Constitution 16th Amendment Bill; Cross-Boundary Municipalities Law Repeal Bill: Final Mandates

Meeting report

Cross-Boundary Municipalities Law Repeal Bill: voting
Mr Mkaliphi stated that this was another meeting regarding the twin Bills and when the Bills had been discussed the previous week, a motion of desirability for the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Law Repeal Bill had been agreed to by the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration. Thus this meeting was concerned with formal matters. He asked the legal advisors whether they had any further comments or observations to make.

Mr Fanie Louw, Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) Legal Advisor, said that they Department had nothing to add.

The Co-Chairperson then addressed the Cross Boundary Bill clause by clause. The Short Title and Clause 1 received no comment. Clause 2 was commented upon approvingly by Mr A Moseki (ANC North West) and Clause 3 received the same treatment from Mr Z Ntuli (ANC KZN). Clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were all approved without comment.

The Co Chairperson, Mr Mkaliphi, then thanked the Members and thereafter read the full title of the Bill. He stated that the Committee having considered the Bill, which was a Constitution Section 75 Bill, submitted the Bill to the Legislature without amendments.

With the proposal of Mr Moseki and the seconding by Mr Ntuli the Bill was passed unanimously orally.

The Co Chairperson said that the twin Bills, provided the other received similar approval, would be presented for debate in the NCOP Chamber on 19 March 2009.

Constitution Sixteenth Amendment Bill: discussion
The other Co Chairperson, Mr Kgoshi L Mokoena, then assumed the Chairmanship. He reminded all present that in their last meeting the Members had agreed to brief their provinces on the Bills, especially highlighting the concerns raised by the other provinces and the Committee. These concerns were:
-The Department /Government should look into a more acceptable way of looking or investigating into disputes and cross border questions;
-The Department / Government should avoid dumping people into areas;
-The people concerned should learn to express their views without violence. In destroying properties they were destroying their own properties and their pensions.

He further reminded all present that there had been heated debates about the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill and that some communities would be affected negatively thereby. The two pieces of legislation would work together for service delivery and there was concern that Khutsong would be in Gauteng, with the applicable budget being administered for some years to come by the North West Province. He sought assurance from the Department that all mechanisms were in place and that the Bills would not negatively affect anyone. Thus, he asked for this assurance from the Department and for further discussion before proceeding further with the Bill.

Mr Jazze Mokoena, DPLG Support person, reported that he had been informed that the Minister and the Members of Executive Councils (MECs) concerned, and even the Municipalities, had been liasing on this matter and he for one trusted that it would happen.

Mr Myron Peter, DPLG Chief Director: Institutional and Administrative Systems, added that there had been a request for a joint committee and on behalf of the Department he could give the assurance that the Department had been mulling the 2005 Act, and regulations, and the issues arising there from, in order to learn from the past so that there should be a smooth handing over of the areas leaving one province and joining another province. To such effect a special Transition Committee would be set up, with the Provinces represented on it in order to solve the issues and prevent delays arising. The Department was aware of the issues likely to arise and would be in a position to counter them head on, thereby achieving a broad consensus. He added that the Department had begun a system of redivision of borders and that the role of the players had been identified. It was felt that this was a better way than allowing disputes to arise. It took a lot of work but in the end this was worthwhile and the achieving of a consensus was admirable. The Minister had taken note of the large number of role players and was attempting to stay within the parameters of the White Papers. 

Kgoshi Mokoena asked whether there was interaction between the two provinces concerned, or whether they were relying on the Transitional Committee to do all the work.
 
Mr Peter said that the Minister was relying on the Transitional Committee although he was in touch with the MECs.

Mr Mzizi (IFP Gauteng) stated that he hoped to revert to the Committee in the near future as he was waiting for the final mandate, in writing, from his province and that he was not merely wasting time.

Mr N Mack (ANC W Cape) added that he trusted that all provinces would revert with mandates.

A Member suggested that all parties involved in the process keep the NCOP posted of developments.

Mr Peter advised that the similar legislation in 2005 had taught very many valuable lessons and there had been specific provisions for liaison with the Provincial Governments in two months if a difficulty arose and this was to be reported to the NCOP.

Co Chairperson Mr Mokoena asked whether this report should be in writing and whether the Committee could proceed.

Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill final mandates
Eastern Cape mandate
Mr A Manyosi (ANC Eastern Cape) remarked that the Eastern Cape had limited inputs and that silence must be taken to give consent, as there had been no one speaking against the Bills. Further as silence signified consent and there was no voice against this, acceptance of this proposal is noted.

There was no response for comment or questions upon the Eastern Cape views.

Free State mandate
Mr Moseki (ANC North West) read the mandate for the Free State. It voted in favour of the Bill.

Co-Chairperson Mr Mokoena requested the legal advisors consult with him briefly, which they did.

Gauteng comments
Mr Mzizi, after apologising for arriving late, stated that he was in possession of a mandate but would like to explain it to everyone. He said that he had received the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill together with the request that he return to his province in order to discuss it with the provincial legislature. However, the Gauteng Provincial Legislature was only due to sit on the 12 March 2009 for discussion of this Bill and so he did not have a final mandate. His mandate was forthcoming. At the request of the Co Chairperson he read into the record the full letter from the Gauteng Legislature, emphasizing page 2. The Co-Chairperson said he was satisfied but would be flagging this matter.

Kwa-Zulu Natal mandate
Mr Z Ntuli (ANC Kwa-Zulu Natal) then read from correspondence that KZN supported the Constitutional 16^th Amendment.

Limpopo mandate
The Co-Chairperson as representative of Limpopo also read from a document not circulated, that Limpopo supported the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill.

Mpumalanga mandate
Mr Mkaliphi from Mpumalanga stated that he was in possession of two mandates and that Mpumalanga supported the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill.

Northern Cape mandate
Mr Moseki (ANC North West) read the mandate for the Northern Cape whose legislature had held a meeting in time. They had discussed and resolved to support the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill.

North West mandate
Mr Moseki reported that the North West Province legislature had had meetings on 8 March to discuss and vote upon this Bill, as a result of which the North West supported the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill.

Western Cape mandate
Mr Mack reported on the Western Cape provincial legislatures debates and resolution, which was also in support of the Constitution 16^th Amendment Bill. The Co-Chairperson congratulated the Western Cape on the wording of their mandate, which was short, embracing and succinct.

[There was a short break in proceedings where after the Committee reconvened.]

The Co-Chairperson explained that he had flagged the mandate from Gauteng, as he had not been happy that it sufficed for the purposes. He had consulted the State and Parliamentary Legal Advisors and they were not all in agreement that it sufficed. Gauteng Province was a key player and as their response had not been considered adequate, they had decided to give Gauteng another chance to meet as a legislature to discuss, consider and vote on the Bill. They should then return a proper mandate to the Committee for transmission to the NCOP. Thereafter, if the mandate from Gauteng was favourable and in time, the Committee would meet on 12 March to continue further with the Bill. He called upon Mr Mzizi to ensure that the Gauteng Legislature did what was required of it and hopefully produce a favourable result. He added that the Committee must be seen to be doing the right thing

The meeting then adjourned.