Older Person’s Bill: Final Mandates and adoption

Meeting report

SOCIAL SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE
14 June 2005
OLDER PERSON’S BILL: FINAL MANDATES AND ADOPTION

Chairperson: Ms J Masilo (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Eastern Cape Older Persons Bill: final mandate
Limpopo Older Persons Bill: final mandate
Mpumalanga Older Persons Bill: final mandate (see Appendix 1
Free State Older Persons Bill: final mandate
Gauteng Older Persons Bill: final mandate
KwaZulu-Natal Older Persons Bill: final mandate
Western Cape Older Persons Bill: final mandate (see Appendix 2)
North West Older Persons Bill: final mandate
Northern Cape Older Persons Bill: final mandate (see Appendix 3)

Department Amendments to Older Person Bill
Older Person's Bill [B68B - 2003]
Older Person's Bill [B68 - 2003]

SUMMARY
The Committee met to consider the nine provinces’ final mandates on the Older Persons Bill. A State Law Advisor provided clarity on the legal implications of making amendments to the Bill at this late stage. KwaZulu-Natal was the only province that was not in favour of the Bill, noting specific clauses of the Bill. The cost provisions of the Bill were also of concern to KwaZulu-Natal. Costing concerns were echoed by most of the provinces. The Committee considered the KwaZulu-Natal proposed amendments. However, the Chairperson ruled that the Bill would not be subjected to any further amendments as the process of going back to the provinces would be too long and there were also legal implications. The Chairperson however noted the provinces' concerns about the costing of the Bill and promised to attach their concerns to the report on the Bill for consideration at a later stage. The Bill was adopted with the Department's proposed amendments.

MINUTES

Eastern Cape
The Bill was supported without further amendments

Limpopo
The Bill was supported without further amendments

Mpumalanga
The Bill was supported without further amendments

Free State
The Bill was supported without further amendments

Gauteng
The Bill was supported without further amendments

KwaZulu-Natal
Ms B Scott (Chairperson, Social Welfare and Popular Development Portfolio Committee, KwaZulu-Natal) said that her province could not accept the Bill because of its cost implications for the province. Ms Scott added that the version of the Older Persons Bill before them had no legal basis, as the Department’s proposed amendments had not been effected.

KwaZulu-Natal in proposing its amendments had tried to look at the Bill from a legal perspective and had also tried to be thorough. She said that Clauses 2(1)(b) and Clause 2(2) were of especial concern. The word "financially" needed to be put before "support" in Clause 2(1)(b). In the case of Clause 2(2), the phrase "the support and development of older persons, including but not limited to - ". She added that Kwazulu-Natal would only accept the Bill if National government gave a firm guarantee that all provinces would receive a substantial and equitable amount of funding.

Mr T Setona (ANC) commented that the opposition by KwaZulu-Natal was not helpful; instead it made matters more complicated especially considering the amount of time spent putting the Bill before the provinces.

Ms Scott responded that the amendments that they were proposing had no legal status and could be altered as they were still in the form of a Bill. National government needed to give the guarantee that all the provinces would have equal access to funding.

Western Cape
The Bill was supported without further amendments

North West
The Bill was supported without further amendments

Northern Cape
The Bill was supported without further amendments

The Chairperson commented that suggested improvements to Bills were welcome, but the Committee needed to be careful of exposing the Department to possible litigation. He asked the State Law advisors about the legal implications of making these changes.

Mr Gideon Hoon (State Law Advisor) responded that his role was to merely give legal advice and not to make changes to Bills. He commented that there were serious legal consequences in effecting amendments at this stage of a Section 76 Bill. What this meant was that the eight provinces (excluding KwaZulu-Natal) would need to reconsider their mandates.

Mr J Thlagale (UDM, North West) commented that he agreed with the law advisor. Changes should not be made at this stage.

Mr M Thetjeng (DA, Limpopo) commented that he felt that KwaZulu-Natal concerns had been ignored. He was not convinced that the Department would be exposed to litigation if Kwazululu-Natal’s proposed amendments were accepted.

The Chairperson considered all the comments made by Members and the State Law Advisor and ruled that the Bill would not be subjected to any further amendments, as this would waste time. He however sympathised with KwaZulu-Natal, but the Committee needed to go about its functions in a consistent manner. The concerns about costing would be noted and attached to the report on the Bill, especially the request made to National Treasury. The wording of this would be as follows:

"The Committee further reports that they would like the concern regarding the costing of the Bill noted despite the Select Committee and the majority of provinces receiving briefing on this aspect of the legislation from the National Department of Social Development.

In their final mandate, Gauteng and the Northern Cape noted that the implementation of this Bill will have implications for the provinces in that the projected estimates exceed the department's budgetary allocation. Free State noted that due to financial constraints the province will implement the Bill in a phase-in process

In their final mandate KwaZulu-Natal raised the concern that the costing exercise completed by the National Department of Social Development had not yet been approved by National Treasury or the Finance and Fiscal Commission and no indication has been given by National Treasury that the bill is affordable to the national fiscus."


The meeting was adjourned.

The Bill will be debated in the NCOP Chamber on 23 June 2005.

Appendix 1:
MPUMALANGA PROVENCIAL LEGISLATURE
FINAL MANDATE: OLDER PERSONS BILL [B68-2003]
05 June 09

The Portfolio Committee on Health and Social Services (the Committee) deliberated on order Persons Bill (B68-2003] (the Bill)

After deliberation, the Committee supported the Bill without any further amendments.
The permanent delegates representing the Province of Mpumalanga in the National Council of Provinces are conferred with authority to vote in favour of the Bill as amended

HON. YN PHOSA
SPEAKER: MPUMALANGA LEGISLATURE

Appendix 2:
Final Mandate of the Western Cape Provincial Parliament
27 May 2005

Report of the Standing Committee on Social Development, on the Older Persons Bill [B68 -2003] (NCOP), dated 27 May 2005, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Social Development, having considered the subject of the Older Persons Bill [B68 -2003] (NCOP), referred to the Provincial Parliament in terms of the rules of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), begs to report that it confers on the Western Cape’s delegation in the NCOP the authority to support the Bill.


M G VANTURA
CHAIRPERSON

Appendix 3:
NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE:
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SPEAKER

Date: 10 June 2005-06-17

FINAL MANDATE: OLDER PERSON'S BILL (B68-2005]

On Friday, 10 June 2005, the Portfolio Committee on Social Services and Population Development received an extentive briefing on the amendments of the Older Person's Bill as well as a report on the costing of the Bill.

The Committee noted with concern the shortfall in the budget of the Department to roll-out this Bill. The. National Department must be urged to address the disparity in allocation of subsidy amounts because the Northern Cape Province is unable to reach the majority of the beneficiaries with a consequence of excluding the vulnerable and previously disadvantaged.

The House confer a mandate on our Permanent Delegates to vote for the Bill and to pursue the concerns raised above.


Yours truly
Hon. G Cjiekella
Tel: 053 – 839 8080
Fax: 053 – 839 8094