THURSDAY, 17 MARCH 2005 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

                                ____

The Council met at 17:30 in the KwaMhlanga Government Complex, Nkangala, Mpumalanga.

The Deputy 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

                    CELEBRATING COMMONWEALTH DAY





                         (Draft Resolution)

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, I hereby move without notice:

 That the Council –

 (1)    notes that -
     (a)     the Commonwealth  Parliamentary  Association  has  observed
          Commonwealth Day on 14 March;


     (b)     the event entails a two-day  international  celebration  in
          London, from 14 to 15  March,  with  the  theme  “Education  -
          Creating Opportunity, Realising Potential'';  and


     (c)      this  theme  reflects  the  Commonwealth's  commitment  to
          education by promoting efforts to  achieve  universal  primary
          education, eliminate gender disparities, improving quality  in
          education,  using  distance  learning  to  overcome  barriers,
          supporting education in difficult circumstances and mitigating
          the impact of HIV and Aids in education;


   2) acknowledges the contribution of  the  Commonwealth  Parliamentary
      Association   in   strengthening   parliamentary   democracy   and
      interaction among members of Commonwealth Parliaments; and


 (3)    joins the rest of the Commonwealth Parliaments in observing this
      event and wishes the participants fruitful celebrations.

Motion agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

                      DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL


   (Consideration of Bill and of Report of SC on Finance thereon)

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Deputy Chairperson, the Chairperson sitting on another chair, hon members, our friends in the gallery, locals of KwaMhlanga, good afternoon to all of you. The intergovernmental fiscal relations arrangements are always very difficult. To get a sense of the degree of difficulty, a study of countries with complex intergovernmental relations makes for interesting reading. Of course, it’s a wide subject, it’s a subject on which many people have earned either doctorates or at least masters degrees. The one thing that is very clear about intergovernmental relations is that there clearly is no “one size fits all”. It’s a bit more like Frank Sinatra’s “My way”, because there are so many different ways.

But it’s an understanding that we might come closer to understanding the complexities that are created in our Constitution, which asks us to do a number of things, and it’s important in looking at this Bill, detailed as it is, to ask whether we have performed the task that the Constitution has set for us. This Bill is also very different from almost any other piece of legislation in Parliament, because every year there is an entirely new Division of Revenue Bill, a new one, not an amendment to last year’s Bill, but a new Bill that serves every year, and therefore we need to approach the legislation with fresh eyes every year.

The way we have been able to do this over the past nine years somehow became the envy of many countries. It’s important, in recognising that others are looking to us for guidance, that we firstly see the role of the Financing Fiscal Commission as very important. We don’t adopt a formulaic approach. The FFC helps us, for instance, to ensure that there is equity between the nine provinces. It would make suggestions about the vertical division, but those are not as forceful as the way in which we divide between the nine provinces, or indeed between the 284 instances of local government.

But the FFC can only go so far. For the rest I think we go back to the Constitution. We also will look to a piece of legislation that soon will serve before the NCOP, called the Intergovernmental Relations Bill, and the essence of that Bill is co-operative governance. How can we, through the arrangements, certainly at national government with our colleagues in the provinces - and I am glad to see the local MEC for Finance, MEC Coleman, is here with us, she’ll be able to attest to this - structure these relations. How do we prevent conflict and fall-out between ourselves? When we get together, national, provincial and local government, in what we call the Budget Forum, how do we ensure that we can reach agreement also with Salga and its provincial components?

It is in trying to understand the impact of co-operative governance that we should perhaps pause and ask what it is that this Bill does, because what this Bill asks us is to respond to that imperative in the Constitution that says that you must equitably share nationally raised revenue, and then it says that you must share this nationally raised revenue between 294 different governments. So, what do you do? Do you take the amount of money that you have raised and divide it by 294 and then say the smallest municipality equals the national government?

No, in fact, it asks of us to evaluate the fact that each of these 294 instances, that is one national, nine provincial and 284 local governments, have different mandates, different responsibilities, different capacities, different needs, different revenue-raising capabilities, and in understanding that we can then arrive at the set of agreements that allows us to respond to how we share equitably a single sum of money between 294 entities.

This is what the Division of Revenue Bill does, and in placing it before this Council, after it has been considered and somewhat fast-tracked in the provinces, we are saying, you be the judge of whether we are responding to that equitable division of revenue. That’s what we are doing now. We can merely divide the resources we have, but later this year we must come back, we must come back with the same passion and intensity into this House and then look at what the money has actually bought, because as we speak here, and I address myself through the Chair to MEC Coleman, we can only in good faith accept that you tabled a budget in the provincial legislature, answering the same needs within the province, in good faith.

Later this year we want this House to engage in detailed discussion in an intergovernmental fiscal review that looks, line-by-line, column-by-column, at what the money does. That engagement with an intergovernmental fiscal review must then assist us with next year’s Division of Revenue Bill. Are there areas in which we must improve on our performance system? What we know from a province like Mpumalanga - and I am sure that the public hearings that we have all engaged in in taking Parliament to the people here in KwaMhlanga have informed us - is that it has difficulty in attracting sufficient health professionals.

I recall from last year’s intergovernmental fiscal review that the province is very well endowed with not just doctors, but other health professionals: occupational therapists, physiotherapists, dentists and pharmacists. That would impact on the quality of health services that can then be rendered.

So, part of what we need to answer is what we do together, what this House does in its decision-making to facilitate the work of the MEC for finance in this province, so that she too can attract a better cadre of health professionals to ensure that people in Mpumalanga are at least as well off, in respect of health services, as people in provinces like Gauteng and the Western Cape, which are clearly better endowed.

So, the Bill today, and the link into that review that we must come to later in the year, is important, and when we introduce that discussion, I shall remind hon members of the NCOP of this discussion we had here this afternoon.

This Bill, interesting as it is, has at its heart seven schedules. The first one does what it should do: it takes R417,8 billion and divides it between national, provincial and local governments. That is what schedule 1 does. It is straightforward: Does it answer the question of an equitable division? That is what the debate this afternoon should inform us about.

Of this amount, the national government receives R273,5 billion, which includes R53,1 billion which we use to service our debts. Provinces and municipalities receive conditional grants in the amount of some R74,6 billion and R7,5 billion respectively, and we keep a contingency reserve of R2 billion which we will allocate, maybe in October, that will deal with whatever we have not been able to plan for.

Schedules 2 and 3 allocate the equitable share component to provinces and municipalities. In the new fiscal year, which starts on 1 April, the equitable share allocated totals R134,7 billion to provinces and R9,6 billion to municipalities.

It is important that the House notes that the 2005-06 division of the equitable share among the nine provinces and the 284 municipalities is effected through two new formulae. This is a new approach we have taken as of now, which is explained in Annexure E of that other document which all members are familiar with, the Budget Review. Among the shifts that have taken place is a different measure for poverty between the nine provinces.

Schedule 4 sets out allocations to provinces and municipalities to fund infrastructure and hospital services. I am sure that in the discussions here, in the public hearings, there have been big debates about infrastructure. Why are our roads in the state that they are? When is the province going to improve on Moloto Road? Why is this hospital that started out as a community health facility falling apart? All of those are issues that you would have heard. The allocations to Mpumalanga set out in schedule 4 will deal with that. The provincial and municipal infrastructure grant also supports the Expanded Public Works Programme.

Schedules 5 and 6 further allocate specific purpose conditional and other grants to provinces. This amounts to some R65,5 billion to provinces and R1 billion to local government. In schedule 5 there are three conditional grants for HIV and Aids programmes in health, in education and in social development. It is quite important that we remind ourselves that some people in the press think that there is no money for these programmes, but it is there. I am sure hon members who are engaged with these schedules would know that the money is there.

Some of the major changes to the provincial fiscal framework for the year are worth mentioning. Firstly, the conditional grant framework has been revised to take into account the social security function, which now shifts to national government. It is a conditional grant that exists in provinces. Hon members would be aware that this used to be funded out of the equitable share in provinces. Now it is a conditional grant. My colleagues in national government are not happy. They say the agency will be established, but if there is an overrun it will be our problem. We no longer have a say, but why cannot the provinces look after this issue.

It is thus very important to realise that the shift is starting, so it’s a conditional grant, because until further notice the provinces will still manage it on an agency basis. So, the equitable share takes account of the fact that we have taken away this money so that we can pay all of the grants necessary.

Secondly, there is a new conditional grant to finance the further education and training colleges. These have now been combined, but they need money, and we must ensure that young people who are not in the academic stream have access to those colleges for vocational training.

Thirdly, arising certainly out of a discussion you had this afternoon on housing, the housing conditional grant takes account of the new housing policy, which also, of course, includes the enlarged subsidies. But this new conditional grant shifts responsibility for housing, as we proceed forward, to accredited municipalities, particularly metropolitan and major urban category B municipalities. It no longer has to just be in the provinces, because local government is right at the cutting edge of the delivery of services like housing. So, that is also reflected.

The 2005 MTEF provides for further deepening and consolidation of social services. The allocations to provinces further reinforce spending to reduce poverty and vulnerability.

Of the additional funds, R43,4 billion is allocated to the provincial budget framework over the 2005 Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, and this is where I try and confuse everybody, because I can now talk about allocation for one year and allocations for three years, and people don’t always know what the big number is, is it for one year or three years - which is okay.

The sum of R22,3 billion is added over baseline for social security grants over the next three years. Over the three years then we would spend R181,6 billion on social security transfers. It is a huge amount of money, some would even say too large, because already there are 10 million recipients of social grants.

R6,9 billion is set aside over the next three years to implement pay progression for educators. We want good quality teachers in rural schools, capable of teaching maths and physics and we must ensure that they are remunerated so that they stay there and do not move off to the private sector. [Applause.]

We have added R2 billion to the housing subsidy programme over the next three years. This will bring the housing subsidies to R17,4 billion over the next three years.

R1 billion has been allocated to recapitalise further education and training, R1 billion to the provincial infrastructure grant over the MTEF to speed up the delivery of social infrastructure, raising the total allocations for provincial infrastructure to R13,2 billion over the next three years, and R540 million to the National Tertiary Services grant. This is to try and improve on the quality of services rendered in the tertiary hospitals, where they exist in provinces.

Turning to local government: Over the next three years, municipalities will receive R58,3 billion, or an additional R5,4 billion. The substantial increase in the local government share is mainly targeted towards the 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, R31,5 billion over the 2005 MTEF is made available for water, electricity, refuse removal, and sanitation through the unconditional local government equitable share. I think that all of us hope and pray that this money would actually be used for service delivery, not for huge salaries in municipalities whilst the streets are crumbling.

This is the big challenge: the quality of service and the quality of democracy measures that we need in place; and that is what tests our commitment to democracy and our people. So, we say that part of the test for an equitable sharing of revenue is whether this money places municipalities in a position to deliver the services, especially those that are classified as free basic services. They should be delivered, the money is there, and now what is the excuse? [Applause.]

Funding for free basic services flows through local government. That amount rises from R9,6 to R11,4 billion. This unconditional share grows to 56% of national transfers to local government in the first year, compared to nine years ago when it was only R1,5 billion. It would have increased seven fold to R11,4 billion in the third year of this Medium-Term Framework.

The process of consolidating infrastructure grants into the municipal infrastructure grant, the single Mig, will be completed in the first year. This is difficult, because we are taking money for water, for sanitation, for electrification, for other infrastructure, like roads and so on, and putting it into a single grant. It is a larger grant now, hopefully more easily accessed by poor municipalities, but it is going to require some pretty tough management, with an additional R1,7 billion in municipal infrastructure grants to municipalities, totalling some R21,6 billion over the next three years.

This includes R1,2 billion that we put into the Budget now for the next three years, ring-fenced, it can’t be used for anything else, except the termination of the bucket sanitation system, not the removal, because the removal should happen daily. [Applause.] No, it is for the ending of the bucket system, replaced, hopefully, in all instances, with water-borne sanitation.

This allocation will go a long way in reducing backlogs in municipal infrastructure, thus extending free basic services to our people. The review of the provincial and local government fiscal frameworks has highlighted a number of matters that need special attention. Firstly, we need to improve the quality and reliability of municipal and provincial sectoral data to inform decision-making; and secondly, we will need to determine what effect the restructuring of the electricity industry will have on local government equitable shares going forward. These are issues to take into account for future Budgets.

Most importantly, we should endeavour to improve on the quality of spending in all spheres of government. The Bill this year introduces new provisions to improve intergovernmental co-ordination and performance.

While I believe that most provinces are striving to improve their administration over budget planning, execution and implementation, there remain significant weaknesses that require specific corrective steps in a number of areas. The overspending experienced in education and health suggests that there may be a mismatch between the expenditure requirements and the budgets of these sectors. Are we putting enough money in?

We know in education we need to build classrooms, infrastructure needs to be separately accounted for, and there is a new way of accounting for that through this. Then there would be teachers’ salaries, and we know that teachers’ salaries will increase over the next three years. We need to provide adequately for that. Then there would be learner support materials, and then new changes to education to ensure that the poorest learners would have access to free education.

If we are underbudgeting, we will overspend, and that is something we will have to look at when we deal with the intergovernmental fiscal review later this year. It is very important that provinces ensure that the social services like health and education are adequately funded, so that no child should learn under a tree and each child has the necessary learner support material to ensure that quality learning takes place.

These learner support materials should not be delivered in the second or the third term, they should be available on the first day of school. That is what happens in rich model-C schools, why should it not happen where the poor have to send their children? That’s a challenge, that’s not about how much money you avail, that’s the quality of management, that is the oversight function that Parliament has to play, and my job is to try and motivate Parliament to ensure that that oversight role is adequately played.

It is equally important that our health system be bolstered to deal with the health challenges facing the country. In their budgets tabled during the past two weeks, some provinces have made substantial allocations toward growth and development funds. While this is welcomed, it shouldn’t be done at the expense of the core government functions like education, health and social development, and it shouldn’t fund functions that should otherwise be funded by a different sphere of government.

It is also important that allocative efficiency be attained through the alignment of allocations to the ability to spend, particularly in the preparation of capital budgets. Government continues to increase allocations to reduce backlogs in social and economic infrastructure. Provinces will have to take steps to improve infrastructure planning and delivery, and are therefore invited to take part in the infrastructure delivery and improvement programme managed by the National Treasury.

Just before I sit down, the deputy director-general in the Treasury for intergovernmental fiscal relations has been doing this job since we sent him there in 1994. He wanted to come here today. I had to plead with him not to come. He became a father for the first time this morning. He assured me that if it was a daughter he would have named her Dora, but it was a son, and I think we all wish him, his wife, Yasmin, and the baby well. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr T RALANE: Thank you, Deputy Chairperson of the NCOP, the Speakers of Limpopo, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape legislatures present here, MECs and all protocol observed, the 50th anniversary of the Congress of the People and the Freedom Charter is the highlight of this first year of the second decade of our democracy and our liberation.

It is an occasion that challenges all patriotic South Africans to reassess the current phase of the liberation struggle in the light of the ideas of the Freedom Charter, the revolutionary programme of our movement. It is an occasion to cast our minds back over the past half century to see how and why the Freedom Charter has been and still is a beacon to the Congress Movement and an inspiration to the people of South Africa, in the words of our former President, Comrade Nelson Mandela. It is an occasion to draw from this historic document fresh guidance and renewed dedication to the task which history lays on us of uniting and mobilising all our people in our country, in order to reconstruct and develop.

The Congress of the People convened jointly by the ANC, the SA Indian Congress, the Congress of Democrats and the SA Coloured People’s Organisation, expressed more profoundly and authentically than any single event, the common aspirations of the overwhelming majority of South Africans, both black and white, to live in peace in the country of their birth, to shape its future and to share its fruits, to put an end to the centuries of colonial domination, racist tyranny, exploitation, misery and humiliation.

The Congress of the People built on the militant spirit of the Youth League, the programme of action of 1949. It consolidated the unity and action achieved in the campaigns of the 1940s and topped by the defiance campaign of 1952. It gave cohesion, clarity and direction to the liberation movement, it laid the basis for further development of our national development and is one of those outstanding events, which made our movement what it is today.

The Freedom Charter synthesised the many and varied strengths of our people’s tireless assertions of their will to self-determination. It reflected and will always reflect our undying opposition to the fascist monster that had disfigured our country and mutilated generations of our people. It is because the Charter embodies the heroic traditions and sacred aspirations of the people that it lives today and gains fresh vitality with every step forward on the road to the reconstruction and development of our country.

The clarity and the correctness of the Freedom Charter, testified with the revolutionary maturity of those responsible for its creation to the people of South Africa. The Charter has stood the test of time, outlived its critics and defeated every attempt of the enemy to brand it as treason. It demonstrates the rich heritage of the struggle of our people, the justness of our courts and the necessity of the Charter as the definite expression of the goals of our national liberation.

The Division of Revenue Bill before us today is a tool that consolidates all the ideas of the Freedom Charter. Government remains committed to eradicating social exclusion, to creating more employment opportunities, to reducing crime, to addressing HIV and Aids, to developing an efficient Public Service and nation-building. Each of these is a key contributor for all South Africans.

Since programmes to meet these goals cut across the three spheres and often even cut across departments, they are most appropriately guided by the policies set by the democratic government, which in turn is guided by the goals and objectives of the Freedom Charter. Broad-based programmes in the national interest introduced by government, include the prioritisation of the social sectors, education, health and social welfare, expansion of the social safety net, nutrition, food security, housing, sustainable infrastructure development at both provincial and municipal levels and rural development.

One of the key reforms introduced in the national interest is a change in the way social grants are funded by centralising their funding from the national equitable share. For sure, any new arrangements will produce new challenges. In this regard I should like to mention two examples: The first relates to the administration of the three different HIV-Aids conditional grants. A different national department, namely the Departments of Education, Health and Social Development, administers each of these grants. Of necessity, each department lobbies for additional funding in order to administer its own HIV and Aids grant. The point is, however, these departments do not adopt a holistic view of the measures taken by one department in contributing to the national effort in combating the Aids epidemic. The synergy is greater than the contribution of the individual department to the national assault on the epidemic.

This brings us to the second concern: While government programmes are neatly demarcated into clusters, in practice a department does not work in active collaboration with the other departments belonging to the same cluster. Moreover, a department belonging to the social cluster, for example, would argue that more financial resources are required. We propose that the House supports the Division of Revenue Bill. [Time expired.]

Mrs E M COLEMAN (Mpumalanga): Thank you very much, Deputy Chairperson. Hon Chairperson of the NCOP, the hon Minister of Finance, hon members, colleagues in the executive council, members of the provincial legislature of Mpumalanga who are here, all protocol observed, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa requires the three spheres of government to work co-operatively for the promotion of economic and social programmes for all.

The country’s fiscal arrangements aim to ensure that the responsibilities of each sphere are carried out in the spirit of co-operation, fairness and efficiency. In the end the welfare of each individual citizen and equity among them, wherever they reside, is the ultimate objective of decisions on fiscal arrangement.

The national government has the overriding responsibility for economic and fiscal affairs and national programmes such as defence and security. It shares responsibility with the provinces for the provision of basic social services and provinces are responsible for delivering services such as education, health and welfare. Municipalities, on the other hand, must provide essential local infrastructure and services as per schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution.

With regard to changes to provincial fiscal frameworks, major changes informed the 2005 MTEF in this regard. Firstly, the conditional grant framework has been revised to take into account the social security grant function shift that moves to the national sphere of government as from 1 April 2005. The social security grant function shift has implications for the vertical and horizontal division of revenue and the Budget Council agreed that 24% be shifted from the provincial to the national equitable share. This does not deal with the administrative implications of the function shift but looks at its implications on the intergovernmental fiscal arrangements moving forward. We, however, acknowledge the fact that the function shift reduces the burden from the provincial budget. It further deepens and consolidates social services and reinforces spending to reduce poverty and vulnerability.

Since the shift of the provincial social security grants, the provincial equitable share has now decreased in Mpumalanga to 66%. This is a 23% decrease of the total provincial revenue, compared to the 88,3% in the current financial year’s budget. On the other hand, the conditional grants have increased to 31,8% and that is a 23% increase of the total provincial revenue, compared to the 8,8% in the current financial year.

As the province, we want to agree with the national Cabinet on the new provincial equitable share formula and its key elements, that is in education, health, both institutional and basic, and their respective weights and subcomponents. We acknowledge that the new provincial equitable share formula is pro-poor provinces such as Mpumalanga.

Previously the formula included the poverty weight in the welfare component. However, the new formula allocates a specific weight to the poverty component, which to us is quite a positive move. The formula also takes into account the population of the province and information on health.

The information on health will include people with medical aid and those without. In education, information will include the number of school-going children and so on, based on the 2001 population census. However, our concern is that the time lapse between the census and the implementation of policies poses a challenge on the accuracy of the data, which then ends up distorting the equitable allocation of funds. The hon Minister did allude to this.

I also want to say that in the province, we have allocated sufficient funds to the health and education sectors. To the health sector we allocated over R6 billion of our R15,1 billion allocation and we have also allocated over R5 billion to education. If you add that up, you will realise that it goes a long way in addressing the disparities that we were talking about earlier on.

As from 1 April 2005 the provincial equitable shares will be transferred to the corporation for public deposits accounts of the province held at the SA Reserve Bank, according to the payment schedule agreed to between the national and provincial treasuries. This will reduce the costs and minimise the risks associated with commercial banks.

However, we feel that there must be flexibility in this new move. We refer to sections 4 and 32(2) of the Division of Revenue Bill of 2005, which provides that National Treasury can amend the payment schedule for allocations listed in schedules 2,3,4 or 6 on notification. The implication of this section is that National Treasury can amend the payment schedule without consultation. We hope that this is not the case and hope that there will be discussions with the provincial heads of Treasury before such actions can be undertaken.

During 2004, the local government fiscal framework was subjected to a two- part review. The first part focused on the local government equitable share formula, while the second part covered matters pertaining to local government taxes, among other things. Although the reform of the local government equitable share formula is now completed, there are still challenges that need to be addressed.

National transfers to local government are divided into three major categories, namely the equitable share grant together with the water operating grant, the infrastructure conditional grant and the capacity- building and restructuring conditional grant. The equitable share gives support for operational expenditure on basic services for poor households and the municipal infrastructure grants support the rollout of infrastructure for the poor to have access to basic services.

However, the equitable share should take into account a change in population over time. This is the problem that relates to data collection. We feel that currently the available data at municipal level is difficult to obtain. In conclusion, we would like to support the Division of Revenue Bill of 2005 as we have no doubt that the allocation will go a long way in addressing the challenges of poverty and underdevelopment. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms D ROBINSON: The Division of Revenue Bill before us today was tabled in an environment of relatively low inflation, improved business and consumer confidence and a large tax revenue windfall. This has given the Minister space to announce a mildly expansionary budget, which increases both the provincial and local government shares quite significantly.

Despite limited growth in some sectors of the economy due to the strong rand, the economic prospects for 2005-06 remain positive provided that the global economy remains healthy and crude oil prices stay affordable.

The two main trends in provincial expenditure are a rapid increase in welfare and infrastructure expenditure. In terms of the new formula of the equitable share, it must be noted that the social services component – namely health, education and welfare - now makes up 78% of the formula.

Over the past 10 years, the composition of provincial spending has shifted in favour of social development, plus 7% and away from health, -2% and education, -5% as well as away from economic infrastructure services such as transport and agriculture. These are worrying trends, which need to be firmly arrested. The relative decrease in education spending is of concern, bearing in mind the skills shortage facing South Africa and the implications that this has for growing the economy.

I trust Minister Manuel will bear in mind my requests and those of countless others and also of local schools here in Mpumalanga, for more funding for libraries, resource centres to assist learners in their studies in preparation for a full and productive life.

Further thought needs to be given to the relative weights for economic activity and the newly introduced poverty component in order to determine the appropriate trade-off between poverty and economic activity. With regard to welfare, we query the government’s partial implementation of the FFC’s recommendation to convert the welfare component of the formula into a conditional grant. From our perspective, it would be well justified and should be implemented fully as soon as possible.

With regard to infrastructure, of particular concern is the financing of the Expanded Public Works Programme - government’s main initiative to create work. We are told that the Municipal Infrastructure Grant, MIG, which replaced the old Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme, is the main funding source for the Expanded Public Works Programme. It is my understanding, however, that the old Consolidated Municipal Infrastructure Programme money was previously spent on water, transport, electricity and rural development.

Beyond the increases in the allocation of about R1 or R2 billion per year and the proportion of these services which could be provided in a more labour-intensive way, I fail to see how the MTEF allocation of R21 billion for the MIG, could be used to fund the entire EPWP without impacting on the provision of water, transport, electricity and rural development. This means that either the utility provision in the municipalities is set to be seriously underfunded or perhaps that the EPWP will not be all that it’s cracked up to be.

We are also concerned about the municipalities’ capacity to maintain and finance new infrastructure built under the EPWP. There appears to be no mechanism in place for this or to ensure that the municipalities have the capacity to utilise the funds fully. The time spent at the public hearings, listening to the complaints of our citizens about the lack of service delivery, poor water, roads and schools, inadequate attention to the disabled, and the corrupt officials for whom money comes first, not Batho Pele, has given us ample evidence that capacity needs to be built, that better management and supervision are vital.

The original MIG documentation refers only briefly to the fact that the municipality must prove that it has the capacity to manage the infrastructure. Surely this is insufficient. These questions make the FFC’s recommendation to dedicate a portion of the economic activity component of the provincial infrastructure share to the maintenance of social and public infrastructure, even more relevant. We urge government to implement the changes recommended by the FFC and increase the weighting of the economic activity component.

Monitoring is seriously needed. The failure of some departments to monitor conditional grants properly is alarming and we fully support the recommendations of the select committee to strengthen the Audit Committee and internal audit. In addition, it is clear that the deficit of adequate data at local government level is also holding back development.

The direct negative effect of the lack of data is seen in the reporting on the Comprehensive HIV and Aids Grant which provides no information on the number of South Africans receiving antiretroviral drugs. I reiterate our call for a list to be published of those who are not responding to requests for data. It is imperative that the competencies and resources of this vital area are enhanced to enable Treasury, Parliament and ordinary South Africans to make well-informed decisions regarding the Bill.

Whilst acknowledging the current data limitations, we urge haste in establishing a revised health expenditure formula to take into account the gender and age profile of the population, which the FFC has recommended. Time constraints prohibit any further points. The DA supports the Division of Revenue Bill. [Applause.]

Mr B MKHIZE: Deputy Chairperson, Minister of Finance, hon T Manuel, colleagues and members, on the equitable share and Division of Revenue Bill there is an instrument that we recognise is meant to ensure that as far as possible national standards are taken into considerable when we devolve moneys to the provinces, the national government and the local government. As a province we would, however, wish that the discussions on the equity Bill – proposing an equitable sharing formula - were done in such a way that other factors that are unique to particular provinces are taken into consideration, for example in our case our economic contribution to the national output.

I know that many a time Gauteng and the Western Cape have lost this argument in the negotiations towards budget processes. However, it is important to note that such a contribution cannot be ignored. Secondly, the assumption that poverty only exists in other provinces and not in Gauteng is not correct. As a result it is important that even measures of poverty and levels of poverty that exist in that province and other provinces similar to it should be taken into consideration in adjusting or reformulating the formula.

As a province we welcome the Bill, but wish to place before the House the following issues: That the division of revenue should not in the long term be seen as a management tool, but should remain a mechanism of revenue sharing throughout and that accountability by provinces and departments to national linked departments should be ensured.

The specific issues that we wish to raise also relate to welcoming the fact that municipalities will receive accreditation for housing delivery over the MTEF, but we wish that these be accompanied by capacitating at that level to ensure that such delivery is not hindered and funds continue to be lodged in spite of a lack of delivery. Secondly, also related to this is that it is clear that through these proposals of the Bill the municipalities will take greater responsibility for the management of funds allocated to them. We reiterate the fact that it is important to build capacity of these municipalities at all levels when moneys are devolved to them without undermining their capacity to spend. But it is of concern to us that large chunks of funds are devolved to municipalities without necessarily taking into consideration their capacity to spend these moneys.

There is also a need to introduce national standards on finance reporting to do away with the problems of classification of expenditure which characterise problems around reporting. We note that the budget reforms have actually catered for and provided for reporting but we still feel that it is important that these be reformed further to ensure that current expenditure is not classified for example as capital expenditure and vice versa.

We would also like to see a clear and predictable process on how the social security function will devolve to the national government. In other words that over the MTEF period it must be clear at what point and in what phases the national government will assume this responsibility ultimately and accompanying this must be the need to ensure that national government also assumes the risk associated with fraudulent applications for grants. In other words we are saying if national government takes over the responsibility it must take it over voetstoots.

It is also our view that in order to allow provinces to engage substantially in the division of revenue, it is important that adequate time be allocated for public hearings and engagements. The manner in which the Division of Revenue Bill this year was fast-tracked disabled us to make the necessary engagements with the public so that we could hear what their views were.

In this regard our proposal is that even if national government feels that we must fast-track the consideration of the Bill, it must be done in such a way that consideration is given to the fact that legislatures have lives of their own and at times require to engage with the Division of Revenue Bill much more intensively because conditional grants that are devolved at that level require much more scrutiny and therefore time becomes important in this regard. We support the Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr D J BOTHA: Hon Minister, Chair, colleagues, my brief is to comment on infrastructure spending in relation to the Division of Revenue Bill. The delivery of social infrastructure in the provinces is central to achieving the national government’s development goal. Provinces and municipalities are required to actively contribute to the goals of the Expanded Public Works Programme and promote projects that lend themselves to increased labour intensity.

To speed up infrastructure delivery and ensure active spending, national government has allocated almost R40 billion to the capital budget of provinces over the next three years. Some of the provincial priorities for the 2005 medium-term expenditure are as follows: implement a pay progression system in education to improve the salary packages of educators; implement a new housing strategy which aims to upgrade informal settlements; increase rental housing stock; speed up delivery of social infrastructure such as classrooms, health facilities, water sanitation, schools and welfare.

Municipalities will receive additional allocations of just over R5 billion to provide free basic services to those who cannot afford them and upgrade extensive municipal infrastructure. I think the Minister also referred to the fact that in 2005 an additional R2,2 billion in municipal infrastructure grants will be allocated to replace the bucket system.

National government has also announced further supplementary allocation which is not included in the 2005 Budget but will be gazetted later during the year; R3 billion for community infrastructure which is allocated but not transferred to the municipality through the municipal infrastructure grant; and R3 billion for public transport infrastructure which is not allocated but will be transferred to municipalities which have stadiums that will be used for the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

The Select Committee on Finance was informed during the recent briefing by National Treasury that national and provincial departments’ spending on conditional grants in the current financial year ending March 2005 does not comply with the Division of Revenue Bill. The reason for that is underspending. The select committee has been informed that the departments have spent in the following manner: education has spent 55% of their infrastructure budget; health department 49% of their capital budget; and roads 68%. We are approaching the end of the fourth quarter and the question is: How will these departments spend the remaining amount of their capital budgets in the last three months. That raises the question of dumping.

With reference to additional grants, underspending on a number of grants is common. Nonspending affects the delivery of important basic services. This is not in line with the objects of the Freedom Charter.

Before I proceed, I must remind my colleagues that we heard in the public hearings that almost all departments, both national and provincial, are undercapacitated. I think we have to change that to delivery, delivery, delivery. We must also ask departments in provinces what they are really doing regarding delivery. If you try to get hold of heads of departments on Friday afternoons you will not find them in their offices but perhaps at their farms or businesses.

Real underspending is cause for concern to us as public representatives and we need to see how we can intervene. Members of provincial legislatures and the National Council of Provinces are urgently requested to play a more active and vital role in monitoring spending by provincial departments.

When I raised the question of underspending during the briefing in Limpopo province the committee was surprised regarding the low spending and underspending. The Limpopo province supports the 2005 Division of Revenue Bill and recommends the following to improve the spending regarding resources allocated for infrastructure development. The MECs should provide regular briefing to the standing committees in the legislature or Minmec meetings. The NCOP and committees in the legislature should interact more frequently thereby facilitating the sharing of information. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

Mr J AULSEBROOK (KwaZulu-Natal): Chairperson, as a KwaZulu-Natal delegate, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to address the NCOP here in Mpumalanga. It is appropriate that the division of revenue debate takes place in the province in order that the people of Mpumalanga can have the opportunity of understanding the significance of this Bill. The hon Minister has given a comprehensive overview not only of this Bill but also of the Budget, and I will certainly not venture into that area.

While the MTEF pre-empts the division of revenue and the budget forum together with the sectoral Minmecs have agreed to the allocation of provincial equitable shares in advance; further, while the provincial governments have tabled their provincial budgets based on the division of revenue, these give rise to a question whether the NCOP is not merely rubber-stamping this Bill. The answer could be yes but I would suggest that it is not. Yes, the argument could go, because of timing, the Select Committee on Finance would not make any substantial changes to this Bill as it is pre-agreed in the provinces. Further, it would create absolute chaos in the budgeting process of national departments and the provinces.

I will also say, no, the NCOP is not a rubber stamp and is certainly not rubber-stamping the division of revenue because of the manner in which the Select Committee on Finance interrogates not only the Bill but the national departments in the interests of the provinces. An example of this is when various national departments were called to account for the services they provide to provinces as well as for the conditional grants that emanate from those departments. Here, one issue that stood out as a possible weakness that some provinces may need to address is that while the Public Works Department was emphatic that the monitoring of the Expanded Public Works Programme projects was a provincial and local government function, and that the Department of Public Works would fund and monitor the programme as a whole and not the projects, this is a local responsibility.

On investigating in KwaZulu-Natal I found that the guidelines for the Expanded Public Works Programme as published by the national Department of Public Works were not readily available. So how are the principles encompassed in these guidelines being monitored and who is taking that responsibility? I raise this question on behalf of KwaZulu-Natal in spite of the national Department of Public Works commending KwaZulu-Natal, particularly the transport department, for running one of the most successful expanded public works projects, that is the labour-intensive Zibambele road maintenance project. We do have other projects that may need monitoring.

In conclusion, the NCOP has an important role to play in dealing with the division of revenue especially in monitoring the FFC formula and the division of revenue formula to ensure that those formulae remain relevant to meeting the needs of the people that the provincial and local governments serve. KwaZulu-Natal will support this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mnu M BASOPU (Eastern Cape): Ndiyabulela, Mgcinisihlalo. Bendingazi ukuba ithuba lam lokuthetha selifikile, ndiyaxolisa.

Mgcinisihlalo neNdlu yonke, namhlanje sidibene apha ukuza kufezekisa amaphupha abantu bakuthi. Kwiminyaka engama-50 edlulileyo, njengoko usihlalo ebetshilo, abantu bakuthi badibana eKliptown ukuya kuqulunqa uMqulu weNkululeko. Phakathi kwezinto abavumelana ngazo kukuba abantu baya kulawula.

Kule minyaka ilishumi idlulileyo kuye kwabonakala ukuba abantu. Ukususela ngoMvulo ukuza kutsho namhlanje, apha eMpumalanga, abantu bazibonakalisile ukuba bayalawula. Kodwa ndifuna ukutsho ukuba thina singabathandi bezwe nabalweli benkululeko kuyafuneka ukuba sihlale sibaze amehlo. Kaloku idemokhrasi asiyonkoduso, yona nto uvela nje uyoneke uyishiye; iyafuna ukugadwa. Kaloku amadabi amanye amazwe abonakalisile ukuba uvukelo luyabiwa. Urhulumente we-ANC uzibonakalisile ukuba uzibophelele kwiminqweno yabantu njengoko ibekiwe kuMqulu waMalungelo. Loo nto ithetha ukuba into ebalulekileyo kukuphucula ubomi babantu. Kambe, loo nto uyenza ngokweemeko esiphila phantsi kwazo ngeli xesha, kuba kaloku uMqulu weNkululeko waqulunqwa ngo-1955 kube ngoku ingunyaka ka-2005.

Ukuze ke ayenze loo nto, kuyafuneka ukuba kubekho izixhobo ezikhoyo. Phakathi kwezo zixhobo, ngulo mcimbi woHlahlo lwAbiwo-Mali esithetha ngawo namhlanje. Kungeso sizathu ke siliphondo leMpuma Koloni sisithi lo Mthetho usayilwayo siwuxhasa ngokupheleleyo. Siwuxhasa ngokupheleleyo, kakhulu kakhulu sisamkela amacandelo amathathu awo: icandelo 30, icandelo 38 necandelo 39. Kuyabonakala ukuba ukhona umahluko kwimithetho esithe sayiqulunqa ngaphambili. Kuyabonakala ukuba okumandla kukuqinisa izikrufu ukwenzela ukuba iimali zabahlawuli-rhafu ziphatheke ngendlela efanelekileyo. Siyayamkela loo nto siliphondo.

Xa ndigqibezela, sikwatsho nokuba sinethemba lokuba isiphakamiso esisenzileyo kule Ndlu malunga nezinto noko ezisixhalabisayo ziza kuqwalaselwa ngokuhamba kwexesha. Kananjalo siyazi ukuba singade sibe singamaphondo alithoba, kodwa singurhulumente omnye wobumbano. Siyayaleza ukuba iMpuma Koloni le ndisuka kuyo yaziwa nanguthatha ukuba lelinye lamaphondo ahlwempuzekileyo. Umzekelo, iziphumo zophando obelusandul’ukwenziwa kwiminyaka edlulileyo luye lwaphawula indawo ethile, ekuthiwa yi-Elliotdale, ekubonakala ukuba ihlupheke ngaphezo kwazo zonke iindawo zoMzantsi Afrika. I-Elliotdale ayikho kwenye indawo, iseMpuma Koloni. Kungeso sizathu ke sisithi xa sithetha ngomcimbi wemali, kukho izinto ezibalulekileyo ekufanele siziqwalasele.

Kwakhona, siyatsho ukuba siyawuxhasa lo Mthetho usayilwayo, ngethemba lokuba naxa sele uphunyeziwe asizi kuthi, “phela-phela ngantsomi, uphunyeziwe umthetho osayilwayo”. Njengabameli babantu sinoxanduva lokuqinisekisa ukuba lo mthetho umiliselwa ngendlela efanelekileyo ngabo basemagunyeni. Siyabulela. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa speech follows.)

[Mr M BASOPU (Eastern Cape): Thank you, Chairperson. I did not notice that my speaking time had come. I beg your pardon, sir.

Chairperson, and hon members of the House, we are gathered here today to celebrate the realisation of the dreams of our people. Fifty years ago masses of our people gathered in Kliptown to launch the Freedom Charter. One of the declarations made was that the people shall govern.

It is more than ten years since people have attained their freedom, including those in Mpumalanga. I, however, would like to warn people against becoming complacent as people who love their country and who are also freedom fighters. We need to work to enhance the capacity to consolidate democracy. The experiences of other countries have shown us that the struggle could prove to us that the struggle for freedom is shared.

The ANC-led government has proved its commitment to the needs of the people as stated in the Bill of Rights. That means that it is important that the quality of life of the people is improved. The ANC-led government is doing that in line with the demands of the times we live in because, as we all know, the Freedom Charter was adopted in 1955, a long time ago.

In order for that to happen, we need resources. In dealing with the provision of those, the budget and the allocation of funds become vital. It is along those lines that we, as the Eastern Cape province, fully support sections 30, 38 and 39 of this Bill. There has certainly been a positive move since we started formulating new pieces of legislation. We must make sure that we spend taxpayers´ money wisely and responsibly. As a province, we welcome that commitment.

In conclusion, we would like to express the hope that our proposals to the House regarding our concerns would be considered favourably in due course. We also know that even though we are nine provinces, we are a united nation.

We all know that the Eastern Cape, which is the area I come from, is well known as one of the most impoverished provinces. For example, the findings of research conducted a few years ago indicate that Elliotdale is the poorest area in the whole of South Africa. That area is not anywhere else but the Eastern Cape. It is for that reason that when we debate the budget, certain things need to be taken into account.

Furthermore, we support this Bill not with the intention, once it has been passed, to sit and rest but rather to seek to ensure that the law is implemented effectively. I thank you. [Applause.]]

Mr E M SOGONI: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy Chair, hon Minister and all protocol observed, the 2005 Division of Revenue Bill is a milestone in addressing the needs of our people in the year of the Freedom Charter. This Bill before the House today places obligations and stringent conditions on all spheres of government to submit measurable strategic objectives for the financial year commencing 1 April 2005. My brief today is to give a perspective on governance issues in respect of the 2005 Division of Revenue Bill. In this regard, clauses 33, 34 and 35 of the Bill deserve special mention.

The withholding of conditional grants to a province or a municipality is not the same as the stopping of a conditional grant allocation to a province or municipality. The following are the requirements for the withholding of funds by a transferring national officer from a province or municipality that has not complied with the provisions of the Division of Revenue Bill. Expenditure on previous transfers during the financial year reflects significant underspending for which no satisfactory explanation is given. However, a transferring national officer must, seven days prior to withholding an allocation, give the relevant province, provincial or municipal officer a written notice of intention to withhold the allocation and the reasons for withholding, and an opportunity to submit a written representation within those seven days as to why the allocation should not be withheld. The withholding of funds is not done unilaterally or arbitrarily, as there is that communication between Treasury and that particular province or municipality.

The transferring official may stop the allocation to a province or municipality on the grounds of a persistent and material noncompliance with the provisions of this Bill, and that National Treasury anticipates that a province or municipality will substantially underspend a certain allocation in a financial year. This is in line with section 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution and sections 38 and 39 of the Municipal Finance Management Act in respect of provinces. In addition, any stopping of an allocation must, together with an explanatory memorandum, be published by the National Treasury in the Gazette. The Minister of Finance may by notice in the Government Gazette approve that an allocation or any portion of such allocation be stopped or utilised to meet that province or municipality’s outstanding statutory and contractual financial obligations. Moreover, National Treasury may, wherever it stops an allocation, determine that a portion or the full allocation that will be underspent should be reallocated to one or more provinces or municipalities on condition that that allocation will be spent in that financial year.

In addition to counteracting the low rate of capital spending by provinces, the Division of Revenue Bill uses a new clause, clause 13(2)d. This clause enables provinces to address backlogs in provincial infrastructures by introducing flexibility, which allows the shifting of funds within the basket of acceptable capital projects. This shifting, however, requires that provincial departments take into account any recommendations on infrastructure made by the Cabinet member responsible for that function in terms of section 26 of this Bill; a similar provision is made for the municipalities as well.

With reference to the funding of early childhood development grants the Fiscal and Financial Commission proposed that given that the Early Childhood Development Grant is funded through the provincial equitable share now, the education component should be augmented by at least the full amount of the current conditional grants. The government responded by saying that its approach is consistent with this recommendation. The funds that previously flowed as a conditional grant are now part of the provincial equitable share.

My time has not expired, Chairperson, I am sure.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: They did not say stop. Just continue.

Mr E M SOGONI: I cannot see … [Laughter.] You have just heard that as at 28 February 2005 municipalities had spent only 61% of their total allocation to improve performance. Municipalities have to attempt to do the following: to improve transitional arrangements, effective co-ordination with all key stakeholders, co-ordination and support roles by provinces to municipalities, poor capital investment planning, poor project management, municipal compliance with DORA and the reporting mechanisms, improved quality of spending, improved project management and visible impact of projects.

Thank you, Chairperson. Gauteng declares its support for this Bill. [Time expired.]

Mr K SINCLAIR: Chairperson, I just thought it was the hon Watson and the NNP sabotaging the DA again. [Laughter.]

South Africa is a winning country. We succeeded in putting many of the divisions and hardships of the past behind us. South Africans are reaping the benefits of the objectives of the ANC government of a stable macroeconomic environment and reduction in poverty.

Under your guidance and leadership, hon Minister, South Africa is also on its way, in terms of the priorities set by government, to becoming a flag bearer for economic growth and development in Africa and indeed the developing world. To keep that flame of hope alive, three key critical issues need to be raised. This must be done with the objectives of the DORA as framework for the National Treasury to divide revenue among the people of this country.

Service delivery to all the people must first improve drastically. Parliament has put the best finance and legal framework in place. Now is the time that elected representatives and officials must put their money where their mouth is. Government indeed provides enough funds but as we once again experienced this week, people do not share in the benefits of the new democracy. Those people, hon Minister, are mostly poor women, the elderly, children and people living in the rural areas. In this respect, local government must be elevated to a different level as an instrument of delivery.

Secondly, all spheres of government must be more vigilant in their approach to uplifting the rural areas. In addressing the closure of the huge gap between the first and second economies it is absolutely necessary to do that. Many of the activities of the second economy take place in the rural areas and because of that government must make it more lucrative for investors to explore opportunities in these areas. Why must raw products such as the iron-ore from Sishen be hauled hundreds of kilometres to Saldanha and only then does value get added. Why must agricultural products such as meat, grain, vegetables, timber and salt be transported from the provinces of origin to the big three, namely Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape or overseas, and only then is value added? Something is wrong, and it is the rural people who are feeling the pinch.

The third issue, hon Minister, is the state of agriculture in our country. South Africa is indeed part of the global village. But the South African farmers cannot compete with highly subsidised product tariff barriers and the effects of the currently strong rand. We must compare apples with apples. Currently, regarding the South African farming community, including emerging farmers, we are comparing apples with pears. It is not sustainable and if something is not done now, it will not be done in the future. Once again it is the people of the rural areas, black and white, who are suffering. Although what has been done is highly appreciated, but also in terms of the conditional grant, DORA must intervene to save this important sector of our economy.

In conclusion, maybe we must take the words that our former president Nelson Mandela said to us: “The time is always right to do right.” The time is indeed overdue to step up service delivery, and through acknowledging the role of agriculture, look after the interests of the people of the rural areas of this country. I thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon members, I am told that there is a big storm outside. That is what is causing the disturbance in here.

Mnr C A T SMITH (Noord-Kaap): Agb Voorsitter, agb Adjunkvoorsitter, agb Minister, LUR’e teenwoordig, agb Speakers, lede van dié Huis, kamerade en vriende, daar’s ’n handjie vol mense in Suid-Afrika wat Afrikaans wil misbruik om hulself te verhef. Ek wil vandag Afrikaans praat deur die teendeel te bewys, maar ook sodat die mense van Jan Kempdorp en Kuruman my kan verstaan.

Die Vryheidsmanifes sê die mense sal regeer. Tereg wil die ANC-regering ’n regering van die mense wees, deur die mense. Hierdie sitting hier in KwaMhlanga is ’n bewys van die toewyding van die regering om die mense te dien. Daardeur wil die Noord-Kaap vir u, as Voorsitter van die NRVP, gelukwens, ook met dié oefening. [Applous.]

Dit is goed om te sien dat ook op nasionale vlak die gebruike van die Noord- Kaap voortgesit word. Ná die uitslag van die verkiesing in 1994, toe die ANC gewen het deur middel van die nasionale demokratiese revolusie sonder bloedvergieting, het ons geskiedenis gemaak, maar was hierdie land bankrot. Danksy die fiskale dissipline het ons dié land teruggekry op die koers van 4,2%, as gevolg waarvan daar in die volgende finansiële jaar R363 miljard beskikbaar gaan wees, met ’n styging tot en met R428 miljard in die boekjaar 2007-08. Dit is ’n merkwaardige prestasie, en ons wil, van die Noord-Kaap se kant af, die Minister, die President en die Kabinet daarmee gelukwens.

Dit is tog so dat in ons provinsie ons baie dankie wil sê vir die R3,124 184 miljard wat weer eens dié jaar aan ons toegeken word. Tog is daar knellende probleme en behoeftes wat in die provinsie voorkom wat ons in hierdie debat graag ook onder u aandag wil bring. Ons wil weer eens die nood van behuising en paaie onder u aandag bring.

Die moontlikheid dat die munisipale area van Gasegonyane kan verskuiwe, en dat in die omgewing van 180 000 mense die provinsie sal verlaat, beteken weer eens dat volgens die per capita-formule – wat in die FFK voorkom en wat vandag nie meer alleenlik daarop gebaseer is nie – die mense in die provinsie minder word, maar die paaie word nie korter nie, én die afstand na Port-Nolloth, Fraserburg en Sutherland word ook nie korter nie.

Ons wil vir u baie dankie sê vir dít wat u reeds gedoen het, en wil vra dat as daar addisionele fondse is, u met u halfjaarlikse aankondiging van die Begroting tog ook na paaie en behuising vir ons sal kyk. ’n Voorstel van die Noord-Kaap is, onder andere, dat die toekenning - of die geld wat gekanaliseer word vir openbare werke - ook vasgemaak sal word in die amptelike voorwaardelike toelaag, sodat die geld nie kan verdwaal nie, maar dat dit vir die doel aangewend word waarvoor dit bedoel is.

Ons sal dit waardeer, agb Minister, as daar ook gekyk kan word na die rampbestuurprogram vir die Noord-Kaap. Uit die aard van die samestelling van ons provinsie, wat die grootste gedeelte van die grondoppervlak van dié land beklee met die minste mense, is dit noodsaaklik dat ons in rampbestuur daarna sal kyk. U is bekend met die droogte wat tans daar heers. As Calvinianer wil ek tog ook vandag u ondersteuning soek in dié debat om weer eens water vanuit die Doringrivier vir primêre menslike gebruik in dié area aan te wend. Daar is reeds ’n dam in Calvinia. Hoekom pomp ons nie die water uit die Doringrivier tot in Calvinia, en retikuleer dit dan na die dam en omliggende dorpe wat daar is nie?

Dit is van kardinale belang dat Statistiek SA sal seker maak dat die data wat daar in dié land is, korrek is, sodat ons ook ons beplanning hiervandaan verder kan doen. Ons is dankbaar vir die styging van die salarisse van onderwysers en polisiebeamptes, maar ons wil tog ook pleit vir die verplegingsektor, want ons weet dat daar ’n behoefte is, én ons weet dat die koek net só groot is. Maar, as daar iets oor is, laat ons aan dié sektor ook aandag skenk.

Dit is vanjaar die verkiesing wat gevestig word op die plaaslike regering. Op dié vlak is dit absoluut belangrik, agb Minister, dat ons verseker dat die plaaslike regeringsmunisipaliteite, asook die OVK - wat alreeds in die vorige verkiesing kapasiteitsprobleme aangedui het - in terme van finansies goed toegerus moet wees om die uitdagings van dié verkiesing aan te pak. Die Noord-Kaap steun dié wetsontwerp. Dankie. [Tyd verstreke.][Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Mr C A T SMITH (Northern Cape): Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister, MECs present, hon Speakers, members of this House, comrades and friends, there are a handful of people in South Africa who want to exploit Afrikaans to promote themselves. Today I want to speak Afrikaans to prove the contrary, but also so that the people of Jan Kempdorp and Kuruman can understand me.

The Freedom Charter states that the people shall govern. Rightly so, the ANC government wants to be a government for the people, by the people. This sitting here in KwaMhlanga is proof of the government’s dedication to serve the people. The Northern Cape would like to congratulate you, as Chairperson of the NCOP, on that, as well as on this exercise. [Applause.]

It is good to see that the customs of the Northern Cape are also perpetuated at the national level. After the election results in 1994, when the ANC won by means of the national democratic revolution without any bloodshed, we made history, but this country was bankrupt. Thanks to fiscal discipline we managed to get this country back to a rate of 4,2%, and in the next financial year R363 billion will be available, with an increase up to R428 billion in the 2007-08 financial year. This is a remarkable achievement and, on behalf of the Northern Cape, we want to congratulate the Minister, the President and the Cabinet.

It is a fact that we in our province want to say thank you very much for the R3,124 184 billion that is being granted to us yet again this year. There are however still pressing problems and needs prevailing in our province that we would like to bring to your attention in this debate. We would once again like to draw your attention to the need for housing and roads.

The possibility that the municipal area of Gasegonyane may relocate, and that in the region of 180 000 people may leave the province, yet again implies that, according to the per capita formula - that appears in the FFC and that is no longer solely based on that today - the number of people in the province is decreasing, but the roads are not getting shorter and the distances to Port Nolloth, Fraserburg and Sutherland are not getting any shorter.

We want to say thank you very for what you have already done, and want to ask you, if there are additional funds, whether you would look into roads and housing for us when you make your half-yearly Budget announcement. A proposal from the Northern Cape is, amongst others, that the allocation, or the money that is being channelled for public works will also be fixed in the official provisional allowance, so that the money cannot go astray, but that it will be used for the purpose for which it is intended.

We would also appreciate it, hon Minister, if the disaster management programme of the Northern Cape could be looked into. By the very nature of the composition of our province, which covers the largest part of the land surface of this country and is inhabited by the smallest number of people, it is imperative that we consider this when we consider disaster management. You are familiar with the drought that is currently prevailing there. As a local from Calvinia I also want to ask for your support in this debate today once again to use water from the Doring River primarily for human consumption in this area. There is already a dam in Calvinia, why don’t we pump water from the Doring River to Calvinia, and then reticulate it to the dam and the surrounding towns?

It is of paramount importance that Statistics SA ensures that the existing data of this country are correct, so that we can do our planning accordingly. We are grateful for the increase in salaries of teachers and police officers, but we nevertheless want to plead for the nursing sector as well, as we know that there is a need, and we know that the cake is only that big. But, if there is something left over, let us pay attention to this sector as well.

This year we will have a local government election. At this level, hon Minister, it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that the local government municipalities, as well as the IEC, that already indicated capacity problems in the previous election, will be well equipped financially in order to meet the challenges of this election. The Northern Cape supports this Bill. Thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]]

Mr F ADAMS: Hon Chairperson, I am reading the speech on behalf of our special delegate who couldn’t make it. I won’t be long because darkness has no eyes, and I am just afraid that the DA might do things in the dark.

The Western Cape Provincial Legislature welcomes the tabling of the Division of Revenue Bill. This is, again, a sign of our maturing democracy. It is even more appropriate that we engage in discussions of this nature in our programme of taking Parliament to the people. It is particularly of significant importance for this Bill to be discussed as we begin our second decade of freedom.

The exercise of the division of revenue must also be seen in a context of giving practical expression to the notion of spheres of government, enabling them to be effective in what they are supposed to do. The end of it is not fiscal dumping, but service delivery to those who need it most. Going forward we have to take certain matters into account. It is our view that the issue of the division of the Revenue Bill must take a multi-year focus as opposed to a single financial year focus.

For future purposes we support the fiscal and financial commission’s recommendation that provinces need to augment provincially raised revenues through the implementation of section 228 of the Constitution, and take advantage of the provision of the Provincial Tax Regulation Act. The Western Cape supports the Bill. [Applause.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Members were offered seats in front here, so that you can be closer to the podium. I am talking to those people who are sitting at the back, please come forward.

Ms S MOLOKOANE (Salga): Hon Chairperson of the NCOP, Deputy Chairperson, Minister of Finance, hon MECs, hon members, special delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the SA Constitution seeks to promote the improvement of living environments and livelihoods for all constituents by means of a developmental approach to local government. The 2005 Budget therefore begins to clearly capture how the constitutional issues and government priorities as pronounced in the state of the nation address, are taken into account with the division of revenue for 2005.

After ten years of democracy and major transformation challenges the 2005 Budget provides a platform for the achievements of government’s objective for a stable microeconomic environment, the expectation of better financial improvements and accelerated service delivery and the opportunity to reflect government strategies to assist the poor and provide secure households. Most importantly, it presents a fairly optimistic picture of the economy for the next three years.

It is a positive innovation for South African communities that government in its own move to accelerate the pace of employment creation will focus on economic policy and aim at reducing the regulatory burden and simplify tax arrangements for small business, investing in skill education and the administration and comprehensive response to HIV and Aids. The increasing transfer for socioeconomic infrastructure investment emphasises the government’s commitment to find measures that will assist with employment opportunities to the labour intensive construction method via the Expanded Public Works Programme.

On local government allocations, it should be noted that local government receives 4,7% of the total Budget for 2005, with the total allocation rising from R14,8 billion in 2004 to R17,2 billion in 2005-06. Salga also acknowledged that the total R5,4 billion additional funding over three years from 2005-06 would be allocated to local government. This amount will be available to fund operational spending by R3,7 billion and municipal infrastructure by R1,7 billion. Although the additional R2, 4 billion is allocated to local government in the 2005-06 Budget, it should be recognised that the municipal budget still constitutes about 90% of its own revenue. As such, municipalities with low revenue-raising capacity will still find it difficult to meet their development needs.

Salga supports the reviewed local government equitable shares allocation formula, as it aims to provide simple calculations of equitable share allocation to municipalities, by taking into account and ensuring the balance in demand for basic services, with the capacity to raise revenue required to provide such services. Furthermore, it is welcome that the new formula is used to generate the allocation to municipalities based on the new baseline allocations for 2005-06, until 2008.

In the Budget, although the formula will be phased in fully and only introduced in 2007-08, we view it as a positive that in arriving at the proposed allocation, all the indicative figures, in terms of the DORA, promote the predictable principle of equitable share division for the purpose of limiting the unintended consequences. We propose that in future the new information, which affects the allocation of equitable shares obtained in the current year, should be guaranteed to all municipalities, and that those with more equitable share volume increasing will then be distributed only to those municipalities with new information, having a favourable effect on them.

Good municipal governance is built upon an effective interface between councillors, officials, strong links between financial and technical support functions and an appropriate organisational structure. It is appreciated that government over the past four years has committed funds on capacity building and restructuring initiatives. In order to enhance the proper use of these funds, the Project Consolidate under the Department of Provincial and Local Government and Salga should also help in measuring the impact of capacity of all these municipalities.

The local government financial management grant condition requires the appointment of an appropriate qualified chief financial officer. This is a worthwhile condition, however, it will be useful if all those surrounding managers should also be qualified, for example, municipal managers and senior managers. This is so that you don’t find the CFO operating in isolation.

The allocation of the restructuring grant is still happening on a small scale due to the fact that many applications by eligible municipalities are turned down as a result of such applications for funding being poor quality. Our appeal is that they should be looked at with a different eye by Treasury to simplify and make a transparent accessing of these grants to eligible municipalities.

The municipal infrastructure grants introduced in the 2005 Budget aim to rationalise the number of conditional grants within the system of intergovernmental transfers and create flexible capital funding so that these municipalities can freely allocate to their prioritised IDP needs. However, MIG allocations for 2005-06 now constitute an inflexible portion and if encouraged many of these inflexible portions may be created in future, which will be the signal of a lack of confidence in the MIG structure and its inability to address the infrastructure backlog.

It is also noted that the government has taken steps to link equitable share allocation with the municipal infrastructure grant allocation through the introduction of the revised average cost of services for service areas and nonservice areas. However, such information needs to be thoroughly true, as municipalities are likely to expand infrastructure at a rate far greater than they are able to maintain.

Completion of the process of review in the local government fiscal framework, which focuses on the reform of regional council services levies, the introduction of new property ratings and assessments of the impact of the restructuring of the electricity distribution industry and municipal finance is crucial. In this regard Salga, proposes that in order to avoid a major shift in revenue available to local government, the elimination of RSC levies by 2006 be replaced in all municipalities affected by revenue sources or by taxes easily collectible.

In conclusion, Salga supports the Division of Revenue Bill. We, however, would like to see that in future the issue of financial sustainability of municipal imperatives relating to local government in the Budget are taken into consideration when the Division of Revenue Bill is concluded. It is the responsibility of all spheres of government and some municipalities have not established themselves as fully constitutional governments by complying with constitutional and legislative provisions. Care must be taken to achieve economies without compromising service delivery and national policy.

Lastly, let me reiterate that the basis from which these inputs are made is to indicate that there is significant progress with regard to achieving the mandate of local government. In consolidating and co-ordinating an integration between government spheres, it should be made clear that irrespective of how government operates, the impact of its work is understood as being of one entity called government. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr B J MKHALIPHI: Chairperson, hon Deputy Chairperson, hon Minister, hon colleagues and all our compatriots. My work this evening has been made far easier by none other than the so-called opposition. We were taught in our party - and I am revealing some secrets to you this evening - that whenever those who are opposed to the advancement of democracy start to agree with you, go back and reread your rules. [Laughter.]

I have been checking my Freedom Charter once, twice and thrice as I was sitting here and I can’t help but agree with the hon Robinson on the issue she raised about education. She was confirming once more that the doors of learning shall be opened to all.

On the issue she raised about the Expanded Public Works Programme, what more can I say, there shall be work for all! She said it and confirmed it. [Laughter.] On the issues she raised about the FFC being a watchdog for civil society on financial matters by government, she has confirmed, openly so, that the people shall govern. [Laughter.]

The additional amount of R43 billon of nationally raised revenue added to provincial budgets achieves the following: Firstly, it stimulates a higher level of social services. Secondly, it improves service potential of educators and social workers. Thirdly, it expands the outreach of social security grants and protects their real value. Lastly, it speeds up the housing availability.

A major change in the provincial fiscal framework for the 2005 MTBF is the shift of the social security grant function from the provinces to the national sphere of government, which impacts directly on the composition of provincial allocations and the size of the provincial equitable share relative to conditional grants.

The social security grant function will, as we all know, and it has been said, as from 1 April be administered as a conditional grant by provinces. Currently, nine departments will administer 24 conditional grants to provinces. This shift will result in the equitable share component of national transfer to provinces decreasing from 88,4% in the current year to 66,4% in the coming financial year, while the share of conditional grants increases almost threefold from 12,6% to 35,6%.

Although additional national resources are allocated to social programmes, specifically targeting the poor and the vulnerable, improvement in the quality of spending, especially in the areas of housing and social security, remains essential. Interaction with some of our provinces by way of public hearings and some joint oversight convinces us that with due vigilance and commitment we shall overcome the remaining challenges, be they underspending or delayed projects.

We emphasise once more that the oversight role of all institutions of government should receive more focus and urgency to ensure that the quality of spending, that is to say, the appropriateness, the timeframe and durability of all those projects become a common concern for all of us as public representatives. [Time expired.] The province of Mpumalanga supports this Bill.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE: Thank you very much, Chairperson, and let me express my sincere appreciation to all those who contributed to this debate this afternoon.

We will watch, with keen interest, the discussions in the Select Committee on Finance and the Joint Budget Committee, but also the reports coming through from each of the provincial legislatures, after they have discussed the Division of Revenue Bill. Clearly, the process has been intense, notwithstanding the time constraints, and I will return to that in a moment.

Let me run through some of the issues that hon members have raised, some of them for confirmation. The hon MEC Coleman raised the issue of time-lags and the timeous availability of data in local governments. Clearly, we agree. There is work that we must do together to ensure that we have that. If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it, it’s as simple as that. On the issues of section 32(2) and section 4, I’d like to align myself with the hon Sogoni. These are not things that we can do arbitrarily. It’s a real test of cooperative governance.

However, if we remind ourselves of what has happened in the current fiscal year, one province has been spending exceedingly well on the hospital revitalisation programme, to the extent that by October they had used all their allocations. Yet, there were other provinces where, for the same conditional grants, spending wasn’t happening. All that we need is a mechanism that allows for flexibility and engagement within the spirit of cooperative governance, that you can effect the changes and smooth the work, failing which we will have too many incomplete projects.

Hon Robinson, I can’t be held responsible for oil prices and that is going to have an impact. At US$ 56,37 per barrel this afternoon it’s really going to wreak havoc on the global economy.

The issue of libraries and resource centres is a very important issue. Let me again draw to the attention of members of the NCOP, and members of Salga, that we need to examine where these libraries are going to be located best and how they will be funded. I was quite saddened to read in a magazine this week of a library in the Ukahlamba District Council area that is now boarded up and has been closed for about a year, because the individual who had been the librarian there for many years passed away, and the municipality has not been able to recruit another librarian.

Needless to say, in areas of greatest need where children don’t have access to the Internet and all of the other things, these libraries fulfil a very important public good and we must ensure that they are properly provided for.

On the Expanded Public Works Programme, and again to tie up with what the hon Robinson said and with what the hon Aulsebrook said, I have gone through the report of the hearing of 8 March and Dr Sean Phillips of the Department of Public Works went into a lot of detail. Now, this notion that there should be a different budget line for the Expanded Public Works Programme is not correct, I mean, he confirmed this. It is how we do things; it’s ensuring that we can do that regularly across every local authority and provincial government area and, very importantly, let me emphasise that the quality and extent of the Expanded Public Works Programme will be determined by the quality and extent of the constituency work put in by elected public representatives – you don’t do that, nobody quite knows what is happening and unless we are there and we see, and also become the eyes and ears, nobody actually knows what is happening.

You can’t ask a Minister sitting in Pretoria or a MEC sitting in a provincial capital to always have a full scope. And, I think that frequently leadership in political parties are asked how they know, even MPs being there. There’s even less about it in the reports, because those are the easy things. It’s in the footprints and fingerprints that are communicated by reports and actual issues that are left unattended.

The hon Mkhize, a lot of what you raised requires some response. Of course, these formulae are but formulae. So, the Western Cape and Gauteng had one view, the remaining seven provinces had a different view, and so development versus poverty is a marginal shift. These kinds of things will happen and I think that MEC Coleman who was here with us and who was part of that debate would be able to reflect that we try to be as fair as possible in changing the formula.

On housing, clearly, you can’t give it. If you look at the conditions you can’t give it to municipalities that are incompetent. You must have a series of competency tests. However, in an area such as housing it is argued, and hence the shift, that it is best going to be delivered by that sphere of government which is closest to people. We must also align our spatial planning with housing; you can’t build houses somewhere where there are no clinics, no roads, no sports facilities, and so on. So, municipal responsibilities are going to be exceedingly important in going forward, but the competency tests, similarly, will be that which triggers the transfer.

Classification of spending is not something we have immediate control over; these are international norms. The risk for fraudulent application is an interesting debate; I don’t have the time to go into it, but if all I did was sit and fill out forms – I’m employed by one sphere of government – and someone else is going to pay, there actually is no responsibility vested in me to exercise my share of Batho Pele, which is to ensure that the system works, to ensure that you don’t have fraudulent claims and, in dealing with that, it’s primarily a function of how we equip our public servants. And the engagement is their approach to the task at hand, which would be important.

In respect of the fast-tracking, the hon Chairperson knows because we have had intense discussions about this. I know that this is probably the most important piece of legislation of the NCOP in the year. There are some things that we do not have control over, such as the oil price and this period, 21 March, which we didn’t determine shall be the time for Easter, and so this brief recess period that is coming up throws us into a bit of disarray.

As I communicated with the Chairperson, Parliament needs to be exemplary. We must pass our budgets before the start of the fiscal year, and if we delay it until the NCOP reconvenes we would be in the new fiscal year. Reconvening the NCOP for a single meeting is a very costly exercise. So, in these circumstances I crave your indulgence and indicate that normally the Intergovernmental Fiscal Review is important, and also the Division of Revenue Bill is important because it’s a three-year framework. The MTBPS confirms that three-year framework.

A lot of this discussion here concerns issues that people know about already. The numbers may have changed and the margins, the principles are those that are obtained. My plea is for members of the NCOP, in the engagement with both municipalities and provincial legislatures, to avoid the rush, to have these discussions more intensely and that will make it easier. Because, even in the period normally between the tabling of the Budget and the third or fourth week of June and the start of the fiscal year on 1 April you have too little time to do a full round of discussions. It’s shortened this year by these holidays, but, normally, if we could get through these discussions, in fact, before we rise in November/December we would probably be in a much stronger position.

Hon Aulsebrook, I’ll check on these guidelines. I’ll speak to public works. Hon Sinclair, the one difficulty is always, and I have to ask myself, when is Bully Botma advising us of a problem in agriculture and when does he just need to get into the papers. It’s a big difficulty we have with Grain SA. Clearly, there are problems, but what we should avoid is a situation – and you know we released the Commission for Africa report last Friday, and the report reminds us that a cow in Europe is still subsidised at the rate of US$2 a day. A cow in Japan is subsidised at the rate of US$4 a day, and our big battle in South Africa is to ensure that people would be able to live on more than US$2 a day. That remains a battle for us. So, we can’t resort to the same thing; we couldn’t afford it. Our focus has to be on people and, at the same time, to fight the subsidies, which destroy agriculture in the developing world. We are not going to resolve that by subsidising farmers. We have enormous challenges, but I hear you.

In respect of what the hon CAT Smith has raised, I clearly am moved by the story of the number of people who would leave.

Al wat ek kan vra, is: “Broei, boetie, broei.” [Gelag.] [All that I can ask is: “Breed, brother, breed.” [Laughter.]]

Go out there and breed and add some people to the Northern Cape, otherwise this thing is going to catch us.

On disaster management, it’s work in progress and, clearly, we have been advised by the premier about all of those districts that are affected by drought. On the issue of water, it is something we will look at.

Councillor Molokwane, on the MFMA, for me the most important thing is the amount of effort we put into the training of councillors. Of course you are correct. You are correct that your CFO must be competent and the other managers must be even more competent. And those other managers must be more committed than the CFO. I saw some things on TV this week that left me somewhat saddened about municipal managers, but that’s a different story. But, most important, in my view, is that we must ensure that councillors are properly equipped to engage, to oversee the work of the officials, to ensure that budgets are passed, because the councillors approve these as elected representatives of the people. That’s a big challenge for us, and that is the investment we must make, and so, as we move towards the local government elections and beyond, it is one of those big investments that this country must make to ensure that we have competent, skilled councillors, whose understanding of issues is regularly updated. I think we must make a joined commitment with Salga on that.

On the conditionalities in the MIG, it is something we would clearly look at. I agree with you that there are big challenges, and we have raised the numbers between those municipalities where the services exist and where they don’t exist. That is a rough approximation, but it also serves to remind us, hon members, of the gaps that exist. I said on one area, such as the termination of the bucket system, that there is a clear commitment that we can make, but there would be a series of other changes that we have to undertake. The key is the speed with which we can align IDPs with budgets, with accessing the MIG, with ensuring that we are using the available resources to improve on the quality of services that the poor have access to. That’s a big challenge for us. It’s not something that municipalities have to do alone; you are correct in saying that as well and that it’s a joint responsibility, and I am merely echoing precisely what you were saying, councillor.

On the RSC levies, we haven’t said anything, but we would be foolhardy collectively if we terminated the RSC levies to leave municipalities without that source of revenue that they’ve had for infrastructure development. My people assure me that by June or, at the very latest, by July, we will have a set of proposals that we can examine, together with Salga, on what will replace the RSC levies. Is that so? Good.

On the financial sustainability of local government, in respect of what the hon Mkhaliphi raised, I’m glad about the way in which he spoke to the hon Robinson. He also demonstrated that there shall be peace and friendship. [Laughter.]

But, let me conclude by reminding everybody that 50 years ago this year those who gathered at Kliptown, in agreeing on all of that which puts together the vision of this South Africa, said: “These freedoms we shall fight for, side by side, throughout our lives, until we have won our liberty.”

Part of this discussion here, part of the content of what members have given, says to us that we are still fighting for those liberties. We can’t rest until all the freedoms that are expressed in the Charter touch the lives of the poorest South Africans. That’s the struggle; that is why we march together, side by side, until we have won all these freedoms. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Thank you, hon Minister, for responding to all the debaters this evening. That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question 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 the delegate heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all delegation heads present? Yes.

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

Ms B N DLULANE (Mpuma Koloni): Re a thekgla.[Eastern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?

Mrs S E MABE (Free State): Free State votes in favour. The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?

Mr S SHICEKA (Gauteng): In favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI (KwaZulu-Natal): KwaZulu-Natal iyaxhasa. [KwaZulu-Natal supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE (Limpopo): Limpopo, e a thekgla. [Limpopo supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA (Mpumalanga): Mpumalanga iyasekhela. [Mpumalanga supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?

Mr R J TAU (Northern Cape): Noord-Kaap stem saam. [Northern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?

Mr Z S KOLWENI (North West): North West in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?

Mr F ADAMS (Western Cape): Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]

Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.

The Council adjourned at 19:36.

                             __________



            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS




                       THURSDAY, 10 MARCH 2005

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Referrals to committees of papers tabled

 The following papers have been tabled and are now referred to the
 relevant committees as mentioned below:


 (1)    The Fifth Economic and Social Rights Report of the South African
     Human Rights Commission for 2002-2003 is referred to the following
     Select Committees:


     (a)     Chapter 1 - "The Right to Land";

     (b)     Chapter 5 - "The Right to a Healthy Environment" and

     (c)     Chapter 8 - "The Right to Water" is referred to the Select
          Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs for consideration
          and report.

     (d)     Chapter 2 - "The Right to Food";

     (e)     Chapter 3 - "The Right to Health Care" and

     (f)     Chapter 4 - "The Right to Social Security" is referred to
          the Select Committee on Social Services for consideration and
          report.

     (g)     Chapter 6 - "The Right to Education" is referred to the
          Select Committee on Education and Recreation for consideration
          and report.

     (h)     Chapter 7 - "The Right of Access to Adequate Housing" is
          referred to the Select Committee on Public Services for
          consideration and report.


 (2)    The following paper is referred to the Select Committee on Land
     and Environmental Affairs:

     Strategic Plan of the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry for
     2005-2008.

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Health

 Strategic Plan of the Department of Health for 2005-2008.

1. The Minister of Sport and Recreation

 Report and Financial Statements of Boxing South Africa for 2003-2004,
 including the Report of the Auditor-General on the Financial Statements
 for 2003-2004.

                        FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2005

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Science and Technology

 Report and Financial Statements of the National Advisory Council on
 Innovation for 2003-2004.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Finance on the Division of Revenue Bill [B 8B - 2005] (National Assembly - sec 76), dated 11 March 2005:

   The Select Committee on Finance, having considered the subject of the Division of Revenue Bill [B 8B - 2005] (National Assembly - sec 76), referred to it, reports the Bill without amendment.

                   WEDNESDAY, 16 MARCH 2005
   

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Science and Technology

   Strategic Plan of the Department of Science and Technology for 2005-6 to 2008-2010.

2. The Minister of Social Development

   Strategic Plan of the Department of Social Development for 2005-6 to 2009- 2010 [RP 28-2005].

                       THURSDAY, 17 MARCH 2005
   

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. Classification of Bills by Joint Tagging Mechanism:

 (1)    The Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) on 16 March 2005 in terms of
     Joint Rule 160(3), classified the following Bill as a section 75
     Bill:


     (I )    Convergence Bill [B 9 – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75)

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

 (1)    Bill passed by National Assembly on 17 March 2005:


     (i)     Sterilisation Amendment Bill [B 12B – 2004] (National
          Council of Provinces – sec 76)

National Council of Provinces

1. Messages from National Assembly to National Council of Provinces in respect of Bills passed by Assembly and transmitted to Council

 (1)    Bill passed by National Assembly on 17 March 2005 and
     transmitted for concurrence:


        i) Citation of Constitutional Laws Bill [B 5B – 2005] (National
           Assembly – sec 75)


     The Bill has been referred to the Select Committee on Security and
     Constitutional Affairs of the National Council of Provinces.