Animal Health Bill: negotiating mandates; Marketing of Agric Products Amd Bill: deliberations

_____________________________________________________________
CONTACT TRUST
Your experts in natural resource policy and legislation information services

Tel: (021) 426 1411
email: [email protected]
www.contacttrust.org.za
______________________________________________________________

The aim of this report is to summarise the main events at the meeting and identify the key role players.  This report is not a verbatim transcript of proceedings. 

LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
23 October 2001
ANIMAL HEALTH BILL; MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL: NEGOTIATING MANDATES

Chairperson: Rev P. Moatshe

Documents handed out:
Animal Health Bill [B64 - 2001]
Agricultural Products Amendment Bill [B26B - 2001]
Negotiating Mandate on Animal Health Bill [B64 - 2001] (KwaZulu-Natal Legislature, Gauteng Legislature, Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature, Free State Legislature, Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, Legislature of the Northern Province, North West Provincial Legislature, Western Cape Provincial Parliament)
Negotiating Mandate on Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill [B26B - 2001] (Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature, Gauteng Legislature, KwaZulu-Natal Legislature, Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, Legislature of the Northern Province, North West Provincial Legislature, Western Cape Provincial Legislature)

SUMMARY
The Select Committee heard the negotiating mandates of the provinces on the Animal Health Bill and the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill. KwaZulu-Natal abstained on the Animal Health Bill while Gauteng, Eastern Cape, Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Province, North West Province and Western Cape supported the passing of the Bill and the Northern Cape had not yet submitted a negotiating mandate. The Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga, Northern Province, North West Province and Western Cape supported the passing of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill. The representatives of the provinces were given an opportunity to relate provincial concerns and the Department had a chance to respond.

MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the representatives from the Department, Adv R. van Zyl, Ms S. Naidoo and Dr S. Meyer, who had come to assist the Select Committee. He stated that the Committee would deal with negotiating mandates on the Animal Health Bill and the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill.

Animal Health Bill
KwaZulu-Natal
Mr MacKenzie from KwaZulu-Natal presented the negotiating mandate of the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature. He stated that the Provincial Standing Committee on the National Council of Provinces mandated the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to abstain on the Animal Health Bill in the Select Committee on Land and Agriculture. This was because the Standing Committee felt they were not in a position to decide on a negotiating mandate since they required additional time to interact and consult with interested and affected parties on the new aspects of the proposed Bill. The primary concern expressed was the Department's failure to consult the National and Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders. Having obtained permission from the Chairperson to mention the minor concerns, Mr MacKenzie stated that the Standing Committee was also concerned that the Bill might allow South Africa to impose on its neighbours.

Mr V. Windvoel (ANC) stated that the Committee should stick to the main issues of concern and added that, since KwaZulu-Natal chose to abstain, the Committee should accept only the move to abstain and not additional concerns.

The Chairperson acknowledged the dilemma of KwaZulu-Natal abstaining from the Bill and still raising issues for negotiation.

Mr A. Van Niekerk (NNP) suggested that the Committee be inclusive and hear each other out in the negotiating phase.

The Chairperson responded that the Committee was being inclusive because, although KwaZulu-Natal abstained, their representative was given the opportunity to present, not only the primary concerns, but also the minor concerns.

Ms B. Thompson (ANC) commented that, if the Committee gave those who already abstained a chance to contribute their concerns, it would mean disregarding Mr Windvoel's suggestion of only acknowledging the decision to abstain.

Ms J. Vilakazi (IFP) asked whether the concerns raised by KwaZulu-Natal were going to be negotiated.

The Chairperson replied that KwaZulu-Natal had stated its concern but chose to abstain because it was unsatisfied with the consultation process, so the Bill should go on. He asked the Department for input.

Ms S. Naidoo, Legal Advisor from the Department, responded that there had been an attempt to consult with the House of Traditional Leaders. The Department had communicated their request for input to the National House of Traditional Leaders and believed that the request would be distributed to the Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders. She stated that, despite the efforts made by the Department, no response was received from any of the Houses of Traditional Leaders.

The Chairperson repeated that there had been an attempt to consult with the Traditional Leaders, but they had failed to respond.

Mr Windoel and the Chairperson asked the Department why it was not stated in the Objectives Memorandum that there was an attempt to consult traditional leaders.

Ms Naidoo stated that the list in the report contained only consulted parties and traditional leaders were omitted from the list because they had failed to respond.

Ms Vilakazi stated that, to ensure there was no confusion, the document should have made it clear that no response was received from the Houses of Traditional Leaders. She said that her province, KwaZulu-Natal, would want to be involved and expressed the hope that she would be allowed to take part in the negotiations.

Mr D. Kgware (ANC) suggested that the participation of members from KwaZulu-Natal be permitted.

Dr E. Conroy (NNP) asked if this should not be sorted out in the Standing Committee. The representative should present the mandate to prevent different views.

The Chairperson stated that there was no difference in viewpoint, the KwaZulu-Natal members were just raising their concerns.

Mr Windvoel stated that the Standing Committee should be informed of the implications of abstaining.

A Committee member stated that he could not understand the choice to abstain on the Bill and still wanting to speak of concerns. He stated that expressing concerns would defeat the purpose of abstaining.

Ms Thompson said that she was absent from the Standing Committee's meeting and added that, if she had been able to attend the meeting, she might have convinced them not to abstain.

Mr MacKenzie claimed that the Standing Committee had no option but to abstain until the Houses of Traditional Leaders were consulted. He reiterated that they were not voting against the Bill and that they had no intention of sneaking in their issues of concern.

Mr K. Mokoena (ANC) said that, if all six Houses of Traditional Leaders had been informed of the invitation to take part in the consultation process, they could not have all failed to respond. The Department or other parties should have ensured that consultation with all interested and affected parties took place. He commented that the Houses of Traditional Leaders were an important body and should not be treated like appendages to the process. If the Standing Committee requested more time for consultation, it might have been considered.

Ms Vilakazi stated that the decision on the negotiating mandate had been made the previous day while she was still in Cape Town. She was uncertain of her ability to make a difference and change the views of the decision-makers in the Standing Committee.

The Chairperson argued that the omission of the Houses of Traditional Leaders from the consultation process was clearly wrong and asked the Committee not to belabour the point.

Dr Conroy stated that he understood that abstaining was the only option open to the Standing Committee. He added that there was still time before voting began, so the Committee should demand that the Department make a second effort to consult with traditional leaders.

Mr MacKenzie replied that he did not want to shove a stick into an anthill, and added that he was not interested in coercing the Chairperson to set a precedent. He believed that there was no time to do anything but abstain; if there had been time, they would have done their own consultation.

The Chairperson said that, in the short time available before debating the Bill on November 2, the Standing Committee could carry out its own consultation with traditional leaders. While the omission of the traditional leaders was unacceptable, something could still be done to get them on board, and he believed that they would support the Bill.

Ms Thompson stated that the Department should be aware that the Committee was not satisfied with their response to whether they had consulted the Houses of Traditional Leaders. 

Adv R. van Zyl, Head of Legal Services at the Department, asked the Committee for guidelines. While it was unfortunate that the document did not reflect consultation with traditional leadership, the Department did contact the National House of Traditional Leaders and could prove it through the records of their correspondence. She asked the Committee to give the Department guidelines on what they should do to ensure two-way dialogue with all traditional leaders.

The Chairperson said that the Department's error was neglecting to list the National and Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders in the Objectives Memorandum.

Adv van Zyl suggested that the Committee amend the Objectives Memorandum and insert a reference to the fact that there was no response from the National House of Traditional Leaders.

The Chairperson stated that KwaZulu-Natal was not opposing the Bill. If they were against the Bill, then the Bill would still go through.

Mr R. Nogumla (ANC) argued that the requirement was stakeholder consultation. If that had not happened, the Standing Committee should have asked for additional time to consult.

The Chairperson stated that the Standing Committee was not opposing the Bill. The Province was entitled to hold public hearings on issues such as this, but this had not been raised in a timely manner. He expressed his feeling that the Standing Committee would gain approval of the Bill from traditional leaders if they would consult traditional leaders in the short time still available.

Gauteng
Dr Conroy reported that, although he did not attend the meeting of the Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs Portfolio Committee, the Committee, after discussing the Bill and conducting public hearings, expressed support for the principle and details of the Animal Health Bill.

Eastern Cape
Mr Nogumla reported that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs expressed its full support for the passing of the Bill but also raised some concerns. The concerns were that the Bill would not be effective in improving the health of animals unless the fencing of international boundaries was prioritised and that certificates for inspection should be issued for any exported animal in order to instill confidence in export products. To conclude, Mr Nogumla reported that the Committee had resolved to support the Bill with a proposed amendment in Section 12(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) to replace “maybe� with “must� and to include, in Clause 8, a clause that would emphasise the need for a certificate of inspection.

Mr Mokoena asked how the Standing Committee understood Section 12, because the Bill was trying to allay provincial fears.  He commented that the Standing Committee's concerns applied to the fencing issue.

Mr Kgware agreed with Mr Mokoena's viewpoint.

The Chairperson also agreed that the Bill was attempting to reserve the fencing issue for the discretion of the National Executive Officer (NEO), and asked for departmental input.

Ms Naidoo stated that the Department was in agreement because mandatory fencing would require maintenance and pose financial burden.

Dr Meyer, from Veterinary Services at the Department, said that the provision on the fencing of international boundaries was to prevent diseased animals from straying into South Africa.

Mr Nogumla asked whether the issue was that the need for fencing was recognised but determined to be too costly. He also asked if the fence was going to be needed only when there was an outbreak of disease. The Eastern Cape raised this concern regarding the fencing of international boundaries because of its border with Lesotho. He stated that, if the NEO stipulated that the need for fencing was to prevent stray animals from entering South Africa, it was unnecessary to wait until there was eminent danger of disease. 

Mr Mindvoel expressed his understanding of the Eastern Cape's concerns; however, he stated that its concern may have been related to other issues such as the cross-border theft of cattle. He said that the Bill's provisions should be read within the context of animal health only.

Free State
Rev M. Chabaku (ANC) reported that the Tourism, Environmental and Economic Affairs and Agriculture Portfolio Committee, having considered the Bill, inputs and information received, resolved to support the Animal Health Bill but would negotiate on a proposed amendment. She stated that the Committee wanted Clause 17 to be added to allow the owner of animals and the owner or user of land occupied by animals to report any abnormal morbidity and mortality to the Provincial Executive Officer (PEO) as the PEO may have been more accessible than the NEO.

The Chairperson asked for input from the Department.

Dr Meyer claimed that the Bill required notification of the NEO because, as the National Officer, the NEO would need to be immediately notified to fulfil international reporting obligations that had an impact on South African exports. He stated that reporting to the PEO was not as important.

Rev Chabaku stated that the concern was covered by the Department's statement and added that the Free State Committee was not asking for anything new.

Mpumalanga
Mr Windvoel reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, having been briefed on the Animal Health Bill, identified a need to hold public hearings in three regions of Mpumalanga. Although the Memorandum of Objects of the Bill indicated that there would be no increased expenditure by the Bill, the Provincial Committee was skeptical about the accuracy of the statement. The Provincial Committee also identified a need for the provincial veterinary to have power of seizure over any animal or thing in transit pending procurement of written authority in terms of Clause 10. He stated that the Provincial Committee supported the Animal Health Bill.

Northern Cape
The Chairperson stated that the negotiating mandate from the Northern Cape had not yet been received.

Northern Province
Mr R. Nyakane (UDM) reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Nature Conservation, having discussed and agreed to the Bill as introduced in the National Council of Provinces, expressed its support.

The Chairperson would report the North West Province's negotiating mandate, so Mr Mokoena took over as Acting Chairperson for the duration of the discussions on the North West negotiating mandate.

North West Province
Rev Moatshe reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Environment (NW Committee) discussed the Animal Health Bill in detail and raised various concerns. He was required to report back with the responses to each of the concerns, so he requested that the Committee look at each of the concerns and amendments. One of the concerns was that people from rural areas were not included in the list of people and institutions consulted. Rev Moatshe then proceeded to list the proposed amendments, and they were discussed one at a time.

Rev Moatshe reported that the NW Committee noted that, in Clause 1, there was a constant reference to �thing� and proposed the insertion of a definition for “thing� that would correspond to the definition of  “infectious thing.� Also, in Clause 2, they proposed the insertion of a definition for “stray animal.�

Dr Meyer responded that there was a definition for “animal or thing� and stated that it was already defined and understood, and he added that “infectious thing� was stipulated clearly. He was convinced that enough definitions were listed.

Adv van Zyl, responding to the proposal for defining “stray animal�, said that it was not necessary to define every word in the Bill. Only words with particular meaning within the context of the Bill were defined, and the dictionary meaning would be assumed for other words.

Mr Mokoena stated that the issue of “stray animal� would be flagged for later discussion, and it was decided that the Department would respond to the issue in the final mandate.

Rev Moatshe reported that, in Clause 2(4), there was a need to insert a time frame within which the NEO would have to indicate a decision regarding an application submission.

Dr Meyer responded that the proposal could be accommodated.

Rev Moatshe, referring to Clause 4(1), reported that the NW Committee was concerned with the designation of assignees. The Bill stated that powers would be assigned to any person with an interest in or particular knowledge of animals and animal health, and clarity was sought as to whom this referred. He said that, although the explanatory note stated that it was referring to laboratories, it could refer to companies as well, and it might, in the long run, create an impression that these companies were the only institutions that could provide viable input.

Dr Meyer responded that the qualification for assignees was sufficiently narrowed down to include only those with interest and knowledge.

Adv van Zyl, supplementing Dr Meyer's response, stated that assignees were being used in legislation more and more to extend the hand of government because capacity was low. The final responsibility would still be with the NEO, but the duties would be performed by qualified assignees selected by the Department. She reassured the Committee that the Department would scrutinise and select the proper assignees because, in the end, the Department was liable. She stated that it was difficult to list the qualifications assignees were required to have within the Bill.

Mr Mokoena asked if the Department was assuring the Committee that assignees were selected properly.

Adv van Zyl responded that the Department would ensure that assignees could do the work properly because the Department was, in the end, responsible.

Mr Windvoel said that the leeway for the use of assignees also existed in other legislation and added that it was important for provincial portfolio committees and stakeholders. He asked if assignees were going to be accessible to rural communities.

Adv van Zyl responded that the Department could provide a list of examples of assignees used.

Mr Mokoena stated that the issue had been clarified and proceeded to the other proposals.

Rev Moatshe reported that, related to the issue of assignees, there was a need to clarify the financial implications of assignees.

Adv van Zyl clarified the concerns regarding the financial implications of assignees. She stated that government was no longer the only entity enforcing laws. In order to cut down costs, there was increasing use of persons from outside the government. Although assignees could not have financial recourse on government and could not ask the government for money to perform the function, provisions were made for assignees to charge fees that would be decided in consultation with the Department. She stated that the Bill had financial implications, but these implications were not its use of assignees.

Referring to Clause 5(6), Rev Moatshe said that it was given that the Minister would act in consultation with the MEC when he/she had reason to believe that the PEO was not doing what he/she was supposed to do.

Adv van Zyl read Clause 5(6) and stated that it was a material deviation. If the NEO noticed that the PEO was not performing his/her duties adequately, then the NEO should bring it to the attention of the PEO, but the Clause made no mention of the Minister. She said that the NW Committee's concern was unclear to her.

Mr Nyakane asked if the MEC was not involved at all.

Adv van Zyl responded that Clause 5(6) was concerned with collegial interaction in terms of day-to-day operations. The MEC would be involved in more serious matters.

Rev Moatshe expressed the NW Committee's concerns regarding fencing. He asked that the financial implications for provinces be set out to ensure that they could adequately make provisions for any eventuality. This was not to go into the Bill, but to ensure awareness of the costs involved.

Mr Mokoena stated that the issue had been clarified in the discussion on the Eastern Cape's proposal and proceeded to the next issue.

Rev Moatshe reported that, throughout the Bill, reference was made to announcements or notices in the Gazette. The NW Committee proposed that it should be “Government Gazette or any appropriate media� to ensure that the information was accessible and to ensure that the Minister was not confined to specific media.

Adv van Zyl responded that, throughout the legislation, the term used was “Gazette�. The particular Gazette to be used was left to the discretion of the person making the decision. She said that the State Law Advisor would have to be consulted on why “Gazette� was used instead of “Government Gazette�. In reference to the suggestion to insert “or any appropriate media�, she stated that the point of placing an announcement in the Gazette was not to inform people but because it was a legal requirement.

Rev Moatshe, referring to Clause 29(2), reported that there was no clarity on the penalties to be imposed. The proposal was for minimum and maximum amounts to be set that would guide the courts when confronted with matters under the Act.

Mr Windvoel commented that there were no limits because legislation was written to be applied over a long period of time and could not stipulate the financial values because those values fluctuated.

Ms Naidoo added that there was a correspondence between a period of sentence for a crime and the financial value, so penalty would be set according to the time allotted.

Rev Moatshe reported that the NW Committee had resolved to support the essence and principle of the Bill and recommended that the Bill be passed into law subject to the amendments as would be agreed upon.

The discussion on the North West proposals was completed, and Rev Moatshe took over again as Chairperson.

Western Cape
The Chairperson stated that the Western Cape representative was absent and read the submission out loud. The Standing Committee on Economic Development, having considered the Animal Health Bill, expressed support of the Bill, but raised a few issues for clarity. The Standing Committee, referring to Section 4, expressed concern that the appointment process was only by the national Minister and did not allow for provincial input. The second concern, referring to Section 11, regarded policing of quarantine stations. The Standing Committee stated that assurances should be sought that, as a province was the first line of defence against the introduction of a disease, it would have the prerogative to defend its own interests via controlling its own quarantine stations. The third concern, referring to Section 16 on Animal Health Schemes, was that it needed to be clarified if a province could initiate its own animal health schemes/disease surveillance programmes with the aim of establishing sanitary guarantees for facilitating export.

Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill
Eastern Cape
Mr Nogumla reported that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs, having considered the Bill, expressed its full support for passing the Bill. The concern that was raised was that they believed Clause 2, dealing with the amendment to Section 7 of the principal Act, would need to be rephrased to identify specific stakeholders that would need to be consulted.

Adv van Zyl responded that the issue had been raised at an earlier phase in the process. She proceeded to read out the response given by the Department at that time. She stated that it had been difficult for NAMC to ensure that all directly affected groups were consulted for the response. If there was an obligation to include all affected groups in the committees NAMC set up to deal with specific issues, the committees would become cumbersome and their purpose would be defeated. NAMC served as an advisory body to the Minister and did not need to make committees representative because they would be reserved for investigating more complex issues.  Then NAMC might use the information from the committees towards its recommendations to the Minister, but the final decision would lie with the Minister.

Free State
The Chairperson stated that the negotiating mandate of the Free State on the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill had not yet been received.

Gauteng
The Chairperson, noting that the representative for Gauteng was not present, expressed his concern that the mandates were not taken seriously.  He proceeded to read the negotiating mandate that had been submitted. The Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs Portfolio Committee, having conducted public hearings and discussed the Bill, supported the principle and detail of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill with proposed amendments. The provincial committee proposed that Section 2 would make it possible to exclude a particular industry from the decisions that might have a direct impact on that industry. Therefore, they felt that it was desirable that provisions be made to ensure industrial or sectoral participation. The provincial committee also proposed that Section 9 could potentially create loopholes through which financial claims could be made against the Maize Trust and the State for levies that were paid by them.  They suggested the retention of the sub-sections that would ensure there were institutions and mechanisms in place to continue to collect outstanding levies.

Adv van Zyl, on the issue of the uncollected levies in Section 9, stated that only six boards remained, and they would be liquidated when the legal matters they were involved in were resolved. The repeal clause would be effective then and would not leave the government unable to collect levies.

KwaZulu-Natal
Ms Vilakazi reported that the Provincial Standing Committee supported the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill subject to the amendments proposed and obtaining clarity on matters.

Adv van Zyl proceeded to look at the proposals made by KwaZulu-Natal and gave responses. She stated that the first three suggestions were minor technical issues and disagreed with the proposals. On the proposal to replace “nominated as candidate for election� with “elected� in Clause 1(14)(d), she stated that nominees should not be used for this kind of work because both nominated and elected persons would have too many other obligations and would not be right for the work. The fifth proposal was a matter of legal technical drafting, and she expressed her disagreement with KwaZulu-Natal's proposal. The sixth proposal was to replace “…as may be sufficient…� with “…as the Council may deem sufficient� in Clause 8(2)(a). She stated that, since it was clear that the Council was the decision-making body, the suggested amendment was not necessary. The seventh proposal was a logical reasoning suggestion to use the term “proposed prohibition� in Clause 8(2)(a) at lines 11 and 16 and she agreed with the proposal. The eighth proposal was a result of an error in typing in Clause 8(2(a) at line 23 and she stated it would be corrected. The final proposal was to insert a time commencement indicator to specify when the clock would begin to tick within the 60-day period. The suggestion was to say “…within 60 days of the publication of the notice…[or] of the deadline for lodgement of objections or representations…� She disagreed with the proposal.

Mpumalanga
Mr Windvoel reported that, after considering the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill clause by clause, the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, expressed its support of the Bill without any amendments.

Northern Province
The representative of the province was not present, so the Chairperson read the submitted mandate. The Provincial Portfolio Committee discussed the Bill clause by clause and agreed to the Bill as amended by the National Assembly Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs. Thus, it was reported that the Northern Province supported the Bill.

North West Province
The Chairperson introduced the report of the negotiating mandate and Adv van Zyl proceeded to comment on the concerns raised by the North West province. To the concern regarding the lack of interviewing persons short-listed as candidates for the Council that would be established, Adv van Zyl responded that it was left to the Minister. There was also a suggestion to list names in chronological order in Clause 1(13)(d) and Adv van Zyl stated that the change would only be rearranging the naming of bodies, but it could be done. To the suggestion to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Public Finance Management Act in Clause 3, Adv van Zyl responded that it was not necessary to mention that other acts had to be complied with because those other acts would have to be complied with regardless of whether or not they were mentioned in this bill. To the suggestion on supplementary budgetary inputs in Clause 3(b), Adv van Zyl responded that the issue was already clear and added that additional input requirements were set out in the Public Finances Management Act. To the suggestion regarding the notice in the Gazette, Adv van Zyl responded that the issue had already been discussed and said that the announcement in the Gazette was to make the Bill enforceable instead of to inform people. There was also a suggestion, regarding Clause 8, to add “…or any other relevant structure� after “Council� in order to give the Minister room to move and consult widely without being confined to the Council. Adv van Zyl responded by stating that Clause 8 already made provision for consultation. Regarding Clause 9, there was a request for clarification on what the trusts that regulated levies paid would be. Adv van Zyl responded that Section 2 of the main Act set out objectives and a trust would have to be in line with the Act's objectives. With regard to the concern over Bophuthatswana Marketing Council, she said that she would verify if the Act had been transferred to the North West Province.

Western Cape
Noting the absence of the representative from the Western Cape, the Chairperson read out the mandate that had been submitted. The Standing Committee on Economic Development, having considered the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill, expressed its support for the Bill but asked for clarity on some issues. The Committee expressed concern that, while Section 4 of Act 47 of 1996 provided for a specific Standing Committee role during the appointment of persons to the NAMC, the current Bill did not provide a role for the Standing Committee. The second concern was over the requirement that persons found guilty of transgressing Section 7 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act could not service on NAMC. The Standing Committee felt that this clause made provision for discrimination on the grounds of race but was silent on gender and disability. Therefore, the Standing Committee suggested that the reference to Section 7 of the Discrimination Act be omitted since there was already a provision for the disqualification of persons with a criminal record.

The Chairperson, having concluded all the submitted negotiating mandates, stated that members should take the matters up with their respective provinces for the final mandate. He requested that the final mandates be submitted on time and the meeting was adjourned.

The copyright in this material subsists with the Contact Trust.  Further distribution or copying of this material is prohibited without the prior agreement of the Contact Trust.