Housing Consumer Protection Bill: Negotiating Mandates

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members in attendance. He said that the national Department of Human Settlements has proposed the Housing Consumer Protection Bill. The Bill is extremely important to ensure that the houses that are constructed in South Africa are in line with the requirements and are of good quality.

All nine provinces have embarked on laborious consultations with people on the ground to solicit their views and proposals. The provinces have since submitted their negotiating mandates. The next step would be for the Department to respond to each proposed amendment by each provincial legislature, in writing. An advert will be published on Friday, 13 October 2023, to invite the public to comment on the Bill.

Housing Consumer Protection Bill: Negotiating Mandates

The Chairperson asked the Committee Secretary to indicate who would do the official tabling of the negotiating mandates for each province.

The Committee Secretary, Mr Moses Manele, proposed that the Committee note that all nine provinces have conducted public hearings and submitted negotiating mandates. The Department is expected to respond to the provinces' negotiating mandates. He suggested that the Members table the negotiating mandates, without having to present each mandate.

The Chairperson said that the Committee must follow the legislative procedure throughout. He agreed with Mr Manele’s proposal, but if any Member wanted to present their respective province’s negotiating mandate, then they were welcome to do so.

Mr C Smit (DA, Limpopo) said that he was concerned about the process that the Committee would follow, as the Members have been delegated to present their province's negotiating mandates. It would be inappropriate for the Department to influence any negotiating mandate. He believed that the Department should only comment on the negotiating mandates if the Committee agreed on certain amendments, and thereafter the provinces would submit their final mandates. He asked for clarity on the upcoming public hearings, especially since the provinces had already conducted public hearings and drafted their negotiating mandates.

The Chairperson replied that the Department presented the Bill before the Committee in April 2023. The Committee referred the Bill to the provinces to obtain their negotiating mandates. Each provincial legislature has embarked on public hearings and delegated Members to table their negotiating mandates. The next step is for the Department to comment on the negotiating mandates, but the Department does not have the right to change or influence what the provinces have submitted. The Committee will deliberate on the Department’s comments and will refer the process back to the provinces to obtain the final mandates. He proposed that the Members table their province's negotiating mandates and agree that it would be referred to the Department for comment. If Members wanted to present their province's negotiating mandate, then they were welcome to do so in this meeting.

Mr Smit questioned what the purpose of the Department’s comments would be. He said that it seemed as if the Department’s comments were intended to influence the Committee’s decisions on the negotiating mandates. He reiterated that the Department should only comment once the Committee has concluded its negotiations.

The Chairperson assured Mr Smit that the Department would not influence the provinces’ negotiating mandates.

Mr R Badenhorst (DA, Western Cape) reiterated Mr Smit’s question about the purpose of the Department’s comments on the negotiating mandates. He said that the task for today’s meeting was to table the provinces’ negotiating mandates. It was not the time for the Department to comment on the negotiating mandates.

Ms S Shaikh (ANC, Limpopo) agreed with the process that the Chairperson had outlined. She said that it was not the first time that the Committee was dealing with a Section 76 Bill. It is only the Committee that can influence any outcome on the negotiating mandates, but it was important for the Committee to consider the inputs from the Department, especially if the Department had identified any technical or policy issues.

The Chairperson noted Mr Smit and Mr Badenhorst’s concerns. However, he agreed that it was not the first time that the Committee was dealing with a Section 76 Bill. He said that he had been part of these procedures for four and a half years in this Committee, and more than 20 years as a Member of Parliament. This is not an administrative process; it is a political process. The Committee would decide on the process. He asked that Mr Smit and Mr Badenhorst explain why they felt that the process was incorrect.

Mr G Michalakis (DA, Free State) said that if other committees dealt with it in a different way, then there is clearly not a uniform way of dealing with Section 76 Bills in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). This should be a concern, and the procedure across all committees should be brought in line.

The Chairperson interjected. He said that Mr Michalakis had raised an important point. He suggested that Members should indicate if other committees have dealt with Section 76 Bills differently. The Committee could make a recommendation to Parliament, that there should be uniformity in dealing with section 76 Bills. 

Mr Michalakis said that the Committee must find clarity on this process before finalising the Bill. He believed that Mr Smit had raised a good question about the Department’s comments on the negotiating mandates. He questioned if it would not be more appropriate for the Department to address its feedback directly to the provinces.

The Chairperson reminded Mr Michalakis that the Committee oversaw this process, not the provincial legislatures. The Department’s comments are for the Committee’s consideration, at the level of the NCOP. Once the Committee has considered and deliberated on the Department’s comments on the negotiating mandates, it would then refer the process back to the provinces to obtain the final mandates. He emphasised that the onus is on the Committee to decide how this process must unfold.

Mr Smit believed that the best way forward would be for the Committee to ask the Parliamentary Legal Services to provide clarity on the process. The Committee would not want to go through a process that would be declared null and void. He was still concerned about the purpose of the Department’s comments on the provinces’ negotiating mandates.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee did not need to invite Parliamentary Legal Services. There were no discrepancies, and the Committee was following the correct procedure. He asked that Mr Smit explain why he felt that there were discrepancies.

Mr Smit said that he had raised his concerns. If the Chairperson does not want to ask Parliamentary Legal Services to provide clarity on this process, then he will withdraw himself. He could not be part of a process if he was not 100% sure that it was correct. He did not think it was appropriate for the Chairperson to decide on behalf of the Committee, that it would not get Parliamentary Legal Services to provide clarity on a very important matter.

The Chairperson replied that if Mr Smit did not want to take part in this process, that was his own choice. He reiterated his question for Mr Smit to explain how differently other committees dealt with this process.

Ms Shaikh concurred with the Chairperson, that the Members had not explained how the process was done differently in other committees. She said that the onus was on the Committee to determine the procedure.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee should proceed. He said that he would call out each province; the Members should indicate whether they will present their province's negotiating mandate.

Eastern Cape

Ms N Ndongeni (ANC, Eastern Cape) noted the tabling of the Eastern Cape Legislature’s negotiating mandate.

Free State

Mr Michalakis noted the tabling of the Free State Legislature’s negotiating mandate. He said that it was a bit premature for the Free State to say how they were voting on the Bill. The Free State Legislature has raised 19 concerns and possible amendments.

Gauteng

The Chairperson noted the tabling of the Gauteng Legislature’s negotiating mandate.

KwaZulu-Natal (KZN)

The Chairperson noted the tabling of the KZN Legislature’s negotiating mandate.

Limpopo

Ms Shaikh said that the Limpopo Legislature has conferred that it would vote in favour of the Bill. The Limpopo Legislature has made some inputs for consideration, while it might not be specific to certain clauses of the Bill, it would be important to receive input on the technical and policy matters that have been raised. 

Mpumalanga

Ms A Maleka (ANC, Mpumalanga) said that the Mpumalanga Legislature voted in favour of the Bill.

North West

The Chairperson said that the North West Legislature supported the Bill. The province has submitted several recommendations on the Bill. The North West Legislature’s negotiating mandate has been tabled accordingly.

Northern Cape

Ms B Bartlett (ANC, Northern Cape) said that the Northern Cape Legislature supported the Bill.

The Chairperson noted the tabling of the Northern Cape Legislature’s negotiating mandate.

Western Cape

Mr Badenhorst said that the Western Cape Legislature is in support of the Bill but has also submitted general concerns and proposed amendments.

He noted that the Western Cape’s negotiating mandate had a few incorrect references to certain clauses. He asked if this may be corrected and resubmitted before the close of business today.

The Chairperson replied that the Department must note the corrections.

Chairperson’s remarks

The Chairperson said that the Committee has noted the tabling of all the provincial negotiating mandates. The negotiating mandates will be referred to the Department. The Department must provide a detailed response to each issue that is contained in the negotiating mandates.

On Friday, 13 October 2023, an advert will be published to invite the public to make written submissions on the Bill. The Committee will consider and deliberate on the public comments, as well as the Department’s comments. Once the Bill has been revised, it will be referred to the provinces. The provinces would be asked to submit their final mandates, which will indicate whether they support the Bill or not.

He believed that the Committee had the proper legal support throughout this legislative process. The Department has answered pertinent questions on this Bill and will continue to do so. At the end of the day, the Bill must pass constitutional muster.

He thanked all the provinces for embarking on laborious public hearings to engage with the communities, and for submitting their negotiating mandates on time. He also thanked the Department, as it would play an important role in responding to all the issues raised in the negotiating mandates.

The meeting was adjourned.