WEDNESDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2005 __

          PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES

                                ____

The Council met at 10:00.

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

ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS – see col 000.

                 CONSTITUTION TWELFTH AMENDMENT BILL


              CROSS-BOUNDARY MUNICIPAL LAWS REPEAL BILL

           (Consideration of Bills and of Reports thereon)

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, esteemed delegates and hon members, in 1994 the World Bank produced a discussion paper which, amongst other things, observed that South Africa’s urban sector accounts for about 60% of the country’s population and over 80% of its GDP.

The discussion document further observed that, and I quote:

Without a fiscal base and an effective governance structure, the black townships, in stark contrast to the adjacent cities, have a low level of infrastructure and basic services.

May I hasten to point out, Chairperson, that what the World Bank had to say about black townships is actually a softer version of the situation that prevails in the predominantly rural provinces. The demographic and economic concentration decried by the World Bank gave rise to a tendency towards underdevelopment and stagnation. It effectively redlined millions of South Africans from the national economy in a kind of cynical geography of exclusion.

Today service delivery and infrastructure backlogs are a function of that distinctive historical geography. The cross-boundary municipalities, with their less than optimal effects on the quality of life of our people, have indeed proved to be an embodiment and source of underdevelopment, rather than its solution.

We see the electoral cycle as presenting us with the opportunity periodically to probe and roll back such barriers to sound governance and sustainable development. It is for that reason that the work that the NCOP has set for itself today must indeed be commended as an important step taking us in the direction of solving this problem. The decision that the NCOP will take, hopefully will pave the way for introducing a local government architecture that promises to help extricate some of our people out of their collective condition of indigence.

As we speak, the Department of Provincial and Local Government is working very closely with the affected provinces and municipalities to design a process of managing the transition of disestablished cross-boundary municipalities. The necessary resources, both human and material, for the facilitation of the transition are also being mobilised.

Government has also taken note of the concerns raised by affected residents in the course of their interactions with the relevant provincial select committees. Appropriate steps are taken to ensure that the geographical reordering of provincial and local spaces does not result in further impoverishment of our people. On the contrary, it must result in the betterment of our people’s conditions of life.

For all these things to happen, government will need the continuing co- operation of the NCOP, the National Assembly, provincial legislatures and the local government leadership, amongst others. We owe it to our people and our country to work together for the realisation of this goal - and work together we must. In conclusion, Chairperson, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you, hon members and delegates, for kindly interrupting your holidays in order to bring to a close the legislative aspect of the work preparatory to the March 2006 local government elections.

A special word of thanks goes to all residents from the various communities, who participated in the consultation processes germane to this issue. They contributed insights whose usefulness goes beyond the immediate assignment of redrawing provincial boundaries. They will enrich the ongoing work of the municipalities as well as the interventions to be made by provinces and national government in support of municipalities.

In any case, the last word on the configuration of municipalities and provinces has not been said yet. Future processes in this regard will also benefit from the contributions that were made in this round. I thank you. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon Chairperson, hon Minister Mufamadi, members, delegates, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, may I first apologise for not being here when the House began. I am not sure how the misunderstanding took place, but we were informed that there would first be motions and that we would start 15 to 20 minutes after the start of the House. So I am not too sure how this mistake occurred, but I apologise for that. Let me start with the Bill. We have had four years of operating our new local government system and as a government it is our firm belief that it is time to remove some of the constraints to optimal service delivery. To do this, we need to create a better legal and administrative framework that will improve the performance of local government – as outlined by the Minister.

The legal and administrative framework of local government has undergone notable changes that have benefited citizens of this country. However, there are still significant problems, even loopholes that require an ongoing process of review and improvement. A profile of municipal performance conducted by the Department of Provincial and Local Government has found that among those municipalities that are discharging less than a third of their assigned powers and functions are cross-boundary municipalities.

The proposed changes in the local government framework must therefore be seen against the background of a government committed to ensuring a better life for all through efficient government institutions at local level.

Provincial boundary changes are not meant to disrupt the lives of those who reside and do business in the affected areas. The proposed changes should be approached on the basis of the need to improve service delivery rather than sentimental considerations and perceptions of effective and efficient service delivery by one province in relation to another.

Our ultimate objective is, therefore, to ensure that local government fulfils its constitutional mandate to service provision, development and poverty alleviation. Therefore the benefits to communities of ensuring municipalities fall under a single provincial government include that budgets and service delivery programmes will come from one source, that of provincial government. This will, therefore, ensure that service delivery should be faster and of a better quality.

The present nine provinces of the Republic were established by means of the SA Constitution, out of the former white South Africa, the various Bantustans and the so-called self-governing territories. While the Constitution brought about these new entities that were to become an integral part of what constitutes this country today, the area of the respective provinces were defined primarily by reference to specific magisterial districts created in terms of the Magistrates Court Act of

1. This status quo was retained when adopted its final Constitution in 1996, which provides, and I quote, that: “The boundaries of the provinces are those that existed when the Constitution took effect.”

During the demarcation process of the local government boundaries cross- boundary municipalities were established in some areas to ensure viable, integrated and effective local government, without a shift in the existing provincial boundaries. In terms of the relevant statutory provisions, 16 cross-border municipalities were created, for example, Ekhurhuleni, Tshwane, Bushbuckridge and Kgalakgadi.

These cross-boundary municipalities affect five provinces, namely Gauteng, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, the Northern Cape and North West. However, in the past five years experience has shown that cross-boundary municipalities present legal and administrative challenges. Cross-boundary municipalities make it difficult for government to provide services to communities in an equitable and sustainable manner, to promote integrated social and economic development and to ensure effective local government.

The co-ordination and integration of programmes and budgets of two different provinces into a single development programme have been found to be extremely difficult, where priorities differ from provinces with joint administrative responsibilities over a cross-boundary municipality.

The main reason for the below-par service delivery in these municipalities is that many provinces have different pieces of legislation for similar functions such as health, housing, traffic and ambulance services. If laws of more than one province need to be administered, it is also very confusing and costly. Therefore the President’s Co-ordinating Council (PCC) recommended that the notion of cross-boundary municipalities should be abolished so that all municipalities in the country fall entirely in one province or the other.

The PCC also recommended that the provincial boundaries be revised accordingly, and that investigations and consultations be undertaken to decide how to adjust these boundaries to ensure effective delivery, development and accountability. The decision of the PCC was influenced by the challenges experienced in these joint-administration municipalities.

In order to give effect to the resolution of the PCC, the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill before you today redetermines the geographical areas of the provinces to avoid municipal boundaries stretching over to provinces. This is done by using municipalities as building blocks to define the geographical areas of provinces, instead of using magisterial districts to define those areas, as is presently the case.

In addition, the Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill of 2005, which was dealt with by the NA yesterday, repeals all laws providing for cross-boundary municipalities and deals with certain consequential arrangements to ensure a smooth transition from the cross- boundary municipality dispensation to the new dispensation where municipalities are located in one province.

Let me now briefly explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 amends section 103 of the Constitution, to list the respective provinces in alphabetical order and to provide that the geographical areas of the respective provinces comprise the sum total of the indicated geographical areas reflected in the various maps referred to in the notice listed in schedule 1(a) of the amended Bill.

Provision is further made that whenever the geographical area of a province is redetermined by an amendment to the Constitution, an ordinary Act of Parliament may provide for transitional measures to regulate the legal, practical and any other consequences of the redetermination. As already mentioned, such transitional measures are provided for in the Cross- boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill and will regulate matters such as the transfer of provincial functions, assets, rights, obligations, duties, liabilities and so forth.

Clauses 2 and 3 repeal section 155(6a) and 157(4)(b) of the Constitution, which deal with cross-boundary municipalities and therefore remove, finally, from our Constitution the principle of cross-boundary municipalities. The enactment into law of the exact new municipal boundaries under review is dealt with in the Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill and not in the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill.

Clause 4 inserts a new schedule 1(a) in the Constitution, which defines the areas of the provinces with reference to their geographical areas that are reflected in municipal demarcation maps that are contained in official notices published by the Municipal Demarcation Board.

Although there are no cross-boundary municipalities on the provincial boundary between the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, the challenges relating to that boundary are also being addressed in the Bill debated here through proposed demarcations of municipalities. In so far as those proposed demarcations impact on district municipalities, such proposals are reflected in the proposed new schedule 1(a) to be inserted in the Constitution.

It is important to emphasise the vital role that the Constitution gives to provincial legislatures to play in the passing of amendments to the Constitution that affect provinces. In terms of section 74(3) of the Constitution, a Bill amending the Constitution must also be passed by the NCOP with the supporting vote of at least six provinces, if the amendment, inter alia, changes or alters provincial boundaries, powers, functions or institutions.

Provision is further made in section 74(8) that if such a Bill, or any other part of such a Bill, concerns only a specific province or specific provinces, as is the case in these amendments, the NCOP may not pass the Bill or the relevant part unless it has been approved by the legislature or legislatures of the province or provinces concerned.

In order to comply with these constitutional requirements, the Bill was referred to all the affected provincial legislatures shortly after the NA approved it. From the negotiating mandates that the affected provinces gave to their delegations, it is clear that all the affected provincial legislatures or committees of those legislatures, with the exception of KwaZulu-Natal and North West, conducted public hearings on the Bill to obtain the views of affected communities.

It needs to be mentioned that government will do everything in its power to ensure that the standard of service delivery to these affected communities that they receive at present will remain the same and even be improved when the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill takes effect and those communities are relocated to their new provinces. For that purpose, interprovincial co- ordinating committees have been established in all the affected provinces to ensure that a smooth transfer of functions, powers, assets, and so forth takes place.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the chairpersons and the members of the Select Committees on Security and Constitutional Affairs and of the Local Government and Administration, as well as the Speakers and the members of the affected provincial legislatures for the time and effort that they have put into finalising this technical but, because of the subject matter, sensitive Constitution Amendment Bill within the short timeframe given. I thank you. [Applause.]

Kgoshi M L MOKOENA: Chairperson, hon Ministers, colleagues and hon members, we are engaging in this debate fully aware of the contribution and concerns raised by communities directly or indirectly affected by changes made in these two Bills.

Members will remember how provincial boundaries were drawn or determined. Members will also recall how municipal boundaries were redetermined. Let me be frank and indicate that even then, other sections of our communities were not happy with some of the changes, as they are even now. But let us acknowledge here that some concerns that were raised then were genuine. There are instances, though, where proposals made by those communities were accommodated while others were not.

The message that I want to convey to this Council and to our people is that whatever changes are proposed in this Bill are not aimed at frustrating or harming any person, or putting people’s lives at risk, or trying to disorientate, punish or even disadvantage them in terms of service delivery or otherwise to disregard the integrity or intelligence of people.

At the same time, we are aware that it is not possible to accommodate or satisfy everybody. When we proposed these changes, the sole purpose was to level the playing field so as to enable service delivery to be effected with ease or speed.

Maybe the following question needs to be raised. By proposing these changes in these two Bills, are we empowering provinces? The answer is “no”. We are empowering those local communities to fast-track service delivery. In this day and age, can we be seen to be promoting provincialism? The answer is “no”. Instead, the Bill seeks to promote strong local government.

Does it matter really where one is located in terms of provinces? The answer, again, is “no”. I believe that what matters, is for people to get the necessary services that are provided by the state, especially at local municipality level.

Who will benefit when these changes are made? Is it the releasing province or the receiving province? The answer is “none”. Only the local communities that are affected will benefit because there won’t be any ambiguity as to who must provide services to those particular communities. That is a fact. What is going to happen to the budget that used to service those communities that are going to be affected by these changes? Is it going to be discontinued? The answer is “no”. Your budget will follow you. Furthermore, there is an undertaking by our government that there will be no disruptions in terms of service delivery to those communities that are affected.

I want to look at the bigger picture. As a committee we understood the concerns raised by the affected communities. We seriously looked at them and resolved as follows: that the NCOP will make sure that all matters that are contained in the transitional arrangement in this Bill are implemented. We are going to make sure that all those structures that are expected to implement the decisions taken by the executive or the interprovincial co- ordinating committees do so.

Let me assure all our people who stay in those affected areas that those who were getting salaries from the state will continue to get those salaries; that those who were receiving child support grants will continue to get them; that those who were receiving old age pensions will continue to get them; that those who got tenders from either that particular province or any municipality will be allowed to continue to service those projects, regardless of which province they belong to; that those who got trading or whatever licence will continue to trade.

These are but just a few examples of things that will not be affected by these changes. My colleagues will deal effectively with this subject.

I want to call upon all those receiving provinces to make sure that all those affected communities continue to get the same services that they were getting, or even get more. As the NCOP or all the relevant committees in this Council, we will leave no stone unturned in making sure that our communities are not adversely affected by these changes. So you are not alone.

However, we all agree that we should look at the bigger picture. All these things are done to make sure that service delivery is properly co-ordinated and fast-tracked. People might not see it now, but should understand that, as we say in Sepedi: Montshepetša bošego ke mo leboga bosele. [The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.]

The officials who work for the departments of Justice and Constitutional Development and of Provincial and Local Government, including our state law advisers, have displayed, once more, that we, as Parliament, can rely on their good and honest advice, which enables us to carry out our legislative mandate and oversight function. Keep up the good work.

To my colleagues, committee members, you are always equal to the task. You are always ready and prepared to go the extra mile. I am not ashamed to say that in you I have dedicated leaders; in you I have committed cadres; in you I have unselfish cadres; in you I have magnificent revolutionaries. This committee is not for the faint-hearted.

I don’t have enough words to express my appreciation to you, colleagues. It is true: you are made of sterner stuff. As I have said before: No matter how deep the bottle is, the cream will always be on top. Chairperson, I am talking about the Mokoena detachment. [Laughter.]

The two Bills are now before the Council. Let us do the right thing: let us say “yes” to these two Bills. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr A L J MOSEKI: Chairperson, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Salga representatives, colleagues and our distinguished guests, we need to say that we are assembled this morning in this august House to debate the two Bills: the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill and the Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill. The debate that we are engaged in seeks to pass the two Bills to allow for the smooth running of the country at the three spheres of governance.

We are mindful of the fact that there are concerns that have been raised. But I think it’s important that whilst those important concerns are raised, there should be an understanding that South Africa is a united country, as the Freedom Charter proclaims. South Africa is a nonracial and not a federal country. It is a nonsexist state.

The process of building this country began in 1994. In 2003 the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country again voted the ANC into power. Before that the ANC went to the people of this country and said: “We want to speed up the changes, and the agenda is transformation.” To that end, I think it should be understood in context that the phasing out of the cross-boundary municipalities is part of that agenda of transformation, nothing else.

Chapter 2 of the Constitution of this country talks about the rights of all the citizens, that is equal rights. Equal rights in this context means that people will get quality services and laws will be applied equally to all the citizens of this country. The citizens of this country will enjoy the same rights. Therefore we want to urge communities, especially those affected by this process, to have that contextual understanding of this process.

I agree with the chairperson of the committee that we were given a responsibility by this House, as select committees, to oversee the work of the executive. As the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development has said, there are structures that have been put in place to ensure that service is delivered. We want to assure the citizens of this country that the select committee will ensure that that really does take place as expected.

Having said all that, we want to say, as a select committee and also as representatives of the ANC, that we support these two Bills unconditionally. Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mr D A WORTH: Chairperson, hon Ministers present here, when wall-to-wall municipalities were introduced in 2000, some 16 municipal areas fell within the territory of adjoining provinces. These are the so-called cross- boundary municipalities. This resulted in practical difficulties, particularly in respect of service delivery. It is commonly accepted that cross-boundary municipalities should be replaced by municipalities that fall within one province.

The Bill attempts to ensure that, amongst other things, all licences, permits, authorisations and appointments made in terms of the releasing province continue to have the force of law where the particular area is relocated to another province. Any function exercised or service delivered by the releasing province must be exercised or delivered by the provincial government of the receiving province. This applies also with regard to any assets, be they movable or immovable; any rights, obligations, duties or liabilities. There are financial implications attached to this Bill, as an adjustment to the provincial equitable share allocations, based on the provincial shift in population, will have to be effected.

Whilst this Bill further seeks to allow the MEC for local government and the electoral commission to take steps to prepare for the elections of all municipal councils that reflect the new composition or location in a particular province, voters will have to reregister in these particular areas, all this before 1 March 2006.

The Presidential Co-ordinating Council had already resolved in November 2002 that cross-boundary municipalities be done away with. It must be ensured in future that Bills of this nature are not rushed through with undue haste and that full consultation with everyone in the provinces concerned takes place. In certain instances it is clear whether the community wished to be incorporated into another province. In others, it would appear this is being done against the will of the people residing in such areas.

Many concerns have been raised by the various communities in the affected provinces. The people of Merafong would rather stay in Gauteng than be included in the North West province. The people from Marble Hall and Groblersdal would rather stay in Mpumalanga than be incorporated into Limpopo. The people of Matatiele would rather stay in KwaZulu-Natal than be included in the Eastern Cape. Such people affected perceive that services such as health, housing, social services and transport, to name just a few, are better in the more efficient provinces than in others and are naturally not happy about being relocated to what is perceived as a disorganised or less functional province.

While certain amendments to the Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill allow the National Council of Provinces to assist the provincial governments concerned in any manner necessary, it remains to be seen whether the persons redemarcated to other provinces and municipalities will receive enhanced service delivery and administration.

Capacity constraints and a lack of appropriate skills remain a major problem in many municipalities across South Africa, and not only in the so- called cross-boundary municipalities. It is on this level of local government that service and delivery must take place to ensure a better life for all. I thank you.

Mr V W MBATHA (Gauteng): Hon Chairperson, Ministers and Deputy Minister present, delegates from the respective provinces and members of the National Council of Provinces, I rise on behalf of Gauteng in support of the Bill, from the point of view of continuation with the consolidation of this sphere of local government. During these final stages we are concluding the foundation on which our democracy is built and the legitimate institutions of democratic participation and decision-making that our democracy provides.

The intention of the Bill is clearly spelt out in its objectives. Noting this complex subject, we, as a movement of the people of South Africa, black and white, represented in different legislatures and the National Assembly, seem to be following through on the commitment we undertook to transform this country. We continue to assess, review and dynamically alter the transformation programme to achieve quantitative quality elements of our national democratic revolution.

Our transition to democracy has been characterised by the challenges of developing a system of government that is people-centred, people-driven and responsive to the socioeconomic imperatives of a society that is mobile in transitional mode, in order to build integrated, nonracial and economically sustainable communities.

At the democratic breakthrough of 1994, we inherited a legacy of a country that was administratively fragmented into former Bantustans and tribal homelands. These evolved into colonial reserves of cheap and unskilled labour of African people in particular, and divided the South African nation racially. This arrangement was designed to foster quasi-autonomous so-called black rule, which entrenched the principle of apartheid rule of division by colour, gender and less development of African and Coloured communities.

These artificially skewed racial, ethnic and tribal boundaries called homelands and Bantustans were so structured as to dehumanise African lives and were meant to confine the lives of ordinary people, denying them proper, acceptable human fulfilment and growth.

The then regime appropriated land and siphoned natural resources such as diamonds, gold and platinum to fund this exclusive policy of white development. The management of the country was highly centralised and driven by a narrow ideology of white supremacy. Information gathering and data usage was strictly for predilection of surveillance information and propaganda purposes.

The information that the then apartheid state used to gather was primarily used to manage threats and to spy on the lives of civil bodies or organisations that were protesting this exclusive and unviable system of local government. The task, therefore, of the black local authorities was to disperse patronage and report on the acts of civil disobedience and popular protest struggles contesting white minority rule.

The different municipalities became an extension of apartheid machinery and were meant to foster fear and conformist attitudes among the historically disadvantaged black communities in general. These communities’ municipalities had unbalanced autonomy, without any monitoring of their budgets. Never were there communities involved in the process of governance as the administration serviced a relatively small homogenous white population.

Without any hint of a possibility of the future, the apartheid state left a desert of underserved portions of land that commanded human habitation for decades, without any reinforcement prior to development. These dolomitic portions of land were allocated to or designated for some of the townships or black residential areas. There was never a shared sense of long-term implications for a country that would later on have to grapple with development.

With the above being the challenges that confronted the ANC when it ascended to power, hard choices had to be made with regard to sustainability of these councils. Having made significant strides since the preinterim phase of integrating municipalities, with some reconfigured into metros, districts and local councils, cross-boundary municipalities remain a challenge.

A point that we need to steadfastly communicate is that this Bill is not basically intended to ignore the fact that even from the point of view of the negotiated settlement, there was still unfinished business from the constitution-drafting process, that later on, as a country premised on the current Constitution, democratic and legitimate institutions of governance, we will have to deal with.

The current exercise of realigning cross-boundary municipalities needs to be understood within the broad context of transforming the country and the state into a developmental trajectory. The challenge pertaining to relocation in a manner that sustains them autonomously has remained a complex and emotive fact. But when we are faced with the task of clarifying their identity for purposes of administration and compatibility with national legislation, a narrow and sectarian approach seems to dominate and cloud the objectives of continuing to rationalise this sphere of government in a way that ensures optimal usage of minimal resources that we command as a movement, as a country and as a state.

Allegations have, unfortunately, emerged of us dumping people into historically disadvantaged administrations of the old TBVC states and the Transvaal administration by some among these particular poor communities and provinces. Without any proof of scientific evidence, the allegations of poor capacity of respective provincial administrations have fast become an issue, which works against harnessing the capacity of municipalities and provincial administration to be better equipped to deliver services.

The issue of imaginary boundaries motivated as borders confronts us in a manner that defocuses us from the primary intention of building a unitary, single country that is responsive to the needs of the poor, historically underdeveloped communities.

To us the Reconstruction and Development Programme, which has served as a prescriptive document to reflect practically on the Freedom Charter, challenges us as government and legislatures to ensure that on completion of rationalisation, managed sizes of numbers of municipalities will have to come into effect.

The demarcation of boundaries of local authorities should ensure that informal settlements on the outskirts of towns, cities and urban settlements and displaced behind homeland boundaries are incorporated into the jurisdictions of new local authorities.

Amongst the things we should do is to structure these municipalities in such a manner that they are also reconfigured in the context of urban edge, bringing services and job opportunities closer to our people.

The unfortunate challenge that faces us as a movement is to respond scientifically to these concerns that the people of the affected municipalities have raised. These range from housing delivery, health services, public works, planning and development, road traffic regulation and management, vehicle licensing and provision of water and sanitation. These, in our opinion as the ANC, are national obligations.

Whether you are in Gauteng, North West, Mpumalanga or Eastern Cape, we would still be obliged as government to have to perform these particular functions. There are questions to ask, noting the report from Treasury with regard to the expenditure of the different provincial governments, including those that are perceived to be better in terms of service delivery and capital expenditure: One, is it not perhaps a challenge on the part of our responsibility to raise the bar in relation to our oversight obligation; two, is the challenge confronting us the task of building and developing the necessary human capital that is seized with the task of quantifying, together with us, and trying to build a sustainable human livelihood?

Roads and rail infrastructure are the key priority challenges that can enhance the economic viability of the country rather than these respective municipalities. This is an area in which we have together not fared well with regard to implementation and spending.

The need to rapidly integrate rural urban development must find concrete meaning and expression in the programme that government implements in a manner that addresses immigration into urban centres, hence congestion and urban densification posing to be a challenge.

The country would be best poised if a package delivery scenario was to define the function and work of these particular municipalities and provinces to avoid competition. We have a challenge: a chance to resolve the elements of the sunset clauses that characterise the negotiated settlement that ushered us into a democratic dispensation in 1994. This is a challenge we cannot avoid and have never sought to avoid.

Our revolutionary struggle so far has taken cognisance of the fact that transformation will never be easy. We have to continue to engage both business and the affected communities pursuant to this Bill to realise the long-term benefits of engagement. Engagement has always proven to be the best method of seeking solutions to our country’s challenges. We should, therefore, say that we’ll continue to work together to build a better South Africa.

We should continue to call on our people that whilst they have a right to be listened to, to influence and to be influenced, to cherish and to love the country and to use the little or minimal resources that we have been able to build over time in the affected areas, they should exercise discipline.

Together we have to start grappling with the design of our government and the different spheres we have established. This we have to do from the point of view of developing a shared understanding of the role of each sphere, its powers and functions, the intergovernmental relations exercise that fosters the economic viability of these municipalities in order to appreciate or achieve proper human fulfilment. Knowing that the task that will follow will be sustained, communication and engagement with the affected communities will continue. We wish to support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Z C NTULI: Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, hon members, comrades and friends, ladies and gentlemen, since the establishment of the cross-boundary municipalities there have been practical difficulties in terms of administering such municipalities. This is a challenge that delays the provision and delivery of services to the communities that reside in cross-boundary municipal areas.

Today we debate the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill, a Bill which purports to respond to and address the problems and challenges of service delivery presented by cross-boundary municipalities.

This is the context within which all South Africans, including the affected communities in cross-boundary municipal areas, should understand and appreciate proposals reflected in the Bill we are debating today. With this and the other related Bill, government seeks to achieve maximum service delivery and to remove any obstacles and hindrances that stand in the way of service delivery.

There are some in our society who have deliberately created confusion in the minds of certain affected communities about the possible consequences of this Bill. The fact of the matter is that the ANC government is a caring government. Certain mechanisms have already been put in place to deal with any negative consequences that may result from the passing of this Bill.

For instance, the ANC government has set up a special transitional fund to assist all areas that will be shifted to other provinces. With this, the ANC government seeks to ensure that the projects that are currently underway or had been running are not interrupted. Once this and another Bill have been by passed by Parliament into law, the ANC government will conduct several briefings with the affected communities to communicate these arrangements.

There is a tendency among some of us to confuse boundaries with borders. In clarifying this unnecessary confusion, the government spokesperson, Joel Netshitenzhe, said, and I quote:

We are talking about boundaries and not borders. If you are getting a social grant, you will not lose that social grant because you are now in a perceived poorer province. People who used to go to a clinic in a particular area would not be prevented from going to it because they now belong to another province.

Uhulumeni oholwa u-ANC awusoze wabaholela ophathe abantu obaholayo. Siyabona ukuthi ziningi izinhlaka uhulumeni azakhile ukuze zisize abantu baseNingizimu Afrika njenge-Presidential Co-ordinating Council, lapho kuhlangana khona uMongameli noNdunankulu ukuze bakwazi ukuphathwa kwezwe lonkana. Siyabona ukuthi kukhona iProject Consolidate okuyiyona esiza labo masipala okubonakalayo ukuthi bayaxega noma abamile kahle. Okunye okufanele sikukhumbule yilokho kokuthi iNingizimu Afrika ine-National Treasury eyodwa lapho kuphuma khona imali. Ngakho-ke asikho isidingo sokuthi kusatshwe ukuthi, “Manje laba ngeke besazithola kahle izinsiza”, ngoba imali iphuma kuhulumeni kaZwelonke. Futhi siyazi ukuthi kukhona izivumelwano phakathi kwezifundazwe lezi ezithentekayo. Kusho ukuthi uma abantu bebuyela kulesi esinye isifundazwe uMthethosisekelo uthi labo hulumeni bobabili abahlangane baxoxe ukuthi kuzoqhubeka kanjani ukulethwa kwezinsiza kuleyo miphakathi ethintekayo.

Okunye okufanele sikhumbuzane khona ukuthi kungumsebenzi wethu njengamalungu e-NCOP ukuthi siye kohlola kulezo zindawo esibonayo ukuthi mhlawumbe akuhambi kahle khona ukuze kulungiseke futhi kusebenzeke kahle.

Ngimzwile u-Darryl Worth lapha ekhuluma ngabantu abangajabulile. Ngithi kuwe Darryl Worth, abantu bakhetha u-ANC ukuthi abahole. Ngakho-ke basemethemba futhi. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[The ANC government will never mislead people. We are grateful that the government has created many programmes to help the people of South Africa. We have the Presidential Co-ordinating Council, where the President meets Premiers in order to lead the country.

We are grateful that we have Project Consolidate, whose primary aim is to capacitate municipalities that are not stable. What we must also remember is that there is one National Treasury that provides money for South Africa. Therefore, there is no need to be afraid that local government will not get services because the money comes from the national government.

We also know that there are agreements between the provinces concerned. This means that if people are incorporated into the other province, the two provinces must meet and discuss how are they going to bring service delivery to the affected communities, as stated in the Constitution.

We must also remember that our job as NCOP members is to visit and inspect those areas that are in crisis in order to help them to function better.

I heard Darryl Worth saying that there are people who are not happy. Darryl Worth, I want to tell you this, people chose the ANC to lead them. They still have hope.]

In conclusion, let me emphasise that whatever happened to the boundaries, the wellbeing of the affected communities, such as the Khutsong community, will not be adversely affected merely because the community now belongs to a different province.

The ANC supports the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill and the Cross- boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]

Mr S KWELITA (Eastern Cape): Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and Deputy Minister, hon members, I stand here to support the constitutional amendment and the cross-boundary Bill. I do so because we believe that in the past, especially during the process of the consolidation of the homelands, there were towns that were taken away from various communities.

In our province, during the period of the independence of Ciskei, a town that is in the middle of that area, King William’s Town, was taken away. Also, during the period of the independence of Transkei we saw various towns, including the town of Matatiele, being taken away from what was then perceived as an independent homeland. We believe that this Bill corrects some of those weaknesses.

But, also of most importance, as pointed out by previous speakers, this Bill ensures that there is proper service delivery in our country. Therefore it is not intended to take away the rights that people enjoyed under any of the areas to which they belonged previously. We therefore want to emphasise the point that this is about the correction of the boundaries that were designated incorrectly at the time of the coming in of the new Constitution.

Also, we want to say that although limited in terms of time, we believe that the participation that communities were afforded was sufficient. We did see participation through the submissions that people made through the Demarcation Board. We did see that the Demarcation Board did listen to those submissions.

Secondly, we did have a process in which legislators in various provinces visited those affected communities. We therefore want to express here, today, the feeling that communities were given an opportunity to participate in the process and their views were expressed. As far as our province is concerned, we believe that the decision that you are taking here today, you take with the full support of the majority of the people that come from the affected areas.

Thirdly, we would like to make a last point, which point has been made here before, that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. We believe that there is no reason to fear that because you happen to fall under a particular province, you will not get the services that you used to get, because South Africa belongs to all those who live in it. We believe that we have sufficient systems and mechanisms to ensure that people do receive the services that they are supposed to be receiving in the country. Members here have highlighted the weaknesses that have been identified by government and the steps that have been taken to correct those weaknesses through Project Consolidate. This project is to ensure that people do get the services that they should be getting.

I therefore want to say that we support the Bill on cross-boundaries, as well as the one on constitutional amendments. Thank you. [Applause.]

Ms M M A NYAMA (Limpopo): Chairperson, I would like to salute everybody in this House; all protocol observed.

We need not forget that prior to 1993 we were put in pockets of land for reasons that were not good for us. We would be in homelands, or anywhere else, because those areas happened to be in what we used to call the “rain shadow” - and therefore we did not have rain when other areas had rain. Thus food for us was something that we would get with difficulty.

When boundaries were determined in 1993 for the interim Constitution, those homelands were used to describe our provinces. When we talk of Limpopo province, for example, we will see that it is made up of former Lebowa, former Gazankulu, former Venda and the adjacent magisterial areas. But areas such as Marble Hall and Groblersdal, which were rich in agriculture and were adjacent to former Lebowa, were not included in the homelands.

These former homelands excluded Burgersfort and Steelpoort, which were rich in minerals. Therefore, when this Bill came to our legislature we welcomed it because, firstly, it provided one way for us to stop describing ourselves in terms of those homelands that we never loved. Secondly, it was one way of ensuring that people are not separated from areas in which they work, especially because when we tried to rectify that with cross-boundary municipalities, they brought along the challenges that have already been mentioned by other speakers before me.

As a province we went out to conduct public hearings. I would like to say, in front of this House, that when we went to Sekhukhuneland, where people from Groblersdal and Marble Hall were free to attend, we did not have a single dissenting voice. All the people who made both verbal and written submissions were all agreed that you cannot have Groblersdal without Motetema; you cannot have Marble Hall without Leeuwfontein; you cannot have Steelpoort without Ga-Kgoshi Phasha; and you cannot have Burgersfort without Ga-Mashamaite. Because everybody agreed, they therefore all agreed that Sekhukhuneland should fall into Limpopo.

There was confusing information on the ground about the disintegration of Sekhukhune and that two municipalities in Sekhukhune were going to join Capricorn and the other municipalities being incorporated into Mpumalanga. The people of Sekhukhuneland are “a people” and would like to be regarded as such. They made it categorically clear that they cannot be separated like they were in the past, where indunas would just be promoted to the level of a king and everybody would be called “chiefs”, so that the strength of a tribe could be reduced. So there was that agreement that the whole of Sekhukhune would fall into Limpopo as part of that province.

We are, through this Bill, going to make sure that people come together. We are going to make sure that people are able to stay where they work. Pockets of races will, therefore, stop to exist.

I would like to appeal to this House that we should be careful with our usage of terminology and for us to be consistent in this regard. We keep on talking about “relocation of people”. People start thinking that there are going to be forced removals and that they are going to be forced to move from their homes to other places. We should, therefore, avoid the word “relocation” because nobody is going to be relocated. We should stop using the word “borders” because we do not have borders and border posts, but we just have soft boundaries, and we should regard them as such.

We had our public hearings. We had three sessions in Sekhukhune. Because of numbers, we had to separate traditional leaders, businesspeople and general people. All political parties agreed with the Bill. We went to Bushbuckridge, to Maruleng – these are the affected areas - and we went to Polokwane, where any other person could come from any other unaffected area. There was a general agreement in Limpopo that we should agree to the Bill and that we would vote for the Bill. Therefore, we would like to express in front of this House that as Limpopo, we support this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, it happens from time to time that the FF Plus realises that certain constitutional amendments need to be made. It is inevitable that a country would reach a stage where this is really necessary.

Unfortunately, however, this Bill creates the impression and perception that from time to time government changes the Constitution as it may deem it fit.

It might be, and I think to a certain extent it is a wrong perception, but the FF Plus trusts that it is a wrong perception. Perceptions, like expectations, are easy to create and difficult to kill. I am afraid that in this situation it is difficult to remove the perception.

The situation arises in Parliament from time to time that a political party speaks against a Bill, but in the end vote for the Bill. There is also another situation in Parliament where a political party may speak in favour of a Bill, but vote against it. These are some of the peculiarities of the parliamentary situation. There are examples that one can quote in this regard, but it’s not necessary to use the time for that.

The FF Plus is against this Bill because it can be used, or misused, or abused in future to amend certain boundaries for a political party’s own benefit. In the olden days the NP - and I was part of that - changed boundaries when the CP became a threat in certain constituencies. We did change the boundaries to cut them out. [Interjections.] I am talking from experience, and that is why we from the FF Plus are against this because we know that it can be abused or misused by the government. Therefore the FF Plus, unfortunately, will not be in a position to support this Bill.

Seeing that I still have another two minutes . . .

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, your time has expired.

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Mr Chairperson, can I just mention to you that this timer is cheating me. It says “time expired” and then “another two minutes”. Thank you, Chairperson.

The PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST (Ms E Molewa): Hon Chairperson, the National Council of Provinces, hon Minister, Deputy Minister . . . I realise that if I do go on with the greetings, my time will soon be gone. It’s a great lesson indeed.

With each day that dawns in South Africa and elsewhere, particularly for us in South Africa, the goal of a better life for all our people looks very firmly within reach. Today more than ever before, we can state with a measure of confidence and satisfaction that as a nation and as a people, we are indeed reaping the rewards of hard-earned freedom and democracy. Indeed, we are able to state without fear of contradiction that our battle to banish poverty, ignorance and general want is being won continuously.

The new local government dispensation, which emerged in 2000, sought to replace a system that was not geared towards meeting the developmental challenges of the new democratic society. Convinced that this system was not only immoral, but was also structurally deficient, we set for ourselves the goal of transforming our local government system. We did this because we wanted to position local government as the real front desk of service delivery, and not provincial government. Let me emphasise this: local government as a front desk of service delivery.

Today marks one of the most critical milestones in our new democracy, and more importantly in our system of local government as we bear witness to the successful conclusion of this important process of doing away with cross-boundary municipalities. We do so confident that this will lead to better-functioning municipalities, with an enhanced capacity to discharge their obligations.

The new local government dispensation brought with it a few challenges, some of which were occasioned by cross-boundary dynamics. The cross- boundary arrangement poses both political and administrative challenges, which at times impacted negatively on service delivery in the affected areas.

Despite the vocal voices of protest from some of the quarters that we heard in the North West province and many other areas, of people who are dissatisfied, we have also followed on the processes and the report that was given by a local committee of the legislature in the North West province. Indeed, having looked at it, we believe that the challenges are not so insurmountable. They are challenges that we ourselves can work on to improve the service delivery. We are, therefore, satisfied that this reconfiguration of the municipal boundaries is in the best interest of all our people.

The abolition of cross-boundary municipalities will eliminate uncertainties and confusion among affected communities regarding accountability for service delivery. It will further contribute towards improving integrated planning and accountability for service delivery.

Through integrated planning and co-ordination, we will be able to ensure that our municipalities will continue to give or provide a helping hand in the national effort to roll back the frontiers of poverty. We are firmly of the view that the communication gap and probably lack of understanding in some instances have given space to this climate of uncertainty as we also heard in this House this morning when Mr Worth used words such as “relocation”. I agree with hon member Nyama that indeed we need to do away with such words.

We are ready and determined to welcome all our people of Merafong as part of the platinum province. Listen, we are not relocating them, we are just welcoming them as part of the platinum province. We also understand that the areas of Tshwane metro, Francis Baard and Kgalagadi will be part of Gauteng and Northern Cape respectively. We are satisfied with that agreement. I am confident that acting together, we will succeed in our national programme of rebuilding our country.

I wish to inform the people of our country that together with our sister provinces, we have done everything and we continue to do so every day to ensure that service delivery in all these affected areas is sustained and indeed improved. This joint effort was informed by our conviction that there is only one single South Africa.

Proceeding from that premise, we believe that the central message that must be driven home to all our people is that provinces of our country are not in competition with one another, and that there is no province that is better than all the other eight.

On the contrary, we are collectively engaged in a national project to build a better South Africa and a better country for all our people, without exception. Each one of us as provinces has our unique challenges and internal dynamics.

Whether people fall into one or other province should not really be a critical matter. What is important is that they belong to one South Africa, where all our people are guaranteed their rights and services, irrespective of where they live.

Consistent with this understanding, resources will continue to be deployed equitably for the development of all citizens, irrespective of provincial boundaries. That is why these are called boundaries and not borders.

However, it must be acknowledged that the new boundaries will not be a panacea for all the problems and challenges that confront our municipalities. More needs to be done to ensure that municipalities have adequate administrative capacity, effective political leadership and that they are also appropriately resourced and have a well-functioning system of local democratic participation.

In this regard, we really would like to ask the hon Minister, through his good office, the hon Minister of Finance and the national government, in general really to take another look at the current Financial and Fiscal Commission, FFC, formula that is used to allocate resources to both provinces and municipalities with an objective to funding on a long-term basis the most needy provinces and municipalities in particular. If we do not reconsider this, the rural provinces and municipalities will continue to struggle, while the rich provinces continue to thrive.

We firmly believe that this consideration we are asking for is in line with the exercise of local government transformation, which we are discussing here today, and is also in line with our resolve to become a truly developmental state.

We therefore support the passing of these two Bills, and thank you very much. [Applause.]

Mnr J W LE ROUX: Agb Voorsitter, agb Minister, agb Adjunkminister en kollegas, ek dink dié debat is so papperig dat ek maar die kolegooiery sal moet doen.

Dit strek ons almal tot eer dat die Grondwet as die hoogste gesag gerespekteer en eerbiedig word. Dit is dus verstommend dat ons nou die twaalfde wysiging van ons Grondwet so oorhaastig en onder soveel tydsdruk moet goedkeur. Die verandering van provinsiale grense sal noodwendig reaksie ontlok en almal wat direk geraak word, sal op die een of ander manier reageer. Met die hewige reaksie wat ons tans in baie dele van ons land ervaar, is dit duidelik dat die konsultasieproses onvolledig en onsuksesvol was. Dit is mos so dat die meerderheid van Matatiele se inwoners eerder in KwaZulu-Natal wil wees. Merafong se mense wil beslis in Gauteng wees. Die Noord-Kaap kry duisende mense van die Kgalagadi- munisipaliteit by wat eerder in Noordwes behoort te wees. Dit wil voorkom dat dit ’n suiwer politieke besluit was om die toekoms van hierdie gemeenskappe te bepaal.

Die ANC-kollegas word kwaad en ek wil aansluit by dr Frik – hulle word baie kwaad as ons sê hulle is net soos die ou NP. Ek kan u die versekering gee - en ek praat van jare se ondervinding – dat die ou NP presies gedoen het wat die ANC nou ook doen. [Tussenwerpsels.] Die wil van die kiesers word slegs erken as dit die ANC polities pas, net soos die geval met die ou NP was. Aangesien die Grondwet die fondament is waarop ons samelewing gebou word, moet daar altyd met groot omsigtigheid wysigings aangebring word. In die geval van die twaalfde wysiging het dit duidelik nie gebeur nie. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)

[Mr J W LE ROUX: Hon Chairman, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister and colleagues, I think that this debate is so feeble that I will have to be the one to give it some substance.

It is a credit to all of us that the Constitution is respected and revered as the highest authority. It is therefore astounding that we must now adopt the twelfth amendment of our Constitution so over-hastily and under such pressure of time. The change of provincial borders will necessarily elicit reaction and everyone who is directly affected by it will react in some way or another. With the strong reaction that we are currently experiencing in many parts of our country, it is clear that the consultation process was incomplete and unsuccessful. It is indeed so that the majority of Matatiele’s inhabitants would rather be in KwaZulu-Natal. Merafong’s people definitely wish to be in Gauteng. The Northern Cape is getting thousands of people from the Kgalagadi Municipality, who should rather be in North West. It appears to have been a purely political decision that determined the future of these communities.

The ANC colleagues get angry - and I want to concur with Dr Frik - they get very angry when we say that they are just like the old NP. I can give you the assurance - and I am talking from years of experience - the old NP did exactly the same that the ANC is doing now. [Interjections.] The wishes of the voters are only acknowledged if it suits the ANC politically. This was also the case with the erstwhile NP. As the Constitution is the foundation on which our community rests, amendments should always be made with great circumspection. In the case of the twelfth amendment this was clearly not the case.]

I am sure that the unforeseen consequences, as a result of the flawed process of consultation, will still haunt us in future. Three years ago the Presidential Co-ordinating Council passed a resolution to do away with cross-boundary municipalities. After government dragged its feet for three years, we are now pressurised into amending the Constitution with undue haste. Section 78 of the Constitution determines that when a Bill concerns a province, it must also be approved by the legislature of such a province before the NCOP can pass it.

Gauteng had serious misgivings, and as late as last weekend deals were made between the Premier of Gauteng and the Premier of the North West province to avoid a constitutional crisis . . .

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, your speaking time has expired.

Mr J W LE ROUX: I would just like to close by saying . . . . . .“die DA ondersteun nie die wysigingswetsontwerp nie.” [. . .the DA does not support the amending Bill.]

Mr J MTHEMBU (Mpumalanga): Chair, we stand here as Mpumalanga province in full support of these two Bills. We find it very strange, Chairperson, hon Ministers, Deputy Ministers and our Premier, that some people come here and basically mislead this House because, indeed, as Mpumalanga, we have had public hearings in Globlersdal and in Marble Hall. The sentiments that have been expressed here by Mr Worth were not expressed in those meetings. In fact the DA wasn’t there.

The other matter that we would like to raise, indeed, concerns these perceptions that some provinces are not be able to deliver certain services to our people. In our own view, we think that those perceptions are unfounded. In fact there is no empirical evidence that suggests that any of our provinces are unable to roll out school facilities, roll out health facilities and indeed to provide all those necessary things that our people need.

Therefore this notion that Mr Worth and the DA . . . Perhaps they should concentrate on what they do best: laying panties. [Applause.] [Interjections.] I thought that they were a pontificating party, now they are a “pantificating” party. Maybe they should just leave Parliament and concentrate on the business of panties. [Laughter.]

We agree with colleagues who say that in the period after the passage of these of Bills we shall have a lot of work to do, particularly as provincial legislatures. The comrades from Gauteng said that we needed to raise the bar in terms of our oversight function, and we agree with that. We must see to it that indeed all these transitional arrangements that are made in terms of these Bills are followed through in letter and in spirit. If they are not – I nearly used an Afrikaans phrase, which would not have been parliamentary - we would be in trouble. [Laughter.]

I would like to make a case regarding the challenges that confront our province. We are obviously taking over Bushbuckridge and indeed our colleagues have been welcomed. Here is Kgoshi Mokoena, he can attest to that. They have been warmly welcomed to Mpumalanga province in South Africa. In fact, he has not relocated. He is still where he is, and his traditional kraal is there as well.

We have agreed in this forum that Globlersdal and Marble Hall should go to Limpopo. Indeed, we also agree in this forum that Ekungwini should go to Gauteng . . . [Interjections.] . . . It should be part of Gauteng, “not go to Gauteng”. Thank you, Premier, for the correction.

We must, therefore, deal with the challenges that Mpumalanga will face because of these decisions, Minister. These decisions, which we really accept in terms of our national obligation and in terms of pursuing the national agenda of transformation, will then mean that perhaps we should also do and support what the Premier of North West has said: to see how best, at national level, we can then literally give support to Mpumalanga regarding this particular matter.

Madam . . . Chairperson . . . You know, we have Madam Speaker in Mpumalanga, so I nearly addressed you as “Madam Speaker”. But you are also so handsome that you can fit that description. [Laughter.]

The other important matter is that we need to engage with our communities so that we can also get to know what it is that informs this perception that some ANC provinces can’t deliver, as opposed to others. We fully agree that we need to engage so that we prove this to be a fallacy because, indeed, there is no truth in it.

Regarding the FF Plus, I am not surprised that they no longer have a seat in the Mpumalanga legislature, because their thinking is just warped. They say that we are changing these boundaries for political expediency. Now, that can’t be any far from lying. I’m saying this guardedly, because the objects of these two Bills are well-stated. There is no political expediency from what I have read.

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, on a point of order, the hon member referred to me as if I said that these amendments are for party-political purposes and that I am lying. This is not correct, and I object.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No,no, he didn’t say: “You are lying.” He said: “It’s not far from lying.” [Interjections.] Continue, hon member.

Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, I do not dispute your ruling, but I heard the word “lie”; I heard the words, “it is a lie.”

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Take your seat, Dr Van Heerden. Continue, hon member.

Mr J MTHEMBU (Mpumalanga): Chair, I think that again we will say what we have said before, that’s why in the Mpumalanga legislature you no longer have any representation for the FF Plus.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Hon member, continue with the debate; don’t repeat what you have said. Mr J MTHEMBU (Mpumalanga): Chair, other people – the DA, again - are saying that we have undermined the will of the electorate. I don’t know which English they understand, because we have continuously said that we have had public hearings in Mpumalanga. I don’t know how many we have had, but they are more than four.

In those affected areas, people have raised their issues – they have. These are the issues on which we say we must engage with them. But they never said that indeed they no longer want to be part of any of the provinces of this country. They never said that. Therefore to say that we have just rushed this Bill through and that we have not had consultations with our people is really not true. We have had consultations with our people. That hon member knows that very well. He knows very well that we have had consultation with our people. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to come here and mislead this House.

Chairperson, thank you very much. We support the Bills. [Applause.]

Cllr H JENKINS (Salga): Chairperson, hon Minister for Provincial and Local Government, hon Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Premier, hon members, fellow South Africans, it is indeed an honour for Salga to have been involved in the legislative processes, both at national and provincial legislature level, with regard to the Constitutional Twelfth Amendment Bill and the Cross-Boundary Municipal Laws Repeal Bill. It must be emphasised that the two Bills are separate, but cannot be seen in isolation from each other. The Constitution provides in section 155(6)(a) for the establishment, through the implementation of the Municipal Structures Act, of municipalities extending across provincial boundaries. These statutory provisions gave rise to the establishment of 16 cross-boundary municipalities, affecting five provinces.

We are all aware that at the time of this demarcation cross-boundary municipalities were set up in some areas to ensure viable, integrated and effective local government without shifting the existing provincial boundaries, which were very much based on magisterial districts. However, in the past five years we witnessed the practical difficulties, particularly in respect of service delivery and administering these municipalities.

The existence of cross-boundary municipalities made it difficult for government across the three spheres to promote integrated social and economic development, and it makes it difficult to ensure effective local governance.

We have had four years of operating our new local government system and the experiences learnt during the process created the need for a better framework to improve the service delivery at local government level. This is because many provinces have different pieces of legislation for similar functions. If laws of more than one province need to be administered in a cross-boundary municipality, it is confusing, duplicative and costly.

A cross-boundary municipality needs both provinces to approve its Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). The co-ordination and integration of programmes and budgets of two different provinces into a single IDP may be extremely difficult where priorities for and progress with IDPs differ from province to province. This is an administrative nightmare and it leads to service delivery being compromised.

It is the practical service delivery challenges that were experienced by both municipalities as well as provincial administrations that prompted the Presidential Co-ordinating Council, the PCC, on 1 November 2002 to resolve that cross-boundary municipalities should be done away with and provincial boundaries be reviewed so that all municipalities fall within one province or another. The PCC must be commended for taking such a bold decision, which was singularly based on improving service delivery to our people.

The implications of implementing this decision gave rise to the need for the matter to be addressed through the amendment of the necessary legislation, being the Constitutional Twelfth Amendment Bill, which redetermines the geographical areas of the provinces and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill, which is to repeal all the cross-boundary municipality laws.

From a local government point of view, it should be emphasised that the introduction of the Bills into the parliamentary process to give effect to the PCC decision was met with fierce protest from affected communities. It is municipalities that are at the coalface of service delivery that found themselves targets of the protests. In particular, the protest within the Merafong Local Municipality should be singled out, where municipal offices were damaged by disgruntled members of the community.

It is critical to consider the process of redetermining both the provincial and municipal boundaries. Parliament, through the constitutional amendments, redetermines the provincial boundaries whereas the Municipal Demarcation Board is empowered by legislation to redetermine municipal boundaries. It is ironical that municipalities that do not determine their own boundaries or the provincial boundaries find themselves the first target of disgruntled communities.

It is best to express the view that the PCC decision was made in the national interest of improving service delivery and as such Salga supports the Bills and what they are intended to achieve. But we must emphasise that the real work is yet to start by, firstly, properly communicating decisions to our people and, secondly, implementing the transitional arrangements that have been put in place.

It would be appropriate to conclude with a challenge not only to our municipalities to improve service delivery within their respective communities, but also to provincial government, through the Premiers, to ensure that proper conditions are created at a local level to improve service delivery.

As the voice of local government, Salga wants to communicate a clear message to our people that in the process service delivery will not be compromised. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Mr S E BYNEVELDT (Western Cape): Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, hon Premier, hon MECs and colleagues, I lead a delegation from the Western Cape, and I do so with a deep level of pride and gratitude. We represent a mandate, and I’m happy to be part of the process of representing that mandate, a mandate put together by all of the members and political parties in the Western Cape provincial legislature, including the UIF, the DA, the ACDP and the ID.

I therefore feel empowered standing here today, knowing that in the Western Cape province we are all in support of this Bill. In developing this mandate, the temptation was there for the province to say that we don’t have boundaries of this nature in the Western Cape so we should just support this Bill because it doesn’t affect us. But we opted differently. We said that if we are going to support these Bills, we must understand why we are doing so. When we consider these Bills we gather, first and foremost, as South Africans; we convene as a people; we gather as a province that is part of one whole and we would certainly not pursue the cause of a country within a country; we will not Balkanise. We will not be federal. We will continue to contribute to the process of one whole.

We said that we would not forget our history – a history of having been divided along racial lines; a history of the majority having been excluded; a history of benefit to a few and hardship to many. So, when we organise this mandate we will remember all of these things; we will certainly not forget our history.

If we are to be genuine representatives of the people, then we need to understand some of the issues of history that need to be addressed as we move forward. So, I’m proud to say that a people that prosper together and a people united is what we would want. A society that is nonsexist, non- racial; a South Africa that is unitary is what we would want.

Certainly, our mandate says that we should be able to find all of these good things in these Bills. So, I proudly represent the mandate of the province and all of its political parties that have contributed to this effort.

Local government cannot be outside of the processes of transforming, changing and bringing about change. This is a logical step. That is what the province has concluded in terms of ensuring that we deliver a local government that is more effective; a local government that can drive the processes of change – be they economic, social, cultural etc. And you will have a geographical impact if you are committed to all of those things, given our particular history. The days of disparity in service delivery need to be buried six feet under, and so should administrative challenges where two provinces have different responsibilities, and so forth.

The issue of the mandate to deliver is a constitutional duty. So, it’s not being politically expedient when you deal with these kinds of issues. In fact, you are rising to the challenge of having to respond to constitutional duty and the constitutional mandate. For example, two provinces from two different IDPs would have different priorities. That is related to the demands of the IDPs. Their inability to deal with these demands has to do with the arrangements of the past. What does political expediency have to do with this? If anything, it is really about fulfilling our role as public representatives.

We‘ve had a process of advertising for public comment, and so forth. We have not had views opposing these Bills. We certainly believe that even the people of Western Cape, broadly speaking, are in full support of these pieces of legislation. Yes, let’s ensure that the outcomes of the intended legislation that we implement are realised smoothly and that people remain united; that we have an undivided country and the South Africa that grows and prospers together.

Ter afsluiting wil ek van die geleentheid gebruik maak om te sê ‘n verenigde Weskaap wens almal van julle ‘n goeie feestyd toe. Baie dankie. [Applous.] [In conclusion, I would like to use this opportunity to say that a united Western Cape wishes all of you a happy festive season. Thank you very much. [Applause.]]

Mr S SHICEKA: Chairperson of the Council, hon Minister, hon Deputy Minister, hon Deputy Chairperson of the Council, hon Premier, hon MECs from the Eastern Cape, the North West and Limpopo, Salga delegates and colleagues, it was very interesting to see the two parties, the FF Plus and DA going back to the laager, where they came from – namely the NP – by saying that they were redrawing boundaries and doing what is called “gerrymandering” to further their political interests.

Of course, the DA tried to go to Merafong, but was chased away by the people there. When there was a problem in Delmas the DA tried to go there, but was also chased away. The DA will never represent the majority of our people, let alone the FF Plus. No amount of opportunism will ever win the support of our people. You remain white parties in form and content, which compete with each other with regard to rightwing policies.

The ANC, as a revolutionary movement, stands for the improvement of the quality of lives of our people, particularly the poorest of the poor. Therefore, it can’t be true that the ANC-led government developed policies and laws aimed at impoverishing our people.

In taking these steps, the ANC is advancing along the course it set itself

• to lead our people and to be able to see things coming, that is, a visionary movement.

The ANC is like a giraffe. As we know, a giraffe is the tallest animal in the forest. It sees far, where other animals can’t see. Therefore, the other animals won’t be on the same wavelength as to what is happening in the surroundings. Even the people who today are disagreeing with our views will be able in the future . . . [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon members, give the member a hearing, please. Continue, hon member. [Interjections.]

Mr S SHICEKA: There are lessons we have learnt in this process, because this is the first time in the history of our democracy that this process has ever been conducted. One of the lessons that came to the fore is that we must begin to look at the current situation and review the form and content of our provinces, as they currently stand. We must learn that lesson against the backdrop of building a united, democratic and prosperous South Africa with diverse cultures. The second lesson is that government has to intensify the Batho Pele principles, particularly the war cry that goes: “We serve, and we care!”

We should also learn the best practices in other spheres of government, that is provinces, both horizontally and vertically, so that we are able to ensure that the study tours are conducted internally because we have developed some best practices in the past 11 years.

We must learn from these practices so that we can ensure that we advance and we move forward. We should not only make sure that we go on study tours outside our borders, but we should also be a learning nation.

The ANC supports this giant step aimed at achieving strategic objectives. This developmental state will not shy away from its responsibility of removing any obstacle standing in the way of achieving a better life for all our people.

I want to thank the Ministries and departments for their co-operation and guidance, and the provinces for building partnerships with us. To them I say: You have never failed us. I also wish to thank members of the committee for their dedication and commitment, their ability to go the extra mile, their incisive input at committee meetings and for making the NCOP a buzzing place that you all look forward to be in.

I say to the detachment: Go and recharge your batteries; next year the challenges are still great. I would also like to thank the staff members, without whom we would not have been able to move; the Chairperson of the Council, the Deputy Chairperson and the Chief Whip of the Council for their support, guidance and their availability at all times.

Parliament today has concluded the processes on this Bill. The Bill has been passed by all the people who were eligible to vote, with the exception of the hon member from the FF Plus. The member of the FF Plus is not even part of the committee. Therefore, what he talked about was remote, uninformed and just wishful thinking. In that regard we want to thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]

The DEPUTY MUNISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Hon Chairperson and hon members, firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their contribution. I think that a few of the inputs we received today were actually of a very high calibre and showed good political debate and a good grasp of the legal and political issues in the best traditions we know.

There were a few low points, but I don’t think we should harp on them. However, I do want to say that for those of you who are new in Parliament, hon Watson and others would know, should follow the example of the hon Colin Eglin. You know, Colin Eglin, when he was in Parliament - the apartheid Parliament as well in the democratic parliament – played an enormously vital role. He impacted very hugely on developments in Parliament.

Why are DA opposition party members unable to do that? It is because he always engaged issues by remaining intellectually honest. Even if he approached matters from different angles, he always did so intellectually and honestly. He never ever tried to be opportunistic. He did not generalise. He never twisted the facts. He made no bones about the fact that he approached matters from a certain direction, and people respected that.

You can engage someone intellectually, even if she or he is different from you and has a different point of view. And Colin, in the process, achieved enormously in this Parliament, including during the democratic government.

I think that that is the lesson that needs to be learnt. No one is saying that the opposition has to agree with everything government does. They need to raise their points. But the manner in which they do it and the manner in which they strive to be effective and to be taken seriously is very important.

It is of no use . . . We are all grown-ups here. I am not a fool, and most of the people are not fools. We are not going to sit here and listen to a lot of gibberish, generalisations, distortions, people telling stories about the history of this country when they weren’t even born . . . [Laughter.] . . . people telling us about what our people on the ground know and don’t know and what they say when we know that they don’t go to them.

Tackle us on the issues, and this debate is a prime example of that not happening. I showed that in the National Assembly. Show me one of the people that have opposed this Bill on a matter of principle. Even the opposition party – the DA in the other House – said they have no objections to getting rid of cross-boundary municipalities. They accept the principle. There is, therefore, no objection to the matter on the basis of principle.

So, what is the objection? I mean if you are not opposing something in principle and if your party has a policy that it thinks that cross-boundary municipalities must go, then what are you opposing? [Interjections.] No, no, the problem is opportunism. The problem with opportunism is that it actually makes ordinary people think that ordinary people are idiots. They think that if you suddenly take up the cudgels on behalf of ordinary people, because you think you are now on their side, those people will be stupid enough to fall for that.

People are not idiots. People know who they can listen to and what they debate. People know when people are using their leadership opportunistically for political gain. That is what this is about. No one is denying that, of course, anyone may have a point of view.

People anywhere can burn tyres and demonstrate - and they have a good right to do so – and may have a particular point of view about their actions. However, whether they are right is another issue. Every demonstration is not right. Every opposition is not right. Therefore, it brings us to the issue of consultation. You know, I just laugh at these things, because the way these issues are put across, it’s as if they were debated just yesterday. It’s as if yesterday we woke up and said: Oh, there is an election coming; so let’s quickly amend the boundaries. In these debates you should use more of your intellect, and less of your mouth. [Laughter.] [Applause.]

These debates have been going on for many years. The President . . .

Ms H LAMOELA: [Inaudible.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Don’t shout at me. You are a leader. You should behave yourself. Do you want to use your intellect to engage me? [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Hon Deputy Minister, continue with your reply to the debate. Hon Lamoela, could you please behave yourself. You are spoiling this whole good debate. Continue, hon Minister.

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: The issue of consultation is a thread that runs through the Constitution at all levels. But one must not confuse consultation with agreement. The Constitution doesn’t say that if you consult someone then you must rubber- stamp what he or she says. It says that you consult with people; you listen to them and then you disagree or you agree with them.

The whole basis of discretion in law is listening and then exercising a decision. It can’t be right that we keep hearing that our institutions are not relevant, simply because we made decisions you didn’t accept. That’s not democracy. Democracy is your right to express whatever opinions you have. And it is the right of those that have been given that right by the majority of the people in this country to make decisions on the basis of those consultations and other information they have available. You can’t confuse the two. How do you keep on confusing the two? To say that consultation means “agree with me or else it’s a useless exercise” it just can’t be right.

I have listened to a lot of young people, watching them on TV shouting at us about the Constitution and what the Constitution and the law say. There is clearly a fundamental misunderstanding of what local government comprises, legally and constitutionally. Go and look at Chapter 3 of the Constitution. It clearly says that there are three spheres of government, which are separate, independent, but also interrelated. The Constitution says so and gives a whole chapter explaining co-operative government.

Now, how on earth can someone then say that by having a local government in one province or the other is going to make a difference? Does local government have original powers and stature in the Constitution? No province is going to and can exercise that power for them. Only the municipality – the municipal council in that area – can run the government in that area because the Constitution only gives them the power. [Interjection.]

An HON MEMBER: [Inaudible.]

The DEPUTY MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: That is a stupid question. Please! [Laughter.] I mean, why does anything fail? It’s because it doesn’t work. It doesn’t mean that it has nothing to do with power. Power is a structure that is independent and can only be exercised by designated people.

Provinces only have the powers that are spelt out in the Constitution. The Constitution says that provinces can make laws here and there. Most of those laws are of a monitoring or a conduit character. Provinces have no substantive powers in local government. Even the finances of local government are spelt out in section 214 and elsewhere in a part of the Constitution that says that the finances don’t come from provinces, but from national government.

Go and study local government in our country and you will see that all the major pieces of legislation – the systems, Bills and so on –are part of national legislation, and not provincial legislation. Forget the politics. How on earth, legally and constitutionally, can anyone suggest that being here or there makes a difference to the powers that you have and what you are able to do as a local government?

It is not just legally and constitutionally wrong; it just makes no sense. It’s not logical. There is no rationality to that kind of argument. It doesn’t matter where your local government is – it can be on the moon for that matter. [Laughter.]

The power of a local government is derived from the Constitution, and not from the province. Thank you, Chairperson. [Time expired.] [Applause.]

The MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Chairperson, I thought that you were going to give the hon Deputy Minister the benefit of some injury time, given the hard tackle he received from the hon member. [Laughter.]

Allow me to acknowledge the presence of the chairperson of the Municipal Demarcation Board in the public gallery and thank the Municipal Demarcation Board, through him, along with the chairpersons and members of the two select committees that played such an important role in facilitating the two Bills to a point that they are now before the NCOP.

Let me also take this opportunity to thank all the hon members who took part in this debate – an interesting debate indeed. It was one in which the hon Dr Van Heerden made a curious choice of words. He talked of, I quote: “a perception that government changes the Constitution for political expediency.” I am paraphrasing and quoting you in order for your statement to make more sense. [Laughter.]

For a moment I wondered as to whose brain it is that is so susceptible to such an uncalled for perception. He solved my problem when he said that he was actually transposing his undemocratic experience to a democratic situation. [Laughter.] Needless to say, his fears are misplaced because he confuses a democratic government for the one he used to be part of. The two hon members, Mr Worth and Mr Le Roux, decided to treat this House to a diatribe of which the central point is the charge that the two Bills were, I quote: “. . . hastily rushed through Parliament, without consultation.” Hon Deputy Minister, perhaps the two members woke up to the reality of ongoing consultations too late. [Laughter.] You need to give them watches as Christmas presents.

Reference was also made to so-called perceptions about the so-called dysfunctional provinces. Talking about perceptions is the best refuge of political cowards. They are so noncommittal that they do not take us into their confidence as to their own views on the matter. So, they choose to talk about perceptions.

Members of the NCOP, with an elective base that brought them here, cannot talk like independent observers. If there are problems of underperformance in any one of our nine provinces, what is the responsibility of an NCOP member? Your duty as a member of the NCOP is not to use this House as a platform for vote-catching posturing. You are here to contribute to the search for the best possible practical solution to problems, such as the one that was brought before the House this morning.

Otherwise, to one and all, including you, merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]

Debate concluded.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question in respect of the first order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all the delegation heads present? Yes, present.

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

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

Ms B N DLULANE: Thina siyiMpuma Koloni siyayixhasa yonke le nkqubo ibiqhubeka apha. [The Eastern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Vrystaat steun.[Free State supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Gauteng?

Mr V W MBATHA: Siyavuma, Sihlalo. [We support.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: IKwaZulu-Natal ithi elethu.[KwaZulu-Natal supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Limpopo?

Ms M NKOANA-MASHABANE: Limpopo e a e thekga. [Limpopo supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Mpumalanga?

Mr J MTHEMBU: eMpumalanga empela e yaoxhasa lomthetho. [Mpumalanga supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Northern Cape?

Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Kapa-Bokone re a dumelana. [Northern Cape supports.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?

Ms E MOLEWA (Premier of North West): We support.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]

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

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: All provinces have voted in favour of the Bill. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the second order. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties an opportunity to make declarations of vote, if they so wish. This is a section 75 Bill. Is there any party that wishes to do so?

Mr A WATSON: Chairperson, on a point of order: I am now forced to make a declaration because of the speech by the Deputy Minister. He made a statement that was not true. I will not refer to him in the same sense as he referred to me, as “being stupid”. I want to make the . . .

The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Chairperson, that is not a point of order. The member wants to masquerade his intention to reopen and to respond to the debate or the speech of the Deputy Minister through a declaration. He has consciously said so in his preface. [Interjections.]

I am chairing, Mr Watson. You are making a declaration in terms of Rule 63, with regard to the Bill that we are debating. Please refer to the Bill.

Declarations of vote:

Mr A WATSON: I am referring to the Bill, hon Chairperson. If I’m not allowed to refer to a wrong statement that was made from the podium, let me then put it right, in my own words.

The DA supports the cross-boundary Bill. We have never said that we don’t support it. You know that as far back as 1994-95, when we wrote this piece of legislation, I was then against the institution of cross-boundary municipalities. We therefore support this Bill unreservedly. We are against the twelfth amendment because of a principle of nonconsultation. Thank you.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Chairperson, the member is in order as long as he speaks on the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal Bill, but he can’t be in order when he makes reference to an order that has been voted on a long time ago in terms of provincial delegations. It is not a party vote when we deal with the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill. In the light of that, he is out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Let us not waste our time. Let me just remind you all about Rule 63, for future reference purposes. When a question to be decided on by individual votes of members has been put, the officer presiding may allow each political party, in a speech not exceeding three minutes, through a Council member belonging to it, to state the reasons why the party is in favour or against the question. Bear this in mind in the future. Don’t refer to other debates. Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, I had a mandate from the IFP, but I was waiting for my turn. When it was said that only provinces had to make a declaration I decided to keep quiet. My party says “no” the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: No, we have voted on that Bill. You cannot pronounce yourself on that. You can only pronounce yourself on the second Order. [Interjections.] We are dealing with the second Order. We have voted on the first order. That order was dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, and provinces were given an opportunity to make their declarations of vote. We are now dealing with the second order, which is section 75 of the Constitution, and parties are allowed to make their declarations of vote.

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: I am speaking on the Cross-boundary Municipal Laws Repeal Bill. No, we support that. [Applause.] But on the first one, we say, no. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: Order! Order! Hon members, you must study your Rules very carefully. Order! It’s very embarrassing when members of this House don’t know their Rules. All of us are expected to study the Rules and know the Rules. Are there any further declarations of vote? None.

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

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS ON PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION OF MR I W O MORAKE

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS ON PROVISIONAL SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OF MR K SULLIMAN

Mr N J MACK: Chairperson, hon members, hon Premier, hon MECs, hon Speaker from the Western Cape, special delegates, officials from the department, ladies and gentlemen, in considering issues of judicial misconduct and incompetence South Africa must be guided by the principle of the rule of law, which requires laws to be administered fairly, impartially, rationally and without fear of prejudice.

It is a preservation of the rule of law, which is the basic reason for establishing mechanisms for dealing with judicial misconduct, where it takes the form of sexual harassment, corruption or less serious forms of misbehaviour.

In giving effect to the fundamental principle of equality before the law, which is firmly entrenched in our Constitution, our state institutions, including Parliament, must communicate an unequivocal message that judges and magistrates, like everyone else in our society, are subject to the law.

Guided by the principle of the Freedom Charter that South Africa belongs to all those who live in it, black and white, we must recommit ourselves to building a caring society that truly belongs to all our citizens, including the most vulnerable sections of our society – women and children.

This objective derives its content from our Constitution, which not only provides that everyone in our society has inherent dignity, but also that all citizens, including women and children, have a right to be free from any form of violence and abuse from public and private sources.

Given the reality of rife and endemic abuse and violence against women and children in South Africa, the continent and the world, we must re-emphasise that national and social emancipation would never be complete without the freedom of our society from the scourge of violence against women and children.

This scourge of violence manifests itself in various spheres and corners of our society, including corridors of public institutions, which institutions are supposed to be centres of the fight against abuse of women and children.

In our efforts and campaigns aimed at condemning and eliminating women abuse and violence against women in our society, the ANC will continue to pride itself on being a leading political force dedicated to genuine emancipation of women.

In the same vein, as we build a morally-grounded society, we will continue to abhor any behaviour which deviates from the formal duties of a public role, for such behaviour constitutes corruption. Because corruption constitutes an obstacle to societal development, in dealing with issues of corruption we must heed President Thabo Mbeki’s call to unite against corruption in all spheres of our society, including the magistracy and judiciary.

In whatever we do as South Africans, we must continue to promote leadership in all sectors of our society, a leadership that is committed to the creation of a culture of integrity and restoration of public confidence in the fight against corruption and immorality.

However, while the ANC recommits itself to building a society grounded on fundamental, moral and ethical values that reject any vestiges of sexual harassment, bribery and corruption, it continues to observe constitutional values such as presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Presumption of innocence is essential in a society that is committed to fairness and social justice. In essence, the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise confirms our faith in humankind and reflects our belief that individual human beings are the decent and law-abiding in our communities. I thank you, Chair. [Applause.] Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the third Order. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all the 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. We shall now proceed to 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, or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Steun. [Supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: Supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P Hollander): Gauteng?

Mr V W MBATHA : Supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal is in favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo steun. [Limpopo supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Mpumalanga votes in favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Northern Cape?

Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Steun. [Supports.]

THE DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP: North West?

Ms E MOLEWA (Premier of North West): We support.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]

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

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): All nine provinces have voted in favour of the report. I therefore declare the report adopted.

Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the fourth Order. The question is that the report be adopted. As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all the delegation heads present? Yes.

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow the provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. None.

We shall now proceed to 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 or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Re a e thekga. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLADA-MAGUBANE: Supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: Siyaxhasa. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: Limpopo steun. [Limpopo supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Mpumalanga.

Ms M P THEMBA: Ha yi seketela. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Northern Cape?

Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): North West?

The PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST: We support.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Western Cape supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): All nine provinces have voted in favour of the report. I therefore declare the report adopted.

Debate concluded.

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

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE ABAQULUSI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

Mnu Z C NTULI: Sekela Sihlalo, malungu ahloniphekile, abafowethu nodadewethu, emva kokuba uNgqongqoshe wezoHulumeni baseKhaya KwaZulu- Natali, u-Mike Mabuyakhulu, efike lapha ePhalamende ezosibikela ngezehlakalo esenzeke kumasipala wabaQulusi, siyikomidi loMkhandlu kaZwelonke weziFundazwe sibe sesinikela khona siyozizwela ngokwethu. Sifike- ke lapha sacela izinhlangano ezahlukehlukene ukuba zisinike izimvo zazo. Abantu esifike sacela ukubonana nabo kube amakhansela asechithiwe, amakomidi amawadi, osomabhizinisi, izinhlangano zomphakathi nezinhlangano ezingekho ngaphansi kukahulumeni, abaphathi bakamasipala kanye nezinhlangano zabasebenzi zombili i-Matu ne-Samwu.

Sibheme sakholwa ngesikhathi besikhinindela ngomasipala wabo. Kuye kwagqama ukuthi amakhansela achithiwe akhala esikaNandi ngezikhundla zawo, ikakhulukazi awe-IFP. Lezi ezinye izinhlangano bezihambisana nokuthi uhulumeni wesifunda angenelele. Bebesho futhi bengananazi ukuthi uphuzile ukungenelela. Njengekomidi, sibe sesithatha isincomo sokuthi uHulumeni wesiFunda waKwaZulu-Natali angenelele ekutakuleni umasipala wabaQulusi kulolu bishi obese ungene kulona. (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)

[Mr Z C NTULI: Deputy Chairperson, hon members, brothers and sisters, after the visit of the KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Housing, Local Government and Traditional Affairs, Mike Mabuyakhulu, to Parliament to report about the drama that took place in the AbaQulusi Municipality, the National Council of Provinces committee decided to visit the municipality. We requested different organisations to give us their views. We also requested meetings with dismissed councillors, ward committees, business people, public organisations, non-governmental organisations, municipal managers and labour unions Matu and Samwu.

We were astonished when they told us about their municipality. It was also clear that dismissed councillors, especially IFP councillors, are crying unceasingly about their positions. Other organisations agree that the provincial government must intervene. They also said that the intervention by the government was long overdue. As a committee, we made recommendations that the provincial government of KwaZulu-Natal must intervene to salvage AbaQulusi Municipality from this dilemma.]

As the committee, we have recommended to the provincial government and the administrator of Abaqulusi Municipality that the following issues, in the form of recommendations, need to be addressed: One, the development of human resource policies which can build the municipality; two, the establishment of structures envisaged by the Municipal Finance Management Act; three, the recovery of moneys that were unduly paid to councillors and for damage done on official vehicles; four, the development of programmes for service delivery; five, the establishment of a programme to develop ward committees that should be unleashed after the election in all wards; six, the development of systems to ensure that the IDPs get full community participation when being drawn up; seven, the establishment of a properly constituted local labour forum; eight, in the absence of ward committees, the administrator should brief the community through ward representatives or alternative means; and nine, the Administrator and the MEC should report to the NCOP on progress on these issues on a bimonthly basis.

Mphathisihlalo, bengicela ukuthi iNdlu yamukele lo mbiko. [Chairperson, I request the House to adopt this report.]

Debate concluded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order! I shall now put the question in respect of the fifth Order. The question is that the report be adopted. As this decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces’ votes. Are all the delegation heads present? Yes.

In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow the provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. None.

We shall now proceed to 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 or against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?

Ms B N DLULANE: Siyayamkela. [We support.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Free State?

Mr C J VAN ROOYEN: In favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Gauteng?

Ms N M MADLALA-MAGUBANE: In favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): KwaZulu-Natal?

Mr Z C NTULI: KwaZulu-Natal elethu. [Supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Limpopo?

Ms H F MATLANYANE: In favour.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Mpumalanga?

Ms M P THEMBA: Siyavuma. [We support]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Northern Cape?

Mr M C GOEIEMAN: Ke ya rona. [Supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): North West?

Ms E MOLEWA (Premier of the North West): North West supports.

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Western Cape?

Mr N J MACK: Wes-Kaap steun. [Western Cape supports.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): All nine provinces have voted in favour. I therefore declare the report adopted in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]

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

                          FAREWELL SPEECHES

Mr A WATSON: Hon Chairperson, hon colleagues, last year when we stood here there was one exception to all the good wishes extended. You will recall that the hon Sinclair, at the time suspended between the New NP and the ANC, tried so hard to build his nest in the ANC that he wished everyone well for 2005 except the DA. Well, we are at the end of 2005 and the DA is doing just fine. But unfortunately, there is no one telling us how Mr Sinclair is doing. It may pay him in future to heed the old truth: What goes round comes round.

It is that time of the goodwill and I do, once again, most sincerely want to pay tribute to the Chairperson of the NCOP, hon M J Mahlangu, for his outstanding leadership, and also to thank . . . [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON OF THE NCOP (Ms P M Hollander): Order! Hon members, let us allow the hon Watson a chance to present his speech.

Mr A WATSON: I would like to thank him and the presidium for their dedication to their tasks. It’s no secret that we often disagreed with some rulings, and we will continue to do so until they get them right. I also wish to thank the Secretary of the NCOP, Adv Lulama Matyolo, and her staff for their work and dedication throughout the past year.

However, whilst wishing you all well for the season that lies ahead and all the best for 2006, I believe that this is also a time for reflecting on our achievements and our interrelations.

Ek glo die agb Voorsitter en sy span sal goed moet kyk na die mandaat van ons kiesers, sodat ons na hulle belange sal omsien en nie na die belange van die meerderheidsparty nie. Elkeen van ons het die reg om gehoor te word en om daardie mandaat uit te voer. Wat ons egter ervaar, is die groeiende drang van die meerderheidsparty om ons te beheer asof ons hier is op hul genade. Ons is hier om ons partye te dien en ons sal aanhou solank dit ons behaag. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)

[I believe that the hon Chairman and his team will have to take a good look at the mandate of our voters, so that we will attend to their interests and not to the interests of the majority party. Each one of us has the right to be heard and to execute that mandate. However, what we are experiencing is the increasing urge of the majority party to control us as if we were at their mercy here. We are here to serve our parties and we shall continue to do so for as long as we please.]

May I wish you all a wonderful Christmas! May the message of Christmas find its way into all your hearts and your homes! And, may you have a wonderful 2006!

Niphumule kahle! Nikhonze emakhaya! Ningalahleki endleleni! [Have a good rest! Best wishes! Don’t get lost on the way!]

May I conclude by just using a few seconds of this opportunity to also wish the Whip of the DA, Ms Terblanche, a wonderful birthday; it is her birthday today. So, be nice for a change, Mr M C Goeieman.

I conclude by saying, once again, that may you all have a wonderful Christmas.

Sepelang gabotse. Le se lahlege tseleng. Kgotso e be le lena. Ke a leboga. [Go well. Don’t get lost on the way. Peace be with you. Thank you.]

Mrs J N VILAKAZI: Chairperson, to all my colleagues and my seniors from all provinces, let me say that we have been blessed in the year 2005. Many things happened throughout the year. Some were good, and some were bad; but all the same we survived. So, we have been blessed in the year 2005.

Let us go back to our families with joy and peace of mind, and rest as much as possible. Enjoy the festive season to the best optimal level. We hope that we shall meet again in the new year - 2006.

Have a merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. May God bless you all! Ndlelanhle! Adios! [Go well!] [Goodbye!] [Applause.]

Nkskz A N D QIKANI: Mphathisihlalo, baphathiswa abakhoyo namalungu onke ale Ndlu, sibulela kakhulu siyi-UDM kuyo le Ndlu ngendlela esithe saqhuba ngayo kwade kwaphela unyaka. Sibulela kakhulu kuSihlalo wale Ndlu neSekela lakhe ngokusiphatha ngokulinganayo sonke, kungekho ungcono kunomnye. Sininqwenelela imihla emide ezele ngamathamsanqa nempumelelo.

Ndithi mandibulele kakhulu kuMbhexeshi oyiNtloko kunye nakowephondo leMpuma Koloni nabathi ngexesha lokreqelo lwamalungu kwamanye amaqela bamane besikhangela thina maqela mancinci. Sithi: Maz’ enethole! Ndininqwenelela nonke iKrisimesi emnandi nonyaka ozele amathamsanqa; sibuye sonke siphelele. Enkosi. [Kwaqhwatywa.] (Translation of isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)

[Mrs A N D QIKANI: Chairperson, Ministers present here and all hon members of this House, the UDM would like to convey its appreciation for the way we conducted the business of this House until the end of the year. Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, thank you very much for the equal treatment you dispensed. We wish you a long life full of blessings and prosperity.

Let me say thank you very much to the Chief Whip and the provincial NCOP Whip of the Eastern Cape for the support they provided to all small parties during the floor-crossing period. Your courtesy is appreciated. I wish you all a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year; we must all come back alive. Thank you. [Applause.]]

Mr J O TLHAGALE: Hon Chair, hon Premier and hon colleagues, we have lived together here in peace and harmony, and we have established a loving relationship among ourselves. Today we must take leave of one another and say goodbye to people we have got accustomed to living with.

However, whilst we are looking forward to our homeward journeys to those people that we love best, we cannot afford not to look back with a spirit of loneliness and sore heart. In other words, we are spiritually torn between two groups of people that we love dearly.

However, we are grateful that we are parting on a note of happiness, friendship, love and confidence in one another. We shall miss one another, but because we know that we are only parting temporarily, we shall be able to bear the discomfort.

In conclusion, I need to say that we wish the leadership of this House, the support staff and the hon colleagues a happy Christmas period and a prosperous New Year. I thank you. [Applause.]

Ms B L MATLHOAHELA: Hon Chairperson, hon Deputy Ministers, MECs and hon members, success is not to be pursued; it is to be attracted by the person you become.

Like our former President Nelson Mandela, who spent some 27 years in jail for democracy, to be a leader you should always start with where people are before you try to take them where you want them to go. You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your direction overnight and be part of our new democracy. Sharing makes you bigger than you are. The more you pour out, the more life will be able to pour in.

Some are here by profession, others are chosen by the Almighty, for a special purpose. Thanks to all who knew those who died and suffered; who granted us the opportunity to be part of the new, growing democracy. I hope that we will together ensure a strong nation.

Have a happy festive season. Thank you, Chair. [Applause.]

Dr F J VAN HEEREDEN: Voorsitter, baie dankie en van die VF Plus se kant af, dankie aan die Voorsitter en almal wat van tyd tot tyd in die Stoel sit. Ons moet partykeer die sweep ook maar ’n karwats noem. Die ondersteuningspersoneel in die kantore soos die mense wat vir ons water aandra – van ons kant af, baie dankie.

Kersfees en hierdie tyd van die jaar is ’n tyd van welwillendheid wanneer mense en hul families bymekaar is en dit is ons beste wense dat almal die tyd saam met hul families sal geniet in welwillendheid en in veiligheid. Buitekant is daar baie mense wat min, indien enige verwagtinge het van hierdie dae. Laat ons uitgaan met oop beursies en oop ore na mense buitekant wat arm is en wat swaarkry. Laat ons mededeelsaam wees. Dit is die wens van ons party en ek glo almal van ons het daardie wens, dat ons mededeelsaam sal wees teenoor diegene wat nie het nie en met oop gemoed ook daarna kyk. Die welwillendheid vir Kersfees moet ook deel word van ons almal se feesvieringe en mag die verwagtinge van die nuwe jaar vir ons, en waar dit enigsins moontlik is en haalbaar is, vir almal vervul word. Baie dankie vir ’n baie aangename jaar in hierdie Huis. Ek sal dit onthou. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)

[Chairperson, thank you very much and, on behalf of the FF Plus, thank you to the Chairperson and all those who take the Chair from time to time. We sometimes have to call the Whip not only that, but also “horsewhip”. The support personnel at the offices, like those who bring us water – we say thank you very much.

Christmas, and this time of the year, is a time of goodwill, when people and their families get together and it is our best wishes that everybody will be spending time with their families in a spirit of goodwill and in safety. Outside there are many people who have few, if any, expectations of this time. Let us go out with open wallets and open ears to people outside who are poor and struggling. Let us be charitable. This is the wish of our party and I believe all of us have the wish to be charitable towards those who do not have and that everyone would also approach this with an open mind. The goodwill of Christmas should also form part of the festivities of all of us and may the expectations that we have of the New Year, where in any way possible and attainable, come true for everyone. Thank you very much for a very pleasant year in this House. I shall remember it!]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE COUNCIL: Hon House Chair, let me start off by saying that as we come to the end of celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Charter in the year 2005, we would like to thank the leadership of the NCOP, led by the able, humble giant, our very own hon M J Mahlangu, working collectively with our Deputy Chairperson, the hon Hollander, and assisted by our honoured House Chairs.

We also wish to thank the participation of our provinces, through special delegates, and the active participation of our women Premiers, such as hon Molewa. We want to express our profound thanks for that. The Chief Whip of the Mpumalanga legislature is here, and the Chief Whip of the Northern Cape legislature was here earlier on.

We would like to thank the improved participation of special delegates in this House. Furthermore, we would also like to thank the improved participation of Salga. I see Cllr Jenkins has moved out, but our Executive Mayor from the mighty Ekhuruleni, Comrade Duma Nkosi, is here. We would like to thank the leadership of Salga for their participation in this House.

Furthermore, we also thank the constructive role played by most of our parties in this House. But in the spirit of Christmas, we would like to thank all the parties in this House – old and new ones.

We would also like to thank our staff, under the leadership of Adv Lulama Matyolo. We know at times we had frustrations, but the year has been long, so let’s all forget about whatever mishaps, challenges and weaknesses that occurred during the year. Let’s take what was good and excellent in this year forward to 2006.

I cannot make the mistake of not thanking our honoured chairpersons of the various select committees in this House, and our Whips, especially the programming Whip, the provincial Whips and our party Whips, for the great role they played.

Hon Terblanche, as we go on Christmas vacation, and if we happen to come across one another, whether on a beach or at a private game farm, don’t rise on a point of order, just say cheers with a glass of champagne.

Thanks to all our committed members who are here. We also have to recognise the Speakers who have been here, from the Western Cape and Limpopo. I wish we could go back to Limpopo.

May I say, as we conclude, that we want to wish you a very joyous, harmonious and peaceful festive season. Please have a rest. Don’t overdo it; just do it over. And as we move towards the new year, we would like you to come back here very refreshed. We wish you, individually and collectively, a very progressive, prosperous and productive new year.

May I close by saying in Japanese: Arigato, which means thank you very much. And further: “Sayonara”, which means “goodbye”. During this festive season, please don’t call me; I will call you. [Laughter.] Thank you. [Applause.]

The Council adjourned at 12:44. ____

            ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

The Speaker and the Chairperson

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

 (1)    Bills passed by National Assembly on 14 December 2005:


        i) Precious Metals Bill [B 30D – 2005] (National Assembly – sec
           75).
       ii) Independent Communications Authority of South Africa
           Amendment Bill [B 32D – 2005 (Reprint)] (National Assembly –
           sec 75).
      iii) Children’s Bill [B 70B and B 70C – 2003] (National Assembly –
           sec 75).
       iv) Nursing Bill [B 26D – 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75).

 (2)    Bills passed by National Council of Provinces on 14 December
     2005:


        i) Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill [B 33B – 2005] (National
           Assembly – sec 74).
       ii) Cross-boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters
           Bill [B 36B - 2005] (National Assembly – sec 75).

TABLINGS

National Assembly and National Council of Provinces

1. The Minister of Safety and Security a) Proclamation No R.51 published in Government Gazette No 28039 dated 23 September 2005: Notification by President in respect of entities identified by the United Nations Security Council in terms of section 25 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related activities Act, 2004 (Act No 33 of 2004).

   b) Proclamation No R.57 published in Government Gazette No 28136 dated 14 October 2005: Notification by President in respect of entities identified by the United Nations Security Council in terms of section 25 of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related activities Act, 2004 (Act No 33 of 2004).

2. The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

   a) Report on the provisional suspension from office with remuneration: Mr M K Chauke, an additional magistrate at the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

National Council of Provinces

1. Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on Oversight Visit to the Eastern Cape, dated 30 November 2005:

A. Background

The Select Committees on Labour & Public Enterprises and on Economic and Foreign Affairs undertook a joint oversight visit to the Eastern Cape for the period 5–7 September 2005. The programme for the Select Committee on Economic Affairs was scheduled for 7 September 2005. This report will cover only the activities of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises.

B. Terms of Reference

On 5 September, the Committee met with the Sector Education and Training Authority (Seta) of the Local Government, the Local Government, Water & Related Services (LGWSETA) in East London. The purpose was to assess the effectiveness of the Seta in realizing the objectives of the 1st phase of National Skills Development Strategy. On 7 September the Committee met with the National Ports Authority (NPA). The purpose was to assess progress made by the Port Elizabeth Port and the Coega Development Zone, in implementing an economic infrastructure that is responsive to the second economy, enterprise development and poverty alleviation with the Eastern Cape Province.

C. Delegation

The delegation consisted of the following persons:

Ms MP Themba (Chairperson) (ANC) Ms ND Ntwanambi (ANC) Mr DG Mkono (ANC) Mr K Sinclair (NNP) Mr DD Gamede (ANC)

Ms P Mpoyiya (Committee Secretary) Ms N Sihawu (Transcription Typist

D. Findings

1. Report on meeting with LGWSETA in East London

The mission of the National Skills Development Strategy is to equip South Africa with the skills to succeed in the global market and offer opportunities to individuals and communities for self-advancement to enable them to play a productive role in society.

The Committee received a presentation from Mr Nini, the Regional Manager of LGWSETA, in Eastern Cape. The focus of the presentation was on the experiences of the Seta in implementing the 1st phase of National Skills Development Strategy (SDS) until March 2005.

The mandate of the Seta is to identify gaps within the sector and design education and training programmes for the betterment of those involved and the community at large.

The Committee noted that the Seta has successfully established relations with 40 municipalities in the Province, and also succeeded in facilitating a number of learnership programmes in the Province. The following programmes were noted: • 120 learners have completed training on water related learnerships; • in March 2005, 84 Learners from Nelson Mandela Metro, District Municipality and local municipalities have started in the LED Officer learnership; • in September 15 learners from Lukhanji district will receive training on Basic Municipal Finance and Administration learnership; and • in the Nelson Mandela Metro 226 learners have completed 6 modules on Sanitation Skills Programmes.

In order to improve its governance and in response to its mandate, the Seta formed provincial committees to provide provincial and political guidance within the province. Further capacity building workshops were arranged to capacitate Provincial Committee members on Skills development issues so that they can make well-informed decisions within the sector.

1.1 Sector Skills Plan

The Skilled Development Facilitators (SDF) has been identified to assist the municipalities in promoting the NSDS agenda within the Province. In 2003, the SDF received training, through the University of Fort Hare. The effectiveness of SDF can be realized with the Provincial Office within the respective municipalities. To strengthen their capacity, an SDF Forum was established and a Provincial Workshop was held in 2004. Further training was provided in February 2005. Since 2003 the Seta has managed to train 1500 learners through the LGWSETA strategic ABET Project.

1.2 Challenges

Despite the noted achievements, there are a number of factors that hinder the effective performance of the Seta. The following concerns were identified: • The SDFs are located in the Human Resources Department with the councils and this makes it difficult for the tasks to be realized. This further impacts on the start of learnerships and skills programmes. • The SDFs are reduced to the level of training good have to report to many people. Yet the global requirement is that SDF should have skill and direct influence. • The use of private service providers to compile the WSP affects the target of WSP submission. This leads to strained relations between labour and employer due to lack of consultation. • The Seta has no direct control of the Skills levy and some municipal managers tend to misuse the fund. It was reported that R800 000 for training has been spent on related matters. • The learnership programmes are still to be approved by the Department of Labour in terms of South African Qualifications Authority, SAQA. • The Seta is concerned that the water related services have been removed form the Seta. These services are at the core of training provided by the Seta.

The issue of administration fee for handling of learnership funds remains a challenge in some Municipalities, due to capacity problems. The authority that SDFs have in some Municipalities undermines their commitment to function. The Provincial Manager and his secretary are responsible for all the actitivites of the Seta in the Province. The shortage of staff hinders makes it difficult for the Seta to handle all its duties within the province. The delay in the payment of learnership funds by LGWSETA to Municipalities has caused some problems that led to suspension of some and drop out to others. Those service providers who deal with matters outside of its mandate mostly approach the LGWSETA and this creates problems.

1.3 Conclusion

The Select Committee noted that despite the difficulties, the Seta has taken some milestones in proceeding in line with NSDS Strategy. The highlighted challenges with the municipalities however affected its ability to operate effectively. The Setas have a strategic role to play in addressing problems associated with skills shortages in the country and it is crucial that they are well capacitated to perform well. The Water component of the Seta has been taken way yet sanitation is still at the center of the Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (Lgseta). The service providers who respond to the adverts are mainly from outside the province in Johannesburg. They set high standards, which are not responsive to those of the Province. The Committee is not satisfied with the fact the Seta experiences delays in payment to the municipalities.

1. Recommendations

• The Department of Labour should ensure that  Preferential  Procurement
  system benefits the people of the Province.
• The Minister of Labour to explain why it is that until  now  only  one
  person is employed to service the Seta.
• The Committee recommends that clear mechanisms should be developed  to
  ensure  that  capacity  of  the  office  is  increased  and  that  the
  challenges are dealt with effectively. This method should also  assist
  in addressing the noted delays in payments to local governments by the
  Seta.
• The Minister of Labour to be invited to explain about the  removal  of
  water related matters from the Lgwseta.

1. Report on meetings with National Ports Authority

2.1 Terms of Reference

The Committee undertook the visit to assess progress made by the Port Elizabeth Port in implementing an economic infrastructure that is responsive to the second economy, enterprise development and poverty alleviation within the Eastern Cape Province.

2.2 (a) National Ports Authority - Port Elizabeth

The Committee was briefed on the overview of services provided in the port and plans in place to improve its deliveries.

The container terminal, mainly services the motor industry, it has a stack capacity of 385 000 tons. There is a need to reduce the dwell time of the containers in order to increase capacity. The output for the period 2004/2005 the terminal recorded 338 550 TEU’. This was higher than 26% up on 03/04) the port has budget 05/06: 356 575 tons.

The Port Elizabeth Port has a car terminal which carries up to 59 486 units (Imports 28 926 units, Exports 30 559 units). This terminal is predominantly used by VWSA (export to Japan and Europe) and GMSA (import to Germany and US) respectively. GMSA export contract will start towards end of October 2006.This will mean that the actual dwell time for these cars will have to be effectively managed, currently dwell time for imports is 6 days while for exports is 10 days. In terms of output, for 2004/05 period the terminal recorded 59 485 units (Imports = 28 926 units, Exp = 30 559 units).

Another section is reserved for bulk terminal. In this section the customers store different types of minerals like the Assomang 55% and Samancor (BHP Billiton) 45%. The Manganese Ore is mined at Hotazel in the Northern Cape and then brought to Port Elizabeth by rail after which it is exported to Japan and China. It is designed for capacity 3 million tons. The section for Storage bins has a carrying capacity of up to 380 000 tons of 40 different grades. In terms of the plans it is considered for relocation to the Port of Ngqura.

Further the Port has a section for Liquid Bulk Terminal. The NPA has reserved this section for Oil Companies. It is reserved for the importing of CW Processed Petroleum Products. The Liquid bulk terminal has a capacity of 2 500 000 tons. Currently there is limited storage available. In terms of 2004/05 report, there were 1 039 574 tons and, it is estimated that a capacity for 1 057 200 tons will be made available.

The cold storage is reserved for fruit terminal and is outsourced to a BEE Company for operation. This terminal operates 65% citrus from Sundays River, and the deciduous fruits from Langkloof, which is exported to Europe. This section is seasonal and operates over 7 months period. It also serves as major growth opportunity for the province. There are plans to have a dedicated terminal for an increase capacity for a cold storage facility.

In addition the Port has SAPO terminal operator. It operates two areas, for Importing of Wheat, Grain, Maize: 85 000 tons: Sasko and Fertilizer about 25 000 tons. This section will be possibly relocated to Ngura. Another section services 30 000 tons of steel rails operated by Spoornet. The area also export 40 000 tons of steel by the Reclamation Group. In order to control the freight and reduce the load, the National Port Authority plans to redistribute the existing business of ore, bulk liquids and most of the containers to the Port of Ngqura. This will allow opportunity to increase bay capacity car terminal, the fruit terminal and also create more space for the fishing industry. The fruit terminal will be increased as well.

The Multipurpose will allow for further development for leisure tourism and other activities. There are further plans for economic development, tank farm and ore terminal including vacant land, with further opportunities for housing development.

2.3 Conclusion

The Committee has observed that the port has been operating under immense pressure and not able to control all the freight. The reports reflect that in all the respective sections the Port has experienced problems of delays and capacity. There are clear and well thought plans in response to the Presidential plan to reduce the control of freight in the ports. The Committee took note that the NPA has addressed the problem of increased dwell time, which had negative impact for the delivery of the Port. The planned redistribution of storage relocation magnesium, reduction in container terminal; realignment in liquid terminal are indications that the port has responded well to the Presidential call. The Committee is satisfied with the plans to expand the port into tourism and housing development. In addition to noted changes on services common to port operations, the Port is considered for leisure and economic development. These plans are at initial stages of extending the port to a waterfront. This will create opportunity for further growth. The success of the plans is depended on successful collaboration and joint planning with the Nelson Mandela Metro Municipality (NMMM) and the Port of Ngqura.

       3. Report on meeting with Coega Project Mr Zuko Mapoma from the Office of the Chief Executive officer (CEO) gave an analytical update on the Coega Project and highlighted on some of the critical investment projects.

In terms of infrastructure roll out plan, the following project have been completed • Bulk connecting infrastructure • Marine works to phase 1 of harbour • Construction Village phase • RIC complete and operational • ITC and Operations structure in place

Currently, there are 75 potential investors across all sectors with significant and economically viable projects. These being: • CAS – U$D 2 billion • Integrated Stainless Steel complex – USD 3 billion • U$D 80 billion over 30 to 40 years

Below are major projects having huge job opportunities. • Coega Aluminium Smelter • Integrated Stainless Steel Project • Manganese Re-location project • Oil Tank Farm Re-location • Ferro-Manganese Plants • Ferro Nickel and Ferro Chrome Plants • Logistics Hub • Ship repair Yard

Manganese Relocation Project from the Port Eilzabeth Port: The project will bring in a number of spin-offs for the province. It carries a R1, 5-billion concession opportunity, which will unlock re- development of Port Elizabeth. It has the potential of R3.0bn revenue for Port Elizabeth. It will further boost the export potential with possibilities of doubling the current employment opportunities. There is excitement because it carries significant contribution to GDP and attraction for tourist in the city.

The success of the entire project is depended on sustainable use of power: • Ensure that Eskom’s Network Master plan is implemented • Equitable allocation of connection fees • Implementation of base load generation plan

1. Report on meeting with Port on Ngqura

4.1 Background

The port of Ngqura was originally conceived as an Industrial Port to serve the immediate surrounding areas. Its operations are closely aligned with DTI’s Spatial Development Initiative and are being considered to be a key success factor for the Coega IDZ.

4.2 Effect of Ngqura on Port of Port Elizabeth

Mr Chris Matchett gave a brief report the Port of Ngqura will allow for permanent relocation of tank farm and manganese ore terminal. In terms of the development plans, some of the container operations will be moved from PE Port of Ngqura: These include the following: dry bulk, bulk liquids and industrial feed stocks.

4.3 Economic Impact of Port of Ngura

• The construction work in the Port construction has created a total of
  2 500 jobs and this also marked a boost for the local economy
• Approximately 30% of the Capex spent (R2bn) has gone through the local
  economy.
• About 25% of the Capex spent has been towards Black Economic
  Empowerment projects.
• The ZLA, agreed between the Construction Industry and Unions, has
  benefited labour employed in the Coega IDZ and the Port of Ngqura.

The Committee is satisfied with the coordination and cooperation between Transnet and the National Ports Authority as reflected in the programmes of Port Elizabeth Port, Coega and Port of Ngqura.

1. Conclusion

The Committee is satisfied with the plans and joint coordination between the NPA and Coega development. It is hopeful that these will go a long way in addressing challenges of employment in the province. This will improve the economic position of the province and will surely find a place in the global economy.

1. Report of the Select Committee on Labour and Public Enterprises on Study Tour to Malaysia, dated 30 November 2005:

A. BACKGROUND

The Select Committee undertook a study tour visit to Malaysia for the period 9-16 September 2005, allowing for two days for travelling. The report will focus on visits conducted from 12 to 16 September 2005.

B. Terms of Reference

The purpose of the study tour was to take lessons on communications and labour related matters. Concerning communications, the Committee needed to explore the applied experience of convergence and the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry in Malaysia. Further to look at the issue of regulation and the tasks and challenges of regulators. Also to look at the role of state planning in regulation as well as deregulation issues (including issues of competition and legislation in this regard).

The Committee had hoped to meet with amongst others: The Office of the Prime Minister, the Telecommunications Regulators, the Competition Authorities and some entities in Telecommunications industry.

Research has shown that, in the past 10 years Malaysia has been successful in reducing unemployment and hard-core poverty to acceptable levels. In comparison to South Africa, the levels of unemployment and skills shortage in are at high levels. The visit would further assist in sharing experiences on strategies and programmes developed in addressing such challenges. This could be achieve by undertaking possible meetings and secure visits with: Parliamentary Labour Committee, Department of Labour, and Trade unions as well as Labour Centres.

C. Delegation

Ms M P Themba (Chairperson) (ANC) Mr K Sinclair (NNP) Mr D G Mkono (ANC) Mr ZL Kolweni (ANC) Ms JF Terblanche (DA)

Ms Phumza Mpoyiya ( Committee Secretary)

D. Findings

The Committee managed to secure meetings and received presentations from the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication, the Communications and Multimedia Commission Act as well as Telkom Malaysia. It was not possible to meet with labour unions, as these are not effective in Malaysia as labour issues are not a matter of concern.. The Ministry of Labour arranged for a presentation on mechanisms used by the country in reducing poverty. It was noted that this was not relevant for the Committee. In order to make up with this challenge, the delegation then elected to visit the South African students who are on programme with Telkom Malaysia. The visit to was in form of a briefing from the Chancellor of the institution on the performance of the institution and allocated time with the students.

1. Meeting with the Ministry of Energy, Water and Communication

1.1 Policy and the Regulatory Framework The Communication and Multimedia Commission Act, 1998 was enacted in order to regulate the converged industries. It was implemented in November 1998. It replaced the Telecommunications Act, 1950, the Broadcasting Act 1998 and it came into effect in 1 April 1999. The purpose Convergence Legislation is to facilitate the operations of communications over the electronic medium. It objectives are to promote national policy objectives related to communication and multimedia sector. To establish regulatory structure that will be responsible for operational licensing of the sector. To establish a new and autonomous statutory body to regulate the sector in terms of procedures set in the Act.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (CMC) therefore was set up as a body corporate of the government that acts as the regulator within the communications and the media sector. The focal areas of the CMC are to encouraging competition amongst the industry players, encourage technical neutrality, ensure that the industry becomes self-regulatory and that universal obligations are observed. In order to ensure efficiency, the government has set regulatory framework for a new licensing structure to facilitate the licensing process. There are also different categories being set up for individual licensee (with stringent rules to be adhered to) and the class licences (in these category are relaxed). Further there are categories for Network Facilities Provider (NFP), Network Service Provider (NSP), Applications Service Provider (ASP) and the Content Applications Service Provider (CASP). Those making applications for individual licenses have to adhere to all the stipulated regulations. However for class licensees the service provider may be required to meet a minimum standard of the set regulations.

The process of liberalisation started more than 15 years ago. It was clearly outlined as follows: • 1986- Corporatization and privatisation of Telkom • 1995- Approval of 5 Telco Licenses • 1998- Enactment of the Communications and the Multimedia Act convergence and competition • 2000- New Licensing Regime- vertical separation of communications licenses- application service, network service, network facilities, content application • 2001- Liberalisation of last mile- new network facility providers for the last mile infrastructure • 2005- Abolition of ASP Individual license and the introduction of CASP Class License

The Energy, Water and Communications Ministry have set up industry forums to promote industry self-regulation and self-discipline. The CMC is required to provide for the establishment of, Access forums, Technical Standard Forums, Content Forums and Consumer Forums.

The forums are set up in terms of set guidelines. Their primary task is to prepare and develop voluntary Industry Codes. The CMC has to designate each Industry Forum before codes can be registered. The role of the Industry forum will be to monitor the implementation of codes and to ensure that there is high level of compliance within the industry. The Access Forum is responsible for developing Access Codes that are to be sued as model for terms and conditions of compliance with standard access obligations. The Technical Standards Forum is for the development of technical standards, which determine for access obligations. There is also a Content Forum, which is responsible for the development of Content Code, which shall model procedures for dealing with offensive or indecent content. Another is the Consumer Forum is set up to develop Consumer code which will include procedures for protection of consumer interests.

The Universal Service Provision (USP) was set up in terms of the provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Ac, 1998 and was implemented in the beginning of 2002. The 8th Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) sets the government’s contribution to the USP at US$ 250 million. This contribution is contribution to provide communication infrastructure to schools and other critical public and community facilities in underserved areas. The Industry is also expected to make a contribution in terms of USP Policy, which was approved in 2001. All licensees except the CASP are required to make a contribution of 6% of their weighed income to the Universal Service Fund. The funds from Industry players, within the sector will be used mainly for communication infrastructure development.

The success of the performance of USP is evident in noted implications for bridging the digital divide. There is an increase accessibility and connectivity in rural and underserved areas through the implementation of the Universal Service Provision program (i.e. government contribution and the Universal Services Fund). There is widening awareness on ICT usage through the proliferation of Rural Internet Centres and the E-Community Projects. IT education has been enhanced through smart school initiatives in rural and underserved areas (linking schools to the national and global networks), Net School programmes. It has also encouraged distance learning through rural Internet Centres. Malaysia is becoming a knowledge-based society, by reducing disparities are reduced by ICT. The e-culturalisation is becoming an as the integral part of daily life.

1. An overview of the Communications and Multimedia Industry in Malaysia

2.1 Presentation by the Monitoring and Enforcement Division

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission is a convergence Regulator which was established under the Communications and Multimedia Act of 1998, the Digital Signatures Act 1997 and Postal Services Act 1991. The Commission is responsible for the telecoms, broadcasters and ISPS, the postal and courier services and digital certification authorities.

The Commission: is made of seven Board Members who are appointed by the Minister and the Chairmen who also act as the CEO. The role of the Board is to advise, decide and implement the legislation.

The Commission works through a consultative process with the relevant role players, and consumers proposes regulation and makes recommendations to the Minister who introduce these through to Cabinet and later to Parliament. There is considerations for appeal through the Tribunal court for instances where the industry may not be satisfied with a particular regulation. This option has however not yet been put in place.

The move or change towards convergence was a process that involved legislative changes. These were fundamental in facilitating the change towards convergence. The Malaysian Communications, 1998 replaced all the Sectoral Acts, i.e. the telecommunications Act 1950, the Broadcasting Act 1998; the Postal Services Act, 1991 and the Digital signature Act, 1997. The same was for the Sectoral Regulators, i.e. the Postal Department and licensing, the division became the responsibility of the Commission. On 1 November 1998, the functions of the Ministry of Energy, Telecommunications and Post were changed to Ministry of Energy, Communications & Multimedia. The Malaysia Communications Act 1998 came into force and the Communications Multimedia Commission was formed.

Concerning licensing processes, the old licenses that were issued based on specific technologies and specific services, like licenses for broadcasting, telecommunications, VAN, and ISP licenses were shifted into licenses for specific needs for new technologies which required neutral and service neutral licenses. There were two types of licenses that which were issues for class and individual categories. The Commission awards individual licenses to those services (content, applications network services and network facilities) with significant economic or social impact. In April 2005, it began to consider awarding of license to ASP category, which require only class license in order to operate.

The Committee noted that it is imperative that all relevant legislations are carefully considered prior to convergence. The Minister should have an important role to play in order to have effective regulation of the industry.

2.2 Market Liberalisation process in Malaysia

The Malaysian communications structure has gradually progressed from being focused on a fixed line in 1980 into to cellular, Internet access and broadcasting in 2000. It s envisaged that by 2010 the industry would be fully competitive and become a converged market for Multi media and Communications.

Licences issued as at August 2005 |Type |Individua|Class |Total |Percentage in relation | | |l | | |to foreign equity | |NFP |50 |27 |77 |30% | |NSP |54 |30 |84 |49% | |ASP |- |249 |249 |49% | |CASP |20 |- |20 |30% | |Total |124 |306 |430 | |

In order to ensure that economic benefits are realized. The Commission has set up a number of regulatory measures that have to be adhered to by each industry player:

• In order to discourage domineering and to  lessen  competition  within
  the industry, CMC has  established  a  competition  regulation,  which
  prohibits price fixing, tying and linking. The Access regulation  unit
  ensures that Mandatory standards on Accessing are  observed  and  that
  the Mandatory Standard on Access pricing is contained.


• The Access Forum focuses on retail rate aspects of the industry,  both
  in the regulated services (i.e. local and STD call to PST) and the Non-
  regulated services i.e. mobile, VoIP.

• Assessment of Dominant Position: An impact  assessment  study  on  the
  performance of the market is being considered. The market under  study
  will focus on:  Fixed  line  access  to  the  PSTN;  Mobile  Telephony
  services; Upstream  Network  Facilities  (NFP);  Interconnected  (SP);
  Leased Line services (retail) (NFP); Broadband retail services  (ASP);
  and Analogue terrestrial TV broadcasting transmission services (NFP)

The study will be conducted to measure the dominance of the licensee against set threshold levels. These would be measured against set fixtures: Firm’s Market share Inference Above 54% Presumption of dominance 25-45% No presumption (grey area) Below 25% Presumption that the firm is not dominant. In instances where the findings may reveal dominant impact but with no immediate impact, no action will be taken. However if the dominant licensee engages in a conduct, which has or may have impact on SLC, the Commission will apply the provision of Section 39 of MCM Act.

1. Visit to Telkom Malaysia (TM) The Company believes n the philosophy of a world where change is the only constant. In response to that, TM has transformed from being a local telephony institution into one with global presence and multimedia strength. It continues to constantly reinvent to keep pace with the accelerated changes in the industry and the global marketplace. This has been achieved by reshaping its portfolio of business and its philosophy of managing the business so as to prosper in this competitive environment. Its mission is to approach the new millennium, with enthusiasm and embrace the changes and also identify the new opportunities to provide more value to our customers. TM is to remain committed not only in meeting the demands of our customers but also in anticipating them. We would like to be the telecommunications company of choice when we say “Weíre Here For You”. The Committee believes that the success of Malaysia is due to a combination of issues, the close relations between the government and the private sector as well adoption and determination by both parties in realising set goals in placing the country in the global market.

2. Visit to the Multimedia University The visit was characterized by briefings on the programmes offered in the different faculties in the institution. This was followed by a brief tour to laboratories for: e-Gallery, Nokia Wireless Communications, Intel Microelectronics, Telecommunications and to the Electromagnetic (EM) Laboratory. The Committee further arranged for a meeting with the South African students. This proved to be very fruitful, as the young students expressed gratefulness to the delegation. The experiences learnt by the students will place the country in an advantageous position. The delegation is however concerned that those students were the last intake, as Telkom SA will not be sponsoring the scholarship.

3. Conclusion

The delegation is humbled by the progress made by Malaysia in following the liberalization process. The government and the industry are all ready in pursuing the objective of convergence system. The CMC of Malaysia can be similar to ICASA in South Africa. There is a need for legislative amendments to be effected, which could pave way to effective management of the communications industry sector in South Africa. The Committee has noted with great interest the process and legislative changes introduce by Malaysian prior to confirmation of convergence to have such power legislative changes need to be made in Broadcasting, ICASA Act and the Postal Services Act. These would assist ICASA in ensuring that the objectives of convergence are realised. The Committee would like to encourage Telkom and government to find way of continuing the support of students who study in Malaysia.

1. Comparative Analysis

It has taken Malaysia 20 years to liberalize the communications industry and move towards convergence. Industry players and academic institutions were involved in the process. It is noted that convergence is a process; the relevant structures need to be informed all the time. South Africa may have taken the move towards converge too soon, given that the process only started in 2003. The delegation is excited about the observations but concerned that South Africa may have to pass on a number of huddles once the convergence bill is finished. The country may not have enough capacity to deal with the constant technological regulatory mechanisms that come with convergence. Convergence in Malaysia is not without its challenges: Though the country is ahead in terms of convergence, it still has a challenge of non- availability of data and records to measure its performance. The faster changes in technology require equal change in regulations. It is a challenge to regulate content with the content of new media of convergence. There is a gap between telecom centric incumbents and new entrants. Commission has to conduct investigation on anti-corruption behaviors eg. Price fixing. Lastly the considered understudy to be undertaken has to monitor the implementation of the Act.

It was noted that Malaysian government might not be able to have control over the content provided by the industry. This is something that needs to be addressed in South Africa, as there could be a lot of movement without proper control measures in place.

1. Word of appreciation

As the Committee would like to extend appreciation to support received from the High Commissioner and his office during our study visit.

1. Report of the Select Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs on an Oversight Visit to the Eastern Cape on 6 September 2005, dated 1 December 2005:

Background

The Committee on Economic and Foreign Affairs undertook the oversight visit to the Eastern Cape Province to investigate challenges for economic development, Black Economic Empowerment and job creation on 6 September 2005.

Terms of Reference

The visit was arranged so that the meeting would be secured with the relevant Standing Committee in order to strengthen the relationship between the two committees. Meetings were arranged with the Provincial Department of Economic & Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAET), the Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC) and the Eastern Cape Industrial Development Zone (ECIDZ).

C. Delegation

The delegation consisted of the following persons:

Ms ND Ntwanambi (Chairperson) Ms MP Themba Mr DG Mkono Mr K Sinclair Mr DD Gamede Ms P Mpoyiya (Committee Secretary) Ms N Sihawu (Transcription Typist)

D. Findings

Contextual background

The Eastern Cape Province has a population of 6.43 million (15,2%), with a population growth of 5,3%. The province boasts a Growth Development Product (GDP) of 8.2% and 48% of the labour force. This is in contrast to 37% of unemployment, with 63% of the people residing in rural areas. The Province has a competitive advantage in terms of climate, cost to entry, scope of opportunities, natural resources and educational facilities. These are however not effectively benefiting the province.

1. Report on meeting with Department of Economic and Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAET)

   The Department gave a perspective on how government has planned to respond to economic development and job creation in the province.

   Mr Tandi Gcilitshana, the Director in the Department, gave a broad overview of the role played by the department in promoting economic growth and development in the Province. This is done through the promotion of trade & investment promotions of the province, by facilitating business development and finance support, participation in tourism development and marketing; as well as in spatial development initiatives support and support to Industrial Development Zone.

   The Department has set up strategic systems to realize economic development objectives. The Provincial Strategy Development, Provincial Support Networks, and promotion of Empowerment objective through public procurement are core programmes.

2. Report on meeting with Eastern Cape Development Corporation (ECDC)

Mr Kevin Wakeford, the CEO of the ECDC gave a perspective on  the  role
played by the Corporation  in  response  to  economic  development  and
employment needs in the Province.

The ECDC plays an important  role  in  providing  support  for  project
development, spatial and rural development, investment promotions,  and
enterprise development services as well as exports promotion.  For  the
period between April and August  2005,  ECDC  has  disbursed  loans  to
contractors (0,6%), project development (7,6%) and  conventional  loans
(12,6%).

The ECDC has benefited a number of  projects  and  in  turn  jobs  were
created, across district municipalities as follows: Alfred Nzo District
4 685, Amatole district 5 843, Cacadu 6 088 and  OR  Tambo  District  8
818.

Despite  the  noted  job  opportunities,  the  ECDC  was  not   without
challenges. There is concern that the procurement of these projects  is
not benefiting the Province. The tenders are  most  awarded  to  people
from outside and they are involved in the projects. These are  some  of
the noted projects: the Value gain gaps; Moribund  Balance  sheet;  the
Agrarian Reform; Spatial plan and resource allocation. There is also  a
serious shortage of skills for people to  be  employed  because  people
have moved away from the Province. This  is  further  impacted  in  the
manner in which  local  government  delivers  its  programmes.  Another
challenge is  that  the  Province  has  enough  resource  to  feed  its
population, but most of  the  production  is  not  produced  for  local
demand, but for  export  purposes.  Furthermore,  the  unresolved  land
tenure problems impact on the success of some of the proposed projects.

1. Report on meeting with East London Industrial Development Zone (ELIDZ)

The Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) is a government  initiative  that
is aimed at positioning South Africa within the global economy.  It  is
aimed at encouraging economic growth through manufacturing  industries,
creating jobs while  also  generating  sustainable  local  and  foreign
direct investment. The ELIDZ is a private  company  that  is  owned  in
collaboration with  business  and  government.  The  company  ownership
structure is 74% ECDC and 26% Buffalo City Municipality (BCM). The  IDZ
is funded by the Department of Trade & Industry, DEAET and BCM.

Mr Simphiwe Kondlo, the CEO of ELIDZ, gave a contextual analysis of how
the Zone realizes its mandate of stimulating economic  development  and
job creation in the Province.  The vision of the zone  is  “  to  be  a
catalyst of  sustainable  economic  growth  and  job  creation  through
development  and  efficient  management  of  a   globally   competitive
Industrial Development Zone that attracts and retains  selected  export
orientated industries”.

Since it’s beginning in May 2003, 19 projects were undertaken which are
valued at R194 million. These have secured 1219 jobs through  the  bulk
infrastructure development project, which was completed in August 2005.
This project is currently at  its  final  stages.  The  next  phase  of
development is the construction of estate buildings, which will proceed
until August 2006. It is expected that 500 jobs will be created for the
duration of the project.

In terms of  spatial  development,  about  434  ha  of  land  has  been
developed into prime industrial land, to  house  110  industrial  sites
already serviced.  These carry the  potential  of  19  000  direct  and
indirect industry related jobs.


The ELIDZ is currently  in  a  transition  between  the  infrastructure
development phase and the investment phase. There are three sectors for
investment, these are: automotive, agro industries and  pharmaceutical.
To date, three investors (Seatek, Milltrans and Universe Safety  Glass)
have been successfully attracted with 380 job opportunities. It is also
expected that another 40 potential investors  will  be  coming  to  the
Zone. These would be in  the  sectors:  automotive,  agro-  industries,
forestry & wood, logistics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and textile.

There are a number of factors that impact  on  the  IDZ  realizing  its
mandate. The current and proposed revised IDZ programme falls short  of
addressing some of the fundamental  problems  experienced  by  the  IDZ
developers.   These   include:   Legislative   framework,   competitive
incentives  for  IDZs,  which  is  a  clear   funding   mechanism   and
institutional arrangements. The state of readiness  of  key  government
partners is central to the  success  of  the  Zone.  The  ELIDZ  is  at
advanced negotiations with potential investors and the government needs
to be ready in terms of the following: customs regulations  and  rules:
Investment appraisal and approval processes (DTI & SARS) and government
expediting window.

Another concern is about the government’s financial commitments and the
degree of national/provincial funding collaboration  for  the  project.
The National  programmes  have  a  clear  funding  model  for  the  IDZ
programme for the multi-year development funding provisions as well  as
funding of critical regional transportation  infrastructure.  The  main
concern is that the ELIDZ is not receiving full financial collaboration
and this affects the further developments of its projects.   .

1. Visit to Siyakholwa Project in Keiskamahoek (kuQoboqobo)

In addition to meeting with the respective stakeholders, the  Committee
had requested to visit some of the projects that are supported  by  the
Department. In terms of the  planned  programme,  three  projects  were
identified. However due to time constraints the Committee was  able  to
visit only one project.

The Committee visited  the  Siyakholwa  project  in  Keiskamahoek.  The
project is aimed at assisting farmers with their produce  and  enabling
them to earn income from their produce. It was founded 8 years ago by a
South African couple that was previously based in Johannesburg.

This ECDC funded project is aimed at assisting farmers to improve their
produce and their income.  These are some  of  the  projects  that  are
available: Paprika project,  Maize  project,  rabbit  farming  and  the
essential oil project. These are not met  without  challenges  and  the
following concerns were raised:


 • The paprika project could not be extended due  to  lack  of  support
   from government.
 • The Department of Science & Technology initially gave an undertaking
   to fund the essential oil project but this has not been forthcoming.
 • There has been no support from local government within the district.
 • The maize project has been extended to 9 other villages in the area.
 • The rabbit project has started small but is not yet effective.

Other matters

In addition to the visits and secured meetings, the Select Committee had requested to meet with the Standing Committee. However, the meeting could not take place because of other commitments.

Conclusion

The Committee is satisfied with the progress made by the ECDC and ELIDZ, in improving the economic conditions in the province.

Committee Recommendations

The Committee recommends that government should address the noted challenges for effective implementation of Independent Development Zones throughout the country.

The Committee also recommends that the unused buildings in King Williams Town could be used as training facilities.