Rural Development and Land Reform General Amendment Bill (B33-2010) submissions; Committee programme

Chairperson's opening remarks
The Chairperson indicated that they met quorum requirements. He stated that the Committee was going to be in serious trouble as government was in a hurry, which meant that the Committee would have to up the pace in order to keep up with their monitoring and oversight duties. The hurry on government's side was due to the need to provide promised services to the people. Two years before, the Committee had asked the Land Claims Commission (LCM) for a list of land handed over to communities, disputed land claims and claims that still needed to be settled. The Committee was given a list of claims that needed to be settled, which had not covered all provinces. The list in question was a list of people, which meant that delays affected real people. They needed to remind the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR) that they required these outstanding documents.

He added that the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform had said that Cabinet took the view that land claims in National Parks would be dealt with by providing alternative compensation. The Committee had asked the Minister to go back to Cabinet and ask exactly how this would work. This had occurred 18 months ago and they still had not received a response. He was making these remarks because the Committee was going to be looking at their programme for the year and they needed to ensure that these outstanding issues were covered by their programme.

He had asked the Surveyor-General to explain why they were having problems registering people as nothing could take place due to disputes around ownership in cases involving tribal land. There was no clarity forthcoming on this issue. If the Deeds Registrar and the Surveyor-General were not doing their work, it hampered the Committee's ability to function.

He stated that there was also the issue of fraud and corruption in the Department, which was hampering delivery. There was an investigation in the Department which had unearthed criminal activities in Kwazulu-Natal. However it was suspected that these activities extended further than that province alone. The LCC would close in early March, resulting in the Department taking on the Commission’s work. This was worrying because the Act dealing with LCC would still be existence stipulating the duties of a non-existent body.

All of these issues needed to be considered in terms of this year’s programme.

Consideration of interim Committee Operational Programme
Ms A Steyn (DA) said that they needed to prioritise which meetings were not open to being moved around or cancelled in the event of a change in the programme during the year.

The Chairperson replied that the programme was structured around the workload which needed to be performed chronologically, and not importance. They could not say that one meeting was more important than another meeting. Once the Committee adopted the programme they needed to stick to it, so if they wanted to change the item ordering, they needed to do so now. He asked whether they could adopt Item 1, the agenda for today.

The item was adopted

The Chairperson asked whether there was any opposition to adopting Item 2.

There was no opposition and the item was adopted.

The Chairperson stated that Items 3 and 4, meetings on 2 February and 9 February were related, while Item 5 for the 16 February was not.

Ms Steyn said that if they read the Rural Development and Land Reform General Amendment Bill (B33-2010), they would see that there were a lot of technical amendments and questioned whether they really needed two days to go through it.

The Committee Secretary, Ms Phumla Nyomza, said that the meeting on 2 February would not be necessary and they could use it to finalise and adopt the Bill.

The Chairperson said that they should combine the 2 and 9 February and leave the 9 February free.

Nkosi Z Mandela highlighted that the programme for 2 March included a briefing by the head of the LCC, however as the LCC was going to be closed in early March they should bring the briefing forward.

The Chairperson replied that they could not ask the LCC commissioners whether they would still have contracts with the Department and needed to talk to their “higher ups” about this.

The Committee Secretary said that they could still call the LCC in to provide the Committee with all the outstanding information they needed.

The Chairperson said that they needed to use 9 February for strategic deliberation on the State of the Nation Address.

The Committee Secretary said that they could move the LCC to 9 February and use 16 February for deliberations on the State of the Nation Address.

The Chairperson said that they should leave 23 February and 2 March as is and asked whether they could move to the adoption of reports.

Ms Steyn said that they needed to separate meetings that had both the Department and stakeholders present as that could be problematic.

The Chairperson said that they should combine Item 2 of 2 March with 19 February.

Ms Styen said that that would be a problem as they went on an oversight visit from 28 February to 4 March and that this clashed with the meeting scheduled for 2 March.

The Chairperson agreed that this needed to be changed. Item 2 on 9 March needed to be combined with the agenda of 16 February. The items for 30 March were essential and could not be changed.

The Committee agreed to this.

The Committee Secretary suggested that the items on the agenda for 13 April be moved to 6 April as well.

The Chairperson agreed and stated that the agenda of 20 April would then be moved up to 13 April. He said that 20 April would be used for two items that the Committee did not wish to have to discuss again, but which the Department carried on talking about in the public domain without tabling anything.

Ms Steyn agreed with the Chairperson, but added that they still needed to talk about the Share Equity Scheme (SES) as they did not know what was going on with it.

The Chairperson agreed, but added that Ms Styen was talking about a workshop. He stated that Ms P De Lille (ID) had asked for a copy of the SES Report when she was still on the Committee and that they still needed the report. He suggested that they move the 4 May up to the 20 April. He asked whether the programme now covered all outstanding issues.

The Committee Secretary stated that she had requested a list of the Department’s priorities so that they could align their schedule with the Department’s - but still awaited that information.

The Chairperson stated that this meant that they could not adopt the programme today and that it would have to wait.

Committee Report on the Study Tour to Malawi
The Chairperson stated that they needed to consider the Study Tour Report on their visit to Malawi. There were three items that they needed to focus on from their visit: the draft land reform programme from Malawi, the youth programme and the relationship between councillors and traditional leaders around rural land.

Ms Steyn said that they had received the Draft Report only today and could not adopt it until they had a chance to properly read it.

The Committee Secretary suggested they adopt it on 25 February after dealing with the Bill.

The Chairperson agreed and asked that the programme be amended accordingly.

Committee Minutes: adoption
Ms Steyn said that she had no problem with the content of the minutes, but that some of the minutes; especially those of the 17 August 2010 were from a long time ago. In future they needed to get the draft minutes before the next meeting and then the finalised ones after. She was not sure if the minutes from meetings between the 17 August and 3 November had been approved.

The Committee Secretary replied that all the minutes for that period had been adopted and that she could recirculate them.

Ms H Matlanyane (ANC) said that they should adopt the previous meeting’s minutes at the next meeting before the dealt with any other business.

The Chairperson agreed, but stated that that was supposed to be the protocol already.

The minutes of 17 August and 3rd November 2010 were adopted.

Submissions on Rural Development & Land Reform General Amendment Bill: consideration
The Committee Secretary requested that the legal advisors brief the Committee on the submissions.

The State Law Advisor said that there were three submissions. The Bathlakoane submission did not deal with the Bill at all, their issue was with the date of the closing of land claims. The other two submissions came out in support of the change of the Department’s name from Land Affairs to Rural Development and Land Reform but also did not deal with the Bill. It seemed that they supported the name change. What the Bill actually did was align the functions of the Department with the name change. The submissions dealt more with views on how rural development could be done.

Ms Thembi Pepeteke, Committee Researcher, agreed that the submission did not deal with the substance of the Bill. The Bathlakoane wanted Parliament to change the land claims closing date. Even if Parliament agreed to this, it did not need to be done in the Bill in question.

The submission by Mr Mdlalose also did not deal with the Bill. His issues could be raised when they dealt with the Green Paper. Imvuti Youth supported the Bill, but merely stated that the name change afforded an opportunity for a focus on rural development and that they wanted to present a study that they had performed to the Committee.

The State Law Advisor said that the submission did not really talk to Bill itself.

The Chairperson asked for comments from members.

Ms Steyn asked why they did not simply give these groups and opportunity to talk to the Committee as they had taken the trouble to make submissions to the Committee. They could state that the discussions did not deal with the Bill itself.

Ms Matlanyane said that it was her understanding that they should focus on the Bill and give these people an opportunity at another stage.

The Chairperson said that if they were to ask Grain South Africa (GSA) to be in the same room as land claim issue presenters it would not work as they were two antagonistic parties. They needed to listen to them separately.

Ms Steyn agreed, but added that they had two days set aside for this. She asked why they did not see them on the 25 February and specify that they were not public hearings on the Bill.

The Chairperson replied that he did not disagree, but that they should be given an opportunity to come before the Committee when they were dealing with the stakeholders. He said that they could invite everyone to come before them on the 25 February to raise any issues they had.

The Committee Secretary said that when they issued the advertisement for public hearings on the Bill they had called for written and verbal submissions. The submissions before the Committee were written ones and the people in question did not say that they wanted to make oral submissions.

The Chairperson said that the submitters were asking the Committee to help them in cases where the Department was not helping them. What they needed was the Department’s written responses to their issues. The Committee could not respond on the Department’s behalf.

The Committee Secretary said that the one woman who did want to make an oral submission did not specify the contents of her submission, which meant that they did not know whether or not her submission was relevant.

The Chairperson acknowledged this.

Ms Steyn asked whether this meant they were going to have public hearings on the 25 February with one person and asked if they could not have the other people there under the auspices of public hearings.

The Chairperson said that they had only one person making an oral submission and that the written submissions needed to be replied to by the Department. Due to this they could deal with other business on the 25 February after the submission

The Committee Secretary said that the programme for the 25 February would then consist of an oral submission, the Department’s responses to the written submissions. They could potentially finalise the Bill that day and deal with outstanding minutes.

The Chairperson agreed to this.

The meeting was adjourned.