Blog

By Dr Lawrence McCrystal*

I lodge my objection to this proposed amendment to the Constitution on the following grounds:

It is unnecessary as existing legislation is adequate for land restitution.
It will undermine the very investment we desperately need in SA to get our economy going. Investors will not invest here if there is a threat of the government expropriating, without compensation, the property on which they have built their projects.
It could well put SA on the same path as Zimbabwe with equally catastrophic results.
It will be wide open to abuse as we have seen in Zimbabwe where people with influence got land which they could not use productively, while chasing productive farmers away, resulting in famine.
91% of the people offered land or money for restitution purposes have chosen the money. So this new proposal is not going to achieve anything in terms of helping the people, in their view. Furthermore the vast majority of those who did take the farm land have left it devastated. If that is what happened to farm land what will happen if this government, armed with this proposed amendment, were to start expropriating our urban properties. It will be catastrophic, given the poor track record of this government over the past 10 years.
The priority in SA right now is to get the economy growing so that the 10 million, or more, people who are unemployed can get work and so be helped out of their poverty. This proposed amendment to the Constitution is coming at exactly the wrong time. In fact the timing could not be worse. It will, as just one example, cause the loss of our preferential access to US markets in terms of the AGOA agreement. That will add hugely to the unemployed work force.
In a survey of the needs of our people, by the Institute of Race Relations, the highest proportion saw unemployment as the most pressing issue facing the country. Only a tiny fraction (1%) mentioned land. It is NOT an important issue in the eyes of the vast majority of our people. So where is the pressure for this proposed change in the Constitution coming from other than from self-centred politicians? A high proportion of SA’s politicians already have a poor reputation in thinking circles of the public both in SA and overseas. This proposal is, as a result, viewed with deep suspicion that the main motivation is not the interests of the people of SA. If it was then measures to stimulate economic growth, which were announced earlier this year by President Ramaphosa, would have been implemented by now and priority would not have been given to this unnecessary proposal. This in itself makes the motivation suspect. Priority is being given to something which is not a priority in the view of the vast majority of our people, at the expense of what is the priority namely economic growth and increased employment. Deregulation of small and medium enterprises, mentioned in the President’s earlier speech, will be hugely stimulative. That’s a priority. Yet nothing has been done, but they find time and energy for this amendment to our excellent Constitution.
Should this proposed amendment become law, this nation will live to regret it was ever proposed. In fact this government that has proposed it will be cursed for generations to come as favouring selfish, greedy interests instead of righteously serving the people and helping a huge proportion of them out of their poverty.
I submit this with great sadness, as an 83 year old citizen of this wonderful country who has dedicated his life to promoting its economic development and helping our people to become self-sustainable, because I foresee clearly, and have a deep sense of foreboding, that nothing but serious trouble and even evil will come of this amendment should it become law.

For the last half a century Lawrence McCrystal has played a part, as an entrepreneur and economist, promoting industrial and business development, both as a member of the IDC Board (for 18 years) and in numerous other public and private sector roles.

The economist said that the two taxes that can make a difference to the country’s finances are personal income tax, and value-added tax (VAT) and that February’s Budget will reveal all.

“I think personally personal income tax will be increased,” Roodt said.

Roodt said that a positive indicator going into the new year, is the strength of the rand, trading at around R14.00 against the dollar on Thursday (2 January).

A stronger rand, he said, is an indication that foreigners are interested in investing in South Africa, especially in financial markets.

He added that a stronger rand could also lead to interest rate cuts, which would benefit under pressure consumers.

Roodt’s comments align with Treasury’s revenue concerns which it outlined in its medium-term budget policy statement released at the end of October.

“Significant tax increases over the past several years leave only moderate scope to boost tax revenue at this time,” the Treasury said.

However, despite this limited scope, Treasury said that additional tax measures are under consideration to raise an extra R10 billion in fiscal 2021 – but did not provide any further details.

“Given the fiscal position we find ourselves in, all tax options need to be on the table,” said Chris Axelson, chief director for economic tax analysis in the Treasury.”

Recession fears

With the economy shrinking, unemployment at an all-time high and yet another downgrade almost certainly waiting for us in January from ratings agency Moody’s, Roodt warned of the likelihood of a recession.

“I am fearful that we are heading towards a full-blown recession and in fact may already be in one in the fourth quarter.

“Given the devastation wrought by load shedding and the government’s rapidly growing debt burden, I cannot help but to think that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better,” Roodt said.

He said that with the fiscal deficit at an all-time high, it will make it increasingly difficult for the government to borrow money abroad to keep the economy going.

Neil Roets, chief executive officer of debt counselling company, Debt Rescue, said they were gearing up for one of the busiest periods in January, February and March in the history of the company.

“We see more new clients seeking help with the repayment of their outstanding debt in January and February than during any other months of the year because of additional debts that had been stacked up during the holiday season.

“Parents suddenly realise that they have to pay school fees that had not been budgeted for and with credit cards maxed out on luxuries in November and December many have no choice other than to seek relief by going under debt review to prevent debt collectors from seizing their property.”

“With gross consumer debt at around R1.8-trillion and the government’s gross loan debt at R2.2 trillion in 2016/17 financial year, it is clear that South Africans are in for a very rough ride,” Roets said.

He said almost half of all consumers were three months or more behind in their payments. The major culprits are credit and store cards followed closely by unsecured debt.

Article by Business Tech

‘We’re going to see improvements’

However, Mkhize and his team remain undeterred. Speaking during a visit to a hospital in KwaZulu-Natal on New Year’s Day, the minister said that NHI would “bridge the gap” between public and private care.

“We are starting a new decade in which we will be instituting decisive actions in implementation of NHI. When it is fully implemented, there will be no distinction between public and private hospitals. We believe we are going to be seeing changes and improvements in the quality.”

“Our message to South Africans is to encourage good healthy living, particularly now when non-communicable diseases are on the rise. Individuals and communities are encouraged to take full responsibility of their health in partnership with the healthcare.”

Zweli Mkhize

When will NHI happen, and how much will it cost?

The rollout of the much-anticipated National Health Insurance (NHI) will require an additional R33-billion annually. This was revealed in the National Treasury’s adjusted estimates of the national expenditure document released at the tabling of the 2019 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) in October.

Miyelani Mkhabela, economist and director at Antswisa Transaction Advisory, said he doubted South Africa would get itself out of trouble next year if there was no clear vision from President Cyril Ramaphosa.

He expected the fuel price would go down in the first few months of the year, and then up in subsequent months, following international trends. He said he had not seen any reason to make the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) raise oil prices so far.

He said the transport industry would get relief with the lower fuel prices, but was not sure if this would spill over to the food industry.

He said people should save money in the weak economy, as consumers were using their credit cards to their limits. A culture of investment should be created.

Neil Roets, chief executive of Debt Rescue, said the prices of goods went up but salaries stayed the same and there was nothing indicating 2020 would be better than 2019. Roets said that even though the situation looked dire, people were still spending money.

“In December, people max their credit cards out,” he said.

Mervyn Abrahams, programme co-ordinator at NGO Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group, said they always lived in hope that things would get better and wanted people to work towards improving their situations. But 2020 would likely be worse than 2019 and he did not see things getting better on the job creation front. Eskom wanting a 17% tariff increase would not make things any easier, Abrahams said.

“The poor have tightened their belts to the point where there is no belt to tighten.” he said. The government needed to create a sense of optimism by arresting people for corruption.

Political Bureau

“This is not a one-sided petition”, says Rob Hutchinson, MD of DearSA”. “Government treats petitions as a single submission, no matter how many signatories, whereas our official system ensures that each public comment is individually delivered, registered, acknowledged and considered in parliament’s decision-making process.”

Along with immediately delivering your comment to government, DearSA’s system keeps an accurate record of all participation and enables the organisation to present a report directly to parliament. This process ensures that civil society holds a precise unbiased, publically available live record of all input.

The AdHoc Committee on Amending the Constitution opened the first call for comment to produce a report for parliament in June 2018, a process which resulted in over 700,000 South Africans voicing their opinion. In December 2019, this final call for comment on the new Draft Amendment Bill requires significantly greater participation from South Africans.

Whether in favour of or opposed to an amendment of the Constitution of South Africa, to create effective impact, the public must have a say through an official unbiased platform, not only a petition.

Have your say on the Constitution Amendment by using DearSA’s platform before 31 January at this link; https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/constitution-eighteenth-amendment-bill/

DearSA has also provided all the Parliamentary Committee meeting notes, documents, audio recordings and minutes at the link above.

ENDS..

Media enquiries; Rob Hutchinson, DearSA
rob@dearsouthafrica.co.za
0845574828

Addressing a media briefing in Tshwane yesterday, Didiza said many departments “noted that some of the issues raised or reflected upon by the advisory panel were matters already being addressed”.

She explained: “In large measure, the recommendations were seen as the affirmation of the work already being done – giving alternatives on how some of these processes can be undertaken.

“Other recommendations made proposals on policy and legislative gaps, such as the policy on land tenure that will address communal land and traditional land tenure in South Africa.

“Others spoke to interventions required to address matters, including coordination among spheres of government.

“There were some recommendations that were not accepted – not because the issues raised were not important, but such recommendations required further engagement of a policy nature.”

On agreed recommendations, Didiza said “relevant departments would develop action plans to ensure implementation is undertaken”.

Among the advisory panel recommendations, not endorsed by Cabinet were the:

• Establishment of the national land rights protector for managing high-level conflict – especially between the state and citizens – an issue found to be already covered in the expanded mandate of the Land Courts Bill.
• Creation of the Land Reform Fund, with government seeing no merit in setting up such a fund, due to current budget allocations addressing the resources required for land reform.
• A land tax inquiry, already undertaken by the ministry of finance, which included land tax, incorporated in the property rates legislation.
• Establishment of a land agrarian reform agency, already addressed by the configuration of the department that combines agriculture and land reform.
• Transference of responsibility for the coordination of rural development from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform to the Presidency – a recommendation found to be “mute, as the decision was already taken in the in the configuration of government in the sixth administration”.

It is important to note that the mandate of the Panel was to give an independent appraisal of governments’ land reform process looking at the policy and legislative frameworks as well as institutional arrangements. In addition, the Panel had to reflect on the Parliamentary Constitutional Review Process on Expropriation without Compensation. The brief also extended to issues of agricultural development and spatial planning. As it can be seen from the report of the panel it used multiple processes to arrive at their recommendations. They reviewed existing documentation such as policies and legislation as well as undertaking consultation with a range of stakeholders including government departments and state entities.

The panel also looked at how the institutional framework across government on operational matters including the transparent nature on land allocation as well as land disposal. Attention was also given on the funding of land reform as well as proposals on how this important mandate can also leverage on those private individuals who are willing to donate land to the state for land reform purposes. The panel also proposes some interventions that can induce more land release. Given its time frame it can be appreciated that some recommendations could not be extensively canvassed and therefore further work on some will have to be undertaken.

The impact of the recommendations across government, informed Cabinet decision that all departments should study the report and its recommendations and indicate how they will address matters arising out of the said recommendations. Cabinet asked the Inter Ministerial committee on Land Reform and Agriculture to coordinate departmental inputs and send a report to cabinet by September 2019.

In its first meeting the IMC noted that the panel had not concluded its consultation with traditional leaders before tabling their report to Cabinet in July 2019. The IMC then advised the advisory panel to undertake this process in order to ensure that all stakeholders have expressed their views on this important matter.

In the examination of the report a number of departments noted that some of the issues raised or reflected upon by the advisory panel were matters that are already being addressed. Therefore, in large measure the recommendations were seen as the affirmation of the work already being done and also sharpening and giving alternatives on how some of these processes can be undertaken.

The recommendations also made proposals on policy and legislation gaps such as the policy on land tenure that will address communal and traditional land tenure in South Africa. Other recommendations spoke to programmatic interventions that are required to address matters including coordination amongst spheres of government.

Almost all the recommendations were accepted and government will address issues raised in these recommendations. There were some recommendations that were not accepted not because the issues raised were not important, but such recommendations required further engagement which are of a policy nature and as such particular processes will need to be undertaken to arrive at the policy and legislative system.

On the agreed recommendations the relevant departments would develop action plans to ensure implementation is undertaken. The IMC from time to time will receive reports on the implementation.

The following recommendations were not supported by Cabinet:

The following recommendations were not supported by Cabinet:

1. The panel recommended that Land Reform must be informed by an agreed vision for Agrarian Reform:

The view of government is that the current White Paper on Land Policy of 1997 is still adequate in its application. It covers broad land administration framework as well as define approaches for land reform to address unequal land ownership patterns in our country. It also creates the framework for tenure reform policy. The White Paper also appreciates that land reform not only covers agrarian reform but address a variety of land needs. It therefore cannot be true that land reform must be informed by an agreed vision for agrarian reform. On the contrary, there should be an agricultural vision that supports agrarian reform, which incidentally had been developed in the 2000 which was widely consulted in the development of the Strategic Plan for South African Agriculture which reads “A United, prosperous agricultural sector for South Africa” This vision acknowledged that the scale and size of operation that need to be supported by various land use patterns. This element is covered in the current proposals and therefore a review given the challenges of climate change may merit a development of a new agrarian reform vision.

2. The panel proposes significant measures to unlock urban state land for affordable housing and the creation of more inclusive towns and cities. The recommendation is broadly supported however the challenge is with respect to certain mechanisms that are being proposed as interventions.

3. The Panel proposed the review of the Office of the Valuer-General and its function in-line with the Property Valuations Act to ensure that the compensation determined in the event of expropriation for land reform purposes is just and equitable, and not purely market value based, this must be aligned with the compensation being proposed by the Panel;

The view of the government is that what the Panel recommends is what is the status quo currently. The OVG as well as its functions are in line with the Property Valuations Act. Currently the determination of what is just and equitable is the matter of debate in the parliamentary process on the amendment of Section 25.

4. The Panel proposed that government must developed a unified land administration system for the country with a proposal to develop a new Green and White Paper that will include land administration chapter.

5. The view of the government is that the current White Paper does include land administration however what may need to be expedited is a unified and administrative system and where possible the amendment of the Deeds Registry Act to include the recordal of informal land rights in the former homeland and communal areas. The proposed New Green and White paper on Land may take longer to address some of the immediate challenges and therefore is a long term program.

6. Transfer responsibility for Rural Development from DRDLR, and locate its coordination within Presidency, possibly within DPME. This recommendation is mute as the decision was already taken in the configuration of government in the sixth administration.

7. Establish or delegate central authority with clear powers and responsibilities to proactively manage state land and ensure that such an authority meet its broad obligations and balance the interest of potentially competing Department. The view of government is that the Inter Ministerial Committee on Land and Agriculture Chaired by the Deputy President addresses what the Panel was recommending. At the present SALGA is a participant in the IMC which ensures that municipal interests are taken into consideration. This process of the IMC ensures coordination and managing of competing needs without removing legislative competence.

8. Establish a National Land Rights Protector for managing higher-level conflict especially between the State and the Citizens. The view of government is that what this proposed recommendation seeks to address may be covered in the expanded mandate of the Land Courts Bill that the panel itself has recommended.

9. The Panel recommended that government should create the Land Reform Fund. The view of government is that currently there may not be merit on setting up of such a fund. The optimum and judicious use of current budget allocation can still address the resource required for land reform.

10. Establish a Land and Agrarian Reform Agency. The view of government is that the new configuration of the department which now combines the department of agriculture and land reform will address the concerns that necessitated the panel to make this recommendation.

11. Land Tax Inquiry. The view of government is that there was a tax enquiry that was undertaken by the Ministry of Finance which included issues of land tax which have been incorporated in the property rates legislation as well as capital gains tax.

In its discussion Cabinet noted that some of the recommendations may require further work such as:

The Panel further recommends an in-depth assessment into the conditions for the application of land ceilings. Consideration should be given on the imposition of land ceilings to limit the total area of land that anyone individual or company may own, so as to limit and reverse the trends towards concentration of land ownership which is antithetical to land reform. Such ceilings must be varied across agro-ecological zones. The state must be empowered in law to compulsory acquire surplus land and to determine which and is required for redistribution.

While government notes the intent and the spirit of this recommendation, its views are that further investigation will have to be undertaken.

Media enquiries:
Reggie Ngcobo
Cell: 082 883 2458

Issued by: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
More from: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
More on: Agriculture