The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development convened to receive a briefing from the Minister on the deliberations and recommendations by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Land Reform and Agriculture (IMC) regarding land reform and the Ingonyama Trust Board (ITB). Further, the Board would present the status report on governance issues at the Ingonyama Trust and Ingonyama Holdings. The Committee was also to consider and adopt the Committee’s Mpumalanga Oversight Report and minutes from the previous minutes.
The Ingonyama Trust Board asked for more time before it presented to the Committee, as its Board was newly instated.
The Minister of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development presented on the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, on behalf of the Ingonyama Trust. The presentation covered the purpose of the presentation, background, purpose of the Inter-Ministerial Committee; the Inter-Ministerial Task Team approach to its mandate; government interventions on the Ingonyama Trust; matters of concern and current progress.
The Committee sought clarity on which ministers were part of the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) and what their roles were. The Committee raised concerns about the late circulation of the Minister’s presentation and asked that the matter of the presentation be put on hold and visited at a later date so that the Committee had more time to engage with the presentation.
The Minister responded to the question of who the ministers were on the Inter-Ministerial Committee. She also clarified that the late circulation of the presentation was due to a misunderstanding on their part of what the Committee had requested. The Minister apologised for this and said that the Department would follow guidance from the Committee on the way forward.
The Committee decided to put the presentation matter on hold for a later date to have a meaningful discussion.
The Committee then considered and adopted the Mpumalanga Oversight Report with additions.
The Committee also considered and adopted minutes from previous meetings, and there were no arising matters.
Mr N Masipa (DA) brought an issue about Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) to the attention of the Committee to be added to the Committee’s programme for consideration.
Opening Remarks by the Chairperson
The Chairperson greeted the Portfolio Committee and asked if his video for this meeting be turned off for network purposes, as he was on the road visiting Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. He said that he would, however, be present for the entire meeting.
He welcomed the Portfolio Committee, Minister Thoko Didiza, Deputy Minister Mcebisi Skwatsha, Deputy Minister Rosemary Nokuzola Capa and other officials from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD).
He recounted that the Committee had requested that the Minister and the DALRRD come before the Committee and brief them on the deliberations and recommendations of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Land Reform and Agriculture. The Chairperson said the Committee had also invited the Ingoyama Trust Board (ITB) to this meeting. He said that the officials from the ITB sent their apologies, noting that the Board had only been instated on 21 May 2023 and therefore requested two months for its members to settle in and familiarise themselves with the ITB’s affairs before briefing the Committee.
The Chairperson said that the agenda of the meeting would therefore be a presentation from the Minister of the DALRRD and a consideration of the adoption of the Mpumalanga Oversight Report, followed by previous meetings.
The Chairperson greeted everyone in attendance again and asked the Minister to proceed with her opening remarks concerning the Department’s presentation to the Committee.
Minister’s Opening Remarks
Minister Didiza thanked the Chairperson and Committee. She recognised the Deputy Ministers and senior officials from the Department. The Minister indicated that the Department had two presentations, one of which had been circulated on Friday and dealt with matters of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Land Reform and Rural Development chaired by the Deputy President. She said that the presentation was circulated on Friday to the Committee to inform them of the work, tasks and progress of the Inter-Ministerial Committee.
The Minister said that, if the Committee recalled, there was a matter yet to be finalised between the Inter-Ministerial Task Team and the Ingonyama Trust, which was set up by the President of South Africa in 2019. She said that she would deal with the Task Team Report. The Minister apologised to the Committee that this particular presentation was only circulated this morning. The reason for the late circulation was cited as a misunderstanding on the part of the Department regarding what was requested of them.
The Minister hoped the Committee accepted their apology and did not take it as the Department not honouring their promise that they would circulate all documentation on the Friday before the Committee met on Tuesday. She asked to proceed with the presentation and for the Inter-Ministerial Task Team Report on the Ingonyama Trust to be flighted.
Briefing by the Ingonyama Trust Board on the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, as established by the President in 2019
Purpose of the Inter-Ministerial Committee
The purpose of the task team was to prepare for the meeting of President Ramaphosa and iSilo (King Zwelithini KaBhekuzulu). The preparations included addressing concerns raised regarding a supposed government position concerning Ingonyama Trust.
Government Interventions on Ingonyama Trust
- The Minister initiated consultations with iSilo Samabandla (King Zwelithini KaBhekuzulu) and other relevant parties regarding the possibility of appointing an Interim Board.
- An Interim Board was appointed in September 2020.
- At least two workshops were held with the Board to ensure a common understanding of its mandate.
- During the course of interactions with the Board certain matters of concern were identified.
Matters of Concern
- Instability at HR Level
- Disbursement of funds to Beneficial Communities
- Transfer of R293 Townships
- The surveying of Ingonyama Trust Land and how Surveyor Generals can assist the conclusion of the process
- Financial Management and Budgeting
- Ingonyama Holdings
The consultation with iSilo, the Premier and the Chairperson of the Provincial House commenced in October 2022 for the appointment of the Board.
The full Board has now been announced, and it comprises of the following:
- Inkosi Thanduyise Mzimela – Chairperson
- Adv. Linda Zama – Vice Chairperson
- Ms Nomusa Zulu
- Dr Thandi Dlamini
- Inkosi Sibonelo N Mkhize
- Inkosi Phallang BN Molefe
- Inkosi Mabudu I Tembe
- Ms Lisa Del Grande
- Mr Ntambudzeni D Matamela
[For the detailed presentation, see attached]
The Chairperson thanked the Minister for the presentation and said he would now allow the Committee to pose their questions and comments.
Mr N Masipa (DA) said his first concern was directed at the Minister and pertained to the constant late circulation of presentations, which he pointed out that this instance was not the first time the Department had sent a presentation on the day of the meeting. He said that it was important to address this issue so it would not reoccur in future.
He said the Committee had not had enough time to engage thoroughly with this presentation because the previous presentation only dealt with what the Inter-Ministerial Committee needed to do. He sought clarity on the Inter-ministerial Committee (IMC), who the Ministers were, and what role they had played thus far. Mr Masipa wanted clarity on this because the only highlighted Ministers in the presentation were the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), the Premier and the DALRRD.
His second comment pertained to the concerns raised by the Minister in her presentation, about the Ingonyama Trust Incorporated and Ingonyama Holdings. Mr Masipa said that the Minister indicated in the last line of the slide of the presentation that it had emerged that there were issues with accountability concerning this entity and that the new Board would have to deal with these matters.
He asked if the Minister had thoughts about this particular entity that she perhaps had shared with the Ingonyama Trust, because the Committee had been grappling with issues around the creation of this entity.
Regarding financial management, Mr Masipa said that the Committee would recall that, during the Ingonyama Trust’s appearance before the Committee, the Trust raised concerns about their budget allocation from Parliament. Their concerns pertained to insufficient allocation for them to administer their work. In light of this, he asked how the Inter-Ministerial Team’s interventions worked around concerns about the budget allocation, as this was a thorny subject regarding the Trust. The reason for this question was that the real issue was that the Trust did not want to account for its rental collections and that its allocation from Parliament was around R23m/R24m.
Mr N Capa (ANC) welcomed and appreciated the presentation. Mr Capa said that he was tempted to understand the late circulation of the presentation due to a misunderstanding on what was required from the Department in terms of the presentation. He said other than that, he was happy and comfortable with the presentation. Mr Capa thanked the Minister and said that he had no comments.
Mr S Matiase (EFF) echoed Mr Masipa’s sentiments and said it seemed as though there were two reports that were meant for this discussion, and the first report was circulated. The report presented by the Minister was not circulated and the Committee did not have a copy of it. He said that the first report was therefore, clearly a decoy. Mr Matiase said that he thought the Minister was an underground operative, and if she was old enough, she would know what a decoy is. He said that the first report was a decoy meant to distract the Committee and shift its focus onto something that was not going to be presented. Thereafter, they were presented with the real report by the Minister.
He asked if this was fair, because he did not think so. Mr Matiase asked what contribution they were supposed to make if they were made to read the old syllabus that had been phased out and not told there was a new syllabus – the syllabus which the Committee Members, as the learners, needed to expect. Mr Matiase said the Committee was being presented with a completely new syllabus which they were unprepared for. The Committee was now being made to write a test or examination which they could not do well on.
He asked what was happening. Mr Matiase said that they were seen as troublemakers when such questions were raised and failures exposed. He said that he was therefore of the view that the Committee was being set up to consider and debate a presentation without proper preparation. He said that the Committee was being set up for failure. He suggested that the Department circulate the report presented, and that the Committee Members be given time to familiarise themselves with the report and then meet later for a meaningful discussion on the report.
Mr Matiase said that he had more points to make, one of which broadly reflected on the Kgalema Motlanthe High Level Panel Report, which made an observation on land tenure, especially on the issues that were raised in relation to communal land.
He made a second point concerning when the Committee discussed the 2019 High Level Panel Report and at the same time, received a legal opinion. The legal opinion was presented to the Committee and it pertained to the powers of the ITB and the role of the sole trustee, which was the Zulu King. The legal opinion also pertained to the roles and legal obligations of both the ITB and the Trust itself. These discussions had not been brought to their final conclusion but were still ongoing. Mr Matiase said that the third component of the legal opinion was on the role of the Minister in the appointment of the ITB.
Mr Matiase said that, in fear of divulging more of what he intended to contribute, he proposed that this matter be put on hold and the Committee be given time to go through the report presentation so that a meaningful discussion could be had at a later date. The Committee could then make properly guided and cogent interventions.
Mr Matiase said that he did not see a report presented here, and it would seem that the Inter-Ministerial Task Team had not done or achieved anything. Therefore, the Minister had nothing to present but announce an inconclusive process with the hope that the appointment of the Board would bring a conclusive end to the work of the IMC. Mr Matiase disagreed with the idea that the process started and ended with the appointment of the ITB. He reiterated that the matter be put on hold for another day.
Ms T Mbabama (DA) was worried and shared the sentiments of her colleagues, especially Mr Matiase, who had said this was an important matter and that being given the report a few minutes before the meeting was unacceptable. She had not had time to go through the presentation and apply her mind.
Ms Mbabama insisted that the Committee reserve the matter for another time. She suggested that perhaps it be visited on Friday or whenever the Minister was available. She noted that it was rare to have the Minister come to present, so this was an important opportunity for the Committee to engage with the Minister on many issues around the presentation. Ms Mbabama said that the manner in which this presentation was being approached was not allowing the Committee to engage with the Minister. There were many matters around the presentation – IMC, Ingonyama Trust and its Board – that needed to be discussed.
Ms Mbabama said that she would not be asking questions, but there were questions she could have asked. She said that the Members were being treated unfairly and not being allowed to do their jobs properly.
She said that she would be reserving her comments for the next time they met to discuss this matter.
The Chairperson asked Ms N Mahlo (ANC) to proceed with her questions and comments.
Ms M Thlape (ANC) said Ms Mahlo was struggling with her internet connection.
The Chairperson then asked Mr H Kruger (DA) to proceed with his questions.
Mr H Kruger (DA) thanked the Chairperson and noted that he was experiencing network issues. He said that the previous speakers had covered him.
The Chairperson asked Ms T Breedt (FF+) to proceed. She did not respond, as she was not present.
The Chairperson then asked Mr Montwedi to proceed, but he was also not present. He asked if there were Committee Members he had not recognised. The Chairperson then asked Ms B Tshwete (ANC) and Ms Thlape to proceed.
Ms Tshwete thanked the Chairperson and greeted the Minister, Deputy Ministers, officials from the Department, Committee and the ITB. She said that she had questions to ask. But because the majority of the Committee felt strongly that this matter be deferred for Friday, her view was that matter should be deferred for proper engagement.
Ms Tshwete recounted that the Minister, in her opening remarks, had stated that there was confusion on the side of the Department and she apologised for sending the presentation late. Ms Tshwete said this was not the first time the Committee accepted an apology from the Department. She said that the Chairperson should allow for this if the Committee felt strongly about the matter being deferred for Friday. She said that the deciding power rested with the Chairperson.
Ms Thlape greeted the Chairperson, Minister, Deputy Minister and the ITB. She noted that the Chairperson had been kicked off the platform. Ms Thlape said that she was experiencing connectivity issues and therefore missed the Minister’s opening remarks. She said she would weigh in on the discussion. Considering the issues the Committee had raised concerning the Trust, she was of the view that Committee needed to do justice to this matter. The Committee needed to get report and study it to engage meaningfully.
She said engaging with a report that the Members had not familiarised themselves with was not useful. Ms Thlape said that it was not a secret that the Trust had issues on issues and that the Committee had requested that Department brief it on the governance issues faced by the Trust. The Members wanted to scrutinise the report and ensure that it did justice and informed them of all the issues and what was happening with the Trust.
Ms Thlape said that it was important that when the ITB was accounting to the Committee on accountability issues that, the Committee was updated on all the facts. She said that the Committee should not shy away from the issues that were made public about this matter. She agreed with her colleagues that the matter be deferred, the report be circulated and that this item be properly attended to.
Ms Thlape said that they did not want to continuously ask for people to come back and that this matter should be clarified once and the Department or Minister could then deal with issues of the ITB how they see fit.
Ms Tshwete noted that the Chairperson experienced network issues.
Ms Thlape said that she was trying to move to a better spot, and noted that it was just the Chairperson who had not made remarks concerning this item.
Mr Capa said the Chairperson seemed to have been kicked off the platform.
The Chairperson apologised and asked if the Committee could now hear him, as his connection had broken. He said he had heard the Members and their request to set the session aside. The Chairperson said that when the Committee received the presentation on Friday, correspondence was sent by the Committee Secretariat to the Department, noting that the presentation sent needed to be corrected.
This correction was only made this morning, and the Committee received the corrected presentation late. He said that they wanted to ensure that the presentation was indeed what the Committee was looking for.
Ms Mbabama said that the Chairperson broke off once again.
Ms Mbabama suggested that the Chairperson try to stay in one place or hand over to someone else.
The Chairperson said he would try his best to remain in one spot but the connectivity issues persisted. He said what he was saying before he was cut off was that the presentation should be set aside. He allowed the Minister to speak, as her hand was up.
Minister Didiza thanked the Chairperson and Committee. She also thanked the Chairperson for clarifying what happened regarding the presentations. She said they understood that the Committee requested a report on the IMC which was then circulated. The Minister said to Mr Matiase that there was no decoy presentation, as what was compiled was what the Department thought was requested. She said clarity was given afterwards to the Department about what was required and the report unfortunately was then only circulated this morning. The Minister said it was not intentional that the Committee received what was supposedly not an actual report.
The Minister clarified that there was no IMC on the Ingonyama Trust. She said that this has been explained every time this matter has arisen. The President set up the Inter-Ministerial Task Team in 2019, and the purpose of the team was to prepare for the President’s meeting with the Zulu King at the time Zwelithini KaBhekuzulu. However, as mentioned in the presentation, some matters related to the high-level panel report and issues arising from the ANC Conference. This matters pertained to expropriation without compensation, which became an EFF recommendation, amended by the ANC in Parliament.
She clarified that, when the Inter-Ministerial Task Team met, it resolved that the line function the Department needed to deal with was the Ingonyama Trust. Therefore, it was never their mandate. Their mandate was that of the President’s meeting with the then Zulu King. The report the Minister presented was therefore, in line with that decision.
The Minister responded to Mr Masipa’s question of which Ministers were in the IMC. She said that the IMC comprised of the late Mr Jackson Thembu, Mr Edward Senzo Mchunu, Dr Zweli Mkhize, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Ms Thoko Didiza and Mr Mondli Gungubele. Regarding the issues pertaining to the Ingonyama Trust, she said that the Chairperson would guide how the matter should be concluded and whether she needed to respond to the Committee’s concerns today or at another time.
The Chairperson thanked the Minister and said the presentation would be set aside for the next available date. He said that the Committee Secretariat would look into possible dates, even if it was a Friday, to ensure the Committee had ample time to deal with concerns about the IMC that dealt with the ITB. The Chairperson said that the next item would be the Mpumalanga Oversight Report.
The Chairperson thanked the Minister, Deputy Ministers and officials from the Department for being present. He accepted that there were communication challenges ahead of the preparations for this meeting. Regarding the presentation, the Committee would engage with it at the earliest available date.
The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretariat to put up the Mpumalanga Report.
Consideration of the Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development on an Oversight to Mpumalanga Province from 29 – 31 March 2023, Dated 30 May 2023
The Chairperson said that the Committee would go through the report page by page and then each recommendation would be dealt with line by line.
The Chairperson then went through the report page by page.
The Chairperson then stated that the Committee would be now going through the recommendations. He requested that the Committee Secretariat enlarge the report text so that it was easy to read. The recommendations would be dealt with line by line so that there was clarity on each recommendation.
The Chairperson read the report recommendations which were as follows:
Having interacted with the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, Provincial Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Land and Environmental Affairs and the Provincial Shared Services Centre; further having visited projects and interacted with beneficiaries; and in view of the observations discussed above, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the National Assembly for the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development:
6.1. The Department should refine its criteria for PES beneficiaries for submission to Parliament and clearly define the difference between a subsistence and a smallholder farmer without linking it to profit; and also take into account differences among commodities (e.g. crops versus poultry). As much as the Department reported that PES support does not go beyond one hectare, some of the beneficiaries visited operated on five hectares and more.
6.2. Submit to Parliament the PES Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan and a detailed M&E Report on PES; submit a detailed report on all PES beneficiaries nationally, including annual breakdown of funds that have been allocated to each beneficiary, what the funds were used for, and the outcome of such funding.
6.3. Develop a well-coordinated farmer training and skills development programme to ensure that capacity building initiatives are implemented for subsistence and smallholder farmers; ensure that the training provided is relevant to their needs.
6.4 Develop a programme to strengthen intergovernmental relations (IGR) to prevent duplication of activities and minimise resource wastage; for example, ensure proper consultation and collaboration with Provincial Departments when implementing programmes in provinces (e.g., PES and FPSUs, in particular); linking of PES beneficiaries that show potential to operate at commercial scale with the Department of Small Business Development (DSBD) and other relevant Departments and entities.
6.5. Submit to Parliament comprehensive reports with specific information on the Thulamahashe and Huntington FPSUs, including the other three FPSUs that were not visited in Mpumalanga; the reports should include, but not limited to, dates of commencement, the financial breakdown of costs since the establishment of the FPSUs to date, details of ownership/beneficiaries of the FPSU, its management, all infrastructure and equipment bought, operational activities and status of each FPSU.
6.6. Submit to Parliament an Action Plan with timelines on social facilitation and conflict resolution measures to address conflicts that were reported by farmers at both Thulamahashe and Huntington FPSUs, as the conflicts threaten their effectiveness and sustainability.
6.7. Provide an updated report on the implementation of the National Red Meat Development Programme by the ARC that is meant to assist communal livestock farmers with feedlots and market access. Submit an Action Plan on how the National Red Meat Development Programme will be used to assist and benefit communal livestock farmers in the Mpumalanga FMD Protection Zone who are unable to move their cattle outside the area due to FMD, as well as the Schulzendal Livestock Farmers – who have a challenge with market access.
6.8. Submit a comprehensive report that outlines the role of all strategic partners, mentors and implementing agents that have been used by the Department to implement and manage projects in Mpumalanga Province and nationally (e.g. Mezzanine). In each case, the report should include the terms of contract between the Department and each strategic partner – mentor or implementing agent – their specific responsibilities in each project, remuneration for services rendered, all funds that have been disbursed to them for each project, including the breakdown on the utilisation of such funds.
6.9. Submit to Parliament a detailed report with breakdown of the costs and work that has been done on the 100 km Red Line Fence that was visited by the delegation at Numbi Gate – including a plan to address the challenges associated with river crossings and broken fence to control the spread of FMD.
6.10. Submit to Parliament a detailed Plan on the Biosecurity needs of the country in respect of personnel, infrastructure, funding and other resources including details of what is currently available, shortfalls and how the Department plans to address the challenges associated with the shortfalls.
6.11. Provide a quarterly progress report on the repair work and replacement of irrigation systems for all the farmers that have been affected by the February floods in Nkomazi Local Municipality.
6.12. Submit an Action Plan detailing how the Departments will resolve the challenges that were identified (e.g. water and market access, land for expansion, storage facilities, conflicts, etc.) in all the projects visited by the Portfolio Committee in Mpumalanga Province. In addition, the Action Plan should comprehensively detail how the projects will be assisted, and it must include timeframes and an exit strategy for each project.
The Committee further recommends that the Minister should ensure that Mpumalanga DARDLEA –
6.13. Submits to Parliament on a quarterly basis progress, on repairing the livestock dam at Schulzendal and the collaborative activities with the Department of Public Works to fix access and infield roads that were damaged by floods at Nkomazi Local Municipality.
Unless otherwise indicated, submit to Parliament, within three months after the adoption of this report by the National Assembly, a response to the recommendations with required action plans and reports as outlined.
[For the detailed report, https://pmg.org.za/tabled-committee-report/5389/ ]
The Chairperson said that this was the report on oversight in Mpumalanga. The report was now before the Committee for consideration. He asked if the Committee had any questions or comments on the recommendations made in the report.
Ms Tshwete apologised if she had missed the point but it had been made clear that clarification was needed on the role of the strategic partners the Department was roping in on E-projects of the Farmer Production Support Unit (FPSU), especially the pack houses. Perhaps she missed this while the Chairperson was reading but was unsure if it had been reflected in the report.
She also said that she was unsure if there was an explanation in the report on the millions spent but no equipment was found on site, especially the one that the Committee did not engage the Department on. Ms Tshwete said there was one instance where only one fuel tank had been delivered two days before the Committee’s arrival. She asked if the Committee could get a full report on expenditures and the role of the strategic partners.
The Chairperson said that Ms Tshwete’s requests had been noted in the recommendations and had been affected. When submitting their contributions, he requested that the Committee highlight the exact recommendation in the report they were speaking about. This would allow for changes to be made. The Chairperson noted that the content advisors and secretaries were present, and would make the necessary changes to the report so that it could be adopted. He asked if the Committee had any more contributions to make.
Mr Kruger said that his comments pertained to the recommendations on the Presidential Employment Stimulus (PES). He said it was a surprise that some of the beneficiaries and the potential beneficiaries did not receive the money paid out. A lot of money was paid out but not received by beneficiaries. A report was needed that indicated what happened with the difference. Mr Kruger said that there was a detailed report as requested but perhaps because this happened in other committees where the government spent money but money did not land in the pockets of beneficiaries. He said a recommendation could be added that the officials that worked with the PES projects undergo a lifestyle audit to see if their salaries and lifestyles lined up.
The Chairperson asked the Committee to speak directly to the recommendations made so that their additions could be accommodated. He said recommendation 6.10 (which read that funding and other resources including details of what is currently available, shortfalls and how the Department plans to address the challenges associated with the shortfalls) spoke to what Mr Kruger submitted. He asked if the Committee had further contributions.
Mr Masipa said that he was not at the oversight meeting but he was reading recommendation 6.10 in the report. It stated that, to submit (to Parliament) a detailed plan on the Biosecurity needs of the country in respect of personnel, infrastructure, funding and other resources including details of what is currently available, shortfalls and how the Department plans to address the challenges associated with the shortfalls. He said that he thought Mr Kruger’s point wanted to indicate what was spent. Mr Masipa added that the line in 6.10 of the report did not address what had been achieved with what had been spent. He said what was seen was not worth the money allocated for the particular project. Mr Masipa said he was unsure if he had missed Mr Kruger’s point but he thought it was on what had been spent and the outcome of that expenditure in terms of the projects that had been visited.
The Chairperson said they were happy to include another recommendation that spoke to funding allocated to beneficiaries and the outcomes. The Chairperson would perhaps request that the content advisor add another recommendation that spoke to Mr Kruger’s request.
Mr Matiase said that his contribution was grounded on what Mr Kruger said. He was happy and welcomed the intervention of an additional recommendation. Mr Matiase said that, to strengthen this additional recommendation, he would recommend that beneficiaries who had shown interest in applying for financial assistance needed to be assisted again and allocated the same amount of funds or more. This would ensure their projects could be sustainable. He said that the assistance they had received was a drop in the ocean. Through oversight, he observed that they were being playful with the kind of support extended to people. The citizens saw government as a small playhouse – a playful government.
Mr Matiase recommended that more funding be made available to those that had been assisted. If possible, perhaps assistance be extended to more people. He said that his recommendation would be limited to those who had applied and received something before. The Committee could go to Parliament and recommend that more funding be made available.
The Chairperson said that he did not come across beneficiaries that said the funding was a drop in the ocean and that they did not appreciate the support from government and the Department. He said that the beneficiaries were grateful for the support, and pointed out that further support in terms of infrastructure was what was needed. He said there were examples of beneficiaries excelling, such as the lady the Committee visited who ran a poultry farm, who was doing well but said more infrastructure support was needed. There was also a three-generation family that comprised a daughter-in-law, granddaughter and grandmother that produced groundnuts and were grateful for the support. He said they did, however, ask for more support in terms of infrastructure so they could house and process the groundnuts.
The Chairperson said that the Committee’s inputs had been considered, and allocating more funding for beneficiaries would be looked into. He asked if the Committee had any more comments.
Mr Capa apologised as he might have missed this point and asked for the Chairperson’s indulgence. He said there was an issue concerning Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) where the Committee was concerned about the people who did not have diseased animals despite the outbreak. These people’s livestock suffered from not being marketable, despite not being diseased. He said that, if this had not been mentioned in the report, it must be added, because the Committee was concerned about this matter.
The Chairperson said to Mr Capa that they would ensure that their recommendation concerning FMD would be looked into. Farmers that had not had an FMD outbreak in 20 years were still limited within the red-line zone and could not sell their animals in the market. The Committee needed to consider this as another recommendation.
He said that was all when it came to the report and therefore asked for a motion of adoption about the Mpumalanga Oversight Report.
Mr Capa moved for the adoption of the report. Ms Tshwete seconded the motion of adoption.
The Mpumalanga report was adopted with further additions.
The Chairperson said that this included the Oversight Report matter, and that the Committee would move to the next item – the adoption of minutes from previous meetings.
Mr Masipa asked to speak and said he wanted to bring to attention something connected to the FMD issue in Mpumalanga.
The Chairperson said that Mr Masipa could share his issue after the minutes were dealt with. He proceeded with the agenda.
Consideration and Adoption of Minutes
The Chairperson went through the minutes from 05 May 2023. He asked for a motion of adoption of the minutes.
Ms Tshwete motioned to adopt the minutes, and Mr Masipa seconded the motion.
The minutes were duly adopted with no matters arising.
The Chairperson went through the minutes from 16 May 2023. He asked for a motion of adoption of the minutes.
Ms Mahlo motioned to adopt the minutes, and Ms Thlape seconded the motion.
The minutes were duly adopted with no matters arising.
The Chairperson went through the minutes from 19 May 2023. He asked for a motion of adoption of the minutes.
Ms Tshwete moved to adopt the minutes, and Ms Thlape seconded the motion.
The minutes were duly adopted with no matters arising.
The Chairperson went through the minutes from 23 May 2023. He asked for a motion for the adoption of the minutes.
Ms Thlape motioned to adopt the minutes, and Ms Mbamama seconded the motion.
The minutes were duly adopted with no matters arising.
The Chairperson went through the minutes from 12 May 2023. He asked for a motion of adoption of the minutes.
Ms Thlape motioned to adopt the minutes, and Mr Masipa seconded the motion.
The minutes were duly adopted with no amendments.
The Chairperson asked Mr Masipa to proceed with a matter he wanted to raise regarding FMD.
Mr Masipa said that there was an issue with FMD in the country and as such, the country could not export their animals as such. Regarding their trade agreements with neighbouring countries like Namibia and Botswana, they were able to move their livestock into the country with no problem. With the country not being able to export to other countries, they were putting pressure on the prices. He said that the figures he had showed that there had been a drop of about R12 per kilogram, with cows. Farmers who were winners were getting about R2 500, which was a very low price.
Mr Masipa said that the gentleman who brought this matter to his attention indicated that there had been a drop on his farm alone of R1 million with cows and R400 000 with lambs. This was a big number.
The Chairperson interjected and asked if Mr Masipa was bringing up this matter as an item from the Committee to discuss. If so, a letter could be written to the Chairperson, and then the matter could be processed. He did not want to delay the Committee where the meeting agenda had been concluded. He asked Mr Masipa what he wanted the Committee to do.
Mr Masipa said he thought there was still time, as an hour was left. He was concerned that the Chairperson was pushing him out of the way as the items concluded.
The Chairperson said that Mr Masipa needed to wait a little because the agenda of the meeting had been concluded. He said that he was allowing Mr Masipa to share if he wanted the Committee to take the matter as an item under their other programmes so that it could be considered.
Mr Masipa said that he was going to make this point but the Chairperson had interrupted him. He said this was the reason for his protest. This matter needed to be brought into their next meeting so that the Department could be engaged on the FMD status and how the issue of imports was being dealt with while livestock could not be exported.
The Chairperson said that he wanted to capture what exactly Mr Masipa wanted the Committee to do. He asked that Mr Masipa send a letter so that the matter could be motioned within the management committee and brought into the Committee’s programme.
The Chairperson thanked the Committee Members for their attendance and wished them well.
The meeting was adjourned.
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.