Disaster Management Bill: deliberations

Appendix 1
DISASTER MANAGEMENT BILL [B21-2002]: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

CLAUSE 4
On page 12, from line 1, to omit paragraph (c) and to substitute:

(c) representatives of organised local government who are members of a municipal Council and selected by the South African Local Government Association.

On page 12, in line 7, to omit "coordination" and to substitute "co-ordination".

CLAUSE 5
On page 12, from line 26, to omit paragraph (d) and to substitute:

(d) representatives of organised local government with technical expertise in the field of disaster management.

CLAUSE 17
On page 22, from line 34, to omit paragraph (b) and to substitute:

(b) classifying parts of the database as restricted areas in consultation with the Minister, and limiting access to those parts to persons authorised by the Minister.

CLAUSE 56
On page 56, in line 39, to insert the following after the words "contribute to": "a response and"
On page 56, after line 42, to insert the following subsection, to follow subsection (2):

The Minister may prescribe a percentage of the budget, or any aspect of a budget, of a provincial organ of state or a municipal organ of state, as the case may be, as a threshold for accessing additional funding from the national government for response.

1. Having considered the Disaster Management Bill [B21-2002], the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government reports as follows:

1.1 The original Disaster Management Bill was introduced into Parliament during 2001. The Committee conducted comprehensive public hearings on that Bill and deliberated extensively on its provisions. However, the Bill was withdrawn in order for the Department of Provincial and Local Government to comply with section 9 of the Municipal Systems Act, in particular to allow the Financial and Fiscal Commission to make an assessment of the financial implications of the Disaster Management Bill, and for the Department to consider that assessment.

1.2 The present Bill was introduced into Parliament during the first half of 2002, and reflected all the amendments proposed by the Committee in respect of the Bill that was withdrawn during 2001.

1.3 The following essential assessments were made by the Financial and Fiscal Commission:

• There is already capacity within certain municipalities to attend to various requirements of the legislation.
• The availability and the accessing of funding should be addressed as a priority.
• The national contingency reserve should be accessible to all spheres of government, and should ideally be referred to as the "central contingency reserve".

2. The Committee notes that the Financial and Fiscal Commission has, in addition to its assessment, also offered the following proposals regarding the funding of disaster management:

• Emergency preparedness: Consideration should be given to the establishment of conditional grants from national government that are administered for a limit period till capacity is developed at local government level.
• Increment of equitable share: Such an increment must be informed by a study of specific financial implications.
• Prevention/mitigation funding: Provinces and municipalities should apply for funding of specific projects on the budget of a national department.
• Immediate response funding: The contingency reserve should be set aside for immediate response to emergencies.
• Infrastructure rehabilitation funding: National departments, provinces and municipalities should submit requests for reconstruction funding to the national government.
• Funding of relief to individuals: The three existing relief funds should be combined and administered centrally. The funds could be made available to provinces, municipalities and non-governmental agencies for payment to individuals.

The Committee requests the Ministry for Provincial and Local Government to apply its mind to these proposals.

3. Following exchanges with the Department, the Committee wishes to make the following recommendations regarding funding for disaster management:

4. The Committee urges the executive to expedite the setting up of the National Disaster Management Centre (which includes the provision of adequate funding) and the appointment of its Head with a view of having the national disaster management framework in place as soon as possible.

Government bears the primary responsibility for disaster management. However, the Bill also makes provision for other role-players like parastatals, the private sector and other institutional role-players to participate in disaster management processes.

Thus, the Bill affects Telkom by:

• Imposing a number of obligations on "organs of state" to participate in disaster management processes.
• Requiring communication facilities to be installed and maintained during times of disaster

Obligations: Telkom is of the view that it is inappropriate to burden parastatals with the same obligations as government department regarding disaster management. The reason is that Telkom, as an organ of state, will be regulated differently from the soon-to-be established second national operator and mobile telecommunication operators.

Consultation: Unlike in the case of the national framework (see clause 4), the Bill does not require the provinces, district and local municipalities to seek public comment or consult with the relevant role-players first before implementing their own frameworks (see clauses 28 and 42). The Bill should make it mandatory for provincial and local governments to seek public comment before promulgating their framework documents.

In addition, Telkom asserts that it is inappropriate for government to unilaterally determine who the members of the fora should be without consulting with the role-players (see clauses 5(1), 37(1) and 51(1)). Thus, it is suggested that the Bill should require the centres to consult with role-players about their role in disaster management initiatives in order to enable them to budget and plan for this in advance.

Furthermore, in the declarations of states of disaster, a relevant government official has the power to order the supply of temporary communication facilities (see clauses 27(2)(j), 41(2)(j) and 55(2)(j)). However, Telkom submits that the Bill should make provisions for the consultation of Telkom beforehand.

Disaster management plans: Since the overall co-ordination of disaster management is a government competency, it is inappropriate to require parastatals to draw up their own disaster management plans (see clause 25(1)).

Funding: Clause 56(2)(b) of the Bill states that national, provincial and local organs of state may financially contribute to post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation. However, Telkom believes that it is inappropriate to burden parastatals with this responsibility.

On behalf of the Disaster Management Institute of Southern Africa I take the opportunity to once again express satisfaction with the Bill and in particular commend the Portfolio Committee, the department and other role players for the thorough manner in which they applied their minds to ensure a final product of such a high standard.

It is not our intention to comment again on those aspects of the Bill already addressed in the Public Hearings however, we do have some suggestions which we believe will improve Chapters 7 and 8. These suggestions are therefore submitted for consideration as follows:

The content of the Chapter is excellent and relevant however the context is considered to have too strong a military connotation which is not conducive to civilian volunteers. Experience has shown that many prospective and existing volunteers are very sensitive to the creation of what could be perceived as a military-type organisation.

Accordingly, in order to 'soften' the context we suggest as follows:

Differentiation could be made between the two categories of volunteers by referring to 'organised' volunteers as reservists as opposed to general or casual volunteers. For example the two categories would then be referred to as:

Section 58(1) the words 'unit of volunteers' should be substituted with one of the following: "reserve of volunteers" or "contingent of volunteers"

Section 58(5)(a) would then be changed to read "the structure of the volunteer reserve/contingent for management and control purposes"

Section 58(5)(b) should read "components of volunteer reserves/contingents"

Section 58(5)(d) should read, " member of a volunteer reserve/contingent is to be activated

After Section 58(5)(g) provision a clause should be added to make provision for loss or damage to personal/private equipment belonging to a volunteer which has been rendered in response to a disaster

Section 58(5)(h) replace "uniforms" with "protective clothing"

Section 58(5)(i) replace "insignia" to read: "Means of identification and distinguishing devices to be worn by

(i) different volunteer reserves/contingents;

(ii) different components (or teams) within a volunteer reserve/contingent

(iii) different positions of "seniority" or "responsibility" in place of the word "command"

Section 63(1) should be amended as follows:

"…a disaster management plan for the special event which plan must include:

the plan must at least provide for the following:

(a) first aid assistance

(b) evacuation procedures

(d) crowd control measures

(e) security measures

(f) communication links with the relevant disaster management centre

(g) sufficient personnel to give effect to the execution of such a disaster management plan; and

(h) emergency drills

1. Unless we have missed it, it appears that there is still no provision to retain Regulation No R 2461 to cover existing volunteers should they suffer death, injury or disablement in the interim between the repeal and the making of the new regulations. Section 65(2) only makes provision for death, injury or disablement which has already occurred.

2. Considering could also be given to adding a sub section in Chapter 2 stating that the Minister may call for a Commision of Inquiry/Investigation into a disaster (eg. The Ellis Park disaster)