Seven of the nine provinces approved the National Gambling Amendment Bill with KwaZulu-Natal abstaining. The Western Cape rejected the Bill. Even though the majority of the provinces were in favour of the Bill many of them had proposed amendments. The DTI presented its responses to the concerns proposed amendments. Two major concerns coming out of the Negotiating Mandates were the National Central Electronic Monitoring System (NCEMS) and the consultation process around it; secondly, Clause 26 which dealt with the quorum for National Gambling Policy Council (NGPC) meetings. The remaining proposed amendments were technical in nature. Some provinces said Clause 26 ought to be deleted and that a round robin model should be used. The Committee decided to flag this and deal with it later. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) provided responses to the concerns raised.
The Committee was divided on whether consultation on the Bill in the provinces had been sufficient. The DA said the time for consultation in the provinces had been insufficient. The DA questioned how the provinces could support the Bill whilst having so many concerns about it. The Chairperson said that he understood that the time for consultations in the provinces had been limited but that was all the time available due to the Fifth Parliament coming to an end soon.
On the Foreign Service Bill, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) made a late submission on the Bill on 11 March 2019. The Deputy Minister of Public Service and Administration was present to address the Committee on the concerns DPSA had. However, the Committee stood firm on its decision not to accept late submissions. The Deputy Minister accepted the Committee’s decision and stated that she trusted the process and hoped the DPSA concerns would be addressed.
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) responded to written submissions from the Department of Defence, COSATU, academics and private individuals. Members observed that the submissions raised many of the same concerns. Members pointed out that DIRCO had consulted with nineteen departments about the Bill yet there still concerns. The lack of proper coordination between DIRCO and other departments on the Bill was concerning to Members. The Bill after all had been ratified by Cabinet before introduction. The Committee noted concerns as did stakeholders on Clause 2 which stated that the Bill took precedence over other legislation. The Parliamentary Legal Adviser was asked to provide guidance on the matter but Members were still unclear whether Clause 2 should be deleted or remain. The Parliamentary Legal Adviser maintained that the decision to delete was up to the Committee. The Committee decided to flag the clause until its next meeting. The Committee expressed disappointment at not receiving the submissions made to the Portfolio Committee as DIRCO had undertaken to provide these.
National Gambling Amendment Bill: negotiating mandates
The Chairperson stated that the Committee had received negotiating mandates from seven provinces. The Free State Province had submitted its mandate just as the meeting started. No mandate had been received from the North West at the commencement of the meeting. [Later in the meeting the North West mandate was received].
Mr W Faber (DA, Northern Cape) objected to the Free State Negotiating Mandate. He asked how the mandate could be submitted when the meeting dealing with it in the Free State Provincial Legislature had not even commenced. This was according to information Mr Faber had received from Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) who was present in the Free State meeting.
The Chairperson pointed out that the Free State negotiating mandate was received as he was opening this meeting.
Dr Evelyn Masotja, DTI Deputy Director General: Consumer and Corporate Regulation Division, stated that seven of the eight provinces that had submitted Negotiating Mandates had voted in favour of the Bill with KwaZulu-Natal Province abstaining. Some provinces had proposed amendments. It was only the Western Cape Province that had rejected the Bill. It had given its reasons for doing so. She noted that the Northern Cape Province had not proposed amendments but had raised issues for consideration. She went through each Negotiating Mandate and its proposed amendments and provided the Department of Trade and Industry’s response to the proposed amendments.
Eastern Cape Province
Eastern Cape had voted in favour of the Bill but had raised these concerns:
▪ The definition of a cash dispensing machine. The Province proposed alternative wording. Dr Masotja said that “cash dispensing machine” was not in the Bill. The proposal could be considered.
▪ Clause 3 dealt with the Register of Unlawful Gambling Operators and the Province felt that the Register should be limited to restricted gambling activities ie unlawful gambling. The DTI response was that the focus should not only be on unlicensed operators but also on licensed operators.
▪ The Province felt that there had not been sufficient consultation on Clause 12 on the National Central Electronic Monitoring System (NCEMS). DTI conceded that greater consultation on the NCEMS could be done. The NCEMS was important to ensure that gambling information was properly regulated. Currently, provinces relied on operators for information. A central monitoring system was needed. DTI did not foresee a clash between provinces and national.
▪ On the Clause 26 requirement for a quorum of the National Gambling Policy Council (NGPC) meetings, the Province preferred a round robin solution. Dr Masotja stated that the National Gambling Policy Council (NGPC) had for many years not been functional. The Act did allow the NGPC to set the tone on how its procedures should work. The provision in the clause was in line with the Principal Act. The round robin method had been tried before and to date had not worked.
▪ The Province questioned whether the establishment of the National Gambling Regulator (NGR) in Clause 28 was the right thing to do given that there was already a National Gambling Board. The DTI was of the view that the perceived model for the NGR would work as it had been tried and tested. The Chief Executive Officer of the NGR would not take decisions on his own. Accountability structures were in place. For efficiency and no delays, the NGR was better than the NGB.
▪ There were concerns about Clause 31(e) which amended section 66(6) found in the 2008 Amendment Act which had not come into operation yet. Dr Masotja responded that the 2008 Amendment Act was an act of law but it just was not operational as yet. The issue in the clause was legal technical drafting.
▪ The Province felt Clause 40 on the powers of the National Inspectorate was a duplication of functions with that of enforcement authorities in provinces. DTI’s response was that the clause strengthened the Inspectorate, which was needed.
Ms Caroline Kongwa Administrator: National Gambling Board, pointed out on the Register of Unlawful Gambling Operations that there were instances where even a licensed operator might have been convicted in court. There was a penalty regime in place. No exception was listed. Licensed and unlicensed operators would be listed. On the NCEMS, she said that consultations had taken place. The concerns of operators would be addressed once they understood how the NCEMS extended to their operations. The provision was to empower the NGR to monitor. Further consultation would however take place. There were also concerns that the competencies of provincial licensing authorities would be taken away by the NCEMS. This was not true. The structure of the NGR would mean that there was no one individual who would have authority. There was a need for Clause 40 because the National Inspectorate could not investigate matters with the Provincial Inspectorates. The powers of Provincial Inspectorates were not compromised.
Mr Johan Strydom, DTI Legal Adviser, said that he had explained the matter of the 2008 Amendment Act in a previous meeting. Provinces were confused about the interaction of the Principal Act of 2004 and the 2008 Amendment Act. He referred to Clause 15(c) in which a paragraph (l) was being inserted. Where were the rest of the paragraphs from (c) to (l)? He responded that the rest of the paragraphs were to be found in the 2008 Amendment Act which had been assented to and signed by the President. It was thus law. The 2008 Amendment Act had not commenced as yet as there was no proclamation. The Bill however still needed to reflect the 2008 Amendment Act. There were three pieces of legislation to consider. The 2004 Principal Act, the 2008 Amendment Act and the Bill.
Mr Faber said that the Eastern Cape Province had alleged that there had not been sufficient consultation on the extension of the NCEMS. Many of the other provinces had similar concerns. He asked about the cost implications of the NCEMS and whose responsibility was it? Was it national or provincial’s? He asked about the costs for the establishment of the NGR.
Dr Masotja replied that the NCEMS was a national competency. There was an existing system in place so estimates were possible. She did not see the cost implications for the NCEMS to be heavy. There were no implications on provinces as it was a national function. On the cost implications of the NGR, she felt that there would not be any as the NGB was going to be repositioned as the NGR. There were existing staff and structures in place.
Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape) was still not pleased about the quorum for NGPC meetings in Clause 26. Other provinces had had similar concerns. Otherwise, he was pleased with most of the DTI responses.
Mr Faber agreed with Mr Rayi.
The Chairperson summarised the concerns. He observed two things. The first was that the leadership of various provinces had spoken to one another as the comments and proposed amendments were very similar. The second thing that he had observed was that there had been vigorous participation. Referring to the Eastern Cape proposed amendments, he said that the Committee could not accept “automated telemachine” as a definition. What was in the Act was acceptable. On the Register of Unlawful Gambling Operators, the provision would cover both legal and illegal gambling operators. On the NCEMS matter, he said that the Fourth Industrial Revolution complicated things and created uncertainty for gambling operators. Gambling operators felt that they already had a system. The NCEMS was to monitor the system. All that was being asked was for gambling operators to share the information on their systems. Things were changing all the time and Clause 12 was trying to bring about some certainty. On concerns about provincial licensing authorities, he noted that consolidation was needed at national level. At the moment most provincial gambling boards were in trouble. They were not operating efficiently. The NCEMS would try to monitor things centrally. On concerns about the quorum for NGPC meetings, meetings more often than not did not quorate currently. Clause 26 was a concern for most provinces. Provinces had suggested that a round robin model be used. He suggested that a round robin model could be considered with an addition of a stop gap. He asked the legal drafters present to consider this. On the establishment of the NGR it was about repositioning the NGB into the NGR. The process would be spelt out in the regulations.
The Chairperson noted that the Committee would not deal with electronic gambling. Another parliamentary committee was dealing with cybercrime. Clause 35 that repealed section 69 in the Principal Act, the Committee agreed that section 69 should not be deleted but rather modified. It was clear that the two main concerns were the quorum and the NCEMS. The rest of the proposed amendments seemed of a technical nature. In the interest of time, he asked Dr Masotja when dealing with the rest of the provinces not to repeat those items already discussed in the Eastern Cape’s Negotiating Mandate.
On the NGPC quorum, Dr Masotja pointed out that section 65(7) of the Gambling Act did set out rules of procedure for the NGPC. There were already round robin models in use. She explained that it was a procedural issue. It was part of the operations of the NGPC. She did understand the concerns about the quorum. Clause 26 was necessary even though it might seem drastic.
The Chairperson asked for evidence where the round robin was used in practice.
Mr Rayi still felt uneasy about the Clause 26 quorum and said the Principal Act provision on the NGPC rules of procedure was the preferred option. Clause 26 should be deleted in the Bill.
The Chairperson remarked that the Eastern Cape and Gauteng seemed to have a huge issue with Clause 26. If the DTI was saying that the Principal Act set out the NGPC rules of procedure then DTI should provide this explanation in writing to the provinces.
Dr Masotja replied that Clause 26 in the Bill provided that if in a first meeting of the NGPC there was no quorum then in its second meeting the majority that were present could take a decision. She understood that the Eastern Cape Province was proposing a round robin model but as she had previously stated it was already part of practice and had not worked that well. There was no need for an amendment to provide for a round robin model.
Mr B Nthebe (ANC, North West) suggested that the Committee deal with the quorum at a later time and leave it for now. He understood that Clause 26 tried to secure the functionality of the NGPC.
The Chairperson asked if the Committee accepted what the Eastern Cape proposed after hearing the responses by the DTI.
Mr Terblanche said that he personally reserved his right to vote on the Bill.
On the Eastern Cape proposed amendments, Mr Rayi responded that it seemed the Committee was not convinced so the status quo remained. The majority of the DTI explanations were acceptable to the Committee so none of the Eastern Cape proposed amendments would be accepted. Where the Committee remained unconvinced, a C-list of amendments would go to the provinces. There was thus nothing to accept, only to say that the Committee agreed with the DTI explanations.
The Chairperson said that the Eastern Cape Province seemed to be satisfied with the responses by the DTI. The Committee was also satisfied.
Free State Province
The Free State Provincial Legislature had voted in favour of the Bill. No issues were raised.
The Gauteng Provincial Legislature had voted in favour of the Bill but had concerns. Many of the concerns raised by Eastern Cape were also raised by Gauteng. However, the Gauteng Province called for the deletion of key provisions in the Bill: Clauses 12, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 40.
There were no objections by the Committee to the Gauteng Negotiating Mandate.
KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Legislature had abstained from voting on the Bill. The Province did raise some procedural concerns. One of which was that the Explanatory Memorandum had not been amended.
Adv Strydom referred to the B version of the Bill and referred to Clause 45-short title and commencement. He pointed out that the Bill did not have a Memorandum on the Objects of the Bill which bills usually had. He noted that Rule 288 stated that if the Portfolio Committee amended the Memorandum on the Objects then it had to be tabled in parliament. The Portfolio Committee was thus not obliged to amend the Memorandum on the Objects. He said that legal drafters had taken the Memorandum on the Objects and had amended it. The Memorandum on the Objects had been around for a while already. It could be attached to the Bill.
There were no objections by the Committee to the KwaZuLu-Natal Negotiating Mandate.
Limpopo Provincial Legislature had voted in favour of the Bill. No proposed amendments were made but the Province did raise Clause 26 and asked that there be strict measures in place to ensure meetings were quorate. The Province also said that the National Gambling Board should not be abolished.
There were no objections by the Committee to the Limpopo Negotiating Mandate.
Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature had voted in favour of the Bill but suggested that certain key provisions in the Bill ought to be deleted: Clauses 12, 26 and 28. The issues were the same as those raised by the Eastern Cape Province.
There were no objections by the Committee to the Mpumalanga Province Negotiating Mandate.
North West Province
The North West Provincial Legislature had voted in favour of the Bill. No issues were raised.
Northern Cape Province
Northern Cape Provincial Legislature had voted in favour of the Bill. No proposed amendments were made but there were issues to consider. Most of the issues were of a positive nature.
There were no objections by the Committee to the Northern Cape Negotiating Mandate.
Western Cape Province
Western Cape Provincial Legislature had rejected the Bill. No amendments were proposed. The Province noted that there were financial implications for the implementation of the NCEMS and that a cost analysis had not been done. The Province said that public consultation on the Bill had been insufficient. There were concerns about the National Gambling Board being replaced by a National Gambling Regulator. A further concern was that the Bill did not deal with online gambling. The Province stated that it had not been furnished with the Agency Rationalisation Report and as such the Standing Committee on Finance in the Province could not apply its mind on the different models of governance for a National Gambling Regulator. The Province said Clause 26 was undemocratic and that it had been rejected by all stakeholders.
Mr Faber was concerned whether justice was being done to the Bill given that there was so little time for consultation in the provinces. He observed that some provinces had “cut and pasted” concerns and proposals from each other. He reiterated that the Free State Provincial Legislature was meeting at present on the Bill so how could the Committee have received its negotiating mandate. He was concerned that the provinces were failing the Committee.
Mr O Terblanche (DA, Western Cape) had one concern and that was how provinces could support the Bill whilst having so many concerns. Were provinces really in support of the Bill?
The Chairperson responded that Members could not speak on behalf of another province. He felt it unfair to say that provinces had cut and pasted from one another. The facts were that provinces had consulted with one another. On the time allocated for consultations, he pointed out that some provinces had done a good job. The problem was that there was no more time. Most of the provinces had not said that the time for consultation had not been enough. At provincial hearings, habitual gamblers had not attended but those making huge profits off gambling were present. Unfortunately that was how the process had unfolded. Now it was up to the Committee to look at the legal implications of the proposed amendments by provinces. He urged the DTI to continue to engage with the Western Cape Province over its concerns. The DTI would come up with responses to the proposed amendments and compile a document which would be sent to provinces. The provinces would use the document to come up with their final mandates. He asked that the DTI provide the response document to the Committee by 4pm the following day.
Dr Masotja assured the Committee that it would get the response document by 4pm on 14 March.
The Chairperson said that the Committee would deal with final mandates on the Bill the following week.
Foreign Service Bill: DIRCO response to written submissions
The Chairperson stated that the closing date for submissions on the Bill had been 1 March 2019. The Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA) together with the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) had made submissions on 11 March 2019. He asked whether the Committee should consider the submissions.
Mr Faber stated that deadlines were set for a reason. Late submissions should not be accepted.
The Chairperson said that the Bill was a section 75 Bill. It seemed as though Members were not willing to accept late submissions.
Deputy Minister of Public Service and Administration, Dr Chana Pilane-Majake, said she understood the DPSA submission had been late but stated that the DPSA still had some valid concerns.
The Chairperson responded that the Committee had decided not to accept late submissions. 1 March 2019 had been the closing date for submissions. He respectfully reiterated that the DPSA late submission would not be entertained. He noted that some of the DPSA concerns had been raised by other stakeholders such as COSATU and the Department of Defence.
Deputy Minister Pilane-Majake replied that the DPSA still had trust in the process and hoped the DPSA’s concerns would be addressed.
The Chairperson said that the Committee would consider the submissions on the Bill and on 20 March 2019 would vote on the Bill.
Adv Sandea De Wet, DIRCO Chief State Law Adviser, presented the DIRCO responses:
Department of Defence (DoD) submission
DoD had submitted similar comments to the Portfolio Committee. DoD was concerned about prescribed courses for all diplomats. They wished to be excused from taking them. Clause 7(1)(a) dealt with the Diplomatic Academy which would mainly be applicable to DIRCO employees. Each department whether the South African Police Service or the Department of Home Affairs would continue conducting its own customised training courses. Officials from other departments, including DoD, may however be required to do extra courses before their posting.
DoD also had concerns on Clause 8(1) on the establishment of coordination and other mechanisms. DoD proposed the use of “must” as opposed to ”may” as currently used in the first sentence of Clause 8. DIRCO responded that “may” allowed the Minister to decide to establish coordination mechanisms as may be needed and as may be within budgetary limitations.
The Chairperson asked Members if they were happy with the response by DIRCO.
Mr Terblanche noted that DIRCO needed to let the other departments understand that the additional training was only on generic diplomacy.
The Chairperson said that DoD did not wish the additional training to be mandatory. DoD said that its own training sufficed as far as its duties was concerned. He agreed with DoD on the use of “must” in that consultation must happen.
Mr Rayi stated that in the briefing on the Bill the Committee was informed that nineteen departments had been consulted. The Committee had requested DIRCO provide the Committee with the submissions which it has not received. He was concerned that there had been no proper coordination between DIRCO and other departments on the Bill. The Bill was after all first ratified by Cabinet before introduction in Parliament.
Mr Faber agreed with DIRCO that courses on protocol were necessary. Even Members of Parliament did short protocol courses. DoD just like any other department should be required to do the courses. There needed to be a uniform standard for protocol training when deployed abroad. He agreed that “must” should be used in Clause 8.
The Chairperson said that it was understood that departments should get protocol training which the Committee supported. The gripe that DoD seemed to have was that it did not wish to participate in a full course. How long was the course?
Adv De Wet said that there was a short course for persons outside of DIRCO. It was roughly three weeks training whereas DIRCO staff training was six months. The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation would do a thorough assessment of training needs and thereafter prescribe training. The training involved the most basic elements on diplomacy. The basic course would be mandatory.
The Chairperson said the Committee was in agreement that the basic training course should be mandatory. In Clause 8(1) the Committee supported the use of “must” over “may”.
Mr Rayi pointed out that in Clause 8(1) used the word “may”. It all depended on the availability of resources.
The Chairperson said that one had to be practical. The Committee needed to be firm on certain matters. There should be better coordination between government departments.
Adv De Wet assured the Committee that DIRCO was committed to coordination. She did point out that legal advisers on the Bill had all been in agreement that in Clause 8(1) “may” was the better option to use. The Intergovernmental Relations Act already provided for “must” and would apply.
Mr Nathi Mjenxane, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, referred to section 41(2) of the Constitution and to section 9(1) of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act and said that the operative word was “may”. A cabinet minister “may” establish an intergovernmental framework for better coordination. He said that “may” was used as opposed to “must”.
The Chairperson accepted the explanation and said that the Committee acceded to “may”. He asked that in the interest of time where similar comments were made that DIRCO responses not be repeated.
COSATU had raised similar concerns to that of DoD. DIRCO had met with COSATU and had accepted the explanations given by DIRCO. COSATU had concerns that the Bill would take precedence over the Public Service Act and other legislation. DIRCO’s response was that the Bill would trump any other conflicting legislation. The intention of the Bill was not to conflict with existing legal provisions such as the Public Service Act. Where someone was employed in terms of the Public Service Act, that Act would apply to them. This matter had been extensively debated by the Portfolio Committee. Legal advice was is should be provided for in the Bill.
Another issue for COSATU was they required the Minister to consult employees and unions when drafting the regulations. DIRCO responded that it would consult with labour before regulations were published. The intention was not to change conditions of service. Collective agreements would be adhered to.
The Chairperson pointed out that DIRCO had not provided the Portfolio Committee submissions despite being requested to.
Adv De Wet responded that she had been under the impression that the Committee had received the report on the submissions.
The Chairperson said that the Committee had not received the Report referred to.
Mr Rayi observed that Clause 2 (Application of the Bill) had not been in the original Bill. It was only added while the Bill was amended in the Portfolio Committee. He felt it very dangerous for the Bill to supersede any other legislation. How could the Bill supersede the Labour Relations Act or the Basic Conditions of Employment Act? He suggested that the Bill take on its original form on the application of the Bill. The other option was to delete the provision that the Bill supersedes other legislation.
Mr Nthebe pointed out that COSATU was concerned about the Bill superseding other legislation. He was under the impression that it was only the Constitution that superseded other legislation.
Adv De Wet explained that the Bill was to apply to people who were deployed abroad for four years. Labour disciplinary matters would be dealt with by the disciplinary code that was applicable to the particular person. The employee’s conditions of service would apply. There was no intention to change conditions of service. When a person was transferred then conditions of service were affected. Collective bargaining agreements would be in place. DIRCO ensured that whatever legislation under which a person was employed would apply. The Bill would thus not apply.
The Chairperson pointed out that whether a person was employed inside or outside of SA the same conditions of service would apply. The Bill did say that it had precedence over other legislation. He asked the Parliamentary Legal Advisers to clarify the matter.
Mr Mjenxane noted that it was up to the Committee to make a final decision on whether to delete or keep Clause 2. The established principle in law was that where there was legislation to regulate a specific area. In this instance the Bill would only take precedence over other legislation when the other legislation contradicts Clauses 1-15 of the Bill. The Bill could not take precedence over labour relations matters. On Foreign Service matters the Bill would take precedence against general legislation. Even if the provision was removed from the Bill, the courts would consider Foreign Service when making a determination. The principle in law was that specific legislation would take precedence over legislation of general application. This was in terms of the Interpretation Act.
Mr Rayi asked that Mr Mjehxahe provide the Committee with his explanation in writing.
Mr Nthebe asked if it was legally sound to have a provision in the Bill which said that the Bill took precedence over other legislation.
Mr Mjehxahe reiterated that it was up to the Committee to decide whether it wished to delete the provision. It could be kept or it could be removed. Removing the provision would not weaken the Bill.
The Chairperson said the Committee took guidance from what the Parliamentary Legal Adviser suggested.
Mr Nthebe would have liked Mr Mjehxahe to have been explicit on whether the provision should be kept or removed.
Mr Faber agreed with Mr Nthebe that the legal opinion should suggest one or the other, either to keep the provision or to delete it. The Committee was being put in a difficult position. There had to be a difference if it was kept in the Bill or removed.
The Chairperson said that Parliamentary Legal Advisers provided legal opinions but the Committee had to take the final decision. The Committee would not make a decision now but would do so in its next meeting. The Committee was running out of time. He asked Adv De Wet to continue and be as brief as possible.
Mr S Badenhorst (former DIRCO employee) submission
Mr Badenhorst was concerned about the security of the DIRCO Information Technology and Communication (ICT) network. The response from DIRCO was that security of communications would be dealt with in the policies and codes.
Mr Elcort Matlala submission
The submission dealt with illegal immigrants and asylum seekers and fell outside the scope of the Bill.
Prof Jo-Ansie van Wyk, International Politics at the University of SA (UNISA) submission
Prof van Wyk had raised similar points as in her submission to the Portfolio Committee and that submission had been considered in detail. In the present submission, Prof van Wyk had indicated that a number of matters were omitted from the Bill. DIRCO on the matters alleged to have been omitted in the Bill responded that they would be covered or dealt with in terms of internal policies, codes, directives, employment contracts or other legislation, including the Labour Relations Act. DIRCO also felt that sufficient consultation had been done on the Bill.
The Chairperson noted that most of concerns raised by Prof van Wyk had already been discussed earlier by the Committee. DIRCO should tabulate its responses to the submissions and provided this to the Committee.
Mr Faber asked that the Committee receive the tabular document from DIRCO before the next meeting. He reiterated that the Committee needed specific direction on whether the clause 2 should remain or be deleted – on the Bill taking precedence over other legislation,
Adv De Wet assured the Committee that DIRCO would provide its response to all Portfolio Committee submissions in addition to the tabular document.
The Chairperson asked that the tabular document be provided not later than 12pm on 15 March 2019.
Adv De Wet agreed.
Mr Mjehxahe undertook to provide the Committee with his written responses by the morning of 14 March 2019. His responses would cover general versus specific laws of application and the possible use of “may” or “must” on intergovernmental relations.
Minutes dated 06 March 2019 was adopted unamended.
The meeting was adjourned.
- National Gambling Amendment Bill [B27B-2018]
- Eastern Cape negotiating mandate
- Western Cape negotiating mandate
- Northern Cape negotiating mandate
- Limpopo negotiating mandate
- Mpumalanga negotiating mandate
- North West negotiating mandate
- Kwazulu-Natal negotiating mandate
- Gauteng negotiating mandate
- Free State negotiating mandate
- DIRCO written input on Foreign Sevice Bill
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.