THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2018

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

ESTABLISHMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE TO AMEND SECTION 25 OF CONSTITUTION

(Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Deputy Speaker, I move the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

     That the House—

(1)  notes that the report of the Constitutional Review Committee on Review of section 25 of the Constitution, 1996 was adopted by the Assembly and the Council on 4 and 5 December 2018 respectively, recommending that Parliament—

(a)  amends section 25 of the Constitution to make explicit that which is implicit in the Constitution, with regard to expropriation of land without compensation, as a legitimate option for land reform, so as to address the historic wrongs caused by the arbitrary dispossession of land, and in so doing ensure equitable access to land and further empower the majority of South Africans to be productive participants in ownership, food security and agricultural reform programmes;

(b)  urgently establishes a mechanism to effect the necessary amendment to the relevant part of section 25 of the Constitution; and

(c)  tables, processes and passes a Constitutional Amendment Bill before the end of the fifth democratic Parliament in order to allow for expropriation without compensation;

(2)  establishes an ad hoc committee in terms of Rule 253, the committee to—

(a)  initiate and introduce legislation amending section 25 of the Constitution;

(b)  have regard to the recommendations as contained in the Constitutional Review Committee report;

(c)  consist of 11 voting members of the Assembly, as follows: African National Congress 6, Democratic Alliance 2, Economic Freedom Fighters 1 and other parties 2;

(d)  consist of 14 nonvoting members of the Assembly, as follows: African National Congress 2, Democratic Alliance 1, Economic Freedom Fighters 1 and other parties 10;

(e)  exercise those powers as set out in Rule 167 that may assist it in carrying out its task; and

(3)  set the deadline by which the committee is to report to 31 March 2019.

Question put: That the motion moved by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party be agreed to.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY

Declarations of vote:

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, section 74 of our Constitution sets out very clearly the process which should be followed to amend the Constitution of South Africa. It speaks very clearly about that process to be followed, particularly when the Bill of Rights is to be amended.

Section 74 rightly makes it mandatory for a significant and far more onerous degree of the public participation in the process than any other piece of legislation. That is because our Constitution recognises that the true owners of the Constitution are the people of the Republic of South Africa. Members of this House are merely its custodians. Section 74 clearly implies that the public participation process calls for public comments, for a full submission and examination of all public comments received, and that these public comments must be given full and proper consideration by this House before it reaches a decision.

Section 1(c) of this motion before us today seeks to bind this House to passing a Constitutional Amendment Bill to allow for expropriation without compensation. That is without having a single sight of this Bill, without engaging or examining at all the content of this Bill, and not understanding at all the impact of this Bill. What it also says very clearly to the people of South Africa, who the Constitution ensures that we consult when the section 74 process proceeds, is that regardless of the number of submissions, regardless of the merits of the submissions that ordinary South Africans may make, without even considering the merits of the application of these comments, this Bill is a fait accompli.

This makes a complete and utter mockery of the public consultation process because what this motion seeks to do is bind us to passing it. We have no idea of the nature and number and volume and merits of the arguments that the people of South Africa will put before the section 74 process.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Deputy Speaker, on a point order: I was wondering in relation to relevance ... there is no Bill here. You can’t anticipate us. There is no Bill here. [Interjections.] You cannot say something has no merits before it is tabled. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alright! Alright!

Dr M Q NDLOZI: This guy is irrelevant!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, take your seat! Continue, hon member.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: And that is what a university degree buys you in South Africa. Clearly, the hon Ndlozi is not listening. It is precisely because there is no Bill before us that binding this House to passing the Bill allowing for it is an incorrect motion.

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: If the hon Steenhuisen stops learning the Rules, he can start studying for his degree as well.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no! That is not a point of order!

Ms E N NTLANGWINI: This is a doctor – a full doctor.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, hon member. Proceed, hon Steenhuisen.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Maybe if I also bunked Parliament for three years and used taxpayers’ money to pay for my education instead of being here, on the job, doing the people’s business, I would also be a doctor today! [Applause.]

That is precisely the problem with the motion. It is that the Bill is not before us. How do you agree to pass something that you’ve not even seen? This is madness. The message it sends to the people of the Republic of South Africa is that we don’t care what you say. No matter the arguments that you make, no matter how many times you come to Parliament and put your views here, they are irrelevant. You don’t matter because the politicians here value their opinions over the opinions of South Africa. That is not public participation. That is not a participatory parliamentary democracy. It is a farce! [Applause.] [Interjections.]

Mr S P MHLONGO: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member must never be allowed to discourage members of this House from developing or sharpening their skills which will help them execute the public mandate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, that is not a point of order. Hon member, you are debating. [Interjections.] Take your seat, hon member. That is not a point of order.

Mr S P MHLONGO: It is completely out of order!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are completely out of order. Take your seat, please. Let’s take this debate seriously.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Deputy Speaker, can I continue?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I assume your membership allows you to speak.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Deputy Speaker, we must not appear confused here. We are not debating a Bill. We are debating a draft resolution by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party. On that point, we must be clear here. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, let us continue with the relevant debate because we are very relevant all the time. [Interjections.]

When we tabled this motion for the review of section 25 of the Constitution in February this year, we were under no illusion that this was going to be an easy exercise. [Interjections.] Can you just please shut your mouth? [Interjections.]

We knew there would a massive fight-back campaign by the beneficiaries of racism.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Deputy Speaker, in terms of Rule 84, is it parliamentary to tell another Member of Parliament to shut their mouth? [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Who did she tell? Which Member of Parliament, and what is your name? What is your name?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Ndlozi, who gave you permission to speak? No, no, take your seat, please. Take your seat, please. [Interjections.] Before the member finishes, we will respond to your point of order.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: We knew then there would be a massive fight-back campaign by the beneficiaries of racism and land dispossession and that they would seek to demonise this process to undermine it and raise various scare calls to discourage us from amending the Constitution to take back our land from the land thieves. [Interjections.]

Over the past 24 years, the country has struggled to deal decisively with the history of unequal land distribution because of the land thieves who came to South Africa and stole our land! [Interjections.] This is illustrated by the slow pace of land redistribution because of the so-called failure to stop the complete negation of the rights of farm workers and farm dwellers, leading to their continued evictions in large numbers, from farms. We know who continues to evict our people from farms. It is you! [Interjections.]

Over and above matters of the institutional makeup and general failure of the ANC-led government, we argue that at the root of the problem is the constitutional framework itself. We have come this far now, and there must be no turning back. There will be no turning back, let me assure you.

As the report of the Constitutional Review Committee clearly recommended, the Constitutional Amendment Bill must be finalised before the end of this term in Parliament. Don’t faint! When we fast-track this process to have said amendments completed and ready by the end of March, if we are serious about this very important task, the ad hoc committee that is proposed by the draft resolution must be established, and timelines must be set and agreed upon before the end of the year. Members of this committee must come back to start their work by the second week of January 2019 because we want our land back, and we are not scared of it. [Interjections.]

The EFF has the proposal for the constitutional amendment ready to help ease the work of this committee. We are going to teach you how to move forward if you want to be a part of South Africa. Otherwise, if you want to go to Canada, you must just pack your bag and go. We don’t care! [Applause.] [Interjections.]

Firstly, all land in private hands must henceforth be expropriated without compensation and placed in the hands of the people as a collective, not the small white minority – in the hands of the people of South Africa! Your time is up, white people. The democratic state is the custodian of all land held on behalf of the people. An independent state agency ... [Interjections.] Just listen because I am teaching you as well! [Interjections.] Some of you don’t have degrees, so you must learn because we want to take you along. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

An independent state agency shall develop policies, rules, and regulations for the purposes set out in this section, subject to a law of general application. An independent land ombudsman shall be established through an Act of Parliament to oversee and protect citizens’ land rights to ensure equitable distribution of land. We are still also ... [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi, please, I want you to finish what I am going to ask you to finish, not your speech anymore. You said earlier on that an hon member must shut her mouth.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Which member, Deputy Speaker?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, wait. Listen to me. Don’t throw questions into my mouth as I speak. [Interjections.] When you say that, it is unparliamentary. It is improper to do that.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Alright. It is fine, Deputy Speaker. I withdraw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Your time has expired.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Is it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Look at the clock.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: We support this draft resolution.

Afrikaans:

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Maar jy’s nou verspot, man! [Now you are being ridiculous!]

English:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no! There are 28 seconds she has taken that she doesn’t need any more. I gave her this period to make a ruling so that she can withdraw. That is what it is.

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Did she finish her 28 seconds, Deputy Speaker?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She finished it. It is there – 28 seconds.

Ms H O MKHALIPHI: It is fine, Deputy Speaker. We support this draft resolution, and white supremacy will fall. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

Declaration of votes contd:

IsiZulu:

Mnu M HLENGWA: Akekho owayeyazi ukuthi i-ANC iyogijinyizwa izingane zithi ...

English:

... jump and you say how high. [Interjections.] Hon Deputy Speaker, at the outset and ... [Interjections.] ... the IFP wishes to place on record this objection to the haste in which this motion has been tabled by the ruling party.

IsiZulu:

Mnu H P CHAUKE: Bengithi nje umuntu wethu omdala omi laphaya uthi kunezingane lapha eNdlini. Akunazingane lapha eNdlini. Ngicela ukuthi ahoxhise akunazingane eNdlini. Uma ekhuluma nge-EFF akasho kahle nje ukuthi i-EFF, angathi izingane. I-EFF isempini manje nalaba okumele yehlukane nabo kuphele umbimbe abanalo, iqede. Ngakho ke akuzona izingane abantu abadala labaya.

USEKELA SOMLOMO: Uzishilo lezinto lungu elihloniphekile.

Mr M HLENGWA: No, Deputy Speaker, I had made no mention of any person or any party, but if the shoe fits it’s not Hlengwa’s problem. It’s Chauke who is saying is the EFF not me. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, hon member.

Mr M HLENGWA: Hon Chauke is out of order.

IsiZulu:

USEKELA SOMLOMO: Ungambizi ngegama.

Mnu M HLENGWA: Ngicela ahoxhise, Sihlalo ngoba uthi i-EFF izingane.

USEKELA SOMLOMO: Akuhoxhise wena ukumbiza ngegama kuqala. Sikwazi ukuyiqeda le ndaba.

Mnu M HLENGWA: Lungu elihloniphekile Chauke, kodwa angikushongo ukuthi kukhona izingane lapha eNdlini.

USEKELA SOMLOMO: Uyakuhoxhisa yini lokhu engikushoyo, umbize ngegama.

Mnu M HLENGWA: Yebo, lokho ngiyakuhoxhisa kodwa angikushongo ukuthi kunezingane.

USEKELA SOMLOMO: Lalela ke baba uma uthi wena awuyishongo lento ayishilo, kulungile qhubeka. Ngicela siqhubekeni. Ngicela ...

Mnu M HLENGWA: Impela angazi ukuthi ushiswa yini.

English:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, can you have order. Let’s allow members to make their opinion and you members who come to the podium don’t abuse the podium to throw insults and want to plead innocence, please. It is not a very clever idea. Go ahead, hon member.

Mr M HLENGWA: Chair, on the point of order, if that comment is directed to me, on the podium, I would request you to look at the Hansard, and then request you to actually withdraw. You can’t cast aspersion. In the absence of a ruling, you can’t make that aspersion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I have made a ruling on this matter. Proceed, please. [Interjections.]

Mr M HLENGWA: Well, in any case, if the shoe fits, at the outset and in the limit, the IFP wishes to place on record its objection to this haste in which this motion has been tabled by the ruling party. The motion itself is flawed with procedural irregularity. It is ill founded and should not be before this House today. [Interjections.] The severity of the subject matter under discussion and the consequences for nation-building in this country upon the decision taken is vague cannot be understated, as this matter will quintessentially define South Africa. [Interjections.] The success and failure of a democratic state for all South Africans now and in the future is at stake.

The IFP once completely agrees with the urgent need for land reform and redistribution views, expropriation with zero compensation as a very last option within a bucket of available options to address land reform in this country. We cannot allow for the abuse of parliamentary process. Such extreme circumstance should only be contemplated once all other options have been exhausted and should be determined in a sui generis basis by our courts having thoroughly considered what is just an equitable in each particular case.

The IFP remains of the considered and right opinion that section 25 as it is currently framed, is probably broad enough to allow expropriation with no compensation in appropriate circumstances. It is certainly broad enough to allow for expropriation for nominal compensation in appropriate circumstances.

IsiZulu:

Kodwa izingane zithi gxuma, nithi kangakanani. [Ubuwelewele.]

English:

Therefore allow me ...

IsiZulu:

...ukuthi ngicace njengomuva webhokhwe. [Uhleko.]

English:

Allow me to be explicit, then. [Interjections.] That it is the IFP’s view that the Constitution as it is currently framed, is sufficiently powerful to allow for meaningful land reform in South Africa without the need for an amendment. [Applause.] The question of zero compensation can be paid, which is arguable, but not finally defined is a red herring. Given that it is clear that nominal compensation can be paid in appropriate circumstances. The question which should be asked is: How to achieve real and effective land reform under the existing constitutional scheme? Not these rules which you are ramming down our throats and this populist agenda to actually capture the South African people. You should be ashamed of yourself as a liberation movement.

IsiZulu:

Nidlala ngemizwa yabantu.

English:

Therefore the IFP does not support report, nor do we support the need for this committee and let us allow section 25 as it is currently ... [Time expired.]

Mr S C MNNCWABE: Hon Deputy Speaker, hon members, I thought of writing something down for this declaration, but I asked myself why? Since the afternoon and evening, one has been receiving messages, calls, and social network messages from different people in different provinces saying one thing: What an early Christmas gift from Parliament to us! [Applause.] Therefore, the NFP says, let us continue giving out these Christmas gifts to our people in the form of land. [Applause.] I even received a message from my own mother who said:

IsiZulu: 14:21:40

Mnu S C MNNCWABE: Mtanami kwavele kwaba sengathi nikhuphule impesheni.

English:

As the NFP, we are briefly saying, let us not go back.

IsiZulu: 14:21:59

Mnu S C MNNCWABE: Ayihlome ihlasele. Amagwala mawabuye konina. Mawubuye, mabawuyeke umhlaba wethu.

English:

The NFP supports the draft resolution. [Applause.]

Mr M L W FILTANE: The UDM supports the motion but further suggests that all parties represented in Parliament must have both memberships in the committee as well as full voting rights weighed on average. Skewed land ownership patterns since 1652 have to be corrected now.

This is a conversation about South Africa; it is not about the markets. Yes, it matters what the markets think, but achieving sustainable national unity and stability is more important than banking on short-term market reactions.

The first defect of section 25 of the Constitution is that sub-section 7 misses the nature, spirit and reality of land dispossession. The Bill must address the land dispossession pre-1913. The second defect of section 25 is that it was allowed to take place immediately after the promulgation of the Constitution. This did not give a good background to the setting of the Constitution.

There is a need for a property expropriation Bill, not simply land expropriation, but properties as well. People who were victims of forced removals lost much more than just land. Some had homes taken away or demolished. The Bill must also seek to address the absence of a comprehensive land management policy.

South Africans are well accustomed to the notion and practice of private ownership of land. What need to be addressed by the Constitution are the skewed ownership patterns, so as to make it practically possible for the dispossessed and those who cannot afford to buy, to have access to land.

The original sin was dispossession. Also, large parts of our country are under custodianship of traditional leaders and there should be no intention to disturb that situation. Ownership rights of rural communities have been recognised and entrenched by the two latest judgments of our high courts. I will mention briefly Judge ... [Inaudible.] ... judgment, Justice Basson as well as Justice [Inaudible.].

Our state already owns a good amount of land and other properties. If the state were to quickly dish out all land at its disposal, it might find itself having to acquire, even through purchasing, when future needs arise.

Private ownership gives people a sense of owning their country, a sense of belonging to their country and freedom to develop properties thereon, a sense of stability, and a basic foundation for economic development.

Banks should be prohibited to take land as collateral. This will remove the threat of losing land to directors of the bank who are just a few people. [Applause.] It is a very big risk. It has to stop. Otherwise, ... Think about the Free State farmer, who was facing a bill of over R140 million. How did that come about? One man. And when he could not handle it, he had to shoot himself and he died. Banks should not do it again. You are trading recklessly. Thank you.

Mr S N SWART: Deputy Speaker, the ACDP understands the need for justice and restitution, but we also believe very strongly ion reconciliation and nation-building. We support the concept of restitution with compensation.

I remind the House what I have said previously that we have a ministry of reconciliation, as believers in this nation. We are commanded to love one another and to be peacemakers, but we cannot, in good conscience, support a motion that is ill-conceived and is equally, fatally flawed, pre-empting an outcome. So the ACDP will not support this motion today.

Let us just be mindful of what the Motlanthe High-Level Panel that conducted public hearings for two years throughout the nation found. People that appeared before them spoke scathingly about the role of state officials and politicians in the land reform process, describing them as vultures who steal the little that people have left after decades of oppression and forced removals. They name people on camera and gave detailed descriptions of the problems they face with this very department and government, including violent attacks suffered by land activists in mineral-rich areas.

We heard similar evidence during our public hearings, yet this is totally disregarded. In fact, what is proposed today with this motion is that more power is sought to be given to the same state officials and the same corrupt officials. How can anyone with good conscience support that?

This very Parliament was found by the Constitution Court, to have breached our constitutional duties for not exercising good oversight. Here we intend doing it again. How can we amend the Bill of Rights, which is the cornerstone of our Constitution, without a due and proper process, and when the Human Rights Commission, which is the guardian of our Constitution, says that it does not support such a constitutional amendment?

The ANC and the EFF have repeatedly claimed that expropriation without compensation will return the land to the people. However, this is fundamentally misleading. Land expropriated with compensation will be owned by the state. That is what the EFF advocates. They advocate taking church land as well, not by individual South Africans, not by individual black South Africans, nor will it be transferred to them thereafter.

The ANC’s policy is to keep land in state ownership. Land acquired via this process will be held in the state as a patronage tool and used to deepen dependency on the ruling party. This is the fraud at the heart of expropriation without compensation. We will not support this. I thank you. [Applause.]

Adv A D ALBERTS: Deputy Speaker, I see dark clouds gathering and I see, in future, social cohesion unraveling. It is clear that the spokespersons of the ANC, the EFF, have given us the indication that this is directed against the white people only.

Let me warn you that racism is an international crime. [Interjections.] What you are doing is nothing but a form of racism. You will pay the price for that in many, many different ways, expected and unexpected. [Interjections.]

This process is a flawed process and it is built on another flawed process. You will also find out about that in future. This process ...

Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson, on a point of order: Is that ... He must sit down. Sit down! [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no. Hon member, you must speak to me.

Adv A D ALBERTS: Don’t you tell me what ... [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members! Hon Alberts, take your seat. Hon Chauke, don’t do that again. You must address the Chair. [Interjections.]

Mr H P CHAUKE: Is it parliamentary for a member to point to democracy and call them racist? Is it parliamentary?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon member. Please, take your seat. It is not a point of order. Hon member, take your seat.

Mr H P CHAUKE: He must withdraw.

Adv A D ALBERTS: Regarding the time, I think the ANC is misleading its own people when it says that it will finish this Bill before the elections. The only way you can do that is when you cheat the process and we will be watching you.

A very important thing is that the investors are watching what you are doing. We have seen yesterday, with the Copyright Bill and the Performers’ Protection Bill that there are already people ready to withdraw their investments from South Africa and they will start doing it as of today because of this motion.

Trump will be watching you and let me tell you this, he will kick us out of African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, like nothing. It is time that he maybe tweets to you again because you listen to him more than you do to the EFF. You know what is going to happen if he acts against you. [Interjections.]

The whole developed world is against you and stands behind us because we have the only economic policies that work for everyone and it will uplift everyone. [Interjections.] So, if the ANC pushes this through, it will not win at the end. You think you will win but you will lose and you will not get the votes that you think you will get.

Lastly, when the EFF says, white people, your time is up, you need to clarify with them what they mean. Are they going to come kill us and take our land off us? Because if the blood flows. It will be on your hands and you will have to pay for it. [Interjections.]

So, you better wake up in terms of what you are doing and you must ensure that there is stability in this country because next year, you will lose this election and the opposition will take over. [Interjections.] It is time for you to act responsibly.

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: We know that the debate is quite hot, but the hon member on the podium must restrain himself and not make threats to the nation. You cannot instigate violence on a podium like that. It is wrong.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead, hon member. [Interjections.]

Adv A D ALBERTS: I am not making threats. We want peace. We want everybody to live together happily, but you are allowing a situation that will get out of control and then you will have blood on your hands. I thank you. [Interjections.]

Dr M Q NDLOZI: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I was saying that his time was up. [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is not your job. This is not a do-it-yourself task that gets assigned to you, Hon Ndlozi.

Mr M WATERS: Deputy Speaker, just before hon Carter begins, is it parliamentary for members to boo another member on the podium?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not.

Mr M WATERS: Should you not be protecting the member?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not. I have been saying that ... Hon members, do you think that I am not protecting members?

Mr M WATERS: That is exactly what you are not doing. You are not protecting the member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am. I am.

Mr M WATERS: Then should you not have brought those members to order like a normal presiding officer that is impartial would do? They were booing then.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member. [Interjections.]

Mr M WATERS: So, why did you not stop them from booing? You just sat there and listened to them

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest that hon Carter goes ahead.

Ms D CARTER: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker, Cope ... [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, allow a member on the podium to speak.

Ms D CARTER: Deputy Speaker, Cope rejects the motion with the content that it deserves. The process followed by the committee to get us to this point was fatally flawed. The recommendations made are irrational, damaging to our developmental prospects and not in the best interests of the country and the people.

We believe that the injustices of the past must be corrected, but with compensation. We believe that the Constitution in its current form revises all the powers required to ensure before the realisation of just an equitable land reform. The idea that the Constitution is restricted and that it hinders land reform is simply wrong, and; it is dangerous to the prospect’s future of our country.

Now, I said this on Tuesday that our current Expropriation Act dates back to 1975 when Verwoerd’s successor B J Vorster was the Prime Minister. You have failed the ANC! This was your responsibility ANC. Now you want to come and blame it on the rest of us. Then, Deputy Speaker, the real problem lies with the ANC, the problem doesn’t lie with the white South Africans. [Interjections.]

Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson, Chairperson?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon Carter, hon Carter, hon Carter take your seat. Yes, hon Chauke.

Mr H P CHAUKE: Chairperson is it in order to begin to evoke Verwoerd in this democratic government by this member ... [Interjections.] ... out of order!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s a political statement hon Chauke. Really, that’s a political statement?

Mr H P CHAUKE: You can’t bring Verwoerd here.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no take your seat hon member. Go ahead hon member.

Mr M HLENGWA: Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.

Ms D CARTER: Chairperson, I would like to answer that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, can you please give a member a chance.

Mr M HLENGWA: On a point of order Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order hon member?

Mr M HLENGWA: I rise in terms of Rule 92(2), and I request you, hon Deputy Speaker, to actually exercise your powers and restrain the hon Chauke. [Applause.] He is nothing but a distraction, rising on a frivolous point of orders, wanting airtime and limelight at the expense of the issue. He rises on no rule and he just wants to speak. So please restrain him. He goes with a thing which is free for all...

IsiXhosa:

... nje, umdlalo wezinganekwane ...

English:

Restrain that member. He is disrupting every member on that podium. Restrain him, or the very least ask him what rule he is rising on, but this “umdlalo” of his is out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, I allowed you to speak, I didn’t ask you what rule you were standing on. You mentioned the principle. Hon members, hon members, please, you claimed it yourself that this is an emotive theme. You are behaving exactly as you predicted, but now it will disrupt the proceedings. Let’s allow hon Carter to proceed with the debate. Okay. Thank you.

Ms D CARTER: Deputy Speaker, I would like to reiterate and say this again. Our current Expropriation Act dates back to 1975 when Verwoerd’s successor B J Vorster was the Prime Minister; and that legislation the ANC never changed. So don’t say we can’t talk about it you were supposed to change the legislation. [Applause.]

So Deputy Speaker, what is really disturbing is that the EFF stands here and make racial utterances, and you Deputy Speaker say nothing. Deputy Speaker, did you take an oath of office. Deputy Speaker, did members in this Parliament take the oath of office? How is it that you can allow racial utterances and threats against people because of the colour of their skin? How is it that you can allow that Deputy Speaker?

I want to take you to the Constitution, and I’m going to read you the preamble of the Constitution because I don’t think any of you know what the Constitution says.

“We, the people of South Africa, recognise the injustices of our past; honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”

I want to say, you are hell bent to move us forward, but I‘m going to say to South Africans, you can stop this. They don’t want to follow the processes. You can register to vote. Stop the ANC! Stop the EFF! That’s the only way you can do it. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Mhlongo! Hon members, when I speak to you when other members, calls for a point of order, no matter how you feel do respond, otherwise, you are creating ungovernability in the House. So let’s do that. Let’s respond to each other.

The problem is that I’m not stopping you, throwing verbal missiles in here as you please when you please, okay. I have appealed to you before, you are not responding to it. So you might as well leave by your own swords, you know, “Ja.” You don’t like it when it comes from others when they exercise their freedom of speech. You don’t. Take it easy and cool your heels.

Mr L M NTSHAYISA: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker.

IsiXhosa:

... kukho indoda ethile phaya eBhayibhileni uYesu awayenza yabona. Ithi xa ixinwa ngemibuzo isuke iziphendulele ngelithi yona yazi into enye yokuba umntu ogama linguYesu undenze ndabona.

English:

Hon Deputy Speaker, as the AIC we support this motion that section 25 of the Constitution should be amended by this Parliament. [Applause.] At least we can see that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

We believe also that the dignity of the people whose land was taken by force will be restored. We also believe that there will be food, security and everyone given land will be at work with the assistance of the government. We also believe, as the AIC, that the challenges of unemployment, poverty and inequality will be addressed successfully.

Skills development will be a key factor on the part of those who will be working the land and should be equipped with all the necessary tools and be made ready as we believe that they will be equal to the task.

The attitude of our banks should now change. The smallholder farmers are struggling a lot to get financial assistance from these banks otherwise now they will also be expropriated without compensation.

The land reform has got the potential to make the lives of the people better and better productivity of the land; every land, whether arable, urban, rural or mining must be expropriated. There is no force to use, but a law to expropriate land. Land that would have been acquired through this process should not be sold to the foreigners by the government. Land expropriation without compensation is for the good of all black and white.

IsiXhosa:

Phezu’komkhono! Embovaneni vilandini.

English:

We support the motion. [Applause.]

Mr N T GODI: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Comrades and hon members, the House early this year established a Constitutional Review Committee and this week the House adopted the report of that committee. The logical next step, therefore, is to set up the mechanism to effect the adopted recommendations from that Constitutional Review Committee.

So the principle to establish that mechanism to effect the adopted report of the Constitutional Review committee, cannot be in dispute or cannot be the point of dispute. So as the APC we support the motion as it stands. [Applause.]

I just want to say that those of us who are Africanness were taught by our late leaders Zephania Lekoame Mothopeng, never to take the road of least resistance. The resolution of the land question cannot be deferred. It is a reality that must happen. It is the perspective of the Africanness that land is a national heritage of the people. It is not a commodity.

Therefore, we believe that land must be nationalized and socialized for the benefit of the people, especially, the working class and women. [Applause.] Those who oppose the resolution of the land question are at peace with the poverty and the suffering of Africans. They want reconciliation to mean the perpetuation of the injustices of white minority rule.

We fought for freedom not to remain slaves, but to become masters of our own destiny. [Applause.] Therefore, we must move forward. We must never relent. We must not retreat. We must not surrender. We must not equivocate. I thank you. [Applause.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. We are in full agreement with colleagues that have come and said – by the way this House already – has decided to agree with the Joint Constitutional Review Committee that reviewed this matter.

In fact, even those who wanted to stall this process were disappointed by the courts. The only intention of this draft resolution is the initiation of a mechanism to take forward a decision of this House, nothing else; unless colleagues have forgotten what they have decided a few days ago by adopting the recommendations of the Joint Constitutional Review Committee.

Now we are saying here is a mechanism and that mechanism is an adhoc committee established in terms of the rules of this House, nothing else.

However, we also say that the adhoc committee will initiate and introduce – now somebody says - what are we agreeing to. We are agreeing to establish an adhoc committee that will initiate and introduce a legislation amending section 25 of the Constitution. That’s it. [Applause.] That’s all that we are saying.

Hon Steenhuisen, by the way, this draft resolution also says, this adhoc committee will also be dictated to by section 167 of these rules. Now, if you are not familiar with section 167, it says amongst others: Conduct public hearings. It says so.

We would like to thank all colleagues who agree with this establishment of the adhoc committee because it is the right thing to do. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Question put: That the motion moved by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party be agreed to.

Division demanded.

House divided.

[TAKEN FROM MINUTES.]

Question agreed to.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Source: Unrevised Hansard.