Hon Chair, Minister, I just want to check with you: Are there any future plans on alignment and integration of land use
management between the spheres of government? If yes, where are they; and if no, what are the relevant details of that? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon Modise, although this is actually a new question, I would assist in answering it. We do have the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, as you know it. We have also as Cabinet approved the spatial development framework, SDF, which actually gives indication to all spheres of government on how our spatial development should be undertaken in the country.
In terms of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, that development framework must actually be released for comments within 60 days. That is what we had already done. So, we are waiting for comments from citizens in terms of spatial development framework, after which we will then bring it to Cabinet for finalisation. Thank you very much.
Hon chair, it is hon Smit. Hon Minister, will you commit to transferring these pieces of land together with their title deeds to the relevant individual beneficiaries; and by when?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon
member, at the moment, the way in which government does release land for agricultural development in particular is through the leasehold of 30 years, with an option to buy. That is done primarily to ensure that different beneficiaries who receive such land can put it to good use so that in a period at least of five years.
The state can monitor, support where necessary and ensure that indeed this individual can use this land productively. That has been borne out of an experience over the years where we found people who have been assisted by the state, where land has been transferred and titled, but some of them within a year sold that land.
It does, therefore, not assist in terms of your distribution. It is also necessary for me to indicate that actually, when you look at freehold tenure, it is not only entitled: You can have user rights; and you can have leasehold, which is an acceptable tenure system in our country - and actually anywhere else globally.
If you have got a 30-year lease tenure, you can actually undertake any development that you want. It is not only that you must have title in order to even get credit on the land that you want to use. Thank you very much.
House Chairperson, Minister, the land reform approach from 1994 onwards has been focused on developing a class on black commercial farmers. This has obviously not worked because that was not a backed-up plan by a solid programme of support from government. As a result, many emerging black farmers find themselves locked up in an agrarian value chain that marginalised all of them. A few considered introducing a new land and agricultural strategy, whose foundation is to promote and support smallholder agricultural farmers.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon Mokause, for your question. It is necessary for me to indicate that from 1994, there have been forms of addressing the needs for agriculture as well as human settlements. You would recall that certain interventions, starting from '94 was through the Settlement and Production Land Acquisition Grant, Splag, assisted people who wanted to acquire land for whatever purposes, even for livelihoods, to do so.
We then had the land reform for agrarian development, where people would actually make their own contribution and get loan agreements. But, you are right: There had been weaknesses that we have never actually had targeted farmer settlement support to those people who
want to become commercially viable as a state in a concerted way. Those are the issues that we are reviewing.
Some of the interventions that had been made, we are building on them, to ensure that we don't just give people land without adequate support for them to become fully-fletched commercial farmers, even though they are operation at a smallholder. You can be commercial, whether smallholder, medium or large scale, depending on the enterprise that you have chosen, but also on the agro-ecological zone where you are farming.
In the Northern Cape, 1 000 hectares can be smallholder because of the ecological zone of that area - it is drier. Therefore, the carrying capacity of the land - particularly if you do a livestock - can never be the same with somebody who is farming 250 hectares in the Eastern Cape, where the vegetation as well as water resources is better than in the Northern Cape.
So, for me, what is important in the question that you are raising is that as government, when we undertake land reform, we must put targeted support until those individuals can be able to stand on their own. Thank you very much.
Chairperson, Minister, thank you for your answers. I did note however that the original question relates specifically to land for commercial and residential purposes, but you chose to answer hon Smit in relation to agriculture. I will be glad if you can answer my question relating specifically to the original question. What I like to say is that we have seen ANC membership cards and proximity to power and even financial transactions being used as part of the criteria for land reform up until now. What will the criteria be into the future; and will the process be transparent?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon
member, I wouldn't want to enter into the debate on the observations that you are making. We have actually developed beneficiary selection policy, which will be made public, so that all of us would know if you are applying for land: What is the criterion that is being looked at when an assessment is made for you to be considered for any form of assistance by the state. You are correct, as I said earlier, that some of the follow-up questions are really new questions, but I have been very generous to answer them.
The issue is about state land disposal and the question was whether government has plans to do so. I said yes! What I tried to clarify
was that land redistribution is not just about agriculture; it is also about human settlements; and it is also about industrial development. The reality is that in our country, I think the focus - both in terms of beneficiaries, but also even in the psyche of the society - has been about agriculture.
This may be true because large-scale landownership is in the hands of those who are farmers and producers. Probably that is the reason why the focus has been around that land, but it doesn't mean land reform is only about agriculture. It is about reforming our landownership patterns, which include economic activity and which includes residential land. Thank you. [Applause.]
Question 140:
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon Smit. This relates to the matter of David Rakgase. The question as indicated is, why - if I may look at it correctly - have we taken the decision to withdraw the appeal against the court? It is important for me to say that it was proper for government not to pursue that matter. First and foremost, the matter of Rakgase relates to state land that was in the former homelands under the SA Development Trust. That land was known as
fallow land in terms of the Agricultural Credit Board, in particular.
What has then happened at the time when we looked at the various communities, particularly farmers, who were allocated that land to use on a lease basis, it was in the areas of the then Bophuthatswana, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, Makhathini Flats, Port St Jones and many others. The view of the government at the time was that these people for many years have been locked in a system where they can never be able to make meaningful investments in continuing with their agricultural development. So, a decision was taken that this land must be disposed to those individuals and they must be given the first right of refusal, particularly, those who were working the land.
So, the category of Rakgase falls in that system. The land size that was being used at the time, not only by Rakgase, was about 3000 plus hectares. When that offer was made, an objection came from some of the farmers in that area who said that it was not only Rakgase who was using the entirety of the land but he was using, yes, the majority. Therefore, they felt that the whole portion can't be sold to one individual. It was an issue that the department considered. Therefore, in the offer to purchase to Rakgase, the hectares was not
the whole of the 3000. That is where the contest became hence the process was never concluded. We appreciate that being the case. We said when the matter has served in court, and the court has ruled in the manner in which they had we will abide by the court decision and that is the stand. That is why we have decided not to pursue that matter. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Chair. Just for correction, I am not mme Smith, I am Mr Smit. [Laughter.]
In case someone had a doubt, yea. [Laughter.]
Hon Minister, I hear what you are saying but there is a section that you have left out. It is that, there was an option that was originally given to Mr Rakgase to purchase the land and then it changed to a lease agreement, which is the case with many others. However, hon Minister, today it is your opportunity to apologise to not only Mr David Rakgase, but also to all the other farmers like himself who have been cheated by your department and this government from not being able to own the land they worked on. Will you commit that all similar cases will be finalised and the land be transferred to the farmers for full ownership? Again, please
provide us with a timeline within which this land will be transferred to the rightful owners. Thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon member. I really would like us to respond to the question that you asked. The question was; why has the government not appealed? We have explained. In this matter publicly the Ministry as well as the department we did indicate that it is unfortunate that there might have been an impression created that the state would oppose the matter or rather appeal. So, we did that. I don't think it will be necessary for us to hype on that matter because that matter should inform all of us on how best we resolve issues where there are problems. So, the judgement in our view is instructive on how we should deal with other matters that are similar to that of Rakgase. Thank you. [Applause.]
AN HON MEMBER: Chair, there are members this side as well.
[Laughter.] Yea, noted.
Through you, Chair, hon Minister, considering the continuous withholding of full ownership of land from farmers who were cheated into long term lease agreements by your predecessors,
do you agree and share the same sentiments of your Deputy Minister, Skwatsha and predecessor Minister Kwinti, who blatantly said - at various occasions - that black South Africans cannot be trusted to own land, therefore, the state should hold their land and manage it on their behalf? If you do not agree with that, please, indicate your action plan to transfer all land held by government on behalf of the black South Africans to them individually. It is a shame that that has been said.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon member. Indeed, that is a new question in respect of the Rakgase matter. I think it is important for us as South Africans to reflect on our tenuous system as it pertains today. We have multiple tenure systems in South Africa, not one. You have got your freehold which is narrowly limited to title and we have the majority of the South Africans who happen to have been put on 30% of land, whose rights on land are not even recorded, it is actually under the Ministry of land as a custodian. These are the matters in South Africa that in my view we need to deal with when we look at what should be our tenure system. My view is that South Africa must accept that it would have a multiple tenure system, which will include title, collective ownership either on a lease hold, user fright and so on. Again, this is not peculiar to South
Africa. If you go to the United Kingdom, for instance, they have user fright rights on the Queen's land. That tenure system is able to ensure that people can invest on that land either commercially or otherwise. It is not new and I think we shouldn't be merry to force ourselves as country to say that the only tenure system that is available or should be available to South Africans is title.
I am saying so because leasehold - am repeating myself once again - is a tenure system that you can utilise for credit acquisition for investments of any sorts. The black South Africans in particular in this country have been on 99-year leasehold, particularly in the black townships you never owned land and you never owned that property but that never stopped them to actually invest and improve on those lands. It is not cheating, it might be your view that it must be titled but that is not the view of everybody and we must allow that debate in this country to finalise what our tenure policy should be. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Hon Gillion ...
... there is a caucus in front ... [Inaudible.]
Hon member, if you can just have a bit of order there. Please, proceed.
Thank you Chairperson and thank you, hon Minister, for the way that you handle this question. From my side, I just need to know; has the court judgement in question made any significant contribution towards the reinterpretation of the law and land ownership and redistribution in our country? If not, how not? If so, what are the relevant details?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Chairperson, I would not be in a position since I am not a lawyer to say whether the judgement has made any contribution in terms of our legal jurisprudence. However, what that judgement has done in my view, it has actually indicated that where there is a change of policy on decisions that have been made prior and where certain commitments have been made regardless by what administration at a particular time, it cannot just be changed without looking at what commitments were made to people at that time. So, whether that offers new jurisprudence, I don't know. Thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, in displaying true team work in the DA caucus, I am pleased that hon Aucamp has covered my question. That is teamwork, Chair. Thank you very much, Chairperson.
Question 149:
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon member, and thanks hon Du Toit for the question you have posed. I am sure you would know that we do have legislation that prevents illegal occupation of land and property. It's not only on land without infrastructure, it's on any land. So, that provision is there - that legal statute is there. I would not be able to be in a position to quantify how much, you know, costs can be attached to service delivery in respect of what the hon member says has failed rural development because he or she did not provide me with what is that programme that has failed in order to enable quantification. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chair. Hon Minister, it is common knowledge that the country has an unprecedented high unemployment rate that is at the highest state in which the economy finds itself in. It is not conducive to the environment that is stimulating entrepreneurship and even the survival of small businesses and
farmers that are relying of safe distribution roads and the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
Furthermore, in 2015, the SA Police Service requested all municipalities in North West to apply for a pre-approved interdict for the removal of trespasses on land where they are not supposed to be, but none of these municipalities reacted. Isn't true Minister that since the majority of these municipalities are governed by the ANC and none of them acted before hand that they might be complicit by implication to contributing to job losses and insecurity as a results of service delivery protests that occur and protests that occur as a result of people occupying land, they need to be removed and then resulting in protest action closing access roads in those areas?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you, hon member. I was trying to follow the question. I think the preamble to the question talks about an issue that all of us as South Africans are concerned about, the issue of unemployment; the issue of the slow economic activity in our country, which all of us must be concerned about.
With regards to the decision that was made in the North West about what municipalities must do and whether they did or did not do, I am hearing from the hon member. I cannot vouch for that. But I don't think it would be correct to say, you know, by not doing certain things which unfortunately I can't even verify, therefore, there was complicity. If you look at the original question, it was asking whether government has measures to deal with, you know, illegal invasion of land without infrastructure.
The second question was whether or not, you know, government can quantify the cost of service delivery protests as a result of failed rural development. I think I have answered that question because the hon member, who raised the question, did not indicate to me what those failed rural development programmes are since 2017 linked to service delivery protests so that we can be able to answer.
Actually, if you look at that question, there were two questions in one, but I was generous enough to answer. To you hon member, I would actually say it's because of complicity of anybody. Land invasion is a challenge that we must address. Where constituencies are raising serious challenges about issues as members of the community, those must be addressed. But all of us, I think are concerns that where some of this service delivery protests happened, they become violent
and therefore impact even on the infrastructure that all of us need. This is one thing that as a country, we cannot applaud. That we can agree on.
But on the blame about who hasn't done what, no, I cannot comment on that. Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, Chairperson. Hon Minister, the community-led programmes of land repossession across the country is products of the failure or delay of the government to transfer land back to the rightful owners. What you out to be doing as government is to support this community- led struggles and put in services on land that has been occupied. If the expropriation of land without compensation constitutional amendment fails to deliver land back to the people, what measures do you have in place to support the inevitable occupation of land by the dispossessed owners? Thank you.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon
member, thank you. You have a new question. You are actually saying there is a programme of land repossession. I don't know which one is that, which makes people not to follow legal processes that have been put in place and allow them to invade land. I don't think that would be an acceptable process, nor can they be justified or blessed
if I were to call it that way. However, where people have land needs, there are processes on how those must be followed and the government will address. Where there are weaknesses, as long as the High Level Panel had identified weaknesses in our programmes and system, that's what the government has to and we are addressing. Thank you very much.
Thank you, hon Chairperson. Hon Minister, part of the problem with illegal occupation lies with politicians that try to score cheap political points and buy votes. [Interjections. One of these acts are reckless relocation of landless people into land with no municipal services available as was done by your Deputy Minister, Skwatsha, here in the Western Cape. Do you condone his reckless behaviour?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: I
think hon member maybe through you Chair, and through the Select Committee Chairperson on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. Then maybe, we should have a debate on the issue of landlessness in South Africa, the issues of evictions and issues of land invasion.
If you look at what happened in the incident you are mentioning in the Western Cape, it was as a result of farm evictions. It was an instance where people for a weekend, particularly children and the elderly were on the side of the road. As the government, we had to intervene. When we approach our provincial offices to see where these people can be put, there was land that identified and that's where people were put temporarily until we find a mechanism.
We have been working with the department here in the Western Cape; we have been working with the province, Social Development, including the municipal area concerned to find a lasting solution to this issue. I want to say the challenge of land eviction in our country is a problem that we all must address. How do we ensure that we manage disputes in a manner that does not render others landless, how do we assist those people with secure tenure system, whose livelihood have actually be working on farms for many years, it's a matter in my view that we must address, emotions aside, because it's a challenge.
Unfortunately, the height of land evictions in this country is in the Western Cape. We must face it. [Interjections.] Maybe, let's understand what the problem is so that we look at it and address the
problems as I agree with you, without scoring cheap political points. [Interjections.] Thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Chair. Minister, what is your response to farmers on that occupied land reform farms, and that sits with illegal occupiers on that land, but cannot get a court order to evict them?
AN HON MEMBER: [Inaudible.]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon
member ...
AN HON MEMBER: [Inaudible.]
What is your point of order?
Yes, I am just waiting for my microphone. Hon Chairperson, the hon member from the EFF shouted here that the hon Nhanha is being used and he is a coco head. [Interjections.]
Hon member, have you said that hon Nhanha is a coconut? [Interjections.] Did you say that?
[Interjections.] Okay, we will check Hansard and we will come back and make a ruling. [Interjections.] Lets avoid ...
Point of order, Chair.
Yes.
I accept your ruling, Chair. But just for the record Chair, some of these members from the EFF must know that we were in the struggle long before they were. So, I am not a coconut, they must know. [Interjections.]
That's not a point of order. Hon members, lets proceed, please.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
Thank you very much, hon member. The member has asked a very general question, but also made such an observation which I cannot prove. Maybe, he can give us relevant information. I am not sure that when people apply for a court order for eviction, they have not been able to get any response from the justice system. It may either be given or not given. So, if there are certain cases that he knows that he
can make available to us, I will appreciate that and share it with my colleague, the Minister of Justice. Thank you very much.
Hon Nhanha, we are done with you.
We will do so, Chair.
Okay.
Question 166:
Siswati: