Disaster Management Amendment Bill [B2-2021]: briefing

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted that Dr P Groenewald (MP) referred the Disaster Management Act Amendment Bill to the Committee in terms of Rule 278 on Private Member's Bills. The Committee would receive a briefing on Private Member’s Bill sponsored by Dr Groenewald to allow Members to acquaint themselves with it so that they could take a stance on the proposed legislation. As it was the first time the Committee dealt with a Private Members’ Bill, the Chairperson asked Mr Prince to explain the formal process for the benefit of the Committee.

Private Member’s Bills
Mr Michael Prince, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, referred to the National Assembly Rule 286, titled ‘Process in the Committee’. Specifically, 286(3) spoke to the Private Members’ Bill and required that the Committee give Members adequate notice for a briefing on the Private Member’s Bill. National Assembly Rule 286(4)(E) said that the Committee must give the relevant department in the National Executive, or an organ of the state in the national sphere of government, sufficient opportunity to make submissions to the Committee on the objects and particularities of the Bill.

Essentially, input was required from a department or an organ of the state which could be affected by the proposed Bill. The Committee would have to discuss those inputs. When a Member briefed the Committee, they must inform the Committee of the date on which they published the Bill and the explanatory memorandum attached to it. The Member must also state if they received any public inputs, which must be presented to the Committee. These inputs would inform the Members’ discussion.

This process would lead up to a motion of desirability in Rule 286(4)(I). This states that the Committee, after due deliberation, must consider a motion of desirability on the Bill. If rejected, the Bill must be immediately reported on. If the motion of desirability is adopted, then the Committee can proceed to deliberate on the details of registration. Proceeding to Rule 286(6), explains ‘due deliberation is the process of enquiring into the Bill, the Committee must where applicable and as far as possible apply the following stages:
• An informal discussion on the principle and subject of the Bill, including a briefing by the Member.
• Consideration of the public comments received.
• The adoption of a motion of desirability if the principles and needs of the Bill are accepted.

Disaster Management Amendment Bill [B2-2021]: briefing
Dr P Groenewald referred to Section 92 of the Constitution dealing with the accountability and the responsibilities of the Cabinet. Section 92(2) says that Cabinet Members are collectively and individually accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions. He asked Members to keep this in mind during the presentation.

Introduction
On 30 June the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 an international public health concern. The Minister of the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs declared a national state of disaster in terms of Section 27 of the Disaster Management Act, 2002.
Various regulations were imposed, including a national lockdown.

International Legislation
International responses were varied, using laws for either a state of emergency or a disaster.
The difference between a state of emergency and a disaster are the levels of restrictions imposed on citizens. There have been various complaints and concerns that South African law enforcement used excessive power and force which did not honour its obligations to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICPPR) and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The human rights abuses which have been made, called into question if South Africa has been regulating according to a state of emergency or a state of disaster.

South African Legislation
The Constitution allowed state heads to call a legal state of emergency which necessitated parliamentary and legislative oversight. The choice to call COVID-19 a disaster rather than a state of emergency prevented any association with the 1980’s state of emergency that suppressed public dissent. South African was a signatory on the (ICCPR), which allowed them to derogate from human rights. South Africa was also a signatory of the African Charter on Human and People’s rights, which prevented states of emergency or human rights derogations. South Africa was a constitutional democracy with elections and public participation.

Impact of the National State of Disaster
The state of disaster caused severe and negative impacts on South Africans’ lives.
Citizens’ rights, behaviours and movements were restricted. Millions lost their jobs and there was an economic impact. These restrictions were possibly necessary to save lives. Some regulations were considered irrational or irrelevant to flattening the cure of the viral infection rate. Parliament should be the channel for the public’s participation, and should represent their voices when approving regulations and ensuring accountability.

Legislative Accountability
The Disaster Management Act did not entail adequate accountability or oversight for the regulations imposed in a state of disaster. In a constitutional democracy, any legislation involving human rights restrictions should be subject to more scrutiny. The People’s Parliament should be an activist legislature ensuring accountability.

Objects of the Bill
• To amend the Disaster Management Act, 2002 (Act No. 57 of 2002)
• To ensure that only the National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Court could extend a state of disaster.
• It provided for the requisite majorities of the National Assembly, Provincial Legislature or Municipal Court which allowed extensions.
• It resolved that a national, provincial or local state of disaster may only be adopted after a public debate.
• To provide for oversight by the National Assembly for national disaster regulations, and oversight by the Provincial Legislature for provincial disaster regulations.

Dr Groenewald referred to section 92(2) of the Constitution. The main reason for this Bill is to ensure that South Africa, as a constitutional democracy, has accountability and oversight.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked if Dr Groneweld obtained public comments since the Bill was tabled in February.

Dr Groenweld replied that he received only one public comment. The single comment was not specific, it was a broad comment on the Act in general. However, his draft was only aimed at accountability, not other issues. He asked the legal advisor for further input.

Mr Prince replied that his office did not receive public comments in general, nor in this case.

The Chairperson asked Dr Groenewald if he was able to share the public comment, so that the Committee could consider it even if it was broad. She asked Mr Prince for some advice, reminding him that it was the first time the Committee had done a Private Member’s Bill. What was the process for this, who dealt with the call for public comments? The Rules seemed to be silent on that. Does parliament assist in the publication of Bill for public comment? What happens ?

Mr Prince said the Rules stated that the Member is responsible for the publication of the information or Bill before he introduced the Bill. Once the Bill is published, the responsibility for attaining public commentary falls to the Committee. In this case, the Bill itself was not in fact published, only the explanatory memorandum was. The National Assembly Rule 286(2) makes provision for an unpublished Bill. If the Committee felt that they needed more input, then they could publish the Bill for public comment. The Committee must make this decision, but it is not an obligation. This was a discretionary measure. After the input from the Department and the Member, the Bill could still be published for public comment.

The Chairperson said that was fair. She asked NDMC to comment on the Bill.

National Disaster Management Centre input
Dr Mmaphaka Tau, NDMC Head, said he and Ms Ane Bruwer, Chief Director: Legislation in the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA), would offer input based on the mandate received from Minister Dlamini-Zuma. In the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, the NDMC noted that it stated no departments, bodies or persons were consulted. The NDMC can confirm that they were not formally consulted in the course of conceptualising the proposals. But, they would respond to what was presented on behalf of Minister Dlamini-Zuma.

Five points needed to be made to contextualise the Disaster Management Act’s function and the spirit of the law in relation to the function within their constitutional jurisprudence. Firstly, the paradigm for the Disaster Management Act should be understood. It takes two forms. The first, is the development focus. That involves risk-proofing development and taking proactive measures, such as risk assessments, to ensure that risk occurrences are prevented and mitigated. The second is the response focus, which deals with swift and prompt reaction to life and property threats. Quick mechanisms are required for this action. The scope of application for the Disaster Management Act function, nationally and globally, was that the disaster management and risk management approach was ushered in following the adoption of the Broadband Report which introduced the Sustainable Development paradigm globally.

The application is for non-security hazards, which are natural, anthropogenic or human-made. Bear in mind that non-security hazards are mostly natural, and could be slow onset or sudden onset hazards. For example, slow onset hazards are droughts that creep in over long periods. These allow for sufficient planning and response time. Sudden onset hazards happen abruptly and require quick action. Hazards such as cyclones and COVID-19 require quick action taken by the National Executive.

The NDMC stated that it supported the security cluster with various security operations. The reason that the State of Emergency Act still mentioned disasters was because it was an old piece of legislation which predated the Disaster Management Act. The NDMC expected that once it was reviewed, the focus on disasters would be removed. The philosophy of the function was grounded on Section 24 of the Constitution, which ensured everyone’s right to safe and secure environments for their wellbeing. The other focus was risk-proofing sustainable development. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals have about 10 indicators related to disaster risk management. To achieve all sustainable targets, disaster management would be necessary through proactive measures such as the developmental focus and the response focus, which dealt with life-threatening situations.

Although the State of Emergency Act is old, the existence of the Disaster Management Act meant that the paradigm of dealing with natural hazards falls within the purview of the Disaster Management Act. In Section 59 of the Disaster Management Act, it stated that regulatory arrangements could be made through disaster management. Section 59(4) stated that any regulations made by the Minister in subsection 1, must be referred to the National Council of Provinces for the purpose of fulfilling Section 146(c) of the Constitution. There was already regulations made on volunteers, which went through that process. Regulations under the State of Disaster must also be noted.

In its wisdom, Parliament realised that when dealing with life-threatening occurrences, there needed to be mechanisms in place for quick decision-making. This protected lives and secured the Republic, as outlined in section 24 of the Constitution. From these bases, NDMC would share Minister Dlamini-Zuma’s input. The presentation showed the NDMC did not support the Bill as proposed. He asked Ms Ane Bruwer to begin the presentation.

The Chairperson asked why NDMC did not forward the presentation to the Committee in advance.

Dr Tau apologised. The presentation was finalised at midnight and needed clearance before circulation. He would send it to them.

NDMC position on Private Member’s Bill
According to the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, it was notable that Dr Groenewald’s presentation made no reference to Section 36 of the Constitution as it pertains to matters of emergency management.

The National Disaster Management Centre had the authority in terms of section 15(1)(f)(i) of the Disaster Management Act to make recommendations on the drafts affecting the Act. Having considered the effects of the proposed Bill, and the effects of court findings on the Bill, NDMC found that the interpretation and implementation of sections 27, 41 and 55 of the Disaster Management Act would have detrimental consequences if the Bill was accepted.

Legal precedent on the Disaster Management Act was found to be contradictory to the proposed Bill. There was elaboration on the court cases which were adjudicated such as the Helen Suzman Foundation case, Democratic Alliance case, Esau case, another Democratic Alliance case and Freedom Front Plus case.

NDMC gave a detailed response to each clause of the Bill. Overall, clauses 1 to 6 were not recommended or supported.
 
The Minister, Premier and Municipal Council was sufficiently empowered by section 27, 41 and 55 to make regulations, bylaws and directions. The courts found that these functions were constitutional and that there were sufficient mechanisms to perform adequate oversight on the work of the Executive. The Legislature should continue with its normal functions and scrutinise the Executive’s delegated powers to ensure they were within the rule of law. The Bill may cause counterproductive alterations, and it would hamper the speed and efficiency of responses during a state of disaster. It was recommended that the Portfolio Committee did not support the Bill.

The Chairperson said it was difficult for the Committee to digest what was being presented. She allowed Dr Groenewald to respond to the NDMC points.

Private Member's response
Dr Groenewald said he did not receive the presentation beforehand. The golden thread of the NDMC presentation was the idea that the Bill would hamper the efficiency of reaction mechanisms, and would remove responsibility away from the COGTA Minister. On hampering speedy action, one could consider section 37 of the Constitution. When one asks, 'What is a state of emergency?’, and ‘What is a state of disaster?’. Section 37 states that a State of Emergency may only be declared as an act of Parliament only when the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency.

The state of Emergency Act and the Disaster Management Act both include a natural disaster. In South Africa, there are two pieces of legislation handling natural disasters. Dr Groenewald emphasised this. COVID-19 had been seen as a natural disaster. The argument of the NDMC was that Parliament could not act rapidly. This was incorrect because the Constitution stated that in the case of a state of emergency which was also a state of disaster, it could be dealt with by giving 21 days to the President. After that, he would have to come to Parliament. The Constitution determined that even with a natural disaster, you would have to be accountable to Parliament and comply with its oversight.

The NDMC said that Parliament could not enforce that. Dr Groenewald believed that was incorrect. If the state of emergency also dealt with natural disasters, and it happened within legislation already, then it ensured that action could take place rapidly. The responsibility of the Minister in this Disaster Management Act was to respond in 21 days, but then they could act speedily. However, the aim of the Amendment Bill was to make those actions accountable in Parliament. He acknowledged the argument that Parliament might not be in session during the disaster.

Referring to the court cases, many were incomplete and there had been appeals. These court cases looked at the present Act. This was the problem. The Amendment Bill ensured that there would be more accountability. What happened in those court cases? The courts said that the Minister could be called to account by the COGTA Portfolio Committee. Yet, the Minister did not always appear in front of this Committee. Even if the Minister did appear in this Portfolio Committee, and presented the regulations and plans, the Committee would not have the power to accept or reject these. If the Committee differed, the Minister could merely take note of the Committee’s stance but still continue with the proposed regulations.

As the Act stands, the Committee - representing Parliament and the people - did not have any authority to reject the Minister’s regulations. The Amendment Bill dealt with this issue. If the South African Constitution determined that, even in a state of emergency and a natural disaster, there could be rapid action with accountability to Parliament, then the NDMC argument is disagreeable. Since there was already legislation that states that rapid action is possible while complying with accountability procedures, it could be dealt with. To say that it would hamper the speed and efficiency, was not a valid reason.

Discussion
The Chairperson said the Committee could not apply their minds to this now so there would be more time for Dr Groenewald to respond to the Department. Speaking to the realities of the State of Emergency Act, she thought that when they drafted the Disaster Management Act, it should have been amended then to remove natural disasters from the State of Emergency Act.

The Chairperson agreed with Dr Groenewald that there was a need for an amendment to the State of Emergency Act. That had to be discussed. The NDMC information had been submitted late to the Committee so it needed time to go through it. She apologised to Dr Groenewald as he was not given time to go through the NDMC presentation as it was not sent according to the 24 hour requirement. The Bill was tabled in February, and considering the upcoming parliamentary recess for elections, the Committee should publish the Bill for public consultation, there was only one public comment, then they could be ready to deliberate on the Bill when they reconvene.

The Chairperson asked to hear the Committee’s views. She felt that they could all agree that there had been a lot of concerns about accountability in particular provinces. The Committee had experienced people complaining but without the ability to enforce accountability, the Committee could not do anything. She asked the Department to unpack that further.

She said NDMC had stated there was coverage in section 27, but there was no detailed explanation of what section 27 meant and why the Amendment Bill was unsupported as a result. There needed to be legal assistance before the Committee could come to a decision. Members were not in a position to probe further since they did not receive the presentation until now.

The Chairperson said the Committee knew that public participation was not obligatory, but she did not want to proceed to a motion of desirability without any public comment. There were also various role players like the South African Local Government Association (SALGA) who needed an opportunity to reflect on the Bill and its implications. This was why the Chairperson could not agree to voting yet. She asked SALGA for their view.

Mr Lance Joel, SALGA Chief Operations Officer, replied that SALGA was not in a position to reflect so tentatively, but they would love an opportunity to do so later since it would have a material impact on local government.

The Chairperson said the Committee would take care of this. They needed more comments from the public, SALGA, interested municipalities and various stakeholders before they could vote on the motion of desirability. She asked Mr Prince if this was permitted.

Mr Prince replied that the Chairperson was correct. The Rules allow the Committee discretion to do so. The Rule sets out various mechanisms - such as invitations, press statements, advertisements and more - for public involvement. The Committee was tasked with deciding which areas of the Bill need more information, and public participation would be the best way to achieve this.

The Chairperson said that was fair, as it would give the Committee an opportunity to deal with the State of Emergency Act under the circumstances. She noted that the Traditional and Khoi-san Leadership Bill had amended the Municipal Structures Act. Likewise the Department should have used similar rules to amend those sections dealing with natural disaster in the State of Emergency Act when drafting the Disaster Management Act.

What was the difference between Level 5 Lockdown and the State of Emergency? The only requirement was that the State of Emergency had to be declared by Parliament, but in reality, there was no movement and restrictions of human rights. The Chairperson said she had already expressed her views and did not want to dictate the meeting. She called on Dr Tau to comment on the State of Emergency Act and the Disaster Management Act overlap.

NDMC response
Dr Tau thanked the Chairperson for her reflections and guidance. He considered Level 5 Lockdown was equivalent to a state of emergency, given the level of restrictions applied. The Disaster Management Act dealt with all hazards. Hazards impacted communities in different forms. This implied that the measures to protect the public were varied. COVID-19 was a novel virus which was highly contagious, so it required measures to contain respiratory infections. These measures were used to flatten the curve, such as the risk-adjusted strategies applied currently.

Every time a measure was to be enforced, the National Executive should consider it in the context of the constitutional imperative of the country to protect the public. In section 27 of the Disaster Management Act, for a state of disaster, the objectives and measures that the National Executive should pursue were very clear. Those objectives were listed as: Assisting and protecting the public, providing relief to the public, protecting property, preventing or combatting disruption, and dealing with the destruction and effects of the disaster. The NDMC was convinced that all the measures taken were in pursuit of public protection. Whether someone may have interpreted those as state of emergency measures or state of disaster measures was up for debate.

If one looked at section 15, it provides for the NDMC to call in the South African Defence Force (SANDF) and the South African Police Force (SAPS) to support its disaster management operations. This might have been the cause of misinterpretation, as one might infer that it used state of emergency security measures. But it was basically ensuring the reinforcement of the disaster management sector, because it was not a security cluster, but it performed its functions better when supported by security establishments. This was Section 15(2)(aA) which stated:
‘‘ in any event of a disaster, or a potential disaster, call on the South African National Defence Force, South African Police Service and any other organ of state to assist the disaster management structures;’’

Dr Tau replied about the Chairperson's comment that the Department’s responses needed elaboration. This was noted. He asked that - for the purpose of the Department and on behalf of the Minister - the Committee present a list of issues for the NDMC to dwell on. This would allow them to answer comprehensively. Finally, when discussing the State of Emergency Act versus the Disaster Management Act, the NDMC dealt with non-security issues. The State of Emergency Act dealt with security matters. The State of Emergency Act did not fall within the purview of the Minister’s portfolio. It was in the security cluster. Engagements on that matter required syndication with the security cluster so there could be alignment.

The Chairperson asked if there were any provisions on the rule of the legislature?

Dr Tau replied that in the NDMC’s response, it attempted to indicate that Parliament’s oversight applied to the work of the Executive. The Minister would often appear in front of the Committee to brief them on various matters. On decision-making regulations, section 59 of the Act provided for the creation of regulations when dealing with normal processes of implementing disaster management functions. For those regulations, the Act prescribed that they should be tabled to the National Council of Provinces.

The regulations to deal with emergency response situations that save lives under a state of disaster - whether a national, provincial or municipal state of disaster - did not provide for the long process because it delayed important decisions. NDMC gave the example of Parliament being unable to convene because of recess or even COVID-19. During COVID-19, gatherings were not allowed because of the risk of virus transmission. How could you get Parliament together when the disasters being dealt with prevent gatherings from taking place? Despite the technological way of convening meetings, this was what NDMC had considered. When the Committee met again, the NDMC would be thoroughly prepared and would share legal opinion (subject to protocol) which informed the decision to use the Disaster Management Act route as opposed to the State of Emergency Act route during COVID-19.

The Chairperson referred to section 59(4) which read that regulations made by the Minister in terms of section 59(1) must be referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) for the purposes of section 146(6) of the Constitution. Section 146(6) states that a law made by an act of Parliament, or a provincial act, could prevail if the law had been approved by the NCOP. Dr Tau indicated that this was the rule of the legislatures. All regulations as prescribed in Act 59(1) were referred to the NCOP in line with section 146(6) of the Constitution.

The Chairperson was mindful that there were court judgements to that effect, but that had to be dealt with. Then, were there any roles played by the provincial legislatures in the NCOP that affected the implementation of this Act? The Committee had done oversight in provinces and local government. Dr Tau should know the status of their disaster management operations. She asked Dr Tau if he was happy with the Act as it is, and if it enabled provinces and municipalities to comply? His homework was to respond to these questions.

Ms E Spies (DA) noted the Chairperson’s suggestions for the way forward and agreed. She said that she and Mr Brink (DA) had a lot of interest in the matter. They were well-prepared but they wanted more time to actively engage with the information presented to them. They had many cases to offer to the points made by Dr Tau, but they wanted to postpone that until the meeting reconvened. It was a very important matter and they would discuss the issues thoroughly. The Bill should not be dealt with lightly. She thanked the Chairperson for her recommendation that the Committee should vote only when they are more familiar with the information. She requested that the officials ensure that adequate research is done on all of the jurisdictions involved.

Mr I Groenewald (FF+) agreed to reserve the vote until another meeting where more input would be available. He added that they were in a modern state and it was the Committee’s job to propose measures to adopt in the current situation - not only for COVID-19 but for future disasters too. He would elaborate further later.

Mr G Mpumza (ANC) said that for the Committee to do justice to the issue, they would need another session so that they could apply their minds thoroughly. He contended that it was important that they subject the Private Member's Bill to a consultation process with interested stakeholders so they could discuss those points too.

Mr K Ceza (EFF) stated that the Committee needed ample time to go through the Bill clause by clause. It was a complex legislative proposal. They could not do it justice without attending to the NDMC presentation. The fact that the process had been presented with only one comment, out of 57 million people, was undesirable for the Committee. He requested elaboration of the amendments - the Disaster Management Act and the State of Emergency Act - with some legal advice. He would reserve questions when they go through the amendments and prepare better. Public participation was necessary and they should be involved in the amendment. He asked Dr Tau how the Integrated Development Plans (IDP) were being processed in the municipalities during lockdown. Were they being done through virtual meetings? He asked him to consider that and if the IDP process had sufficient technologies that were accessible for everyone in the community.

The Chairperson said there would be ample time for the Committee to look at the presentation. At the same time, the Amendment Bill would be published for the public, institutional and interested parties’ comments. There were various ways to do that, such as inviting interested parties, issuing press statements and deadlines, as well as advertising. The Committee’s secretariat needed to deal with that. There should be a timeline for the Committee to stick to, so the matter would not be left open-ended. The Chairperson thought that their experience with the pandemic would also assist the Committee when looking at these issues.

At the end of the day there needed to be accountability, especially in the local sphere. It was all well and good in the national sphere but … The Chairperson said that she still needed to be schooled, and Dr Tau would share more when the meeting reconvened. How was the accountability in this Act? Was there accountability in both the local and provincial sphere? When reading section 59(4), it seemed that the power of accountability only rested with the NCOP. That did not make the Minister accountable to the Committee. That is the stance that Dr Groenewald has taken.

There were times when some of the provinces insisted that it was the function of the NCOP. They told the provinces that the Portfolio Committee had the sole responsibility to make sure the Disaster Management Act was complied with. Even though it was done naturally, some did that for malicious compliances. She wondered about their current situation, if the Committee would have to enforce these matters. However, they knew that they could invoke the provisions or the provisions of the Powers and Privileges Act of the Legislatures and the National Assembly.

Perhaps it was an opportunity to tighten the State of Emergency Act when dealing with matters of disaster. The Committee amended the Municipal Structures Act in the Traditional and Khoi-san Leadership Bill. When the Traditional and Khoi-san Leadership Act came into operation, it automatically amended Section 81 of the Municipal Structures Act. The amendment was doable. The Committee would use good reasoning to benefit the people. The Chairperson noted her colleagues’ input, and said that they would have an opportunity to elaborate once they return. She thanked Dr Groenewald, and said this would be a work in progress. She thanked Mr Prince and appreciated the support the Committee received from Parliament Legal Office.

Dr P Groenewald said he fully agreed with the process going forward. It was an opportunity to hear comments from other institutions and the public.

Mr Prince said he had no further comments.

Mr Tshepo Motlhale, SALGA, added that he tried to speak earlier when the Chairperson asked for comments. SALGA’s mandate was to represent and protect the interests of the local government sector. Having assessed the NDMC briefing on the amendment of the Disaster Management Act, SALGA welcomed and supported the measures so that local government could improve their state of preparedness in the face of disasters. SALGA also supported the view that there was a need for further consultations.

The Chairperson asked him to confirm that SALGA wanted to participate in the process and Mr Motlhale agreed certainly. She thanked SALGA for showing interest and attending.

Committee minutes
The Committee approved the 22 April, 18, 20, 22 and 24 May 2021 minutes

On 22 April 2021 matters arising, the Chairperson asked the secretariat if the requested information was submitted by the 29 April deadline or was it in the resolution register.

Ms Cassiem replied that it was submitted, and it was also in the resolutions register.

On 18 May minutes, the Chairperson asked if Ms Cassiem received the requested information.

Ms Cassiem said she had not received the Committee's requested report from Gauteng Human Settlements Department.

The Chairperson asked her to follow it up, even if it meant sending a letter to the MEC.

On 24 May minutes, the Chairperson asked if Ms Cassiem got the information.

Ms Cassiem replied she had.

The Chairperson asked why it was not shared with the Members.

Committee programme
Ms Cassiem said that there would be many plenary meetings throughout next week, even on Friday. The Committee would need to convene for the Sarah Baartman District Municipality on 1 June but there was also a plenary in the morning. There would be plenary sittings on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Then recess would begin and they would return on 16 August.

The Chairperson looked at the resolutions in the register and asked which ones were outstanding, so that the Committee could give input on which ones to prioritise.

Ms Cassiem replied they still needed to do a progress report from the NPA and SIU on the local government forensic reports. The last meeting they had on local government forensic reports was March 2020. In 2020 they had also proposed a Disaster Management colloquium which would involve several Portfolio Committees. The Committee also needed a follow up on the amalgamated municipalities as there were still outstanding issues on the funding model and staffing matters. The Committee needs to look at local economic development in municipalities, and have a discussion with the Department of Traditional Affairs on customary initiation.

Ms Cassiem said that the meeting with the religious sector on the impact of the Disaster Management Regulations was supposed to take place on 4 June, but the National Assembly would be sitting on that day to consider the Appropriation Bill. The Committee would need another date for that interaction. On legislation, the Committee had just started the Disaster Management Amendment Bill. They said they would look at the discussion on the Municipal Demarcation Board's proposed amendments to the Municipal Demarcation Act. They would await the Intergovernmental, Monitoring, Support and Intervention Bill. There were also 6 petitions referred to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked for the timelines for the petitions.

Ms Cassiem replied that the petitions were referred to the Committee on 14 May.

The Chairperson asked how many days there were to utilise prior to recess and the second term.

Mr Ceza asked about the five forensic reports on the Community Work Programme.

The Chairperson asked if Ms Cassiem had received these reports from the Minister.

Ms Cassiem replied she had and she would share them.

The Chairperson said they must be shared with Members so they can formulate opinions on them and follow up.

The Chairperson said the Committee must set a date for Disaster Management Amendment Bill deliberations. She suggested 16 August when Parliament returns from recess as it gives time for the public participation process, and allows parties time to develop an action plan to deal with it.

Committee requests for written responses
Mr Groenewald said that the Committee members worked hard in all of their meetings and with all of the municipalities they saw. However, they could only do effective work when they received the requested reports. There were a lot of municipalities which had not submitted reports – there were a lot of outstanding reports. He asked for a meeting to cover the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act legal opinion; they could also then see how many written responses were outstanding. He felt that it was important that the Committee listened to the legal opinion to decide if they wanted to act or not.

[ 2:21:40 - 2:22:06 poor network connection] The Chairperson said that there must be a reminder. There were municipalities that did not submit even though they agreed on clear timelines. Ms Cassiem should follow up on her own. If there was no response, then they must consider this in a meeting. She agreed that it was a futile exercise without the written reports. The Chairperson said this must be followed up and consolidated during the week so they could deal with those who did not want to comply. She knew there were still outstanding matters. They must submit reports in writing since they have practically been lying to the Committee, not telling the truth in the meetings. She said they would have an allowance of two days to default on the deadline. If they did not comply, then the secretariat must send messages and emails.

The mere fact that there was no follow up was preventing the Committee from being taken seriously. This was purely administration. It is the secretariat’s duty to remind those requested to submit their reports on time. The Committee members needed the reports to enforce the provisions of the Powers and Privileges Act, but they could not do that without administrative support.

The Chairperson said the programme would be reworked so they could deal with all the matters. Unfortunately, she could not request meetings during the recess as this was for election work. Next time, they would decide which matters needed Legal Services advice as it was unacceptable that documents requested in meetings were not submitted by the set deadline. People should not undermine the decorum of the National Assembly. They think they can just talk in Parliament without follow up. Then it becomes a futile exercise spending many unholy hours at work, where the Committee is not being taken seriously. It was high time they invoked the provisions of the Powers and Privileges Act, with the support of the secretariat.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting and thanked Members.