Constitution 12th Amendment Bill: briefing; Committee Report on Salary Scales for the Magistracy: adoption

Meeting report

SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
16 November 2005
CONSTITUTION TWELFTH AMENDMENT BILL: BRIEFING; COMMITTEE REPORT ON SALARY SCALES FOR THE MAGISTRACY: ADOPTION

Chairperson: Mr M Kgoshi (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Names of Areas incorporated/ disestablished municipalities
Committee Resolution on Magistracy Salary Scales (see Appendix)

SUMMARY
The Committee adopted the interim report approving the proposed new salary scales for the magistracy. A motion would be tabled before Parliament later that day. The Committee was also briefed by the Departments of Provincial and Local Government and Justice on the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill. There appeared to be much confusion around what the Bill entailed. Some Members urged the Committee to be cautious not to rush approval since the realignment of boundaries would have far-reaching consequences. Members were required to brief their respective provinces during the following week.

MINUTES
Consideration of the report on the hearing on the implementation and approval of the proposed new salary scales for the Magistracy
The Chairperson acknowledged that the long outstanding issue of the remuneration of the magistracy had caused much concern among magistrates in the country. Magistrates were concerned that the promises that had been made to them would not be kept. Some had gone out and purchased cars based on the expected car allowances. If he had his way this issue would be finalised. Concerned Magistrates had phoned many Members; if he had been in their position he would have done the same. If the Committee approved of what would be proposed, a resolution would be passed in the Chamber that afternoon.

Many discussions had been held regarding this issue. The Committee had sought the advice of the State Law Advisors. Both the Department of Justice as well as the National Treasury had been invited to a public hearing to discuss the issue with the Select Committee and the Portfolio Committee. The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) had pointed out that some things had not been done correctly which resulted in more discussion.

Both Departments had committed themselves to looking into ways of funding the entire remuneration package. The Chairpersons of the Portfolio Committee and the Select Committee as well as the relevant Ministers had met to find a way of finalising the issue as amicably as possible.

The Chairperson was happy to report that after four meetings amongst all relevant parties on the previous day, consensus had been reached. A way would be found to make sure that the remuneration package as proposed by the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers would be financed. There would be a process that would run parallel with the recommendation. An interim report outlining this process would be tabled before the Committee. The report would not differ much from the motion in that day’s order paper. He said that he did not want to appear as though he was ‘preaching gospel to the converted’- everyone was aware of the process that had just been gone through, so he would not elaborate on it much. He added that the magistrates were loved and respected – "there was no way that we were going to deliberately just frustrate them as Government". He said that this sentiment was shared by many of the Members present. The magistrates would not be disappointed. If the Committee approved, he would allow the NCOP to pass the resolution later that afternoon.

Discussion
Mr M Mzizi (IFP) said that he was happy the meetings had been held to resolve the issue. He was concerned however about the disparities existing between the entry-level magistrates, senior magistrates and long time service magistrates. The process that was underway should not raise expectations. He was happy that Parliament has ‘come to its senses’ and would continue with the remuneration programme. The Magistrates’ Commission, the Portfolio Committees as well as the Select Committees should liaise closely with each other so that whatever should transpire should not be viewed as Parliament delaying the process or becoming unreasonable. If the necessary precautions were taken he would be more than happy to support the resolution. He said the motion in that day’s order paper did not ‘make any sense’. Would a statement giving clarity be issued?

Mr D Worth (DA) said that problems had crept in with the announcement of the vehicle allowances. Matters had advanced so far that Government had been left with no choice but to approve the remuneration package. He said that he was happy that Treasury had found R170 million to finance the car allowances. The fact that the salaries of magistrates were set by the Magistrates’ Commission that had its own board was problematic. It needed to come up with a more structured ‘salary set up’. He predicted that public prosecutors might also request increases. There should be a progression from the public prosecutors straight through to the senior regional magistrates. A more structured approach would thus have to be developed as a long-term measure. He was relieved that the issue had been resolved amicably.

Mr J Le Roux (DA) concurred that it was very important that the process was not delayed any further. He asked whether the funding had been discussed in greater detail in the deliberations the Chairperson had been involved in. Was there a problem around the fact that the Justice Vote would have to find the money to fund the remunerations?

The Chairperson responded that Treasury had committed itself to funding the remunerations. The Department of Justice could not finance the remuneration package because it had not budgeted for it. The Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers had recommended the package. Their recommendation was supposed to go to ‘the powers that be’ to make sure that the necessary funds were available. However by the time the recommendation had been made, no discussion had taken place to cater for this in the budget. After the aforementioned ‘marathon discussion’ it had been concluded that funding would be made available. He could, with no hesitation state that funding would be made available. "Our beloved magistrates would be paid those allowances".

Mr S Shiceka (ANC) said that the resolution indicated that the Department of Justice would be funding the packages. He said that the Department would have nothing to do with judicial officers, indicating that the magistrates would be joining the Judges. Was this an interim arrangement? Would they revert to the old system whereby judicial officers would be separated?

The Chairperson replied that Treasury would be giving the money to the relevant Departments who would know who the money should go to. Should magistrates be treated the same as Judges? There had been a proposal to do this but the debate was still ongoing. As soon as magistrates were treated the same as Judges, a problem would be created since one would then not be able to control them.

The Chairperson added that the report was in the process of being finalised so that it would contain all the discussions that had taken place around the issue. He said that the Committee’s report would have to refer to the public hearing that had taken place. It should also reflect that the Committee had raised other issues (even though they were not raised in the draft resolution) and should reflect that the Committee was satisfied by the commitments made by the relevant Departments.

The Select Committee approved and adopted the interim report.

Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) Briefing
The Chairperson said that he was quite disturbed by the fact that the media had the night before as well as earlier that morning reported that the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill had been passed by Parliament. This was not the case. The Bill had only been passed by the National Assembly. Only once it had been passed by National Council of Provinces too, could it be said that Parliament had passed it. He said it appeared as though people still had to be orientated as to what Parliament and the parliamentary process was.

Mr Mzizi agreed and requested the media representatives present to inform their colleagues that "the first House has passed the Bill; the race is not yet over because the Bill has to go to the second House". He said that this was important because people needed to know exactly how Bills were passed. He warned that expectations might be raised again. The second House might still find a mistake and refer the matter back to the Portfolio Committee. Parliament might then be accused of "playing a double edged sword".

The Chairperson said that if the briefing by the two Departments satisfied the Committee, Members would be expected to brief their respective provinces. The briefings should take place either on the following Monday or Tuesday. This would mean that Parliament should make all the necessary arrangements to enable Members to do these briefings without any problems.

Mr Le Roux reported that due to the many problems he had experienced, the previous briefing of his province had to be done via telephone conference. Was this an acceptable practice? Ms F Nyanda (ANC) said that this was not acceptable since the Committee required a written mandate.

Mr Shiceka agreed that this was not acceptable. Why could the provincial legislatures not meet with their representatives to pass a law? This was their purpose and they were not required to do so often. What were they doing with their time? Why could they, when required to discuss matters with their representatives abdicate their duty and discuss matters over the telephone? He suggested that if any Member was experiencing problems he or she should approach their whip or the Chief Whip or even the Chairperson of the Council to make sure that the issue was addressed. He said that in the Eastern Cape this might not happen since the issue was ‘a bit hot’ there. He said that he had witnessed this province holding public hearings that were outside the scope of the law. He added that this was creative and taking initiative.

He said that the Committee should agree that in terms of process, provinces should, once their representatives had briefed them, engage with the people on these topics. He felt that the nature of the issues required public engagement.

The Chairperson added that Mr Le Roux should be thanked for taking the initiative of making use of a conference call when all else failed, even if it was not acceptable. Mr Le Roux was standing in for Mr A Manyosi who had fallen ill before he could brief the province. The Committee appreciated the team work from the Eastern Cape.

Mr Mzizi said that he was glad that both Departments were present. It was unfortunate however that the Demarcation Board representative was not present. He said that the Committee was dealing with the determining of districts. He had asked the Demarcation Board about this particular aspect. They responded that the districts were defined according to the old laws which were not in accordance with the new democratic dispensation. He advised that the Committee should be cautious when listening to the briefing.

Mr Monyabisi (ANC) explained that the Municipal Demarcation Board had no mandate to determine provincial boundaries. This should be kept in mind. The areas or districts of the provinces were determined in terms of the old Magistrates’ Act of 1994. The borders as determined by this Act were retained in the interim as well as in the final Constitution. The Municipal Demarcation Board only played a role as far as the determining of municipal boundaries within provinces was concerned. It did not play a role in determining the boundaries that should fall within a particular province.

Mr Johan Labuschagne of the Deaprtment of Justice gave a brief summary of the objects of the Bill before focussing on the amendments which had been affected by the National Assembly.

After South Africa became a democratic state in 1994, it was decided to establish nine provinces encompassing the former South Africa, the former Bantustans (Transkei and Bophuthatswana) and the six self-governing territories. The interim Constitution defined these in terms of magisterial districts. This dispensation continued to exist under the final Constitution which provided that the provincial governments should establish municipalities in their areas.

In 1998 the Constitution was amended to provide for cross boundary municipalities. These municipalities stretched over the boundaries of two provinces. This resulted in the establishment of 16 such cross boundary municipalities; affecting five provinces (Mpumelanga, Gauteng, the North West, Limpopo and the Northern Cape). Administering these municipalities was difficult. They experienced various technical and other problems.

In 2002 a decision was taken to abolish cross boundary municipalities and to change provincial boundaries so as to ensure that all municipalities fell within just one province. The Bill before the Committee today seeked to give effect to this decision by determining the provincial boundaries in such a manner that they would stay within the boundaries of a particular province. Metropolitan and district municipalities were used to define the areas of the provinces. There were six metropolitan municipalities and 46 district municipalities. In order to do this a new schedule was inserted into the Constitution indicating which municipality would inform the area of a specific province.

In the new Bill the provisions contained in the Constitution which provided for the establishment of cross boundary municipalities were deleted. The purpose of this Bill was to do away with the concept of cross boundary municipalities. Since the Committee was briefed on 13 October 2005 certain further agreements had been reached. The boundaries of certain provinces now differed from the initially proposed boundaries.

The Portfolio Committee proposed certain technical amendments to Clause one of the Bill. This clause amended Section 103(2) of the Constitution. The provision as initially drafted was not clear on the fact that in determining the area of a province one had to consult all the maps listed under that specific province. This was why the clause was amended by the insertion of the words ’the sum of’.

In order to determine the geographical area of a specific province one had to look at the areas indicated on the maps that had been published. The Portfolio Committee felt that it was not clear that in order to determine the area one had to look at a combination of all the maps listed under a specific province. To make this clear the words ‘the sum of’ were inserted.

The previous provision read that ‘area comprises the geographical areas represented by the maps’. Looking at the maps the areas to which this provision was applicable were shaded. The Portfolio Committee felt that the provision should be changed by using the words ‘indicated geographical area’ to avoid confusion. Mr Labuschagne emphasised that these changes were merely technical and in the interest of clarity. They did not constitute principal changes.

During the deliberations of the Portfolio Committee it was determined that provisions had to be made for transitional arrangements for when the Act came into operation. Due to the fact that cross boundary municipalities would be abolished whole municipalities would either be moved to a particular province, or a municipality might be split between two provinces. This would necessitate the transfer of functions, assets, liabilities, etc. It was clear that provisions would need to be made to regulate these transfers. The Portfolio Committee decided to add a provision to the Constitution that would enable Parliament to make an Act to regulate the specific transitional measures.

This provided that if the area of a province was redetermined by means of an amendment to the Act or to the Constitution, an Act of Parliament may be enacted to regulate the legal, practical and other consequences of such a redetermination. The Committee considered whether the Constitution itself should regulate transitional measures or whether it should provide that only an Act of Parliament may regulate the issue.

It was decided that in view of the fact that the redetermination of boundaries may differ from province to province one could not create a standard transitional measure in the Constitution itself. With an Act of Parliament it would be possible to regulate the matter as circumstances required. It was also determined that this Act of Parliament could be enacted and any other steps necessary to regulate these measures could be taken before the Constitution was amended. The actual transfer however could only take place once the Constitution had been amended and the provincial boundary had been redetermined. The Act of Parliament referred to in this clause was the Cross Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill which was presently before Parliament.

Dr Petra Bouwer (DPLG Executive Manager: Compliance and Legal Services) added that the foundation for this approach could be found in the fact that Section 74 of the Constitution placed limitations on how a Constitutional amendment could be dealt with. One could not arrange all kinds of consequential matters in a constitutional amendment but should only concentrate on the pertinent and relevant issues. The Department realised this when it developed the Cross Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill. It inserted a preamble in this Bill to make the link to the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill very clear. It also became clear that it might be necessary to address transitional arrangements in the future. It was proposed to make a provision that would make clear beyond any doubt that one could have accompanying ordinary legislation that supported constitutional amendments.

Dr Bouwer emphasised that as far as the amendments regarding the setting of election dates which had been affected in the Constitution earlier was concerned, the Constitution was amended to say that a proclamation could be issued either before or after the term of a particular legislature had expired. This Act of Parliament could then already be processed before the Constitutional amendment in question was on the table because preliminary steps may need to be taken so that the two events coincided whenever the constitutional amendment would take effect. This further exemplified that an Act of Parliament could be enacted and any other steps necessary to regulate necessary measures could be taken before the Constitution was actually amended.

Dr Bouwer said that as far as transitional measures were concerned the DPLG had so far developed an option that worked with a default position. It said that on the date that the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill became law all functions and service delivery obligations would be transferred from the releasing province to the receiving province. All assets, rights and obligations associated with this would also carry on. This was a default position.

It has been proposed that provision should be made for provinces to enter into agreements whereby the releasing province could continue delivering a function or service on behalf of the receiving province. If the releasing province had a project running which was going well and for which it had all the resources it could complete this project so that there was no disruption of services. The Minister has been instrumental in coordinating Committees that had been set up between the affected provinces to deal with the practical implications of the realignment of provincial boundaries. This was what was being proposed; the Portfolio Committee still had to finalise the proposal.

Mr Labuschagne said that when the Bill was introduced reference was made to two Government gazettes – 18 July (in which the Demarcation Board had published maps of properly demarcated municipal boundaries) and 19 August (in which the Demarcation Board published proposed boundaries at the request of the Minister of Provincial and Local Government). In the new Schedule 1a as approved by the National Assembly the day before, only one notice was referred to because all the relevant maps were published in that particular government gazette.

Dr Bouwer went through the municipalities that would be affected. He explained that there were three municipal categories: the As which were metropolitan, and Bs and Cs where in a specific geographical area the functions were shared between the district and local municipalities. District municipalities comprised of at least two local municipalities, but local municipalities did not have to cover the whole of the district area. Those areas which were not covered by the local municipality were referred to as district management areas (e.g. the Kruger National Park). Where ‘districts’ were referred to it included the constituting parts of that district which were the local municipality and/or the district management area.

Mr Labuschagne reminded Members that the previous provision read that the Act should come into operation on the date of the local Government elections. A new subsection had been added. It stated that since an Act of Parliament may regulate transitional arrangements that specific section might come into operation before the date of the election. This would make it possible for agreements and arrangements to be entered into. The whole Act came into operation on the date of the elections. The one that enabled the Cross Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill would come into operation on the date of publication of the Act which would hopefully be in December.

The NCOP may only pass the Bill if it has been approved by all the affected legislatures. If any of the seven provinces were not to approve the Bill, it would not be passed. Dr Bouwer had prepared a draft resolution which the provinces could consider. It basically read that the Bill had been considered and approved. It indicated that the mandate had been conferred to their delegates for voting. The draft was merely a proposal to get some uniformity among the provinces. Representatives could discuss the draft with their provinces when they briefed them. He said that although he had copies of the draft resolution he though it better to first discuss it with the NCOP’s procedural officer.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked whether the proposal that the cross boundary local municipalities in the Sekekuni district be located in Mpumelanga which was flighted some time ago was no longer relevant.

Dr Bouwer explained that the Demarcation Board had, on 18 July, published maps of all the demarcated municipalities as they existed today. These maps reflected cross boundaries. Where whole districts would be relocated these maps could be used for the purposes of the Bill. Amendments or political proposals calling for a district to be split or reconfigured were published on 19 August as proposals by the Minister. He explained that in terms of the Demarcation Act, if a Minister requested the Demarcation Board to look at certain proposals a whole process was kick-started. This demarcation process, from the point of view of the municipality, resulted in the preliminary determinations which the Chairperson was referring to. This only related to the municipalities themselves. The Bill before the Committee now gave very specific proposals as to where provincial boundaries should be. The Municipal Demarcation Board would have to start looking at demarcations that would fit the provincial boundaries. The counter proposal the Chairperson was referring to was from a demarcation perspective before any decision regarding the alignment of provincial boundaries had been taken. Politically what was being dealt with were the Minister’s proposals published on 19 August as well as the amendment proposals (to the Minister’s proposals) which were captured in the notice of 31 October that was being referred to in the first schedule. In this Bill the whole Sekekuni district municipality, which included the local municipalities, was located in the Limpopo province.

Mr Shiceka asked why the Bill was tagged as a Section 75 Bill. Local Government was a concurrent function and not the preserve of national Government. Provinces were expected to create municipalities across the whole country. In terms of Section 74 they were supposed to support municipalities and to intervene if they were experiencing any problems. This meant that the regulation of the way municipalities functioned was a concurrent function. Provinces played a critical role in the repeal of certain areas. He said provinces did not play much of a role in the development of laws; they were only implementers of those laws. Why was this the case? It did not make any sense.

Dr Bouwer responded that the two processes were defined in Section 75 and Section 76. The Constitution was written in such a way that Section 75 was always the default position. When trying to determine the tagging of a particular Bill one first went to Section 76. If any of the requirements (contained in Section 76 (3) and (4)) for Section 76 tagging were met, this Section had to be applied. If however the provisions of the Bill did not fall within this category, it was automatically tagged in terms of Section 75. Members should remember that in terms of the interim constitution local government was a functional area of concurrent legislative competence between the national and provincial governments. This was amended in the final Constitution. Local Government was no longer such a concurrent legislative competence.

Mr Worth said that if a natural boundary (like a river) spilt a province in two it made sense to say that one half would fall in a certain province while the other would belong in another. Certain provinces had a man-made border. The Deaprtment was suggesting tampering with these borders while at the same time saying that the Demarcation Board had to fit their boundaries into areas which had already been demarcated. Was it only the Minister who had the right to suddenly change borders? Who, if not the Demarcation Board, decided where boundaries were supposed to go? To his knowledge no public hearings were held to consult with the people in the affected areas. Who made the decision? He said that this sounded like the ‘bad old days’ when at election times wards were extended or cut to make it easier to win them He said that should the Bill be passed 400 000 people would be added to the Northern Cape. He said that this might have all sorts of consequences. Would the number of seats in the legislature of this province be adjusted eventually?

Dr Bouwer replied that it was Parliament through an amendment of the Constitution who determined the alignment of boundaries of a province. The determination of provincial boundaries was a constitutional matter. The decision to realign boundaries was not taken lightly. The notion of the cross boundary municipality came from the old Apartheid dispensation. The purpose of the realignment was to create cohesion.

The political decision to deal with the boundary situation in respect of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu Natal was perhaps more difficult. An entire local municipality of the Eastern Cape fell in KwaZulu Natal (the Umzumkulu area). It was completely surrounded by KwaZulu Natal and resulted in the district municipality officials having to drive a long way through KZN to reach a portion of the Eastern Cape. The decision to realign was then also taken to resolve such issues.

Consultations had been done, but he was not able to comment as to the extent of these consultations. The provincial legislatures were also involved from early on as they would have to adopt it once the Bill was adopted by Parliament. The Provincial legislatures, because they were closer to the people, would be a prime vehicle to start engaging with communities as far as the matter was concerned.

The Deaprtment acknowledged the relationship between the determining of provincial boundaries and the demarcation of municipal boundaries, but these were still two separate approaches, with responsibilities located at different places. If Parliament decided that a provincial boundary should run along a particular line, then the Municipal Demarcation Board, if the repeal bill went through, would have to realign their municipal determinations to fit the provincial boundary.

Mr Mzizi asked whether provinces would simply have to toe the line if the Bill was adopted. What process would be followed? Dr Bouwer said that much of the confusion around the realignment was created by the media. He referred Members to the document indicating the realignments so as to avoid further confusion.

He said that the Department had put processes and mechanisms in place to address the challenges that would go along with the realignment. There were coordinating committees between provinces. The issue had been discussed at the President’s Coordinating Council. It was also discussed with the Minister earlier that day to finalise and fine-tune the support that would be given to the process to ensure a smooth handover of service delivery and functions. These processes were in place and fell in the executive sphere of government because they dealt with the budget and administrative authority.

Mr Shiceka pointed out that the programme presupposes that provinces would agree. He asked whether a provision has been made for those provinces who might not agree. He had raised the issue with the Demarcation Board. What informed the Department’s decision to realign boundaries? Decision makers had to have all information before them in order for them to adequately consider the matter. This was the third occasion on which he was requesting the Department’s motivation for the realignment.

He commented that while it was a good idea to consider the draft resolution for the sake of uniformity, it had to be remembered that the Chairperson of the Committee should be leading when it came to these matters. In terms of processes the Department should liaise with the Chairperson who was the one who should take charge. Dr Bower responded that the resolution was prepared as administrative support since this was the first time in the history of the Constitution that such a procedure had to be followed.

Mr Le Roux commented that the Bill required provinces to do something that was virtually impossible. One did not want to change the Constitution in a hurry or when one was not sure that the people were behind the changes. He said that there was a lot of confusion regarding the matter. People were saying that Parliament (national and provincial) was nothing but a rubber stamp. If these amendments were rushed through this would indeed be the case. He emphasised that there were huge issues on the table and there was much dissatisfaction among the people who would be affected by the realignment. He said that he thought that the Committee was looking for trouble if it tried to rush the matter through. Parliament knew since 2002 that these amendments had to go through. Now that the country was facing an election Parliament was forced to ‘abandon all sense and just approve this thing’. The Committee ‘was playing with fire’ if it did not take its time with this issue. This was not a party political matter but had serious implications for the country. It would touch the lives of people.

The Chairperson said that he believed that all Members shared his concerns. He added that the Committee was bound to go and brief their provinces. He said that he would not compromise on ‘the cycle’ which had to be respected and would continue. The proposal would only be considered on 14 December to enable provinces to do what they had to do. Some would be conducting public hearings.

Mr Fielding suggested that a workshop was necessary so that each Member had a clear understanding of the process before they briefed their provinces. He said that that the Committee had heard a lot that morning of which it had previously not been aware. The Chairperson responded that that morning’s briefing was the second one on the matter. He agreed that absolute clarity was necessary because it affected people’s lives. He suggested that Members be provided with a reader friendly briefing document that would assist them when briefing their provinces. A workshop could be held to assist the Committee.

Mr Mzizi commented that the NCOP could not approve the Bill unless it got the approval of the provinces. He said that in terms of the mandate any law that had to be passed needed the support of six provinces. What would happen if the five provinces affected rejected the proposal?

Dr Bouwer responded that in terms of Section 74 of the Constitution if specific provinces were affected by a particular provision these provinces had to adopt the provision. This constitutional Bill was particularly peculiar because more provincial legislatures had to adopt the Bill than was the requirement to pass it in the NCOP. This was mainly because of the provincial boundaries involved. He said that the Constitution was clear that if any one of the provinces did not adopt the Bill then that particular portion that was applicable to them would lapse. Counter proposals and amendments could not be made. Provinces had to adopt a resolution which either approved or rejected the proposal.

Mr Shiceka said that the matter was very simple. There was no complication. What would happen to the areas that would be shifted? He asked whether Mr Labuschagne and Dr Bouwer were able to justify the decision that had been taken. The Demarcation Board had said that there were 13 criteria according to which they measured their decisions.

Dr Bouwer once again emphasised the difference between the demarcation of provincial and municipal boundaries. Decisions regarding the alignment of provincial boundaries were ultimately political even though other consultations did take place. The best person to motivate such decisions would then be the Minister or Ministers concerned.

Mr Shiceka admitted that the matter was not as straightforward as he had thought. He said that it was good that Dr Bouwer was saying that there were no administrative, economic or social reasons for the realignment. It was purely politically motivated.

Dr Bouwer pointed out that that was not what he had said. The factors taken into account when arriving at the decision were not her purview.

Mr Shiceka asked what would happen if a particular province rejected the proposal. The Chairperson asked whether only that one particular province would be affected or whether the whole process would be stalled.

Dr Bouwer said that they could not anticipate what was going to happen. One had to look at what was happening on the ground. He explained that if a province rejected the proposal, all provinces that would have been affected by the realignments involving that particular province would be affected. If this took place one would have to reconsider the impact of the Bill. It basically came down to the veto right of the provinces.

Mr Shiceka asked whether this meant that if a province rejected the proposal the status quo would remain. Whoever provided services would continue delivering those services? Dr Bouwer said that this was the case.

The Chairperson said that the Deaprtment should be ready to assist any Member that might need assistance. It would be embarrassing if provinces asked questions and Members were ‘found wanting’. Dr Bouwer said that he could not speak on behalf of the Department of Justice but her Department would try to manage it. If the meeting as per the original schedule took place last week, the DPLG would have been ready to assist. 21 and the 22 November were the dates for the local Government mid week, where the provisions would also be discussed. He assured Members that the Deaprtment would try to assist as far as possible.

Mr A Manyosi (ANC) added that the State Law Advisors would prepare some briefing notes which would hopefully centre around areas of difficulty.

Mr Z Ntuli (ANC) asked when the reader-friendly documents mentioned earlier would be made available. Mr Labuschagne said that these documents had already been made available. The amendments would now be added and the documents should then be ready either later that day or the following day.

The Chairperson said that it was up to Members to make sure that Provinces were aware that the Bill needed to be passed. The presenters had proposed a draft resolution which could be presented to the provinces. This might be dangerous but Members could use it. He was aware that some provinces would want to draw up their own.

Mr Labuschagne said that he would speak to the NCOP procedural advisors and if they were satisfied he would make the draft resolution available.

The meeting was adjourned.