Committee Report on Western Cape Appropriation Bill & Western Cape Additional Adjustment Appropriation Bill

Meeting report

Nomination of Acting Chairperson

Ms Waseemah Kamish-Achmat, Procedural Officer, acting as the Presiding Officer, commenced the meeting with apologies for absence from the Chairperson, Ms D Baartman (DA), and Mr R Mackenzie (DA).

Ms Kamish-Achmat then requested nominations for an acting Chairperson.

Ms M Wenger (DA), standing in as an alternate Member for Mr Mackenzie, proposed Mr D Mitchell (DA) to be the Acting Chairperson.

Mr C Dugmore (ANC), alternate for Mr D Smith (ANC), whose apologies for absence the former conveyed to the Committee, sought clarification as to whether Ms N Nkondlo (ANC) could be nominated as the Acting Chairperson, given that she was an alternate Member to the Committee.

Mr Mitchell raised a point of order, indicating that there was a pending proposal tabled with which the Committee had not yet dealt, and that Mr Dugmore’s query would be attended to after the pending proposal had been addressed.

Ms Kamish-Achmat indicated that, in terms of the Committee procedure, Ms Nkondlo could not stand in as an alternate for an absent Member, since Mr L Mvimbi (ANC) was standing in as the full Member. Ms Nkondlo could be recognised only as an alternate Member of the Committee, and could not stand in for anyone.

Mr Dugmore said that although Mr Mitchell had made a proposal, he was not sure if there was a seconder to that proposal, and that Mr Dugmore also had an additional proposal. He was not sure whether Ms Kamish-Achmat would ask for a seconder to Mr Mitchell’s proposal prior to the consideration of his own proposal. [Note: Mr Dugmore erroneously indicated that Mr Mitchell had an outstanding proposal; the proposal in fact was raised by Ms Wenger.]

Mr D America (DA) seconded Ms Wenger’s nomination of Mr Mitchell as Acting Chairperson.

Mr Dugmore nominated Mr Mvimbi to chair the meeting.

Ms Kamish-Achmat asked if there were any seconders for Mr Dugmore’s proposed nomination.

Ms Nkondlo seconded Mr Dugmore’s nomination.

Mr Mitchell raised a second point of order asking whether Mr Dugmore was a full Member of the Committee, since a Member could not make a proposal if that Member did not have voting rights.

Mr Dugmore sought further clarification, since the Committee attendance register indicated that Ms Baartman was the Chairperson, but was absent; that Mr Mackenzie was a Member, but was also absent; and that Ms W Philander (DA) was also absent.

Ms Philander, who had arrived slightly late, was in fact at the meeting and made her presence known.

Ms Kamish-Achmat reiterated that apologies had been received from both Ms Baartman and Mr Mackenzie, and that Mr Mitchell and Ms Wenger would, respectively, be standing in for them, so that the latter two Members held the status of full Members.

Mr Dugmore asked whether this was communicated in writing.

Ms Kamish-Achmat replied that this was in accordance with the longstanding rules of the Committee. She then re-clarified that she had received apologies from Ms Baartman.

Ms Wenger added that she had verbally conveyed apologies from Mr Mackenzie to Ms Kamish-Achmat that morning.

Ms Nkondlo requested from Ms Kamish-Achmat that the meeting be run properly, and that Members should not be allowed to simply switch on microphones and start speaking.

Ms Kamish-Achmat acknowledged this request and stated that the Committee had two proposals on the table.

Ms Nkondlo interjected, indicating that she was still speaking.

Ms Kamish-Achmat apologised and acknowledged Ms Nkondlo.

Ms Nkondlo said she expected that Ms Kamish-Achmat would -- prior to the Committee meeting -- have communicated the apologies of Ms Baartman and the confirmation of the two alternates, Mr Mitchell and Ms Wenger, as full Members of the Committee, so that there was “no assumption.” She added that Members were, as a result of the lack of such prior communication from Ms Kamish-Achmat, speaking from their own unverified information, which was unfair in a multiparty Committee.

Ms Kamish-Achmat noted Ms Nkondlo’s concern and advised that she would abide by her request in future. She apologised for the oversight. She restated that the Committee had two proposals before it: (1) Ms Wenger’s proposal that Mr Mitchell stand in as Acting Chairperson, which had been seconded by Mr America; and (2) Mr Dugmore’s proposal that Mr Mvimbi stand in as Acting Chairperson. She indicated that the Committee was awaiting a seconder from the Committee for Mr Mvimbi, [however, Ms Nkondlo had in fact already indicated that she would second Mr Dugmore’s nomination of Mr Mvimbi].

Ms Nkondlo asked who the seconder for Mr Mitchell’s nomination to assume the role of Acting Chairperson was.

Ms Kamish-Achmat clarified that Mr America had seconded Ms Wenger’s nomination of Mr Mitchell.

Ms Nkondlo asked if Mr America was a full Member of the Committee.

Ms Philander, apologising for her “few seconds” belatedness, said that she was a full Member of the Committee, and that she was seconding Ms Wenger’s nomination of Mr Mitchell for the role of Acting Chairperson.  

Mr Mitchell, assuming the role of Acting Chairperson, subsequent to Ms Philander’s seconding of his nomination to the role, introduced himself for the record, and asked all Members to do the same.

Committee Procedure: Discussion

Mr Dugmore, after introductions had concluded, repeated an earlier question about whether it was necessary to obtain a formal written communication from a permanent Member indicating that an alternate Member would, when the former was absent, be standing in their stead, or whether the alternate Member need merely verbally indicate as much at the meeting. Moreover, he sought clarification as to whether or not a written communication had been obtained and submitted to the Committee by each alternate Member who was currently standing in for any full Member, such as he and Ms Wenger were doing for Mr Smith and Mr Mackenzie, respectively.

The Chairperson indicated that, so far as he knew, there was nothing in the Committee Rules which stipulated the manner in which apologies were to be conveyed, but added that he would request for the Procedural Officer to offer guidance at the next Committee meeting. He then advised that he would be moving to agenda point two.

Mr Mvimbi then raised a point of order, saying that the Committee should not be taking actions “haphazardly,” and that actions should be taken in accordance with procedure. He added that procedurally, experience has shown that should alternate Members wish to take a vote, they first needed a formal notice in writing that they were standing in a permanent Member’s stead. He appealed for consistency in the application and implementation of procedure.

The Chairperson noted Mr Mvimbi’s point of order, and advised that he, as Chairperson, was guided by the Standing Rules of the Provincial Parliament, which were not determinative on his point. He suggested that Mr Mvimbi make such a proposal to amend the rules to the sub-Committee on Rules, which was currently reviewing Committee rules and procedures. He again proceeded to advise the Committee that he was moving on to agenda point two.

Ms Nkondlo beseeched the Chairperson to allow Members of the Committee to pose questions and to arrive at a concord, saying: “You are assisting us to arrive at a consensus in a meeting. So please do not bully us -- you are not going to bully me to speak. You are just going to calm down, and you are going to allow yourself to listen to me as a Member in this Committee because I am not asking permission. You are not going to tell me what to say, when. You are not going to do that. So I am going back to my point; don’t be a bully as a Chair.” She wished to state this for the record as her first point. As her second point, she added that if indeed the Committee rules were indeterminate as regards Mr Mvimbi’s question concerning a formal written notice, then she was seeking guidance from the Chairperson himself as to whether a requirement for such a notice would be unprocedural.

Ms Wenger then advised that the practice over the last six years during her tenure on the Committee was that sometimes an apology was tabled in writing, and sometimes it was tabled verbally at the meeting. The Committee had always proceeded in that way, and there was no “hard and fast” rule that an apology needed to be provided in either one way or the other. There was a system in place where Members were “ATCed” permanent Members, as well as alternate Members of Committees. She explained that it functions as follows: if a permanent Member was not available, an alternative Member, as “ATCed”, could stand in for that Member and would have exactly the same rights as the permanent Member in that Committee. However, it was important to note that those alternate Members were duly “ATCed” since all Members could attend any standing Committee, as was their right as Members of the House. If they were not “ATCed” permanent or alternate Members, standing in for a permanent Member, then they did not have voting rights in the Committee in question.

Committee Report on Appropriation Bill

The Chairperson thanked Members for their input, and advised that they would be moving on to agenda item two -- the consideration of the draft Committee Report on the Western Cape Appropriation Bill [B3-2020].

He said that he would be tabling the Committee Report on each Vote. He then tabled Vote 1.  

Mr Dugmore said that the Committee was dealing with item number two, which was the issue of the Committee Reports. He asked whether the minutes of the various Votes the Committee would consider were available to assist Committee Members. The reason he was asking was that, for instance, on a particular day when the Standing Committee on the Premier had met, Committee Members had been called to a multiparty Committee at which the Premier had addressed all the Members. He had requested from the legislature officials who had been present to convey his apology for his absence from the meeting. He had advised that there was nothing he was proposing to change in any resolution, since they were resolutions of the Committee, but it would give “some comfort” if, for the Reports before the Committee, the Committee could provide copies of the minutes of the various other Committees. He said that, in his situation, it would be “comforting” to have the minutes (which would not be tabled), so that he could ensure his apology was reflected. He summarised his question by asking whether, in the present Committee, it would be possible to have a copy of all the minutes for the meetings which took place to inform the resolutions which the Committee was currently discussing, for noting purposes only.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) indicated that, as a Chairperson of one of the Committees to which Mr Dugmore had just referred, he could confirm that the minutes of his Committee, up to and including the last meeting, had been adopted and that those minutes were a matter of public record. This meant that any Member of the Committee who would like to see those minutes could access them, since they were in the public domain. The Report and the Votes, for which he had been responsible, and which were currently before the present Committee, having been signed off by himself, had already been adopted by the relevant Committees. Therefore, if anyone wished to see those minutes, which would be tabled before each relevant Committee (since Committees adopted their own minutes), they were available as a matter of public record. However, for this Committee to consider the minutes of another Committee would be out of order.

Ms Wenger said she was sure the Committees would be able to circulate the minutes of their respective meetings after the present Committee meeting. It would simply be a question of requesting all the procedural officers to collate them and circulate them. She did not think there was any issue with that, and there was no opposition to it. With regard to the Reports, they followed the format per the prescribed style guide. She therefore requested that the Committee consider the Report as it appeared before them.

Mr Dugmore said reference had been made earlier by the Chairperson to a process of amending the rules. He wanted to have it minuted that “that particular Committee is informed by this Committee of the need, in those amendments, to discuss the issue of having, in the budget process, not only a resolution of the Committee, but that … there should be consideration of whether the rules provide for the reports -- the detailed reports of Committees -- to be discussed.” He thought this was important, because it was a practice that existed previously in the legislature.

The Chairperson advised that he would capture Mr Dugmore’s request as a recommendation at the end of the Committee meeting.

Tabling and Adoption of Appropriation Bills and Committee Reports

The Chairperson advised that he would table the individual Reports per vote.

The Standing Committee on Premier and Constitutional Matters on Vote 1:

The Committee recommended that it supports the Vote.

The Parliamentary Oversight Committee on Vote 2:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote, and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its right not to support the Vote.”

The Finance, Economic Opportunities and Tourism Committee, and Provincial Treasury on Vote 3:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote, and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view…”

Ms Nkondlo interjected and queried, in relation to “standard in writing,” that in Vote 2 (and all subsequent Votes) mention was made of the word “minority,” but that in one of the Votes that word was missing. She asked the Chairperson if that mattered, or if it was something which was insignificant.

The Chairperson said that he was advised by Ms Kamish-Achmat that “it was the Committee’s Report, as long as the Standing Rule was reflected.”

Ms Wenger conveyed her understanding that the way the wording was expressed was different between the two Votes, because it was two different views. She said that “in Vote 2, the minority view was to not support the Vote, and in Vote 3 it was to not express a view on the vote,” so that there was a distinction between not supporting and abstaining. She added that the ANC was “expressing a view to abstain.”

The Chairperson re-tabled Vote 3 for completeness.

Provincial Treasury on Vote 3:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view to reserve its view for the House.”

Community Safety on Vote 4:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view not to support the Vote.”

Education on Vote 5:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view not to support the Vote.”

Health on Vote 6:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view not to support the Vote.”

Social Development on Vote 7:

The Committee reported that it supports the vote, and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC and Al Jama-ah expressed their minority view not to support the Vote.”

Human Settlements on Vote 8:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote.

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning on Vote 9:

The Committee reported that it supports the Vote.

Mr Dugmore advised that he had with him the minutes for Vote 9, and that it recorded that the ANC had “abstained.” However, it had been conveyed to him that the Member who had abstained had wanted it reflected on the record that the ANC’s abstention was in terms of Standing Rule 90, which was not reflected in the minutes. Mr Dugmore therefore wanted this to be noted.

The Chairperson said that he had been advised that, procedurally, and in agreement with the relevant Chairperson for Vote 9, that the Report before the Committee could be amended to express Mr Dugmore’s view -- that the abstention was in accordance with Standing Rule 90, since it was a minority view.

Mr Van der Westhuizen interjected, and clarified that that would be the decision of the present Committee, and that at the relevant Committee which he, Mr Van der Westhuizen, had attended and chaired, the word “abstained” had been used and read into the record. However, as the Chairperson had just explained, it may be amended in the present Committee’s Report.

Ms Wenger also clarified that the proposal was that the Report before the Committee reflected the abstention, and that that had been recording in the meeting. She questioned whether that was an accurate statement, and proceeded to advise that therefore everyone was actually on the same page.

The Chairperson advised the Committee that the proposal was that the Committee amend the Report before the Committee to reflect that the “ANC abstained.” He asked Mr Van der Westhuizen if he was in agreement.

Mr Van der Westhuizen indicated that he was in agreement.

The Chairperson then said that the Committee would add it.

The Chairperson then acknowledged a senior procedural officer who had just entered the Committee meeting, and asked if he, as Chairperson, had been correct in his procedural recommendation just discussed.

The Senior Procedural Officer wanted to clarify that he had not missed anything, as he had been following the Committee proceedings digitally and in the process of walking to the Committee room, might have missed something significant. He asked if the Committee was saying it wanted to amend the Report of the specific Standing Committee which had dealt with Vote 9. If not, which Report was the Committee referring to?

The Chairperson clarified that it was the Report of the Budget Committee which the Budget Committee itself wished to amend, not the Report from the specific Standing Committee which dealt with Vote 9. The amendment was to reflect the fact that the ANC wished to abstain and that this amendment was to be reflected only in the Budget Committee’s Report.

The Senior Procedural Officer advised that that was “perfect,” and that “there was nothing wrong with that.” He went on to advise the Committee why the point of abstention was sometimes contentious as regards its recording in the minutes. The point was logical, and came down to the question: was an abstention a view in itself, or merely the lack of any view? The Officer maintained that it was possible to argue both ways -- that an abstention could be considered a view, or the lack thereof, on any given issue.

The Chairperson said that given that advice, he was going to re-table Vote 9 and it would reflect as follows:

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning on Vote 9:

The Committee reported that in accordance with Standing Rule 188, it supports the Vote.

Transport and Public Works on Vote 10:

The Committee recommended that it supports the Vote and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view that it noted deliberations on the
Vote.”

Discussion

Mr Mvimbi raised two issues: the first was regarding the interpretation of Standing Rule 90. The second was the accuracy of the Committee minutes. In relation to the first issue, he was concerned that the Rule was being misinterpreted, and was not sure whether this was deliberate or accidental. In relation to the accuracy of the minutes, which stated that he had “noted” the deliberations on the budget, he maintained that this was not accurate, since he had never said he “noted” anything in relation to the budget. He maintained that, in fact, what he had said was that he “did not support the budget.”

The Chairperson said that he had chaired the Committee to which Mr Mvimbi’s concern about the inaccurate minutes was referring, and advised therefore that it was “easy” for him to respond to this concern. He indicated that there had been a deliberation and a discussion and he had read “this report”, with which Mr Mvimbi agreed, into the record “as is.”

Mr Mvimbi advised that, in that case, the meeting audio should be listened to in order to validate the accuracy of what had been read into the record. He said it was his word against the Chairperson’s.

Ms Nkondlo corroborated Mr Mvimbi’s account, as she had been sitting next to him at the meeting in question. She also called for a review of the meeting audio.

Mr Dugmore expressed his view that the proposals made to check the record by Mr Mvimbi and Ms Nkondlo were both “valid and justifiable”. However, he wanted to opt for a “practical and pragmatic" approach since it was not a big issue in his view and, moreover, the Chairperson of the Committee in question, along with the two then-present Members, were present at the current Committee. He asked the Chairperson, therefore, to compromise and change the wording in the Report tabled before the current Committee.

The Chairperson said that the Committee could do as it did for Vote 9, and change the wording in the Report before the current Committee.

For the record, therefore, the Chairperson wished to re-table Vote 10.

Transport and Public Works on Vote 10:

The Committee recommended that it supports the Vote and that in accordance with Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view by the proposal by Honourable Mvimbi for this Committee’s Report.”

Mr Mvimbi observed that the way the Chairperson had phrased the last part of his summary, “the ANC expressed its minority view by the proposal by Honourable Mvimbi for this Committee’s report,” was vague and could give rise to further confusion. He asked for clarification.

The Chairperson said: “what I am saying is, as per the previous Vote, this Committee has a Report. Vote 9 and Vote 10 will reflect the amendments as proposed by this Committee.”

Mr Dugmore asked: “which is?”, referring to the proposed amendments which had as yet not been plainly and explicitly stated by the Chairperson.

The Chairperson responded: “The ANC’s abstention …“

Several Members of the Committee at that moment rejoined, “Not abstention!” 

The Chairperson exclaimed: “Listen, I’m still chairing this meeting,” and added “the Environmental Affairs one, the abstention as per the minutes will now be a minority view expressed in this Committee. The same with the proposal by Honourable Mvimbi that, although he expressed his view in the Committee, would now state that the African National Congress, as per Standing Rule 90, does not support Vote 10.”

There was a general sigh of relief as the Chairperson had given the clarity desired by Mr Mvimbi, Ms Nkondlo and Mr Dugmore. The issue had arisen because the Chairperson, in an attempt to amend the record in the Committee’s Report, had referred to the ANC’s desire to indicate their non-support as “the proposal by Mr Mvimbi,” but not explicitly stating what that proposal was, namely that the ANC “did not support” the Vote in question. Now that it was explicit and clear for the record, there were expressions of contentment, including “yes, that’s clear” from Mr Mvimbi, and “Viva, Chairperson, Viva” from Mr Dugmore.

The Chairperson asked tersely if the Committee could move on. 

The Chairperson then tabled Vote 11.

Agriculture on Vote 11:

The Standing Committee recommended that it supports the Vote.

Economic Development and Tourism on Vote 12:

In terms of Standing Rule 188, the Committee reported that its supports the Vote, and in terms of Standing Rule 90, “the ANC expressed its minority view to reserve its view for the House.”

Cultural Affairs and Sport on Vote 13:

In terms of Rule 88, the Committee reported that its supports the Vote.

Local Government on Vote 14:

In terms of Standing Rule 188, the Committee reported that its supports the Vote.

Mr Mvimbi raised the same question regarding the inaccuracy of the record in relation to Vote 14. He said Mr Smith, for whom Mr Dugmore was standing in, had indicated that he would write to the Chairperson of the Committee on Local Government for similar assistance in addressing the inaccuracy.

Mr Dugmore reported that there were two additional Members who had indicated that they had communicated with the Chairpersons of the Committees on Agriculture, and also on Local Government. They had indicated their disagreement with “the way this Report is tabled before us.” He had expected those two Chairpersons would have communicated with the Chairperson of the Budget Committee had they indeed received such communications, and therefore wished to establish with the Acting Chairperson of the Budget Committee whether or not those two Chairpersons had received those communications.

Mr Van der Westhuizen, who chairs the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, one of the Committees to which Mr Dugmore had just referred, indicated that he had not seen any email or note in that regard yet, but conceded that it “may still be in cyberspace.” He said that in terms of procedure, what normally happened was that a Committee meets and would then affirm the minutes of its previous meeting. He added that the issues raised in the present Committee had not been raised, as they ought to have been, in the Committees to which they pertained at the point of such affirmation of the minutes and the Reports in question. He therefore asked the Chairperson to intercede and request of Mr Dugmore to ask his Members to seek assistance from the pertinent Chairpersons of the relevant Committees when challenging the precision of the record, and not to request the Budget Committee to do so, which Mr Van der Westhuizen contended he was not permitted to.
 

Ms Wenger agreed with Mr Van der Westhuizen. She added that it was important to note that a particular party could express a different view in the Committee, but in order for it to be reflected as a minority report, there had to be a specific request for it to appear as a minority report.

Ms M Maseko (DA) agreed with Mr Van der Westhuizen, and said that the Senior Procedural Officer had made the correct point. She was part of the two Committees to which Mr Dugmore had just referred, and had witnessed that the Members of those Committees, to which Mr Dugmore had also referred, had mentioned that they were “abstaining.” She advised that in future, all abstentions should be recorded.

The Chairperson said he would not entertain a discussion as to what did or did not happen.  

Mr Dugmore said that it appeared that the Chairs of the Committees to which he had just referred had not received those communications, so he would pursue the matter no further.

Mr America, who chairs the Standing Committee on Local Government Oversight, one of the Committees to which Mr Dugmore had referred, said that he had not received any such communication.

The Chairperson proceeded to the adoption of the Bill after the tabling of the Votes had been completed.

The Chairperson said that “the report of the Budget Committee of the Western Cape Appropriation Bill [B3-2020], 19 March 2020 as follows” (sic):

“The Budget Committee, having deliberated the subject of the Western Cape Appropriation Bill [B3-2020], referred to it in accordance with Standing Rule 188, reports that it supports or not supports the Bill” (sic).

Ms Wenger proposed that the Committee support the Bill.

Ms Philander seconded the proposal.

Mr Mvimbi stated that “the ANC expresses its minority view in terms of Rule 90 not to support the Bill.”

The Chairperson said: “There we go, well done!”

For the record, the Chairperson read the Report of the Committee into the record: “The Budget Committee, having deliberated on the subject of the Western Cape Appropriation Bill [B3-2020], referred to it in accordance with Standing Rule 188, reports that it supports the Bill” and that “in terms of Standing Rule 90, the ANC expressed its minority view that it does not support the Bill.”

The Chairperson asked if all Members were in agreement.

There was a general agreement from the Committee.

The Chairperson re-clarified that, in terms of Votes 9 and 10, the ANC’s minority view not to support the Bill would now reflect in the minutes of the Committee.

Committee Report on Additional Adjustment Appropriation Bill [B2-2020].

The Chairperson advised that the Committee would now consider agenda item three -- the consideration and adoption of the draft Committee Report on the Western Cape Additional Adjustment Appropriation Bill [B2-2020]. 

He then read the draft Report: “The Report of the Standing Committee of Human Settlements on Vote 8 (Human Settlements) in the Schedule to the Western Cape Additional Adjustment Appropriations Bill [B2-2020], 12 March 2020, as follows:

“The Standing Committee on Human Settlements, having deliberated on the subject of Vote 8 (Human Settlements) in the Schedule to the Western Cape Additional Adjustment Appropriations Bill [B2-2020], referred to the Committee in accordance with Standing Rule 188, reports that it supports the Vote.”

The Chairperson then tabled the Bill: “The Budget Committee, having deliberated on the subject of Western Cape Additional Adjustment Appropriations Bill [B2-2020], referred to it in accordance with Standing Rule 188, reports that it either supports or does not support the Bill.”

Ms Wenger proposed that the Committee support the Bill.

Ms Philander seconded the proposal.

Mr Mvimbi stated that “the ANC expresses its minority view in terms of Rule 90 not to support the Bill.”

The Chairperson then read the support of the Bill into the record: “The Budget Committee, having deliberated on the subject of the Western Cape Additional Adjustment Appropriations Bill [B2-2020], referred to it in accordance with Standing Rule 188, reports that it supports the Bill” and that “in terms of Standing Rule 90, the ANC expressed its minority view that it does not support the Bill.”

Mr Van der Westhuizen sought clarification whether, by not supporting the Bill, “certain Members of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament would not like us to have a higher budget for Human Settlements, in order to roll out more houses for the poor?”

Ms Nkondlo said that “as an ‘ATCed’ Member of this Committee, I wish to put it on record that the African National Congress, having deliberated on the matter and expressed our views on issues we feel are very important that have been excluded in this budget, we continue to reserve our right, as in Rule 90, not to support the budget.”

The Chairperson corrected her: “The Bill, you mean?”

Ms Nkondlo clarified: “The Bill.” 

Committee minutes dated 10 March 2020

The Chairperson said the Committee would now consider agenda item four -- the consideration of the draft Committee minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2020. He tabled page one.

Mr Dugmore moved for the Chairperson not to table pages individually, but table all three pages jointly.

The Chairperson, nevertheless, said he would table each page individually. There were, however, no amendments to any of the three pages.

Mr Mvimbi proposed the adoption of the minutes.

Ms Philander seconded.

Committee minutes dated 10 March 2020 were adopted without amendment.

Mr Dugmore wished to place on record that he could not support the minutes as a whole, since he had missed the last part of the meeting in question, but was happy to support Mr Mvimbi and Ms Philander’s support of the minutes, because they had been there.

The Chairperson thanked Committee Members, and

adjourned the meeting.