Western Cape Provincial Powers Bill: discussion on way forward

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting and checked the Members in attendance.

Members introduced themselves.

The Chairperson indicated that the Committee would be deliberating on the way forward pertaining to the Provincial Powers Bill in this meeting.

Western Cape Provincial Powers Bill: discussion on way forward

Ms M Maseko (DA) suggested covering all the districts which included the Overberg, the West Coast, Karoo, the Garden Route, the Cape Winelands and the City for the public hearings on the Bill.

That proposal was endorsed by Mr D America (DA).

Mr P Marran (ANC) objected to going into the public hearings process prior to having the legality issue on the Bill resolved. He thought it had been agreed upon by Members that the Committee should seek legal opinions first before going into the public hearings process. He was unimpressed that there was no legal advisor present at the meeting. Despite that, the legal advisors, including Adv Le Roux and legal intern Mr Sibeku, had raised the concern of the constitutionality issue. He said going into the public hearings process would be a waste of expenditure and process before seeking a legal opinion.

Mr P Marais (FF Plus) concurred with Mr Marran because the legal opinion was that the Bill was unconstitutional. There is no point in scheduling public hearings. He was uncertain what Members would tell the public, unless the Premier appeared before the Committee and informed Members what he discussed with the national Minister and the Minister of the Presidency. Without this, the Committee could not move forward.

Ms Maseko reiterated her view that processing the Bill is what this Committee is mandated to do. She pointed out that this Bill had not originated from the Committee and was instead referred to the Committee. Hence, this Committee is not responsible for the constitutionality of the Bill - that responsibility lies with the originator of the Bill. Thus, the Committee should proceed with the public hearings.  

Mr G Bosman (DA) said obtaining a legal opinion on the Bill was part of the consultation process because the Committee’s objective is not to discuss the Bill's contents but to gauge the public’s opinion on the Bill. He supported Ms Maseko’s proposal to go ahead with the public hearings.

Ms N Nkondlo (ANC) asked the Chairperson not to give Members a second chance to talk whilst other Members had not even been given a chance to speak. Meetings should be chaired fairly.  

She objected to going into the public participation process, citing the Bill's unconstitutionality and criticised those Members who supported it. She described those Members who entertain the idea of going into the public hearings as “bordering on illiteracy”. Lawmakers have the responsibility to ensure that they are on the right side of law; they certainly cannot turn a blind eye to the unconstitutionality of the Bill. She suggested that the Committee first receive a formal presentation on the legal opinion, deliberate on that, and only then make a decision on the next steps, being fully informed.  

She endorsed Mr Marran’s proposal and suggested adjourning this meeting and reconvening when the legal opinion is available. She suggested that the Premier could also be invited to that meeting when the legal opinion was presented. Only after that, may the Committee consider the legal basis of this piece of legislation.

Mr Marran was dissatisfied with the way in which the Chairperson chaired the meeting. He accused the Chairperson of dismissing him unfairly as he had had his hand up when other Members started speaking.

The Chairperson addressed Mr Marran, noting that Ms Nkondlo had just complained that some Members were being given a second chance to speak whilst other Members had not yet been given an opportunity to speak. He was obliging Ms Nkondlo’s suggestion.

Mr Marran clarified that Ms Nkondlo was referring to the Chairperson skipping herself and giving to Ms Maseko another chance to speak.

Ms C Murray (DA) noted that there are two proposals on the floor. One is that the Committee does not go ahead with the public participation process and the other is that the Committee does go ahead.

She thus suggested putting the matter to a vote and stated that she supported going ahead with the public participation process.

Mr Marran raised a point of order and accused the Chairperson of being unfair to him.

The Chairperson noted his point and indicated that he may proceed to make inputs.

Mr Marran highlighted that no other committee has sought a legal opinion but this one. He recalled that the content of federalism was also mentioned in that meeting as well. He did not understand why the Committee would push for public participation when this Bill itself is unconstitutional. He asked the Chairperson whether he insisted on going ahead with the Bill to test the public’s sentiment on federalism? He could assure the Committee that it would embarrass itself if it goes ahead with public participation.

Mr Marran noted that now some Members suggested putting the issue to a vote, understanding that they “have the numbers”. He cautioned the Chairperson that although he could not stop the vote, they would “meet the Chairperson in court”.

Mr Marais cautioned the Committee against creating a precedent. He had the Western Cape People's Bill, and its unconstitutionality was not mentioned.

The Chairperson interrupted Mr Marais and urged him not to pre-empt what would happen on that Bill.

Mr Marais did not think it correct that the Committee should go to the public with an “illegal Bill”.

The Chairperson noted his point.

Mr Bosman cautioned the Committee not to place too much emphasis on legal opinions because the Committee could get another legal opinion from a different lawyer. He directly referenced Ms Nkondlo’s question in the last meeting on “How this Bill was tested amongst the citizens of this province”. So going ahead with the public participation process, in his opinion, is to test the opinions of the citizens of this province on the Bill. He endorsed the decision to put the matter to a vote.

The Chairperson decided to put the matter to a vote.

The Chairperson, Ms Maseko, Ms Bosman, Ms Murray and Mr America voted in favour of taking the public participation process on the Bill forward.

Ms Nkondlo, Mr Marran and Mr Marais voted against the proposal.

The decision carried that the Committee would take the Bill for public participation.

The Chairperson asked Members to suggest areas that the Committee should cover.

Ms Maseko suggested beginning with Hermanus, Mossel Bay, Cape Winelands, Laingsburg and Beaufort West in the Karoo, Saldanha Bay in the West Coast and ending with the City of Cape Town.

She further suggested that the Committee procedural officer can decide which areas within the district municipalities the Committee should visit as long as the Committee covers all those district municipalities.

The Chairperson thanked Members for their participation and indicated that the details of the public participation, such as dates and areas, would be forwarded to Members. He also requested Members to share their availability.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting.