Hon Chair, the biggest thing that we as the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform learned from the petition from the Western Cape land claimants, individually and/or collectively, is that when this House passes a Bill into law, we, the legislators, the executive, and the judiciary should insist that the law should not have a double meaning, or should not put the stakeholders up against one another.
We say this because we have discovered that there is no distinction in the restitution Act between those people who historically owned the land and those who historically used the land. In the restitution Act, these are the same. We gained an understanding of this and thought that the legislation needed to be revised to fix this problem.
The second thing that we have learned from this petition, and thanks to these claimants, is that when citizens who, in this case, have waited for 17 years for the finalisation of their claims are standing up to demand their rights, it will result in action. This is why we now believe that it is not the state alone that can resolve problems in society, but citizens must participate actively in the realisation of their own rights.
The third thing that we have learned is that even though Batho Pele principles and the code of conduct of administrators exist, because of a lack of supervision and management in various departments, citizens are bound to suffer the abuse of their rights at the hands of these officials, especially in regard to the basic services that they deserve from the state.
The fourth thing that we have learned - more than any of the aforementioned things - is that the petition from the Western Cape claimants categorically demonstrated that the five years that were prescribed for land claims in respect of land lost between 1652 and 31 December 1998 was inadequate. It goes back to the actual fundamentals of the restitution Act. You can't say that the people who lost land from 1652 to December 1998 must reclaim that land within five years. After five years, they have no right to claim the land. We believe that this is wrong and the Act must therefore be amended.
The substance of the petition is that all rights to land by all claimants anywhere in the country in general and in the Western Cape in particular are protected in the Constitution of South Africa and the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994. They can therefore not be curtailed by any official or individual, nor by any politician.
The progress report received by the Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform indicated that we were on course to meet the target within the two financial years that were prescribed by the portfolio committee, recommended to this House and agreed upon by the House, especially in Claremont, Newlands, Strand, Milnerton, Paternoster, Klawer, Goodwood and Paarl.
Therefore we bring this report to the House and recommend that it be adopted. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
Chairperson, I move: That the Report be adopted.
Declaration of vote:
Chairperson, it is pleasing to know that this petition, which was lodged by the DA on 25 May 2010, has finally reached consideration by this House. The reason for this petition was to seek intervention by Parliament in resolving what the petitioners regarded as the failure of the office of the Western Cape Regional Land Claims Commissioner to promptly process their claims ... [Interjections.]
Hon House Chairperson, could the DA also acknowledge that they were too slow and the ANC had to intervene and expedite matters? [Applause.]
That's not a point of order, hon Chief Whip. Continue, hon member.
Thank you, Chairperson. The reason for this petition was to seek intervention by Parliament in resolving what the petitioners regarded as the failure of the Western Cape Regional Land Claims Commissioner's office ... [Interjections.]
Hon Chair, this is indeed a point of order - firstly, a point of order on fact and, secondly, on process. First of all, the petition was submitted by the claimants of the Western Cape only with the support of the DA, not through the DA. It was submitted to the Speaker by those people.
The second fact is that this report was submitted to this House in July, not now only.
Thank you very much, Chairperson, for the opportunity to finish my declaration.
Hon House Chairperson, I think it is important that if people have lied, they must acknowledge the lie before they proceed.
Hon Chief Whip, that is not a point of order. Hon member, continue.
Hon House Chairperson, the chairperson of the committee is misleading this House. The report was given to the DA MP the hon Steyn by the claimants, who then forwarded it on behalf of the Western Cape to the committee.
Hon members, I'm not going to open a debate on this because ...
Well, he started it and I would like to finish it.
You all discussed this in the portfolio committee. I'm not going to open a debate now. Hon member, continue. Hon member, take your seat, please.
On a point of order, please. I would like you to make a Ruling. Is it parliamentary for the Chief Whip to say an hon member has lied?
Hon House Chairperson, I will never use such language, unless there are facts. The facts were given by the chairperson of the committee.
Hon Chief Whip, that is the statement you made. Please withdraw.
Hon Chairperson, I used the words liar because a liar is somebody who doesn't tell the truth and this member has not told the truth.
Can you please take your seat - I'm dealing with this point. Hon Chief Whip, we do not use that language. We do not refer to hon members of Parliament as lying or being liars. I know you want to debate the concept, but we don't use ...
I am a very obedient person and I respect my Chairperson, Therefore I withdraw that word. [Applause.]
On a point of order, House Chair, the Deputy Chief Whip of the Opposition said the chairperson was misleading the House. Is that parliamentary?
If he used the words "deliberately misleading the House", then I would take him up on that. But if he just said "misleading", I won't take him up on that.
The portfolio committee, after examining and analysing the petition, determined that the claims process was prolonged due to the failure of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner to provide comprehensive responses on questions of the committee.
This petition highlighted three broad areas of concern with regard to the processing of land claims, namely: limitations of the legislative framework for restitution; grievances for the process of restitution; and the conduct of officials implementing restitution.
Settlement of specific land claims resulted in numerous claimants passing away prior to having the opportunity of seeing their land restored. Many of the land claim forms and supporting documents were found to be misplaced or lost by the commission. Claimants were allegedly misinformed and threatened by officials. Concerns relating to nepotism and corruption were expressed. It was determined that the commission had a weak database of land claims in its office, and where evidence could not be provided, there was an apparent lack of a plan to deal with this.
A further disturbing fact was that the commissioner, although summoned to appear before the portfolio committee, did not appear. This is clear contempt of Parliament. A number of other factors resulted in endless delays, which precipitated the claimants in resorting to the Human Rights Commission to resolve these issues.
Although the DA supports this report, it is a concern that despite the claimants petition to this House, it could not be dealt with to the satisfaction of the claimants concerned. [Applause.]
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.