Hon Deputy Speaker, let me join you in congratulating hon Stone Sizani and Doris Dlakude on their elevation and I assure them of my and hon Kubayi's unqualified support. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon Minister Gugile Nkwinti, as we reflect on this question of land, let us focus on the land and the native questions, their political, cultural, social and economic impact on South African society.
Since the arrival of the European settlers in Southern Africa, African kings and queens led wars of resistance against land dispossession, slavery, colonialism and colonial exploitation. In 1885 Western powers met in Berlin, where they agreed to partition and share Africa, disregarding the cultural and territorial integrity of African peoples.
At the end of the 19th century, African leaders were conquered, giving colonial powers the opportunity to start the process of colonisation of the continent and exploitation of its natural resources. Black people participated on both sides of the Anglo-Boer War hoping that in the event of victory, they would regain their civil and political rights, land and its natural resources. Instead the Britons and the Boers reconciled at the expense of black people by legalising the colour bar in terms of the Treaty of Vereeniging in 1902.
Soon thereafter the Lagden Commission recommended a territorial segregation between black and white. This was followed by the establishment of the "whites" only Union of South Africa, which made the governor general the supreme chief of all native communities and dressed him with powers to appoint or dismiss any traditional African leader at his pleasure. It was largely those traditional leaders who resisted colonisation and exploitation who were deposed.
The Constitution of the Union of South Africa laid a firm foundation for a racially-based society, leading to the destruction of African kingships and queenships and land dispossession. The Voortrekkers forcibly occupied the land of local communities, forcing them to wage wars of resistance. When these communities were conquered, for instance, the Transvaal Republic began to demarcate the land into native locations, forcibly driving Africans into them, disregarding their cultural and territorial integrity, sanctity of historical landmarks and religious sites and denied them access to the natural resources they needed to satisfy their basic needs. It is this racially-based constitutional system that allowed the white minority government to pass the Natives Land Act of 1913 and the subsequent Native Trust and Land Act of 1936.
The colonial forces treated African peoples as subhuman and treated the prisoners of the wars of resistance harshly. For instance, after the Jameson Raid the Matabele captives were marched from Botswana to the Cape Colony, where they were sold into slavery. In the Greater Letaba area 400 Balobedu women and children were marched from Modjadjiskloof to the outskirts of Pretoria, where they were endangered. More than 5 000 cattle belonging to Queen Modjadji and her senior traditional leaders, notably Chief Makgoba, were confiscated and distributed among white farmers.
However, African people who continued to farm, notably Pixley ka Isaka Seme, were more successful than the white farmers. To address this challenge, the white farmers appealed to the Union government to outlaw the purchase of farmlands by black people. In response to the racist Union, Parliament passed the 1913 NativesLand Act, which allocated only 7% of the total surface of South Africa to the black majority. The resulting overcrowding, deforestation and land hunger forced the racist Union Parliament to increase the land allocated to African people to only 13% of the total surface of the country.
The land allocated to Africans was divided into native reserves that were barren and less productive and forced Africans to reduce their livestock. Thus the seeds of poverty, unemployment and inequality and general underdevelopment were sown at the time. This forced Africans to migrate to white farms, households and mines to seek jobs. The slave wages they received were sent to the native reserves to sustain their families.
The migratory labour system left African women and children alone in the native reserves. To a large extent, these female-headed families had to fend for themselves. The influx control laws were introduced to prevent these families from joining their husbands in the white areas. Thus the social cohesion of African families and communities was eroded.
The destruction of African kingdoms and queenships was consolidated by the Native Administration Act, Act 38 of 1927, which empowered the governor- general as the supreme chief of all native tribes to appoint native commissioners for the administration of native affairs. The native chiefs were appointed by the governor-general and held office at his pleasure. This tribal system of government was used to keep Africans outside the main politics of the country.
The formation of the ANC in 1912 and their deputations to the United Kingdom, protests by women led by Charlotte Maxeke and the trade union movement led by Clements Kadalie, and demands for the Black Republic led by the ANC president Josiah Gumede yielded no fruits. Instead the nationalist party came into power on the platform of apartheid in 1948. The National Party refined the racial policies of the Union government, which came to be known as apartheid colonialism.
The apartheid authorities introduced the Group Areas Act of 1950 to consolidate racial segregation in the urban areas. Meanwhile African peoples had participated in both World War I and World War II, hoping that in the event of victory they would regain their civil and political rights. The ANC even documented the national grievances of African people in the 1923 and 1943 Bills of Rights. The failure of colonial and apartheid authorities to address their grievances gave birth to radical African nationalism led by the Youth League of Nelson Mandela and Anton Lembede, who were profoundly influenced by the Harlem Renaissance and Marcus Garvey's radical Pan-Africanism.
The ANC Youth League introduced the 1949 Programme of Action, which demanded the right of African people to self-determination and the land and its natural resources. This programme laid the foundation for the struggles from the early 1950s, the Women's Charter of 1954 and the Freedom Charter of 1955. The Freedom Charter provided a blueprint for the post-apartheid constitutional vision that found its way into the 1996 South African Constitution.
The Freedom Charter sought to reconstruct a country fragmented by apartheid and build a united, nonsexist and prosperous country. The Freedom Charter was adopted by the people of South Africa as a whole, both black and white. The people demanded a government based on the will of the people as a whole; sharing of the land by those who work it; recognition of the cultures and traditions of all national groups. In sum, the Freedom Charter demanded the political, cultural, social and economic rights of all South Africans, black and white.
The people's demands notwithstanding, the apartheid authorities adopted a host of legislation which turned the native reserves into homeland governments. This legislation was applied arbitrarily, further fragmenting African communities regardless of their cultural unity and territorial integrity. Thus apartheid sought to reserve the gains made by the ANC towards the formation of a socially cohesive nation.
In the process of establishing the homeland system, the native reserves were redemarcated. New tribes and chiefdoms were created while some chiefs who were defeated were exiled and other kings or chiefs were reduced to the status of indunas. One of them is chief Tswale from Modjadjiskloof, who is with us here today. He is there in the gallery. There are still chiefs and communities that are landless; that are internally exiled by colonialism and by apartheid. For instance, Matidza of Luonde, Masakona, Magoro, Maupa and Makgoba in Limpopo province are landless chiefs. They are in exile in the country of their birth.
The creation of the homeland system deepened and entrenched the roots of poverty, unemployment, inequaliy and underdevelopment in general. The situation is the greatest threat to our democracy, the South African and the African agenda. The current rural development and land reform policies and programmes as well as claims for the restoration of kingdoms and queenships are an integral part of the reconstruction and development of the new South Africa envisaged by the Freedom Charter.
There are many communities, especially the Khoisan who did not lodge their land claims before the closing date, who were also dispossessed before 1913. The land concerned also included sacred and historical sites of indigenous African communities. The other challenge is that since the opening of the land claims process on 31 December 1998 only 8% of the land has been restituted.
The slow process of land restitution resulted in the land hunger, the desire for housing and development, creating a scramble for communal land and demands for title deeds to give to rural people, which can create further problems because the banks would attach the land. The communal land is linked to the history, identities, spiritual and cultural heritage of the people.
Let me conclude by saying that land reform is in the good hands of Minister Gugile Nkwinti. What a good choice by the ANC. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the Natives Land Act, Act 27 of 1913, has been described as apartheid's original sin and as the start of a long century of injustice and racial economic exclusion in South Africa. While these definitions are accurate, none seems capable of describing the extent and the consequences of this law, which bequeathed to our country a century of pain, suffering, despair and alienation. Its long, cold tentacles reached so far into the future that this law's effects are still with us today - 22 years after it was repealed.
Hon members, let me be very clear: the 1913 Natives Land Act was morally repugnant; it was a massive injustice. It originated a system that saw 80% of the people of our country - millions upon millions of black South Africans - removed from their homes and dumped onto 13% of South Africa's total land mass. The Natives Land Act was one of the first of an arsenal of laws passed by the colonial and apartheid governments to legislate black South Africans of all hues out of the formal economy of our country. From the Glen Grey Act, introduced as far back as 1894, to the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act to the Pegging Act of 1943; to the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act; from the Group Areas Act to the Bantu Education Act - all formed part of a complex and far-reaching bureaucracy devoted to depriving black South Africans of the right to participate fairly and equally in the economy. These laws prevented black citizens from moving freely and unencumbered around the country of their birth, from use of their talents and intellect towards realising their aspirations to live lives of their choosing. Sol Plaatje is often quoted with reference to the Natives Land Act, because he encapsulated so crisply the extent of its injustice. He said:
Awakening on Friday morning, June 20, 1913, the South African Native found himself not actually a slave, but a pariah in the land of his birth.
Deputy Speaker, it is precisely because of the impact of this legislation and the way it continues to plague us today that we must continually ask ourselves: What must we still do to put right the many calculated wrongs of the past? On this particular occasion, as we commemorate a century since the enactment of the Natives Land Act, our attention must be focused on land reform and land restitution as measures of redress and reconciliation. How far have we come in our efforts to redress the devastating effects of an Act that reserved 87% of South Africa's land exclusively for white ownership? Have we done enough to bind the wounds inflicted upon our country's people by subsequent policies like the system of Bantustans? The answer, unfortunately, is no. We still have a very long way to go. The question is: What has gone wrong, and what must still be done to put right the injustices of the past?
The DA is fully committed to land restitution and land reform as a means to redress the injustices of the past and as tools for building a stronger rural economy into the future. We believe that, if executed properly, a successful land reform process can play a vital role in rebuilding our commercial agriculture sector and making a meaningful contribution to growing our economy and creating jobs. But the process until now has been crippled by inefficiency. This government has failed to make good on its promise to redress these ills. Realising freedom takes more than just promises; it requires hard work and commitment. If we are going to redress the legacy of the Natives Land Act, Act 27 of 1913, we need a government that has the capacity to deliver on its promises.
Most of us in this House agree on the need for an effective and sustainable programme of land reform that puts right the wrongs of the past. Today we must reflect on how to achieve this. I believe we need to start thinking differently about land reform. Do all people want to own land in rural South Africa, or would some prefer title deeds for urban properties which put them closer to economic opportunities? Do citizens living on communal land have a stake in the property they have lived on and farmed for generations? If not, why are they denied this right? What can we do to help emerging black farmers make economic successes of their enterprises, to redress the opportunity cost of being locked out of the rural economy for 100 years? Should we not put more focus on giving farm workers equity in existing enterprises that have already proven to be a success?
Time does not permit me to set out all the answers here today. The point is that we need to start thinking differently. We need to take the political heat out of land reform and come up with creative solutions that will benefit everyone. It is not too late for us to roll back the inequalities imposed on our country by the Natives Land Act. Indeed, when it comes to putting right the wrongs of the past, there is no time like the present. Let us commit ourselves today to making this goal a reality. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, 19 June 2013 will rightly be commemorated as a key point in the dismal story of the dispossession of the land of the black population of South Africa.
During the 19th century, British domination was extended throughout the region. In 1871, Britain annexed the diamond fields of the Northern Cape. By 1887, it had incorporated Zululand. By 1894, it had completed the annexation of the Transkei. Finally, in 1900, during the Anglo-Boer War, the two republics of the Transvaal and the Republic of the Orange Free State were annexed. What was the intention? It was to set up a union or federation, as they had successfully done with colonies in Canada and Australia. In 1908, they convened a national convention, and in 1910 the Union of South Africa was born. Whether or not it was conceived in sin, the new country signalled the birth of South Africa as we know it today.
The Natives Land Act was the culmination of more than a century of dispossession. It left black South Africans with little more than 8% of the surface of the country. In 1936, additional land was allocated to black South Africans, but still it comprised only 13,7%. It is little wonder therefore that the 1913 Act remains such an emotional issue that it can be seen as the original formalisation of racial segregation in South Africa long before the nationalists institutionalised apartheid in 1948.
It was in common recognition of these past injustices of a hundred years ago that all the parties that negotiated our new Constitution accepted the need for genuine redress of the land question. In particular, they agreed that there should be a process of restitution. According to section 25(7) -
... a person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of the property or to equitable redress.
Secondly, there would be a process of land reform. It was agreed that land could be expropriated in the public interest, and that the public interest included "the nation's commitment to land reform". The Constitution also requires that expropriation must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected. For whatever reason, thus far progress with land reform has been disappointing. The challenge for all South Africans on the centenary of the 1913 Natives Land Act is to work together for a land reform process that takes into account and redresses the bitter history of dispossession, but it must be fair and equitable to all those affected, remaining within the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
While land is and remains a highly emotive and fundamental issue in the national discourse, we may not overlook the sad reality that owning land does not equal instant wealth, nor does it turn the new owners into commercial farmers, especially where they have no skills or resources. This was true when early white settlers were given land to produce food for passing ships. Many failed dismally and went bankrupt, because they lacked the basic skills and resources to eke out a living whilst producing at cut- rate prices for the then mighty Dutch East India Company.
It remains true today in the case of beneficiaries of land reform and restitution in recent years. Unfortunately, there are too many examples of failed farming enterprises and disillusioned people. In some cases, it can be attributed to a lack of resources, skills and mentoring. In others inflated expectations of how many people can make a living out of certain areas of land or projects. Yes, there is something seriously wrong with the land redistribution and restitution process. Many land reform projects are collapsing. A total of 852 farms are distressed and unproductive. The department has been forced to introduce recapitalisation and development programmes to help failing land reform projects to become viable. There are numerous programmes that have been implemented to support emerging farmers. Despite this, farms like the Bouwland Estate in the Western Cape, which consists of 56 hectares was supposed to support 60 beneficiaries, currently has zero production and is on the market for sale.
Likewise, the 52 beneficiaries of the Winola Park Trust in Worcester are back to square one, with the farm having gone bankrupt. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the watershed Natives Land Act was promulgated on 19 June 1913 and, on its centenary, the IFP goes down memory lane to take stock of its devastating effects in an effort to map out the way forward.
While we acknowledge the unspeakable effects of this Act on our sisters and brothers who lost all private title to their landownership in the urban and peri-urban areas, in this presentation the IFP would like to focus on communal land that was wrested from our traditional leaders, particularly African kings and amakhosi, who held these lands in trust for their clans. This countrywide dispossession happened long before 1913 and continued thereafter. It must also be put on record that the pre-1913 land dispossession was characterised by a lot of stress, violence and bloodletting. It is for this reason that the IFP fully welcomes pronouncements by the government that in the second window of opportunity that is about to open, pre-1913 claims of land restitution will also be considered. Indeed, it was the claims of communal land that received less consideration in the first period, which ended on 31 December 1998.
Whilst the IFP is appreciative of the second opportunity to claim restitution of the land of our forefathers, it hopes that this process will not be marred by frustration and procrastination that characterised the previous process. The manner in which government officials in the land claims office handled many applications left a lot to be desired. To avoid the challenges that we had before, the IFP, whilst appreciative of the opportunity, would like to point out that when appointing the officials in the Land Claims Office, there was simply no consideration of permanency or continuity. In many instances, when claimants visited the offices to do follow-ups on their claims, they met with new faces, which required them to repeat their stories since the new incumbents knew very little or nothing about what happened before he or she assumed office. Very often the files could not be traced, and this led to very slow progress, with the result that even today some of the applications lodged before 1998 have not been finalised. This literally killed enthusiasm in the process.
Related to this statement is the government procedure which dictates that when the land that was claimed by people under amakhosi is restored, the communities to whom it is restored to are required to form communal land associations or trusts to administer such land. The IFP views this in a very serious light, since it can lead to endless conflicts. This simply means that an administrative structure is imposed on a traditional authority to undermine such traditional authority.
In KwaZulu-Natal, for instance, the IFP proposed that such land should be restored to the Ingonyama Trust, which holds all amakhosi land in trust for communal communities. This is a kind of divide and rule policy which should never be allowed in the new South Africa if the government is serious about upholding the institution of traditional law and administration which is entrenched in our Constitution. Thank you. [Time expired.]
Deputy Speaker and hon members, this year marks the 100- year anniversary of the Natives Land Act, a piece of legislation which decreed that only certain areas of the country could be owned by black people. This led to a situation where the majority of citizens owned only 13% of the land, whilst the minority group owned the remaining 87%.
We are aware that since 1994 the government has, in an effort to implement effective redress through land restitution, transferred millions of hectares of land to people who were dispossessed under apartheid. Despite the major strides, the legacy of the Natives Land Act still lives on, as the majority of citizens of this country are still landless and have no access to land. Numerous challenges with the current land redistribution programme also entrench the legacy of this Act. Many beneficiaries of the land redistribution programme have been complaining about inadequate postsettlement support. This lack of support has led to a situation where some of them have had to sell back the land given to them by the government. For example, according to a media report, the Sunset Game Lodge outside Douglas, 100 km west of Kimberley was bought for R18 million by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the benefit of more than 100 women from the province. Due to a lack of postsettlement support, the women found themselves in a difficult position, where they could not run the farm and ended up selling it back to the previous owner, creating a vicious circle.
Another key hindrance to land redistribution and building a nonracist society are pro-rich housing developments. Every day golf estates and gated communities are developed, which give the rich access to the best land, while the poor have to make do with little or no land. Often the prices of the properties in these pro-rich settlements are inflated in order to keep the majority of South Africans out of the market. For example, in the media report, there is a steel magnate who bought a flat in Clifton, here in Cape Town, for R198 million as a gift for his daughter - a flat for R198 million. The question now remains: How does one reverse the legacy of the Act when people charge exorbitant prices for properties, prices that most South Africans cannot afford to pay?
This is sadly the case in all too many pro-rich settlements around the country, and this needs to be stopped. If this is not unjustified enrichment, then there is no such thing as unjustified enrichment. These challenges, among others, require urgent attention if we are to ensure that government reaches its land redistribution target and that we build a racially integrated society. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, seated in the gallery are guests of the President of the Republic of South Africa. [Applause.] They are here, having come from all corners of the country, not to listen to this debate, but because they have their own process down at the International Convention Centre, ICC. They are there because of their involvement in a tour of South Africa, from the precolonial, colonial, post-union apartheid South Africa and through to the current democracy.
We invite hon members to join them this evening and tomorrow. The President opened it today. You will be amazed. Also seated in this House are three of our colleagues from the provinces of Gauteng, Eastern Cape and North West. They are all guests of the President. [Applause.]
Marian Lacey opens the introduction to her book entitled Working for Boroko: The Origins of a Coercive Labour System in South Africa, with the following quote from a letter dated 23 November 1917, written by Fillipus Bopape, addressed to the sub-Native Commissioner at Pietersburg. He says:
There is another awful branch of this bad law, that a native is not allowed to hire a white's farm by money, except by working for nothing, 'Boroko'.
Lacey goes on to say:
There were four major issues facing the successive governments in the first two decades after the Union in 1910, namely, how to inhibit further the growth of an independent African peasantry so as to force all Africans to become migrant workers dependent on the wage sector for their survival; secondly, linked to the first one, was where to settle African sharecroppers ...
My great-grandfather and my grandfather were sharecroppers, by the way.
... half-share farmers and cash tenants, said to have been squatting illegally on white-owned farms; thirdly, the mass influx of Africans to the towns, which created a new and urgent problem for the state, one which reached a crisis point in the early 1920s; and lastly, linked to the third problem, was the build-up of untrained and unskilled whites as more and more of them streamed into the towns. Like African peasants, small farmers and 'bywoners' had been squeezed off the land with the spread of the capitalist farming.
The first three problems remain with the democratic ANC government, which took control of state power in 1994, almost a century since the establishment of the Union in 1910.
Sampie Terreblanche in his book A History of Inequality in South Africa 1652-2002, makes the following observations about the Act. He says:
By depriving African farmers of much of their land and ending sharecropping and tenant farming on white-owned land, an agricultural and entrepreneurial tradition and store of indigenous farming knowledge were destroyed. It is difficult to determine the value of this tradition, but it was probably considerable, because it was well adapted to South Africa's weather, land and labour peculiarities. If this African agricultural tradition had not been destroyed, but given more or less the same government support, both financially and technologically, given to white farmers, South Africa's agricultural and economic history could have been radically different.
However, Terreblanche makes a more telling observation on the legacy of the Natives Land Act on African lives, and he says: The combined effect of the Land Act and deteriorating socioeconomic conditions in the Bantustans on the one hand, and strictly enforced influx control measures on the other created a situation of systemic violence that deliberately or inadvertently criminalised many migrant workers. The inevitable result of this inhumane situation was that millions of Africans were drawn into a vicious circle of violence, lawlessness and criminality. It is ironic that the strong inclination towards criminality was not restricted to migrants. Many African youths with residential rights in urban areas were also criminalised. In their case, this was not the result of influx control, but of discriminatory measures. As the educational levels of urban African youths rose and their job advancement opportunities were blocked, many opted to make a living from crime.
What is the ANC government doing to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act today, because that is history? Rural development and land reform are the key instruments of the ANC government to deal with this legacy. Rural development has three phases: Firstly, meeting basic human needs. The Reconstruction and Development Programme is a very clear programme that we are following, looking at meeting the basic human needs of the people of South Africa, particularly those that were historically discriminated against. Secondly, rural development. In South Africa, whether we like it or not, we already have many farms, about 1 296, that have been recapitalised and these are enterprises that make a lot of money. I was standing at this podium when I told you that the Mokhatshane family in the Free State sent me an SMS to say: "Because of this programme we are going to open our own butchery in Virginia very soon; this year." That is because of these enterprises. I hope some of the hon members will go there. [Applause.]
Those are enterprises, rural industries sustained by rural markets that came into existence as a result of the initiatives by this government. A couple of months ago we visited Ncora together with the President, where there was a harvest of maize from more than 700 hectares of land. When we asked the farmers where they were going to sell the maize harvested, they replied: "No, this has already been sold because we have a partnership with Amadlelo Agri, with which we have a 50:50 per cent strategic partnership." They bought this maize. There is also a dairy parlour there. This is something that is happening in our country today. That's what we are doing. [Applause.]
Land reform has four pillars that hon members must note. Firstly, restitution. Restitution means restoring that which was taken away from the people. Whether that land has been developed or not is another matter. The key point here is to restore the land to those from whom it was taken by force - period. [Applause.] We can debate the rest later. The second one is redistribution, which has to do with rekindling of a class of black commercial farmer which was destroyed by the 1913 Natives Land Act. That is what we are doing. When I talk about 1 296 farmers, I am talking about rekindling a class of black commercial farmer in South Africa. We are on course. This is not a story. We are doing it.
Let me come to the third pillar, which is land tenure reform. This country has not actually done this. Tenure reform is not just a story, but has got to do with economic power, which ultimately translates into political power. Now that we have political power in the country, we also need to get the economic power. As long as we do not tamper with the land tenure system. This is a matter which we are handling right now as we speak, both in terms of state and public land; privately owned land; sadly, land owned by foreigners in our country; and fourthly, the communal land tenure model.
The communal tenure model is the most sensitive one, because you are talking about 13%. That is the land that the hon Cebekhulu was talking about. As part of a consultation process on the issue of the communal tenure model, last week Friday I went to eMampondweni West in KwaZulu- Natal. We will go to all provinces, because we want to transform the economy so that the people living in the affected areas can benefit from and live on the wealth that is under the soil they own.
The fourth pillar is development, that is, institutional support. During the budget and policy speech, we promised to come back to this House and present policies once Cabinet has sorted them out with the Land Management Commission. Because, in South Africa, we must remember that we had four provinces, and then added to that were the nine Bantustans. Each one of them had a land ownership register. When democracy came in 1994 they were brought together. But what dominated mainly were the four provinces, which constituted the Union before.
So what you have now is the underpinning ideology that provinces basically continued to be almost independent rather than autonomous of Pretoria. There is a disjuncture between what you will find in Pretoria and what you will find in the provinces. The result is that you may think that what you get in the province is right, yet it is not. The Land Management Commission is going to be a one-stop shop, where all land-related matters are dealt with.
The office of the Valuer-General is going to be established very soon. The Bill and the amendments to the Restitution Act that exists are out for public participation as we speak. As was announced by the President, we are going to reopen the land claims. South Africans are going to have an opportunity once more to lodge land claims. [Applause.] In terms of the proposal in the Bill, it's going to be for a period of five years, which is until 2018. We have developed a manual which is going to be distributed to all South Africans in all languages, including the Khoi and the San Languages so that everybody understands what is expected of them. [Applause.]
We have heard and we know that there are already people out there who are organising meetings and charging people R50. There is another group in Gugulethu which is allegedly also charging R5. We must arrest those people because they are criminals. [Applause.] No money is going to be paid by people who are lodging claims. It is going to be free, because it is a service that the government of the ANC is providing to the people of South Africa. [Applause.]
The Land Rights Management Board is another institution. This institution is part of efforts to deal with the security of tenure of farm workers. During the recess we are going to meet with organised labour to discuss the proposals we have on the table with regard to dealing with evictions and the security of tenure of farm workers and dwellers in this country, so that we do away completely with the eviction of people in South Africa.
In conclusion, let me go back to one very small thing, which was mentioned by hon Mathole Motshekga. This is what Sol Plaatje says about the campaign, which is very interesting.
The campaign to compass the elimination of the blacks from the farms was not at all popular with land owners who made huge profits out of the renting of their farms to natives.
Ironic, isn't it? Platform speakers and newspaper writers coined an opprobrious phrase which designated this letting of farms to natives as "kaffir" farming and attempted to prove that it was almost as immoral as baby farming. But landowners pocketed the annual rents and showed no inclination to substitute the less industrious poor whites for the more industrious natives. They were better. That is what Mahatma Gandhi would say. They were better. African farmers were better than the lazy white farmers of the time. [Applause.]
Old baas, a typical Dutch landowner of the Free State, having collected his share of the crop of 1912, in addressing a few words of encouragement to his native tenants on the subject of expelling the blacks from the farms said in the "taal":
How dare any number of men wearing tall hats and frock coats living in Cape Town hotels at the expense of other men order me to evict my natives. This is my ground. It cost my money, not Parliament's and I will see them banged before I do it. [Applause.]
This is a white farmer who is making a living from renting out his land to natives.
It then became evident that the authority of Parliament would have to be sought to compel the obstinate landowners to get rid of the natives. And the compliance of Parliament with this demand was the greatest ministerial surrender to the Republic's malcontents, resulting in the introduction and passage of the Natives Land Act of 1913, inasmuch as the Act decreed, in the name of His Majesty the King, that pending the adoption of a report to be made by the commission, somewhere in the dim and unknown future, it shall be unlawful for natives to buy or lease land, except in scheduled native areas. And under severe pains and penalties, they were to be deprived of the bare human rights of living on the land, except as servants in the employ of the whites.
These were rights which were never seriously challenged under the Republican regime, no matter how politicians raved against the natives. Thank you, hon Speaker, that's about the past and the present of South Africa in terms of our government of the ANC. Thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Chairperson, I have two problems with a debate such as this one. My first problem is that when we talk about history, all the facts and not only the facts that suit us should be placed on the table. The core of the objection against the 1913 Act is that it divided the land between black and white and that only 13% of land was given to black people. This is valid criticism of the injustices - very seriously - of the past. It is not based upon today's facts, but on the facts of 1913.
Al die kaarte van 1913 dui die Unie van Suid-Afrika aan as deel van British South Africa. "British South Africa", in 1913, het bestaan uit Suid-Afrika en dan die drie destydse protektorate. Vandag is dit Botswana, Lesotho en Swaziland. In 1913 was daar geen sprake dat hierdie protektorate eendag onafhanklike state sou word nie. Botswana is tot 1965 nog uit Mafikeng in Suid-Afrika bestuur. Daar is algemeen aanvaar dat die protektorate op die langtermyn by die Unie van Suid-Afrika ingelyf sou word. Daarom het die Suid-Afrika-wet van 1909, wat deur die Britse Parlement goedgekeur is, voorsiening gemaak dat die drie gebiede later by die Unie genkorporeer kan word.
In die denke van baie in daardie tyd is die oppervlakte van hierdie gebiede toe by die 1913-grond getel, en toe het hulle 'n 40/60 en amper 'n 50/50 verhouding gekry, afhangende van hoe jy dit bereken.
Ek sien dit nie as my verantwoordelikheid om 1913 te probeer verdedig nie. Wat ek wel glo, is dat dit net billik is dat ons in ons kritiek al die argumente en die denke van 1913 probeer verstaan.
Waarom het hierdie inlywing nie daardie tyd geslaag nie? Dit het nie geslaag nie, omdat daar ook natuurlik ander denke was. Die hoofmanne van hierdie protektorate het heftig by die Britte in Londen beswaar gemaak teen inlywing. Hulle het uiteindelik daarin geslaag en in 1966 en 1968 het hierdie gebiede onafhanklik geword en 'n nuwe stel feite is geskep, waarmee ons vandag werk. (Translation of Afrikaans paragrapghs follows.)
[All the maps of 1913 show the Union of South Africa as part of British South Africa. "British South Africa", in 1913, consisted of South Africa and then the three protectorates at that time. Today they are Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. In 1913 there was no question that these protectorates would one day become independent states. Botswana was governed until 1965 from Mafikeng in South Africa. It was generally accepted that the protectorates would in the long run be incorporated with the Union of South Africa. That is why the South Africa Act of 1909 approved by the British Parliament made provision that the three areas could later be incorporated into the Union.
In the thinking of many in those days the areas of these protectorates were then added to the 1913 land area, and then they got a relationship of 40/60 and nearly 50/50, depending on how you calculated it.
I do not see it as my responsibility to try to defend 1913. What I really do believe is that it is only fair that we try to understand in our criticism all the arguments and thinking of 1913.
Why did this incorporation not succeed at the time?
Of course it did not succeed, due to the fact that there were also other opinions. The chiefs of these protectorates fiercely protested in London with the British against incorporation. They eventually succeeded and in 1966 and 1968 these areas became independent and a new set of facts was created with which we are working today.]
My second problem is that it is not wrong to hold debates on the past. It is important, but such a debate is only sensible if something could be learnt from it for the future.
The past cannot be changed through a lot of talking. That is why the FF Plus does not believe in a better past, but a better future. Little has been said in this debate about what we have learnt from the past and how we can succeed with land reform in 2013 without making the same mistakes and causing famine. We must speak about how food will be provided for 52 million South Africans, of whom 70% will shortly be living in urban areas and this while we only have about 13% of good agricultural land in South Africa. Little has been said about how we could better utilise the thousands of hectares of communal land presently owned by the state, creating new black commercial farmers. That is also important for the benefit of South Africa.
These are the issues of the future and the debate which we should have after this one, if we want to make South Africa a better place for all of us. I thank you.
Chairperson, the centenary of the Natives Land Act is an unpleasant reminder of past horrors and present harsh realities but it is also an opportunity for us all to reflect meaningfully on the land question and how we need to proceed with this social, economic and natural resource in South Africa.
The year 2013 is also significant because it is just one year away from the 2014 deadline that government set for itself in the mid-1990s, of redistributing 30% of commercial agricultural land to black ownership - a target that most analysts agree will not be met.
Research findings show that only 10% of land has so far been transferred, and that many transfer projects have failed. Dr Peter Jacobs of the Human Sciences Research Council reported that out of a sample of 301 land reform beneficiaries in the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and North West provinces, only 167 were actively farming and many of them used only a small piece of their land for agricultural processes.
Researchers also found that land transferrals were generally not in line with gender equity policies. More than half the respondent households, 54%, indicated that men were more likely to own land redistributed through land reform, and in KwaZulu-Natal males make up almost 70% of these landowners.
Most reasonable people would agree that the pace of redistribution of land in South Africa has been far too slow and one of the many reasons for slow progress has been the willing-buyer, willing-seller land redistribution policy. The ACDP acknowledges that the proposed Property Valuations Bill, together with the provisions of the Expropriation Bill, is an attempt to address this problem, but we are also aware that the Bills are far from perfect.
The South African Constitution places an obligation on the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources to effect land redistribution. The Bill of Rights also clearly allows for the state to expropriate property, even if the owners of that property are unwilling to part with it or unwilling to part with it at the price offered.
The Constitution does, however, also prohibit the arbitrary deprivation of property and provides that expropriation be subject to the payment of compensation. It does not require the state to pay the market value, but it is required to pay just and equitable compensation, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected.
It has been suggested that land reform would be better served if a dedicated valuations court existed and the ACDP agrees that the proposed Bills should be amended to require a court to approve all forms of compensation in cases of forced expropriation. Land reform in South Africa in the post-1994 era has been compared with Zimbabwe's more radical land redistribution, with South Africa's process being seen as a more democratic and transparent approach till now. One thing we do know is that if we do not succeed in finding solutions, South Africa could face far more radical attempts to redistribute land by a hard- pressed and restless people who feel they have nothing to lose. Thank you.
Chairperson, the passing of the Natives Land Act was and still is the epitome of cruelty, ridiculousness and evil intent of the crafters of the apartheid policy. Reserving 7% of agricultural land for a 67% black population was just ridiculous, yet it was passed in Parliament, presumably in a House like this, albeit "only white". Could it be that none of those who debated this piece of legislation then saw it for the evil that it was?
Could it be that the voice of reason was so faint that it became a whisper amongst nationalists who were hellbent on ensuring the perpetual slavery of the black? It is so obvious that there always exists a possibility that the majority is not always right. Although the nationalists were not the majority in the broader scheme of things, in Parliament they were, which was ensured by colonialism and apartheid together.
With the possibility of being led astray by the majority, we really need to take our responsibility as parliamentarians seriously. We need to accept that the laws we allow to be passed in this House are not just for now, but have the potential to determine the future for generations to come. We owe it to our grandchildren to be diligent and truthful in exercising our duties. We owe it to our grandchildren to handle these responsibilities with integrity.
Now, in 2013, we need not pretend that we are a happy rainbow nation; we are not, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. We don't even have to pretend in this House, but we need to be sensitive to our historical backgrounds and acknowledge them as such. Those who were privileged by the pieces of legislation such as the Natives Land Act need to accept that their opinions are influenced by such privileges. Similarly, it is absolutely pointless to sit here and bicker about the past without necessarily addressing the issues and ensuring that the atrocities of the past never again befall our country.
We need to stop defending such ridiculous legislation as that which we are debating. I say defending, because when anyone tries to contest the dispossession, they are in fact defending those atrocities. We also need to stop moaning and get on with the programme of ensuring the equal distribution of land. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mhlalingaphambili ohloniphekileyo, ndicela ukuqala ndise umyalezo apha kohloniphekileyo uMazibuko wokuba abanye bethu apha kule Ndlu basenezivubeko zalo Mthetho nanamhlanje kuba zenzeka kubazali bethu kwaye nathi sisaziva ezo zivubeko. Asithethi ngomsebenzi owenziwe ngumphandi. Ayingomsebenzi wophando lo. Sithetha thina ngelivonto eyehle ebantwini bakuthi. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Ms B N DAMBUZA: Hon Chairperson, may I start off by giving a message to hon Mazibuko that like, our parents, some of us in this House are still feeling the effects of this Act to this day. We are not talking about research findings here - this is not research work - we are talking about something that happened to our people. [Applause.]]
The President of the Republic of South Africa remarked during the 2013 state of the nation address that this year marks the centenary of the 1913 Natives Land Act which turned black people into wanderers, labourers and pariahs in their own land since its promulgation and commencement. The Act became law on 19 June 1913, limiting African land ownership to 7%, which later increased to 13% through the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act.
Le nkqubo yokuthathwa komhlaba igqibele ngokuthi ucalucalulo lususe uninzi lwabantu abaNtsundu ngenkani kwimihlaba yabo kuquka abeBala namaNdiya kangangokuba izigidi zabantu zasuswa ngokupheleleyo kwimihlaba yookhokho babo. Amaxesha amaninzi basuswa ngenkohlakalo yangabom nangaphandle kwembuyekezo. Umbutho ongekhophantsi kolawulo lukaRhulumente ogama lithi Surplus People Project uthelekelela ukuba phakathi kowe-1960 ukuya kowe- 1983 zizigidi abantu abasuswa ngenkani eMzantsi Afrika ngeMithetho eliqela efana neGroup Areas Act kwiminyaka yowe-1950 nangenkqubo ezazenzelwe ukulalwula ukuhamba kwabantu abaNtsundu ebizwa ngokuthi yi-Influx Control ngesiNgesi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[The process of land dispossession, which was based on racial discrimination, culminated in the forced removal of millions of black people, including coloureds and Indians, from their ancestral land. In most cases they were removed with deliberate cruelty and without compensation. An NGO known as the Surplus People Project estimates that between 1960 and 1983 millions of South Africans were forcibly removed from their land through a number of Acts such as the Group Areas Act and through policies that were aimed at controlling the movement of black people into urban areas such as influx control.]
The Natives Land Act, however, did not come about in a historic vacuum and its roots may be traced back steep into the South African colonial history. Indeed, it may be said that the elements of dispossession in the Act were merely an extension of South Africa's long history of dispossession throughout the colonial era, whether through conquest or the application of law. They were forced to leave behind any buildings they had erected, for which they were not compensated. The physical manifestation of the 1913 Natives Land Act also included scores of African families and their livestock roaming the countryside in search of accommodation. The consequence was a level of dispossession and lack of security of tenure never before experienced by African sharecroppers, whose choices diminished with each passing day.
The living conditions on farms were generally poor and often the accommodation offered would be on condition that the former tenant's spouse and children also be employed on the farm. The prevailing conditions of Africans living on white-owned farms after 1913 were recorded by renowned author W M Macmillan.
Yiyo ke le nto sibona urhulumente okhokelwa yi-ANC emaxhaphetshu ethabathela kuye uxanduva lokuphucula iimpilo nokulwa inkxwaleko nentlupheko kubasebenzi kunye nabahlali basezifama. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[That is why we see the ANC-led government taking upon itself the responsibility to improve lives and fight poverty amongst farmworkers and farm dwellers.]
The lack of security of tenure as a direct consequence of the Natives Land Act resulted in former African tenants being unable to erect substantial dwellings capable of providing adequate shelter to protect them from severe weather conditions. Instead, as farm labourers, they were condemned to run- down dwellings, which had a marked impact on their health. Another hardship brought about by the Act was that children of former tenants were deprived of any level of education due to the unwillingness of farmers to grant permission to erect schools on their land.
The racialised approach to spatial planning was also embodied in various legislative measures regulating group areas. The concept "group area" was a technical term indicating that an area of land was reserved for either white, black, coloured or Indian persons. Essentially this meant that in relation to a declared white group area, for example, only white persons could have vested rights and occupy land within that area.
Therefore, the declaration of a group area meant that not only was the racial background of the occupiers delineated, but also the kind of rights that could be vested and the concomitant development that could occur in these areas. Despite the existence of the influx control measures and squatting regulations, urbanisation increased in the mid 1980s. Increased riots and the declaration of various states of emergency finally led to the abolishment of influx control in 1986.
Apart from the racial dimension to urbanisation and settlement patterns, other factors also contributed to the increasing demand for housing, especially within urban areas. The population growth, rising costs of material labour, and the shortage of available land within commuting distance of city centres underlined the necessity to develop other forms of tenure that were not based on single-title individual ownership.
Although fragmented ownership began in the 1970s in South Africa, it became increasingly important, especially following the abolition of influx control in the 1980s and the official demise of apartheid during the 1990s. There was a conscious policy not to build low-income houses in order to both discourage urbanisation of Africans and to prevent any form of interracial mixing.
The rapid growth of informal settlements around urban centres was highlighted in statistics from 1980. The statistics revealed that almost 5,2 million South Africans were already living in informal settlements, with forecasts of an annual population growth rate of 2,5%. A report released by the South African Cities Network revealed that as much as a quarter of South Africa's households could be classified as informal in nature.
Post-1994, the ANC government adopted progressive policies to transform apartheid settlement patterns by developing integrated human settlements. As a result of the predominant delivery patterns of new housing in the Greenfield Project, the value of the assets transferred to poor households through the housing programme is being fully realised. Sesisazi ukuba abantu abangaphezulu kwezigidi ezi-3,3 baxhamle kule nkqubo yezindlu evele kwimigaqo-nkqubo karhulumente. Namhlanje sithetha ngokuba kunatyiswa iinkonzo ezingundoqo, kukhutshwa amanxiwa ukwenzela ukuba abantu bakwazi ukuba babeneencwadi zemihlaba, [title deeds.] ukuze bakwazi ukuba bazakhele izindlu abafuna ukuzakhela zona, kwiindawo abathanda ukuzakhela kuzo.
I-Arhente yoPhuhliso lweZindlu, "Housing Development Agency". liqumrhu ekwavunyelwana ngalo ngumbutho we-ANC, ePolokwane ngowe-2007, ukuba lisekwe, ukwenzela ukuba likwazi ukuba lichonge iindawo, lifumane umhlaba emakwakhelwe kuwo abantu izindlu. Siyavuya ke namhlanje ukuchaza ukuba noko ubuncinane bomhlaba ozihektare ezi-7,25 sowufunyenwe leli qumrhu. Sivile ukuba urhulumente seqalisile ukunabisa inkqubo ebizwa ngokuthi yi-Finance- Linked Individual Subsidy Programme, Flisp, ukuze bonke abantu abangootishala, abongikazi amapolisa, njalo njalo abangakwaziyo ukufumana izindlu ze-RDP baxhamle. Loo nto ithetha ukuba bafumana umhlaba ukuze bakwazi ukuzakhela izindlu. Urhulumente we-ANC uzama kangangoko ukuba lo mcimbi womhlaba ulungiswe ngendlela efanelekileyo.
Ukongeza apha, iKhabhinethi ikwazile ukuba kulo mcimbi womhlaba ikhuphe isibonelelo esibizwa ngokuba yi-Urban Settlements Development Grant. Esi sibonelelo sincedisa ekubeni kuthengwe umhlaba ngoomasipala nangamaphondo, ukwenzela ukuba kwakhelwe abantu izindlu. Loo nto ke siyayincoma kakhulu singu-ANC.
Xa ndiyivala ndifuna ukutsho ngomyalezo othi, asisayi kuyivuma, nangona siluxhasa uphuhliso, asingekhe sivume ukuba sibone kusakhiwa udederhu lweevenkile. Ngobani abaxhamlayo kolo dederhu lweevenkile? Sibone kukho imiyezo yokulondolozwa kwendalo [Nature reserves], amabala okudlala igalufa, ngobani abaxhamlayo apho? Sithi nangona siluxhasa uphuhliso nenkqubela, kodwa makubekho ukulingana, kungathi kungekho nje kwanto, kulithafa nje apho, kuthiwe kuza kwenziwa ibala lokudlala igalufa, babe abantu bedinga umhlaba wokwakhelwa izindlu. Ndiyabulela kakhulu, Mhlalingaphambili. [Kwaphela ixesha.] [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[We already know that over 3,3 million people have benefited from government's housing programme. Today there is a roll-out of essential services, and sites are allocated so that people can have title deeds and are able to build houses of their own choice in areas of their own choice.
The ANC took a decision in Polokwane in 2007 to establish the Housing Development Agency, which would identify and secure land on which to build houses. We are happy to report today that this organisation has secured at least 7,25 hectares of land. We hear that government has already started rolling out the Finance-Linked Individual Subsidy Programme, Flisp for short, to benefit teachers, nurses, the police, etc, who cannot access RDP housing. They get land so that they can build their own houses. The ANC-led government is trying by all means to make sure that the issue of land is handled correctly.
Furthermore, in relation to the issue of land, Cabinet has come up with a grant known as the Urban Settlements Development Grant. This grant helps local governments and provinces so that they are able to buy land on which to build houses. We highly appreciate this as the ANC.
In conclusion, I want to make the point that, although we support development, we will never allow a situation where malls are built everywhere. Who benefits from the building of such malls? We see nature reserves and golf courses being developed all over the place, and who benefits from those? Although we support development and progress, there must be equality, so that golf courses are not prioritised over housing in the face of scarcity of land. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]
Hon Chairperson, the horrific past of the 1913 Natives Land Act undoubtedly led the broad, suffering masses to the fires of hell. The word "native", used as an adjective qualifying "land" was a misnomer because native means "aborigine"; that is, a person born and brought up in a particular place. The problem is that those who used it did not know the etymological meaning thereof.
The Natives Land Act issue is a very sensitive one. Land is a critical issue. It is key to economic empowerment. The imbalances that were created in 1913 have to be reversed and we must be bold about it. The Minority Front, MF, welcomes the reopening of the restitution of land claims process and we congratulate the ANC government for being sensitive to a very specific claim of a particular community - the Khoisan. [Applause.]
This shows that the President that governs understands deeply the issues affecting communities and provides opportunity for redress. Of course, the Indian community was also a major victim of the Group Areas Act. Forced removals demoralised the lifestyles of all black people, particularly South Africans of African and Indian origin. The hard truth is that people were pushed out of all flat and fertile land to the worst pieces of land. The best land was kept for the historically advantaged, and this is something we need to deal with.
In rural townships, land was utilised as dumpsites, making it extremely difficult to erect strong buildings. The willing-buyer, willing-seller concept was hugely problematic. When a black person went to buy a piece of land in a white suburb, automatically the price went up by 300%. This new Act mentions "just and equitable compensation", which the MF supports. The good thing is that expropriation will happen and one can take as long as they want fighting in court for the amounts. It will be very interesting to analyse the landowners of the hon members of the DA. Sometimes they criticise from a comfort zone, talking about productivity. But how did they and their families acquire the land? What was the history of the acquisition of ownership? [Applause.] You can't sit and benefit from those historic privileges and want to be judgemental about other issues. Quite frankly, this is nonsensical and the DA should go and tell that to the birds in the sky! [Applause.]
We should strive to achieve a timeframe within which every family owns their own piece of land, and that should be the ultimate goal. The MF cherishes the hope of a 2030 vision. When a family owns a piece of land, it is tremendously empowering to economic development. It contributes to stability and cohesion. People can develop their own piece of land with pride and joy.
As we strive to continue to build a nonracial South Africa, let us do so with honesty and integrity if we are deadly serious about addressing the atrocities of the past. We also want to congratulate the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party on their appointment. I thank you. [Applause.]
Hon House Chairperson, hon members, distinguished guests, the passing of the Natives Land Act of 1913 should have been classified as a criminal act. It was because of this Act and many others that were passed to reinforce it that apartheid was declared a crime against humanity.
The Act stripped black people of their dignity and rendered them landless. Chiefs and kings were stripped of their authority. How do you have a chief or a king who does not preside over any territory? If apartheid was a crime, how do we deal with the proceeds of a crime? People acquired land on the basis of this Act. They have title deeds that are, in Azapo's view, defective.
I am informed by a lawyer friend that a defective title deed will remain defective no matter how many times it changes hands. The Kempton Park process, and later the Constitution of the Republic of SA cemented what was done in 1913 by entrenching the so-called "property rights" and "guaranteeing property rights". The Kempton Park negotiations legalised the landlessness of the so-called "natives" and made legal title deeds that were questionable.
Our people are subjected to a system called willing-buyer, willing-seller. The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform has now had a rude awakening and declared to the country that the willing-buyer, willing- seller system is not helpful. We will not say "we told you so". The department is now making muted and vague calls for expropriation. But how do we move forward?
We must declare some kind of jubilee, "an acceptable year of the Lord," where the state must take possession of all the land in South Africa. The state must hold the land in trust for all the citizens. The system will work almost like what is known as the Ingonyama Trust, except that it will apply to the whole country. Natural or legal citizens will then be required to acquire land based on their needs. As Members of Parliament, MPs, we have taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, but nowhere in the oath does it say that the Constitution will never be amended.
Land dispossession started before 1913. It started in 1652, when the first settler set foot in the country. If we talk about 1913, what are we saying about the wars of resistance that occurred before then? What are we saying about the struggle by King Bambatha and many others who fought in the struggle?
Land is sacred among many communities. Any debate on land will therefore be emotional and an emotive matter. God forbid that there should come a time when our people feel that they have to fight or are even prepared to die for their land. The piecemeal approach to addressing land dispossession has not worked. It is too expensive. Thank you. [Applause.]
House Chairperson, the APC supports the current land reform programme as an attempt to reverse the unfortunate and criminal effects of the 1913 Land Act. However, I don't want to focus on what was done in 1913, but I want to say: What are the grandsons of those who acquired the land in 1913 doing today in 2013?
I want to talk about Mr Radebe, who, together with his family of more than 30, were evicted from a farm in November 2012 and were dumped at Ntombe Community Hall in Piet Retief. They all share that community hall as a bedroom, a kitchen and everything. As we speak here today, the smaller children of that family do not attend school because they have been removed from a home which used to be near their school.
Mr Radebe has lost about 130 goats, as well as chickens and cattle. His maize storage tanks were smashed and his two tractors were vandalised. He was a very successful farmer. Illiterate as he is, he actually used to look after and feed local or poor neighbouring people. As we are talking today, they live in poverty because they have been evicted from a farm and dumped in a community hall.
I was told this morning that officials from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform have raised the possibility of their being returned to the farm where they were evicted. Now, the question is: If Mr Radebe is going to be returned to his farm, who is going to compensate him for all this time that they have spent staying in that hall and for all his implements and property that were vandalised? It is common knowledge in the areas around Wakkerstroom, Greylingsdal, Commondale, Driekoppies and other areas that farmers are a law unto themselves. I have met people who claim that when the farmers heard that they had sold some of their cattle, white men in balaclavas visited them at night, beat them up and demanded the money that they got from selling those cattle. I have seen men who have been shot. One still has a bullet lodged in his jaw; one has had a leg amputated; and others have lost their eyes because of the brutality of the grandsons of those who benefited in 1913.
As we talk about land reform, we need to ask, what do we do to protect our people who are currently farm dwellers? Almost all of them are illiterate, but they can say: "When we still had that small piece of land on those farms, we never went hungry because we used to feed ourselves." So, the story that says, "if our people are given land, then we are going to starve", does not exist.
Comrade Minister, as the APC, we will certainly support all the efforts that rid us of this willing-buyer, willing-seller concept. Most of us buy furniture not for cash, but on credit and take 12 to 24 months to pay. Why can it not be that whenever we acquire farms, we don't have to pay all the money at the same time, so that we can spread the number of farms that can be acquired? Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
House Chairperson, South Africa's history of racial dispossession has left the country with skewed patterns of land ownership that excluded the majority of black South Africans from the benefits of property ownership and the greater economy.
The Natives Land Act of 1913, which is considered the original sin of apartheid, set in motion these patterns of dislocation and deprivation that characterised property arrangements under the apartheid government. The Act reserved 87% of South Africa's land exclusively for white ownership, and was the basis of Bantustan policy, which relegated black citizens and once prosperous black farmers to a reservoir of cheap and unskilled labour for white farmers and industrialists. An estimated 7 million Africans were forced to relocate to the areas assigned by the government at the time.
The land question is therefore undoubtedly one of the most pressing matters in the course of our 19 years of democracy. Nineteen years after the promulgation of the dreadful Act, the question that needs to be answered is whether we are doing our ultimate best as public representatives to steer the country towards reconciliation and redress, through various land restitution and land reform programmes. This is a difficult question as government is faced with the task of balancing the interests of various stakeholders, the deprived majority, the farming communities, industry stakeholders, and government-run farms, among others. While we appreciate the enormity of the task at hand, it must be said that government is not doing enough. To date, billions of rands have been poured into the land restitution and reform initiatives, but the wheels of this particular vehicle have turned slowly, and in some cases come to a complete halt.
For many, the 1913 Natives Land Act remains a reality. The DA supports sustainable and equitable land reform and rural development. We view it as a moral necessity to correct the imbalances of the past as it is a fundamental condition for growing our economy to benefit all South Africans.
Re rata go leboga pu?o ya temokrasi ge e hlot?e Kgoro ya Tlhabollo ya Dinagamagae le Tso?olo?o ya Naga yeo e lebanego le go fedi?a mathata a dinaga t?eo di amogilwego batho le go di hlabolla.
Re rata go lemo?a mago?i gore ba tlogele melao ya apartheid gomme ba ?omi?e melao ya temokrasi le tlhabologo ya set?haba.
Re leboga go bona dikenywa t?a Kgoro ye ya t?a Tlhabollo ya Dinagamagae le Tso?olo?o ya naga ka go tli?a dipoelo ka ga go t?ewa ga naga morago ga mengwaga ye lekgolo. Lehono re bolela ka taba ye gomme re dumela gore re fihlile mafelelong a yona. Re rata go bona batho bohle ba na le naga gore ba kgone go e ?omi?a. Taba ya go ?omi?a naga e tla hlola me?omo gomme ya fedi?a tlala le bohloki.
Re re mathata ao kgoro ye e lebanego le ona a swanet?e go fedi?wa ka go thwala batho ba go ba le tsebo le bokgoni bja go rarolla pharela ye ya go sepela ka go nanya go bu?et?a batho dinaga t?a bona. Morago ga go lemoga gore ba bangwe ba batho bao ba filwego dinaga ga ba di ?omi?e ka mokgwa wa maleba, re re mmu?o o swanet?e go bot?i?a bakgopedi ba dinaga gore naa maikemi?et?o a bona ke afe ka t?ona. Bao ba se nago maikemi?et?o ba se fiwe naga eup?a ba hlatswiwe matsogo ka ma?eleng.
Rena ba DA re ka thaba go bona leneneo la pu?et?o ya naga le sepet?wa ka molao le tlhompho. Re rata go bona bahlankedi ba mmu?o ba dira mo?omo wa bona ka bokgwari. Re duma go bona taba ya pu?et?o ya naga e fela ka bonako gore Maafrika Borwa a phele ka khut?o. MaAfrika Borwa a re se boeleng morago eup?a re t?weleng pele ka go aga set?haba, re age naga e tee ya bokamoso bjo tee. Re re ke nako ya go gatela pele le go tli?a tlhabologo le kgolo ya ekonomi. Re rata go bona MaAfrika Borwa a ?oma mmogo. (Translation of Sepedi paragraphs follows.)
[We are grateful to the democratic government. It has established the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, which is faced with the task of finding a solution to the challenges of the dispossessed land, and also to develop that land.
We urge the traditional leaders to do away with the apartheid laws. They should apply the democratic laws and also ensure community development.
We are grateful for the developments that are brought about by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform with regard to land dispossession after a period of 100 years. We want to believe that we have come to the end of this issue. We would be happy to see everyone owning a land and also using it productively. The use of land productively will result in job creation, which will also bring an end to hunger and poverty.
The challenges that this department is faced with should be overcome by employing people who have the knowledge and skills to resolve this issue, which is currently being addressed slowly, so that people get their land back.
After realising that some of the people are not using their land productively, we are appealing to the government to ask people who lodge land claims if they have set land goals. If not, they should not be given the land but should be compensated in monetary terms.
The DA members will be happy to see the land restitution programme being processed with respect and according to the law. We would like to see government officials doing their job competently. We would like to see this matter being addressed urgently for the people of South Africa to live peacefully. The people of South Africa are requesting that you continue to build the nation, and build one land that has one future, but not take steps backwards. It is now time to move forward and bring economic growth and development. We want to see the people of South Africa working together.]
Because we understand the struggle of our people, we are very pleased as the DA to have played a part in standing alongside 200 resettled farmers in Gauteng, including Mr Thabo Mokone, who have waited for 10 years to receive the title deeds to their land. The government has shuffled them back and forth while denying them the right to earn an income to support their families as they cannot engage in commercial activities without the necessary paperwork. It remains an area of frustration for 200 farmers. We will continue to stand alongside them until they see the realisation of their 10-year dream.
Chairperson, between 1994 and January this year, the state had acquired 4,123 million hectares for land redistribution at a cost of R12,9 billion. However, R16 billion had been spent over the same period to acquire 1,443 million hectares for restitution. The amount of R16 billion later and the promise to have 30% of the estimated 82 million hectares of agricultural land in South Africa transferred into the hands of resettled farmers remains a pipe dream. Almost 9 000 claims remain unresolved, and the number is certain to keep growing. Hon Minister, we need more than promises and assurances; we need decisive action. The bureaucracy in your office is exacerbated by the corruption in the running of state-owned farms.
Recently, the DA uncovered the scandal of the Kangela Empowerment Trust Farms, where the beneficiaries, whom the profits of the produce are intended to uplift, revealed that instead of experiencing an improved standard of living, they are far worse off than they were before the state- owned initiative. Those appointed by the state are looting profits, lining their pockets and neglecting those they are responsible for looking after.
Chairperson, it is not all doom and gloom. There is hope. Land reform, land restitution, emerging farmers, and communities can look to the future in anticipation of the fulfilment of their sense of security, because where the DA governs, we govern well. [Interjections.] I would like to quote the Western Cape Premier, hon Helen Zille, during our 1913 Land Act celebration, when she said:
We have prioritised finalisation of land claims which had been lingering unfinished under previous governments. We understand that justice delayed is justice denied. In the DA-governed Western Cape, we are very happy that all but one of the land claims has been finalised and the one outstanding claim is on a clear path to resolution.
[Applause.] [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! Order!
In terms of our success in driving share equity schemes for land reform on farms, our province remains in the lead in ensuring real redress, restoring the dignity of those who had it robbed by the tyranny of apartheid, and laying the groundwork for reconciliation that breaks down the barriers of our past.
The DA reiterates its mantra that we need to honour the past and own the future. Let us not repeat the past injustice otherwise history will not forgive us. Let us build the South African dream of the rainbow nation. Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, on behalf of Comrade Dlakude and myself, I convey appreciation for all the messages of support and congratulations that were offered. Thank you very much. We were scared, but we are now sure that we will do our work as the ANC demands from us. The constitution of the ANC specifically says that you take all the tasks given to you and we deploy all our energies in carrying out those tasks. This is exactly what we are committing ourselves to doing.
On this topic, I feel that people are really talking for the sake of talking. I wrote a speech, but I have decided that it would be necessary to spend my 10 minutes talking to those people who were talking here. Let me start by stating a fact. It is a fact that in 1910 only 20% of the population of South Africa was white, and yet they took 93% of the land through the barrel of a gun. [Interjections.] Through the barrel of a gun. [Interjections.] Yes, more than a century ago they took the land through the barrel of a gun. [Applause.]
Today we are told in this House that we must stop talking about the past and talk about now and going forward. We are willing to do precisely that. But before we do that we want to draw your attention to two things. First of all, most of the people speaking here would never have said so to the Jews who were killed by the Germans during the Holocaust. They would never have said so. [Applause.] But, we are still alive and we see these things still happening, and you tell us to shut up. We will not do that. [Applause.] We will continue to talk about the past, because those we are talking to are not listening.
The second thing I want to bring to your attention is that hon Mazibuko stands here and recites all the laws that were brought against us. But at the end of that list she goes around and says, I quote:
The Ministry must fix the bureaucracy, which is delaying this process.
It is not the bureaucracy that buys farms; it is money. So, if you create efficiency in the department you will still not buy the land because of what we witness every day through the officials here. Please, talk to your farmers. Do not talk to us. Ms Mazibuko, farmers are willing to release marginal land, but they are not willing to release Stellenbosch. [Applause.] The hon Deputy President is a witness to this. The warders at Robben Island used to boast and say that you can take South Africa, but you will never have Stellenbosch.
Chairperson, on a point of order: Let me inform this hon member that Stellenbosch belongs to the Khoi; not to you, but to the Khoi.
Hon member, what is your point of order? When you rise on a point of order, address me on the point of order, but do not shout into the microphone. That is unparliamentary behaviour, hon member.
Hon Chair, leave him, he wants promotion. [Laughter.] The ANC speaks on behalf of the descendants of the Khoi and all South Africans. [Interjections.] We do not make laws specifically for certain groups of people, but we make laws for all South Africans. You can make yourself nice-looking to your party because you want to secure your position. We will continue to talk about what needs to be done. Hon Mazibuko continues to say that we must make the invisible hand of the market level the playing field. Ms Mazibuko ... [Interjections.] I'm not quoting, but I'm saying ... [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
Hon House Chairperson, on a point of order: I find it disappointing that the new Chief Whip of the ANC has chosen to come here and play up racial tensions ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, what is your point of order?
... on a difficult subject, and then to misquote the speeches of members of this House. Let me move to my point of order, hon House Chairperson. [Interjections.]
What is your point of order?
I would like the hon Chief Whip of the ANC to quote the exact part of my speech in which he claims I said anything about the invisible hand of the market. I would like him to quote it directly. [Interjections.]
Hon member, that is not a point of order.
If he can't, I would like us to look at the unrevised Hansard. This is not a debate of distortion. This is not an opportunity for the ANC to play to the gallery. This is an opportunity for the ANC to be respectful. [Interjections.]
Hon Leader of the Opposition! Hon members, order! Hon members, this is a debate. You put your views across. Once you have put your views across, there are other members who have different views. That is not a point of order.
Hon Chair, I have a point of order. Would you kindly consult the Rules of this House, and look at Rule 69, which gives the Leader of the Opposition the full right to address you when she has been misquoted. You are disallowing it and I'm asking you to look at the Rule. [Interjections.]
Hon member, I have given a ruling on this matter. We are busy with the debate. Hon Chief Whip of the Opposition, take your seat, please.
I will not! You must look at the Rule.
Hon member, we want to proceed with the debate. [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Chief Whip of the DA, please contain your members; do not shout at the Chair. I have made a ruling and I stand by it. If you want to challenge it, take this to the Rules Committee. Continue, hon Sizani. [Applause.]
Chairperson, I have a point of order. I would like you to rule on the behaviour of some Members of Parliament who, after you have made a ruling, continue to address you on the same point of order, contrary to the Rules and decorum of this House. I really think that we have had far too much of this disrespect of the Chair. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members! Thank you, hon member, we will pursue the matter through the Rules Committee. [Applause.]
The party that Ms Mazibuko is leading is telling South Africa that it stands for open opportunity for everybody. They tell us that they want freedom for people to buy and sell whatever they want; they want freedom of movement and freedom of everything. But the people who are free are the people with the money, the people they represent. People who have no money to buy land are not free.
Minister Nkwinti, tax all fallow land and get it back to the nation. [Applause.] Fix a ceiling on land ownership so that you can release the land to those who need it ... [Applause.] ... expropriate strategically located land so that you can deracialise the ownership of land ... [Applause.] ... protect the collective ownership of communal land while securing family tenure against discrimination against women and children ... [Applause.] ... initiate the fast-tracking of the socioeconomic right to land by indigent families, with the concomitant subdivision of agricultural land so that it is shared amongst those who need it ... [Applause.] ... and criminalise estate agents and government officials who create artificial beneficiaries and buy them land which they will never work on.
Hon Botha, failure of agricultural activity is not unique and is not limited only to black farmers. We know that experienced white farmers fail too. You stand here and talk as if it's only unique to black farmers, and yet you know white farmers do fail too.
Hon Cebekhulu, I accept what you said, but you are missing one point. Everybody standing in this Parliament always says 90% of the farms that have been given to people are failing. Mama Mashabalala specifically indicated during the Divided Land Conference at the University of Cape Town, that their traditional leader, Shabalala, likes to control everything about land, but never initiates development on it.
The workshop that we held here last weekend specifically indicated that there are good traditional leaders who know how to initiate development, but there are bad ones too. So, don't allocate all land to traditional leaders, including the bad ones. We should not allow that. The Ingonyama Trust Board is doing a good job. They must develop the land that they have. [Applause.]
We will not allow the privatisation of communal land. We will never do that, because we know it will be bought by the same people who say we must privatise it. We will protect it.
Hon Mulder, suddenly you are freeing the people you were always oppressing. This is very strange. [Interjections.] Please, sir, I want to talk to you. You only talk to your constituency and you don't talk to the people who feel the pain in your constituency. We want you to continue to defend the farmers. But we also want you to tell them that the landless and the poor that live on their farms must share the land as well. It is not possible, as Christian farmers to hold onto the land and not release it to be shared amongst those who need it. Please, sir, let's talk about that. You can't allow the farmers to cling to the land and never allow the poor people who live on their farms to have land.
Hon Dudley, we stood here and heard the voice of our own President, who said specifically that we would not meet the 30% target. Now you are telling us that, what we have said, so that it means that we have failed. Let me tell you the three reasons why this programme has failed. Firstly, we were sold marginal land and not the lucrative land which is being hoarded at this point. Secondly, that marginal land is sold expensively, and that prevents more land from being bought. Thirdly, that target was arbitrary; it has never been scientifically proven. Therefore, that is the reason we are not clinging to the target, but to the distribution of land to those people who need it, and not targets. [Applause.]
Hon Bhoola, there are many willing sellers, but there are no willing buyers, because the government is forced to buy. It's not the willing buyer, but a forced buyer. However, it is buying for the huge number of people who need land. [Interjections.]
Hon Godi, please, sir, the smash-and-grab is not new to South Africa. Many people think that it's experienced in Johannesburg, but it has been here since 1652, and it continues on the farms. Nkosi Khungwa was chased from Leeu-Gamka and killed near Alexandria, where he is buried. People took his land in 1812 already, and not 1820, when the settlers came. He was beheaded and killed and his land was taken. I'm told I am whipping up the racial tensions. Who is whipping up the racial tensions? The people who grabbed the land are whipping up the racial tensions. [Time expired.] [Applause.]