KwaZulu Natal & Eastern Cape Oversight reports; Public Hearings on Extension of Security Tenure Amendment Bill in the Western Cape

Rural Development and Land Reform

09 March 2016
Chairperson: Ms P Ngwenya-Mabila (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee adopted the Committee Report on the Oversight visit conducted on the implementation of the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill and the Recapitalisation and Development Programme in the Northern Cape and Gauteng. Final preparations were made for the public hearings on the Extension of Security Tenure Amendment Bill in the Western Cape on 12 and 13 March 2016.

Meeting report

Committee Oversight on Oversight Visit on implementation of Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Bill and the Recapitalisation and Development Programme in Northern Cape and Gauteng
The Chairperson said that Members had to go through the circulated report for consideration at the meeting next week, which would be the last Committee meeting for this term.

Oversight report on Northern Cape and Gauteng in 2014
The Chairperson said that this report was circulated long ago but was delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. Members could make any additions to the report if they saw fit to do so.

Mr P Mnguni (ANC) said he moved for the adoption of the report.

Mr S Matiase (EFF) noted that this oversight visit was conducted in 2014 already, at a time before he was a member of this Committee. He asked why it took so long before a report could be tabled before the Committee for adoption.

The Chairperson replied that there were various reasons for this. One of them was that often during a quarter in one committee week, while doing oversight, the Committee was called to Parliament without having the opportunity to finish the oversight. Meetings then started in the 3rd or 4th quarter when other provinces had to be finished. The protests also delayed the tabling of this report.

Mr A Madella (ANC) said that the report's title spoke to Upington and Gauteng, dated the 24th to 28th. Page 2 had a table that covered Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal which implied that the report was actually broader than Gauteng and the Northern Cape. The provinces listed here were part of the overall oversight plan; so it had been divided into Gauteng and the Northern Cape in the first leg. KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng was the second leg. As far as he knew he was not part of the first leg, particularly the Northern Cape and definitely Gauteng. He did not want it to go on record that he was there and in fact he was not there. He was unsure if the references to the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal references should be deleted on page 2 because the rest of the programme only dealt with Gauteng and Northern Cape.

The Committee Secretary agreed with Mr Madella, but felt there was a reason for the inclusion of other provinces. In terms of the application for the oversight it was only one application therefore it would raise an audit query if we omitted the others in our report.

The Chairperson said the attendance of Mr Madella should be corrected in the report.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) said that there was no committee member in meeting, besides the Chairperson who had attended all four provinces. The Committee had not completed Gauteng. He recalled that the Committee had to come back by the 28th.

The Committee Secretary said that Mr Filtane was correct as the Committee had to return. It did however work in Gauteng.

Mr Nchabeleng said that the report was a true reflection of what happened during the visit.

The Committee adopted the report.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary for progress report of the public hearings on the ESTA Amendment Bill in the Western Province, as it was taking place this weekend.

Progress report on the ESTA Public Hearings
Ms Nyamza said a one pager with an itinerary had been prepared and circulated which showed what was going to happen, when and where. Everything was almost completed. The funding application was with the last signatory which was the Secretary to Parliament. This was not going to be a problem. It might be ready today or tomorrow morning, but everything had been done.

Mr Matiase said that there was a concern raised in the last meeting about public awareness about these meetings. He asked to what extent stakeholders had been made aware of the impending visit and these hearings; and what other arrangements had been put in place.

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to explain the progress made in terms of public mobilisation.

The Committee Secretary replied that Parliament had two offices that dealt with public participation. There was an office called the Parliamentary Democratic Office and one called the ;Public Education Unit. Both units had been there doing mobilisation. The itinerary submitted here was compiled based on the information received from them. From this document it could be seen that there were submissions from Surplus People's Project (SPP) and Witzenberg Rural Development Centre (WRDC). So almost all NGOs were going to be present. What was normally done was that the Committee wrote to District Municipalities and they had to liaise with all local municipalities that were feeding into hat particular district. So that had been captured in both districts of the West Coast and Winelands. She guaranteed that the hall would be packed. Parliament was providing transport and catering for the communities.

Mr Madella said that his constituency was on the other side. There had been a request, and he had asked them to communicate with the Secretary about the possibility of Parliament or this Committee funding a taxi from Overstrand and a taxi from Villiersdorp as they very keen to be part of this process. This Committee would not be going to any other place except De Doorns and Citrusdal.

The Chairperson asked the Secretary to speak with Mr Madella about this.

The Secretary placed it on record that Mr Madella's constituency had called her and she had referred them to relevant people dealing with logistics. She had advised them to liaise with local municipalities and gave him the details of the person to talk to in that municipality who was assisting the Committee. This was a community development liaison person in that local municipality.

Mr Mnguni supported Mr Madella but expressed caution as public hearings were not driven by a constituency model. He was afraid that the rest of the political parties might site this day as an example and then insist on that privilege, but he thought all understood about the generality of constituencies as part of the public. He was however satisfied with the responses given. He wanted it placed on record that public hearings were samples. They were sectoral issues rather than constituency issues.

The Meeting was adjourned.



No related documents


  • 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: