Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill [35-2013]: deliberations and adoption

Rural Development and Land Reform

05 February 2014
Chairperson: Mr S Thibedi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Portfolio Committee on Rural Development and Land Reform met for deliberation on the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill [35-2013].

The Committee first debated a proposed insertion to the Amendment Bill suggested by the Democratic Alliance which proposed the establishment and maintenance of a register of land restitution claims that would be transparent to the general public. The motivation for that insertion was that one of the complaints received from the public hearings was that people did not know the status of their claims at any given time.

The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights submitted that in principle they would not have an objection to a clause that would require the Commission not the Department to establish and maintain a register. The concern that they have was with regard to the information of the claimants and they had to get guidance from the Chief State Law Adviser about the implications of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), which currently provided that when details of the claim were requested, written permission from the claimant should be obtained in order to provide their personal details.

The Parliamentary Legal Adviser submitted that the only issue with the clause was the amount of details that were listed, and usually that was catered for in regulations.

Members of the Committee in principle agreed with the establishment of a register for land claims but differed in terms of how the publication of details of claimants should be captured in the Bill. Members also debated whether claims that were lodged before 31 December 1998 should also be included in that register.

The Committee formally considered the A list of proposed amendments Bill clause by clause and made new amendments to Clause 2 that amended section 11 of Act 22 of 1994.

The new insertion for the establishment and maintenance of a register was accepted by the Committee which read as follows: The Commission will establish and keep a register which will be known as the National Land Restitution Register. The Commission shall enter into the register details of all land restitution claims submitted after the commencement of the Land Right Amendment Act, 2014. The register shall be kept to date by the Commission and shall, subject to the PAIA, be opened to the public”.

The Committee adopted the Bill with amendments.

It will meet with National Treasury on 19 February 2014 to discuss the budget for the Bill as it was a concern for the Committee.
 

Meeting report

The Chairperson recalled that yesterday they gone through the Bill clause by clause. The drafters had then inserted all proposed amendments into the Amendment Bill. Today they would check these changes before they moved towards adoption.

The Chairperson informed the Committee that he had received a new insertion suggested by Mr Mileham to be included to the Bill. This would now be tabled and they could take the discussion forward from there.
 
New Insertion: Establishment of a Register of Land Claims
Mr K Mileham (DA) said that that insertion was merely to regulate the establishment of a register of land claims. Basically what it said was: “1.The Department shall establish and keep a register known as the National Land Restitution Register. 2. The Department shall enter into the register the details of all land restitution claims including the following – (a) the claimant’s details, (b) details of the land under claim, (c) whether the claimant has opted for restoration of the right to land and/or financial compensation, (d) whether the claim succeeded or failed, and (e) the progress of processing of each claim. 3. The register shall be kept up to date by the department and shall be opened to the public on the Department’s website”.

Mr Mileham said that the motivation for that insertion was that one of the complaints they heard repeated in the public hearings was that people did not know the status of their claims at any given time. By having a public register, it became more transparent to the general public.

The Chairperson said that he had looked at the proposal by Mr Mileham and found it not to be controversial.

Mr Thami Mdontswa, Deputy Land Claims Commissioner, said that in principle they would not have an objection to a clause that would require the Commission, not the Department, to establish and maintain a register. The concern that they had was about the information of the claimants and they would have to get guidance from the Chief State Law Adviser about the implication of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). He knew currently when they provided details of claim, they had to obtain written permission from the claimant to provide those personal details. So, the security of the claimants might be an issue they would have to consider.

Mr Mdontswa noted that the new claims were going to be lodged through an electronic system. The electronic system was basically a register. It would capture and provide all the information. When it had to be made available to the public, then they have to consider the implications of what they could and could not do in terms of PAIA.

Mr Mdontswa said that the Commission did not have its own website and their information was hosted on the department’s website. Every time that the proposed clause referred to the ‘Department’ they should amend that to ‘Commission’ because it dealt with restitution and the only reference made to the Department in the Act was that the Accounting Officer was the Director-General of the Department. In summary, they have no objection to the statutory requirement of keeping a register. They were just concerned about the details of claimants that, in terms of PAIA, could be published. The rest (a) – (e) of clause 2 was what was going to be found in that register in that electronic system in any event.

Mr Mdontswa said that they would propose that a third subclause to read as follows: “The register shall be kept up to date by the Commission and shall be opened to the public”. And the manner that it was opened to the public could be dealt with through regulations so that they described that the information would be in the website, and when the website was down they would be contravening the legislation.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Mdontswa agreed with subclause 3 and wanted to change ‘Department’ to ‘Commission’ and it should be available to the public.

Ms Sueanne Isaac, Parliamentary Legal Adviser said that the only issue with the proposed clause was the number of details that were listed, usually that was catered for in the regulations. They usually say the Department would enter into the register the details of ordinary restitution claims that prescribed all the details of restitution claims and specified through the website, which was available to the public. In principle the register would be kept by the Commission.

Ms N November (ANC) said that she thought when they talked of an electronic system that would serve as a register and of course there had to be a register so that there could be something that could be referred to at some stage such as currently when people did not get feedback on their claims because somewhere along the line, something was missed. So, the register was a good thing. There was no problem with it, but the problem was the information. There were lot of people on the ground that were paying off debts not of their making because their personal details had been taken from somewhere. Making details of claimants available to the public was a very dangerous exercise.

Mr M Swathe (DA) said that that insertion could be something that could strengthen the Bill because of what they had discovered on their committee oversight visits with people complaining about lack of information about their claim. They have to include that insertion so as to strengthen the Bill because the register might enable a person to lodge a claim. Previously, from 1994 to 1998, people were complaining that they had lodged claims and their files were missing or their files could not be found. Therefore, if they have signed a register there would actually be evidence that a person had lodged a claim. The incorporation of that insertion would help and the State Law Adviser had already said there was no objection to that.

Mr Swathe said that the information when lodging a claim was not made secret when a person lodged that claim. In everything one does or when applying for something such details of the person are needed, and there was a need to provide that information. It could not be foreseen that this would cause a problem. It would strengthen what they were trying to achieve. They did not want to see the situation that had happened in the first lodgement of land claims, they needed to move in terms of improving the situation.

The Chairperson requested Mr Swathe to comment in terms of the PAIA because Mr Swathe had said it was not a secret to lodge a claim but the Deputy Land Claims Commissioner was concerned about making information available in terms of PAIA.

Mr Swathe thought that people would agree for their information to be published because that process of lodging a claim was not done in a secretive manner.

Mr S Ntapane (UDM) said that that insertion would have been a very good idea under the old method of recording claims. Since the claims were now currently recorded electronically and at a press of a button the whole information was available. At the Deeds Office if one requested information, one would write a letter stating the reasons why the information was required and then pay a fee. The same thing could apply here. When one requested information, one should write a letter to the Land Claims Commission stating the reasons why that information was requested so that it could be electronically recorded and the information would be made available. In terms of PAIA, the Commission firstly had to get permission from the claimant before the information could be released and if that information was given without the claimant’s consent, the Commission could be sued. They needed to follow the route of the Deeds Office in terms of releasing information and since claims were electronically recorded there was no need for that insertion which would had been good for the previous method of recording claims.

Mr R Cebekhulu (IFP) asked why the information could not be disclosed because when the first claims were gazetted, they were published in the newspapers so that landowners could be aware who was claiming the land that was in their hands. There was not much that could be regarded as a secret in the lodgement of claims and those claims needed to be disclosed. Secondly, when the claims were lodged, Commission officials referred these claims to areas other than the areas in which they have been lodged. For example, a person in Khayelitsha would lodge a claim in Khayelitsha then according to the details captured that claim would turn up as though it was lodged in Gugulethu, and those were the things that they were trying to grasp with. Therefore, if the details of a claimant were there (excluding the bank details), there was nothing that would affect the restitution process because it would assist whoever had lodged a claim.

The Chairperson said that the Deputy Land Claims Commissioner had said that he had no problem with the insertion provided it complied with PAIA, which no one was opposed to.

The Chairperson asked the State Law Advisers whether there would be an advantage in having a register over and above the electronic system register. Would that register perform a more efficient and faster option of accessing information as compared to the current electronic version.

Mr Mdontswa said that currently they did have a database of claims but that database was not a comprehensive database in the sense that it could answer any question that a person might have. And other than moving with the times and convenience of having a proper system that would be able to generate reports, the idea behind the electronic system was so that it could serve as a tool that would assist them to obtain information. Currently if they wanted to know about a claim in Babanang, they had to track down the project officer that was working with that claim. There was no system where a person gave them a reference number and they could punch it in and be able to tell that person what was happening with the claim. Therefore the electronic system was meant for that purpose and it would improve with time so that it could provide reports as and when requested.

Mr Mdontswa said that if that clause was accepted and inserted in the Bill, they would just change the name of the electronic system and call it the National Land Restitution Register. Portions of it would be made available to the public according to the information they could release in terms of PAIA.

One of the grounds in section 34 of PAIA for refusing to provide information was if that information was personal information. Personal information included name of a person, age, gender, address, ID number, etc. He noted that Mr Cebekhulu had said when one claimed, the name of the person should be made known to anyone enquiring about the claim including the current owner of the land that was claimed. However, the release of that information would be subject to PAIA. If this was challenged, they did not want to have to come back to Parliament and go through the legislative process to remove something from the Act. Perhaps they should leave the details of what would be published in regulations as the process of amending regulations was less cumbersome compared to amending legislation.

Ms Isaac said that the details of the claimant was already noted as an issue and the person’s right to privacy should be protected. They should remove all the sub-sections of the proposed clause and state that there should be a register and leave all the details to the regulations so it could be considered what detail should be included on the register and what should be available to the public. There were two options – whether it was made available to the public, or whether it would be acceptable in terms PAIA for the person requesting the information to provide reasons for wanting that information which would be the most preferred route.

Mr Mileham said that first of all PAIA was a very easy thing to get around, for instance, for every application they could put in that a person’s name be made available for the public. Secondly, the Commission has already published their names because every time a claim was gazetted, the names of the claimants were published. So, why were they trying to add a layer of secrecy into the claims process. The whole idea of that insertion was that it made it easier for the public to track their claims. If they had to submit a request as the Legal Adviser had proposed it was actually delaying the process. They could go on the website and type their claim number and pop up information that said their claim was being verified or their claim was at a certain point, which was quick and easy. But if they have to go to the Commission, the process would be long which defeated the objective of the process because they were trying to make it easier for claimants to see what was going on.

Mr Allan Small, Senior State Law Adviser, said that they were not opposed to either of the two but the motivation that was submitted by his colleague was that they did not put into the legislation any superfluous detail and the rest would be prescribed in regulations. Regulations could be amended much more speedily than the legislation.

The Chairperson suggested that in order to comply with legislation on access to information, they should say the Department enter into the register the details of all land restitution claims as prescribed.

Ms Isaac said that the Commission would enter all the details of the restitution claims into the register as prescribed by section 40 of the principal Act.

Mr Mdontswa said that the reference to PAIA would in fact be in clause 3. The register would be kept up to date by the Commission and would be, subject to PAIA, be made available to the public.

The Chairperson said that the new formulation made a lot of sense, it was reasonable. Basically they had given a name to the electronic system. The new proposal read: “The Commission will establish and keep a register which will be known as the National Land Restitution Register. The Commission will enter into the register details of all land restitution claims as prescribed. The register shall be kept to date by the Commission and shall subject to PAIA be opened to the public”.

Mr Mdontswa asked if the register would also include those claims lodged before 31 December 1998.

The Chairperson said his understanding was that they were currently dealing with claims for the new amendment moving forward. He did not know but it was the Committee that should decide whether they wanted to capture those prior to 1998.

Mr Ntapane that that clause related to that Bill and the law did not apply retrospectively.

Mr Swathe said that if that clause could cover the past and future claims, it should be used by the Commission.

Mr Mileham said that that Bill was an amendment of the 1994 Act and it would apply to anything that had been submitted before the 1994 Act. It also helped as a Department and a Portfolio Committee and as the public to have a national register of all land claims so as to know exactly the location of the land claim, who received it, what was the status of that claim, and that would be for the benefit of the Department. They should start populating the register with a new data, but while doing so they could work on the backlog and bring in the old claims as well. It made a lot of sense to have a centralised base of land claims. He was not sure why they did not want to do that.

Mr Mdontswa said that they did have information on the claims that had been settled and how they were settled, the land that was acquired and the compensation that was awarded. But in terms of migrating that information from where it was to the register would take some time because they were talking of no less than 77 000 land claims that would have to be inserted into the new system whilst they were taking hundreds of thousands of new claims.

Mr Mdontswa said they wanted to propose that in the same manner that reference had been made elsewhere in the Bill to allow certain sections to come into effect on the date that the Bill was signed into law that they make that reference then to limit the register to the new claims. Obviously any person who required information in terms of the old claims would still get the information because it was there, and PAIA stated that they should be provided information. But that register should be limited to the new claims. And if the department wanted to go a step further and add the old claims to make its work easier, then the Department could do that.

The Chairperson said that they should agree that including old claims into that clause was not necessarily a problem but the purpose of that proposal was for addressing the problem moving forward. If that process would assist the Department and the Commission moving forward, it could be regarded as a matter of best practice. If they included old claims, it could lead to delays in processing the new claims, but as a principle it was not a bad idea.

The Chairperson requested the Committee to agree with the proposal that he had made earlier which stated that going forward there would be regulations made to address populating the old claims in the register, depending on whether it was the best model so that they did not struggle and move backwards but rather move forwards.

Ms Isaac said that the wording would be able to capture that the new claims would be included in the register but not excluding the possibility of old claims being included to. They should rather leave it wider so that the Minister could make regulations on that. The Commission would enter into the register the details of land claims as prescribed. The Minister might prescribe that the new claims be entered and later on could prescribe that the old claims be entered into the register. Therefore, if it was phrased wider, it would be left to the Minister to prescribe whether to enter the old claims at a later stage. They should delete the word “all” in the clause so that the Minister could prescribe at a later stage for old claims to be included in the register.

Mr Small agreed that they should delete the word “all” so that old claims could be determined by the Minister at any stage. As already stated, it was much easier to amend the regulations.

Mr Mileham said that he was concerned about giving the Minister the discretion to determine which claims should be included in the register because the Minister might say no old claims should be entered into the register. The point was that the Minister was given too much discretion and it should be stated clearly that all claims should be entered into the register

The Chairperson asked Mr Mileham whether he did not want the word “all” to be removed.

Mr Mileham responded that he would propose that all land restitution claims submitted after 1 April 2014 to be included in the National Land Restitution Register.

Mr Ntapane suggested that they should say after the commencement of that Act.

Mr Mdontswa suggested that it should say after the commencement of the Land Right Amendment Act, 2014.

The Chairperson said that the final position would read as follows: “The Commission will establish and keep a register which will be known as the National Land Restitution Register. The Commission shall enter into the register details of all land restitution claims submitted after the commencement of the Land Right Amendment Act, 2014. The register shall be kept to date by the Commission and shall subject to the PAIA be opened to the public”.

The Committee agreed.

The Chairperson said that there was an A list and B version of the Bill and they should look at what was in the A list and see if it was correctly captured in the B version of the Bill.

Mr Small said that the A list were the amendments that would be incorporated into the B version of the Bill: B35B-2013.

Ms Isaac said that the A list was the list of the amendments proposed by the Committee in yesterday’s meeting and the B Bill would be the incorporated version of the new amendments. Therefore, the A list was what had been proposed by the Committee and the B Bill would be what it would look like after the amendments were made.

Proposed Amendments to the Bill: A list
Clause 1

The Chairperson read out the amendment of 31 December 1998 to be substituted by 30 June 2019.

The Committee agreed.

New Clause
The Chairperson read out the amendment of section 6 of Act 22 of 1994, as amended by section 3 of Act 78 of 1996 and section 5 of Act 63 of 1997.

Mr Mileham said that the word “and” should be replaced by “or” and the insertion should read as follows: “Section 6 of the principal Act is hereby amended – by the substitution of subsection 2 for paragraph (a) ensure that priority is given to claims lodged before 31 December 1998 and which were not finalised at the date of the commencement of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act, 2014, or which affect a substantial number of persons, or persons who have suffered substantial losses as a result of dispossession or persons with particular pressing needs”.

Mr Mdontswa said that the State Law Advisers had advised them that section 6 (2) gave a discretion which used the word “may” which they might not achieve the intention. The intention was to compel the Commission to prioritise those claims made before 31 December 1998. The previous section which was section 6 (1) listed things that the Commission should do. Therefore the proposal was rather to amend section 6 (1) not section 6 (2). The problem the amendment created was that section 6 (2) was a discretionary section which compelled the Commission to prioritise claims affecting a substantial number of persons which meant that they would not settle an individual claim for as long as there were community claims.

Mr Mdontswa proposed that section 6(2) should remain the same as a discretionary prioritisation and the mandatory prioritisation be for the amendment of section 6 (1). And lastly, if they say lodged before 31 December 1998 that would exclude all the claims that were lodged on 31 December 1998. The Act said that no later than 31 December 1998. Therefore they should substitute the word “before” with the words “no later than” so that all the claims that were lodged on 31 December 1998 would also be prioritised.

Ms Issac said that yesterday they have asked the Commission to prioritise and it was not the intention of the Committee because the Committee wanted to ensure that claims that were lodged before the cut-off date were prioritised. She proposed that they change that amendment and amend a different section in the Act which would state as follows: “The Commission shall”, and then insert the provision that ensured priority would be given to claims lodged no later than 31 December 1998, and that would compel the Commission to prioritise those claims. The Committee would have to refer to the principal Act of 1994 and in section 6 provided for the general functions of the Commission, section 6(1) stated as follows: “The Commission shall at a meeting to the Chief Land Claims Commissioner or Regional Land Claims Commissioner or a person designated by such Commissioner, (g) ensure that priority is given to land claims lodged no later than 31 December 1998”.

The Chairperson asked Ms Isaac to read through the provision so that it covered the concern raised by Mr Mileham.

Ms Isaac said that that would be the end of that provision and they would not amend the rest of that section and the Act as it was would remain the same. They were rejecting the proposed amendment as in the A list and were proposing that they amend a different section which would cover the priority claims because the remainder of that clause was covered in the principal Act under section 2(d) and nothing would change in that regard.

The Chairperson said that the intention in that clause was to try to move away from a discretionary mandate to obligatory mandate.

The Committee agreed.

Clause 2
The Chairperson read out that clause 2 was rejected.

New Clause
The Chairperson read out the amendment of section 11 of Act 22 of 1994, as amended by section 5 of Act 78 0f 1996, section 7 of Act 63 of 1997 and section 4 of Act 18 of 1999 by substitution of subsection (1) by the following words: “in the media circulating nationally and in the relevant province”.

The Committee agreed.

Clause 3
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 1998” to be substituted by “30 June 2019”.

Clause 6
The Chairperson read out the omission of “2013” to be substituted by “2014”.

The Committee agreed.

Clause 10
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 1998” to be substituted by “30 June 2019”.

The Committee agreed.

Clause 11
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 1998” to be substituted by “30 June 2019”.

The Committee agreed.

Clause 12
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 1998” to be substituted by “30 June 2019”.
On page 5, in line 5, to insert the word “or” before the words “Chief Land Claims Commissioner”.

The Committee agreed.

Clause 13
The Chairperson read out the omission of “2013” to be substituted by “2014”.

The Committee agreed.

The Chairperson said that they should adjourn the meeting for an hour so that the State Law Advisers could consolidate all the amendments and come back with a formulation so that the Committee could finalise and adopt the Amendment Bill.

Mr Mileham said that if a person had claimed under the 1998 window period and that claim had been rejected as being invalid they should not be allowed to reclaim in the new window period. He asked whether that was covered under frivolous and vexatious claims. Did they need to be explicit that claims of persons that had been rejected and whose claims were invalid on factual grounds, should not be permitted to reclaim?

Mr Ntapane agreed with that proposal but if a person came with a new claim with new information that claim should be allowed.

Mr Mdontswa said that in the past they have made a mistake of saying to people “they could not claim with that and could not claim for that”. People that came to claim said that they thought the land might had been taken before 1913 and what should they do, and they had said to those people they should claim because claiming was just claiming and then they would look at the facts that were applicable at that time. There were people that were not happy with what they were paid. Those people were going to claim again and they anticipated those claims. Section 22 of the Act stated that if one was dispossessed and one was paid compensation that was equitable one did not qualify to claim. The majority of the claims that were rejected were on technical grounds, rejected because the land was taken before 1913, rejected because one actually claimed another farm not the farm one was referring to, and because of judgements in the land claims court they could not process such claims.

Mr Mdontswa said that they have to act with caution in excluding through legislation certain people from that process. They should let everyone who wanted to lodge a claim do so and then see if that claim was exactly the same as the one that was previously rejected and it would be frivolous and vexatious which were claims without substance and patently bogus. 
 
The Committee agreed.

The Committee later resumed the meeting and considered the changes made to the A list and formally considered the Bill:

Amendments Proposed to the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 2018” and substituted by “30 June 2019”.

The Committee agreed.

New Clause
The Chairperson read out the amendment of section 6 of Act 22 of 1994, as amended by section 3 of Act 78 of 1996 and section 5 of Act 63 of 1997.        Section 6 of the principal Act was hereby amended (a) by the deletion in subsection (1) of the full stop at the end of paragraph (f) and the insertion of the expression "; and" at the end of that paragraph; (b) by the insertion in subsection (1) after paragraph (f) of the following paragraph: "(g) ensure that priority is given to claims lodged no later than 31 December 1998 and which were not finalised at the date of the commencement of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act. 2014.", and (c) by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection: "(1 A) (a) The Commission shall establish and keep a Register which shall be known as the National Land Restitution Register. (b) The Commissioner shall enter into the Register the details of all land restitution claims from the date of the commencement of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act, 2014. (c) The Commission shall keep the Register up to date and the Register shall be open to the public subject to the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No 2 of2000)".

The Committee agreed.

Clause 2
The Chairperson read out that the clause 2 was rejected.

New Clause
The Chairperson read out amendment of section 11 of Act 22 of 1994, as amended by section 5 of Act 78 of 1996, section 7 of Act 63 of 1997 and section 4 of Act 18 of 1999. Section 11 of the principal Act was hereby amended by the substitution in subsection (1) for the words following paragraph (c) of the following words: "he or she shall cause notice of the claim to be published in the Gazette and “in the media circulating nationally and in the relevant province. And shall take steps to make it known in the district in which the land in question is situated. " .
The Committee agreed.

Clause 3
The Chairperson read out the omission of "31 December 2018" and substituted by "30 June 2019".

The Committee agreed.

Clause 6
The Chairperson read out the omission of "2013" and substituted "2014".

The Committee agreed.

Clause 10
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 2018" and substituted by "30 June 2019".

The Committee agreed.

Clause11
The Chairperson read out the omission of “31 December 2018" and substituted by "30 June 2019".

The Committee agreed.

Clause 12
The Chairperson read out the omission of "31 December 2018" and substituted by "30 June 2019".

The Chairperson read out the omission of "State or" and to substitute "State or".

Ms Isaac said that they have consulted with the State law Adviser’s Office where they were advised that the sentence should read as follows: “The Minister may delegate any power conferred upon him/her by subsection 1 or sections 42 (c) and 42 (e) to the Director-General of Rural Development and Land Reform or to the Chief lands Commissioner or Regional Land Claims Commissioner”. They were deleting from “or till state”. Basically, they have stopped at the word “state” and the word “or” was part of the provision, it was just a technical way of drafting.

The Committee agreed.

Clause13
The Chairperson read out the omission of "2013" and to insert "2014".

The Committee agreed.

The Chairperson said that in terms of the rules, they had inserted new amendments to sections of the Act that were not contained in the Bill as introduced into Parliament. For that reason the rule demanded that in tabling those, they had to request permission to amend because they had added a new amendment. The National Assembly Rule 49(3)(b) provided as follows: “A Committee may if it is considering a Bill amend the provisions of the legislation seek the permission of the Assembly to inquire in amending other provisions of that legislation. Accordingly the Committee must request permission to amend other sections of the Restitution of the Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994, other than what it is amended through the Bill as introduced.

The Committee therefore recommends that the National Assembly (NA) grant permission in terms of the National Assembly Rule 49(3)(b) for it to amend other sections of the Restitution of the Land Rights Act No. 22 of 1994.

The Chairperson read out the Committee Report on the Restitution of the Land Rights Amendment Bill, [B 35 – 2013], classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism as a 76 Bill, which reports the Bill with amendments”.

The Chairperson read out all the amendments to the Bill.

The Committee accepted the amendments.

The Committee adopted the Bill with amendments.

The Chairperson said that before the final version was printed it would be sent to Members to go through it but they should keep the copy they were currently using so that they were able make comparisons and to double check whether all was in order. Once they have gone through the final version Members could respond via sms or call the Chairperson’s Office.

The Chairperson thanked the State Law Advisers and Commissioners for their help.

Funding of the Bill
Mr Ntapane said that he was not part of the meeting on 30 January 2014 when the funding of the Bill was mentioned. He proposed that the funding of the Bill should be included in the Committee Report on the Bill as they were concerned about it.

The Chairperson said that the Department’s response was that it was difficult to quantify because they did not know the number of claims they were going to receive. The only thing they could do was to note what the Department said and to urge National Treasury to make sure that the process was funded.

Mr Mileham noted what the Chairperson was saying but he respectfully disagreed because right from the start of that process, the figure had been on the table was the top end figure of R179bn and the bottom end of R129bn, and the regulatory impact should be their guide on that legislation. Therefore, to say it was unquantifiable was disingenuous by the Commission because it had been calculated through the regulatory impact assessment where they have anticipated 397 900 valid claims.

The Chairperson said that the regulatory impact assessment had made an estimation and therefore they could not accept that estimation as a concrete figure.

Ms Isaac said that there was no requirement in the rules that there should be a budget prior to the Bill being passed.

The Chairperson said that they should set up a meeting with the National Treasury to clarify once and for all the budget for the Bill. In terms of the Committee programme the meeting would take place on 19 February 2014.

The Chairperson thanked Members of the Committee for their contributions and deliberations on the Bill.

Committee Minutes of 29 and 30 January 2014
The Committee adopted these minutes.
 
The meeting was adjourned.
 

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: