TAU Submission to Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform, March 16 2011

The Chairperson
Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform
Parliament
Cape Town
8000

SUBMISSION: PUBLIC HEARINGS: LAND AND TENURE RIGHTS FOR FARM DWELLERS AND WORKERS: EVIDENCE FROM THE GROUND

This presentation should be seen as supplementary to TAU SA's commentary on the Security of Tenure Bill which was sent to Adv VZ Mngwengwe at the Department of Rural Development en Land Transformation on 18 February 2011.

Introduction

1. Article 9(1) of the Constitution, (Act 108 of 1996) as amended determines that all are equal in the eye of the law. The new Security of Tenure Bill, currently on the table, makes it clear, however, that this principle does not apply to farmers, as they are the only group of people of whom it is expected to grant permanent residence on their property. Nobody else, in the public or private sector, has to comply with this rule.

2. Article 9(3) of the Constitution determines explicitly that there may be no unfair discrimination on grounds of ethnic or social descent. However, this Bill discriminates against the agricultural community as identifiable social group. This discrimination is unfair and not acceptable to the agricultural community.

3. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees property rights. The proposed Bill on Security of Tenure undermines property rights and goes even further than the expropriation process, which at least make provision for a set procedure and compensation. Restitution targets have already been reached in 2001. Independent demographic experts have determined in a survey for the Development Bank at that time that 56% of all land belonged to the State and black people and only 44% was in the hands of white people.

TAU SA would like to place it on record that even if we comment on proposed changes to the law, we also disagree with the law itself in so far as it is unconstitutional.

Viewpoints

TAU SA is of the opinion that:

1. The registered owner of land has the sole right to that land. Nobody else has that right.

2. It is not compulsory for an employer, including a farmer, to provide housing to workers. Housing is a privilege or a fringe benefit.

3. Housing, as well as the provision of water, electricity and transport, is an added benefit which could be included discretionary in a labour contract between the farmer-employer and the employee. If the labour contract should come to and end, these benefits are cancelled automatically as in the case of other employers such as the South African Defence Force. A member of the SADF cannot stay on in his SADF-house when he leaves the service. In others words, if the State, is not prepared to provide indefinite benefits to ex-employees, why should the farmer? It cannot be expected from the landowner farmer to do the State's job in providing housing.

4. In any economic sector, it is the responsibility of the employee to provide his own housing, to accept responsibility for the payment of services and levies, to provide for his family and to pay for his own transport. Any deviation is regarded as a concession and determined by contract. The same principle should apply in agriculture and on the farm.

5. As any other employer, the agricultural employer has an obligation towards the people he employs. This obligation is restricted to a service contract and to basic principles of human decency, provision a safe work environment and remuneration for services rendered. These obligations are described in relevant labour laws. The agricultural employer acknowledges his responsibility towards employees in this regard, but denies categorically any such responsibilities towards people merely living on the farm.

6. Only the farm worker is responsible for all matters regarding others staying with him on the farm, albeit family or other relations. The employer has no contractual or other obligation towards those staying there.

7. The unfair and unreasonable enforcement of a system in which an agricultural employer should continually surrender his own land, is economically unviable and risky, for the following reasons:

a. It is not possible for a farmer to build a new house for a new worker every time an old worker retires. The economic reality of building costs just does not allow it.

b. It would result in workers not being replaced, thus adding to unemployment.

c. Enlarging the living area of workers and extending the "right" of people staying on the farm to keep their own stock and plant their own crops, would cut into the productive area of the farm - it is a form of constructive expropriation. Many agricultural employers are already economically in dire straits because their farms are too small to produce food economically. Further reducing their land would be the last straw.

d. It could lead to further unemployment, because if a farm is not an economically viable unit, no one could make it work.

e. Food security is already at risk and if the number of commercial agricultural employers is further reduced, the crisis would deepen in view of the uncontrolled entry of people into the country, all demanding food, water and other resources.

In conclusion

1. TAU SA candidly wants to know what the real purpose of this Bill is. It makes no economic sense and is totally out of step with international norms. The Government must say for once and for all whether they want a commercial farming industry in South Africa and whether they want this country to be the only country in Africa that is self-sufficient in terms of food production. All legislation should be judged against this background.

2. It should be noted that agricultural employers are not prepared to give up their land in this way. They would rather mechanise and appoint "workers" with no unreasonable demands, needing only fuel and mechanical care.

3. In its recent election manifest, as in previous ones, the ANC promises jobs and houses. Now it seems that he expects farmers to fulfil his promises. If the ANC promises jobs and houses, then the ANC must provide those jobs and houses without dumping the responsibility onto the already overburdened shoulders of agricultural employers.

4. Government must realise that agriculture as an economic activity, is the backbone of any country's economy. They should stop interfering with agriculture ideologically to try and meet the unreasonable demands of their supporters on the one hand and to hide their own insufficiency on the other hand. Get in step with world tendencies or run the risk of ending in a food revolution such as in Egypt and Mozambique, where high food prices triggered revolt.

5. The people want to know where the government is heading. There is much talk about creating jobs, but legislation and certain comments by ANC-leaders are contra-productive and destroy confidence.

6. Overseas investors are asking whether any entrepreneur would be prepared to employ people in South Africa where labour laws and legislation such as this Bill are in force.

7. Food and being able to eat properly is going to be the single biggest political issue in the next decade. None other than economist, Paul Krugman, noted this in an editorial in the New York Times. His tone was one of alarm and grave concern.

8. Food security is an issue of political economy. And, the more one multiplies the unpredictable variables that determine food costs, the more volatile the food economy behaves. That's not good news for the poor.

9. Food security will eventually be at risk.

10. It should be accepted that history is a given. It cannot be changed. The present and the future are what really matters and therefore we should concern ourselves with the future, taking into consideration the hard economic facts which will determine our existence.

Your consideration is appreciated.

Yours truly

BJ VAN ZYL

GENERAL MANAGER TAU SA

Issued by TAU SA, March 16 2011

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter