Mr. Speaker Sir, when this land redistribution was introduced, members of the oppositions were saying this is just a political gimmick and they were even denying other people to come and take land saying it is just a political gimmick. Instead of them appreciating that this was a noble cause they are still criticizing what is happening. As we debate today, we have a problem in that members who used to oppose this Land Redistribution Programme have seen that it was not a political gimmick but it was a reality. They now want land, hence the misunderstanding which is happening.
The other problem which we are facing is that these opposition members misinformed people and said they should not take up the land because when the land is given to them as a political gimmick, this will be taken and given back to the whites. Now that they have seen that the land programme is irreversible and is a reality; the members from the opposition should go back to the people and apologize, telling them that they misinformed them that the Land Redistribution Programme was a political gimmick. Now they have seen the beneficiaries benefiting, succeeding and improving their lives.
What I am saying is because of the opposition politics, they may end up misinforming or disturbing the operations of the Land Commission. We know these opposition people, they come and say people who have been allocated land should pay tax for it and the tax should be so high that people feel disgruntled with Government. On the other hand, they know that the country is under sanctions, hence we need to get money from taxes. People will fail to pay and when they fail, they will be told that they failed to pay and the land has to be repossessed and those people will suffer. At the end of the day they will blame the Government for this retrogressive approach.
Their aim is to misinform the people, as a result the farming programme is going to be disturbed. Sanctions were called for by members of the opposition; I am pleading and begging with the Land Commissioners that in their operations, they should not associate with retrogressive ideas of the opposition politics. If you ask for advice from your enemy they will never give you constructive advice but destructive advice. Now, I will give a good example, these people have said we should pay US$5 per hectare and this comes to US$2 500, if you talk in terms of buying, with that US$2 500 you can buy up to 10 cattle and we all know the way the cattle breed. You cannot come up with that amount which is needed to pay for the taxes. When this programme fails, the opposition Members will quickly go to Britain or run to America where there is this new President, Trump and tell him that the African government in Zimbabwe has failed.
We heard them saying there is talk that some whites whose land was repossessed are now being supported. They talk as if they hate the whites yet they are their friends. Now they are saying this new white farmer Mr. Rautenbach is bad. When I scrutinized his idea, I saw that we were doing it properly and productively with Mr. Rautenbach. We are not selective or discriminative and even the President has said we do not discriminate against anybody because of race. If they come wanting to work hand in hand with us, we welcome them. What we do not want is a white man who will come with a superiority complex.
Let me explain more on the operations of Mr. Rautenbach. He is subcontracting the small scale farmer so that they benefit from his programme. We will never take the land back to the whites. The Land Commission should seek advice from constructive people and not from the opposition. I beg you Minister that after these debates and the Hansard has been published, to please take the Hansards to the members of the Land Commission so that they know the views of the Parliamentarians regarding this Land Commission. I thank you.
(61 VIEWS)
