Housing Consumer Protection Ammendment Bill: response to submissions

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

HOUSING PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
30 May 2007
HOUSING CONSUMER PROTECTION AMMENDMENT BILL: RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

Chairperson:
Ms Z Kota (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Housing Consumers Protection Measures Amendment Bill [B6-2007]

SUMMARY
The chair stated that in the purport of the constitutional democracy the public was given a window period to look at the Bill and make submissions; unfortunately, the response had been tepid, the due date was the 30th of May but there had been no substantive response such that the only logical conclusion was that, the people seemed happy with the bill. The very few submissions that they did receive were duly accommodated and incorporated in the Amendment Bill but since the Bill had yet to go to the NCOP they had to pass it before the end of that term.

The committee was worried about the constitutionality of clause 8(2)(b), the vagueness of clause 2 and 4 which seemed to create an anomaly and the committee wanted the imposition if a time frame on clause 10. Despite this, the Committee agreed that the Bill was fairly easy to understand with little to no controversial areas so it would be easy to pass the Bill on the 6th of June.

The Committee discussed their up coming visit to India and their upcoming provincial visits to Limpopo, Mpumalanga and Johannesburg.

MINUTES
The Chair said that the regular procedure was to look at the proposed submissions and then engage with the Department before finalising the Bill but, since the submissions had not come forthwith as expected, she suggested that the members look at the Bill and raise any outstanding issues. To help them navigate through the Bill was Mr G Hoon (State Law Advisor, Office of the Chief State Law Advisor).

Discussion
The chair enquired what procedure should be taken.

Mr A Steyn (DA) said that given there were no submissions, it was advisable that they looked at the Bill.

The Chair asked Mr Hoon if he had anything to say.

Mr Hoon replied that the submissions before them were the ones submitted to the Department and most of the submissions were accommodated in the Amendment Bill.

The Chair asked if members wanted to go over the submissions.

Committee members were in unison over the fact that they did not want to go over these submissions because they were already part of the Amendment Bll. They suggested that they instead discuss the Bll before them.

Mr B Dhlamini (IFP) said that he wanted to confirm that they were not going to look at the submissions as per the agenda because there were already duly incorporated in the Amendment Bill.

The Chair replied in the affirmative and she added further that the concerns that were raised in the aforementioned submissions were incorporated in the Bill and what the Committee was supposed to do was flag out the grey areas in the Bill. Hence what they were doing had nothing to do with the submissions but their own job.

Mr L Modisenyane (ANC) seconded and further added that they had advertised the Bill and aggrieved parties made submissions, so it meant that the rest of the people were satisfied with the Bill.

Mr Steyn teased out section 8(2)(b) which he was not happy with, saying that it raised constitutional issues as it amounted to an effective reduction of rectification and in place of this there was going to be a payment to the full amount to the consumer. As a result the consumer was under the impression that he could pay a levy for up to five years for defects but the NHPRC decided whether they were going to have sufficient money or just reduce the claims and it could just decide that it did nit have enough funds. As a result it became more of an insurance scheme where the home builder and the owner enrolled for services with the view that there were guaranteed for five years in terms of all defects but in reality clause 8(2)(b) nullified this.

Mr Hoon replied that the way he understood it was there was going to be some sort of agreement with the owner and this agreement was the one that was going to be seen as the final settlement but the home owners did not have to accept it. They could take it to court, but it would not be fostered upon them.

Mr Steyn in response said that this was not very clear as it simply stated that there was going to be a full and final settlement. It did not say this was under whose discretion neither did the clause point out to the fact that there might consultation with the individual claimant.

Mr Steyn referred to clause1 that dealt with definitions and said the only comment he wanted to make was that most of the definitions were in alphabetical order and somewhere along the line p due to the amendments, deletions and insertions - the order had got haphazard. He suggested that when they were putting in the new amendments they might also look into re-establishing the alphabetical order. Other than this he said that he agreed with the amendments and deletions.

Mr Steyn stated that there was an anomaly with clause 4 that dealt with owner builder exemption because whilst clause 4 assured an exemption the owner was already exempted by clause 2.

Mr Hoon replied that he was of the opinion that Section 2 was meant to apply to people in the PHP program; the owner who was not in this program could apply for an exemption.

Mr Steyn argued that they had already included the people in the PHP in definition for owner in Section 1(g).

Mr Hoon replied that the reference and definition of PHP project was so that if one read clause 2 they will be aware of what was going on.

Mr Steyn remarked that clause 7 should just be tidied up a bit.

Mr B Dambuza (ANC) and the Chair asked that he make a suitable proposal.

Mr Steyn replied that he would get back to them.

Mr Dambuza replied that they did not want to waste time.

Mr Hoon said that he had been in a hurry to come before the Committee so he had grabbed the wrong file, and as a result did not have his principal Act and could not respond adequately to the questions posed, but he was going to do this adequately in the following meeting.

The Chair remarked that they were having the same problem, they were having problems keeping up with Mr Steyn because they did not have the principal Bill. She did assure him that he was not obliged to answer any questions so he could just flag down the grey points being teased out and he would then reply fully on them on their next Committee meeting.

Mr Steyn pointed out that clause 10 had a time clause for when an aggrieved person could appeal to the Minister but there was no corresponding time limit for the response to get back to the complainant. He suggested that they should be at least some form of time frame in order to make the outcomes more certain.

The Chair noted that he was opposed to the open ended framing of the clause.

Mr Steyn replied in the affirmative and added that in the very least they could have a time frame up to a month.

The Chair remarked that a month was too short. She told members to go back and look at the Amendment Bill and what had been raised to be ready to finalise the Bill the following Wednesday. She added that the Bill was a simple enough affair and they should be able to finalise and pass it on the Wednesday; she asked if the commitee was in agreement.

The committee agreed.

The Chair said that the most important reason for the meeting was to decide whether they would be able to pass the Bill on the 6th of June and she said that she did not see anything hindering this as the Bill was simple enough.

Mr Dhlamini asked if they were going to argue further about the Bill.

The Chair replied in the negative and said that they wanted to pass it so that it could go to the NCOP. She asked if they wanted to pass it this Friday.

The Committee said they preferred to do this on Wednesday.

The Chair told Members to prepare for the budget votes since they were going to speak on Friday the 8th of June.

Committee visits
The Chair informed the Committee that they had a trip coming up and she had earlier put before then a choice between China and India. However, they had received a report from China stating that they were not entertaining visits that year because their calendar was full. They had a big celebration of some sorts in China so India was the only other country were they were going to be able to visit.

Ms N Ngele asked who was then going to India.

The Chair replied that this had not been decided yet, but whatever the case she was of the opinion that the trip must be taken in September and October so that they would allow for the July committee week for the visits to Limpopo and Mpumalanga and Johannesburg.

Mr Dhlamini asked if they were going to take the Shosholoza or the Blue train.

The Chair replied that the Shosholoza.

The Committee made a final decision that they were going to finalise the Bill on the 6th of June.

The meeting was adjourned.


 

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: