Chairperson, hon members, earlier in the debate I indicated that I will get back to this meeting with a ruling. This was in relation to a point of order raised by the hon Ellis to the effect that the word "nonsense" had not been ruled unparliamentary in the past.
I just need to indicate that when a presiding officer rules on a matter, he or she takes into account the tone and the context in which the remark is made. At the time when the hon Groenewald made the remark, it was my view that the remark was meant to offend and I therefore asked him to withdraw. He obliged.
It is correct that the word itself has never been considered offensive, and it is therefore not unparliamentary. However, I wish to thank hon Groenewald for acceding to my request at the time. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chair, before you leave the Chair, you have to help me now. After you had left the Chair, I repeated what I said to the hon member in my speech and I said she was still talking nonsense. Must I withdraw that or not? [Laughter.]
Hon Groenewald, I was not in and I didn't hear you referring to the member talking nonsense. I ruled on what I heard. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I accept that my last one was unparliamentary. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Order! Hon members, we invite the hon Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform to speak. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Chair.
I am not aware of how many minutes have been allocated to you, but I hope this has been communicated to you.
Eight minutes.
The hon Minister has eight minutes, which were saved by his party as indicated earlier, I understand.
I want to say, sir, that we actually timed the ANC speakers very carefully and you are right, unfortunately. [Laughter.]
I am very right. So, hon Minister, you have eight minutes. [Laughter.]
Chairperson, the FF Plus can even give him 10 minutes if he can give clarity on the issues, please. [Laughter.]
Unless you have the two minutes to donate from the FF Plus, I am not sure whether those minutes are available. Hon Minister, we have not touched your minutes yet, so now you can start.
Hon Chairperson, Firstly, I would like to thank the members of the opposition for contributing to this debate. Clearly, it's a very sensitive matter.
Secondly, we would like to invite members, particularly from the DA, to visit Muyexe and see the change. Those who were there in August when we launched this CRDP are invited to return so that they can come to the House and explain the changes that have been achieved there. A lot more still needs to be done, but please do visit.
Thirdly, members of the ANC did not really raise the matter of section 25 of the Constitution. This matter came from other hon members. In the speech I read I didn't mention this matter at all. I actually said we had looked at and reviewed the land tenure system, and we proposed to introduce it to the House as a three-tiered system. Firstly, there is state land and we won't sell that; it will be leasehold. Secondly, there is private freehold in South Africa, which we will not touch. What we are saying is that there will be "limited extent". Thirdly, we acknowledge that foreigners own land in South Africa, but now we will introduce "precarious tenure". So, we haven't said anything at all about nationalisation of land.
I will be shocked if any South African has a problem with the fact that land is a national asset. We met and sat with the CEO of AgriSA and legal advisors on this question. We explained it to them in terms of that first paragraph of the strategic plan and we all agreed. I am shocked that there would then be politicians sitting here who feel that the land should belong to someone else. Let's just kill that nonexistent debate.
Our department has been crucified for the last five years, as one of the hon members mentioned. Do you know why? It is mainly because we don't know how much land we own and where it is, because there is no register. This is because of the terrible state of land management in the country.
The hon member is talking about 1795. In fact, between 1795 and 1844 there was no land administration in this country because every administration, particularly the British administration, completely ignored the question of land administration. There was such complacency, indolence and laziness on their part. In fact, it was not important to them. For us, it is very important because we are a responsible government and we must account to the members of the House here.
As we stand here, we know that we will probably again be crucified because of this question. That is why we are proposing a land management commission. This will help us to start exerting pressure on those who own land so that we can know what land belongs to the state and what belongs to other people. This will allow us to start leasing out on long lease the land that belongs to the state, while we regulate privately owned land in terms of the land tenure system. So, there is no such a thing as nationalisation of land.
My fifth point is that perhaps it is important for me to say again that there is the question of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, ESTA. We will amend this ESTA legislation, as is the case with the Land Tenure Act. We will amend that. We will bring before this House a Bill that deals with this question and which we can look at.
There are three critical objectives. The first objective, and it is very important, is to sustain production discipline on farm land. Now, because in South Africa we want to derationalise, we agreed on this with farmers. Therefore, we have to derationalise the rural economy. We are moving away from this thing that black South Africans are victims. We are not victims; we own this land together. We must, then, find a way of derationalising the rural economy. So, we can get farmers to also use state land to integrate black and white farmers for production purposes.
The second objective is that there must be democratic, equitable allocation and use of land across race, gender and class perspectives. We have to deal with that. That is a very important consideration. Therefore, as far as the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, ESTA, is concerned, it is driven by the objectives I mentioned: food production, the derationalising of the economy and the democratisation of the allocation of land.
We introduced the concept of "relative rights" because we recognise that now, with the changes that are taking place, more black people are assuming ownership of land - rural land, for production. This is an integration that we want to achieve as a country. It is no longer going to be a black or white land. There will be ownership and non-ownership across the colour line. In other words, it is going to be more of a class issue.
Therefore, in that context we cannot continue talking about black people as victims and white people as oppressors. No. The issue now is going to be that those who pay tax and own land will pay tax to the state; those who work on the land must have rights but they must produce; those who live in homes on the farms as dwellers must be protected in terms of tenure. We discussed this and found that it's fine for these farm dwellers to sell their labour power to the land-owners, but they must also be secure where they live. So, that is what we are bringing to this House in terms of the land tenure Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Order! Just before I conclude business, I want to note something that might be of interest to the executive members. Firstly, there is a culture in Parliament that EPCs are like budget days. On a budget day, departments will usually exhibit and showcase outside the EPCs, wherever they are taking place. I saw yesterday that this has disappeared and I am not sure whether this was a decision by the executive, or what.
Secondly, these exhibits afford other members, those who are not members of the portfolio committee, the opportunity to have access to the information displayed on those tables.
Lastly, members usually get invited to a dinner, or whatever, as a way of networking. After all, we have guests in the gallery and they probably wanted to discuss some of the opinions raised in the debate itself, so that they can then take those discussions to network and share information.
I am just saying that this culture and tradition ought to continue. I saw some didn't do it yesterday. So, you are invited to the Marks Building for a cocktail function, all of you. [Laughter.] The Ministers have responded on that one, but as for the exhibition side of it, the next time Rural Development and Land Reform is here, it must be treated as a budget day.
Debate concluded.