We believe that one cannot change the Constitution of a country simply because one cannot meet the target set for land redistribution. We must look at why the department is failing to reach the target of transferring 30% of land from white farms to black beneficiaries by 2014. It is not because of the Constitution. It's a question of the department's staff capacity to deliver on their mandate.
Some officials are corrupt and collude with some farmers to inflate prices. The slow pace of delivery is also caused by vacancies in the department. The hiring of inexperienced and unqualified staff in the department contributes to failure. The Auditor-General gave a qualified audit report for the past five years. Some officials who are incompetent must be blamed, not the Constitution. Some department officials serve their masters in politics rather than the nation.
The willing-buyer, willing-seller principle is not to be blamed because it protects the rights of individual farmers. It enables them to negotiate with whoever wants to buy their property. It is a tool used in negotiation and also serves as a guide. This principle cannot be used as an excuse for failure by department officials. It is not perfect, because some people use it wrongly for their selfish benefit outside of market-related prices. Those people - farmers and officials - must be exposed and dealt with. The willing-buyer, willing-seller principle needs to be strengthened, not scrapped.
The DA is concerned about the department's controversial statements; which angered both farmers and poor landless people. The department first issued a statement about expropriating farms, which worried farmers. Some stopped farming and investing in their farms. This has lowered food production.
We see this as discouraging and threatening our hardworking commercial farmers. The department talks about food security in its strategic plan but, on the other hand, proposes such constitutional amendments as property rights being scrapped in favour of putting productive land as a nationalisation asset. Some people see that as a move towards the national of land. This in itself scares potential investors. The DA will oppose the amendment to the Constitution.
South Africa cannot succeed where communist countries failed. This move will compromise our hard-won democracy, the one where all citizens thought and believed their rights would be protected under the Constitution. We disagree that nationalisation will speed up land reform. Turning commercial productive farmland into a national asset will not work. It will scare away hardworking, experienced farmers and investors. South Africa is where it is today because of experienced, hardworking commercial farmers, not subsistence garden farming. The country's food production will suffer if we are not careful.
In the strategic plan the department talks about using white experienced farmers as mentors to help inexperienced black farmers. Speaking with a forked tongue might jeopardise that arrangement. The DA visited farms given to land beneficiaries by government in 2009 and found that 90% of those farms were in a state of collapse. The hon Minister supported this when he said 90% of farms given to black farmers were not functional and were failing. The government plans to invest about R500 million this year to rescue black farmers who have not received support from the state. This move proves that the DA was always correct to say that giving people farms without support from the state equals land reform failure. [Applause.]
Di ward tse 160 ga di dire mmasepala e meraro ya kgaolo. Batho ba ipotsa gore ... [Three municipalities in a district cannot have 160 wards. People think ...]
Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]