Farm Worker Eviction: Briefing by Women on Farms & Deputy Minister of Land Affairs

Meeting report

Women on Farms briefing
Ms Fatima Shabodien, Director of Women on Farms which operates in the Western Cape, briefed the Committee on the extent of the evictions crisis. She stated that farming, like mining, is located far from residential areas, thus making it a core economic input cost to the farmer to provide homes for farm workers. Pre-1994, farm worker housing was subsidized in the Apartheid era when farming was so highly protected. Post-1994, farmers are trying to externalise this cost and make it a responsibility of government, since it provides housing for poor urban people, the same should apply to farm workers. However given the housing crisis, this is not happening.

Analysing the Nkuzi survey data and economic trends for specific farming sectors such as wine farming, she said that it was clear that it was not an economic squeeze that was causing farmers to evict but a political backlash against the new laws that have been introduced to protect labour and tenure rights. Prior to 1994 there were no laws protecting farm dwellers, and this state of affairs should have changed with the arrival of democracy. However casualisation of labour was now the trend. Western Cape had the largest number of farm dwellers, and the issue of evictions should be of high priority to the Committee.

Ms Shabodien said that she was disturbed that none of the government departments were willing to take responsibility for illegal farm evictions. Each department stated that the problem should be dealt with by another department. This matter was worsened by the fact that most farm workers did not know and understand their rights. She suggested a solution that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) be drawn into the discussions on evictions, as evictions were almost always linked to dismissals of farm labourers by the farmers.

Department of Land Affairs briefing
Mr Mduduzi Shabane (Deputy Director General, Department of Land Affairs) examined some of the challenges and weaknesses the Department had faced. He asserted that although the government had produced two pieces of legislation, the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) the the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act (LTA), there were problems with the monitoring system, which had been weak. The government only heard about evictions when they had already occurred. By the time the DLA found out about an eviction, it was already too late to do anything about it.

He noted that issues of drought and other problems that could not be controlled, had led to the eviction of farm dwellers. Other challenges facing the Department was that there were very few attorneys willing to represent farm workers, and that non-governmental organisations lacked the funding that would allow them to assist farm workers adequately. Farm workers were also viewed as lacking in organisational skills due to their levels of literacy. As a result it was difficult to get them together to fight against illegal evictions.

Mr Shabane looked at some of the plans the Department of Land and Affairs had in order to improve the situation. One of these included a partnership between various structures and networks and the DLA in order to help farm dwellers. Mr Shabane said that in order to improve efficiency, the DLA was conducting three studies, which included looking at:
- How many farm dwellers were there? Where were they located? What conditions were they living in?
- How many legislative interventions meet the promise of tenure security?
- The examination of enforcement and compliance of the environment.
The last two studies had yet to be concluded.

He explained that the Department planned to go on a land acquisition drive, in order to provide long-term tenure security. This would be done by the Department purchasing 5 million hectares of land. It would also encourage tenure security by means of a Land Rights Awareness Campaign. There would be call centre, where the public would call in with any complaints concerning evictions, and this would be charged to the state. Lastly, there would be an agreement between the DLA and the Department of Justice, as well as the National Youth Service, to train graduates as attorneys.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that he was unhappy that thirteen years down the line, nothing had been down to improve the quality of life for farm dwellers.

Mr M Mzizi (IFP) said he realised the DLA was back to looking at the fundamentals. In other words, the Department had gone back to the beginning instead of moving forward. The issue of farm dwellers and evictions had begun prior to 1994, and therefore should had been solved in the past, not now. He stated that there seemed to be no progress with the Department.

In response to the Chair’s question on the statistics in the presentation, Mr Shabane pointed out that of the two million people evicted from farms between 1984 and 2004, only one per cent were legal evictions.

Mr Mzizi (IFP) mentioned that most cases undertaken by the Legal Aid Board were unfair, as many farm dwellers were advised to plead guilty in their cases against farmers, so that the procedure could go through rapidly. He said that progress on the new intervention spoke volumes about the Department’s progress, and he was even more upset by the fact that two of the three studies had yet to be concluded. The Department’s lack of progress showed that they were not serious about helping people, and the excuse always of plans being the pipeline, was not good enough.

Mr Shabane replied that he was aware that there was a collusion between magistrates, lawyers and farmers against farm dwellers, but the problem was that these were just allegations, and nothing could be done. These problems had to be dealt with within their respective provinces

Mr F Adams (ANC) added that he had invited the DLA to accompany the Committee on their visits, but was disappointed that none of the officials had attended. This was not the first time that this had occurred. In January of this year a meeting had taken place, which included nine MECs, about the plans the Department intend to implement. He asked if the plans that had been presented to the Committee today were the ones that were discussed at the meeting earlier this year. He believed that revisions to ESTA and LTA had been in the pipeline for too long. This brought up the question of whether these plans had been put on hold again - as they were not on the 2007 legislative programme. If the department had seen it is a legislative urgency, then it would have been put on the programme. He wanted the Department to give reasons why it was  taking so long to get revised.

Mr Adams said that the Committee had to carry out its constitutional mandate to conduct oversight.  They were not here to rubber stamp. They were not paper tigers. At the end of the day the Committee also had to vote on the budget of the DLA.  He said that he wished the national DLA could go and see how people are living in Rawsonville – next to the dump and sewerage outlet – children are getting sick, people have died there already. He also wanted more information on inter departmental relations, and whether the DLA would be correlating its work with the Department of Housing.

Mr Shabane stated that where inter-governmental relations were concerned, a task team would be set up in order to monitor the relationship between the different departments.

Mr Elton Greeve (Parliamentary Officer) asked Mr Adams to whom the invitations had been sent, and when. He said the only invitation that the Department had received was from the Free State.

Mr L Van Rooyen (ANC) stated that he was disappointed that the Committee had not been told anything new. A meeting had taken place in February this year, and what was being presented today was a repetition of the earlier meeting. The support given to farm dwellers by the Department was not sufficient, and therefore the Department needed to make amends. He asked what the Department was doing to assist farm dwellers right now, as people were destitute and living in shacks. 75% of people evicted from Worcester farm areas did not even know where to go.  To tell the Committee what was being planned, did not assist those today in the crisis. The request had been for a moratorium on farm evictions.  The department officials must get out of their offices and go out to the people. He added that people who evicted farm dwellers illegally should be criminalised, and not just fined.

Mr Dirk Du Toit (Deputy Minister, DLA) responded that there had been considerable urgency and movement on the table. He stated that there was land available on a massive scale, but it was necessary to find a way of sustainability. The use of Act 126 of 1993, the Provision of Land and Assistance Act, proved to be sufficient in the past when dealing with these matters, therefore it was necessary to use this Act again. Mr Du Toit said he would get back to the Committee on some of the tangible improvements the Department had made.

The Chairperson said that the matter was serious, and he would therefore like data on the Department’s achievements. He told the Deputy Minister that they were dealing with people on the ground, who were politically aware. If the people at grassroots level were unhappy, then the government could not expect them to vote for them in the next elections, as their needs had not been met. He wanted to know why Act 126 had not been used, and why a moratorium had not been implemented. He asked for the Provincial Land Reform Offices (PLROs) from the Department to be present at the next meeting.

Mr Van Rooyen said that the DLA presentation on its response to evictions was unacceptable.

Mr Shabane apologised on behalf of the Department. It was not going to be useful to respond to all the points as the Committee had told them to go back and prepare a new report. He would rather look at the Members in their eyes and tell them the truth rather than lie.  His view was that the tenure reform programme in government had not been prioritized.  All the time the focus had been on achieving the 30% target of redistribution. He was not justifying the situation as what the Members were saying was quite correct. It was regrettable that some of the new things they had presented today was seen as old information. Six months previously they did not have this land acquisition facility.  They did not have the farm dwellers as a priority. Unless the plans they had put on the table would be funded, they would still be there next year talking about what had not been done. After the land summit they had sought legal opinion and were told that to enforce a moratorium would be unconstitutional.  They needed to change the Constitution to bring about a moratorium. They were seeking further legal advice. By the end of this month, legal advice would have been given to the DLA and they will get back to the NCOP on this.
 
Ms H Matlanyane (ANC) stated that lack of capacity was always being used as an excuse. When were these people going to get the legal defence they needed? She asked the Department to get people who were able to deal with evictions from the word ‘go’, as farm dwellers were seen as second-class citizens. When the MPs went to their constituencies, people say that they go to Cape Town to do nothing. It was very painful for her. She did not like the idea of a coalition between the Department of Housing, the DLA and the National Youth Service, because all were inexperienced when it came to the issue of evictions

Mr Shabane said that the branch dealing with evictions had progressed, but the Committee needed to understand that plans had to approved before they were funded. He added that graduates were being trained by large firms so that farm dwellers could be represented adequately, so they too will be qualified in dealing with the issue of evictions. He admitted that the DLA response so far had been inadequate, but plans needed to be approved before they were implemented.

The Chairperson asked if there was a single agri-village in South Africa for farm dwellers that had been evicted.

Mr Shabane replied there were perhaps one or two in the country. However none of them would be government initiatives, because the Department of Housing had not yet finalised the rural housing policy. He said that in their discussions, there was a major role player that was missing, and that was organised agriculture.

Mr Van Rooyen pointed out that it was either the Department of Agriculture or the DLA that had made a budget speech, where they had said they would fund agri-villages. He had asked for help for the farm dwellers in Mangaung, but there was never a reply.

Mr Adams said that he was surprised that there seemed to be no synergy between the different departments. He asked if the provinces kept the Department up to date.

The Chairperson suggested that there be solutions for the next meeting. The question about whether a moratorium was not constitutional was baffling. He said that it was against human rights to have people evicted.

Mr Vela Mgwengwe (Acting Chief Director, DLA) said that the laws were not the problem, the problem was enforcing the laws, that was the detail that needed to be examined

The Chairperson asked why the laws that could prevent illegal evictions, were not being enforced

Mr Adams stated that enforcement boiled down to communication. There needed to be a relationship between the Department of Justice and the DLA. He asked why it was possible for local government to place a moratorium on people being evicted from their houses, and yet the DLA was not allowed to do so.

Mr Mzizi said that he did not believe it was proper to invite other departments into the committee meeting, such as the Department of Justice. He suggested rather having a workshop as this would widen the scope.

Mr Adams replied that there were certain departments that needed to give answers, and such a meeting would highlight whether the right procedures had been followed in trying to solve the problem. This could only be done if there were linked departments present for accountability purposes.

The Committee decided to call a two-day meeting between all the relevant departments to present their plans and identify the obstacles to protecting tenure rights of farm dwellers.  The DLA has to get back to the committee with in a month to communicate the revised legal advice on a moratorium on evictions

The Chairperson thanked the members for interrogating the subject, as well as the delegation.

The meeting was adjourned.