Agricultural Products Standards A/B & National Veld and Forest Fire A/B: Negotiating Mandates (with Deputy Minister)

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone in attendance. She said that this was a key meeting as it dealt with the negotiating mandates for the Agricultural Products Standards Amendment Bill and the National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill.

Veld fires are a danger in the country because they kill people and animals. It also causes damage to the grazing areas, especially in provinces like the North West and Free State.

She asked if the meeting had a quorum.

The Committee Secretary, Mr Asgar Bawa, replied that there was a quorum to continue with the meeting, but there was no quorum to vote. He had sent messages to the Members who had voting powers requesting them to join the meeting. If special delegates from Mpumalanga, Gauteng and Limpopo were in attendance, then the Committee may proceed with voting. In the absence of the permanent delegate, the special delegate has the voting power.

The Chairperson said that the purpose of the meeting was to vote on the provinces’ negotiating mandates. After a few minutes, she observed that there was a quorum to continue with the meeting and to vote. She asked Mr Bawa to explain the process.

Mr Bawa said that the Committee will start with the provinces’ negotiating mandates for the Agricultural Products Standards Amendment Bill. The Committee Content Adviser will read out loud the mandates for the provinces’. Once a clause has been read out loud, a Member representing each province will vote on the clause. The Member must either indicate whether he/she supports, does not support, or abstains from voting on the clause. This will be done for each clause on the mandate. The Department officials and legal advisers will also be given the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments.

Agricultural Products Standards Amendment Bill: Provinces’ negotiating mandates

Eastern Cape

Dr D Bese (ANC, Eastern Cape Legislature) read through the Eastern Cape’s negotiating mandate. The Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill, with the following proposed amendments:

• On clause 2, that the amended section be read as follows; “(a) The Minister may, for the purposes of the application of this Act or certain provisions thereof designate, in consultation with relevant stakeholders directly involved in the product concerned, as assignee a person, undertaking, body, institution, association, or board— (i) having a particular knowledge of the product concerned; or (ii) having a particular knowledge of the relevant management control systems, with no direct or indirect personal or financial interest.”

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendments for clause 2.

Mr Billy Makhafola, Director: Food Safety and Quality Assurance, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), said that the amendment to clause 2 seemed to meditate against the very objective that the Minister sought to remedy, by objectively designating assignee without any influence from the relevant stakeholders. It posed the question of who the relevant stakeholders were. The criteria set out in the Bill gives the Minister direction on the kind of people that should be appointed. The persons appointed should have the requisite knowledge of the product concerned, knowledge of the relevant management control system, and have no direct or indirect personal or financial interest.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on this clause before proceeding to the next. He noted that Members representing the Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), North West and Western Cape voted in support of the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendment for clause 2. The majority of the provinces voted in support of the amendment, which meant that the Bill will be amended accordingly.

• On clause 3, that the amended section be read as follows; “(1B) Any fee determined in terms of subsection (1A)(b)(ii) shall be calculated on a cost-recovery basis, and shall only come into effect if - (d) the executive officer, after taking into account the available resources and consideration of all the relevant circumstances, exempt an emerging farmer or producer from paying the full or part thereof of the assignee fees, such assignee fees or portion thereof shall be paid by the Department”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendments for clause 3.

Ms Xoliswa Mdludlu, Principal State Law Advisor, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, said that she was concerned about the procedure. She noted that Members from various provinces supported the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendment for clause 2. She asked for clarity on whether the Members supported the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendments to the Bill, or if they supported the Bill as it is. She agreed with Mr Makhafola’s comment on clause 2.

Mr Bawa replied that the proposed amendments for each clause would be read out loud, and the Members should vote on whether they accept or reject the proposed amendments for each clause. In this case, Mr Makhafola had explained that the proposed amendment to clause 2 was contrary to what the Minister had envisaged, but the Members voted in support of the Eastern Cape’s proposed amendment. It meant that the Bill would be amended accordingly. He suggested that there should be a re-vote on the proposed amendment for clause 2, especially if Members had misunderstood.

The Chairperson said that it should be clear when Members support or reject a particular amendment.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) said that the Members should try to not confuse themselves. She noted that Mr Bawa had clarified that the Department and legal officials would comment to explain the impact of the proposed amendment for each clause and that the Members should indicate whether they support or reject the provinces’ proposed amendment for each clause.

Mr Bawa asked the Chairperson if the Members should re-vote on clause 2, following the clarity provided.

The Chairperson replied that the Members should revote.

Ms Tshepo Mahlaela, Legislation Specialist, DALRRD, said that she also had a question about the procedure. She noted that the KZN negotiating mandate had also proposed amendments to clause 2. She asked if it was not a waste of time to vote on each clause for each province, especially if other provinces have yet to propose their own amendments. She urged that the Committee consider the Department's objection to the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendments for clause 2. When the Bill was drafted, the section had specifically been crafted to exclude the requirement to consult with stakeholders, but the requirement for objectivity is still provided for in other parts of the Bill.

Ms Labuschagne suggested that when the Chairperson invites Members to deliberate on a province’s proposed amendment, then the Members representing the various provinces should indicate what their province had proposed. Thereafter, the Department officials and legal advisors should comment on whether the provinces’ amendments are more or less the same or completely different, and what would be the implications. The Members should only vote on the proposed amendments after they understand the implications thereof. The Members should negotiate on the different proposed amendments.

Mr Z Mkiva (ANC, Eastern Cape) said that the Members should fully appreciate the process of negotiating mandates. The majority of the provinces voted in favour of the proposed amendment to clause 2. Although Members sought clarity, it did not mean that clause 2 required a re-vote. The process of legislation development in this country has become very tedious and slow because people do not understand that Bills, Acts and other pieces of legislation are living documents. He urged that the Members do not belabour on issues that do not have material change in what has been achieved thus far.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should not waste time by going back. She agreed that pieces of legislation are living documents, but the provinces have the right to raise their issues. The provinces should be allowed to present their negotiating mandate. She advised that the officials should comment on the proposed amendments and not the procedure.

Mr I Ntsube (ANC, Free State) questioned what would happen if Members voted in favour of the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendments but would later find that another province might have different proposals. He asked if this would not cause confusion.

The Chairperson replied that each province has the right to present its negotiating mandate, and Members must indicate whether they vote in favour or against it. She did not think it would cause confusion.

Mr Ntsube asked why the votes were affected if the other provinces' mandates had not been presented yet.

The Chairperson replied that it was the procedure.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on clause 3. He noted that Members representing the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KZN and North West voted in support of the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendment for clause 3. Free State, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

 

Free State

Mr Jakobus Jooste, Committee Content Advisor, read through the Free State Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Free State Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. There were no proposed amendments.

Mr Bawa said that the Committee may proceed to the next negotiating mandate, as the Free State supported the Bill in its current form.

Gauteng

Mr Jooste read through the Gauteng Provincial Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Gauteng Legislature voted in favour of the Bill, subject to the following amendments being considered:

• On clause 2, that the amended section be read as follows; “(a) The Minister may, for the purposes of the application of this Act or certain provisions thereof, designate as assignee a person, undertaking, body, institution, association, or board - (i) having a particular knowledge of the product concerned; or (ii) having a particular knowledge of the relevant management control systems; and (iii) with no direct or indirect personal or financial interest”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Gauteng Legislature’s proposed amendments for clause 2.

Ms Labuschagne said that for clause 2 the Western Cape Legislature submitted that it be more clearly put that assignees possess the necessary qualifications, product or industry knowledge, in order to fulfil their tasks, as well as being free of any conflicts of interest. She suggested that the Department officials comment on the difference between the provinces’ amendments for clause 2 and the implications thereof, so that Members can decide how to vote.

Ms Mdludlu said that the way Gauteng’s proposed amendment for clause 2 had been crafted would not make sense when interpreted. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that whoever the Minister designates will have no direct or indirect personal or financial interest in the product concerned.

Ms Labuschagne said that the way in which she interpreted Gauteng’s proposed amendment for clause 2 made sense. She asked for clarity on how it would be wrongly interpreted.

Ms Mdludlu replied that the Minister has the option of designating as assignee a person, undertaking, body, institution, association, or board - (i) having a particular knowledge of the product concerned; or (ii) having a particular knowledge of the relevant management control systems, with no direct or indirect personal or financial interest”. She clarified that (i) must also be a person, undertaking, body, institution, association, or board with no direct or indirect personal or financial interest. She said that Gauteng’s proposed amendment suggests that the Minister ought to choose between three roman numerals, and that (i) and (ii) has no reference to “with no direct or indirect personal or financial interest”.

Ms Labuschagne said that she took note of what Ms Mdludlu had said, but she did not interpret it as a choice between the roman numerals. She interpreted (iii) being an addition to (i) and (ii). In other words, whether the Minister chooses a person, undertaking, body, institution, association, or board, they must have a particular knowledge of the product concerned, or they must have a particular knowledge of the relevant management control systems, and they should also not have a direct or indirect personal or financial interest.

Mr Makhafola said that the DALRRD had drafted the clause with the intention of making it very clear that there should not be any conflict of interest, whether the assignee has a particular knowledge of the product or a particular knowledge of the relevant management control systems. He recommended that the clause remain as the DALRRD had drafted it because it provides an alternative between (i) and (ii) but emphasises that whoever has been appointed as assignee must not have a direct or indirect or personal or financial interest in the product concerned. Gauteng's proposed amendment suggests that there are three alternatives and that the Minister may appoint an assignee purely on the basis of not having a direct or indirect personal or financial interest. 

Ms Labuschagne suggested that Gauteng’s proposed amendments for clause 2 should be sent back to the province so that they can have the opportunity to redraft it in the way that they intended. She reiterated that the Western Cape Legislature proposed that clause 2 be put more clearly, that the assignees possess the necessary qualifications, product or industry knowledge, in order to fulfil their tasks, as well as being free of any conflicts of interest.

The Chairperson said that she understood Ms Labuschagne’s point, but a Member cannot speak on behalf of another province.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on clause 2. He noted that Members representing the Eastern Cape, Free State, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. Gauteng supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

• On clause 4(c), the mandate of the Gauteng Legislature states that the reference to fees determined by the assignee maintains the mischief that clause 3 seeks to remedy. Thus, it is suggested that the regulatory framework introduced by subclause 3 (1B) be equally applicable to this clause – to ensure accountability and transparency in fees set by assignees.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Gauteng Legislature’s suggestion for clause 4(c).

Mr Makhafola said that the “mischief” that has been referred to has been sought to be addressed. The section had previously only provided for inspection, but it now includes auditing. The DALRRD suggested that the clause remain as it is because it provides that the determination of fees must happen in consultation with all the affected stakeholders.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Gauteng’s suggestion for clause 4(c). He noted that Members representing the Free State, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. Gauteng supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

KZN

Mr Jooste read through the KZN Provincial Legislature’s negotiating mandate. KZN Legislature supported the Bill with the following comment for consideration:

• On clause 4, the question was asked whether the cost for auditors will be claimed/recovered from the small-scale farmers prior to or post the production of agricultural products. It is proposed that the Department should consider looking at this when they draft the Regulations to accommodate small-scale farmers who are struggling financially or lack the necessary skills.

Mr Bawa said that KZN’s mandate did not have an amendment, but it did have a comment for consideration. This meant that the Department would have to respond to the province’s comment in writing.

Limpopo

Mr Jooste read through the Limpopo Provincial Legislature’s negotiating mandate. Limpopo Legislature voted in favour of the Bill.

Mpumalanga

Mr Jooste read through the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature’s negotiating mandate. Mpumalanga Legislature voted in favour of the Bill.

Northern Cape

Mr Jooste read through the Northern Cape Provincial Legislature’s negotiating mandate. Northern Cape Legislature voted in favour of the Bill.

North West

Mr Bawa read through the North West Provincial Legislature’s negotiating mandate. North West Legislature abstained from voting on the Bill.

Western Cape

Mr Jooste read through the Western Cape Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Western Cape Legislature supported the Bill, with the following proposals for consideration:

• On clause 1 (definition of “audit”), it is submitted that affected industries gain the right to ensure that the costs associated with the auditing process are within limits acceptable to the relevant industry. The mere drafting and submission of a budget will not put the relevant industry in a strong enough position to ensure that unnecessary costs, which will have to be recovered from consumers, are not incurred.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 1.

Mr Makhafola said that section 3 of the Bill addresses the concern raised by the Western Cape Legislature. It provides that the affected stakeholders will certainly be consulted with to ensure that the costs associated with the auditing process are acceptable to the relevant industry.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 1. He noted that Members representing the Eastern Cape, Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and North West abstained.  Members representing Gauteng and Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

• On clause 2, it is submitted that it be more clearly put that assignees possess the necessary qualifications, product or industry knowledge, in order to fulfil their tasks, as well as being free of any conflict of interest.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 2.

Mr Makhafola believed that the Bill expressly and tactically implied that the assignees should have the requisite knowledge, skills and qualifications to undertake the work for which they will be assigned. It also requires that the assignees do not have any direct or indirect personal or financial interest in the product concerned.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 2. He noted that Members representing the Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KZN, Northern Cape and North West abstained. Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

• On clause 4, it is submitted that on page 3, line 50, the word “formation” be replaced with the word “information”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 4.

Ms Mdludlu said that the proposal had been noted.

Mr Makhafola said that the DALRRD concurred with what has been proposed.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 4. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Gauteng, KZN, Northern Cape and North West abstained. Members representing the Eastern Cape and Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

• On the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, it is submitted that on page 5, point number 1.2, second sentence, that the word “audition” be replaced with the word “auditing”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Western Cape’s proposal for the memorandum.

Mr Makhafola said that the DALRRD accepted the proposal that the word “audition” be replaced with “auditing”.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposal for clause 4. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Gauteng, KZN and Northern Cape abstained. Members representing the Eastern Cape, North West and Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

Conclusion of negotiating mandates for the Agricultural Products Standards Amendment Bill

Mr Bawa said that the only proposed amendment that was supported was the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendment for clause 2.

Mr Ntsube said that there was a clear misunderstanding when voting on the Eastern Cape Legislature's proposed amendment for clause 2. He noted that the Free State abstained from the vote.

The Chairperson agreed that there was confusion. She requested Mr Bawa to follow up on the other provinces.

Mr Bawa asked that Members re-vote on the Eastern Cape Legislature’s proposed amendment for clause 2. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Gauteng, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape had changed their vote to abstain. Eastern Cape and KZN supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

This meant that none of the provinces’ proposed amendments to the Bill had been agreed to. The Bill will remain as is.

The Chairperson thanked the DALRRD officials for providing clarity and for answering all the questions.

National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill: Provinces’ negotiating mandate

Eastern Cape

Mr Bawa said that the Committee did not receive a negotiating mandate from the Eastern Cape Legislature.

Free State

Mr Jooste read through the Free State Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Free State Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. There were no proposed amendments.

Gauteng

Mr Jooste read through the Gauteng Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Gauteng Legislature voted in favour of the Bill subject to the following amendments being considered:

• On clause 7, that the amended section includes the words “trained” and “and accredited”. It should read as follows; “(2) (a) A forest officer, a police officer, a peace officer, a traditional leader as defined in section 1 of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act and an officer appointed in terms of section 5 or 6 of the Fire Brigade Services Act, 1987 (Act No. 99 of 1987), have the power to enforce the Act [in terms of this Chapter]: Provided that they have been trained and accredited to be competent by an accredited institution to exercise powers to enter, search, arrest and seize in terms of this Act”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Gauteng’s proposal for clause 7.

Ms Veounia Grootboom, Senior State Law Advisor, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor, said that the section already provides that the training would be by an accredited institution. So, the proposed insertion of “and accredited” would not make a difference to this section.

The Chairperson asked the Deputy Minister if she would like to comment.

Ms Maggie Sotyu, Deputy Minister, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), said that she did not have any issues to raise. The Deputy Director General (DDG) and the team had briefed her on the matters.

The Chairperson said that she appreciated the Deputy Minister’s presence in the meeting.

Ms Pumeza Nodada. Deputy Director General, DFFE, concurred with Ms Grootboom. She said that the section already provides that the training would be done by an accredited institution.

Mr Sibusiso Kobese, Director: Law Reform, DFFE, agreed with Ms Grootboom and Ms Nodada. He said the proposed insertion of “and accredited” is misplaced because accreditation relates to the institutions that offer the training, it does not relate to the people who are receiving the training.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Gauteng’s proposed amendment for clause 7. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Gauteng, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. There were no votes to support the amendment.

• On clause 8, it is proposed that the new section 32A be amended by inserting the words “in writing”. Thus, it would read as follows; “(2) An appeal under section (1) must be noted in writing and shall be dealt with in the manner and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Minister in the regulations”.

Furthermore, it is proposed that there be a subclause (4) that provides as follows; “A person who appeals in terms of subsection (1) has the right to representation”.

Lastly, in the interest of ensuring independence and impartiality of the appeal process as required by section 34 of the Constitution, perhaps it would be prudent to consider having an “appeals board or forum” that would be constituted by suitably qualified and independent personnel to investigate and consider appeals. Gauteng’s negotiating mandate included a proposal of how a clause dealing with such could be drafted.

Mr Bawa said that the Members must deliberate and vote on each amendment under clause 8.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Gauteng’s proposed amendment of the new section 32A.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE supported the proposed insertion of “in writing”, because it complements the provision.

Ms Grootboom said that she did not disagree with the proposal in principle. However, the provision reads “in the manner and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Minister in the regulations”. This meant that the Minister would prescribe the procedure and the manner. She recommended that the proposal for “in writing” be contained in the regulations that would be prescribed by the Minister.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Gauteng’s proposed amendment of the new section 32A. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. Gauteng, KZN and Northern West supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Gauteng’s proposed insertion of subclause (4).

Ms Grootboom said that she had a similar response to the previous proposed amendment. The matters associated with an appeal (in terms of subsection 1) would be prescribed in the regulations. The Minister will determine the manner and the procedure. The matters regarding legal representation would also be included if that is what the DFFE had envisaged. At times, informal processes may be envisaged when legal representation may delay the process.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE supported the proposed amendment to include an aspect of representation. Representation is a standard requirement, and it is consistent with the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. He concurred with Ms Grootboom that this aspect of representation may be covered in the regulations, or in the Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Gauteng’s proposed insertion of subclause (4). He noted that Members representing the Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. Free State, Gauteng, KZN, North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the amendment.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Gauteng’s proposed clause for an “appeals board or forum”.

Ms Grootboom said that this was a very substantive proposed amendment. It raised financial and structural consequences, et cetera. This is also related to the appeal process that is envisaged in clause 8, for which the manner and procedure would have to be prescribed by the Minister. From a State Law Adviser’s perspective, the proposed amendment is not advisable at this stage, because it brings in other policy matters that go beyond what has been introduced in Parliament.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support the proposed “appeals board or forum”. The DFFE already has a dedicated appeals unit, which deals with all appeals that are processed according to the departmental legislation. The DFFE also has an appeals committee, which will be established in terms of the National Forests Act – which was recently amended by Parliament. So, the DFFE will have a dedicated capacity to deal with appeals. He suggested that there could perhaps be a line in the National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill, to state that the Minister may refer the appeals to the appeal committee established in terms of the National Forests Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Gauteng’s proposed clause for an “appeals board or forum”. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Gauteng, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. There were no votes to support the proposed amendment.

KZN

Mr Jooste read through the KZN Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The KZN Legislature supported the Bill with the following proposed amendments:

• On clause 2, the extension of the definition of “fires in the open air” to be inclusive of other prescribed burning activities (prescribed grass management burning, forest residue burning, conservation burning) to get rid of unwanted/alien wood species. These types of controlled burnings need to be regulated outside of the circumstances when a warning by the Minister has been issued in terms of section 10(2).

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on KZN’s proposed amendment of clause 2.

Ms Grootboom said that this was a policy matter that the DFFE official could comment on.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support the proposal to amend the definition of “fires in the open air”. The DFFE believed that the definition in the Bill was broad, and it covered all fires in the open air; it further made provision for prescribed burning activities.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment of clause 2. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Gauteng, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. KZN supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• Clause 7 has generated concerns as to the conferral of enforcement powers of search, seizure and arrest to traditional leaders in terms of the Act. It is suggested that the references to traditional leaders having the power to enter, search, seize and arrest be removed, or that traditional leaders be assisted by the police in their enforcement role if the provision still remains. 

• Section 26(3) requires officers or traditional leaders exercising powers under the Act to produce on request the prescribed proof of their identity. It is preferable to have officers who have been trained to produce their prescribed identification card issued by the Department.

• On the language of the proviso in clause 7, it is uncertain whether “they” is a reference to all the officers listed in clause 7, including the police or only traditional leaders and peace officers.

• On clause 7, it is proposed that the section be amended to read as follows; “‘(2)(a) A forest officer, a police officer, a peace officer, and an officer appointed in terms of section 5 or 6 of the Fire Brigade Services Act, 1987 (Act No. 99 of 1987), have the power to enforce the Act [in terms of this Chapter]: Provided that such officers have been trained to be competent by an accredited institution to exercise powers to enter, search, arrest and seize in terms of this Act. (b) A reference to a fire protection officer in sections 27, 28 and 29 includes the officers referred to in paragraph (a). (3) A fire protection officer and any officer contemplated in subsection (2)(a), exercising powers under this Act must carry with him or her, and produce on request, the prescribed identification card issued by the Department [and appointment as a fire protection officer]”.

Mr Bawa said that the Members will vote on each amendment of clause 7.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on KZN’s proposed amendments of clause 7.

Ms Labuschagne read through KZN’s proposed amendment to section 26(3). She asked if this would have the same meaning if the words “and also provide proof of competence” was inserted.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support the removal of reference to traditional leaders. Traditional leaders are the custodians of large areas of land, and they are key stakeholders in the implementation of the Act, in terms of preventing or reducing instances of veld fires. The traditional leaders will undergo intense training by accredited institutions to ensure that they are fully competent in enforcing the provisions of the Act.

He noted that the prescribed proof of identity will be detailed in the regulations. The word “they” in clause 7 referred to all officers listed in the provision. However, the DFFE supported KZN’s proposed change of wording from “they” to “such officers”.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment to remove reference to traditional leaders in clause 7. He noted that Members representing Free State, North West and Western Cape abstained. Northern Cape did not support the amendment to exclude references to traditional leaders. KZN supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

He asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment of clause 7 - section 26(3), regarding proof of identity. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. KZN and North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

He asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed change of wording from “they” to “such officers” in clause 7. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. KZN supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

Mr Jooste read through further consequential amendments by KZN:

• That section 9(1) of the Act should be corrected to make reference to the South African Weather Bureau.

• It is proposed that section 10(1) of the Act be amended to read as follows; “(1) The Minister must - (a) communicate the rating of the fire danger for each region to the fire protection association in that region regularly; (b) when the fire danger is rated as high or extreme in any region, subject to subsection (4), publish a warning at the earliest possible opportunity in all the main languages used in that region - (i) on three television channels and three radio stations broadcasting to that region; and (ii) in two languages circulating in that region if time permits”.

• Amendments to section 10(2) of the Act – It is suggested that the Department use consistent terminology on the fire danger rating and align the terminology across the Amendment Bill as well as other consequential provisions in the Act that uses these words.

• It is proposed that section 12(4) of the Act be amended to read as follows; “An owner may not burn a firebreak, despite having complied with subsection (2), if... (a) the fire protection association objects to the proposed burning; or (b) a warning has been published in terms of subsection 10(1)(b) because the fire danger is high or extreme in the region and the Minister has not issued an exemption as contemplated by section 10(2)(a) of the Act...”

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on KZN’s further consequential amendments.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE supported KZN’s proposed amendment to correct the reference to the South African Weather Bureau in section 9(1). The DFFE did not support the proposed amendments to section 10(1)(b), because the current wording in section 10(4) of the principal Act is broad enough to cater for all types of communication mediums. The proposal from KZN restricts the communication mediums to what they have listed.

The DFFE did not support the comment which suggested that some burning should be regulated outside the regulatory framework of section 10(2).

The DFFE appreciated the concern that the Department should use consistent terminology. The principal Act consistently uses the words “when the fire danger is high”. The word “extreme” has been used once in the Bill, in clause 10(1)(b). The DFFE would support the proposal to consistently use the word “high”, and perhaps remove the word “extreme”.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment to the reference in section 9(1) of the Act. He noted that Members representing the Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. KZN and North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

He asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment to section 10(1) of the Act. He noted that Members representing the Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. KZN and North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

He asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment to section 10(2) of the Act. He noted that Members representing the Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. KZN and North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

He asked that Members vote on KZN’s proposed amendment to section 12(4)(b) of the Act. He noted that Members representing the Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. KZN and North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

He said that the next part of KZN’s negotiating mandate compels the Department to report to the province on the amendments for consideration. The Members do not have to vote on it.

Mr Jooste read through the following new amendments that the KZN Legislature proposed for consideration:

•  The inclusion of prescribed burning (where fire is used as a land management tool), as a provision in the Act outside of section 10(2) warnings. This will create an enforcement mechanism to hold landowners accountable and prevent the spread of fire even where no fire danger warning has been issued.

• Inclusion of a definition of “vegetation”.

• The need for a revised definition of “veld” to be inclusive of hazardous materials, and to prevent state-owned enterprises like Transnet and Eskom from evading their responsibilities in terms of the Act due to the argument that their property is not defined as “veld”.

Limpopo

Mr Jooste read through the Limpopo Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Limpopo Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with the following proposed amendments:

• On clause 7, sections 26(2) and (3) should include “a Member of an Association established in terms of the Communal Property Association Act 28 of 1996”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Limpopo’s proposed amendments to clause 7.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support the proposal to make an expressed reference to a member of an association established in terms of the Communal Property Association Act. The Communal Property Association should not be distinguished as a separate entity from the owners of the land. Whether they are individual owners or members of an association, they have every right to join a fire protection association.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Limpopo’s proposed amendment to clause 7. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. There were no votes to support the proposed amendment.

• That section 26(2) be amended to read as follows; “(2) (a) A forest officer, a police officer, a peace officer, a traditional leader as defined in section 1 of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, a member of an Association established in terms of the Communal Property Association Act 28 of 1996, and an officer appointed in terms of section 5 or 6 of the Fire Brigade Services Act, 1987 (Act No. 99 of 1987), have the power to enforce the Act [in terms of this Chapter]: Provided that they have been trained to be competent by an accredited institution to exercise powers to enter, search, arrest and seize in terms of this Act. (b) A reference to a fire protection officer in sections 27, 28 and 29 includes the officers and the traditional leader and a member of an Association referred to in paragraph (a).

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Limpopo’s proposed amendments to section 26(2).

Mr Kobese reiterated that the DFFE did not support the proposed insertion of “a Member of an Association established in terms of the Communal Property Association Act 28 of 1996”.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Limpopo’s proposed amendment to clause 7, that amends section 26(2)(a) and (b) of the Act. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. There were no votes to support the proposed amendments.

• That section 26(3) be amended to read as follows; “(3) A fire protection officer and any officer or traditional leader or a member of an Association contemplated in subsection (2)(a), exercising powers under this Act must carry with him or her, and produce on request, the prescribed proof of his or her identity [and appointment as a fire protection officer].’’

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Limpopo’s proposed amendments to section 26(3).

Mr Kobese reiterated that the DFFE did not support the proposed insertion of “a member of an Association...”

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Limpopo’s proposed amendment to clause 7, that amends section 26(3) of the Act. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape abstained. There were no votes to support the proposed amendments.

Mpumalanga

Mr Jooste read through the Mpumalanga Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Mpumalanga Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. There were no proposed amendments.

Northern Cape

Mr Jooste read through the Northern Cape Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Northern Cape Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. There were no proposed amendments.

North West

Mr Jooste read through the North West Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The North West Legislature voted in favour of the Bill, with the following proposed amendments:

• The definition of fire “in the open air” as per the new insertion sounds restrictive as it excludes fire not within the building or structures specifically designated for such fire. It is proposed that the initial definition be maintained to also include fires that occur in households and existing structures, as it limits the scope of fire protection association structures when such disasters occur.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s first proposed amendment.

Adv Frank Jenkins, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Constitutional and Legal Services Office, said that it seemed as if this proposed amendment would take the Bill to a position of dealing with domestic fires. He would not support the amendment, because it might change the scope and application of the Bill.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support this proposed amendment. Fires that occur in households and related structures fall outside the ambit of the Act. Such fires are regulated under the Fire Brigade Services Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s first proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• The Bill seeks to compel municipalities, state-owned enterprises, public entities or other state organs that own land to join fire protection associations. However, it does not provide for punitive measures when the latter declines to join/register or does not pay the affiliation fee. It is proposed that the associations be given the authority to monitor non-compliance in accordance with sanctions that should be codified.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s second proposed amendment.

Adv Jenkins said from a legal perspective he did not support criminal penalties for the non-compliance of administrative issues set out in the Bill. There are other ways of ensuring compliance.

Mr Kobese concurred with Adv Jenkins. He said that offences and penalties for any natural or juristic persons who contravene the provisions of the principal Act are already covered under section 24 and 25 of the principal Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s second proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• All disaster services must be centralised to ensure coherence.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s third proposed amendment.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE interpreted North West’s third proposal to be general commentary. It does not really propose any specific amendment to any provision.

Mr Bawa agreed that it did not require a vote, as it was more of a comment.

• It is suggested that the Fire Protection Association and Disaster Management Units should form part of a state allocation committee to ensure expected compliance.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s fourth proposed amendment.

Adv Jenkins said that the fourth proposal was not very specific, and it was probably more of a policy issue that the DFFE could respond to. He interpreted it to imply that the composition of the committee should be changed to ensure that there is compliance.

Mr Kobese said that the issue of state-owned farms would either fall under the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) or the DALRRD. It is not an aspect that should be addressed in this Bill. The DFFE does not have an influence on how the state allocation committees are formulated. The DFFE did not support this proposal.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s fourth proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• The state as custodian of the land must be compelled by the Bill to provide support to farmers who are already in a long-term lease agreement to ensure compliance with the amendments.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s fifth proposed amendment.

Adv Jenkins said that this was a policy issue that depended on the budget. If the financial implication of this piece of legislation had not been factored into the socio-economic impact assessment, then it might not be the right time to accept this kind of proposal.

Mr Kobese said that the support to farmers is the domain of the DALRRD. So, the DFFE did not have a comment on this.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s fifth proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

•  The proposal is that “the Bill to address must be made available to all the FPA’s for a period of six (6) months, providing with targets regarding compliance issues. Consequently, the FPA from respective provinces will ensure that all outstanding documents and compliance matters are addressed and completed”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s sixth proposed amendment.

Mr Kobese said that the issue of the incorrect registration of farms should be referred to the relevant departments, it is not within the domain of the DFFE. He noted that it was difficult to interpret the last paragraph of the proposal.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s sixth proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• Both the Act and the Bill fails to recognise the advanced technology to control fire as more often if the fire intensity is infuriated towards the entrance that has to be contained. It is proposed to consider new technologies.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s seventh proposed amendment.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE acknowledged the proposal to consider advancements in technology. It is a good proposal, but it does not translate to any concrete proposal to amend the Bill. It should be dealt with at the implementation level. 

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s seventh proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• There should be a clause where the DFFE should look into why veld fires are prevalent in the province, especially in Kagisano Molopo. The Bill must give a clause that the disaster management should make provision for veld and forest fire services, and centralisation of services.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s eighth proposed amendment.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE noted the submission. North West had made a valid point to suggest that the DFFE should study the areas where veld fires are most prevalent, which may result in proposed intervention. However, this is part of the DFFE’s ongoing work to provide continuous support to the fire protection associations and other relevant parties in enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s eighth proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• The Bill must expressly prioritise farmers in the Working on Fire programme as opposed to the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) which has a contrary mandate to the Working on Fire programme.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s ninth proposed amendment.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not agree with the differentiation between the Working on Fire programme and the EPWP. The programmes should be collectively governed to harness all the available resources to combat veld and forest fires.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s ninth proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• It is proposed that workshops and awareness programmes should be done at schools so that learners are aware of how to take care of the environment and prevent future disasters caused by veld and forest fires.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s tenth proposed amendment.

Adv Jenkins said that it was a very good suggestion, but it was not for this legislation to include, because it concerns what happens in schools.

Mr Kobese concurred that it was a good proposal, but not to be incorporated into the Bill. He said that the DFFE does have a support strategy that caters to the forestry aspect, part of it includes advocacy in education. There may be a need to extend the ambit of the support strategy to also look into matters of veld and forest fires.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s tenth proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• In cases of disaster, the Bill does not give recourse to traditional authorities who are owners of the communal land as compared to private landowners. 

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on North West’s eleventh proposed amendment.

Mr Kobese said that disasters fell under the Disaster Management Act, as administered by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). However, the DFFE’s legislation provides that recourse is applied to everyone who is aggrieved, without discrimination. The DFFE disputed the comment which says that the Bill discriminates against traditional authorities.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on North West’s eleventh proposed amendment. He noted that Members representing the Free State, Northern Cape and Western Cape abstained. KZN and North West supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

Western Cape

Mr Jooste read through the Western Cape Legislature’s negotiating mandate. The Western Cape Legislature supported the Bill, with the following proposed amendments:

• In the Long title, it is submitted that the word “matter” be replaced with the word “matters”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on Western Cape’s first grammatical amendment.

Adv Jenkins said that it was a rational amendment.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE supported the proposed amendment.

Ms Labuschagne suggested that the DFFE merely indicate whether it supported all the grammatical amendments. So that the Committee may proceed to vote on the substantial amendments. She asked whether it was necessary to vote on each grammatical amendment.

Mr Bawa replied that if the Western Cape delegate agreed, then the grammatical amendments may be addressed all at once.

Ms Labuschagne agreed.

• On clause 2(b), it is submitted that the word “System” be replaced with the word “Systems”.

• On clause 3, amendment of section 3 of the principal Act, it is submitted that on page 3, line 19, a space be inserted before the word “established”.

• On clause 4, amendment of section 4 of the principal Act, it is submitted that on page 3, line 33, the year “2021” be replaced with “2023”.

• On clause 6, amendment of section 11 of the principal Act, the term “Department” on page 3, line 51, refers to “the national Department which has responsibility for the management of veldfires” as per the principal Act, and not the Department responsible for the administration of the South African Weather Service Act. It is therefore submitted that the first letter of the word “Department” should be a lowercase letter.

• Short title and commencement – It is submitted that on page 4, line 34, the year “2021” be replaced with “2023”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Western Cape’s grammatical amendments.

Adv Jenkins said that the DFFE could comment on the grammatical amendment to section 11 of the principal Act, but he agreed that all of the other grammatical amendments are textual and would need to be affected.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE supported the grammatical amendments to the long title, clause 2(b) and section 3 of the principal Act. It supported the grammatical amendment to section 4 of the principal Act, and the short title and commencement, but these amendments will be done by Creda Communications. It further supported the grammatical amendment to section 11 of the principal Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposed grammatical amendments. He noted that Members representing Free State and KZN abstained. North West did not support it. Northern Cape and Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• On clause 4, it is submitted that the wording in section 4(8) of the principal Act be amended to read as follows; “...join a fire protection association, if such an association has been registered in the area in which the land is situated”.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Western Cape’s proposed amendment to clause 4.

Adv Jenkins believed that the wording in the principal Act was good enough.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment seeks to create discretion and make it optional for the stakeholders and entities to join fire protection associations. The Bill sets clear parameters in terms of what is required.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposed amendment to clause 4. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN, Northern Cape and North West abstained. Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• On clause 9, substitution of section 37 of the principal Act. Given that the short title of the principal Act will be changed to the National Veldfire Act, it is submitted that the short title of the Amendment Bill be changed to the National Veldfire Amendment Act, 2023.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Western Cape’s proposed amendment to clause 9.

Adv Jenkins said that he did not have a comment on the proposed name change of the Bill.

Mr Kobese said that the Bill will be processed as the National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill. Any subsequent amendments will make reference to the updated name.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposed amendment to clause 9. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN and Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• On clause 7, amendment of section 26 of the principal Act. Concern is expressed relating to the powers allocated to traditional leaders to “enter, search, arrest, and seize”. It should be noted that these powers may only be exercised by traditional leaders “Provided that they have been trained to be competent by an accredited institution”. It is submitted that on page 4, line 14, the following be inserted after the word “identity”; “and also provide proof of competence”. 

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Western Cape’s proposed amendment on clause 7.

Adv Jenkins said that he did not observe anything wrong with the proposal, but it was not necessary, because the people who are empowered to enter, search, arrest, and seize must be able to provide proof of identity and proof of competence to exercise those powers. 

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support the proposal, because traditional leaders should be empowered to enforce the Act. The DFFE will develop regulations for the necessary requirements of identification. Identification cards will only be issued to persons who have completed the accredited training.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposed amendment on clause 7. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN and Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

• It is submitted that the definition of “state land” in the principal Act be reconsidered to include land belonging to local authorities.

The Chairperson invited Members and officials to comment on the Western Cape’s proposed reconsideration of the definition of “state land”.

Adv Jenkins said that he understood that the definition of “state land” did include land belonging to local authorities.

Mr Kobese said that the DFFE did not support this proposal. This would be a substantial amendment that would require consultation with the DALRDD, in terms of what would be a suitable definition for “state land”, other than what is already provided for in the principal Act.

Mr Bawa asked that Members vote on Western Cape’s proposed reconsideration of the definition of “state land”. He noted that Members representing Free State, KZN and Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support it. Western Cape supported. There were not enough votes to support the proposed amendment.

Conclusion of negotiating mandates for the National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill

Mr Bawa noted that none of the provinces’ proposed amendments on the Bill had been agreed to. The Bill will remain as is.

The Chairperson thanked the DFFE officials and legal advisers for assisting the Committee.

Consideration of a report and minutes

The Committee considered its Report on the ratification of the amended Convention on the physical protection of nuclear materials.

Ms Bebee moved for the adoption of the Report; the Chairperson seconded this.

Read: ATC230927: Report of the Select Committee on Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy on the Ratification of the Amended Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear material, tabled in terms of section 231(2) of the Constitution, 1996, and Explanatory Memorandum attached thereto, 26 September 2023.

The Committee considered its minutes of 5 September 2023.

Ms Bebee moved for the adoption of the minutes; the Chairperson seconded this.

The meeting was adjourned.