Deputy Speaker, it is amazing what the hon Bhoola says, knowing that he was rejected by the DA.
Let me state at the outset that the DA is appalled at the way that this piece of legislation has been bulldozed through Parliament. I objected during the committee process about the limited time that had been allowed for public comment, and was assured that at least three weeks had been granted.
According to the departmental website, the Property Valuation Bill was advertised for public comment on 4 February, and the closing date for submissions was 15 February - a mere eight working days. In the committee, we took just three days, despite comprehensive amendments, to hear the submissions, obtain a response from the department, consider all the commentary, conduct a clause by clause analysis, amend the Bill further and adopt a report on the Bill. As of 17:00 yesterday, I still had not received a final, cleaned-up version of this Bill. We have already heard that the committee report had gone missing.
We also have concerns around the tagging of this Bill. Despite assurances from the parliamentary law adviser that there are no provincial impacts, I ask that the following scenario be considered: A land restitution claim is submitted for a piece of land owned by either the province or a municipality; the Office of the Valuer-General conducts a valuation in terms of section 12(1)(a), which determines a value. The province or municipality is substantially disadvantaged as the realisable value is significantly lower than market value. This implies that the Bill should have been tagged as a section 76(4) Bill as it affects the financial interests of provinces.
Turning now to the content of the Bill, it has been argued by various speakers that letting the market alone determine the pace of land reform delivery is not desirable and that escalating land prices are the primary cause of the slow implementation of land reform. But is this in fact the truth?
A key purpose of this Bill is to speed up land reform. However, as we have heard from the hon Swart, the main obstacle hampering success in this regard is not the willing-buyer, willing-seller principle, Minister Nkwinti, that the Bill seeks to circumvent; rather it is the state's failure to support emerging farmers and the maladministration within your own department that is primarily responsible for the failures of land reform.
Furthermore, when one considers the amount of agricultural land that has changed hands over the past 20 years, at market value, nearly the entire land reform process could have been completed with the funds expended to date. To put it in perspective, about 3% to 5% of South Africa's agricultural land comes on to the market annually. Over 20 years, we could have turned over at least 60% of the agricultural land in South Africa at market value.
This Bill uses the expropriation criteria from section 25(3) of the Constitution to arrive at a just and equitable value, which almost by definition would have to be lower than market value. While some concerns around the determination of value were noted by the committee, a key consideration has been ignored. The Banking Association of South Africa's submission highlighted the fact that the regulations of the Banks Act require that the security value of loans be derived from the market value of the property. If the value determined by the Valuer-General and used for expropriation purposes is less than market value, banks will have to adopt a much more conservative approach in lending. This could include increasing the interest rates significantly; withdrawing from the market; or offering a significantly lower loan to market value. The net effect is that the cost of production, particularly of agricultural products, will be much higher, and the impact on South Africa's food security is potentially enormous.
It is also important to note the impartiality required by the Valuer- General. Clause 5(b) of the Bill requires that he/she be impartial and exercise the powers and perform the functions of office without fear, favour or prejudice. However, the very next clause - clause 5(c) - states that the Valuer-General is accountable to the Minister, who also, in terms of clause 8(1), appoints him or her.
The DA supports the view that this Office should, in the first instance, be placed within the Department of Public Works and, secondly, that the appointment follow a parliamentary process through a multiparty committee.
Lastly, the provisions of section 25(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot be overstressed. Regardless of the value placed on a property by the Valuer- General, the amount of compensation and the time and manner of payment thereof must either have been agreed to by those affected, ie the landowners, or decided on and approved by a competent court. Any attempt to bypass the courts would result in land restitution becoming further mired in corruption and inefficiency.
Speaker, the Democratic Alliance opposes this Bill.