Local Government Laws Amendment Bill: finalisation

Meeting report

PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
22 October 2002
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWS AMENDMENT BILL: FINALISATION

Chairperson: Mr Y Carrim (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Local Government Laws Amendment Bill Proposed Amendments
Addendum to Local Government Laws Amendment Bill Proposed Amendments (Appendix 1)
Report by the Committee on Local Government Laws Amendment Bill (Appendix 2)
Local Government Law Amendment Bill [B61-2002] (as tabled)

SUMMARY
Few technical and structural amendments were effected to the Bill and the Long Title. The Committee report was also amended and the concept "new valuation" was replaced by "current valuation" and "some relief" by "further relief". The DP and ACDP disagreed with the retrospective application of Clause 20 of the Bill since that amounted to pre-empting the Court decision on this matter and opposed the adoption of the Bill. The IFP objected to Clause 17.

MINUTES
The Chairperson informed Members that the finalisation of the Bill was imperative.

Local Government Laws Amendment Bill: Proposed Amendments
The Committee went through the proposed amendments that the Department had prepared as the result of previous deliberations and accepted them as they are.

However, Ms G Borman (DP) noted her party's reservations on Clauses 8, 20 and 40.

Ms R Southgate (ACDP) also noted her party's reservation on Clause 20.

Addendum to Local Government Laws Amendment Bill Proposed Amendments
Dr P Bouwer: Department of Provincial and Local Government, Director of Legal Services, noted that the proposed amendments to Clause 15 and the Long Title had been erroneously omitted from the proposed amendments' document. He requested the Committee to accept them as addendum to the proposed amendments.

The Committee accepted them as part of the proposed amendments' document.

Report by the Committee on Local Government Laws Amendment Bill
The Chairperson read the Committee Report.

Ms J Manche: Department, Deputy Director General, noted that the use of the word "new" in relation to valuation in par 3 and 4 is misleading since the valuations had long been in use.

The Chairperson therefore proposed that the word "current" be used instead of "new".

Dr Bouwer proposed that a new sentence be inserted in line 16 of paragraph 4 before "If the new valuations and" (see document attached). This new sentence should grant the aggrieved ratepayer a right to appeal using proper and agreeable procedures.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee agreed with this proposal.

Ms Manche expressed concern on the wording adopted in par 4. The Cape Town Municipality does provide relief to ratepayers and its rates relief is regarded by the Department to be the best in the country.

The Chairperson noted that while the Committee acknowledged the relief granted by the Cape Town Municipality Council, it felt that the Council should do more towards its ratepayers in this regard.

Ms Manche noted that her Department does not disagree with the Committee on this matter, but however she feels that the sentence should be refine.

The Chairperson nominated Mr P Smith (IFP), Dr P Bouwer and Ms J Manche (DPLG Deputy Director General) to refine the wording of the report.

The Chairperson then read the motion of desirability.

The Committee unanimously adopted the report, was amendments.

The Chairperson went through the Bill, clause by clause, and thereafter called for its adoption.

The Bill was adopted.

However, the ACDP, per Ms Southgate, noted its objection for the adoption of the Bill, while the DP, per Ms Borman, noted its reservation on the Bill as the whole. The IFP only noted its reservation on Clause 17, but voted for the adoption of the Bill.

The Chairperson was extremely unhappy about this and expressed his anger. He required Members to be transparent and open during deliberations so that consensus could be fairly reached. He was disappointed when Members intentionally concealed their true positions during deliberations. They knew they disagreed but only showed that at the end of the process.

Mr P Uys (NNP) noted that all Members have the right to reserve their positions for the House and there is nothing the Committee can do to change that.

The Chairperson acknowledged this, but held that the spirit of the Committee is to operate with openness and to reach its decisions on a fair basis. It becomes a different matter when Members deliberately conceal their positions during deliberations but to reveal them at the end of the process.

Both the DP and ACDP maintained that their parties disagree with the retrospective application of Clause 20 of the Bill since that amount to pre-empting the Court decision on this matter.

The Chairperson noted what the DP and ACDP said. He then requested other Members to comment on the issue.

Mr B Solo (ANC) noted that the Chairperson have been very fair to all Members and ensured a maximum participation in the deliberations. He said it was frustrating to extensively deliberate on issues with the view of reaching consensus, but to find disagreement on every issue at the end.

Mr B Komphela (ANC) noted that while he acknowledged and respected every party's right to reserve its position on any issue, it becomes much better if it is raised at the early stages of the deliberations.

Mr B Nobunga (ANC) noted that, notwithstanding the Chairperson's fairness in the deliberations, at times Members are bound to disagree since they come from different parties. If some parties decide to disagree or reserve their positions then the Committee should accept that and move on.

The Chairperson noted that unlike other Committee Chairpersons he sought to ensure that there is maximum participation from all parties and even from non-members. He bent Parliament's rules with the intention of ensuring maximum participation which would result in a unanimous decision of the Committee. Members should keep in mind that although the Committee may agree on the retrospective application of Clause 20, but the Court might disagree with that and rule otherwise.

The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 1:
Addendum to proposed amendments
CLAUSE 14

1. On page 8, from line 33, to omit subsection (3) and to substitute:
(3) If the mayor is absent or not available and the municipality does not have a

deputy mayor, or the deputy mayor is also absent or not available -

(a) the member of the executive committee designated thereto in writing by the mayor acts as mayor; or

(b) a councillor elected by the members of the executive committee from amongst themselves acts as mayor if the mayor has not designated a member thereto or if the designated member is absent or not available.".

CLAUSE 15

1. On page 8, from line 46, to omit subsection (7), and to substitute:

'(7) If the executive mayor is absent or not available and the municipality does not have a deputy executive mayor, or the deputy executive mayor is also absent or not available, the council must designate a councillor to act as executive mayor.

LONG TITLE

1. On page 2, in the fifth line, after "technical corrections;" to insert the following:

to further regulate the functions and the work programme of the Board;

2. On page 2, from the eleventh line, to omit "where a particular municipality does not have a deputy mayor or a deputy executive mayor".

3. On page 2, in the sixteenth line, after "certain power", to insert the following:

to validate the Property Valuation Ordinance, 1993 (Cape), and provide for other technical arrangements connected thereto;