to the Reserve Bank and to the parastatals. I would like to specifically ask: Does the SA Reserve Bank give assistance or has it given assistance, direct or indirect, to the Zimbabwean government aimed at helping that government to meet its obligations?
I think the question on the Question Paper is about direct governmental assistance. In respect of the Reserve Bank, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is an arrangement. I think it was in 1965, at the time of UDI or the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, when an arrangement was struck between the then Rhodesian government and the SA Reserve Bank which provided for a credit facility in the Reserve Bank which was backed by Land Bank bills. The same facility has been rolled over and in about 1987 it was reopened. We were advised by the Reserve Bank that the guarantee facility isn't even fully drawn down upon as we speak.
So, it's a facility that central banks around the world have for those kinds of arrangements. Central banks around the world have to have places where they invest reserves and then negotiate these deals between central banks. There doesn't have to be the same kind of public accountability for how they invest and where they invest them. The world knows, for instance, that the People's Bank of China has invested $1,3 trillion in the US. It's just the way in which the world works.
In respect of other state-owned enterprises, they are again our credit facilities, and this would apply in the current milieu primarily to an agency like Eskom that traditionally has sold electricity. From time to time there would be debates about a settlement. There has never been a refusal to settlement. There will be queries about the amounts in particular bills.
I know that, in reply to another question from the hon Gibson, the amount of R2,2 million that is being debated was given a lot of attention by some journalists. But on the larger scale of things, in bilateral relations R2,2 million is a rounding error. I think that Eskom would say what the Reserve Bank would say there has never been reluctance. The commitment of the government and people of Zimbabwe to meet their obligation is actually incredibly strong. We were all taken by surprise in late October 2005 when Governor Gono of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe decided to pay the IMF an amount of $178 million. They take these things quite seriously because they know that there might have to be a call tomorrow again.
Madam Deputy Speaker, could the Minister inform the House what role macroeconomic convergence is going to play in the region and in improving the economic situation of countries that are experiencing difficulties, such as Zimbabwe?
Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan - RISDP as SADC has named this document - there are certain timelines set to meet certain objectives. For instance, in 2008 we would like to have across all of SADC a free-trade area. That means that our tariff books must be aligned and we must then be able to facilitate trade between all the countries in the region.
The second trend of issues relates to the need to have macroeconomic convergence. We can see from evidence from around the world that countries that have moved within the same balance of payments pack of key macroeconomic indicators tend to be able to grow together. In the RISDP there are convergence criteria for fiscal deficits for balance of payment deficits or surpluses for inflation and so on. If you look at the common monetary area, CMA, or the Southern African Customs Union, which is the CMA plus Botswana, you will see that there is very, very high level of convergence.
Now, part of what we need to do is to bring in countries that are converging. Some may have to be brought in and then have their currency pack. There would be proposals along this side even with countries that are far out of line at the moment. But these aggravate some tough decisions because once you've taken that decision the group of countries that have taken it will need measures to ensure enforcement, like you see in the EU after the Maastricht criteria were set down. When the criteria were there, if a Minister of finance violated the deficit rule they had to go and account to their colleagues. And you need similar rules and you need some supernatural powers to be able to deal with some of these tough, tough issues.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon Minister, as a follow- up question to the second part of the question: The former Prime Minister of Britain, before he left office, responding to a question in the House of Commons about whether the promise to fund land acquisition in Zimbabwe had been met, mentioned the fact that his government was still committed but that they would rather put that money with an independent institution or have it monitored by the UN or the World Bank and that they would avoid involving Zanu-PF in the management of those funds. Do you know if anything has transpired of that kind of promise, because as we know it is central to this dispute?
Madam Deputy Speaker, let's just go back: The Lancaster House Agreement had a direct involvement of the Thatcher administration representing the Conservative government. In the early period, because there were certain agreements built into the Lancaster House Agreement, including fixed representation for whites and a deferment of the agrarian reform issues in Zimbabwe, there was donor aid. I am told that in the late 1980s after the five-year period had elapsed there were some transfers. I don't know how significant it has been. That's what Whitehall would say - I think that Harare would have a different view on the matter and these issues must still be resolved.
Inevitably, I think that some agency is going to have to assist Zimbabwe, because all agriculture is driven by credit and you can't have agricultural credit without collateral. If you want collateral then you need a deeds registry and if you need a deeds registry then you've got to resolve some of the issues that have happened in the context of land reform. These are matters that will be on the table to be resolved. The key issues depend on that interrelationship between an economic plan that Zimbabweans will develop and allow to be tested by peers and the speed of the political solution that Zimbabweans find for themselves.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm indebted to the hon Minister for the detailed answer which he gave to me, particularly concerning the facility available to Zimbabwe and the nature of it. Could he please tell me what is the extent of that facility that is available?
Madam Speaker, I don't recall the figure off-hand but it is not more than R90 million. [Interjections.] Is it R80 million? Pardon me, I just want to confirm. [Interjections.]
Order! The director-general should not participate in the debate. [Laughter.] We may agree to send a response of the hon Minister to the Ministry of Finance.
But it's far less than R100 million. I have a sense that that balance of payments pack is between R80 million and R90 million.
Compliance strategy for state-owned enterprises regarding the employment of the disabled
311. Mrs H I Bogopane-Zulu (ANC) asked the Minister for Public Enterprises:
What (a) is his department's strategy to ensure that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) comply with the provisions of the Employment Equity Act, Act 55 of 1998, in relation to the employment of the disabled, (b) monitoring measures are in place in this regard and (c) sanctions have been developed to strengthen compliance by the SOEs?