Hon Speaker, hon members, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, I thank you for the opportunity to address the House on this very important matter of the land audit. We do so because the land reform agenda of the democratic government rests on a series of actions that we have to take, and these actions must be seen together and not in isolation.
In the recent past, for example, this House passed the Restitution of Land Rights Act, which is an important pillar of the reform agenda of this government. In addition to that, the department has been working systematically in consultation with people affected by these measures, who informed this agenda and reached conclusions and agreed with proposals to create, for example, a Valuer-General and, in addition, institutions such as the Land Management Commission that would have a major impact once in place and operational. Thus ... [Interjection.]
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I have noticed that the hon the Minister has his glasses on his head. What is he looking at? [Laughter.]
Hon Van der Merwe ...
Hon Minister, can you wait a bit? Hon Van der Merwe, it would be a sad day if I chucked you out before the farewells. [Laughter.] I forgive you for now. Continue, hon Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you like me. [Laughter.]
Deputy Speaker, to Mr Van der Merwe, it's for me to have a clearer vision of the people in the gallery. I can see you clearly.
These measures are crucial to the land reform project, but we cannot do it successfully if we do not have an accurate reflection of the land audit in our country. This is one of the attempts that the department is undertaking. It was done as a result of our inherited legacy of the problems of different countries in one country, so to say, and therefore, different ways of measuring and recording things. Putting them together into a coherent system has proved to be a very daunting task. In fact, the work that has been done facilitated the process of eliminating these problems by useful analysis of all of this information and putting them together.
The focus of the audit is to enhance the compilation of a complete, accurate, comprehensive and reliable database of registered land parcels, thereby improving the integrity of a comprehensive land register and facilitating the update of asset registers of all organs of state. In other words, all departments at the national, provincial and local levels will now have a better picture, and where the absence of a land register created reasons for the Auditor-General's concerns, these will be dealt with effectively once this process is over. It also serves as a basis for enhanced planning and administration, including other functions relating to property portfolio management and improved delivery of services. The Department of Public Works, for example, is already creating structures that will more effectively deal with the portfolio of properties.
Due consideration was given to, amongst others, the government's programme of action and the objectives of the 18 key targets of the National Development Plan. The project is aligned with the following objectives of Chapter 8 of the National Development Plan, namely Spatial Justice: a strong and efficient spatial planning system, well integrated across the spheres of government; upgrading of all informal settlements on suitable, well-located land by 2030; enabling more people to live closer to their places of work; having a better quality public transport; and more jobs in and close to dense and urban townships.
The enhancement of the land register would be an invaluable linkage between, and repository of land information to, various strategic interventions currently under formulation, like the Land Management Commission as well as the Office of the Valuer-General and the implementation of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act.
This work is crucial for these programmes. To make our land reform a success depends on us improving this. One of the difficulties was the physical verification of the land parcels. The previous regime created serious difficulties, not only in who had it given land to, but also under what name and for what purpose. The physical verification, sending people to each part of the country and to each specific parcel of land, has been part of the process that was undertaken to do this verification. It has proved to be very useful and it has given us more or less the results that we would have liked to see.
Ironically, it is because of our intention to move away from racial classification that has created problems. In the registration of people and their acquisition of land, there has been no indication of whether people are black or white. This created an obstacle for us in verifying who actually owns land in our country. It is also important for members to remember that, as a result of weak regulatory systems in place, there are, amongst others, huge land grabs that are taking place globally and on our continent. We do not know whether foreigners own land in our country, how much land, and to what extent can we effectively protect land and ensure that most land is in the hands of the state and its people so that our development is not compromised by the inability of an ineffective land management system.
We say these things because our process would have been faster and quicker had we not been cautious and reconciliatory. We were mindful of the condition in our country that created a situation where, if we moved any faster, we might have compromised some of the successes we have gained in building social cohesion in our country and in creating conditions for people to accept the bona fides of all of us in a single united nonracial and democratic country.
Those processes were important. It is therefore absolutely crucial that once fully completed, we will have a very useful audit in our hands that will inform our planning processes and enable us to implement the National Development Plan effectively. These are some of the seeds that we are planting with a view to harvesting what we have outlined in the goals of the National Development Plan. There is no doubt that, taken good care of and nurtured appropriately, we will make the implementation very successful.
The information and the details hereof are available on the department's website and members can visit it freely to inform themselves. The usefulness of knowing fully is that we will know what to change and how quickly we can move. This is the purpose of this statement and we hope that members will support it and make sure that wherever we are located, we are able to remove all obstacles towards its completion. I thank you.
Deputy Speaker, the State Land Audit was intended to address concerns over who owns what land in South Africa, who uses it and for what purpose. Unfortunately, it falls far short of that. The audit fails spectacularly to identify ownership patterns and whether or not there has been a positive transformation since 1994. In other words, we cannot use this audit at all to determine whether land reform targets are being met.
However, what it does tell us is that there are large tracks of land in state ownership, at least 14% of South Africa's total land area, which could be utilised in a relatively short timeframe to address land reform concerns. So, if the State Land Audit fails to tell us who owns what, what we can use?
There are various independent studies that have been conducted which show that black ownership ranges from 15% to 28% of all privately owned agricultural land in municipalities to as high as 40% in some instances. According to the 2013 South Africa Survey conducted by the SA Institute of Race Relations, SAIRR, landownership estimates in KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and North West show that approximately 76% of the total land area is owned by black people and the respective provincial governments. This significantly contradicts the repeated statements of the ANC that the willing-buyer, willing-seller model is somehow hindering transformation.
I have previously raised the issue of the 8,4 million ha of land unaccounted for. It is not inconceivable or even improbable that the entirety of this land is also owned by the state, and that would raise the state's ownership of land to some 21% of the country. Acting Minister, if there is any hold-up in land reform and the transformation of ownership demographics, it lies with the department. Acting Minister, the land you seek is to a large extent held by the state.
Now let me say this slowly so that there is no misunderstanding. The DA supports a land reform process that achieves redress in rural communities; that promotes economic inclusion to lift rural people out of poverty; and that supports growth and prosperity in the agricultural sector. We acknowledge that land reform is a moral and constitutional imperative and represents an opportunity to invigorate rural economies by giving rural dwellers greater access to productive assets.
But to date the restitution and reform process has been far too slow. It has not provided support for reform and restitution beneficiaries to build livelihoods on the land, and the money allocated to reform programmes has not been utilised effectively. We need a fresh approach, an approach that makes the agricultural sector a partner in rural transformation and an approach that addresses real land needs, like urban tenure.
Urban tenure remains a pipe dream for many South Africans, yet over 60% of our population is urbanised. It should be abundantly obvious that the starting point for land reform in South Africa must be to provide those living and working on the land with title deeds to their properties, and in many instances it is only the sheer inefficiency and maladministration of the Zuma administration that is preventing this from happening.
Twenty years of failed land reform is too much. By the Minister's own admission, 90% of land reform projects have failed and the blame for that must be laid squarely at the door of the department. Until you implement proper pre- and post-settlement support for land reform beneficiaries, these projects will be white elephants. Examples of this include the Kangela Citrus Project and the Magwa Tea Plantation.
The DA's position is clear. The property rights of any person dispossessed, whether under apartheid or through more recent expropriation, are of equal importance and cannot be divorced from each other. We need to respect the constitutional rights of all South Africans and treat them fairly.
A vibrant and inclusive rural economy can contribute to economic growth, create jobs and help alleviate poverty in South Africa. It speaks to the essence of the DA's vision of an open opportunity society for all and will remain a key priority of all DA governments. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, according to phase one of the desktop analysis on state land carried out by the Chief Surveyor-General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, and as presented to the parliamentary committee on 31 March 2011, the purpose of the project was to compile a comprehensive, accurate, complete and reliable database of all land parcels registered in the name of the government of the Republic of South Africa.
In September 2013 Mmuso Riba, the Chief Surveyor-General, reported that 96 million ha of land were in the hands of private owners and trusts, whilst the state remained with only 17 million ha.
In reality, the democratic state of an apartheid- and colonial-free South Africa owns only 14% of land. It was determined, however, that not all of the records in the state land database could be reconciled accurately.
In essence, we as indigenous or naturalised South Africans effectively do not own much of our own land. We are South Africans by name, but landless in reality. This is a serious indictment on our sovereignty.
On the crucial land issue, the final Constitution of 1996, emanating from the relevant section 28 in the interim Constitution, reads as follows:
Every person shall have the right to acquire and hold rights in property, and to the extent that the nature of the rights permits, to dispose of such land.
No deprivation of any rights in property shall be permitted otherwise than in accordance with a law.
It is widely accepted that section 28 represented a compromise that has left the people of this country poorer. This has affected the development of housing in municipalities, the distribution of services and the allocation of land and resources to the previously disadvantaged. South Africa has to own up to this reality.
We look forward to the new administration in the next Parliament to treat this matter with urgency and to give it the legitimacy it deserves. I thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, this Land Audit Report has many issues, flags and gaps in information. Of particular concern are the millions of hectares that remain unaccounted for. However, this remains a reasonable starting point, which the department can use as a guide to begin its constructive reform of land ownership patterns and to develop sustainable rural communities.
Land reform in South Africa is still in its infancy. It is a sensitive subject and one we must address cautiously and with full information if we wish to enhance the effectiveness and success of the Land Reform Programme. State failures to account for land must be rectified. We would support calls for an external and independent assessment of land ownership. Such an independent third-party approach would ensure greater credibility.
We have heard many irresponsible statements made on land and land reform. The report should pave a way for government to take active steps in acquiring not only land, but also in ensuring that there is equitable redistribution. Lastly, tenure reform and administration must be done in such a way that it supports local community initiatives when it comes to land usage and give communities the freedom to truly be responsible for their own livelihood. Hon Deputy Speaker ...
... ngifisa ukuveza lokhu noma ukusho lokhu kule Ndlu. Umlando uthi, izwe lathathwa emakhosini nemiphakathi yabo. Baphucwa umhlaba babekwa ezintabeni, ezindaweni eziwugagadu, ezingalimeki abangekwazi ukuthi bangasebenza kuzona baphile. Ngakho-ke masikhuluma ngodaba lo mhlaba kuzofuneka kubukwe, kucatshangisiswe ukuthi leyo miphakathi yamakhosi eyaphucwa umhlaba ononileyo yahlaliswa ezintabeni iyahlinzekelelwa ekutheni inikezwe umhlaba. Lowo mhlaba osetshenziswa ngokwabelana ngumphakathi wonke kunokuthi kukhuthazwe ubunini bomhlaba emntwini ngamunye okuyolimaza isizwe ngakusasa nxa ngabe sithi: bonke abantu kufuneka baphathe amatatiyela ngoba abanye babo abayikukwazi ukugcina umhlaba ezandleni zabo ukuze begcinela izizukulwane kodwa uzogcina uhamba kushintshwana ngawo ngoba kuyobe sekuphethwe izimali. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[... I wish to point this out in this House: History says land was taken away from traditional leaders and their communities. It was forcibly taken away from them and they were relocated to mountains and barren land that they could not cultivate in order to make a living from it. Therefore when we discuss land reform, we should consider that and allocate land to those communities that were dispossessed of their fertile land. That land must be shared by communities, and we should not encourage individual ownership, which would be a disadvantage for the future of the country. No individual title deeds should be issued for fear that some of the owners would not be able to maintain the land for their future generations. They would instead be tempted to sell it to make a profit for themselves. Thank you.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, the UDM welcomes the State Land Audit. We commend the hon Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform for taking such an important decision, because it is only through this newly created department that we now know the extent of land that belongs to the state.
Hon Deputy Speaker, it is worrisome to learn that the state owns such a small portion of land in this country. This is indeed instructive for land restitution. It is also worrying to learn that in the small amount of land the state owns there is 6,4% that is not classified.
Hon Minister, what the UDM wants to know, in the category of private land ownership, is how much is owned by whites and how much by blacks in this country? I am asking this question because there is the task to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act.
Hon members, how I wish you could see the consolidated land ownership. It is shocking; the province with the highest extent of land owned by the state is KwaZulu-Natal, with 50%. In the Free State, 91% is privately owned; in the Northern Cape, 94% is privately owned; in the Western Cape, 89% of the land is privately owned. Overall, my dear colleagues, the state owns 14% of the land in this country, while 79% is privately owned. Therefore, this is what makes the UDM keen to know how much of this private land is owned by blacks and how much by whites.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the UDM welcomes the audit report. I thank you. [Applause.]
Agb Adjunkspeaker [Hon Deputy Speaker], I want to say to the hon Minister: Minister, you came to this podium and you spoke a lot of nonsense! You said nothing! You were supposed to make a statement on the Land Audit Report, but all you came here to say is, we are busy with the land audit. The FF Plus ... [Interjections.]
There is a point of order, hon Groenewald.
Madam Deputy Speaker, is it parliamentary for the hon member to say the Minister spoke nonsense, and saying emphatically so?
Hon Deputy Speaker, before you make a ruling, may I address you? I am of the view that it is not unparliamentary to say that a member speaks nonsense, definitely not.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon Groenewald, even if it is not unparliamentary, "nonsense" is "nonsense". You can't say in this Parliament the Minister came here and spoke nonsense. [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, if "nonsense" is "nonsense" then the Minister is speaking nonsense! I can't say something else if he speaks nonsense. Nonsense is nonsense! Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, if the hon member cannot say "nonsense", is he allowed to say "balderdash"? [Laughter.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, it seems it is going to become unparliamentary to say anything else.
Hon Groenewald, there is a point of order. And I hope you will have order at that podium.
Deputy Speaker, I believe it is parliamentary for us to talk to each other with respect, whether or not we are going into an election, in order to represent and act on the points Minister Manuel put so clearly before this House just two days ago, a sentiment I thought we all agreed with. Just a day or so ago, the Chief Whip of the Opposition drew our attention to the Rule on offensive and unbecoming language.
I think to refer to the Minister as having spoken "nonsense" is offensive language and is not acceptable in this House. [Interjections.] There are ways in which an hon member can convey their disagreement, either vehement or otherwise, with statements made by members of this House, but to use a pejorative such as was used, I believe should be ruled unparliamentary. However, it is your ruling, Deputy Speaker. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker ...
Deputy Speaker, may I address you?
Deputy Speaker, may I address you on ...
No, I am not going to allow anybody to address me. You have already spoken. I'm not going to allow you. [Interjections.] Hon Groenewald!
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not spoken, and I have a right to address you.
On the same issue?
Deputy Speaker, on that issue, I wish to address you. I have not spoken before.
Is it a point of order or are you telling me what to rule?
Deputy Speaker, I don't want to tell you what to rule. I want to address you in terms of what the Rules allow me to do.
Okay, let me hear it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my point is that I think what we have here is a problem with the English language, because "nonsense" means "nonsensical"; it means what the Minister is saying does not make sense. That is not derogatory. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
However, hon Groenewald, it is offensive language. [Interjections.] It is offensive language, and taking into account ... [Interjections.] Are you all hon Groenewald? It is offensive. You can say that in a shebeen, but this is not a shebeen; this is a Chamber.
Hon Deputy Speaker, if I may, I want to say to the hon Minister: Minister, if a Minister comes here and talks sense, I have respect for that Minister, but if a Minister comes here and talks nonsense, I don't have respect for him, and I will not withdraw that.
Deputy Speaker, I would like to remind the hon member that he has to address himself to the Chair. I also wish to confirm to the hon Watson that I know English very well and I know what is offensive and unbecoming in terms of the Rule that he drew our attention to just two days ago. I would suggest to the colleagues over there, whose mouths unfortunately are unable to close, that they should from time to time select a moment for their lips to be still.
Unfortunately for them, I will not join them in being insulting, as they are doing to me. [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, that is not a point of order. You have ruled that you would not allow any more points. You have allowed the Minister to speak at length twice now!
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you? You have allowed the Minister to have a second speech. I will do exactly the same if it is fine with you. May I just, for the sake of clarity, say you have not ruled that it is unparliamentary, so, in that case, the hon member has nothing to withdraw. I would request you to allow the member to continue with his speech. Thank you.
You are right. Sit down, hon Groenewald, please. You are correct. I said to hon Groenewald that it was offensive language - maybe it is not to you - that should not be used in the Chamber. He repeated the word and said he was not going to withdraw it, even though I was cautioning him. You are right; I did not say he must withdraw the word, but now he repeated that word and said he was not going to withdraw it, which compels the Chair to ask him to withdraw it.
Hon Deputy Speaker, are you now ruling that it is unparliamentary? Is that your ruling?
I'm saying it is offensive. That is my ruling. [Interjections.]
No, hon Deputy Speaker, I need to understand. Are you ruling it is unparliamentary? [Interjections.]
Yes, I'm saying that. That is what I am saying.
Thank you.
That is what I'm saying. Hon Groenewald, will you withdraw it?
Deputy Speaker, may I address you as an English-speaking person? The word "nonsense" is not offensive; it is not. [Interjections.]
Can we have order in this House! Hon Chief Whip, is that a point of order?
Deputy Speaker, yes, please. Hon members on the other side ... [Interjections.] ... are defying your instruction for hon Groenewald to continue to speak. They disrupted and stopped him. They are going against your ruling.
Thank you, hon Chief Whip.
You are out of order! [Interjections.] Hey, you are out of order! [Laughter.] [Interjections.]
Hon Groenewald, I want to give my ruling again, and you listen carefully.
I am listening.
While the word "nonsense" has maybe in the past not been ruled unparliamentary, it is really offensive. When adult people are speaking, nobody can stand up and say you are talking nonsense. I have ruled and I expect the members to respect my ruling. I have asked you to withdraw that word.
Agb Adjunkspeaker, laat ek dan in my moedertaal praat. Ek is nie Engelssprekend nie. My moedertaal is Afrikaans. Ek het ges: Die agb Minister praat twak. Sy twak is nat. [Tussenwerpsels.] Hy weet nie waarvan hy praat nie. Dit is so eenvoudig soos dit. Ek sal dit nie terugtrek nie. Ons is politici en daar is baie mense wat partymaal ook vir my s dat ek nonsense praat, en ek moet dit kan hanteer. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Deputy Speaker, let me speak in my mother tongue. I am not an English-speaking person. Afrikaans is my mother tongue. I said: "Die agb Minister praat twak. Sy twak is nat." [The hon Minister is talking nonsense. His powder is damp.] [Interjections.] He does not know what he is talking about. It is as simple as that. I will not withdraw it. We are politicians, and sometimes other people also tell me that I am talking nonsense, and I have to be able to deal with it.]
Deputy Speaker, if may address you on a point of order: What the hon Groenewald has said, is exactly the same as he said in English. However, Deputy Speaker, if I may address you on a further point of order: While you were speaking just now making your ruling, the hon Waters was sitting on that side and kept on saying that you were talking nonsense. Deputy Speaker, I would like to say that I think it is discourteous and disrespectful to you as a Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask that the hon Waters withdraw that remark, please.
Hon Groenewald, if you decide not to withdraw, you leave me no option but to ask you to leave the Chamber. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, I must say that I have been in this House for more than 20 years, and what I cannot understand is that you say it is not unparliamentary to use the word or the term "nonsense", but you ask me to withdraw it. I will not withdraw it and I will leave the Chamber. [Applause.]
Okay, you can leave the House, sir.
Whereupon the member withdrew from the Chamber.
Can we proceed with the debate? [Interjections.] Is that a point of order?
Njengomntwana okhule ethetha i-Afrikaans ngokubangelwa yimvelaphi yam yezeelwimi, eli gama lithi 'twak' lithetha enye into endingenakuyibiza apha kule Ndlu. Ngoko ke, ndicela uyijonge loo nto. Enkosi. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Ms T B SUNDUZA: As a child who grew up speaking Afrikaans, and because of my background in languages, the word "twak" means something that I cannot even mention in this House. I therefore ask you to investigate that. Thank you.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you on that?
No, I'm pointing at ...
Hon Deputy Speaker, I have to address you.
Hon Swart, come to the podium, please! I'm not entertaining any debate. Anybody who wants to talk about nonsense or anything else will have to say that another time. Continue, hon Swart.
Deputy Speaker, I undertake not to speak any nonsense today. [Laughter.] According to the 2013 Land Audit Report, 14% of the land is held by the state. Some 79% is held by citizens, trusts and companies, and the remaining 7%, or 8,4 million hectares, is unregistered or unrecorded in the Deeds Office.
We, in the ACDP, fully appreciate that the land issue is very emotional and must be addressed in a responsible manner to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. In view of the fact that almost 21% of the land is either unregistered or in the hands of the state, we believe that there is some responsibility on the part of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform for the slow rate of land reform that we have seen. We do believe that this can be improved upon. Clearly, resolving the land issue is a complex issue, where aspirations for land must be balanced against existing property rights, agriculture and food security within the constitutional order.
We know that agriculture is the primary source of income for as many as 5 million people and their dependants, and we know, therefore, that finding solutions to this very contentious issue is in the best interests of the country's political and social stability and its economic future. Sustainable growth is what is required, and that requires a thriving rural and agricultural sector. What we need is rural development and the productive usage of land. We need far better support for emerging farmers, mentorships and partnerships.
The issue of land should not now be a political football used during the campaigning, as unrealistic expectations can be created which, if unfulfilled, will create even greater tension in society. We in the ACDP implore all leaders to be cautious in the language we use, in the promises we make. We are shocked at some of the outrageous claims that are being made by a certain party that is not represented in this House, but which wear red berets. We, as leaders, must be dealers in hope, and also be peacemakers. Are we not taught, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God?"
Let us campaign responsibly, but let us also stand for justice and righteousness. I thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, former President Nelson Mandela spoke brilliantly about land during the Rivonia Trial. He said, "I am without land because the white minority has taken the lion's share of my country." Unfortunately, the DA is not here to hear that. That is absolute sense.
Can we honestly say, 50 years later, that things have changed? Today, 70% of the population still lives on less than 10% of the land. Apartheid has left terrible scars in the lives of ordinary South Africans and, as a country, we must do more to rectify the injustices of the past. This is totally unethical and smacks of opportunism. Through the visionary foresight of President Zuma, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform was formed in 2009. This will forever be one of the President's greatest achievements.
Land is crucial to self-determination, the sustaining and building of our country and the sovereignty of our people. We cannot let the legacy of apartheid determine our future. Land is a sensitive and emotional issue. The task of redistribution is massive. This must be achieved at all costs.
The MF lauds the department for not only focusing on land redistribution, but also on the development of vibrant and sustainable communities though our job creation and through provision of infrastructure. We must be wary of simply redistributing land so that we can boast about progress. Advancement will be when we create integrated communities, where all our people have security of tenure, released from the shackles of poverty and given proper, sustainable jobs, marching forward, living in harmony, united in our diversity.
This audit lays the foundation for achieving the target of restoring ownership. It delineates that 79% of our land is privately owned, which I have previously said, while the state owns only 14%. This provides us with a framework and lays the foundation for achieving the target of restoring ownership to those who have been forcefully dispossessed of their land.
Phase 2 of this audit will be crucial. It will give us a clear understanding of who owns what. I have a nagging suspicion that if we do a land audit in respect of all the hon DA members here on my left, it will show that they own more land than the whole of this House combined. [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Like any good doctor, you cannot treat a patient without a thorough diagnosis. Therefore, we welcome this report as a stepping stone to creating a platform for greater land distribution. Once again, the MF reiterates a 2030 vision of creating a property-owning democracy for all our people. The MF welcomes and supports the report. [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon members and guests in the gallery, land was the primary reason our people waged the liberation struggle. The struggle was a direct response to decades of land dispossession and conquest, where people were forcefully removed from their ancestral land. The so-called land reform was meant to reverse that and to change ownership patterns. The process was supposed to return land to the rightful owners.
Azapo does not understand how government could conduct an audit that did not ask whether the people who owned land were black or white. How do we hope to evaluate changes in ownership patterns if we do not want to ask that question?
Let us talk about the 14% of the land in state hands, and I want to be very clear. Azapo believes that the land, the sea and air space, and minerals, must belong to the people, with the state holding it in trust. So, in our view, it is 100% of the land that must be in the state's hands, as a trustee, on behalf of the people.
Government tied itself into knots, however, with the so-called property clause. Guaranteeing property rights meant guaranteeing the poverty and landlessness of the people. So, as we receive the report today, Azapo's cry and clarion call is, Mayibuye i-Afrika. [Let it return, the Africa we have lost.] We thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly find some affinity with what the hon Groenewald had to say. I certainly found no sense in what was spoken in the statement. It has, however, solved a very big mystery in this Parliament. Since his appointment as the Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Minister Tsenoli has not attended a single committee meeting! [Interjections.] I see what has happened. He has obviously missed the right room and has gone and sat in Rural Development and Land Reform's committee meetings, and that is why we haven't seen him. Perhaps he would give those glasses, if he would be so kind, to Minister Nkwinti, because Minister Nkwinti needs those glasses to find all the land that has been disbursed and which government does not have in its records and has no record of who it has been given to. [Interjections.] If it wasn't impolite, I would say, "Keep your mouth shut", seeing as it is now parliamentary to say that. [Interjections.]
I want to turn to this issue as well, because there is a lot of double- speak in this Chamber. We have just had the hon Bhoola up here, who is the king of double-speak. The hon Bhoola comes and sits in the DA offices with the hon Selfe and the hon Hoosen, and desperately wants to join the DA. [Interjections.] He then comes to this House and pretends to be the biggest ANC supporter. [Interjections.] A few days ago, the hon Bhoola stood at this podium ...
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for an hon member who cannot keep his mouth shut, to come and lie here in the National Assembly under false pretences? [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on a point of order? Is it parliamentary for one member to say that another member is lying? [Interjections.] The hon Bhoola said that the hon Steenhuisen is lying. That is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]
Yes, all right. Continue, hon Steenhuisen. I will talk about that. Continue.
Thank you very much. The hon Bhoola, a couple of days ago during the debate on women's empowerment and gender equality, stood at this podium and said that he was all for women's empowerment and how women must take the lead in the country
Madam Deputy Speaker, will the hon Steenhuisen take a question?
No! He stood here and said ...
He's afraid of me ...
No.
... because I will make him dance on my little finger. [Laughter.]
I'm sure. [Applause.] I'd hate to know what's been there before. [Laughter.] He stood here and said he's all for women's empowerment, but he's spent the last two years of his life trying to get a woman out of her job in his own party! [Interjections.] He goes to Chatsworth and says: "We will stand up for the minorities." He comes to this House and votes for a Bill that will ensure that South Africans of Indian origin will not find work for the next 15 years! [Interjections.] That is why the people have seen through him.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order ...
No, it's interfering with my time. This is harassment. [Interjections.]
No, hon Bhoola, can't you allow the hon member to finish attacking you so that we can come back to the point? Can't you do that?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will certainly sit and listen to his nonsensical issues.
We learnt it from you. That is why the people have seen through you and gave the MF a thrashing in Chatsworth, in their old backyard. The people are tired of stories in South Africa. They want delivery, and that is why they are going to vote DA on 7 May! [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had ...
Yes, I haven't attended to that yet.
All right. Thank you.
Proceed, hon Thibedi.
Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, my colleagues, at the 2005 National Land Summit, the critical issue of the National Land Audit was debated and it was resolved that the state should undertake this exercise. This call was informed by the fact that what can't be measured cannot inform a process of transformation, reconstruction and development. Numerous structures of the ANC debated this matter.
In the evaluating process of progress of the 4th National Policy Conference of the ANC in June, the ANC re-affirmed its position of fast-tracking land redistribution to the landless people, stating that the audit should be completed by December 2012. The directive was that the audit should cover the survey of state land together with the former Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, TBVC, states.
The policy conference further agreed that in August 2012 a meeting of all custodian departments should be held to take stock of the progress made in the surveying of the state land portfolio under custodianship and to table a complete register of immovable assets. The reversal of the 1913 Natives Land Act legacy has everything to do with ensuring the completion of a comprehensive land audit.
The state land audit must be seen in the context of the transformation of both the urban and rural economies, and the implementation of agrarian transformation leading to a rapid and fundamental change in relation to production, ownership and control of land.
Land is a finite resource. It sustains our country, determines our sovereignty as a nation and is the foundation of our diverse culture, which is at the heart of who we are. The state land audit constitutes a matter of strategic national importance. In addition, the purpose of the audit of state land was to determine how much land is owned by the state, what is it used for and who its occupants or users are.
It also had to compile an accurate land register that provides detailed information about what rights exist over the land and which state structure holds the title deed of the land. In terms of the process, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform was tasked with the executive responsibility to conduct this audit and the Office of the Chief Surveyor- General was commissioned to conduct such audit.
The audit was conducted onsite by state officials with the assistance of contract workers employed by the department. The work began in essence in December 2009, when the Office of the Chief Surveyor-General was tasked by the Minister to compile a comprehensive, accurate, complete and reliable database of all land parcels registered in the name of the government of the Republic of South Africa across all spheres of government, former TBVC states and state-owned enterprises.
The audit was conducted in phases. Phase one was a study of the deeds offices conducted in 2010 in order to identify all pieces of land registered in the name of the state. The second phase was conducted by identifying every piece of state land during site visits, gathering all information relating to occupants or users, occupation agreements, existing infrastructure and services, and establishing whether it was, in fact, state or private land.
The findings showed that the state owns 14% of the country's land, with 79% of land in private hands, as was already alluded to by my colleagues who spoke before me. In the Eastern Cape there are a huge number of hectares which are unaccounted for. In Gauteng the largest percentage of land is in private hands and also reflects the largest percentage of land owned by foreign nationals. The lowest percentage of land that is uncounted for is in the Northern Cape and the Free State. Currently, the state-owned land constitute just over 17 million hectares, with more than 96 million hectares in private hands. Hon Deputy Speaker, the hon Mileham of the DA came to this podium and told South Africans that the DA supported the process of land reform. I must, however, remind him that the DA refused to support the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill; they voted against it. They also voted against the Property Valuation Bill just yesterday.
Hon Ntapane reminded us that 89% of private-owned land is here in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] I think that in debating this issue of land, hon members, it becomes very clear that the politics of blacks and whites play themselves out loud and clear. The whites who are privileged to have owned this land are consistently refusing to have an honest discussion about how this land can be returned to its rightful owners.
Let me remind them that their stance is not sustainable, because there are many people in this country who endorse the Constitution, which is the driver that actually compels or propels us to drive this process. We are not driving the process of land restitution simply because we have lost something in our heads, but because we know that the land was taken from our people in 1913, and therefore there is a need for a democratic government to take the land back.
He speaks about the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle, and he is fully aware that the willing-buyer, willing-seller model, as far as the National Assembly is concerned, is replaced by the principle of just and equitable compensation. I do not know what he is talking about; he lives in the past. He reminds me of someone who continues to sing the song, "Bring back my yesterday".
The Constitution of this country is a guarantee that the past is gone, and it will never come back again. In terms of rural economy, as he was explaining here, we must remind him that we have what is called a Comprehensive Rural Development Plan, CRDP, which is aimed at making sure that our economy in the rural areas is vital.
The CRDP compels the state to pump in infrastructure money to ensure that rural areas are developed. I don't know in which country he is living; maybe he lives in another country. But let me say to the hon members in the House who still believe that they can hold onto this land that the process is moving. Hon Nkwinti told us that, siyaqhuba [we are moving]; we are not going to stop. You better join us, because what we are doing is legal. So, you better join us.
What I like about South Africa is that our people are still full of hope and patience that we will resolve this matter, and I can assure you that the ANC is going to address this matter, with or without some of you on my left. The good thing is that the majority of members in this House are in support of this process.
I feel only pity for my African colleagues who are trapped in the politics of the party on my left, because they know that the land we are talking about is the land their grandfathers and grandmothers lost at the hands of some of these people who are sitting on my left. [Applause.] But they can't stand up and break ranks and say, enough is enough, because the dispossession of land was the genesis of poverty in this country for African people.
We are not going to sit back. We have the majority, which we are going to use, but we will follow the Constitution to ensure that the land is constitutionally returned to its rightful owners. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: In the course of the hon Steenhuisen's speech, he launched a personal attack on the hon Bhoola. In the course of that attack, he proceeded to impute political positions to a group of South Africans based on their racial classification or the origins of their ancestors.
I would ask you to rule whether that is the parliamentary way of conducting debate in the South African Parliament 20 years after the advent of democracy under the Constitution that we have fought so long and hard for. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Deputy Minister. I take note of that point of order, including the hon Kalyan's point of order. I will study the Hansard and come back with a ruling. [Interjections.]
Debate Concluded.
