Zimbabwean Study Tour Report

Meeting report

AGRICULTURE & LAND AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
24 June 2003
ZIMBABWEAN STUDY TOUR REPORT

Chairperson:

Report on Zimbabwe study tour.

SUMMARY
The committee discussed possible sanctions against a member who failed to follow the prescribed itinerary while on the study tour of Zimbabwe. It was decided this matter should be forwarded to the Rules Committee to request guidance on similar future eventualities.

The report on the Zimbabwean study tour was discussed.

MINUTES
A member of the Parliamentary delegation had diverged from the itinerary decided for the Zimbabwe tour. Possible action against this digression was discussed.

On discussing the Zimabwean study tour report, Mr Farrow (DA) was unhappy with the wording 'good policy' when describing the land reform process in Zimbabwe, the committee agreed that although the policy was sound the Zimbabwean government was not implementing it properly.

Please refer to attached Report on Zimbabwe study tour.

Discussion
Mr D Maluleke (DA) said he was not sure what the meaning of consensus was, when one member held a different view to the report. It was important to hear all members' views.

Mr S Farrow (DA) said there were too many spelling and language mistakes in the document.
He expressed his unhappiness with the title 'observations/ what we have learned', he said these were two different concepts. He also expressed his concern at the editorial contained in the report.

A committee member said parliamentary delegations should represent parliament as a whole and there should be a mechanism to sanction members of a delegation who fail to do this.

Mr Masithela said he did not think that sanctions currently existed for such actions, nor did he wish to punish any committee member. It was not fair to echo the details of this matter in the meeting. He said the previous meeting on this report was very difficult with differing and strongly held opinions. Almost all views of members had been included in the current report and as such the delegation had achieved a broad consensus. It was incorrect for any member to say they were not accommodated in the report.

A committee member said an itinerary was established and any deviations therefrom should only have been with the chairpersons permission.

Dr A Schoeman (ANC) agreed and suggested this case be cited to the rules committee.

Mr M Ngema (IFP) said this matter should be taken to parliament separate, from the report.

Mr Masithela said the committee should request guidance on similar matters that may occur in future.

Mr Farrow said he was unhappy with the word 'good' policy as described in the Zimbabwe report. He said the land reform process was necessary, but the manner in which it was executed was improper.

Mr Masithela said all the Zimbabwean presentations informed the delegation that the land reform policy was 'good', but expressed their unhappiness with the manner in which it was implemented. He said the policy was sound but the Zimbabwean government was not implementing its own policy properly.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) said there was consensus amongst NGO's and the opposition on the need for land reform but they were unhappy with the way it was implemented.

Inkosi S Holomisa (ANC) said the Zimbabwean government compensation policy was to pay for infrastructure and immovable assets but not for land as they believed this to be Britain's responsibility.

Mr Masithela said the battle between Britain and Zimbabwe should not result in farmers and workers suffering.

Inkosi S Holomisa (ANC) said the report did not state what exactly the land reform policy was.

Mr Maluleke asked whether the land reform policy was made available to the delegation.

The committee secretary said he was promised the information would be sent to the High Commissioner but this had not yet happened.

Ms J Ntuli (ANC) said Zimbabweans agreed that the land reform policy was good, and the delegation should accurately report this.

Mr Schoeman (ANC) said members of the delegation compiled the report based on their observations. The problem currently was a DA member. He had no problem changing spelling and grammar, but did not wish to change the substance of the report.

After the committee further discussed the observations and recommendations made in the report, Mr Masithela said members should study the report and propose any further amendments at a later meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.