Chairperson, I will respond to just a few things because the hon Deputy Minister has really responded to quite a number of the issues which were raised by hon members. I don't want to go back to those. Just for emphasis, we have noted the point that has been made by all hon members in terms of the frustration that people are experiencing with regard to the question of restitution.
Hon members will be aware that our budget in the current financial year is just about R2 billion; it is R1,98 billion. It's very, very insufficient. However, we will do the best we can with the little that we have, given the current economic crisis in the world.
Furthermore, I would like to say that there were two critical elements in this Budget Vote speech. The first one is the land tenure system reform that we are proposing. The second one is the Land Tenure Security Bill that we have referred to. The tendency in South African debate with regard to the question of the three-tier system is that we should make sure that we retain the large-scale commercial farming system that we have. The reason is that it is supposed to be efficient, effective in food security and create jobs.
However, what drives land reform in South Africa is land redistribution. That is what drives land reform here. There is a huge gap between those who own land, and ... ... ndicinga ukuba uMntwana uyithethile loo nto. Isizathu kukuba abanye banomhlaba omkhulu ngeli lixa abanye bengenamhlaba. Le nto ibangela ukuba umahluko phakathi kwabantu abanezinto nabantu abangenazinto uye usiba mkhulu. Yiloo nto ebangele ukuba sithi makuhlengahlengiswe umhlaba ukuze kubekho ukulingana kwabantu ekubeni ngabanini-mhlaba. Xa abantu belingana ngokuba ngabanini-mhlaba bazakukwazi ukuvelisa, batye ukanti bakwazi nokuthengisa. Ngaloo ndlela uyakutsho uvaleke umsantsa phakathi kwabantu abanezinto nabo bangenazinto.
Ngoko ke, le nto yokuthi xa sihlengahlengisa ubunini-mhlaba sizakube siphazamisa imveliso, asiyonyaniso. Umzekelo, ukuba abantu baseMzantsi Afrika bathe xa bexoxa ngeli Phepha loGayo-zimvo babanoluvo lokuba ubukhulu bomhlaba wokuvelisa - le nto bathi ngesiNgesi yi-large-scale commercial farming - ngama-1000 eehektare, oko kukuthi ushishino ngomhlaba olunengeniso. Loo nto ke ithetha ukuba ukuba uNkwinti ungumnini weehektare ezingama-2000, uNkwinti kufuneka anikezele ngeliye iwaka leehektare aze agcine iwaka elinye elinokuthi mhlawumbi libekwe njengomda; ezo ziingxoxo eziza kubakho eMzantsi Afrika.
Kodwa ke, loo nto akufuneki ithethe ukuba iwaka eli uNkwinti anikezele ngalo, umzekelo kutata uMokgoro, liza kuba yilahleko kwimveliso. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[... I think the Prince referred to that. The reason is that some possess vast tracts of land while others do not even have land. This widens the gap between people who have assets and those who do not. That is why we are proposing land reform so that there can be equal ownership of land. If people have equal ownership of land, they will be able to produce, consume and sell their products. That way the wide gap between the haves and the have-nots will be reduced.
Therefore, claiming that land reform and ownership will affect production is not true. For example, if South Africans, when debating the Green Paper, are of the opinion that large scale farms must be 1 000 hectares big - we are talking here about commercial farming which refers to profit-making farming - that means that if Mr Nkwinti owns 2 000 hectares, he must hand over 1 000 hectares, which will leave him with the remaining 1 000 hectares, and that might be set as a minimum in the debates that will ensue in South Africa.
However, that should not mean that the 1 000 hectares that Mr Nkwinti has handed over to, for example, Mr Mokgoro, will be lost to production.]
It is not lost to production; it is retained. What has changed is the ownership pattern. The production pattern itself should remain. Whether it is foreign landownership or national landownership, the principle is going to be the same. Whether it is a black person or a white person, the principle is going to be the same. So, there shouldn't be any problem around this.
With regard to the second issue of the Land Tenure Security Bill, we have strongly introduced the concept of relative rights. The reason is that there are three classes of rights on the farm. For example, there is a worker who is a commuter, and this is a widespread phenomenon in South Africa today.
Bemkile abantu ezifama, bahlala elokishini okanye ezilalini. Kodwa ke, bayathuthwa yonke le mihla baye kusebenza ezifama ze babuye baze kuhlala kwasezilokishini okanye ezilalini. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[People have left the farms; they live in the townships and in the villages. However, they are provided with transport to and from work on a daily basis and after work they return to the townships or the villages.]
This is done so that the farmer doesn't have the responsibility of habitation.
The second class of rights is the one that relates to the people who are both dwellers and workers on the farm. This is a class of rights because these people are not only workers who have to be taken care of in terms of the Labour Relations Act, but they are also dwellers on the farm. This is the question of tenure. Therefore the second thing in terms of the protection of rights is the enhancement of security of tenure of the person who is a dweller on the farm.
The third one is production discipline. You would have noticed that production discipline runs across all these things, whether we are talking about the Bill or about the Green Paper. The reason is that we want to deracialise the rural economy. Issues of race are diminishing. The more we give black people land, the more they will become effective in production. The more the issues of class come to the fore in a more pronounced manner, the smaller the issue of race will become. Therefore, issues of race and farm size are not really going to be much of a problem as we move forward.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the institutional support system. In this regard, we have talked about a land management commission. Hon members will note that - even this year I'm sure - the department will be qualified by the audit. The reason is that we don't have and are unable to produce a credible asset register for land. Frankly, we don't know which land belongs to the state. But we must know. This is because land is a national asset and does not have to be declared. There is no nationalisation here; there is a conceptual issue here. The hon member from the ID talked about this point. Land is a national asset.
If one goes to the United States of America, one will find that the United States of America is defined in terms of land. The United Kingdom is defined in terms of land. South Africa is defined in terms of land space; it's a national asset. We are not talking about nationalisation, but we are saying it's our heritage; it's our asset as a nation. We must therefore have an institutional mechanism of protecting and, in fact, even establishing and maintaining the integrity of land as a national asset. So, this is what we mean when we say land is a national asset. We are not talking about nationalisation. Hon members must not get worried about this.
Furthermore, what we are saying is that the land management commission must be established in order for us to be able to ensure - through it - that we know every piece of land that belongs to the state. Secondly, we are saying that the state will have the first right of refusal when a private individual sells his or her land. This is where the question of integrity of the national asset comes in. One cannot just sell land. People are just selling land anywhere to anybody. If one does not manage the asset, our heritage, then we don't know what postcolonial reconstruction and development means.
We wish that hon members would support this one. We wish that you would support this proposal because through this land management commission, we, as South Africans, will be able to definitively say: This is what belongs to South Africa - this land. Thank you very much, hon Chair. [Applause.] Debate concluded.