THURSDAY, 4 MARCH 2004 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES
                                ____

The Council met at 09:30.

The Chairperson took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, I have been informed by the Whips that there will be no notices of motion - the Whips have agreed to this - nor any motions without notice at today’s plenary. We therefore ask the secretary to read the first Order of the Day.

                      DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson and hon members, and I am glad to see amongst hon members a number of the distinguished Premiers

• some who might have their swansongs present here as Premiers. So clearly, it is an emotional day. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

I think that members of the NCOP are by now well aware that South Africa has one of the most transparent and equitable systems of intergovernmental grants, with three-year allocations made per province and per municipality from the National Revenue Fund.

Ten years ago, when we started this and when it was drafted into the Constitution, I think we had no idea of how swiftly we would get on to that road. Certainly, we have taken a leaf from the Australian revenue commission, the federal tax commission in India and the Canadian experience. We were aware of the difficulties that confronted them, and the FFC was set up with the view to being a regulatory body in the true sense of the word. But I think, as we’ve been able to demonstrate, that co- operative governance is truly alive and well in the intergovernmental fiscal system in this country.

The information that we published in the Division of Revenue Bill that we tabled on Budget day allows each province and municipality to include all grants in their budgets and to properly plan for their expenditure.

However, Madam Chairperson and hon members, we must constantly remind ourselves that, while exceedingly important, transparency in our intergovernmental system is not an end in itself. To fellow South Africans what matters most is the extent to which we, as political office bearers, take advantage of the strengths of our system to deliver more and better services for the improvement in the quality of life of all South Africans. What matters to fellow South Africans is whether between the executive and Parliament we hold each other accountable for the appropriate use of the resources allocated in this Bill.

I am sure all of us, as we campaign, regardless of the parties that send us into the field, encounter people who say: Don’t tell me about the balance of payments, tell me about my life. And I think when we look at the Division of Revenue Bill, it is to that that we must respond. And I think the key issue also is not only the allocation of resources, but the appropriate use of the resources as allocated.

This year’s Bill, hon members, allocates 61,8% of national resources to provincial and local governments, to give effect to this Government’s priority of reducing poverty and vulnerability. In respect of what happens to the resources right now, the situation varies from province to province. Some provinces have been able to plan to have the debate go all the way through the second reading, and some provinces have not been able to get through anything beyond the tabling of the budget, and I think it is with that that we approach elections this year. It would set us apart. It would create some pressure on the production of an intergovernmental fiscal review for the incoming members of the NCOP, but I think it is a situation that we take account of in the context of this dynamic democracy of ours.

The core of the Division of Revenue Bill is contained in the seven schedules to the Bill. Schedule 1 provides a summary of the allocation of funds to the three spheres of government. Of the R368,9 billion in the budget for the first year of the MTEF, the national Government is allocated R201 billion. This includes an allocation of R52,9 billion for debt servicing costs and the contingency reserve, leaving the national Government with R120,6 billion to allocate to national departments, including conditional grants to provinces and local government.

Provinces, as I am sure hon members are aware, would receive an equitable share of R160 billion and local government R7,6 billion equitable share. Schedules 3 and 4 allocate the equitable share component to provinces and municipalities. Schedules 4 to 6 further allocate conditional and other grants to provinces. The conditional grants to provinces this year account for R21,2 billion and to local government R6,6 billion, in addition to R7,6 billion of equitable share allocated to local government.

The 2004 MTEF builds on the sound policy framework that evolved over the first decade of democracy and provides for further deepening and consolidation of social services, which make up the bulk of provincial expenditure.

The allocation to provinces further reinforces spending to reduce poverty and vulnerability through an increased allocation for social security to provide for further extensions of the social security net. The emphasis is on completing the phased extension of the Child Support Grant to children up to the age of 14 years through a grant introduced in the current fiscal year. It is a conditional grant provided for.

The allocation for the Child Support Extension Grant rises from R1,2 billion in the current fiscal year to R3,7 billion in the next year, further increasing to R9,2 billion in the fiscal year that ends on 31 March 2007.

I want to make the point, though, that the growth of the social security transfers is quite unprecedented. It is the largest item of growth. It is growing at 13,5% in real terms, and it is at that rate of growth quite unsustainable.

The Budget strengthens Government’s response to HIV and Aids. It provides additional funds for the health sector to implement Government’s comprehensive response to HIV and Aids. It allocates R1,9 billion more to the HIV and Aids conditional grant over the three years to roll out antiretroviral drugs. This brings earmarked spending to combat HIV and Aids to R3,5 billion over the next three years.

The 2004 Budget maintains strong growth in the allocation targeted for provincial infrastructure development and maintenance, rising from R2,3 billion in the current year to R4,1 billion in the third year of the MTEF. As a result national transfers for infrastructure amount to R11,2 billion over the next three years.

In addition to addressing backlogs in social and economic infrastructure, rising infrastructure allocations lay the basis for the expansion of labour- intensive projects under the auspices of the Expanded Public Works Programme. The grant will also provide for agriculture infrastructure development to support farmers who acquire developing farmers, particularly the beneficiaries of our land reform programme. This has been recognised as exceedingly important - not only the land restitution programme, but also the LRAD (land redistribution for agricultural development), which is managed by provincial agricultural departments and has been a vital component.

I think that provinces would probably reflect and say that the money budgeted for LRAD has often been used up in the growth of the social security budget. We must try and earmark the LRAD funds, but in addition, we now have the Casp, the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme, which is a conditional grant to ensure that people on newly acquired farms would be able to farm because there is working capital for access to implements and a series of other things that make for farming. Phakiso is calling. [Laughter.]

In this year’s Budget a new conditional grant is proposed to support the implementation of a broad range of farmer support services to developing farmers.

Over the next three years, municipalities will receive R47,3 billion, or an additional R3,9 billion. The substantial increase in the local government share is mainly targeted towards provision of free basic services, the extension of services to areas not presently serviced and job creation through investment in labour-based infrastructure programmes. In total, R7,8 billion over the 2004 MTEF is made available for water, electricity, refuse removal and sanitation as part of Government’s commitment to providing free basic services. My only plea is that municipalities actually use it in the way which we intend and that we will not have to go into areas where the poorest live, like Khayelitsha in Cape Town, and see that refuse is not even removed. [Applause.]

National allocations to the local sphere make up about 13,7% of total municipal budgets in 2003-04, but this varies greatly between municipalities. This share is comparatively low for metro municipalities or the more urban municipalities in Gauteng and the Western Cape, where they comprise between 3% to 7% of the budget. They reach up to 92% for rural municipalities.

Funding for free basic services is directed through the local government equitable share, which rises from R8,5 billion in the first year of the MTEF to R10,4 billion in the third year. This unconditional equitable share component grows to 55% of national transfers to local government in 2006- 07, reflecting a shift to greater discretion at the local level as capacity is developed and fiscal reforms take hold. Compared to 8 years ago when it was R1,5 billion in 1995-96, it will increase sixfold to R9,4 billion in 2006-07.

The 2004 MTEF also takes a major step in streamlining funding, through the consolidation of infrastructure grants into the Municipal Infrastructure Grant. The MIGs, as they will now be called, total R16,6 billion over the next three years, reflecting an additional R1,7 billion. This grant, together with other infrastructure grants being phased out, would be key as an instrument to support the infrastructure budgets of municipalities, to support the extension of services to poor households, to maintain and upgrade infrastructure and support urban renewal and rural development.

One of the issues that we have to come alive to is that often municipalities would request access to something like the Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme, which now would be part of the Municipal Infrastructure Grant going forward, but the system works on the basis that municipalities commit resources of their own. And we would match and sometimes exceed that match by 2:1. But municipalities then don’t commit resources because they consume the money that is meant to be earmarked for infrastructure. And then what has been committed in the Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme is then not drawn down against.

It is one of those issues that we would need to look at. We must sharpen the instruments available to municipalities and ensure that we can spend a lot more on infrastructure, because the money is there at national level, but I think it is, and will remain, premised on a matching grant system.

Finally, allocations for capacity-building and restructuring increase up to R750 million a year over the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. This is to encourage municipalities to build in-house capacity to focus on planning, project and financial management and budget reforms envisaged in the Municipal Finance Management Act and Municipal Systems Act. For those representatives of Salga and for those of us who engage with municipalites from time to time, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is a development fund in the DBSA which is designed as a grant to assist municipalities with capacity-building in areas such as financial management that will be vital to ensuring the smooth phasing in of the Municipal Finance Management Act when it is assented to.

Our system of grants is so transparent and so voluminous, with the many appendices on local government grants, that even our journalists missed the importance of publishing our consolidated tables on the total grants per municipality, as set out in Table E22 in Annexure E in the Review and also with the Bill. Perhaps, it is because the municipalities’ attention is drawn to the wrong stuff.

For example, it notes that the OR Tambo municipalities, containing Umtata, will collectively receive the highest, at R823 million in the first year … [Applause] … followed by the Amatole municipalities at R743 million, and Amatole as we know, includes Buffalo City and all the buffalo soldiers who live there … [Laughter] … Johannesburg at R683 million, eThekwini at R643 million, Ekhurhuleni at R504 million and Vhembe, containing Makhado, at R445 million.

Waar is die Vrystaat? [Where is the Free State?]

I want to conclude by noting that the first decade of democracy has witnessed remarkable progress in the development, evolution and consolidation of South Africa’s intergovernmental grants system. Looking ahead, we need to improve this system to ensure that it is able to deal with the challenges facing us for the coming 10 years. The publication of Census 2001 results, together the restructuring to the system of social grants and electricity distribution industry, provides us with the opportunity to undertake this review for the 2005 Budget.

So, regardless of who might be the government after 14 April - I have a sense that it may be Nasionale Aksie or some large party like that … [Laughter] … or who Cabinet members would be, I think that it is important to share with hon members in this House that Cabinet has committed to a thorough review of the intergovernmental system in preparation for the 2005 Budget. So it is something that we must undertake thoroughly within the new Budget Council, and this might improve the communication with the NCOP after the elections.

More importantly, we need to focus on how to improve the quality of spending in all spheres of government. Ten years on, we should be able to reap the benefits of any improvements in the delivery of services over the second decade of democracy. To do so, Parliament and all elected legislatures will need to improve their system of oversight to assess the performance of governments in all three spheres.

Madam Chairperson, hon members, thank you very much for listening to me. [Applause.]

Ms Q D MAHLANGU: Thank you, Chairperson. I am supposed to speak isiNdebele, but I cannot speak the language.

Thank you, Chairperson, the Minister of Finance, Premiers and MECs present here, special delegates and hon members, in 1998, when I was sent by Gauteng to come to the NCOP, it was said that I was coming to a dead House, and I was young, those kinds of things. But I have a different view of how the NCOP has helped me as an individual to grow to be what I am today, and also, many members of this House would attest to that. [Applause.]

I do want us to change our perception of the NCOP because I think if all of us took the NCOP for what it is supposed to be, I’m sure we could go very far in this country, particular in respect of monitoring issues of service delivery and that kind of things.

First of all, I just want to thank the National Treasury. I think this is a view expressed by all members of the Select Committee on Finance, without any exception, that the Treasury has improved the Division of Revenue Bill, its content and many other things that are included in the Division of Revenue Bill to the extent that in the framework that talks about conditional grants, mention is made of the fact that the select committee will hold departments accountable regarding conditional grants and submit reports to the Select Committee on Finance.

We would like to thank Treasury for this, because it has been our concern in the select committee that there is no one who is holding departments accountable around the utilisation of the conditional grants. We would like to thank the Treasury very much, not because the select committee is a special committee, but because there was a gap in trying to have oversight and holding departments accountable.

It has not only improved that element, but it has improved in many other areas around how funds are being transferred from public entities to municipalities, and also gives responsibilities to municipalities to be able to do their work in a proper manner.

Some concerns were raised, in particular by Salga. I must just indicate at the outset that we had a very lengthy discussion yesterday about those issues. The committee came to the conclusion that some of those issues raised by Salga were issues which were supposed to be dealt with at other levels than the Budget Forum, where the discussion took place between MECs of Finance and local government, and also at technical level, where officials were supposed to be meeting.

We would like to encourage the discussion to continue because sometimes issues are brought to the committee and we then have a dialogue between Treasury and Salga. I would also like to say that Salga must take its responsibility in the NCOP very seriously, because it is a member of this House. Invariably, you do not see that. But I think, going forward, all of us who have been learning in the process would like to see that change, in particular. The Division of Revenue Bill we are talking about - the Minister has alluded to this - is a very important piece of legislation for this House, in particular because it deals with the vertical division of revenue between the national, provincial and local governments, but, also, it deals with the horizontal division of revenue amongst provinces themselves.

What is important to note here is that the increase in funding resource allocation to provinces has been very drastic. We hope that the hon members of this House, and the provinces, will be able to hold provinces or departments accountable to make sure that these moneys are utilised properly and there is accountability and oversight over this thing, because we could be using the resources in a particular way, but a conscious decision of giving provinces the responsibility, as the Constitution prescribes, to deliver health, education and housing takes cognizance of these points I am talking about.

The committee raised a particular concern after hearing several departments appearing before it. Some of the concerns relate to the issues raised by the Department of Housing for not delivering houses. If we look at the spending trends of Housing, North West has spent only about 20-something percent of its budget on housing, as well as the Western Cape and Gauteng. And yet there is the contradiction that although a lot of people need houses, the departments are not spending.

We would like to indicate that as far as we as committee members know, we raised concerns that land issues and environmental impact and assessment studies cannot be done whilst houses are being built. Those things must be sorted out long before the building of houses starts, but Housing keeps on raising some of these issues as reasons why they cannot build houses. We do think that committees in the NCOP and provinces must make sure that they follow up those issues. In particular, the role of the Budget Committee in this instance becomes critical.

Also, our concern revolves around the qualified audit opinions and reports that are being given to the municipalities. I do not know whether they cannot be given proper and unqualified reports, but this remains a source of concern and we hope that the conditional grants for capacity-building, as reflected in the Division of Revenue Bill, will try and address some of these problems. Failing to do so, the Minister has talked about some of these issues, that is what the DBSA is doing in assisting and giving capacity to municipalities. We took a study tour, last year, to Duduza on the DBSA and to some of the projects. Some of the things we saw in KwaZulu- Natal, working with the DBSA, led us to believe that this partnership between DBSA and municipalities will assist municipalities to build further capacity so that this grant becomes just an additional element.

Without wasting any time, I just want to talk about some of the recommendations that the committee has made, because I do not have much time. One recommendation is that the next Select Committee on Finance, amongst others, must pay more attention to special audit reports to be conducted by the Auditor-General, in particular in relation to conditional grants. We further propose that the Public Audit Bill, which was supposed to be considered by this House - we did not have time to give provinces a chance to look at the piece of legislation and to factor in some of our observations - is the right place for some of these issues to be taken up and we hope that the third democratic Parliament will look into these issues.

Also, noting that most of the auditing done by the Auditor-General’s Office relating to financial auditing does not talk about performance auditing, as is envisaged by the PFMA, we hope that issues of performance auditing in the near future are going to be playing a dominant role, instead of us getting technical reports. These are the issues that the Auditor-General has welcomed in the report that we are presenting to this House as it appears in the ATC.

Questions were raised around the data by the FFC and other stakeholders, that the lack of data and the sector data that is being utilised, vis-á-vis the Statistics SA official data bodies that do not talk to each other. We further recommended that we must have some standardisation and working together by these bodies so that we don’t have data being used which does not have any authority and can be challenged from time to time.

We further recommend that there must be proper utilisation of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review as tabled by the Treasury, almost every two years or so, and that that report must be utilised as a tool by all parliamentary committees at this level, but also at the legislature level so that we are able to utilise that report to be able to improve where we are and inform the process where we are going to.

In particular, on the issue of monitoring, how much do we spend per capita, including the equity issues which we are supposed to be looking into as a House? Also, the committee wants special attention to be paid to the Finance and Fiscal Commission’s recommendations that are tabled every year in Parliament. Those recommendations are supposed to be informing the division of revenue, that is how resources are supposed to be allocated. We have recognised that we have done some work in this area, but we have not done much more than what we were supposed to do. We recommend that, in future, parliamentary committees must make sure that that committee follows up these issues and that FFC processes fit into the division of revenue discussion so that we are able to have a linkage of that process to the process that we are dealing with today.

One of the other issues that we have noted in the committee is the earlier tabling of the Division of Revenue Bill, which we did talk about earlier on in the previous activities of the committee. We must try and have a discussion with the National Treasury to see the feasibility of tabling the Division of Revenue much earlier than is the case now, so that we allow parliamentary committees an opportunity to have a discussion on it and be able to influence the MTEF. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr T RALANE: Hon Chair, the Minister, Premiers, special delegates and members, the factors taken into account for the 2004 Division of Revenue Bill have been informed by the Growth and Development Summit and the Ten- Year Review published for discussion by the Policy Co-ordination and Advisory Services Unit in the Presidency.

The 2004 MTEF has a renewed focus on strengthening investment and job creation, reducing poverty and supporting vulnerable groups, education and skills development, creating sustainable communities and enhancing service delivery. This focus is in line with the Ten-Year Review, which promotes four key ideas for the next ten years: a framework for encompassing interests, which is a social contract; improving the performance of the state; addressing the consequences of the social transition, improving the regional environment and implementing Nepad.

The 2004 Budget Review sets out in detail how the constitutional issues and the Ten-Year Review are taken into account for the 2004 division of revenue. It focuses on the economic and fiscal policy considerations, revenue issues, debt and financing considerations, expenditure plans of Government and aspects of provincial and local government financing.

One of the key challenges facing all delivery programmes is to address the problems of the second economy, to deal with issues of income poverty, unemployment and social exclusion. These issues are addressed through the Expanded Public Works Programme, the expansion of the social safety net by extending the child support grant up to the age of 14 years, skills development, agricultural support for land redistribution programmes and various other policy initiatives as outlined in the 2004 Budget Review.

The Ten-Year Review, on the other hand, reflects on where we have come from since 1994. The majority of citizens were denied the franchise, society was divided along racial lines and the social exclusion and neglect of the majority was a matter of state policy. Economically, the country was isolated and in crisis, growth declined to below one percent per annum in the decade before 1994, and in the early nineties it came to a standstill. Government was largely defined by national security doctrine, with little respect for the rule of law. Until after the 1994 elections, parts of the country lived under a state of war and assassinations, and bombings of political opponents were rife.

With reference to the division of revenue, the Free State provincial government receives R12,1 billion in the new financial year, which is 6,72% of the total transfers to all provinces. The clauses in the Bill relating to the transfer of provincial equitable shares are very explicit. Relevant laws stipulate that each province’s equitable share must be transferred to the province in weekly instalments in accordance with a payment schedule determined by the National Treasury, after consultation with the head official of the relevant provincial treasury. The payment schedule must take reasonable account of the monthly spending commitments of provinces, revenue at the disposal of provinces and minimisation of risk and debt servicing costs.

In addition, the Minister may, under certain conditions, determine to advance funds to a province in respect of equitable share which have not yet fallen due to transfer in accordance with the payment schedule in respect of that province.

On the subject of new provincial grants, the Department of Sport and Recreation has been allocated R9 million to promote mass participation in sport among historically disadvantaged communities. The new grant is called ``Mass Participation in Sport’’.

A new grant in Agriculture, called the ``Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme’’, will provide on- and off-farm support and effective extension services to developing farmers. An amount of R750 million has been allocated over the MTEF years.

The Free State receives 8,44% of the total allocation for the Comprehensive Agriculture Support Programme. The amount of R1,61 billion which is Free State’s provincial share, constitutes a conditional grant and the balance is attributable to equitable share. In other words, Free State received 7,62% of the total conditional grants allocated to provinces.

Municipalities in the Free State will receive a total of R874 million, which is 11,39% of the total allocated to all municipalities. In this regard, the Division of Revenue Bill stipulates that a municipality must: (a) submit to the Auditor-General, not later than 30 April 2004, any outstanding financial statements in respect of municipal financial years preceding 2003 or from the current financial year; (b) submit to the National Treasury by not later than 30 June 2004, its budget for the 2003/04 municipal financial year and such other budgetary information as may be required by the National Treasury, including, but not limited to, information on the nature and extent of basic services to be provided for, like water … [Time expired.] Thank you. The Free State supports the Bill. [Applause.]

Mr M SELOANE (Gauteng): Chairperson, hon Premiers, hon Minister, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour and privilege for me to deliver my maiden speech on the occasion of the last sitting of this Council. [Laughter.]

Since this is my first speech, most of you might not know me. I am Mike Seloane from the Gauteng Legislature. [Laughter.] Let me make sure that you do not make a mistake in spelling my name: “S” for Psychology, “E” for Internet, “L” for Element, “O” for Honest, “A” for Eight, “N” for Knowledge and “E” for India. [Laughter.]

On behalf of Gauteng province, the smart province, I would like to support the principle and detail of the Division of Revenue Bill. Having supported the Bill, we would like to make a few comments on two issues, namely conditional grants and the comprehensive review of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review (IGFR). We have made several comments in the negotiating mandate and the final mandate, and I think the National Treasury will look at that.

There are 19 conditional grants involving provinces. We regard this number as high, considering the fact that provinces have to deliver the bulk of the constitutionally mandated basic services, whilst at the same time national Government also expects of them to deliver on the 19 conditional grants. Conditional grants reduce flexibility in spending by provincial governments compared to the equitable share. The FFC summarises as follows:

Whilst national Government enunciates policy priorities, provincial governments are free to modify or follow independent policy directions in the utilisation of the provincial equitable share. National Government endeavours to influence the spending decisions of provincial governments through its conditional grants.

We are also concerned about the quality of measurable outputs required for each conditional grant.

Regarding the comprehensive review of the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review, the weighting of key elements of the provincial equitable share may not be sustainable in future, taking into account spending pressure on provinces. We, therefore, are looking forward to a comprehensive review of the formulae of the IGFR system, which must ensure that the formulae do not impact negatively on fiscal sustainability into the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework. The existing deficiencies in the data used within the IGFR system should also be addressed in the coming comprehensive review.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate South Africans for running an extra mile to reform our financial system. Today our system is viewed as one of the best in the world. Many countries are now taking lessons from South Africa, even though we are a young democracy.

Since this is my last speech, I would like to thank the Chairperson for steering and leading the NCOP in a progressive direction. I would also like to thank members for being good followers. To be a good leader, one must be a good follower. I wish you all the success in the election campaign. However, I would not be suprised if all the current opposition parties grapple for only 20% of the seats. I thank you. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: As a former teacher, I will not comment on the member’s spelling ability. [Laughter.]

Mr N M RAJU: Hon Chair, hon Minister, hon Premiers and special delegates, hon colleagues, section 214(1) of the Constitution requires an Act of Parliament to provide for, among others, the equitable division of revenue raised nationally among the national, provincial and local spheres of government. The Division of Revenue Bill is intended to respond to this constitutional imperative.

The R327 billion revenue projection in this Budget is to be primarily located at provincial and local government levels. National revenue is targeted at considerable spending on the Expanded Public Works Programme, via conditional provincial infrastructure grants and municipal infrastructure grants. A new conditional HIV/Aids grant is to be administered by provinces as part of the new Comprehensive HIV/Aids Treatment and Care Strategy.

The Division of Revenue Bill takes the first step in rolling over the Expanded Public Works Programme, EPWP, with the considerable allocation of R1,7 billion targeted at the Municipal Infrastructure Grant. Section 11(6) requires municipalities to provide specific details on implementation of capital budgets as part of a three-year capital plan. National Treasury would carefully monitor compliance with such provisions.

The DA believes that though these infrastructural programmes, if closely monitored, can contribute to addressing backlogs in infrastructure, they will not arrest the unemployment crisis. Only higher savings and investments can provide the impetus to higher income, growth and job creation.

The DA applauded the Minister of Finance on Budget Day when he allocated an additional R2,1 billion to fight HIV/Aids. The DA welcomes the shift in prominence which provinces and municipalities enjoy in key areas of policy. The Division of Revenue Bill’s success in the roll-out of new HIV/Aids and EPWP grants revolve around the capacity at provincial and municipal levels to implement the programmes. We dare not fall short in this area.

Section 35 of the Division of Revenue Bill introduces a de facto amnesty for underspending which really reflects capacity constraints. Again, this is where we need to ensure success. There should be no case of underspending. The DA supports this Bill. I thank you.

Mr M I MAKOELA (Limpopo): Chairperson, hon Minister and hon Premiers present, we have come a long way. This country, South Africa post-1994, has come a long way. This Parliament, this post-1994 democratic dispensation, has come a long way.

We in the Limpopo province believe that we have come a long, long way … [Laughter] … from the days when we were classified as one of the poorest provinces to today, when we have become one of the fastest, if not the fastest-growing economy in the country.

It was not very long ago when provinces were regarded as being not capable and lacking in efficiency and fiscal capacity. There were large economic disparities and a very unstable and unpredictable budgetary process. Nevertheless, step by step, we went about rebuilding the shattered and dilapidated systems bequeathed to us by the apartheid regime; rebuilding the shattered lives of our people and consolidating the victories so hard won. Today, in our 10th year of freedom, we can afford to stop, look back with pride, and deservedly celebrate our achievements, a work well done.

In the budget process, the allocation of resources to the three spheres of government is recognised as a very critical step. For the national Government, the nine provinces and each of the 284 municipalities to be able to carry out their constitutional mandates, to deliver services and other developmental needs, the passing of the Bill before the House is of the utmost importance.

The Division of Revenue Bill has come a long way. Every year has seen changes and improvements on the Bill; improvements that are geared towards the enhancement of intergovernmental fiscal relations and co-operative governance.

In this whole process the province of Limpopo is, and will remain, a vital role-player, in partnership with its various communities, to strengthen the efforts of delivery and working for the improvement of the lives of all our people through job creation, the fight against poverty and the intensification of the fight against HIV/Aids, as well as other diseases such as TB, diabetes and others. We have come a long way and step by step we are succeeding in dismantling the shackles of the legacy of apartheid. Nobody - and I mean nobody - is going to stop the tide, because it has unreversibly turned. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mnr H BEKKER (KwaZulu-Natal): Mevrou die Voorsitter, die agb Minister van Finansies het, soos in die verlede, weer eens ‘n konstruktiewe begroting ter tafel gelê. Die verdeling van inkomste word inderwaarheid deur die Finansiële en Fiskale Kommissie bepaal, maar die Minister se hand in hierdie proses kan baie duidelik gesien word.

Natuurlik moet die begroting gesien word teen die agtergrond van die komende verkiesing, en dit is logies dat daar suikerlekkers vir die kiesers sou wees, met die klem op maatskaplike uitgawes en belastingbesparings vir individue. Die ouens wat egter ‘n rokie rook en ‘n doppie drink gaan nog swaarder kry as in die verlede, en ons het begrip daarvoor. Ons het ook begrip daarvoor dat die sterker rand teenoor die dollar beperkinge op die Minister geplaas het. Die laer winste van uitvoerders as gevolg van verlaagde randinkomste, veral ten opsigte van goud en platinumuitvoere, het ‘n negatiewe invloed.

Ons is daarom dankbaar dat die Minister desondanks meer kon gee as wat hy geneem het van individue. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr H BEKKER (KwaZulu-Natal): Madam Chairperson, the hon Minister of Finance has once again tabled a constructive budget, like in the past. The division of revenue is, in fact, determined by the Financial and Fiscal Commission, but the Minister’s hand in this process is clearly visible.

Of course, the budget should be viewed against the background of the coming elections, and it is logical that there should be carrots for the voters, with emphasis on social expenditure and tax savings for individuals. But those who smoke and drink will suffer even more than in the past, and we can understand that. We can also understand that the stronger rand against the dollar has placed restrictions on the Minister. The lower profits for exporters as a result of a decline in rand revenue, especially with regard to gold and platinum exports, had a negative impact.

Therefore we are grateful that the Minister could, in spite of this, give more than he has taken from individuals.]

The NCOP committee and the finance committee of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature studied the Division of Revenue Bill and, like other provinces, discovered certain anomalies and technical deficiences in the original Division of Revenue Bill, which was approved by the National Assembly.

The NCOP thus had to make some minor amendments which caused a frenzy on whether it would have to result in recalling the National Assembly. Fortunately, in co-operation with legal advisers and others, and with the co-operation, particularly, of the NCOP members, we have been able to provide this document before us, which is acceptable. Certain amendments that could have improved the Division of Revenue Bill, however, had to be left out.

In order to avoid such a recurrence, the programming committees of the National Assembly and the NCOP should streamline and co-ordinate in order to see to it that the rising of one of these groups should not occur whilst the other one is still in session. I think this could be addressed in future.

We also had worthwhile inputs from Salga, and one must just bear in mind that, at this stage, it is a new event that is happening from the fiscal side with regard to the financing of municipalities.

With regard to the financing of municipalities it must, however, be pointed out that no impediment is being laid in terms of income-generation by municipalities. They can still charge their rates and have their fees that are coming in. Actually what is happening is that additional moneys are going towards these municipalities.

I think that the concerns are that there could be interference in their domestic affairs, which is unfounded. We would indeed warn that should Treasury accept some of these proposals, then the position of Treasury would be weakened. Now, I think that if some of these municipalities are not able to do the necessary administrative work and render their financial statements timeously, or that type of thing, then something is wrong with those particular municipalities.

I would support Treasury’s strong hand in this regard, that if you can’t supply what is required of you, then you will probably forfeit this. Similarly, the district moneys could go towards the districts, could still go to that particular region and that we, from our side, at least, would see that proper controls are exercised.

We thank Treasury, particularly, for this fantastic gesture, that municipalities can now be financed. It is a great new development, but in future we will still keep a tight hand on this because this could avoid administrative problems, particularly in cases of corruption, which could be nipped in the bud right at the beginning. I thank you, Madam Chairperson. [Applause.]

Dr E A CONROY: Mevrou die Voorsitter, agb Minister van Finansies, agb Premiers hier teenwoordig en kollegas, veral in hierdie verkiesingsjaar is dit baie belangrik dat alle provinsies en plaaslike regeringsinstansies deeglik bewus moet wees van die wekroep: “Jy verdien ‘n billike deel.”

Elke provinsie maak kragtens artikel 214(1), en meer spesifiek artikel 214(2)(a)-(j) aanspraak op sy billike deel van die land se inkomstebronne wat jaarliks tydens die Begroting deur die Minister van Finansies aan regeringsinstansies toegedeel word. En tereg ook so, want in veral die provinsiale toekennings in die Wetsontwerp op die Verdeling van Inkomste, 2004, word ‘n deurlopende verbintenis gereflekteer wat daarop gemik is om seker te maak dat elkeen die vereiste bronne het om uitvoering te gee aan nasionale beleidsrigtings en -voorskrifte, en hul verpligtings ten opsigte van die lewering van noodsaaklike dienste na te kom. Sonder dié belangrike bronne kan hulle nie beloftes aan die volk na behore nakom nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Dr E A CONROY: Madam Chairperson, hon Minister of Finance, hon Premiers present here and colleagues, in this election year in particular it is very important that all provinces and local government institutions should be thoroughly aware of the clarion call: ``You deserve a fair share.’’

Each province claims, in terms of section 214(1), and more specifically in terms of section 214(2)(a)-(j), its share of the sources of income of the country which are allocated annually during the Budget by the Minister of Finance to government institutions. And rightly so, because in the provincial allocations in the Division of Revenue Bill, 2004, in particular, a continuous commitment is reflected, aimed at ensuring that each has the necessary sources to implement national policies and policy directives and honour their obligations with regard to the delivery of essential services. Without these important sources they cannot properly keep their promises to the nation.]

Chairperson, a stable macroeconomic environment with strong economic growth, which reduces income poverty through low unemployment, which eradicates social exclusion and develops a sense of belonging among our citizens, is brought about by broad-based programmes executed by the three spheres of government.

The Constitution assigns exclusive and concurrent powers and functions to each sphere of government and the division of revenue provides an equitable share to Government departments, provincial government and municipalities to give effect to Government’s commitment in progressively increasing basic needs.

Having said that, one should, however, also realise that economic disparities exist within and between provinces and municipalities. The equitable share formula recognises that provinces and municipalities have different demographic and economic profiles, and markedly different levels of economic development. Therefore, an equal share to each Government department, province and municipality is totally out of place. The most each of them can do, in their planning and budgeting, is to realise that they deserve a fair share of the country’s financial resources.

Chairperson, the compliance of the Division of Revenue Bill, 2004, with the requirements of the Public Finance Management Act, is noted. Also, the fact that legal instruments, such as the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act are rendering more explicit the expectations of municipal government and the fact that clauses contained in the Bill to take into account the Local Gopvernment: Municipal Finance Management Act are expected to improve local government performance and finances in the area of project planning and management.

Chairperson, before I conclude, I wish to make use of this opportunity to thank the hon Minister of Finance for the exemplary and astute way he has led, steered and commanded the good ship finance during this parliamentary term, that caused South Africa to gain the position of pride in the international financial community that it deserves.

Also a word of thanks to Qedani Mahlangu, the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Finance, for her strong and dedicated leadership and to my colleagues in the committee for the friendship and the camaraderie in these past five years.

Ons het bande van vriendskap, onderlinge vertroue en respek gesmee wat die toets van die tye sal deurstaan. Die NNP steun die Wetsontwerp op die Verdeling van Inkomste, B4B-2004. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[We have formed ties of friendship, mutual trust and respect which will stand the test of time. The NNP supports the Division of Revenue Bill, B4B-

1. [Applause.]]

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Hon Chairperson, my colleagues, somebody at the back here is teasing me. Mhlalingaphambili, okokuqala mandibonise okokuba ndiya kuhlonipha kuba umana usilumkisa, nangokuthi masithethe iilwimi zethu. Yinto ebaluleke kakhulu leyo. Ndiyathembisa okokuba abaza kuza, baqalise kule Ndlu kwithuba elizayo, siya kuba nakho ukumana sibakhuthaza kuba sayandlala indlela ukuze sithethe iilwimi zethu apha. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)

[Hon Chairperson, firstly I would like to say that I respect you for the guidance and encouragement you always give us to use our languages. That is very important. I promise that we will guide the new members that will be joining us later in this House and encoruage them to use their languages too, because we paved the way for the use of all languages as official.]

I also want to show my colleagues that I have pruned the speech that seems to be thick to suit my day, because this is a special day, after I received that symbolic present last night. You know, it’s a present that I’m going to share with my dear wife, who has been convulsing for five years. It has been a hard time. But I must really say that I appreciate the support I received from all those members who understood my situation.

Hon Chair, it is worth noting that the Division of Revenue Bill and its underlying allocations are the culmination of extensive consultation processes between the three spheres of government in a spirit of co- operative governance. Subsequent to that, cycling would be a commitment of taking into account factors set out in the Constitution, section 214, these being national interest, provision for debt, national Government needs and emergencies, and, indeed, to ensure that provinces are in a position to provide constitutionally mandated services, developmental and other needs of provinces, such as local government fiscal capacity, efficiency of the provincial and local spheres, reduction of economic disparities and promotion of stability.

As from April this year, provinces’ share of revenue is R181,1 billion, which is R20 billion more than the revised estimate for last year. The North West provincial government receives 8,21% of the total transfers to all provinces. Equitable shares make up 88,3% of national transfers to provinces and this amount grows at an annual rate of 8,8%.

Updates of data in the equitable share formula are affected on an annual basis, depending on the availability of official data. Government committed itself to a major review of the formula for the 2004 Budget. Though the review process has begun, the process could not be completed in time. New data from Census 2001 and other data sources were published towards the end of the budget allocation process.

Government agreed to retain the structure of the provincial equitable share formula for the 2004 Budget, but to update for Census 2001 and other data. A more wide-ranging review applies to the 2005 Budget. For the 2004 Budget, a number of data updates were used in the formula. The education component is updated by replacing average enrolment data with 2000-02 enrolment figures, and is to take account of early childhood development, while the remuneration data currently used in the economic activity component is replaced with gross domestic product for the region.

Conditional grants have also helped sharpen the description of policy objectives and grant outputs, thus resulting in improved use of grants in speeding up delivery, and the strengthening of parliamentary oversight. However, the recent reports of the Auditor-General for the 2002-03 financial year indicate that a number of national departments do not fully comply … [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Cllr M G MVOKO (Salga): Chairperson, hon Minister of Finance, hon Premiers, hon members and special delegates, how I wish I was not here when the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Finance made her comments. However, I must agree that she is correct that Salga and Treasury should find mechanisms that would ensure that all the issues raised at the beginning of the Division of Revenue Bill processes are not lost, especially at the Budget Forum. This would ensure that the discussion at this stage of the process and all concerns are adequately addressed before we come here.

Secondly, I think in terms of participation of Salga in the NCOP, some members might be aware of the fact that Salga is being restructured and some members have contributed to that document on restructuring. When that has been executed, Salga will be in a position to participate fully. There is also the balance that has to be found between being a full-time councillor and coming to Parliament more often.

Salga has objectively reviewed the 2004 Budget as it relates to municipalities and an analysis on the division of revenue to local governments was undertaken. The analyses were performed when the equitable share allocations at a microlevel and the equitable share formula on the conditional grants and the data was extracted, using the Division of Revenue Act, the Division of Revenue Bill and the Budget Reviews of 2003 and 2004.

There are numerous changes between the equitable share that is stated in the Division of Revenue Act and in the Division of Revenue Bill. There is no obvious trend with regard to the above changes. Some municipalities have seen the local government equitable share increase, while others have seen theirs decrease. The larger, wealthier, metros have all seen their equitable share allocations increase, while this is not the same for the less wealthy, poorer, metropolitan municipalities such as the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality.

A commonality between the equitable share and the municipal infrastructure grant is that an individual municipality receives a share of funding as a proportion of the allocation to all municipalities, rather than their allocation being based on needs. The MIG introduces a requirement that municipalities should split infrastructure expenditure at 80:20, between new and rehabilitated infrastructure. This raises the question of whether 20% will be sufficient to meet the very urgent needs of maintaining the existing infrastructure in municipalities. This ratio creates the incentive for municipalities to expand infrastructure, but does not ensure that an adequate amount is provided for maintenance. There is little discussion in the Budget Review 2004 as to why applications for the restructuring grants were of a poor quality and standard, and this should be researched, especially since large resources are being allocated for this purpose and considering the need for capacity-building to ensure successful implementation of the Municipal Finance Management Act.

Nothwithstanding all these challenges, the majority of conditional grants to be transferred from national Government to local government will be useful to integrate national priorities into municipal budgets. It will promote national norms and standards. It will continue to address backlogs and regional disparities in municipal restructuring.

Infrastructure grants are also seen as a way to stimulate economic growth in underprivileged areas and promote job creation. Capacity grants are given to local government to enable municipalities and other local government institutions to build their institutional capacity in order to deliver services in a more efficient, effective and economical way. Salga will continue to co-operate with all spheres in order to ensure that we achieve our objectives of developmental local government. We support the Budget. Thank you.

Mr K D S DURR: Chairman, the Minister opened by saying that indeed co- operative governance is alive and well, and that has been our experience in the Western Cape province also as far as this Budget is concerned. We are confident in saying that the Division of Revenue Bill for the 2004-05 financial year is a much better drafted and crafted piece of legislation, when one compares it to those of the past. We must compliment the National Treasury in this regard. The explanatory memorandum attached to the Bill is a tremendous service to members, and is especially informative and explains the division of revenue in the most understandable manner. We are also grateful for that.

Our share in the Western Cape, along with everyone else, will be a subject of ongoing negotiation and we accept that. The early start to the legislative process this time around must be applauded as treasuries, including our Western Cape one, were granted the opportunity to comment on the initial draft. Generally, I understand it is only circulated to treasuries. I do not know whether the Minister circulated it more widely. It was distributed before 18 February, National Budget Day.

We in the Western Cape must express our appreciation to the National Treasury, who accommodated most of our inputs - and we had several - and are now included in this version of the Bill. We would like to think that it has improved as a consequence. This happened with the exception of a few technical proposals which were not accepted, but which we can live with and, perhaps where applicable, we can raise the next time around.

In the committee we also wish to thank the Treasury and Sars officers for their attendance, for their obvious dedication, for their skill, for their co-operative attitude and their sense of service. What has struck me, Minister, about your officials is their sense of service and their humility, and I really think that they are exemplary and I have been constantly impressed by the level of support that we have had from them.

In general then, the Division of Revenue Bill is, in principle, supported by the Western Cape province. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Thank you, Chairperson, hon members, for your contributions. Whilst I was listening very carefully to the contributions of hon members, I also received some very good news and permit me, Chair, to digress for a moment and share with you the good news. There was an individual who called himself an organisation and all kinds of things, a man called Terry Crawford-Brown. He went to court and sought an application to overturn a number of executive decisions, which our submission has been and remains, were correctly taken with the involvement of Parliament. Mr Crawford-Brown’s application was turned down by the court this morning, with costs. [Applause.] This is very important because this individual sought to continuously argue that we don’t apply our minds when we take decisions. I want to be there when the costs are recovered from him.

Back to the business at hand. I think that one of the issues about the way in which the debate on the NCOP was handled, this time round, is that the process was truncated so that we can all be deployed into the fields. And that truncation has, to some extent, limited the participation that we would want to see of the NCOP and of the provincial legislatures; as well as each municipality, in discussion and debates around the NCOP. We understand that there was the acceleration of the process and we are mindful of it. Notwithstanding that, let me express appreciation for the support from across the board.

I would like to deal with some of the issues raised by some hon members in their contributions. The first is in the nature of the criticism from Salga. I heard the hon Mvoko and also comments made by the other councillors and by Mrs Mokotoko and Mr Sony. I have had discussions with both the chair of Salga and with Ms Mokoena. It does not accord him, so I would like to understand what the decision-making processes are, so that we can be talking to one Salga. I know it is a difficult process, but my plea is that we talk with one Salga throughout this.

The hon Mahlangu expressed concern about the qualified audits for municipalities. I am glad that they are qualified audits because so many municipalities do not even bother to pay the Auditor-General, in order to avoid being audited. Now that there are qualified audits, at least you have something to work with. That is what we should celebrate today.

On the performance audits requested in a comment by the hon Mahlangu, in the context of the legislation for empowering the Auditor-General, I have a deal with the Auditor-General. That is that I would like to see his golf handicap improve, because he does not need to do performance audits. He does not need to be here, because we have legislation that empowers the oversight which, tragically, is not being used. The section 32 reports, in terms of the PFMA, are placed in the hands of this House every month as a tool for oversight. You can add to that the nonfinancial information that we gather for the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review. We place it in the hands of this legislature and then you can see a matching between spending and performance. You don’t need outside agencies. That is what Parliament is about. My plea this morning is that even if there is less of an emphasis in the Public Audit Bill, it does not matter. If Parliament is doing its work, then its oversight function will improve on the quality of spending, because we now have sufficient information available to empower Parliament to do it. So I plead with you: Please do what the law asks you to do. Outside agencies can never feel it in quite the same way.

The hon Mahlangu raised, and perhaps not for the first time, the earlier tabling of the Division of Revenue Bill. I find it a strange point coming from the hon Mahlangu, firstly, because she participates in the Budget Council. Participants in that council would know that even the numbers that we table in the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement at the beginning of November was substantially changed, allowing larger transfers to the provinces because our debt service costs were lower and in allocating the additional resources, we allocated the bulk of them to provinces. If we had tabled the Bill earlier, it would have been wrong. What we have done, and I make this plea to both the NCOP, provincial legislatures and to Salga: What we do with this Division of Revenue Bill is to table three-year indicative allocations. If you want an early publication of the Bill, we give you the Division of Revenue Bill to the fiscal year that ends on 31 March 2007. We cannot do it any earlier than that.

Sadly, in the comments there is nothing in the debate beyond the first year. To both Salga and the NCOP, my plea is, help us steer the course from here. It is a big ship and we give you advance warning. We filed with you the path by which we seek to navigate. If you want us to veer into a different direction, talk to us now.

My plea to Salga, councillor Mvoko, is that in the next engagement, it does not have to be in the Budget Forum later this year, go through it and tell us, about the conditional grant to each local authority, what is wrong with the decisions. Talk to us and you know the allocations there are done by the Department of Provincial and Local Government, in collaboration with the Treasury. Talk to us and we can steer the ship from here to get there. Once the Budget is tabled in February next year, it will be too late. The information is not a secret. It is made available at this stage in the medium-term format to empower legislatures to make input on the budgets going forward.

Again, I can do little else beyond plead that the information available. This information for this new fiscal year starting next month, is less important than the outer years. In engaging with the issues, I plead that the outer years should be considered and earlier than that it is going to be very hard to publish. We don’t publish it just to spend ink or fill pages. We publish it so that we empower legislatures to talk to us and help us understand what the intention of the executive is in going forward.

Hon Seloane, I agree with the spelling of your name, Sir. [Laughter.] One of the important issues raised by you, Sir, is the 19 conditional grants, and this is a very high number. We are somewhat trapped. On the one hand, I think that everybody in the National Treasury would agree that the provinces and local government are in the process of government and therefore should be empowered to take decisions about their own spending. On the other hand, we have a set of contradictions that arise because provinces find themselves dealing with statutory payments, such as welfare grants and nonstatutory grants. Statutory payments are peremptory. There is no discretion vested in the province whether or not to pay social grants. In that environment, unless something else is ring-fenced, I think that we may find ourselves going forward in a situation where provinces do little else but pay welfare grants. So there is a huge contradiction and perhaps we can resolve that, going forward. Among the issues that we will have to resolve is the establishment of the social security agency which will transfer out at least that which is currently contained in the equitable share, leaving provinces then to deal with the core functions as foreseen in the Constitution.

Another important point raised by the hon Seloane is the data deficiencies in the IGFR and all that we do is reproduce what we receive. All of the nonfinancial indicators we receive and I thought that we are much better. There is one province whose Premier is here today, and it is not the North West or the Free State province. I forget which one it is. When the section 32 returns were first received, in the first returns we received from that province, welfare grants were treated as capital expenditure. It took us some while to explain why it is not capital. Part of ensuring that we have a better quality, of especially the nonfinancial information, is knowing that the capacity is there in the provinces to deal with it.

I also want to thank the hon Seloane for his valuable contribution over many years to the NCOP. He delivered his maiden and swan song speeches at the same time.

The hon Raju correctly raised the issues of employment. We need a much wider discourse and I think it is important to recognise that the Expanded Public Works Programme is essentially about skilling. We must not pretend that it is going to be permanent jobs. There will be many more people than the million that we anticipated passing through it. It will make a very significant contribution, going forward.

The hon Bekker’s points about municipalities need to be well-taken. We have a hand, but I think we need a firm hand with municipalities and violation of the norms. I would like to see a firm hand when municipalities say that they do not want to pay the Auditor-General. In that case we must actually take very strong action to ensure that they act within the framework of accountability. For the rest, I think it is important that we recognise that municipalities are institutions of government and need to be respected and treated as such.

In respect of the one point raised by the hon Durr, yes, the the draft was circulated to treasuries. I think that in the context of government, we treat the discussions with the Budget Council and between the treasuries as confidential. One of the things which has been one of those issues that one would cherish is that out of 10 years of co-operative governance, we deal with the information. There are actually quite a number of people involved, including the nine provincial treasuries and we have not had a single leak of information before Budget Day. It says something about the integrity of the people involved in the process and we need to applaud everybody, especially the provincial treasuries, because the information is actually quite widely available.

Let me conclude by making three points on the improvement of the role of the NCOP with regard to the Division of Revenue Bill for the second 10 years of democracy. The first is that of building the capacity of the NCOP to absorb and use the information presented in the Division of Revenue Bill. Though this has improved every year during the past few years, there is still not sufficient participation by provinces and organised local government. This makes it difficult for national Government to engage more directly with provincial legislatures and municipal councils. In the process, the NCOP must be taken more seriously by provinces and municipalities and reflected in better attendance during the hearings of the select committee. My information is that when the briefing was done, there was the chairperson and two members in the select committee. Now, it is a big issue. We have to fly people down from Pretoria, get them to leave other things, but if that is the level of participation, it makes it difficult for us to sustain it.

I want to emphasise the consultative process for the Bill. Its allocations are very deep, involving all key political stakeholders, including organised local government. The second point to note is that the NCOP has a critical role to play in monitoring the implementation of this Act and to ensure that the system of grants is transparent, fair and equitable. The audit process must report whether intergovernmental grants are in accordance with the Act and its schedules. It is important for our system of co-operative governance that the NCOP monitor the implementation of this Act during and after the financial year.

The last point I’d like to make involves the role of the provincial executive councils, in addition to the legislatures in the processing of section 76 legislation. Last year and this year the NCOP has passed key section 76 legislation on health and social grants. These will have significant fiscal implications for the provincial sphere. Yet it is not clear what role the provincial excos have played in the process. This is because once the legislation is approved in the National Assembly, it is referred directly to the sector portfolio committee in the provinces. The Finance portfolio committees also play no direct role. This narrow process of approval in provincial legislatures opens our system up to unfunded mandates.

Just as we have joint Minmecs between the 10 treasuries and provincial sectors, we need to have joint participation for key section 76 legislation when it may have significant budgetary implications. The NCOP has an important role to play in building co-operative governance in the legislative and Budget processes and to minimise unfunded mandates. Our system of intergovernmental relations has evolved in the past 10 years. The NCOP will need to assess its role with regard to section 76 legislation, if it is to meet the challenge in the next 10 years.

Finally, and since this is my last Budget Speech on this issue during this term of Government, I’d like to thank the members of the select committee and members of the provincial finance committees, and MECs for Finance. I think we have undertaken a huge transformation and I would like to believe that we would continue to make a very significant contribution to the lives of the poorer South Africans. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Thank you, hon Minister. That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are you all present? I cannot hear you.

HON MEMBERS: Yes.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Why are you so cross this morning?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. Is there any province that wishes to do so? None.

We now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order, per province. The delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour, against or abstain. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: IMpuma Koloni iyawuxhasa. [Eastern Cape supports it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Free State?

Rev M CHABAKU: Re a e amogela, mogaetjho. [We accept it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Gauteng?

Mr M SELOANE (Gauteng): Re a e amogela. [We accept it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): KwaZulu-Natal?

Ms B THOMSON: KwaZulu-Natal supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: I khou tendelena. [It supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Mpumalanga?

The PREMIER OF MPUMALANGA (Mr N J Mahlangu): Siyayiamukela. [We accept it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Northern Cape?

Mr G H AKHARWARAY (Northern Cape): Northern Cape supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): North West? The PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST (Mr P S Molefe): North West supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: Wes-Kaap steun die wetgewing. [Western Cape supports the legislation.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Nine provinces have voted in favour and I therefore declare the Bill agreed to, in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

                DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL FOR 2004-05

                      (Consideration of Report)

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): There is no speakers’ list? I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are the heads present?

If you are present, then, in accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Is there any province that wishes to do so? None.

We shall proceed to vote on the question. I shall do so in alphabetical order, per province, and delegation heads must indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour, against or abstain. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Siyayixhasa. [We support it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Free State?

The PREMIER OF THE FREE STATE (Ms I W Direko): We support the Bill.

The DEPUTY CHAIPRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Gauteng?

Mr M SELOANE (Gauteng): We support.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): KwaZulu-Natal?

Ms B THOMSON: We support.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a e amogela. [We accept it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Mpumalanga?

The PREMIER OF MPUMALANGA (Mr N J Mahlangu): Siyayiamukela. [We accept it.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Northern Cape?

Mr G H AKHARWARAY (Northern Cape): Northern Cape supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): North West?

The PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST (Mr P S Molefe): North West supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Western Cape?

Mr K D S DURR: Western Cape supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

            DROUGHT RELIEF ADJUSTMENTS APPROPRIATION BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

Mr K D S DURR: Chairman, the short title of this Bill reads as follows:

To appropriate additional amounts of money for the requirements of the Departments of Health, Social Development, Agriculture and Water Affairs and Forestry in respect of the 2003-04 financial year.

So reads the short title. Of course, it’s not ultimately for the requirements of the departments concerned, but for the needs of the people that have been so badly hit by years of intermittent drought, particularly severe in varying degrees over the past few years in different places affecting most provinces, if not all provinces.

The Bill provides for R35 million to the Department of Health in respect of the 2003-04 financial year to fund the prevention of communicable diseases, with special emphasis on malaria and cholera; to the Department of Social Development an amount of R60 million for funding emergency relief for vulnerable communities; to the Department of Agriculture an amount of R30 million to provide fodder for livestock and for farming communities; and, to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry an amount of R125 million for the provision of water for human consumption and for livestock - all very commendable and very deserving.

This House is, indeed, grateful that also the appeals that were made in several debates in this House over the past 18 months on behalf of the provinces, were in fact heard by Government. Intermittent drought stalks our land and will continue to challenge us from time to time. We need to organise ourselves so that we do not deal with this kind of problem on an ad hoc basis, but rather that we develop plans and procedures that can be triggered quickly in the event of drought.

There is no doubt in my mind that the longer we take to respond to drought, the greater the cost and suffering, and the greater the threat to food security and rural social disintegration. Sometimes, also, a catastrophe becomes irreversible the longer you wait.

The funds voted will help with emergency relief; provision of fodder and water for both communal and commercial farmers; provide water for human consumption and prevent communicable diseases - highly deserving indeed. It is my pleasure to commend the Drought Relief Adjustments Appropriation Bill. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

           LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY RATES BILL

            (Consideration of Bill and of Report thereon)

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Deputy Chair, hon members, today is the last sitting of this House, the National Council of Provinces, before the general election on 14 April. Members of this House will look back with pride at the amount of work they have been able to accomplish during their term of office. Very important and progressive pieces of legislation have been passed by this House. Such legislation has strengthened our democracy and consolidated our new system of local government. Indeed, this House has every cause to celebrate 10 years of freedom and democracy.

We have so much to celebrate as a country because when our ANC-led democratic Government came into power in 1994 it inherited a system of local government that was completely dysfunctional. It was structured along racial lines that served to exclude and marginalise the majority of our people from participating in our country’s economic and political processes. Despite the fact that there were over 1 000 municipalities, there were still vast rural areas that did not fall under any local authority at all. There were some municipalities that did not have financial statements or even a computer.

In 1995, municipalities were restructured along nonracial lines and many parts of the rural areas were included. The number of municipalities was reduced to 843 - if you will remember. The system was, however, not workable as there were too many municipalities for the size of our country, and the vast majority had little or no revenue base and were largely dependent on grants from national Government.

In order to address these challenges and to create financially viable and sustainable local government, the country was redemarcated into 284 municipalities and these were the wall-to-wall municipalities that we referred to. The creation of these municipalities allowed us to bring in those rural parts of the country that were still outside the system, and allowed us to achieve economies of scale in administration and service delivery.

After the new demarcation and amalgamation, every municipality should be a single economic unit to which both suburbs and townships contribute their labour, and from which both benefit. Under the new system, people from the townships and rural areas have the opportunity to share the revenue they are helping to generate. There is now a better basis for allocating developmental funding, which helps to create the conditions for attracting investors.

In the past six years, national Government has worked on creating the new governing structures and the formulation of policy and legislation frameworks for local government. The White Paper on Local Government, the Municipal Structures Act, the Municipal Demarcation Act, the Municipal Systems Act and the Traditional Leadership Governance Framework Act create the framework for governance within which a strong local government sphere is built.

One of the biggest challenges facing us as a country is the area of municipal finance. Substantial progress has been made in this regard with the passage of the Municipal Finance Management Act. The property rates legislation is yet another important building block in this local government transformation process. Together, these pieces of legislation seek to broaden the revenue base of municipalities, and improve the administration of rates and general management of municipal finances.

South Africa has what our President, Thabo Mbeki, refers to as the “dual economy” - one advanced, skilled and becoming more globally competitive, while the second is mainly informal, marginalised and unskilled. Government has pursued a dual policy of developmental programmes and Expanded Public Works Programmes aimed at redressing the needs of the second economy on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the modernisation of the first economy to create the necessary surplus needed to advance the second.

Although our Government succeeded in the first decade in providing housing, health care and social services directly to marginalised communities, many still remain at the periphery of the mainstream economy. Government has adopted a deliberate policy aimed at stimulating the economy in order to alleviate poverty. Through a programme of investing in infrastructure, we pursued twin objectives of providing basic services and addressing the infrastructure backlogs we inherited, while at the same time creating conditions for sustainable development.

In the past 10 years, national, provincial and local governments instituted various programmes to address underdevelopment and poverty. Implementable strategies and programmes were put in place to address challenges in areas such as food security and basic nutrition, water and sanitation, electricity and energy provision, housing and shelter, land reform, transport, education, health care, SMMEs and social cohesion, amongst others.

These initiatives saw massive amounts of public sector resources set aside for service delivery and infrastructure investment through intergovernmental programmes and transfers such as the Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme and the equitable share. The Ten-Year Review shows that the majority of our people have directly benefited through greater access to basic services such as shelter, water, electricity and basic sanitation.

Central to the success of all Government interventions in the second decade will be a robust, sustainable, effective and stable system of local government. Municipalities will need to create resilient and competitive local economies that are capable of creating long-term work opportunities and a sustainable economic and revenue base. It is against this background that the national Government has allocated R47,3 billion over the next three years to the local government sphere - and this is an increase of R3,9 billion.

It is within these past 10 years that we have also established and consolidated all the core systems of developmental local government. These systems are aimed at enhancing community participation in governance issues, integrated planning, service delivery and performance management. Many of our achievements are attributed to this new system of developmental local government.

The Property Rates Bill seeks to balance the need for municipalities to be able to generate sufficient revenue to perform their constitutional objectives, and to stimulate local economic development with the need to deal with the plight of the very poor. One of the main issues that the White Paper identifies, with regard to property rating, is the treatment of the poor in the rating of their property.

In the 10 years of democratic governance 1,6 million houses have been built for the poor throughout the country. It is important that we retain the people within the formal housing market, and that we take measures to ease the burden of the poor against the changes in the labour market and the economy in general.

The property rates legislation, thus specifically excludes the first R15 000 of residential property from rating. This is true for all residential properties irrespective of the value of the property. The value is subject to review in order to take inflation into account to provide for relief to the poor. In this respect, we have noted, as the Ministry and the department, the report of the select committee requesting that a further investigation be conducted to assess the appropriateness of this threshold. The department undertakes to look into this matter. However, any amendment to the legislation will be determined by the outcome of such an investigation and assessment.

The Bill has other aspects that deal with poor individuals. The rates policy must take into account the effect of rates on the poor and provide measures to alleviate the rates burden on them. Municipalities may use exemptions, rebates or reductions to provide relief to indigent property owners and pensioners.

In addition, the Property Rates Bill excludes land reform beneficiaries from the payment of rates for a period of 10 years, provided the property does not change hands. Even after the lapse of the 10-year grace period, it is highly unlikely that property in rural areas will be levied as the R15 000 exclusion will still apply. It is therefore highly unlikely that rates will be levied in rural areas where values of property are so low that the cost of administration will outweigh the revenue generated.

Another exclusion provided for is 30% of the market value of public service infrastructure. This infrastructure is intended for the public good and is essential for the delivery of basic services such as water and electricity. This exclusion will thus assist national Government’s objectives of delivering free basic services.

This Bill seeks to strike a balance between the need for a coherent national framework for property rates that will foster national macroeconomic balance, and the need of municipalities to shape their rates policies by consultation with major stakeholders. It then becomes imperative for councillors and communities, in particular ward councillors, including the private sector and the civil formations, to forge partnerships to make sure the Bill is implemented in the way it is visualised. People have to get involved in governance issues in the municipalities.

The property rates legislation requires municipalities to consult communities when formulating their rates policies that will inform decisions on the treatment of the different categories of property. This Bill does not mandate preferential treatment of any category of property, but leaves that to the individual councils to decide, based on local conditions and circumstances and in consultation with their communities.

The Property Rates Bill is not a wealth tax, as some would like us to believe. It is founded on the principle of our system of local government, which now has a much greater service delivery and developmental role. To fulfil this role, it has to have adequate revenue, hence Government decided to review the local government financial system.

In conclusion, let me, on behalf of the Ministry for Provincial and Local Government and the department, thank the Chairperson and the members of the Select Committee on Local Government and Administration for their co- operation and speedy but meticulous manner in which they dealt with this piece of legislation.

We also wish to thank officials of our department, representatives of various organisations as well as Salga, for their invaluable contributions and insights which resulted in this sound piece of legislation, which I now commend to this House. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Chairperson, our hon Premiers, hon Minister, special delegates and hon colleagues, the Bill before us this morning is one of the legal frameworks aimed at transforming local government and at the same time enhancing the economic viability of this sphere of government.

Looking back at the recent promulgation of, amongst others, legislation regulating municipal entities as well as the recent Municipal Finance Management Act, we can clearly see the strengthening of the economic muscle of municipalities, as well as the requisite instruments for sound financial management, transparency and accountability.

Running through all these initiatives and processes is the essential vein of public participation. The Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Bill before us has undergone intense public scrutiny throughout the stages of its deliberation.

Without intending to diminish the sterling work done by the department, we would not shy away from the fact that this Bill, in its present form, is truly a product of dedicated deliberations by various stakeholders and role- players in local government and, in particular, practitioners in this sphere of government.

We are, indeed, heartened by the total dedication displayed by organised local government in this regard. We sincerely hope that this momentum will be maintained. We are all alive to the fact that the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Bill is one of those pieces of legislation that demands constant support in their implementation, especially considering the complexities involved in this Bill.

We have noted, hon members, with much appreciation, the commitment and goodwill displayed by some municipalities that improvise in order to deal with some unforseen complexities in implementing some of our policies and legislation.

We are positive that this trend will continue. On considering various pertinent clauses of this Bill, the committee would have liked to propose amendments to, particularly, clauses 17 and 18. However, it is acknowledged that the envisaged amendments would require further investigation and assessment before a specific proposal can be formulated and, therefore, the Department of Provincial and Local Government is requested to investigate and assess the appropriateness of the threshold of the amount of R15 000 referred to in clause 17(1)(h), with a view to increasing that amount and to report back within 12 months on what should be the appropriate amount.

In view thereof, the said exclusion of R15 000 should also consider an amendment to clause 18 that will omit the reference to paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 17(1). It would also be appropriate for such an amendment to be accompanied by an amendment to clause 84 that will make provision for those regulations to be tabled in Parliament.

In respect of clause 24(2)(b), the committee recommends that the department, by way of guidelines, provide the criteria that will assist municipalities to make a proper choice as to the applicablity of subparagraph (i) and (ii) depending on whether the circumstances allow this. These guidelines should be mindful of the relevant social issues that local government has to deal with.

Hon members, I will not go deeper into other clauses, lest I take out the cream that should be highlighted by my colleagues in the select committee.

In conclusion, we also put on record the sterling, dedicated performance displayed by the department. For hours on end we deliberated on this Bill, sometimes in unscheduled meetings. We have progressed to this stage of the Bill because of their dedication.

I would be selfish if I did not also acknowledge the work that has been done by our colleagues in the Portfolio Committee in the National Assembly. Hon members, I commend the Bill with the schedules and suggested amendments for careful consideration. [Applause.]

Cllr J MOKOENA (Salga): Chairperson, Deputy Minister, hon Premiers, members and special delegates, we bring this morning very beautiful greetings to you and, we say, at the outset, that we want to confirm that this is truly a product that was characterised by very broad consultations organised by the department in April 2003 in Benoni, Gauteng.

Out of that process a spirit has flown throughout the consultations and the processes that caused us to say here, today, in this House, that this Bill is truly for all of us. It is truly a Bill that has embodied all the concerns that we have raised and we want to assure the House that these were actually addressed at an appropriate time and stage and, therefore, we truly say that it is also Salga’s Bill. It has all the support of Salga.

Salga endorses this Bill as part of a broader financial strategy that seeks to build a self-sustaining and meaningful local government system that shall endeavour to redress the inequalities pertaining to the levying of property rates in South Africa. It is obvious from the current provincial ordinances that the system is grossly inconsistent in the manner that it determines property rating. Hence, the intention of the Bill to consolidate the current plethora of property rating legislation is fully supported by us.

Currently properties are taxed on the value of the land alone and exemptions are being applied arbitrarily. The Bill provides for the determination of rates on the basis of the market value of the property, taking improvements on the land into account and, thus, prescribe a uniform rating method. Municipalities shall, therefore, set their own rates based on the market value determined.

The Property Rates Bill provides for mandatory exclusions and enables municipalities to determine exemptions, rebates and reductions on a given category of properties within a predetermined framework based on the rating policy that each municipality shall have adopted.

The Bill provides for checks and balances, such as limiting annual rates increases. It enforces consultative processes referred to in Chapter 4 of the Municipal Systems Act. Before a municipality adopts its rates policy, it further allows sectors with concrete concerns to be able to consult the various relevant municipalities. But, most importantly, it allows Salga and the department to assist in dispute resolutions.

We further note the provisions made to take into account the role of agriculture and the services that are provided in our communities by this sector, the need to consider environmental impact and the protection of bio- diversity, the need to complement that legislation for consistency and practicability of this legislation has been an important element.

We believe that as organised local government we shall uphold these principles and work together with all concerned parties in the implementation of the Bill once enacted. The Bill sets up a mandatory phasing-in period for newly ratable properties. This is important, considering that some property has not been rated to this day.

As we have said, we would want to once more confirm what the chairperson of the select committee has said, that the R15 000 threshold will still have to be investigated. We would support that.

The last thing we would want to say is that we want to truly commend the two committees, the select committee and the portfolio committee, for the support they have given to Salga, the leadership of those committees and the department and the co-operation that has emerged throughout the processes of the Bill. We would ask that if that can be sustained, it will help a lot in taking the process forward. [Applause.]

Ms C BOTHA: Thank you very much, Deputy Chair. I want to start by saying thank you to the House today for enabling me to do something that I have not been able to do in the five years that I’ve been here; I have no prepared speech. I am therefore going to speak off the cuff and I do it with the confidence that I know that you’re not going to laugh me out of the House. You have been forebearing, and this learning process that I’ve undergone by being with you in this House for the past five years has been fantastic, and I thank you all very much for that. Thank you. I also want to comment today particularly on Rev Chabaku, who should be getting an Oscar for her dress. [Laughter.]

The reason I do not have a written speech is not because I am not familiar with what is going on with this Bill. As a matter of fact, my first notes stem from October 1999, when I got a report from the Land Tax Subcommittee of the Katz commission, which I have here with me. And despite the 300 hours, which I know have gone into the Bill by the portfolio committee since then, or since its first draft - there are now about 20 or so drafts

• I feel that as far as the section that I am concerned with and particularly interested in, which is agricultural taxes, has not changed all that much from what was said in the report from which I will quote to you now.

It says that the subcommittee sees no reason in principle why a rural land tax should not be given serious consideration - and, obviously, we also know that that conforms to what the Constitution now allows. It said that a national land tax, having as as its primary target the taxation of agricultural land, was not a viable option for South Africa. The weight of evidence from South Africa and abroad shows that the land tax would have, at best, a negligible effect on the land reform programme. I feel we haven’t moved much from there.

I do want to say that I miss the fact that the select committees in the National Council of Provinces do not have the opportunity of listening to the hearings, which add so much to the evaluation of the Bills before them. I don’t know how, but in some way this would facilitate the work of the chair by making the process more efficient if we could combine hearings so that we could have better insight into and know more about the background of the Bills we are dealing with.

I would like to say further that the … Sorry, I thought the person next to me was speaking to me. I want to express some concern regarding the Bill about what I’ve seen in examples of what happened with land taxation before the property rates Bill was at this stage. In the Free State, as you may know, several municipalities decided to levy such a tax. They did this without proper consultation. A well-known court case has now shown that to have been incorrect, not that they weren’t allowed to do that or that it wasn’t legal, but they did this without consultation and in a way which showed no understanding of the actual situation of farming in this country and its inability to contribute to the extent which seems to me most people expect of agriculture.

I also want to comment on services, or on the lack of services. Taxation, normally, is obviously an acceptable way of delivering services, but I do not see that municipalities have the capability of delivering services to rural areas in the way in which one expects them to in exchange for tax, which is now going to be levied.

Services on farms have been delivered by farmers. I had a question to the Minister at one stage, on the R1 billion extra for services - free services

• and the answer that I got was that it was the responsibility of the municipalities to determine strategies on how they would ensure that the funds would be spent to benefit the people living on farms. Well, to date, I am unaware of where this has actually happened, and this is a real cause for concern.

I would like to say that another concern of mine - and I reread the Bill this morning - is that you can appeal to the MEC. My own experience, once again with regard to the Free State, is that in June last year, I directed a question and a request that the MEC, through the select committee’s Chair, address this committee on the waste and misspending of money that was taking place in municipalities. I have …

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Mr M J Mahlangu): Order! Your speaking time has expired, Ms Botha.

Yes, Mr Mokoena?

Cllr J MOKOENA (Salga): There’s a point of order. [Inaudible.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Ms Botha’s time has expired anyway. [Laughter.] Mnr J HORNE: Agb Voorsitter, agb Minister en lede van die Huis, dié stuk wetgewing vandag hier vóór ons, wat alreeds in die ander Huis aanvaar is, is wetgewing wat nie sommer goedsmoeds gehanteer moet word nie. Die wetgewing maak voorsiening vir munisipaliteite om eiendomsbelasting te eien, ook op eiendomme waarvoor nie voorheen belasting betaal is nie, en dít is ‘n aanvaarbare norm, want nou is almal verplig om belasting te betaal. Wat egter kommerwekkend is, is dat ‘n munisipaliteit nooit hierdie wetgewing mag sien as die hen wat die goue eiers lê nie, en sodoende roekeloos daarmee handel om sy begroting te laat klop nie.

Landbou word ook nou deur die munisipaliteite belas. Wat egter onthou moet word, is dat daar redelik met die landbousektor gehandel moet word sover dit grondbelasting betref. Landbou is die grootste werkgewer en ontvang geen staatsubsidie nie. Daar is egter ‘n mate van sekerheid dat hierdie wetgewing voorsiening maak dat die LUR vir plaaslike regering in provinsies ‘n moniteringsmeganisme in plek moet hê om toe te sien dat die munisipaliteite binne die profiel van die wet opereer, want dit sal ‘n kwade dag wees as munisipaliteite nie omsigtigheid aan die dag lê nie.

Ook maak die wet voorsiening vir gemeenskapsbetrokkenheid. Dit beteken dat die mense op die grond geken moet word. Elke eienaar het die reg op appél indien hy of sy nie tevrede is met die skatting van die eiendom se waarde nie. Dié wetgewing verplig munisipaliteite om hulle kredietbeheerbeleid in plek te kry om sodoende te verseker dat dienstegeld en belasting ordelik ingevorder word, en dat daar sover as moontlik toegesien word dat ons mense nie verder in skuld gedompel word nie. Agterstallige dienstegelde is alreeds ‘n blok aan die voet van munisipaliteite, en daarom kan sommige nie die mas opkom nie.

Ten slotte, agb Voorsitter, wil ek die voorsitter van die komitee, mnr Mkhaliphi, bedank en ook ons tradisionele regsverteenwoordiger, kgoshi Mokoena, vir die goeie bydrae wat hy gemaak het, én hoe hulle ons gelei het deur hierdie wetgewing, asook die departement. Alhoewel daar nog leemtes in die wet is, is dié wet ‘n noodsaaklikheid en bewys van vordering wat gemaak is die afgelope 10 jaar.

Die NNP steun die wetgewing. Ek dank u. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr J HORNE: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and members of the House, this piece of legislation here before us today, which has already been adopted in the other House, is legislation that should not be handled haphazardly. This legislation provides for municipalities to claim property taxes, also on properties on which no tax has been paid previously, and that is an acceptable norm, because now it is compulsory for everyone to pay tax. What is, however, cause for concern, is that a municipality may never regard this legislation as being the hen that lays the golden eggs, and in so doing deal with it carelessly to make its budget balance.

Agriculture is also now being taxed by municipalities. What should be kept in mind, however, is that the agricultural sector should be dealt with fairly with regard to land taxes. Agriculture is the biggest job provider and receives no state subsidy. There is, however, a degree of certainty that this legislation provides that the MEC for local government in provinces must have a monitoring mechanism in place to ensure that the municipalities operate within the profile of the legislation, because it will be a bad day if municipalities do not use caution.

The legislation also provides for community involvement. This means that the people on the land must be consulted. Every owner has the right to appeal if he or she is not satisfied with the estimation of the property’s value. This legislation compels municipalities to put their credit control policy in place to ensure that service fees and taxes are collected orderly and that it is ensured as far as possible that our people are not plunged further in debt. Overdue service fees are already a weight around the ankle of municipalities, and that is why some cannot make it.

In conclusion, hon Chairperson, I would like to thank the chairperson of the committee, Mr Mkhaliphi, as well as our traditional legal representative, Kgoshi Mokoena, for the good contribution he has made, as well as how they led us through this legislation, and I also thank the department. Although there are still shortcomings in the legislation, this legislation is a necessity and proof of progress that has been made in the past 10 years.

The NNP supports the legislation. I thank you. [Applause.]]

Mrs E N LUBIDLA: Chairperson, hon Ministers, hon MECs, the hon Deputy Minister and hon members, I rise on this occasion in unconditional support of the adoption of the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Bill and commend the Bill to this House.

I commence by endorsing all those who have been thanked by previous speakers, especially the team of drafters and various stakeholders such as representatives of Salga, public entities, agriculture, municipal valuers and others who assisted the committees.

As was noted on the White Paper on Local Government, a simpler and more uniform system is needed as part of local government reform, and this Bill is endorsed today by the ANC as part of a comprehensive local government reform process to do away with the discriminative and exclusive systems of the past.

The Deputy Minister for Provincial and Local Government described the legislation as an instrument to assist municipalities with their local economic development.

The ANC would like to take this opportunity today to highlight some of the benefits that would derive from a uniform municipal system of property rates regulation, with specific focus on the exclusions built into the Bill for the protection and advancement of previously disadvantaged communities. Municipalities derive their power to levy property rates directly from section 229(1) of the Constitution. But this constitutional power conferred on municipalities to levy property rates is, however, not unfettered power.

The Constitution does not allow municipalities to excercise their powers solely at their own discretion, and therefore the Constitution, in section 229(2)(b), specifically allows national legislation to regulate the exercise of this power by municipalities.

The Local Government: Property Rates Bill is, accordingly, not the source of the power in terms of which municipalities may levy property rates, but an instrument to give effect to section 229 of the Constitution. Care was nevertheless taken not to undermine the constitutional power of municipalities in the drafting of this Bill.

This Bill will bring about reform benefits to local government with a view to achieving the following objectives, firstly, supporting sustainable local goverment by providing a stable, buoyant revenue source within the discretionary control of municipal councils; secondly, assisting municipalities in broadening their rates base to property outside former municipal boundries and providing transitional rules to phase in property rates in these areas, and thirdly, providing uniform national rules regarding valuation and appeals, rating policy and rate setting.

This Bill provides for an enabling framework for municipalities, if they so decide, to extend the levying of rates to categories of owners and properties that have until now been partially or fully excluded from paying rates. The financial implications of this Bill for local government will be quite positive with a broadened tax base. The municipal revenue potential will be significantly enhanced.

The Bill does not prescribe, and this is not envisaged for a very long time to come, that property rates will be levied in traditional authority areas. Each municipality will have to decide for itself. These property rates can in any case not be levied unless there is individual ownership of communal areas. Municipalities will also not be obliged to value or rate properties for which, for instance, it is difficult to establish a value because of past discriminatory laws and practices.

Even where there is individual ownership, safeguards are built into the Bill to ensure that the reform process does not prejudice previously disadvantaged communities and land reform beneficiaries. This is ensured by providing that even where there is individual ownership of property, the property has first to be valued, and where the property does not exceed R15 000, the owner is not liable for any rates. [Interjections.] [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Deputy Chair, thank you to all the members who made some input in this debate.

This Bill has been somewhat controversial, but during its passage through the portfolio committee, as well as the select committee, it has really been thoroughly looked at and refined in many ways to become what it is today.

There seems to be people who are still looking at the first draft of the Bill and who do not understand the Bill in its current form. The Minister issued a statement in one of the newspapers, I think it was Business Day, a couple of days ago, and again we get the media misrepresenting this Parliament.

The critics of the Local Government: Municipality Property Rates Bill are questioning the use of market values as a basis for valuation, and they accuse the property rates as a hindrance to economic growth. They also have many other things to say, which I think are quite interesting.

Some of the critics who are proponents of the free market principles have criticised our decision to use the market value as a concept, and they fail to consider that the market value concept that we all understand is the only way that we can ensure equitable treatment of property owners.

I wish to thank all the members who have made a contribution, but I would advise that we take a good look at this piece of legislation, particularly those members of this House who are somewhat misrepresenting the recommendations of the Katz Commission. The commission recommended that a land tax should not be levied at national level, but considered as a local government tax.

The court case that is referred to was decided on technical and procedural issues. I would suggest that we take interest in legislation that is passed by this House. One of the members actually admitted that she was not familiar with this piece of legislation. Rather than misrepresent what the Bill is actually trying to achieve, it would be better if we really attend the select committee meetings to understand what this Government is trying to achieve.

I wish to thank all the members who have contributed. I know that the Bill took a much shorter time in the NCOP, but I do commend the members of the committee for the sterling work that they have done. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF SECOND REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE INTERVENTION IN THE LEKWA TEEMANE MUNICIPALITY IN TERMS OF SECTION 139(1)(c) OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Hon Deputy Chairperson, hon Premiers, special delegates, hon Deputy Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the Ad Hoc Committee on Intervention in the Lekwa Teemane Municipality, having considered its earlier recommendation to this Council, and the subsequent motion passed by this House on 26 February 2004, reports as follows.

Whereas municipalities are expected, inter alia, to give effect to objects and duties stipulated in sections 152 and 153 of the Constitution; whereas the provincial and national spheres of government are called upon to support and strengthen the capacity of local government through legislative and other measures to enable that sphere of government to manage their own affairs, exercise their powers and perform their functions; conscious of the caution contained in section 151(4), that is to guard against compromising or causing impediments in the local sphere of government; mindful of the call in Chapter 3 of the Constitution that all spheres of government should observe the principles of co-operative governance at all times; and, particularly sensitive to the unique position of the National Council of Provinces as the guardian of intergovernmental relations, the ad hoc committee recommends to this House not to support the interventions in terms of section 139(1)(c), but to recommend an intervention in terms of section 139(b) of the Constitution.

The ad hoc committee is still adamant that the intervention in the Lekwa Teemane Municipality is urgently necessary and unavoidable, in view of the outright defiance and absence of accountability displayed by some of the councillors. The recommendation by this committee is therefore in the interest of intergovernmental relations, and especially in the interest of the local sphere of government.

In conclusion, the ad hoc committee is aware that the Minister for Provincial and Local Government is engaging with both the council and the MEC for local government in that province in order to resolve the matters as amicably as possible. It would be ideal if the Minister and the MEC provided the National Council of Provinces with regular reports in relation to progress on this matter. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ vote. Are we all present?

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Is there any province wishing to make a declaration of vote? None.

We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate whether they vote in favour, against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Eastern Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

The PREMIER OF FREE STATE (Ms I W Direko): We support it. The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Mr M SELOANE (Gauteng): Gauteng supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Siyavumelana. [We support it.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a e thekga. [We support it.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

The PREMIER OF MPUMALANGA (Mr N J Mahlangu): Mpumalanga is in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr G H AKHARWARAY (Northern Cape): Northern Cape supports.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

The PREMIER OF NORTH WEST (Mr P S Molefe): North West abstains.

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mrs J WITBOOI (Western Cape): Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Eight provinces have voted in favour, with one abstention from the North West province. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.

CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT ON THE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES (1999 - 2004)

                      (Subject for discussion)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, hon Premiers, speakers, special delegates, members from Salga and colleagues, within a few weeks we will be celebrating a decade of our freedom and democracy. And, as we journey towards that point, I have to reminisce about an invitation that I received some 10 years ago from the hon Dr Molefe when he persuaded me to serve in the Senate, which was then a House representative of provincial interests, certainly not as formalised as it is now in the Constitution.

At the time that we discussed the issue the hon Premier, who has been my mentor, my leader, my comrade and my friend, indicated to me quite clearly that the reason I should go to Cape Town - to the Senate - was to ensure that the provincial interests are promoted, protected and that there was close liaison between the North West province and Parliament.

He was also concerned about the fact that, as spokespersons for the province, we should ensure that what we achieve is a people-centred society, and always be in close contact and communicate with our constituencies.

Whatever successes we have achieved as an institution, I think, depends largely on his contribution because during these 10 years he has been a pillar of support and has given us unstinting support, not only as individuals or delegates from the National Council of Provinces, but as the institution as a whole. We are indeed grateful for the kind of support that he and other Premiers from the provinces have extended to this institution.

The transition from the Senate to the National Council of Provinces was a very critical and important one. It set out the constitutional framework which highlighted two important tasks that confronted this House - tasks which I know Premier Molefe and other Premiers are quite conscious of. In the case of Premier Molefe, it became evident as he dealt with the challenges and achievements of the institution in the past decade.

These two tasks were, firstly, to promote the interests of the provinces; secondly, to support local government, the other sphere of government, in terms of its responsibilities and functions, and to ensure that there is no undue encroachment in the integrity of that sphere of government; and, thirdly, to be part of the legislative process, and in doing so ensure that this institution becomes a platform where we could raise provincial and local government concerns as a forum for public debate.

Reflecting on these particular tasks, I can say without reservation that as a result of the commitment and contributions of members of this House as well as the legislatures, we have indeed succeeded in these difficult tasks. I say this because from the perspective of co-operative governance, which is central to our responsibilities and sound intergovernmental relationships, we have shown through our engagement with our provincial legislatures, particularly with regard to the oversight visits that we conducted in partnership with provincial legislatures and local government, and with the participation of the executive in the various provinces, that intergovernmental relations and co-operative governance can indeed be achieved through this institution.

We were able to visit provinces to look at various critical issues that confronted this institution. And I must thank the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces for always reminding us that the task of this institution is to respond to the constitutional obligation of ensuring that we improve the quality of the lives of our people.

It is no accident, therefore, that central to the work that we have done, the eradication of poverty was a theme that permeated all the oversight visits. A few examples could be useful. We visited various nodal points in the provinces. Premier Molefe has spoken about Kgalagadi, which was amongst the nodal points that we visited to ascertain whether in fact sustainable rural development was taking place, whether urban renewal was taking place and whether the challenges were being taken up by the provinces, and what the areas of difficulty were. We did so in a very co-ordinated and cohesive way, and we did so not as separate political parties, but as an institution of members committed to transformation and the eradication of poverty. We similarly looked at issues such as the challenges faced by business in terms of SMMEs and local development, both at the provincial and the municipal level. We examined, amongst other things, the issues of land restitution and land redistribution, and the challenges confronting the agricultural community. We did so while being very, very few in number. We were able to straddle nine provinces in a co-ordinated and cohesive way and managed through and with the support of the institution and its leaders - the Chairperson the Deputy Chairperson and all provincial Whips and leaders of delegations to these various quarters. I think we have done extremely well in bringing to the public domain the challenges and achievements that we have discovered through our oversight role.

We have taken on the constitutional responsibility of ensuring that the three spheres of government interact in a responsible way. Today we have an illustration of a decision which might not be very palatable to us from the North West, but which is a decision that was taken impartially, objectively and on the basis of what this Council felt was appropriate in terms of intervention.

Not very long ago, fully and unconditionally we supported intervention in Mafikeng. Today we are supporting intervention, but we are saying that the nature of the intervention is too drastic or dramatic and, therefore, we do not support the dissolution. However, we support intervention wherein an administrator could be appointed to assume the executive responsibilities and address the challenges of a particular council. This has occurred not only in the North West province, but also occurred in other provinces such as the Eastern Cape. And I believe that the Council itself, as a collective, has responded very swiftly, efficiently and effectively in its task.

I know I have limited time and I could speak forever on these various issues, but I think another important dimension is the manner in which we dealt with very current, topical and critical issues that confronted our nation. This came through very clearly in terms of the subjects for discussion that we have had in the Council. We dealt with gender issues, child abuse, crime, our democracy, nation-building and reconciliation. And we did all that, not from the perspective of the National Assembly, the other House of Parliament, but from regional, local and provincial perspectives. And this has enriched the content of our debate.

In terms of the legislative process, we are heartened by the fact that this House has amended virtually every Bill that has come to it - be it section 75 or 76. We are also quite proud that most of these amendments, if not more than 90%, have been accepted by the other House. This tells us that the committees of this House, notwithstanding that they are fewer in number, have performed extremely well.

Let me conclude by saying that it is our opinion that the National Council of Provinces has succeeded. It has succeeded because it has worked as a cohesive collective irrespective of party-political identities, and has shown commitment to transformation and sound democracy. I thank you. [Applause.]

The PREMIER OF MPUMALANGA (Mr N J Mahlangu): Madam Chairperson, hon members, thank you for the opportunity once again to share a few ideas about how we have fared in Mpumalanga since the ushering in of democracy.

Today security, pensions, disability and child support grants are paid on an equal basis to every qualifying citizen in the province, irrespective of colour, race or creed. The number of social grant beneficiaries has grown rapidly from 164 894 to 395 722. The offices of traditional leaders are being used as service points, with trained permanent staff available to assist grant applicants.

We have made good strides in dealing with the plight of farmworkers. I can mention that on 9 December 2003 we entered into a milestone agreement with the Agri-Mpumalanga Farmers Union in terms of which we paved the way to service delivery in our province.

We have established petrochemical projects, and wood, forestry mining, agroprocessing and other projects valued at more than R2 billion, providing employment to more than 2 000 people. In the past 10 years a total of 119 771 housing units were built and transferred. More than 156 287,72 hectares of land are back in the hands of the rightful owners.

In this decade we have increased the number of classrooms by more than 4 800. We have transported more than 24 000 learners from our farm areas at a cost of R58 million. We have spent more than R581 million on purchasing learner-support material in this decade. We have built two modern libraries in the deep rural areas of Daggakraal in the Seme Municipality and at Maphotla in the Dr J S Moroka Municipality.

Over the past 10 years we have managed to provide free basic water to 588 007 households and electricity to 78 000 households. In order to deal with the water scarcity problem gripping our province, a 500 millimetre- diameter pipeline is being constructed from the Rand Water Board in Mamelodi to the Ikangala Water Board around Ekandustria. This move will alleviate water problems in our rural areas of Thembisile Municipality. An amount of R10 million is being utilised to bring water to the rural people of Ntoane and to install meters in their homes; and R4 million is being utilised for the people of Kgobokwane. For the first time these communities will enjoy showering and bathing in their own homes.

Since 1994 more than 486 kilometres of tarred roads and bridges have been constructed at a cost of more than R372 million. Over 2 190 kilometres of gravel roads have been laid at a cost of R86 million, and 1 342 kilometres of road have been repaired and resealed at a cost of R76 million.

We are currently constructing the first phase of the Moloto road, after having completed the second phase. We are also constructing the Mgobodzi road in the Nkomazi Municipality and the Kgobokwane-Dennilton road. These are roads in rural area, where, generally, people never enjoyed such tarred- road facilities.

In the current financial year, our Government has implemented 16 community projects amounting to R13,4 million. During the construction of these projects, 485 job opportunities were created and 352 people were trained.

Great strides have been made in the provision of health services to the people of Mpumalanga, specifically in taking health care facilities to the rural and poor areas of the province. We have built the following health institutions during this decade: the Moloto, Mmamethlake, Daggakraal, Amsterdam and Perdekop Health Care Centres; and the Verana, Lefiso, Phake, Seabe, Kaboweni, Moutse West and Nokaneng Clinics.

We have also upgraded and renovated the Mmamethlake, Kwamhlanga and Witbank Hospitals. We have spent more than R140 million building the Piet Retief Hospital, which we hope to complete in the coming financial year. We have upgraded the Ermelo, Tonga, Shongwe, Themba, Embhuleni and Rob Ferreira Hospitals. In the Sekhukhune district we have upgraded the Groblersdal and Philadelphia Hospitals. We have also started erecting a clinic in Moutse East, at Kgobokwane.

Combating HIV/Aids is still one of our top priorities. That is why we have budgeted more than R36,3 million to further strengthen the provincial HIV and Aids programmes. We have strengthened the home-based care network in the province. Our plans to establish at least one major hospital and one hospice per district are on course. Currently, we have identified 12 sites to be used to pilot the antiretroviral programme.

As our other health institutions become ready and we have the necessary finances, we will expand the programme of rolling out antiretrovirals to all corners of the province. We are, currently, at about a level of 80% in terms of rolling out of antiretrovirals to our health institutions in the province.

We are doing something about those who steal from the poor. To date, a total of 1 375 incidents of corruption, malpractice and misconduct have been reported by whistle-blowers; 144 officials have been dismissed after disciplinary hearings were held and some of the officials have been criminally charged.

We continue to manage and service existing twinning agreements signed with the province of Alberta in Canada, Chongqing Municipality in the Sichuan province in the People’s Republic of China and Maputo province in Mozambique. The agreements are progressing well and yielding fruit as per the objectives.

We also renewed the Memorandum of Understanding with North Rhine Westphalia province in Germany. It has been a resounding success and there have been benefits for both parties.

That is, in short, the executive summary of our progress report in the province. We acknowledge that more needs to be done in order to ensure that we create a better life for all our people. I thank you. [Applause.]

THE PREMIER OF NORTH WEST (Dr P S Molefe): Hon Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, the Chief Whip of the Council, hon members, we of the North West province are humbled by, once again, the opportunity to present to this august House a review of our participation in the NCOP since its establishment in 1997. It is our pleasure also to reflect on how the NCOP has enhanced the legislative process in our province, and how it has ensured that the development of national legislation and policies are sensitive to the unique conditions and needs of our provinces.

There is no doubt in our minds that the NCOP is, and will continue to be, a pillar of our democratic order. Through its work, the NCOP has entrenched the culture of democratic participation. In addition, it continues to play a role in promotion of co-operative governance amongst the various spheres of government. The NCOP has ensured that the provincial needs are aligned to the broader needs of the country in a manner that enhances service delivery and good governance.

We wish to thank our six permanent representatives in the NCOP for being the vital link between the North West provincial legislature and the national Parliament. Through their work, our permanent representatives have ensured that our provincial legislation took into account national imperatives. They have also contributed immensely towards building the capacity of portfolio committees in our provincial legislature.

Our representatives have used the experience they gathered, as they interacted with delegates from various provinces, to enrich our legislative process in our province. They have indeed influenced, in a large measure, the manner in which we began to review the legislation in the North West province. In this regard, the North West provincial legislature has reviewed no less than 150 pieces of legislation and ordinances in order to ensure that they complied with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, but also to ensure that they facilitated the pursuit of their democratic objectives.

The results of the hard work of the NCOP are clearly visible in our province. The NCOP has given us, as a province, a platform to exchange views and experiences with other provinces on critical areas such as the development of the code of ethics for members of the executive council. In addition, the NCOP has given us a platform to exchange ideas with our counterparts in other provinces on the development and implementation of the Batho Pele principles, both at provincial and local government levels.

Through the “Taking Parliament to the People” campaign, the NCOP contributed towards efforts aimed at educating our people about how Parliament works. More importantly, the campaign has given our people an opportunity to have their say in the manner in which the Government conducts its business.

Last year, this campaign gave the people of Taung and Mafikeng an opportunity to raise their concerns directly with their elected representatives. Similarly, the people of the North West province benefited immensely from the NCOP’s provincial weeks programme. This programme allowed members of the NCOP to carry out their oversight duties, focusing on specific provinces, with a view to gaining even better understanding of the unique challenges facing the various provinces.

Partly through the work of the NCOP, we now have in place legislation with the purpose of building strong developmental local government. In addition, interventions by the members of the NCOP have assisted the North West province in developing such critical Bills as the Disaster Management Bill and the Bill on Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities.

Through its oversight function and drawing from the experiences of other provinces, the NCOP assisted us as a province to find appropriate responses with regard to the development and implementation of integrated development plans by municipalities. Only recently, the Council visited the North West province to assess the intervention in Mafikeng and the Lekwa Teemane Municipalities, in terms of section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution.

In both instances, committees of this House responded swiftly and efficiently to their oversight responsibility. Whilst this House supported the intervention in Mafikeng, I notice that the report of the other committee that visited Lekwa Teemane Municipality did not support the dissolution of the municipality.

This clearly illustrates that the Council carries out its responsibility objectively and independently, with due regard for the spirit of co- operative governance. However, I note that there are differences of opinion between the executive council and the committee and the Council. Whilst this clearly reasserts and affirms the independence of the NCOP, it also poses a challenge for intensified communication early enough to allow for proper flow of information and reportage on critical issues affecting the municipalities, so that when a committee of the NCOP goes to a particular municipality, it has had sufficient information, thoroughgoing, that would enable it also to interact with the executive, and where there are differences, that such differences could be resolved before major resolutions are taken.

I believe that such timeous communication of a detailed report between the NCOP and the provincial legislatures will potentially exclude disagreements, and I think we will, therefore, need to creatively address this challenge as we move into the second decade of freedom. The Council has also assisted with its programmes aimed at capacity-building of local government to ensure efficient service delivery.

In conclusion, may I once again extend a word of gratitude to the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, the Deputies and the Chief Whip of this Council for the remarkable manner in which they have guided this institution, and to hon members for the robust manner in which they have dealt with issues confronting our country and our provinces.

As all of us retire to go into the campaigns of our different political parties, may I also join those who wished you well in your campaigns, and I trust that we will return to this House as a House that reflects provinces with vibrant multiparty activism in our provinces and therefore enriching democracy. Let us all, therefore, dear friends and hon members, build on the solid foundations that we have laid as we confront the future in the next 10 years. I thank you. [Applause.]

THE CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you very much, hon Premier. May I then take this opportunity to call the Premier of the Free State and apologise that the ordering of the list was not communicated to her. My sincere apologies. I thought you had been informed that the list was reordered, hence your name has been placed lower down on the speakers’ list. May I give you this opportunity, Madam.

The PREMIER OF FREE STATE (Ms I W Direko): Chairperson of Committees, hon members of the Council, special delegates, it feels like it was yesterday when we entered this House for the first time, in 1994, and came across words we did not understand. And the one that comes to mind is ``interpellations’’ which, with every fibre of our being, we tried to establish the meaning of and went to libraries, but nothing came up. It was with the passage of time that we began to realise what interpellations were all about.

The turn of the first decade of freedom presents us with an opportunity to tell the story of the Free State. Our lesson throughout this period is a profound one. We have learned that of importance is not how you start the race, but how you end that race. The people of Free State are indeed making a strong finish in the race to reconstruct and develop their lives. We have a story to tell and we will tell it with enthusiasm.

Despite what the cynics said, despite the deeply divided past, as the people of Free State we found unity through cultural diversity. We have, despite these and other historical events, emerged as a unified society that is democratic and tolerant towards one another. Our success story is underpinned by the following important tenets: nation-building, political inclusivity, reconciliation, co-operation and politics of consensus.

In 2001 we made a call for a new Free State. This call was to form a firm foundation for a united and prosperous Free State. I have been humbled by the response we received in this regard. We made a call for a Free Stater who displays hard work, perseverance, excellence, ethical conduct and commitment to a better life for all. The ideological onslaught by the enemies of the people did not and could no longer succeed in dividing our people. The Congress of the People in 1955, in Kliptown, remains the foundation of the democratic dispensation we are enjoying today.

Driven by a strong need for a better life for our people, we set ourselves milestones and we had to achieve them. We promised our people accelerated delivery of service and could not detract from that. The high expectations of the majority of the poor masses for a better deal in this province, amid the critical shortage of resources, remain at the centre of our programme of action.

We are succeeding in building a reliable and accountable Public Service of men and women dedicated and committed to providing the best for their people. This is evidenced by both international and national awards received by the Free State government since 1994. Among others, these include the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management’s International Innovation Awards in recognition of our pension payout system - all other provinces have since adopted our system; the Gold Award from the SA International Trade Exhibition, Saitex, for best stalls for four years in succession; the third-best annual report of the department of local government and housing awarded by the SA Association of Government Auditors; the Nestlé floating trophy for improvement in cataract operations; and acknowledgement for improved financial management by the National Treasury.

The transformation of the state and its organs was a priority to the government of the Free State. The first term of governance was characterised by the development of policies and strategies to meet the needs of our people. In the middle of the second term, this government introduced the Free State Development Plan, amongst others, to ensure that we provide responsive and efficient services to our people.

The Free State Development Plan is aligned to integrated development plans of municipalities, commonly known as IDPs. It has the following strategic objectives: to enhance economic development and job creation; provide and facilitate sustainable infrastructure development; invest in the development of the people of the Free State; ensure a safe and secure environment and good co-operative governance with sustainable use of resources and environment.

The Free State Development Plan has gone a long way toward streamlining and measuring the performance of the Free State government since its introduction. Arrangements are now afoot to review the targets of the Free State development programme more than ever before. We are convinced that this is the best tool to help us provide a better life for all the people of the Free State.

One case in point is the improvement in the Grade 12 pass rate from 42,3% in 1999 to almost 80% in 2003. This is a 90% increase in four years and is way above our own expectations and our Free State Development Plan target of 65% in 2005. This achievement was made possible through the successful implementation of the holistic intervention programme and the general improvement of the culture of learning and teaching in the schools. Special mention should be made of the performance of the township and farm schools which are predominantly black. The number of black children who are among the top 100 students has improved tremendously and the number of township schools that obtained 100% has now tripled. All we have done in our department of education is to dip our buckets where we are and not send our children from the township to the so-called better-run schools. We improve them exactly where they are. The number of township schools that obtained 90% is up from 8% to 54% in 2003. [Time expired.] I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, forgive me for mentioning the way in which the subject for discussion came before this House. It came generally as a subject for discussion and it was marked as such on the programme. It, somehow, transformed into a consideration of a report on the subject for discussion. Now, I raise this matter not to be petty about it or about the procedure or process, but because I regard it as an opportunity lost. It was important for us to engage on a serious analysis of our strengths and weaknesses because it’s a resource for the future. With due respect to whoever compiled the report, and I have no knowledge of who did so, it is more of a narrative than a serious consideration or analysis of our strengths and weaknesses. And I say this especially against the background of the work of the committee on oversight and accountability, which raised the issue of an institutional memory for this particular institution, and the institution of Parliament in general.

Everybody has mentioned this already and we are heading for elections very soon. I am sure a number of us may come back, a number of us may not, others may be promoted, and others may not be so fortunate. But I am sure we will find a different team in the new Parliament. It would have helped them enormously if we could have had a report that attempted a serious analysis and provided the institutional memory of the best practices for oversight, for example, in this House.

If you would allow me, I would like just to reminisce a bit. We arrived at this House and we were handed a very comprehensive academic report on the role that this House should play in its new democracy. And I think it’s important that the new Parliament and the new NCOP get the same report. It would have been instructive for them to sit with the report and with our analysis of what we had done, and really assess where they should be going in their term of office.

But we nonetheless arrived here and, as is said in the report, this House was a work in progress. I think it’s important for us to still regard this House as a work in process. It needs constant refinement on how we do things and how we approach things. Are we really delivering the best to the people we represent - the citizens of South Africa?

Now, regarding that, I would like to just mention that we really should and ought to have a serious analysis. And I think this debate, to some extent, would provide at least the framework for it, because we should not make the mistake of just adopting a self-congratulatory attitude and say ``well done’’ and pat each other on the back and so on. We really need to take our efficiencies, our methods and the way we do things seriously, and look at them critically.

Another aspect of this House that I would like to draw brief attention to is that the perceptions of the role of this House tend to be one- dimensional and tend also to depend on who you are talking to. For example, provincial government understandably has a view of this House as being the House that interacts between Parliament, the executive and the provincial government, and puts the provincial perspective on any legislation that comes through. This is, of course, true, but it is not the complete picture. Local government similarly focuses on our interaction with local government. The National Assembly focuses on our interaction with the National Assembly and the executive focuses on the way we interact with the executive. We are of course multidimensional because we deal with all these different dimensions.

I think one of the analyses we have to undertake is whether we can sufficiently do justice to all of these dimensions, and whether we aren’t really trying to be all things to all men and women at all times. It remains really for me to say that I think the major aspect of the function of this House that I think needs to be explored and expanded is in fact our oversight role, and the way the committees actually interact with their oversight roles.

I would not do justice to the four and a half or five years that I have personally served in this House if I didn’t mention that there have been some moments that, for me, have been really been important milestones. I think, at this stage and in fairness, I have to commend the Chair for her foresight in her ``Taking Parliament to the People’’ campaign. This brought to me, in a very real way, what I was trying to do in this House and in a personal way because it’s only in really speaking to the people and seeing for yourself that you can start to grasp the challenges that all of us face in every aspect of our work. [Applause.]

Mr P A MATTHEE: Chairperson, at a time like this, when we review the work of our House, it is important to reflect on the perspective which guided us as we drafted the Constitution that gave birth to the NCOP. Two of the most important principles which were part of that perspective were, of course, participatory democracy and co-operative governance.

The NCOP was conceived as a critical vehicle for the achievement of these objectives. As President Mbeki - then Deputy President Mbeki - already said in 1998, the NCOP must, therefore, succeed, not because it exists as an institution, but because the vision of which it is an expression is fundamental to the success of the new democracy which we seek to fashion.

Voorsitter, wanneer ‘n mens hierdie vyf-jaar oorsig vir die tydperk 1999- 2004 van die NRVP lees, kom ‘n mens onder die besef van die reuse werk wat deur die lede van hierdie Raad gedurende hierdie tydperk gedoen is. Dit sluit in die oorweging, debatering, wysiging en aanvaarding van verskeie wette. Ek het probeer om net vinnig deur die verslag te gaan en kortliks ‘n opsomming te maak. Daarvolgens lyk dit vir my of ons met ongeveer 200 artikel 75-wette; ongeveer 58 artikel 76-wette en ongeveer 33 artikel 77- wette en ook ‘n aantal grondwetlike wysigings gehandel het.

Dit natuurlik, bo en behalwe al die ander baie belangrike debatte oor aktuele onderwerpe, werkswinkels en verskeie provinsiale besoeke aan die provinsies, waarvan reeds melding gemaak is, die “Bringing of Parliament to the people” - wat ek ook, sonder om daarop in te gaan, beskou as ‘n groot sukses. Daar is natuurlik ook nog die debatte oor die begrotingsposte. Dan praat ons nie eens van vraetyd en voorstelle wat ons behandel het nie.

In paragraaf 2 van hierdie oorsig word die strategiese doelstellings bespreek en, myns insiens, korrek weergegee. Daar word egter nie melding gemaak van die bykomende groot rol wat hierdie Raad speel as ‘n tipiese Tweede Huis van Hersiening ten opsigte van artikel 75-wette nie. Baie belangrike wetgewing is in diepte gedebatteer in die komitees en ook hier in dié Raad en daar is verskeie wysigings aanbeveel wat ook aanvaar is deur die ander Huis. Ek dink dit is baie belangrik dat ons wel konsentreer op die rol soos uiteengesit in hierdie sleuteldoelwitte.

Ons moet nooit vergeet dat ons ook hierdie ander belangrike rol speel nie en dat daar baie tyd daaraan gespandeer word. Ek kan vandag sê dat daar werklik in daardie komitees waarin ek dien, waar daar baie artikel 75-wette behandel is, dit behoorlik gedoen is en daar werklikwaar in geen stadium die rol gespeel is van ‘n rubberstempel of alles bloot net aanvaar is nie. Ek wil in daardie opsig ook aan die voorsitters van die komitees en die leierskap in hierdie Raad hulde bring, dat ons dit kon regkry.

In die boek Building Representative Democracy van Christina Murray word geskryf:

The NCOP requires politicians to function in a manner that is in many ways very different from the traditional model. If they fail to adapt and develop the new roles required of them, the NCOP will fail.

En ek wil daarom ook hulde bring aan elke lid van hierdie Raad, wat werklik soms bomenslik gepresteer het om te sorg dat hierdie NRVP slaag. In die “1998 NCOP Needs Assessment” is die rol van permanente afgevaardigdes uiteengesit as: ``A very complex one and not easy to fulfil.’’

Dit is so en ek dink baie keer ons kollegas in die ander Huis het geen idee nie van ons werklike rol en die baie belangrike rol wat ons hier vertolk. [Tyd verstreke.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Chairperson, when one reads this five-year review of the NCOP for the period 1999-2004, one realises what tremendous work has been done by the Council during this period. This includes the consideration, debating, amending and adopting of various pieces of legislation. I have tried to read the report quickly and attempted to compile a brief summary. According to this it would appear that we have dealt with approximately 200 section 75 laws, approximately 58 section 76 laws and approximately 33 section 77 laws as well as a number of constitutional amendments.

This, of course, over and above all the other very important debates on topical subjects, workshops and various provincial visits to the provinces, of which mention has already been made, there is the “Bringing of Parliament to the people” - which I, without going into detail, regard as a huge success. There is, of course, also the debates on the Budget Votes. Then we are not even mentioning questions and motions that we dealt with.

In paragraph 2 of this review, the strategic objectives are discussed and, in my opinion, correctly stated. However, no mention is made of the additional major role that this Council plays as a typical Second House of Review regarding the section 75 legislation. Very important legislation was debated in depth in the committees and also here in this Council and various amendments were recommended, which were also adopted by the other House. I think it is important that we concentrate on the role as determined in these key objectives.

We should not forget that we also have this other important role to play and that much time is spent on it. I can state today that those committees which I serve on, where many section 75 laws were dealt with, was properly done and veritably, there was no stage when the role of a rubber stamp was played or where it was just merely accepted. In that regard I also want to praise the chairpersons of the committees and the leadership of this Council that enabled us to do this right.

In the book, Building representative democracy by Christina Murray it is written:

The NCOP requires politicians to function in a manner that is in many ways very different from the traditional model. If they fail to adapt and develop the new roles required of them, the NCOP will fail.

And therefore I want to praise everyone in this council who really sometimes performed supernaturally to ensure that this NCOP is successful. In the 1998 NCOP Needs Assessment the role of the permanent delegates is explained as: “A very complex one and not easy to fulfil.”

It is so and many times I think that our colleagues in the other House have no idea of our real and very important role that we fulfil here. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]

Mr G H AKHARWARAY (Northern Cape): Thank you, hon Chairperson, hon Premiers, members of this House, for the opportunity to stand in for my Premier and say a few words this afternoon. We all know that 10 years is not a long time. In fact, in the context of human history 10 years is but a blip in time. In the context of centuries of deprivation and apartheid, 10 years is but a brief moment. But, it is exactly this brief moment that has given us an opportunity to address the various and diverse needs of our people and to address the many backlogs. In the Northern Cape we had a further problem. In 1994, when we came into government, we had no administration in place. We did not even have offices and the few offices that existed did not have tables and chairs in them. So it was quite a start from scratch. But the core approach was simple: Build a caring administration. Secondly, focus on human development. Now in building the administration we have taken cognisance of the fact the Northern Cape is a vast province. We had to take the approach that we needed to be innovative in whatever we did. And three examples indicate how we took this approach.

I heard today about ``Taking Parliament to the People’’. This concept was actually born in the Northern Cape in 1995 and we took our cabinet to meet the people. We would take the exco to every village in the province where people could interact with us and indicate their dilemmas. We created a facilitative government in that we created one-stop shops all over the province so that people were not sent from pillar to post because they simply wanted a pension form to be filled in. They would go to one stop and get their services there.

We introduced what is called the “flying doctor” programme, so that people in fairly way-out rural areas would not have to drive 200 km to go to the clinic, but that the doctor and the special services would come to them where they live and give them specialised services.

In focusing on human development, we were guided by the need to address the backlogs, to restore the dignity and self-respect, especially of our old people, and to create this enabling environment that I am talking about. Hence we skewed our spending criteria and our spending of resources in support of this objective, so much so that today we can say that social security in the network has been expanded.

More people have access to grants. No longer do our people have to start queueing from four o’clock in the morning in order to receive their pension at four o’clock in the afternoon. No longer do people have to wait for months for their pension. The processing time in the Northern Cape now is three weeks and the first pension to a person is given by the end of the second month.

We consciously invested in education and skills, so much so that today we can say that the matric pass rate has moved up from around 60% in 1993 to over 90%. The percentage of people that can be considered to be persons without schooling has been reduced by 3,5%. In fact, 3,5% is double the national average.

The economy, which was growing at negative rates prior to 1994, is now growing at 2,5%, with the projection of 2,7% over the next two years. Also, 93% of the people living in the Northern Cape have access to running water, or are at least within 200 m of a tap with running water.

These are indications of how human life in the Northern Cape has been improved. Access to health care has been deepened, facilities are functioning well, the immunisation coverage in the province has reached slightly over 100%. And, as I said earlier on, health care has been taken to the remotest of areas.

Housing programmes operate effectively, so much so that the informal settlements have declined by 37%. The result of all of this is an indication of human development. Infant mortality rates have declined. We now have the second-lowest in South Africa. The incidences of severe malnutrition have dropped from 2,5% to 0,5%. And the life expectancy at birth has risen from 55 years to 59 years, which means, hon Chairperson, that when you come and live in the Northern Cape the chances are that you will live five years longer.

Agb Voorsitter, ter afsluiting wil ek graag sê dat wat ek vandag hier aan u voorgehou het, is aanduiding daarvan dat ons daarin geslaag het om op die ontwikkeling van ons mense te fokus. Ons het ook bewys dat ons die wil het om mense se lewens te verbeter in die Noord-Kaap. Ons het ook aangedui dat ons wel die vermoë het om dit ook te kan doen.

Namens die Premier en sy span wil ek graag hierdie geleentheid gebruik om die mense van die Noord-Kaap te bedank vir die geleentheid wat hulle ons gegun het om hulle te dien. Ons weet ook dat hierdie mandaat wat hulle ons gegee het op 14 April hernieu sal word. Soos ons in die provinsies rondbeweeg, wil ek graag al die lede van hierdie Huis bedank vir die samewerking wat hulle ons gegee het, veral die permanente afgevaardigdes van die Noord-Kaap, vir die manier waarop hulle ons op hoogte gehou het van wat hier aangaan en vir die manier waarop hulle na ons geluister het as ons aangedui het waaroor hulle hier moes kom argumenteer ter bevoordeling van die Noord-Kaap se mense. Ons wil graag vir hulle baie dankie sê en die voorsitters en die Swepe vir dit wat hulle gedoen het. Soos ons rondbeweeg met die aanloop tot die verkiesing, wil ons graag hê almal moet versigtig wees. Moenie haastig wees nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Hon Chairperson, in conclusion I would like to say that that which I have presented to you today is an indication that we have succeeded in focusing on the development of our people. We have also proved that we have the will to improve peoples’ lives in the Northern Cape. We have also indicated that we do, indeed, have the ability to do this as well.

On behalf of the Premier and his team I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of the Northern Cape for the opportunity they gave us to serve them. We also know that this mandate they have given us will be renewed on 14 April. As we move around in the provinces, I would like to thank all the members of this House for the co-operation that we received from them, especially the permanent delegates of the Northern Cape, for the way in which they kept us abreast of what was going on here and for the way in which they listened to us as we indicated what they had to come and argue for here for the benefit of the people of the Northern Cape. We would like to thank them very much, as well as the chairpersons and the Whips for what they have done. As we travel around in the run-up to the election we would like everyone to be careful. Do not rush.]

Arrive Alive! It is better to be ten minutes late in this world than to be ten years too early in the next. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, Northern Cape. May I call upon the MEC for tourism and gambling, Mrs Joyce Witbooi. Welcome back to the NCOP. This is a home where you will also be at home.

Mrs J WITBOOI (Western Cape): Thank you very much.

Voorsitter, agb lede, in 1999 is ek in hierdie Huis ingesweer as lid van die NCOP. Ek sal nooit die waardevolle lesse vergeet wat ek hier geleer het nie. Hier, moet ek vir u reguit sê, het ek onder die besef van die belangrikheid van hierdie Huis gekom; hoe hierdie Huis die skakel tussen alle provinsies en die nasionale Regering is om die sake van belang oor te dra. Vergun my dus om namens die Premier en die uitnemende span in die Wes- Kaap ons groot waardering oor te dra vir wat hier gedoen word.

Die jaar 2004 is inderdaad ‘n mylpaal in die kort, dog indrukwekkende geskiedenis van post-apartheid Suid-Afrika. Nie net vier ons ‘n dekade van konstitusionele demokrasie nie, ons herdenk ook die geskiedkundige keuse wat ons politieke leiers gemaak het, naamlik om die pad van onderhandeling eerder as konflik te kies. Hierdie keuse het die belange van die gewone Suid-Afrikaner bo dié van eng politieke kortsigtigheid geplaas.

Om dié rede moet die visionêre stap wat politieke leiers in die NP en die ANC in Desember 2001 in die Wes-Kaap geneem het, verwelkom word. Die keuse wat gemaak is ten gunste van samewerking en inklusiewe regering ten bate van alle gemeenskappe, is kennend van ‘n provinsiale regering wat daardie belangrike breuk met die verlede gemaak het, en bereid is om die uitdagings van die nuwe Suid-Afrika saam aan te pak. Ons kan nou weliswaar ons nageslag in die oë kyk, en hoe lekker is daardie wete nie vandag nie. Ons kan nou weliswaar ons nageslag in die oë kyk en met reg sê dat ons die fondamente lê vir hulle beter toekoms. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.) [Chairperson, hon members, in 1999 I was sworn in in this House as a member of the NCOP. I will never forget the valuable lessons I learned here. Here, I must tell you, I became aware of the importance of this House; how this House is the link between all provinces and the national Government to convey matters of importance. Allow me therefore, on behalf of the Premier and the excellent team in the Western Cape, to convey our sincere appreciation for what is being done here.

The year 2004 is indeed a milestone in the brief, yet impressive, history of postapartheid South Africa. Not only do we celebrate a decade of constitutional democracy, we are also commemorating the historic choices made by our political leaders, namely to choose the road of negotiation rather than conflict. This choice placed the interests of the ordinary South African above those of narrow-minded political shortsightedness.

For this reason we must welcome the visionary step taken by the political leaders of the NNP and the ANC in December 2001 in the Western Cape. The choice that was made in favour of co-operation and inclusive government for the benefit of all communities is characteristic of a provincial government that made that important break with the past, and that is prepared to deal with the challenges of the new South Africa together. Now we can really look our descendants in the eye, and how wonderful that knowledge is today. Now we can really look our descendants in the eye and honestly say that we are laying the foundations for a brighter future for them.]

In his opening of parliament speech in 2003, Premier Marthinus van Schalkwyk identified five pillars as strategic policy imperatives for the Western Cape provincial government, namely, the battle against HIV/Aids and other health challenges, real economic growth and job creation, excellence in education, safety and security for our people and our environment and, lastly, fighting poverty through quality basic services and social delivery.

He also identified ``iKapa elihlumayo’’ [a growing Cape] as the best policy vehicle to achieve our goal of building a world-class province that cares for all its people. We face a tremendous challenge to stem the tide of HIV/Aids in the province. It is, however, a challenge that we have accepted and which we are confident we will overcome.

Indeed, this province has pioneered the administering of antiretroviral medication to fight the scourge that ravages our communities. The commitment with which we are tackling HIV/Aids in the province is best illustrated by the fact that when the announcement was made on 19 November 2003 by the national Cabinet that it had approved the comprehensive national treatment plan, the Western Cape stood ready. By World Aids Day on 1 December 2003, we were able to announce that instead of the six treatment sites recommended by the plan for the Western Cape, we would have 15 in operation by the end of the financial year.

Thirteen of these sites are already in operation, and Premier Van Schalkwyk recently announced three new treatment sites in Mitchells Plain, Beaufort West and the Hottentot’s Holland Hospital in Somerset West that will boost our fight against Aids. This raises the number of treatment sites in our province to 16.

Die Wes-Kaap beskik oor ‘n ekonomie onder andere gebou op sterk landbou- en toerisme sektore. Met meer as ‘n miljoen toeriste wat die Wes-Kaap verlede jaar besoek het, is ons doelwit om 3 miljoen toeriste teen 2010 na die Wes- Kaap te lok glad nie meer so vergesog nie. Die opening van die Kaapstadse Internasionale Konferensiesentrum in Julie verlede jaar het ook verdere stukrag aan die Wes-Kaap as ‘n wêreldklas sake- en konferensiebestemming gegee.

Dat hierdie siening inderdaad deur ons internasionale besoekers gedeel word, kan gesien word aan die talle internasionale akkolades wat aan die Wes-Kaap toegeken word. Dit sluit onder andere die feit in dat Kaapstad nommer vyf is op die lys van die BBC se lys van vyftig plekke om te sien voordat jy sterf. Dit is ook deur die World Travel Awards en die Condé Nast Global Awards as die beste stad in Afrika aangewys.

Uit gesprekke met sakelui, binne en buite ons provinsie, is dit duidelik dat daar twee essensiële komponente is wat teenwoordig moet wees alvorens ekonomiese groei en investering ‘n realiteit word. In die eerste plek is dit stabiliteit … [Tyd verstreke.] [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[The Western Cape has an economy which is, inter alia, built on strong agricultural and tourism sectors. With more than a million tourists visiting the Western Cape last year, our target of attracting 3 million tourists to the Western Cape by 2010 is not so far-fetched any more. The opening of the Cape Town International Conference Centre in July last year added further impetus to the Western Cape as world class business and conference destination.

That this view is indeed shared by our international visitors can be seen in the countless international accolades awarded to the Western Cape. This includes amongst others the fact that Cape Town is number five on the BBC’s list of fifty places to see before you die. It has also been nominated best city in Africa by the World Travel Awards and the Condé Nast Global Awards.

From conversations with businesspeople, inside and outside the province, it is clear that there are two essential components that have to be present before economic growth and investment become a reality. In the first place it is stability … [Time expired.] [Applause.]]

Ms C NKUNA: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Premiers, hon MECs, Speakers, special delegates, and colleagues, ``na mikhentsa’’ [I thank you.]

This is the last session of the second democratic Parliament that came about as a result of 400 years of unbroken resistance by our masses, and for the last nine decades the struggle has been led and guided by the ANC.

In 1994 our people made a vow not to go back to apartheid and colonialism where the Parliament and the executive were not transparent. Maybe as we are busy deliberating right now the whole nation, or the whole community, is watching and listening attentively to the television. In the next few weeks our people will go to the polls to affirm again their commitment to a democratic and transparent Parliament.

My focus will be on the oversight role that the NCOP is exercising and has exercised for the past five years, and the impact it has in improving the lives of the ordinary citizens of our country.

What oversight function is exercised by the NCOP? Looking at the Constitution, there are areas provided for where the NCOP has to exercise its oversight, areas where the NA has to exercise its oversight and areas where the two Houses both have to exercise oversight. The oversight function of this House is of crucial importance in monitoring and reviewing actions of the executive organs of Government. It is not only about being critical when performing the oversight function, but it is also about remedying the defects, like what the committee has been doing when making an intervention. The NCOP has to exercise oversight over the national aspects of the provincial and local government. This House is bound by the Constitution to provide a linkage between provinces and the national Government, and ensuring that there is co-operative and effective governance - as provided for by Chapter 3 of the Constitution.

Section 100(2) of the Constitution provides for the national Government’s intervention where the provincial government is unable to fulfil its constitutional mandate, and that such notice of the intervention must be tabled in the NCOP within 14 days of its first sitting after the intervention began. Over the past five years we have not had a situation where the national Government was forced to intervene drastically in the running of the provinces; which indicates the capacity of our leadership deployed in those areas.

Section 139(2)(b) provides for the provincial government’s intervention in a municipality. The same applies where the local councillors are unable to adhere to their constitutional mandate.

The NCOP plays an oversight role over international agreements that the Government enters into with multilateral institutions and organisations. We have ratified conventions and so on, except those conventions of an administrative or critical nature which rest with the executive.

It is the NCOP that has the capacity to take pieces of legislation to the people for them to make an input during the NCOP cycle, and by taking Parliament to the people. The NCOP has to exercise an oversight function over some sections or pieces of legislation, for instance, section 74 legislation, which deals with constitutional amendments; regarding section 75 legislation, the compentency lies with the national Government, and section 76 legislation awards concurrent powers to the national Government and provinces. We also have section 77 Bills which deal with the division of revenue. They are at times referred to as money Bills. The NCOP provides an oversight function in their medium-term expenditure framework process, ensuring that the taxpayers’ money is spent properly. It provides oversight for these Bills for three years or more.

I would like to thank all members in this House for the intellectual engagements we have had over the last five years. It was enriching and I would like to proudly say that I have grown. I am a grown person intellectually. Thanks. [Applause.]

Mr J O TLHAGALE: Hon Chair, hon Minister, hon Premiers, special delegates and the House, today is a memorable day in which we are offered an opportunity to look back with admiration or disappointment at the road we have travelled over the past five years. From my own perspective, the NCOP has enriched and broadened my horizon in respect of government issues.

The NCOP is the second House of Parliament, but it is not the Senate, which it was known as. It is unique and unlike any Senate. Although certain of its functions are similar, it differs from the Senate by virtue of the intermediary role and functions that it performs between the national Parliament, the provincial legislatures, and at local government level.

One other interesting aspect of the House is its links with the provinces. This is seen when members of the House have to do briefings on section 76 Bills in the provinces or where certain teams intervene in instances where municipalities are encountering financial problems.

Another very interesting aspect of the functioning of the House is the holding of public hearings at provincial level. This is consultation and participation of the constituencies at grass-roots level in the law-making process. To me, and to us all, this is what democracy is all about and it is unequalled.

Sengwe sa dilo tse di itumedisang mo Ntlong e, ke lerato le botsalano jo bo renang magareng ga maloko. Re ne re farologana ka megopolo, re ganetsana mme e se ka kilo kgotsa bobaba, mme sengwe sa dilo tse di dirang gore go nne jalo ke boeteledipele jo bo tlhamaletseng le jo bo sa gobeleleng jo re nang le jona mo Ntlong e. Re tla tsena mo pakeng e e latelang morago ga ditlhopho re nonofile e bile re na le maitemogelo. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)

[One of the things that are appeasing in this House is the love and friendship that there is amongst the members. We have different opinions and we agued, not because of hatred or enmity, and it is one thing that flows from the kind of honest leadership, which is not imposing, that we have in this House. We will enter the next season after the elections with vigour and with more experience. [Applause.]]

Mr K D S DURR: Chairman, I remember when I came to this House five years ago there was much scepticism, I have to say, about the role of this House, about how it functioned, about its complex mandate, about the very nature of the House and about the very future of the House. People were asking whether it would survive. That kind of talk one heard in the corridors.

The role of this House is a complex one. It is one of review and oversight. The House also has a legislative and presentational role, with diverse constituency duties, diverse demands, diverse skills and talents required from its members. There was much doom and gloom about, and the verdict was out on this Place. But as we have worked over the years, as we have sought to fulfil our duty and our mandate, I have heard less and less of this.

As a matter of fact, now I hear people talking of expanding the House and that it is too small. I have to say that I agree with that. I think the demands on 54 members of dealing with an oversight role with what 400 members in the Other Place are producing is simply an impossibility. I think it is remarkable how we have improved legislation and its volume, and how we have done this has been wonderful. But, I think that it is unsustainable and that we should have more members in this Place. May I say that it is my view if we do that or when we do that, that we look again at the name of the House. We should consider renaming this House “The Senate of the Provinces”. I say that because it would make us more understandable constitutionally, around the world, in our own country and in the parliamentary tradition.

Chairman, I also have to thank you and your assistants and also the capable and distinguished Chairperson that we have had, Mrs Pandor. If we have had successes, it was through her ability to vocalise our needs, our strengths and so on, often stepping on toes - often our own toes, I have to say. But she has done so with courage, great ability, great authority and gravitas. She has given status to this House and she has vocalised our aspirations, our needs, our problems and our self-criticism and done so extremely well. [Applause.]

I can think of some improvements as a member of the smallest party in this House. I think proportionality could be less strictly applied when it comes to speaking time, but I am sure that might fall on deaf ears. [Laughter.]

I think that we could spend more time in the provinces. I do not mean that in terms of provincial weeks as we have now, but actually physically sitting and participating in our legislatures ourselves with our colleagues, building a greater sense of collegiality in those Houses so that we pick up more of the aspirations and the vibes of those Houses.

We have done, by a process of debate, questions and answers, oral and written; motions; hearings; discussions; our committees; joint hearings; joint sittings; mediation procedures; and interventions. We have done so very much. Then, of course, we have had vital interaction with our constituencies and our constituency offices.

I’d like to say, finally, that I have seen all my colleagues here grow in the past five years. I have seen you all grow. I have seen you all grow in stature. I have seen you all grow in ability, and I have had the privilege of also enjoying the collegiality of all our colleagues here. I thank you. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you. That concludes the debate. [Interjections.] Ngiyabonga. [Thank you very much.] I call upon the hon Chairperson of the NCOP, Mrs Pandor.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Ngiyabonga Sihlalo. Bese ngimangele ukuthi kazi ngikwenzeni. [Thank you, Chairperson. I was just wondering what I have done to you.]

Hon members, I thank all those who have participated in the debate on this report. We thought it important that we have a report, whatever its imperfections. I agree with the hon Lever that it does not go as far as perhaps it should in terms of the review and analysis that are necessary. But, I believe, the practice of debating a report of that nature, and really reflecting on what form of modification or improvement we may wish to make to the institution, is an important exercise and record, which we leave to the next Parliament.

Members have referred to the role of the National Council of Provinces and to the various features of our work over the past five years, and I will not repeat these. I believe, however, that we should table, as this opportunity gives us, a set of issues for future review and consideration, and I proceed to do so. This is in line with the views that have been expressed that we require a much more fundamental analysis of our practice as well as the structure and function of Parliament, the National Council of Provinces in particular, for ourselves, and, I believe, the other House as well, as well as all institutions of governance in our country.

We have had eight years of our Constitution and 10 years of the current model of governance in our country. This record, while it would not presume the need for fundamental change, does in a timeframe present us with the opportunity to reflect on changes or improvements that we may wish to make to the structure of governance.

A systematic analysis of governance is a project that, I believe, the next House should certainly undertake. We would need to ask that institution to examine, for example, the form of devolution of powers and a greater clarity with respect to the definition of national norm and standard.

Members would recall we all say that in terms of concurrent powers, the national norm and standard is elaborated at the national level and yet actual implementation could be set out in the form of regulation or legislation at the provincial level. It is never clear how the test is done of the associated link between the provincial roll-out and that national norm and standard. Therefore, there is a need for us to examine more closely this aspect.

Also important, given the size of legislatures, is that we develop an understanding and perhaps a model of a differentiated devolution. Some legislatures are fairly large and able to cope with a large number of powers assigned to them. Others are rather small and may find it difficult to cope with the full ambit of powers, as assigned through the Constitution. Therefore there may be a need to look at whether there shouldn’t be differentiation.

I think, in reviewing our practice in history at this time, we would find that administrative ability has proven to be quite firmly tied to the ability to act on policy. Given this link then, it is important that we consider carefully how we could recraft the structure of governance to ensure action on policy and improvement in the lives of all the people of our country.

The time may also have come to examine whether the provincial legislatures should be political institutions shaped in the same way as Parliament or as institutions, rather, established to ensure that the programmes of social and economic development are implemented. The question has to be asked: Should these structures be the same, or should they have a different connotation both in form and function? I think such a shift would certainly assist in avoiding the possible disruption in progress that is often implied by, for example, two-term Premiers and so on.

At the moment, because we have constructed the legislatures in a similar guise to Parliament, we have similar provisions in the Constitution with respect to these institutions. Is it really appropriate that Premiers who, primarily, would be administering implementation and roll-out of policy, have two-term limits in the same way that the President at a national level has such limits? We seem to be connoting the two as the same rather than distinguishing the different roles that they play. These are aspects that the next lot should examine.

I believe such a review would clearly have implications for a National Council of Provinces. It would certainly ensure greater attention to determining what we have called “the provincial interest” in our Constitution. Also, it would certainly require, in my view, a strengthening of an institution of this nature to provide for more members who would then do the increased oversight work that would be the outcome of any change in the terms I have suggested.

The National Council of Provinces has shown that it is able to respond to new demands. I believe that a reshaping of the institution in the guise referred to earlier would certainly allow it to continue to show this responsiveness. It has shown that it can be innovative, that it is able to work well with all spheres of government. We are able to work well with local government, as was illustrated in the debates that we had earlier today, in the committee work that led to some of the reports and legislation that we have debated today.

We have also been innovative in programmes such as our initiative to take Parliament to the people. I think it is important to indicate that all these innovations do not come from one individual; they are part of this collective of members of the National Council of Provinces. The ideas come from the expression of concerns by members about whether public participation is at a sufficient level to allow us to really understand the impact of our policy and practice on the people of our country. So, I really would urge us to avoid the notion that it is this individual and not the collective that gives rise to these innovations. I believe all of us are responsible and have been party to the forms of decisions and actions that we have taken.

Our members, who are permanent delegates, have in their manner of working given provinces and local government a voice. I am aware that many of our permanent delegates do spend a great deal of time in their provincial legislatures even, I am told by members of the North West province, the Chief Whip. So, although we may regard the Chief Whip as somewhat of an expert on matters of justice and safety and security, I am told by members of the legislature that he has a very deep understanding of tourism and environmental affairs in the manner that these are communicated in committee hearings at the provincial legislature level.

So we have developed an expertise that certainly is reflected in our interaction with provincial legislatures. I believe that any review and reshaping of institutions of governance would have to ensure that this interaction between national, provincial and local spheres of government is maintained. It is absolutely vital that we have that kind of interaction and co-operation.

I would like, in conclusion, to congratulate the hon members on the hard work that they have done over the years. The report that we have before us provides an accurate record of the nature of the work. Hundreds of Bills have been passed by this House, fully considered, fully deliberated upon and amended in a wise fashion a great deal of the time, as has been said by the Chief Whip. I think we have also ensured that we pursue public participation.

We have also grown in the way in which we work more efficiently with the National Assembly. I recall in the years before 1999 that we often found it difficult to work in a partnered fashion with the committees of the Other House, but certainly there has been a great deal of improvement in this period of five years. I believe that this is something we should all welcome. I believe we have also done rather better at focusing on provinces and the provincial interest. We have provided empowerment and support to members. Through the Parliamentary Support Programme and other initiatives, we have been able to ensure that members become better at the work that they have to do.

I sincerely thank, in particular, all provincial office bearers for the co- operation that they have shown in our work over the past five years. I believe that if we carry out a deep analysis of our system of governance, South Africa will be poised to build a democratic set of institutions that will indeed advance a better life for all in South Africa. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Thank you, Chairperson. Now the debate has been concluded. I shall now put the question. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. It seems as if they are all present.

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces the opportunity to make their declarations of vote if they so wish. There is none. We shall now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. The delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of or against or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms P C P MAJODINA: Sihlalo, iMpuma Koloni iyayisekela ngokupheleleyo. [Chairperson, the Eastern Cape supports it fully.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Free State?

The PREMIER OF THE FREE STATE (Ms I W Direko): We support the report.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Gauteng?

Mr M SELOANE (Gauteng): We support.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Sithi elethu. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Limpopo?

Mr M I MAKOELA: Re a seketela. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Ke a rona. [Supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Northern Cape?

Mr G H AKHARWARAY (Northern Cape): We support it.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI: Ke a rona. [Supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Western Cape?

Mr C ACKERMANN: Voorsitter, ons steun. [Chairperson, we support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: All nine provinces voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Report accordingly adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Hon members, since this is the last sitting of the National Council of Provinces during the term of this Parliament, there will be now an opportunity for members to deliver farewell speeches.

                          FAREWELL SPEECHES

Mr C ACKERMANN: Voorsitter, agb lede, agb premiers, en ander belangrike gaste wat hier is, … [Chairperson, hon members, hon Premiers and other important guests here …]

… on behalf of the NNP, I want to thank the administration of the NCOP, the Table staff, the floor staff, Hansard, the technical staff, the media, the SA Police Service, the Presiding Officers, committee chairpersons and everybody involved in the functioning of this Council, for the efficiency and dedication shown in the past five years. From our side, the NNP, two members are retiring from the NCOP, namely Dr Phillip Nel and I.

Dr Nel has already said his farewell in this Council and in his committee. All I can add is that his contribution over the past five years will not be easily matched. We honour him for that and we wish him well for the future. God bless you. [Applause.]

My loopbaan in die politiek het in Maart 1973 begin. Ek is 31 jaar in die politiek. Van die 31 jaar in die politiek was ek 10 jaar lank lid van hierdie agbare Raad. Om na 10 jaar afskeid te neem, is nie maklik nie. Om na 31 jaar afskeid te neem, is nog baie moeiliker. My gedagtes gaan onwillekeurig terug na vroeg Mei 1994 toe die destydse Senaat bymekaar gekom het. Almal was vreemd vir mekaar en het mekaar met agterdog bejeën. Almal het die vraag gestel: sal hierdie Raad demokrasie oorleef?

Vandag het ons ons rol gevestig, danksy die harde werk van ons gewaardeerde kollegas. Daar is nog net vyf agb lede oor wat vanaf die begin in hierdie Hoërhuis was. Hulle was naamlik: die agb lid Van Niekerk, die agb lid Surty, die agb lid Sulliman, die agb lid Lubidla en ek. Ons is bevoorreg om 10 jaar van demokrasie te kon beleef in hierdie belangrike Raad.

Ek wil vandag hulde bring aan wyle Kobie Coetzee en Govan Mbeki, asook dr Motsuenyane, Alec van Breda, Attie Jooste, Bulelani Ngcuka, dr Org Marais, Lawrence Mushwana en ander gewaardeerde kollegas wat die Senaat met onderskeiding gedien het. Die Senaat, vanaf 1994 tot 1996, was ‘n groot sukses danksy bogenoemde kollegas en ander se harde werk. Ek was bevoorreg om deel te wees van die onderhandelinge met die totstandkoming van die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies. Dit sal my altyd in my lewe bybly.

Daarom wil ek vandag ook hulde bring aan Pravin Gordhan, Bulelani Ngcuka, Johnny de Lange en ander met wie ek ten nouste saamgewerk en onderhandel het om die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies tot stand te bring. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[My career in politics started in March 1973. I have been in politics for 31 years. Of those 31 years in politics I was a member of this honourable Council for 10 years. To take one’s leave after 10 years is not easy. To take one’s leave after 31 years is even more difficult. The thoughts that involuntarily come to mind are those of early in May 1994 when the former Senate met. Everyone was a stranger and regarded one another with suspiciom. Everyone asked the question: Will this House survive democracy?

Today we have established our role, thanks to the hard work of our valued colleagues. There are only five members left who had been in the Upper House from the beginning. They were in fact hon member Van Niekerk, hon member Surty, hon member Sulliman, hon member Lubidla and me. We are privileged to have been able to experience 10 years of democracy in this important Council.

I want to pay tribute today to the late Kobie Coetzee and Govan Mbeki, as well as Dr Motsuenyane, Alec van Breda, Attie Josste, Bulelani Ngcuka, Dr Org Marais, Lawrence Mushwana and other valued colleagues who served the Senate with distinction. The Senate, from 1994 to 1996, was a great success thanks to the hard work of the aforementioned colleagues and others. I was privileged to be part of the negotiations concerning the establishment of the National Council of Provinces. This I shall remember for the rest of my life. It is for that reason that today I also want to pay tribute to Pravin Gordhan, Bulelani Ngcuka, Johnny de Lange and others with whom I worked and negotiated closely to establish the National Council of Provinces.]

Chairperson, the necessity of the second Chamber in a parliamentary democracy cannot be underestimated. In fact, the second Chamber is vital for good legislation, oversight and accountability. It also broadens the scope of democracy in our country, and in any other country.

I want to pay tribute to Mr Lekota for his contribution as the previous Chairperson of the NCOP. However, the hon Pandor was the cherry on top. She was formidable. I have only the highest regard for her leadership and dedication.

I also want to pay tribute to my Chief Whip, Mr Van Niekerk, and especially to the Chief Whip of the Council, Mr Surty, for their hard work. The hon Surty deserves everyone’s respect.

Ek verlaat u met ‘n glimlag om die mond. Die Nasionale Raad van Provinsies het my wildste drome oortref. Mag dit nou net verder van krag tot krag gaan. [I leave you with a smile on my face. The National Council of Provinces exceeded my wildest dreams. May it in future just go from strength to strength.]

God bless you all. I will miss you. I will miss your friendship. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr L G LEVER: Chairperson, to borrow the words of an hon colleague in one of the earlier debates: “All of us have come a long road together in the past five years. And a time has come when we greet each other and say farewell, and acknowledge the roles that we played in each other’s personal growth, and the contributions we have made to this House.”

I think the key issue that needs to be highlighted in this House is that we have a different ethos and a different atmosphere from the Other House. I think we still represent the views of our different political parties, the perspectives of our different provinces, without having to resort to some of the conduct that takes place in the Other House.

I value this aspect of the House and I have the greatest admiration for all of my colleagues here, many of whom will be retiring out of choice - and I’m one of them - and many of whom will be allocated to different areas by their respective parties, and many of whom will, in the democratic process, not be coming back. But nevertheless, personally, I will remember each and every one of you, and I thank you for the interaction we had during this trying period. I believe I say that on behalf of all of my colleagues in the DA. It only remains to thank each and every one of you for your contribution in this regard. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, we meet to part, and part to meet. On behalf of KwaZulu-Natal delegates, we wish a happy campaign and every success to all of us, so that we meet again as a family in this House. It is indeed a wonderful House, as my colleagues have expatiated.

Those who may not return, for one reason or another, we wish you all the best in your new sphere of activity. Sinifisela ukusebenza okuhle. Nivote kahle. [Good luck with the elections.] Have a safe journey home, ndlelanhle, hambani kahle. [Go well.]

Elections or no elections, do not worry, there is life after elections. Mphathisihlalo ohloniphekile, ngiyabonga kakhulu. [Hon Chairperson, I thank you, very much.]

Mr R M NYAKANE: Thank you, Chair. I would like to take this opportunity to say thanks a lot. I don’t want to repeat what other people have said, especially with reference to our Chairperson. A lot has been said about her. I think what has been said about her carries a lot of weight. However, I would like to thank, from the UDM’s point of view, committees, oversight teams, as well as this House, for having accommodated us. We are a small party, with no experience, but you managed to accommodate our political aspirations.

I know that personally I have a problem with ANC friends. [Laughter.] They always torture me and so on, but I would like to say thanks because I survived up to this particular stage. [Laughter.] I just hope that even my leadership is going to consider my loyalty. I contributed on behalf of the party towards this House.

On a serious note, I must say thanks a lot, really. We were trying to make big plans within the ANC, especially at committee level. But what I have observed is that we were accommodated. Eventually I felt very much at home with the ANC, to my surprise, I must say. However, I must assure my colleagues that I won’t join them, because it is very important that we have opposition. [Laughter.]

We cannot all think alike. This is very important, in the interest of democracy. We will have to differ, but not to differ so as not to, perhaps, come together at the end of the day. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the four permanent delegates from Limpopo: Prof Makoela, Kgoshi Mokoena, Puleng Mashangoane and Connie. I would like to thank them very much, because I was the only guy in that team. Whenever we went out for oversight activities, I was accommodated a lot. We never had party- political differences whenever we were out there in the community.

Most of the time I was out there I posed as a member of the ANC, for the sake of respect from the community. [Laughter.] Definitely, on a serious note once more, I want to say thanks very much. I have gathered a lot of experience in this House and, of course, from committees. I’m not going to drop you. Because I have realised that the party listing process has been unfair to some of us, including me. But, given the experience that I have accumulated from this particular House, I’m going to continue with my commitment to work for my people, particularly considering that the poorest of the poor still have problems on the ground.

If I don’t come back, I’m not going to throw in the towel. I’m going to continue working to serve my people, irrespective of party-political issues. Once more, thank you very much. [Applause.]

Rre J O TLHAGALE: Motlotlegi Modulasetilo, motlotlegi Tona, batlotlegi Ditonakgolo tse di fano, le Ntlo e e tlotlegang, ke boitumelo jo bogolo mo go nna go tlhagisetsa badirammogo le ditsala dikeleletsomasego mo letsatsi leno la go laelana. Re ne re tlwaelane, re dira mmogo mme go laelana ga rona le fa e le ga lebakanyana le lekhutshwanyana, go re tlisetsa mahutsana ka gonne re ne re ratana.

Re ya go ipaakanyetsa ditlhopho ka letlha leo motlotlegimogolo Moporesidente a le tlhomamisitseng. Le rona ba UCDP re ipaakantse jaaka makoko a mangwe go tsaya karolo mo ditlhophong tse. Re ikemiseditse go dira ka kutlwano le makoko a mangwe le go tshegetsa melao e e beilweng ya ditlhopho. Ka mafoko a ke eleletsa Ntlo eno masego. Ke eleletsa baeteledipele e leng bodulasetilo, Mme Pandor le motlotlegi Rre Surty masego mo nakong e e tlang go fitlhelela re boa re kopana gape. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana speech follows.)

[Mr O J TLHAGALE: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Premiers present, and the august House, it is with great joy that I wish my colleagues and friends all the best today, a day on which we are saying goodbye to each other. We were used to each other, working together and even if our parting of ways will be for a short time, it brings us sadness, because we love each other.

We are going to prepare ourselves for the elections on a day that the hon the President has confirmed. Even we from the UCDP are ready, like other political parties, to take part in these elections. We are prepared to work harmoniously with other political parties and to uphold the laws relevant to elections. With these words, I give my best wishes to this House. I also wish our leaders who have been in the chair, Mrs Pandor and the hon Mr Surty, all the best until we meet again. [Applause.]] Mr K D S DURR: Madam Chair, I just want to say, particularly to those of you who are going out, that we wish you Godspeed and all the very best. I don’t say farewell, but au revoir, because it is my declared intention to come back. I have to make an apology today. I want to apologise in advance to all those members who are going to be displaced by the ACDP members who are going to come here after the election. [Laughter.]

May I just say thank you for the collegiality and for the friendship. On behalf of the ACDP, to all who’ve worked with me and with us, who served us in this Parliament in whatever capacity, we appreciate every service and every kindness. We appreciate all those people who work unseen, such as Hansard and so on. We really do appreciate them. In particular, I want to thank the Chair - our distinguished Chair, may I say - and our distinguished Chief Whip and the other distinguished Whips who have worked with us for all their consideration towards us.

I believe that we have enriched one another’s lives. I’d like to think that we’ve enriched the life of this nation. Whatever the future may hold and wherever the future may take you, may God hold you in the palm of His hand and may you feel the wind at your back until we meet again. I thank you. [Applause.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE NCOP: Thank you, Chairperson. It seemed as if, since the time we worked together, arguing very vigorously for freedom of expression in the Constitution, we were destined to work together at some future time, and I believe that this partnership that we’ve had as Chief Whip of this House and as presiding officer was certainly beneficial, not only to ourselves, but to the institution as a whole. I’d like to thank you, Chairperson, for the creative, innovative, resolute way in which you’ve managed the affairs of this House. Obviously, we all noted your eloquence and your articulate ability in terms of dealing with issues.

The Constitution has brought many people together, as Mr Ackermann has quite correctly pointed out. Mr Mahlangu, who is sitting there, was also part of the team. I remember the very interesting times when we sat in the secretariat, debating many great issues. I would also like to acknowledge his role as Deputy Chairperson on behalf of all the members of the National Council of Provinces. In a very short space of time he was able to adapt to this new environment, dedicate himself to the task at hand and make himself extremely accessible and popular. Our thanks to you for that.

Certainly, my task would not be complete and as efficient as it should be if I did not have the support of the Whips. To the programming Whip, Mr Sulliman, thank you for your assistance in terms of the technical arrangements. I always subjected you to the onslaught at programming committee meetings although the decisions were mine, but thank you very much for standing by me.

Thank you, all the Whips; each one of the provincial Whips from the ANC as well as the Whips from the other political parties. I must say, as Chief Whip, many a time it was easier to conduct a multiparty Whips’ meeting than to conduct a meeting of the ANC Whips. [Laughter.] So I certainly believe we accommodated each other wonderfully well.

The Chairperson of Committees, Joyce Kgoali, has been extraordinary in a short space of time. You’ve done extremely well. Thank you very much on behalf of all the members. The chairpersons of the various select committees have been just great. If you’ve always risen to the occasion, thank you very much for that.

The Table staff … What can I say about you? Jodi-Anne, Benny and everybody else, you’ve just been extraordinary and part of the family. The difficulty of saying farewell in a small institution such as this is that you develop such close relationships. It’s extremely difficult to say goodbye. If I look at our Premier from the Free State, I can only think of the fond memories that we shared when she was in this institution, in the Senate and in the NCOP, and how she taught me how and wherever I would be able to assist her in certain areas. But I think those are the foundations of very, very good relationships and they’ve contributed to the development of our democracy.

The Secretary to Parliament, the Secretary to the NCOP, the media, Hansard, the translators, the liaison officers, other staff, Elmarie van der Horst sitting up there, you’ve all contributed to this. It’s extremely difficult to say goodbye.

I think we should also remember some of our colleagues who have left us, for example Comrade Senorita Ntlabati, the former Chairperson of Committees, who had contributed so meaningfully in such a distinguished way to this House here, Willem Booi, who’d persistently raised the issues of persons with disabilities and did so very ably. Then we also had Commandant, our very popular staff member who would tell me: “Chief, I direct: This is where I’m going to be working and this is what you have to do,” and I said, “So it is said, and so it shall be done”. But we miss them all.

We cannot say farewell without saying farewell to our Premiers, to our representatives, our MECs, our Speakers and everybody else from the provinces. Whilst we are a small family here, we also have an extended family, and our extended family is in the provinces as well as in local government. Our institution would not have been successful had it not been for the support that we’ve received from them.

I do believe that I’ve committed myself to this institution for the past five years to the best of my ability. I would like to ask forgiveness from those members to whom I might have been unfair. I tried to be as accommodating as possible and promote the multiparty democracy that we have. I would also like to recognise the contribution, as you’ve correctly indicated, of the National Assembly, in terms of making the task of this House a successful one.

All this would not have been possible had I not had the support of my family. I think I’ve deprived them of a lot in terms of what I do and the time I have to spend over here. I think my wife and my three daughters have been extremely understanding and supportive in terms of assisting this House.

To the ANC - I cannot belong anywhere else - I say thank you very, very much. You know how to vote and you know what to do when you go out of here. [Interjections.] Let’s hope we have a very successful election, and farewell to my friends.

As I round up, may I just say to Neels Ackermann - I’ve had a 10-year association with him - I remember the very vigorous and rigorous debates that we’ve had out here. I was instructed by the ANC to mark three people: Alec van Breda, Adriaan van Niekerk and Neels Ackermann. I was a sweeper for the ANC - you would remember that, ma Winkie - and my job was really to cut them down to size. He’s become much more timid. The position is much more nuanced, and I think it’s the character of this House that has contributed to that. So, whilst you don’t have the ideological debates, you have debates about real issues as they affect people on the ground. Perhaps that is the characteristic of this House, this cohesiveness, this unity, that we should take with us. So thank you to you as well.

Dr Nel, your sense of humour will be missed. Thank you very, very much, not only for your contribution in this House, but also for your caring nature outside the House in terms of the issues that affect members. We really appreciate that.

Lawrence Lever from the North West, you’ve been wonderful. All the best to you. Nyakane, I do hope you come back. This is your political home, the ANC. [Interjections.] Come back here and be part of us. [Interjections.] Come back here and be part of us. [Interjections.] It’s understood!

Piet Matthee, thank you for your contribution. Everybody else - I can’t actually single out anybody - everybody has done a wonderful job. Thank you very, very much and farewell. Have a good journey back home, but work hard, because this is an important election ahead of us. We’ve got to come back, not with a two-thirds majority, but with a 70%-plus majority. Thank you very much. OK, bye-bye! [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Thank you, hon members.

Nna ke itumelela gore ga gona ngongorego epe eo nka buang ka ga yona gompieno. Re ntse re dirisana mmogo, re dira sentle re le Ntlo e. Ke eletsa gore Ntlo e e latelang le yona e tla dira jaaka re dirile. Moeteledipelemogolo wa Maloko o bua sentle fa a re go thata go tlhopha yo le yo, ka gonne rotlhe re ntse fa, re ntse re dirisana mmogo, re dira sentle. Ke le leboga lotlhe.

Mme go tshwanetse gore motho a tlhophe ka gonne o tshwanetse gore o bitse yo le yo o bue ka ga ene. Fa o sa dire jalo o tlabo o sa dire sentle. Le tla intshwarela foo. (Translation of Setswana paragraphs follows.)

[I am happy because there is no complaint that I can talk about today. We have been working together harmoniously as this House. My wish is that the next House will also work like we have worked. The Chief Whip is right when he says that it is difficult to call people by name, because all of us sitting here have worked together harmoniously. I thank you all.

However, it is proper that one should call some by name when one is speaking about them. You would not be doing the right thing if you did not do that. You will bear with me there.]

I think it is important always to remember and accept that parting is indeed sweet sorrow. It must come. It is sometimes painful. At other times it can be a happy moment, and I believe while we do indeed express some sadness at the fact that we may lose touch with one another, we also, in the context of sweet sorrow, expect happiness in that we part with a view, which I believe is accurate, that this has been a job rather well done, that we have made our best attempt at it. [Applause.]

I believe that if we were to review the contributions that we have made to many of the debates that we have had in this House, if we were to review the questions that have been posed by members, if we were to review the interaction members have had with legislation in their committees, we would say, indeed, it is a job that has been well done. This week has been interesting in that, despite the large volume of work members have had to cope with, we have had a number of important debates and discussions in the House, again exemplifying this commitment to hard work.

I would like to begin by thanking those whom we have worked closest with and they are the permanent delegates of the National Council of Provinces. The 54 members have been an incredible team of 54, showing a great deal of detailed attention to their work; an interest in ensuring that the National Council of Provinces functions efficiently and has its place in Parliament and in the overall constitutional design of our system of governance in South Africa.

They would not have been able to be successful, were it not for the support of the members of the provincial legislatures who attended proceedings as special delegates to this House. Nor would we have been successful if it were not for the participation of members of local government representing organised local government, Salga. Members of Parliament, members of the provincial legislatures and representatives of Salga make up the whole that is the National Council of Provinces, and that whole has worked collectively in co-operation, and has worked well.

I also must acknowledge all the Premiers of the nine provinces, who have been so amazing in ensuring that they do respond to our calls to participate in the National Council of Provinces. I also thank my colleagues, the presiding officers of the legislatures, for ensuring that the business that the House transmits to the legislatures is indeed dealt with in an orderly and considered fashion, and that the legislatures are able to respond timeously to mandate provision, to ensure committee attendance and other areas of participation that rely on decision by provincial office bearers. I also must thank office bearers who head the National Council of Provinces’ business committees, as they are called in the provincial legislatures. I have had occasion in the first part of the five years to seek to visit the various provincial legislatures to try and develop a closer working relationship. The nature of our work is proven by the fact that I could only visit four out of the nine provincial legislatures and many remain unvisited up to this day.

But in the contact that I had had with the four and with the members of the NCOP business committees, I was impressed by the seriousness with which matters emanating from national Parliament were dealt with at the provincial legislature level, and therefore the role and contribution of provincial legislatures in national policy deliberation were taken extremely seriously and I always appreciated that work and support.

I must also thank office bearers whom I’ve worked most closely with in the National Council of Provinces, in the National Assembly as well. In the National Council of Provinces I, of course, would begin by thanking my colleague the Deputy Chairperson, the hon Mahlangu. I’ve been very fortunate in my colleagues the Deputy Chairpersons, Deputy Chairperson Mushwana and then Deputy Chairperson Mahlangu.

I think the Deputy Chairperson would confirm, and so would Mr Mushwana, that we’ve never had a quarrel where we concluded we wouldn’t speak to each other at any particular time. We’ve had differences of opinion and we’ve had different opinions on matters, but never have we stopped being able to engage and work together in co-operation as a team, and I believe Deputy … [Applause.] I believe Deputy Chairperson Mahlangu has actually taken to his job in an incredible fashion and I congratulate him on that and thank him. [Applause.]

I must then also thank my colleague the Chief Whip of the National Council of Provinces, the hon Surty. We have worked hard together. We’ve had interesting and sometimes tough discussions and views on the way in which we would see the institution’s matters being dealt with, but again, we’ve never ended up throwing each other out of an office, and I congratulate you for the manner in which you’ve carried out your role, but I also thank you for the hard work you’ve done to ensure that we have speakers’ lists, that we are deliberate in terms of the legislation that we must deal with, that the committees are able to function effectively with the support of the Chairperson of Committees and your presence everywhere. One of the things I’ve noticed about the hon Surty is he walks very quickly, and I know why; he’s got to run to ensure that the whole job is done! We really thank you for that. [Applause.]

The Chairperson of Committees, both Miss Ntlabati and Ms Kgoali, have carried out their tasks with resolute confidence, and have steered our committees to ensure that their work is effectively done. The hon Kgoali has had to take on a mantle at rather short notice and has again carried out this role in an exemplary manner.

I also thank the Deputy Chairperson of Committees for always being there, being supportive and, quietly and in a dignified way, carrying out the role that has been assigned to him by this House, but I must complain that he always forgets to call me when I’m on a list to speak! [Laughter.] Hon Bhengu, we thank you for your contribution and for your work in the House.

What can one say about the committee chairpersons, carrying out a very difficult job, steering committees, while yet at the same time themselves being permanent delegates and therefore members of other select committees. We congratulate you for the sterling work that you have done.

There is the hon Majodina who speaks with a great deal of passion on matters of taxis and transport, and the hon Kgoshi Mokoena, who hasn’t really insisted that we bow to traditional leaders! [Laughter.] I also think of the hon Nkuna who took on a tough mantle from the former chair in the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, the hon Moosa, and the hon Mkhaliphi who took on the tough role led by the hon Bhabha.

So we have excellent histories of good example, but what has been of great significance in the institution is that people are able to take on new roles and make a success of them, and I think the House has been exemplary in that regard and I congratulate all committee chairpersons for the work that they have done.

I would not be fair if I were not to refer to members who serve as colleagues in the National Assembly; the members of the portfolio committees, the various chairpersons and the members of Parliament who are members of the National Assembly. I mentioned earlier that we’ve been able to develop a much more positive working relationship and I think it’s due to the fact that we are all beginning to more clearly understand our different roles.

I must come then, having thanked hon members, to the Secretary to Parliament and his entire staff, including the Secretary to our House, without whose support we would not have been able to do much of the work that we have done. Hon members, I’m sure you would agree with me when we ask the Secretary to Parliament to convey our thanks to all those staff members who work closely with the National Council of Provinces and who provide support to Parliament in its entirety. Secretary, we wish you well in all your future endeavours and in your future working with ourselves, but we thank you for the five years and the successful way in which you have carried us in the management and administrative support role.

I must then, of course, thank my colleagues whom I’ve worked very closely with; the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly. Our joint and co-operative way of working together has been, I think, for many parliaments, somewhat of an exemplary co-operation. It’s not often that you have persons occupying office who are able to recognise the need for joint work and to ensure that it is in the interests of the institution that this is carried out. I would wish, in conclusion, to say to all members I hope you have an active, democratic and peaceful election campaign, a campaign that builds democracy and one that instills confidence in political organisations and leaders among the people of our country. We must not disappoint them by conducting ourselves in a negative fashion in the next five weeks.

I wish each and every one of you well and I must say that I am amused at those of you who already know that you are not coming back and those who already know you are coming back. You are most fortunate to be so predictive in your analysis of our political terrain, but let me say to you: Go out, campaign, persuade and let the polls tell us whether you’ll return. My thanks to each one of you. [Applause.]

The Council adjourned at 14:00. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Bills passed by Houses - to be submitted to President for assent

(1)     Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 4 March 2004:


     (i)     Division of Revenue Bill [B 4B - 2004]  (National  Assembly
              - sec 76)


      (ii)    Drought Relief Adjustments Appropriation Bill [B 5 - 2004]
              (National Assembly - sec 77)


      (iii)   Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Bill [B  19B  -
              2003] (National Assembly - sec 75)

TABLINGS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report on Five-Year Review of the National Council of Provinces (1999- 2004), dated 4 March 2004:

Insert ATC0403-REV