Rental Housing Amendment Bill: Department response to submissions

Meeting Summary

The Committee heard it had to obtain permission from the National Assembly to make amendments in the Amendment Bill, if the matter contemplated did not appear in the Amendment Bill or the principal Act. Both the parliamentary legal advisor and the Committee found there were a number of issues the Bill failed to address. The Committee also complained that there were a number of proposals in the public submissions that had not been included. The recommendation on the timeframe for establishment of Tribunals was a political matter but the parliamentary legal advisor said six months was not sufficient. She also noted that the proposed two-term limit on office for Tribunal members was not a legislative matter but more one of corporate governance to prevent monopolies building up within institutions. Institutional memory would be protected by ensuring Tribunal members did not all leave at the same time.

Members asked why not all the provinces had made submissions but the Department assured them that they had been very thoroughly consulted during the drafting of the Bill. It appeared KZN, Gauteng and the Western Cape had fully functional Tribunals; while the Eastern Cape and Free State were yet to establish. As the Tribunal was a quasi-judicial body, it could not hear appeals but it could review its rulings. Members said the ideal would be that a separate body heard appeals. They voiced unhappiness at the cost of an appeal through the formal court system. It was noted that although the national Department would lend support, the cost of Tribunal operations would mainly be the responsibility of the provinces.