In recognition of the need for fresh ideas aimed at tackling poverty, the DA has been engaged in a policy project designed to identify what South Africa needs to do in order to achieve an annual rate of 8% economic growth, tackle our unemployment crisis and, as a consequence, lift millions of our citizens out of poverty. We believe it is only by accelerating growth to this level that we will begin to achieve these goals.

We cannot seek solutions to the challenges we face unless we understand the problems that cause them. As such, the first phase of our project is a diagnostic assessment of the key challenges facing our economy today. Under the leadership of the DA’s Federal Chairperson, Dr Wilmot James, the first phase of the project has been completed and will be presented to the public in the coming week.

Where we govern we have shown that, through dedicated implementation of well-thought out policies, it is possible to ensure that our poorest citizens are afforded access to much needed services, thus improving the lives of those living under DA governments.

We have also engaged the national government on a number of policy proposals which we believe will go some way towards the alleviation of poverty in this country:

• Youth Wage Subsidy: The implementation of the Youth Wage Subsidy could create 178 000 jobs in three years at a cost of R28 000 each. Had the policy been implemented in April this year, it would already have benefited almost 200 000 young people and created more than 80 000 new jobs.
• Communal Tenure Private Members Bill: We have presented a legislative proposal to Parliament calling for legislation to be drafted allowing for private land ownership on communally owned land. Private land ownership has the potential to ensure that residents on communally owned land can live unencumbered on their land and leverage it to improve their livelihoods. This will ensure that poverty levels in rural areas are reduced.
• Zero VAT on textbooks: Reducing the rate of VAT on textbooks would ensure that more students have access to textbooks, and in turn increase the quality of graduates. Education is the key out of poverty.
• Every Rand Counts Campaign: We have monitored wasteful and fruitless expenditure by the government. We hope that by highlighting the misuse of public resources, government will be motivated to ensure that money is channelled towards programmes aimed at poverty eradication.

We can overcome poverty in South Africa. But this requires a government with the vision and the courage to implement policies that will achieve this. The DA aims to be at the forefront of this important process

People living in the former homelands make up half of South Africa’s population. It is unacceptable that, in the seventeenth year of democracy, they are still waiting for their land rights to be made secure.

The inequities bequeathed by colonialism and Apartheid must be redressed to ensure a thriving rural economy that provides for job creation and economic growth.

We strongly believe that full individual ownership must be extended to ensure that people living on communally owned land are empowered to live unencumbered on their land and leverage it to improve their livelihoods. Without full individual property rights, residents on communally owned land cannot use their land as loan collateral, rent, or sell any portion of it to enjoy the full benefits of land ownership.

Land ownership has the potential to ensure the expansion and diversification of South Africa’s commercial agriculture sector to increase productivity, create more rural jobs and promote food security.

This proposed legislation is driven by the need to expedite the process of transferring land historically owned by the former homelands to individuals. More than this, such legislative amendments are necessitated by the Constitutional Court’s May 2010 finding that the Communal Land Rights Act (CLARA) was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court reached this conclusion that the Act had been enacted in a procedurally incorrect manner.

In response, the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform admitted that CLARA was inconsistent with government policy and would be repealed.

It has been over a year, and we are yet to see legislation to fill this lacuna.

Our Private Member’s Bill proposes that:

• Legislation must be drafted to ensure that all land in the former homelands is surveyed so that it is known exactly how much land exists and who is living on it. Currently, this land is categorised as “unsurveyed, unregistered state land” and “trust land” and is not properly registered in any database.
• Once the process of surveying land is complete, land must be registered in individuals’ names in the Deeds Registry after a public announcement has been made calling for individual community members to register ownership of the land they are currently living on.
• The rates collection system that applies in municipal areas should be applied in these areas as well, so that the entire country is covered by a simple and uniform rates collection system. Currently, this system is not applied to communally held land. This new system would require these areas to be demarcated as municipalities and therefore subject to the provisions of the Municipal Systems Act.

We trust that the Portfolio Committee on Private Member’s Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions will consider our proposal favourably, and bring much needed relief to the residents on communally owned land.

People living in the former homelands have been denied individual land ownership for too long. We believe it is high time that their rights are recognised as part of our national land reform strategy.

Minister Sisulu’s reply reads as follows:

“If the member is referring to the African National Congress (ANC), we would have been honoured to have been considered. The United Nations (UN) has recognized and honoured this outstanding organization. The Member is encouraged to read what, amongst others, the Secretary General of the UN, Mr B Moon said about this organization. Perhaps the Honourable can encourage his party to do the same. Sadly, we have not been approached“.

The Minister’s response demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of and disregard for the division between party and state. Public funds cannot and should not be used to fund party-political events. By saying that she would have agreed to use public funds to finance the ANC’s centenary celebrations, the Minister is admitting that she would have gladly disregarded this critical division.

In addition, by agreeing to fund a political organization, Minister Sisulu would have been putting the independence of the military, as stipulated the Constitution, in jeopardy. Section 199 specifies that “neither the security services, nor any of its members, may, in the performance of their functions, further, in a partisan manner, any interest of a political party”. By diverting public funds intended to fund the military, the Minister would have been demonstrating allegiance to the ANC as a political party and not to the country as a whole.

While the DA recognises the role played by the ANC, amongst other movements, in the struggle for the liberation of South Africa from Apartheid, the ANC is however no longer a liberation movement, but a political party which contests elections in a democratic space like all other political parties. There can therefore be no justification for the diversion of public funds for a party-political celebration.

Earlier this year, the DA welcomed the commitment made by ANC Chairperson, Baleka Mbete that the ANC had “no intention” of using state funds to finance the party’s centenary celebrations. We are disappointed to note that so soon after this public commitment, a member of the cabinet has shown such enthusiasm for flouting this assurance.

I have submitted parliamentary questions to all government departments to determine whether public money will be utilized to fund the ANC’s centenary celebrations next year.

According to a list of expenditure deemed wasteful and fruitless by the Auditor-General in the annual reports of national departments, the following amounts were wasted:

Home Affairs – R 334 640 000
Rural Development & Land Reform – R73 406 000
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries – R 12 199 000
Health – R2 556 000
Basic Education – R 376 000
Communications – R 1 438 000
Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs – R 336 000
Correctional Services – R 6000
Economic Development – R27 000
Justice & Constitutional Development – R849 000
Police – R771 000
Public Enterprises – R4 000
Public Service & Administration – R311 000
Science & Technology – R110 000
Social Development – R7 000
Transport – R12 000
Water Affairs – R369 000

Total: 427,498,000

Had reasonable care been exercised, this R427 million could have been directed towards improving the livelihoods of thousands. R427 million builds approximately 7 000 houses, 10 new schools, and could provide salaries for 2 500 teachers.

This figure does not include the Departments of Sports and Recreation, State Security, and Women, Youth, Children and People with Disabilities. These departments have yet to table their annual reports, despite the passing of the deadline for tabling in Parliament on 30 September.

In July 2010, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe announced that a task team would be established to prepare recommendations for Cabinet on wasteful expenditure. Nothing has happened.

In the meantime, while we wait to hear from the Deputy President, wasteful expenditure is rising exponentially.

I have written to Deputy President Motlanthe, requesting feedback on the progress of the task team he promised to establish. If this latest revelation does not kick his office into gear, then nothing will.

According to the annual report, a total of 322 844.9931 hectares of land was transferred to beneficiaries in the 2010/11 financial year. The majority of the land- 276 396.6839 hectares – was registered in the name of the state. Just 46 448.3038 was returned to land claimants with full ownership.

This discrepancy highlights the government’s skewed approach to land reform. Instead of land claimants being granted full ownership of their land, which would allow them to borrow against their assets in order to implement changes to their businesses in the case of commercial operations, or simply to upgrade their property if it is residential, the vast majority of claimants are merely tenants on state-owned land.

Not only does this prevent the land from being used as loan collateral, but it acts as a disincentive for claimants to invest in the land’s productive capacity. Without the freedom and stability to invest in their properties, claimants are consigned to the status of tenants, and have no incentive to make improvements to the land they have acquired since they bear neither the risk nor the reward associated with running a successful business.

Why would claimants devote time and resources to investing in land that is not theirs?

This effectively means that the true spirit of the purpose of land reform – the returning of land rights denied during Apartheid and the colonial era to claimants with full ownership rights – is not being adhered to.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) will soon be making its submission on the Land Reform Green Paper. The Department has today indicated that the deadline for submissions is 31 October. Central to this will be the proposal that the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS), which facilitates the transferring of land to claimants under leasehold, be scrapped. It is essential that all land is transferred with full ownership rights, together with the requisite skills training and financial support, to ensure that land reform is a success.

Led by branch chairperson, Yusuf Cassim, DASO NMMU has experienced exponential growth since gaining four seats on last year’s SRC, all in little over a year of existence. This win, in the heart of the ANC’s home province, points to a significant and continuing shift in campus politics, in which students have grown tired of SASCO’s bully politics and are choosing DASO, which has become synonymous with clean and efficient SRC government. Although student politics change dramatically from year to year, the exponential growth of DASO at a number of key campuses around South Africa in a few short years points to a significant consolidation of our support from young South Africans.

The win at NMMU follows DASO winning four seats on the Rhodes University SRC, where it is is the only political organisation that received enough votes for representation on the SRC, as well as a growth of 573% in voter support for DASO at Wits. DASO also currently has a majority on the UCT SRC, where it holds the presidency and secretary general positions. The growth of DASO at all of these campuses around South Africa follows the growth of the DA in recent elections and further cements the fact that South Africans from all communities are choosing the DA as the party to lead them towards a future of delivery, diversity, redress and reconciliation for all.

This 11 page policy offering gives a glimpse into the ANC’s priorities in respect of land reform. As expected, it relies heavily on a discourse of apartheid and colonial dispossession while paying no attention to government inefficiencies after 17 years in power.

Most importantly, it offers no vision of how to substantially address the inequities bequeathed by apartheid in a coherent and sustainable way. If the Green Paper is implemented in its current form, the landless of South Africa will continue to feel the effects of the past.

There is no question that South Africa needs an effective, well-implemented land reform programme. It is a moral imperative that the injustices created by the 1913 Land Act – which forced millions of black South Africans off their land – are addressed.

The DA’s own vision for land reform is of a thriving rural economy in which the injustices of apartheid and colonialism are effectively and decisively redressed through a combination of sustainable job-creating economic growth, and a well-managed and appropriately resourced land restitution and redistribution programme.

This Green Paper is very far from this vision.

We have very serious concerns about the proposed Land Management Commission which will be given wide-ranging discretionary powers to subpoena, award amnesty and invalidate land ownership. These are powers that should be in the hands of the courts, not in a quasi-autonomous body within the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and accountable to the Ministry.

We have similar concerns with the proposed establishment of a Land Valuer-General mandated to determine financial compensation in cases of land expropriation. Again, this is a task that should be left to the judiciary – as specifically provided for in the Constitution. Appointing a non-independent body to determine compensation will be open to abuse and undermine the constitutional principle of willing-buyer-willing-seller.

These measures will create instability and undermine confidence in South Africa’s rural economy. This will have a detrimental impact on economic growth and job creation.

Our main concern in the Green Paper lies with the government’s focus on the 3 million South Africans who live and work on privately-owned farms, while failing adequately to deal with the issue of communal land tenure which affects the 16 million landless South Africans who reside in the former apartheid homelands.

In the Green Paper, the Minister notes that because of the complexity of communal land tenure and the recent nullification of the Communal Land Rights Act (CLARA) by the Constitutional Court, its policy in this regard will be ‘treated in a separate policy articulation’ and suggests that the communal tenure will be according to ‘institutionalised use rights’.

What we are seeing here is a lack of political will to confer full land rights to people who live on communally-owned land. At least 4.5 million of these people are engaged in agricultural activity.

In order to ensure the security of tenure of those currently living in the former homelands, a formal registration process of individual deed titles of land and buildings in these areas must begin. In order to ensure the continued success of the citizens granted full individual title, the government must institute and oversee an effective programme of post-settlement support, offering beneficiaries economic and agricultural support in the form of resource and advisory services.

Land reform in South Africa can be a “win-win” scenario, in which the injustices of the past are redressed, while at the same time growing the rural economy, creating jobs, and ensuring access to opportunity for all South Africans.

In order to achieve these aims, the overarching objective of any government responsible for answering the land question must be to drive rural economic growth and job creation. Instead of vilifying property rights, the government can and should expand access to them in order to empower landless South Africans economically and redress the imbalances of the past.

This Green Paper does not come close to addressing the myriad issues which affect this policy area. The Minister needs to go back to the drawing board and draft a policy document that details a comprehensive and substantive plan for land reform in South Africa.

Link to full DA response on the Green Paper on Land Reform: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cu4pdGd63y4kf9mKLXNgiXP89fZ3mpFXpb-JfBD0nUY/edit?hl=en_US

The reality, however, as Lloyd Gedye argues, is that this rate is the result of talks in which mobile networks have, understandably, sought to negotiate the best possible deal for themselves, rather  than to bring interconnection down to a cost-based rate. Telecoms operators are business-people, whose natural objectives are to maximise profit and drive expansion. It has never been their responsibility to see to it that their pricing regime is as fair as possible towards telecoms consumers – that is the job of the independent regulator, which has thus far failed spectacularly to carry out this crucial aspect of its mandate.

If the generally-accepted consensus amongst experts and smaller players in the industry – that the true cost of connecting callers between networks cannot be more than about 20c per minute – is true, then the Minister’s planned reduction to a “blended interconnection rate” of 77c is indeed “cosmetic”, as Cell C CEO Lars Reichelt once described Vodacom’s proposal of a 78c blended rate.

But this is not a decision which can or must be made by politicians; nor should we, as politicians, succumb to the temptation to brand this a war between “the goodies” (the South African consumer), and “the baddies” (the big mobile and fixed-line phone operators). Rather, we must ensure that the state institutions whose collective responsibility it is to ensure that consumers get a fair deal in this sector do their jobs swiftly and effectively.

One month ago, Parliament concluded its public hearings into the plausibility, or not, of mobile operators in South Africa reducing interconnection fees (the fee charged by operators for allowing calls from other networks to be terminated on their own) from the current R1.25 per minute, to 60c per minute.

Speculation was rife from the outset – much of it perfectly valid – as to the purpose of these hearings: was the National Assembly assuming responsibility for the regulation of termination rates – a responsibility which falls squarely on the shoulders of ICASA? Or was the Portfolio Committee on Communications, which hosted the hearings, attempting to usurp the functions of its corresponding Department by directing telecommunications policy?

The truth – and indeed the reason that the Democratic Alliance (DA) MPs on the committee agreed to support the holding of these hearings – is simpler and less sinister than either of these: we wanted to offer the South African public, and the industry players who stood to be affected by any regulatory changes to the interconnect rate, an opportunity to come to Parliament and make representations about whether the proposed rate is realistic, too high, or indeed too low; to reflect on how the high cost of telephony in South Africa (and the cost is indeed high – objective benchmarking studies comparing South Africa to its peer group countries have shown this) has affected members of the public, their families and their businesses; and to afford both the major industry players and smaller license-holders, who are eager for a fair shake at breaking into the telecoms market, the chance to reflect on how changes of this nature might affect their businesses and the sector as a whole.

Interconnection rates are necessarily monopolistic because, for example, only Vodacom can terminate a call from another network operator to a Vodacom phone, and likewise only Cell C can terminate a call to a Cell C customer from a Telkom phone. This is why the effective regulation of interconnection rates is essential to stimulate competition in the sector, since high interconnection rates create a disincentive for users on a major network to move to a smaller, emerging one, no matter how low the small network prices its tariffs. The dynamics of market share (two networks being significantly bigger than the rest) mean that most calls from the smaller networks will be made to the bigger networks (unlike big network customers, whose calls will more often remain “on-net”), resulting in a punitive cost to those who choose to switch to a smaller network. In addition, a standardised interconnection rate of R1.25 limits the scope for competitive pricing by smaller networks, creating a further disincentive for consumers to try alternative carriers, which stifles competition in the sector.

The parliamentary hearings were heated and emotional from the start, with consumer and civil interest groups such as Highway Africa and the Unemployed People’s Movement making the case for drastic cuts on the basis that the high cost of communicating eats into as much as 30% of the household income of ordinary South Africans.

From The Business Place, an SMME support network, and Thabiso Mokgoro, a businessman and member of the public who made his written submission in a lucid, one page e-mail, we heard that unintelligible tariff pricing structures, indifferent customer service, and exorbitant prepaid tariffs during peak hours (most small business opt for prepaid rather than contract cell phones, as the risks of seeing their businesses blacklisted for spiralling cell phone bills are much too high) are a massive hindrance to their ability to operate effectively.

Everybody who participated in the hearings – including the major operators – did so entirely voluntarily, and on the basis of written submissions which they submitted to the parliamentary committee earlier in the month. While the temptation towards outrage and the demonization of cell phone operators in this context was great – and indeed committee MPs spared none of their fire in demanding that the big operators account for their high tariffs – the reality remains that it is not Parliament’s responsibility to regulate and/or dictate the price of interconnection; that is the function of the communications regulator.

In their submission during the hearings, senior executives from the second fixed-line operator, Neotel, rightly argued that the regulation of interconnection must be pursuant to a clearly-defined process. They also urged that the industry be provided with some clarity as to the effect of the multiple processes which the public outcry over this matter has spurred the government, Parliament, and ICASA to undertake in order to reduce mobile termination rates. Other industry players – particularly the smaller operators and new entrants – urged Parliament to engage with the full spectrum of problems inhibiting the liberalisation of the telecoms sector – instead of focusing only on interconnection, which cannot alone stimulate competition in the sector.

If there is a single lesson that MPs learned during the parliamentary hearings, it is that interconnection is not a panacea that will solve the problem of high telecoms pricing in South Africa – as has been suggested by some politicians, who have welcomed this so-called “Christmas bonus” for the South African people. We will only see long-term, sustainable benefits to the South African consumer if we adhere to and carry out our respective mandates:

The Department of Communications must draft and gazette comprehensive communications policies – not issue sexy, quick-fire, but very likely unenforceable Ministerial Policy Directives to the regulator; ICASA must regulate – and not allow in-fighting and fear of litigation to paralyse its attempts to carry out its mandate; and Parliament must legislate and provide effective oversight over both – and not confuse the public or spook the industry by appearing to want to usurp the roles of the regulator and the Communications Minister.