Hon Deputy Speaker, the effects of the 1913 Land Act were the disposition of blacks, both politically and economically. Therefore, the restitution and land reform policies have to be directed at addressing the negative effects of the 1913 Land Act legacy. It would not help to only address the political objectives of land reform at the expense of the economic imperatives of both land reform and land restitution.
To begin with, in its implementation of the land reform programme, government has to conduct a proper land audit of state land, privately owned and communally owned land. Current land ownership includes the state, private sector and traditional leaders' land, which is managed on behalf of the communities, as well as unmatched parcels of land, that is land whose owners are either not found or unidentified. The survey conducted by the chief surveyor-general, for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, in March 2011, indicated that out of 1,1 million state-owned land parcels, 265 000 land parcels were unmatched, which constitutes 24% of the total state-owned land parcels. On the other hand, out of 4,8 million privately owned land parcels, 750 000, which is equal to 16% of the total privately owned land parcels, was unmatched.
In the proposed second phase of land reform, the state-owned land, which is not being put to good use, including the unmatched land from both the public and private sectors, should be the first target for redistribution. It does not make sense for the state to begin a process of expropriating land, which is being used productively, when there are large parcels of land that are not in good use or in any use at all. The release of state land would not require actual cash disbursement. Instead, it would be a book entry, as the land is already owned by the state. In short, its impact on the budget would not be direct, as is the case with land taken from the private sector. It is, therefore, Cope's view that state land should be prioritised for redistribution.
Hon Deputy Speaker, all political parties that were involved in negotiating our Constitution accepted the need to redress the land ownership inequalities created by the 1913 Land Act. Regrettably, government has not been effective and efficient in managing both the land reform and restitution programmes. Since the initial land claims window period closed in 1998, government has only finalised and settled some 59 000 of the 77 000 valid claims at a cost of R25,2 billion. In spite of the enthusiasm to reopen the land reform and restitution programme, the National Treasury has cut the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform budget. In the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, the restitution programme was cut to R2,9 billion. There are currently 397 000 new land claims that need to be processed, and R2,9 billion is clearly not sufficient to meet this demand. Based on these potential claims, government would need as much as R169 billion to settle the claims.
Hon Deputy Speaker, one of the key considerations to be taken into account in addressing land reform and restitution is the issue of the location of arable and commercial land. The government should consider introducing a short to medium-term plan to revise and resuscitate land whose value has been eroded, especially in communal areas and former homelands. The state, in its quest to address its land reform objectives, must not be driven by political expedience to achieve quantity. It is Cope's view that dealing with the quantity of land redistribution would only address political concerns and perceptions, whilst addressing quality of land redistribution has the effect of addressing both economic considerations and wealth creation. Cope supports the report. Thank you. [Applause.]