Committee Report on Department of Rural Development and Land Reform's budget

Meeting report

Consideration and Adoption of Committee Report on Department of Rural Development and Land Reform’s budget vote
The Chairperson noted that the report included the strategic plan and budget vote of the Ingonyama Trust Board. Thereafter, he invited Members to recommend any changes to the document.

Mr M Swathe (DA) referred to page 3 and said that he would have a problem supporting the budget vote if the Department’s proposals signalled an intention to nationalise land.

The Chairperson replied that this proposal had been raised by the Department and had not been discussed in any Green Paper. It therefore could not be debated at this stage.

Ms A Steyn (DA) voiced unhappiness that Members were briefed on an issue that they could not discuss or debate, yet their role was oversight of the Department. She requested that this concern be noted.

The Chairperson replied that all the Department’s strategic plans were important, but so too was the production of the Green Paper. For example, the policy of agricultural land being made a national asset should be discussed in a Green Paper and not in the Strategic Plan. Therefore, collective consideration would take place at the Green Paper stage and not at the level of strategic planning of the Department.

Rev M Dandala (COPE) believed that the issue of leverage should fall under the recommendation section so that the Department could play a catalytic role to ensure that partner departments fulfilled their obligations in an almost contractual manner, as their failure would result in the failure of the Department.

The Chairperson replied that the emphasis was on joint planning rather than the Department’s leverage over other departments. In light of this, he proposed that the following paragraph be inserted: “The Committee accepted the catalytic role of the Department in initiating comprehensive rural development programmes. However, it expressed concern at the absence of any instrument at the disposal of the Department to leverage other departments to effectively contribute in the collective implementation of those programmes”. He acknowledged that it omitted the concept of joint planning and the Committee’s demand for business and operational plans.

Members corrected all other technical errors in the report.

Ms Steyn referred to page 1 and mentioned that the requirement of business and operational plans from the Department was part of the briefing but not part of the recommendations. This should be rectified.

The Chairperson replied that this part should be amended to include visible demonstration of joint planning and be reflected in the recommendations as item 7.4.

Ms Steyn expressed concern that the Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform had not attended the meeting. Members had been placed in the invidious position of explaining to their constituencies the strategic plan of the Department despite the fact that the latter did not even understand it themselves. The Minister, Deputy Minister, Director-General and the Chief of Staff had all given differing opinions about the plans. To date, the Minister had not yet clarified and expanded on her comments. She hoped that in future the Committee would be placed in such a situation again, where the Department did not tell the Committee what their plans were thereby making it difficult for her to support the Department.

The Chairperson remarked that he was equally concerned as there were no ANC documents requiring game farms to be converted into land for agricultural production. What the Department was mooting still had to be submitted to Cabinet first before the Committee could make any input. This matter should not be a subject for public debate until a Green Paper was published. The Department’s officials were speaking out of turn on this issue.

Ms Steyn wondered where the adoption of the report would place the Committee in the whole discussion about the strategic plans of the Department. She did not have any problems with adopting the report if it was understood from her perspective. However, she objected to approving any report if it contained information that the Committee could not discuss.

 

The Chairperson accepted that the Member had valid concerns but stated that the Committee was adopting the publication of a Green Paper and not its content. The wording would be amended so that nobody would be bound by the content, as it was, not even the ANC was bound by a Green Paper that had not yet been produced. Committee members were still free to express their own views in the House.

The Committee unanimously agreed to the report as amended.

The meeting was adjourned.