Hon Deputy Speaker, seated in the gallery are guests of the President of the Republic of South Africa. [Applause.] They are here, having come from all corners of the country, not to listen to this debate, but because they have their own process down at the International Convention Centre, ICC. They are there because of their involvement in a tour of South Africa, from the precolonial, colonial, post-union apartheid South Africa and through to the current democracy.
We invite hon members to join them this evening and tomorrow. The President opened it today. You will be amazed. Also seated in this House are three of our colleagues from the provinces of Gauteng, Eastern Cape and North West. They are all guests of the President. [Applause.]
Marian Lacey opens the introduction to her book entitled Working for Boroko: The Origins of a Coercive Labour System in South Africa, with the following quote from a letter dated 23 November 1917, written by Fillipus Bopape, addressed to the sub-Native Commissioner at Pietersburg. He says:
There is another awful branch of this bad law, that a native is not allowed to hire a white's farm by money, except by working for nothing, 'Boroko'.
Lacey goes on to say:
There were four major issues facing the successive governments in the first two decades after the Union in 1910, namely, how to inhibit further the growth of an independent African peasantry so as to force all Africans to become migrant workers dependent on the wage sector for their survival; secondly, linked to the first one, was where to settle African sharecroppers ...
My great-grandfather and my grandfather were sharecroppers, by the way.
... half-share farmers and cash tenants, said to have been squatting illegally on white-owned farms; thirdly, the mass influx of Africans to the towns, which created a new and urgent problem for the state, one which reached a crisis point in the early 1920s; and lastly, linked to the third problem, was the build-up of untrained and unskilled whites as more and more of them streamed into the towns. Like African peasants, small farmers and 'bywoners' had been squeezed off the land with the spread of the capitalist farming.
The first three problems remain with the democratic ANC government, which took control of state power in 1994, almost a century since the establishment of the Union in 1910.
Sampie Terreblanche in his book A History of Inequality in South Africa 1652-2002, makes the following observations about the Act. He says:
By depriving African farmers of much of their land and ending sharecropping and tenant farming on white-owned land, an agricultural and entrepreneurial tradition and store of indigenous farming knowledge were destroyed. It is difficult to determine the value of this tradition, but it was probably considerable, because it was well adapted to South Africa's weather, land and labour peculiarities. If this African agricultural tradition had not been destroyed, but given more or less the same government support, both financially and technologically, given to white farmers, South Africa's agricultural and economic history could have been radically different.
However, Terreblanche makes a more telling observation on the legacy of the Natives Land Act on African lives, and he says: The combined effect of the Land Act and deteriorating socioeconomic conditions in the Bantustans on the one hand, and strictly enforced influx control measures on the other created a situation of systemic violence that deliberately or inadvertently criminalised many migrant workers. The inevitable result of this inhumane situation was that millions of Africans were drawn into a vicious circle of violence, lawlessness and criminality. It is ironic that the strong inclination towards criminality was not restricted to migrants. Many African youths with residential rights in urban areas were also criminalised. In their case, this was not the result of influx control, but of discriminatory measures. As the educational levels of urban African youths rose and their job advancement opportunities were blocked, many opted to make a living from crime.
What is the ANC government doing to reverse the legacy of the Natives Land Act today, because that is history? Rural development and land reform are the key instruments of the ANC government to deal with this legacy. Rural development has three phases: Firstly, meeting basic human needs. The Reconstruction and Development Programme is a very clear programme that we are following, looking at meeting the basic human needs of the people of South Africa, particularly those that were historically discriminated against. Secondly, rural development. In South Africa, whether we like it or not, we already have many farms, about 1 296, that have been recapitalised and these are enterprises that make a lot of money. I was standing at this podium when I told you that the Mokhatshane family in the Free State sent me an SMS to say: "Because of this programme we are going to open our own butchery in Virginia very soon; this year." That is because of these enterprises. I hope some of the hon members will go there. [Applause.]
Those are enterprises, rural industries sustained by rural markets that came into existence as a result of the initiatives by this government. A couple of months ago we visited Ncora together with the President, where there was a harvest of maize from more than 700 hectares of land. When we asked the farmers where they were going to sell the maize harvested, they replied: "No, this has already been sold because we have a partnership with Amadlelo Agri, with which we have a 50:50 per cent strategic partnership." They bought this maize. There is also a dairy parlour there. This is something that is happening in our country today. That's what we are doing. [Applause.]
Land reform has four pillars that hon members must note. Firstly, restitution. Restitution means restoring that which was taken away from the people. Whether that land has been developed or not is another matter. The key point here is to restore the land to those from whom it was taken by force - period. [Applause.] We can debate the rest later. The second one is redistribution, which has to do with rekindling of a class of black commercial farmer which was destroyed by the 1913 Natives Land Act. That is what we are doing. When I talk about 1 296 farmers, I am talking about rekindling a class of black commercial farmer in South Africa. We are on course. This is not a story. We are doing it.
Let me come to the third pillar, which is land tenure reform. This country has not actually done this. Tenure reform is not just a story, but has got to do with economic power, which ultimately translates into political power. Now that we have political power in the country, we also need to get the economic power. As long as we do not tamper with the land tenure system. This is a matter which we are handling right now as we speak, both in terms of state and public land; privately owned land; sadly, land owned by foreigners in our country; and fourthly, the communal land tenure model.
The communal tenure model is the most sensitive one, because you are talking about 13%. That is the land that the hon Cebekhulu was talking about. As part of a consultation process on the issue of the communal tenure model, last week Friday I went to eMampondweni West in KwaZulu- Natal. We will go to all provinces, because we want to transform the economy so that the people living in the affected areas can benefit from and live on the wealth that is under the soil they own.
The fourth pillar is development, that is, institutional support. During the budget and policy speech, we promised to come back to this House and present policies once Cabinet has sorted them out with the Land Management Commission. Because, in South Africa, we must remember that we had four provinces, and then added to that were the nine Bantustans. Each one of them had a land ownership register. When democracy came in 1994 they were brought together. But what dominated mainly were the four provinces, which constituted the Union before.
So what you have now is the underpinning ideology that provinces basically continued to be almost independent rather than autonomous of Pretoria. There is a disjuncture between what you will find in Pretoria and what you will find in the provinces. The result is that you may think that what you get in the province is right, yet it is not. The Land Management Commission is going to be a one-stop shop, where all land-related matters are dealt with.
The office of the Valuer-General is going to be established very soon. The Bill and the amendments to the Restitution Act that exists are out for public participation as we speak. As was announced by the President, we are going to reopen the land claims. South Africans are going to have an opportunity once more to lodge land claims. [Applause.] In terms of the proposal in the Bill, it's going to be for a period of five years, which is until 2018. We have developed a manual which is going to be distributed to all South Africans in all languages, including the Khoi and the San Languages so that everybody understands what is expected of them. [Applause.]
We have heard and we know that there are already people out there who are organising meetings and charging people R50. There is another group in Gugulethu which is allegedly also charging R5. We must arrest those people because they are criminals. [Applause.] No money is going to be paid by people who are lodging claims. It is going to be free, because it is a service that the government of the ANC is providing to the people of South Africa. [Applause.]
The Land Rights Management Board is another institution. This institution is part of efforts to deal with the security of tenure of farm workers. During the recess we are going to meet with organised labour to discuss the proposals we have on the table with regard to dealing with evictions and the security of tenure of farm workers and dwellers in this country, so that we do away completely with the eviction of people in South Africa.
In conclusion, let me go back to one very small thing, which was mentioned by hon Mathole Motshekga. This is what Sol Plaatje says about the campaign, which is very interesting.
The campaign to compass the elimination of the blacks from the farms was not at all popular with land owners who made huge profits out of the renting of their farms to natives.
Ironic, isn't it? Platform speakers and newspaper writers coined an opprobrious phrase which designated this letting of farms to natives as "kaffir" farming and attempted to prove that it was almost as immoral as baby farming. But landowners pocketed the annual rents and showed no inclination to substitute the less industrious poor whites for the more industrious natives. They were better. That is what Mahatma Gandhi would say. They were better. African farmers were better than the lazy white farmers of the time. [Applause.]
Old baas, a typical Dutch landowner of the Free State, having collected his share of the crop of 1912, in addressing a few words of encouragement to his native tenants on the subject of expelling the blacks from the farms said in the "taal":
How dare any number of men wearing tall hats and frock coats living in Cape Town hotels at the expense of other men order me to evict my natives. This is my ground. It cost my money, not Parliament's and I will see them banged before I do it. [Applause.]
This is a white farmer who is making a living from renting out his land to natives.
It then became evident that the authority of Parliament would have to be sought to compel the obstinate landowners to get rid of the natives. And the compliance of Parliament with this demand was the greatest ministerial surrender to the Republic's malcontents, resulting in the introduction and passage of the Natives Land Act of 1913, inasmuch as the Act decreed, in the name of His Majesty the King, that pending the adoption of a report to be made by the commission, somewhere in the dim and unknown future, it shall be unlawful for natives to buy or lease land, except in scheduled native areas. And under severe pains and penalties, they were to be deprived of the bare human rights of living on the land, except as servants in the employ of the whites.
These were rights which were never seriously challenged under the Republican regime, no matter how politicians raved against the natives. Thank you, hon Speaker, that's about the past and the present of South Africa in terms of our government of the ANC. Thank you. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES: Chairperson, I have two problems with a debate such as this one. My first problem is that when we talk about history, all the facts and not only the facts that suit us should be placed on the table. The core of the objection against the 1913 Act is that it divided the land between black and white and that only 13% of land was given to black people. This is valid criticism of the injustices - very seriously - of the past. It is not based upon today's facts, but on the facts of 1913.
Al die kaarte van 1913 dui die Unie van Suid-Afrika aan as deel van British South Africa. "British South Africa", in 1913, het bestaan uit Suid-Afrika en dan die drie destydse protektorate. Vandag is dit Botswana, Lesotho en Swaziland. In 1913 was daar geen sprake dat hierdie protektorate eendag onafhanklike state sou word nie. Botswana is tot 1965 nog uit Mafikeng in Suid-Afrika bestuur. Daar is algemeen aanvaar dat die protektorate op die langtermyn by die Unie van Suid-Afrika ingelyf sou word. Daarom het die Suid-Afrika-wet van 1909, wat deur die Britse Parlement goedgekeur is, voorsiening gemaak dat die drie gebiede later by die Unie genkorporeer kan word.
In die denke van baie in daardie tyd is die oppervlakte van hierdie gebiede toe by die 1913-grond getel, en toe het hulle 'n 40/60 en amper 'n 50/50 verhouding gekry, afhangende van hoe jy dit bereken.
Ek sien dit nie as my verantwoordelikheid om 1913 te probeer verdedig nie. Wat ek wel glo, is dat dit net billik is dat ons in ons kritiek al die argumente en die denke van 1913 probeer verstaan.
Waarom het hierdie inlywing nie daardie tyd geslaag nie? Dit het nie geslaag nie, omdat daar ook natuurlik ander denke was. Die hoofmanne van hierdie protektorate het heftig by die Britte in Londen beswaar gemaak teen inlywing. Hulle het uiteindelik daarin geslaag en in 1966 en 1968 het hierdie gebiede onafhanklik geword en 'n nuwe stel feite is geskep, waarmee ons vandag werk. (Translation of Afrikaans paragrapghs follows.)
[All the maps of 1913 show the Union of South Africa as part of British South Africa. "British South Africa", in 1913, consisted of South Africa and then the three protectorates at that time. Today they are Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. In 1913 there was no question that these protectorates would one day become independent states. Botswana was governed until 1965 from Mafikeng in South Africa. It was generally accepted that the protectorates would in the long run be incorporated with the Union of South Africa. That is why the South Africa Act of 1909 approved by the British Parliament made provision that the three areas could later be incorporated into the Union.
In the thinking of many in those days the areas of these protectorates were then added to the 1913 land area, and then they got a relationship of 40/60 and nearly 50/50, depending on how you calculated it.
I do not see it as my responsibility to try to defend 1913. What I really do believe is that it is only fair that we try to understand in our criticism all the arguments and thinking of 1913.
Why did this incorporation not succeed at the time?
Of course it did not succeed, due to the fact that there were also other opinions. The chiefs of these protectorates fiercely protested in London with the British against incorporation. They eventually succeeded and in 1966 and 1968 these areas became independent and a new set of facts was created with which we are working today.]
My second problem is that it is not wrong to hold debates on the past. It is important, but such a debate is only sensible if something could be learnt from it for the future.
The past cannot be changed through a lot of talking. That is why the FF Plus does not believe in a better past, but a better future. Little has been said in this debate about what we have learnt from the past and how we can succeed with land reform in 2013 without making the same mistakes and causing famine. We must speak about how food will be provided for 52 million South Africans, of whom 70% will shortly be living in urban areas and this while we only have about 13% of good agricultural land in South Africa. Little has been said about how we could better utilise the thousands of hectares of communal land presently owned by the state, creating new black commercial farmers. That is also important for the benefit of South Africa.
These are the issues of the future and the debate which we should have after this one, if we want to make South Africa a better place for all of us. I thank you.