Division of Revenue Amendment Bill: final mandates; Committee Report on Division of Revenue Amendment Bill

Meeting report

Division of Revenue 2015 Amendment Bill: final mandates
The Chairperson noted that Section 12(4) of the Money Bills Act required the Minister of Finance to table the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill within the devised fiscal framework. Further, the Mandating Procedures Act provides that legislative mandates for negotiating and voting mandates are required on the Bill. The Division of Revenue Amendment Bill was tabled by the Minister of Finance and consequently, he had referred it to the Select Committee on Appropriations on 21 October 2015. The purpose of the brief was to highlight the sequence of events in the processing of the Bill by the Committee, and challenges and the further processes to be followed in dealing with the Bill.

The Chairperson then presented the Committee with a brief sequence of events on what had happened regarding the Bill:
- After the tabling of the Bill the Committee received briefings from various stakeholders.
- On 22 October, the Committee had a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Appropriations to receive a briefing by the Minister of Finance.
- On 23 November, the Committee had a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Appropriations to receive a further briefing by National Treasury.
- On 27 October the Committee held a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Appropriations to receive a briefing by the Parliamentary Budget Office.
- On 28 October the Committee held a joint meeting with the Standing Committee on Appropriations to receive a briefing from the Financial Fiscal Commission.
- On 4 November the Committee joined the Standing Committee on Appropriations meeting where the Department of Higher Education as well as the Council for Higher Education made presentations.
- On 12 November the National Council of Province permanent delegates made briefings to their respective provinces.
- On 17 November the Committee met to consider the negotiating mandates from the provinces.
- On 19 November the Committee convened a meeting to consider the final mandates from the provinces.

However, during the Committee meeting of 17 November two matters were raised that necessitated the need to obtain legal opinion, that was whether the Committee may consider a Bill and the negotiating mandate from Provincial Legislatures prior to the National Assembly passing the Bill. Secondly, what are the legal implications of the required timeframe which requires the Select Committee on Appropriations to report to their respective House within nine days after the adoption of the report on the Fiscal Framework.

A legal opinion was received from Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Adv Frank Jenkins, which stated that negotiating mandates referred to prior to 18 November when the National Assembly adopted the Bill should be seen as preparatory work done to ensure compliance with the timeframes required by the Money Bills Act. Provincial Legislatures should however formalise the negotiating mandate either explicitly or tacitly. If however the National Assembly made changes to the Amendment Bill, the negotiating mandates would have to be reconsidered. With regard to non-compliance with timeframes, the Act does not prescribe any consequence for missing the deadline. The view is that the purpose of the timeframe is to ensure that Money Bills are considered in time in order to fit into the budget cycle prescribed in other legislation such as the Public Finance Management Act.

On 19 November the Committee held a meeting to receive final mandates from provinces. However, only five final mandates were received from provinces. Of these five final mandates, two mandates were found not compliant with certain provisions of the Mandating Procedures of Provinces Act of 2008. For this reason the Committee deferred its decision to finalise this report on the Bills so that the provinces concerned were able to rectify the final mandates. After long discussion by the Committee, the Committee had requested Adv Jenkins to clarify the issues. He had suggested two options to the Committee, one; that of noting and going ahead or two; that of deferring. As the Chairperson, he had opted for the second option, deferring the meeting. The current meeting had been convened to finalise the report on the Bill. The Committee also needed to make it very clear that there was a need for suspension of the three days rule so that the Committee Report could be submitted for consideration by the House on the same day, as there was going to be a sitting of the House later that day. In the event that the Committee Report was not finalized in time to appear on the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports document then there will be a need to ensure that hard copies were made available to all members of the House. These were the logistical matters that needed to be dealt with. The agenda for the current meeting concerned consideration of final mandates on the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill and the consideration of the draft report on the Division of Revenue Bill. He asked the secretary to present the final mandates. The Chairperson acknowledged the Chief Whip of the National Council of Provinces, Dr Hunandi Mateme, and the Unit Manager for Finance and Economics, who was acting as the secretary for the meeting due to the support staff workers strike.

The secretary said that the Committee had received all the final mandates from all the provinces. Of the nine mandates received, eight were in favour of the Bill and only one objected to the Bill.

The Chairperson advised that the Committee should go through each of the mandates, province by province. He asked Members if there were any corrections made to mandates presented in the previous meeting.

No Members commented on any changes made.

The Chairperson said that he had stated in his opening remarks that two provincial mandates had issues, which had been discussed at length in the meeting of 19 November. If there were no corrections, the issues had to be set aside and the meeting proceed. He must be noted that no further corrections had been made.

Ms van Lingen said that she agreed with the Chairperson that the meeting should go through each of the provinces’ mandates one by one, but asked that before that happened, she would like the Chairperson to name the two provinces whose mandates were not acceptable or not accepted in the 19 November meeting.

The Chairperson asked Ms van Lingen to clarify what it was that she was asking.

Ms van Lingen said that the Chairperson had mentioned that two provinces’ mandates were not compliant and she wanted to know which two provinces he was referring to. She thought that it was essential that this information be recorded in the meeting’s report.

The Chairperson said that in the discussions of the meeting of 19 November, Adv Jenkins had provided a legal opinion on the mandates of Eastern Cape and Limpopo. The Chairperson asked wanted the secretary to present the final mandates for each of the provinces.

A Member suggest that all of the provinces’ mandates be presented first, as this was normal practice. During that process, if there were any corrections, the delegate could make these clear to the Committee then.

Eastern Cape final mandate
Mr L Gaehler (UDM, Eastern Cape) agreed with the Chairperson that there had been problems with two of the provinces at the 19 November meeting but that the problems had been sorted out. The Eastern Cape supported the Bill in their mandate.

The Chairperson asked Mr Gaehler if the issue raised in the previous meeting, that the province’s legislature had deliberated on the Bill prior to it being passed in the National Assembly, had been attended to. If not, the Committee would note that it had not been attended to.

Mr Gaehler replied that according to the information that he had received, the issue had been sorted out. However, he reminded the Chairperson that he had received this information via email.

The Chairperson said that the date of deliberation of the Eastern Cape was 16 November so he suggested that the Committee note that the matter has not been attended to after the previous deliberation of the Committee.

An ANC member asked if there were any matters to be raised relating to mandates? He said that the Committee should first allow all provinces to present their final mandates and then any issues that were raised by Members could be dealt with.

Ms van Lingen said that the Committee must have the opportunity to actually discuss each mandate because there were certain issues that Members had to point out, which they could not do if the Chairperson did not allow any debate. it would be extremely unfair if there was a point that was not raised because the Members had not been given any opportunity to engage in debate. She therefore hoped that the Chairperson would give Members the opportunity to debate. Members had a right to speak in any meeting of the National Council of Provinces. In terms of the Eastern Cape, Members did not have any amendment before them in the meeting. The Eastern Cape had not conducted any public participation and the Bill had never been deliberated on by the legislature as it was not on their Order Paper.

The Chairperson told Ms van Lingen that the Committee had had discussions on the matter. No changes were made and the Committee knows that no amendments were made and so the meeting can proceed to give all provinces an opportunity to present their final mandates. If there were any other issues that needed to be raised for discussion or comment, Members would be allowed to raise these after all the provinces had presented their mandates. The Committee had already dealt with issues relating to the Eastern Cape. The delegate from the Eastern Cape had reported that there was a mandate. However, there was no amendment because the mandate was handled prior to the date it was referred to the NCOP by the National Assembly. He wanted to allow for procedural issues to be dealt with in the meeting first and therefore wanted the Committee to receive the mandates from the provinces.

Ms Labuschagne wanted to raise a point of order and procedure.

The Chairperson asked her what the point of order and matter of procedure was.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) asked other Members of the Committee to speak through the Chairperson as she believed that he was not giving them an opportunity to speak. She wanted to raise a matter of clarity. She asked if the Committee was addressing the principle of mandates. She had raised the question in the previous meeting but that no clarity had been provided on what a mandate is and what was accepted in the Committee as a rightful mandate. She was happy for the Committee to continue with the procedure of addressing each province however the Committee still needed to discuss what a mandate is. If any Member of the Committee, including the Chairperson said that the Committee could not discuss the principle of a mandate, then the Committee was in big trouble.

The Chairperson said that the issues that were raised by Members would not stop the Committee from continuing with the meeting as these were issues that the Committee could deal with after all delegates had given their provinces’ mandates.

Free State mandate
Mr S Mohai (ANC; Free State) noted that the Free State voted in favour of the Bill.

Ms van Lingen said that the Free State’s final mandate was given and it was rejected by the Head of Legal Services. The mandate was not approved by the House of the Provincial Legislature. To date the Free State still had to submit a post plenary mandate to make the one that the Committee had technically legal.

The Chairperson said that comments that Members had raised should be noted. He had presented the mandate of the Free State.

Ms van Lingen said that the Free State’s final mandate had been rejected during the Committee’s last sitting.

The Chairperson noted that the Free State voted in favour of the Bill, thanked Ms van Lingen for her comments and asked Mr Makue to give Gauteng’s final mandate.

Ms Labuschagne asked if the minutes of all the provinces' plenary meetings were available, showing that all the mandates had been passed by the Houses. The principle issue was that in the Committee’s previous meeting, Members had spent over one and a half hours arguing about the validity of the mandates that they had been given hard copies of. The Committee could not proceed with the meeting because of issues such as this. She did not have to have the Chairperson recognise her and that she would speak because she had the right to speak. If she had to wait for the Chairperson to recognise her she would never get recognition because he did not want to hear what she had to say. The mandate is not legally correct because it is not a mandate that has been resubmitted post-plenary.

The Chairperson said that he had not recognised Ms Labuschagne and asked Members to please avoid being drawn into arguments with Members who were frustrated with the process.

Ms Labuschagne said that the Committee had to do things according to legal processes and principles.

Gauteng final mandate
Mr E Makue (ANC, Gauteng), as alternate member, said that Ms Motara had made a presentation, supported by Treasury, to the Gauteng portfolio committee on finance and the matter was processed accordingly in the legislature. The view of the Gauteng Provincial Executive is that the executive supported the Division of Revenue Bill of 2015.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Makhue and noted that Gauteng voted in favour of the Bill. He recognised that Ms van Lingen wanted to make a comment and asked her if it was in relation to Gauteng’s final mandate.

Ms van Lingen pointed out that the Gauteng legislature had confirmed that all meetings and hearings of its portfolio committee were suspended on 19 and 20 November.

The Chairperson asked to take a point of order from Mr Nzimande.

Mr L Nzimande (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) said that delegates from provinces must present their mandates and as the KZN delegate, he asked if the process could continue without interruptions by Members as he wanted to present the KZN mandate.

The Chairperson said that the point of order was sustained. He noted that Gauteng supported the Bill and that its mandate was consistent with the Mandating Procedures of Provinces Act.

Ms van Lingen said that the Bill did not appear on the Order Paper and had never served before the House in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature. That was the point of order that she was raising. Gauteng’s mandate was therefore something that had simply been made up, a “thumb-suck”.

Mr Makue said that the mandate was not a thumb suck and asked Ms van Lingen to withdraw that comment.

The Chairperson asked Ms van Lingen to please not make inflammatory statements in the meeting as it would make it difficult for the Committee to continue with the meeting. He asked the Committee to continue with the process and allow the delegate from KwaZulu-Natal to give his province’s mandate.

Ms van Lingen withdrew her last statement.

KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) final mandate
Mr Nzimande said that KZN conferred its mandate and voted in favour of the Bill.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Essack wanted to comment and asked him if his comment was related to KZN’s mandate.

Mr F Essack (DA, Mpumalanga) asked if the fact that no public participation took place in KwaZulu-Natal rendered the mandate unacceptable and not in order.

The Chairperson said that the issue that Mr Essack raised was noted and asked if the meeting could proceed to allow the delegate from Limpopo to give his province’s mandate.

Limpopo final mandate
Mr V Mtileni (EFF; Limpop) said that Limpopo voted in favour of the Bill.

The Chairperson noted that Limpopo voted in favour of the Bill.

Mr Essack said that he would again like to point out to the Chairperson that it was ironic that between the last meeting held the week before, and this meeting, that there was a total ‘change of heart’ from Limpopo. The fact that the deliberation date of 17 September was before the draft Bill was tabled in the National Assembly should be a matter for the Chairperson to consider. The fact that Limpopo was having a plenary that day but that the Bill was not on Limpopo’s Order Paper was also an issue that the Chairperson should consider. He did not even know how Limpopo’s mandate could be considered. He did not think that the Member for Limpopo had done his homework on the Bill. Limpopo’s mandate should not be considered at all in deciding whether to adopt the Bill.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Essack for his comments and said that the Committee noted the issues raised with Limpopo’s mandate.

Mr Essack asked the Chairperson why Members were not given a chance to deliberate on provinces’ mandates after they were given. The Chairperson just remarked “issue noted, thank you” and moved on to the next province.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to proceed to the next province’s mandate.

Mr Essack asked the Chairperson what the conclusion of the issue was. If the Chairperson appreciated his input then he should apply his mind and allow the meeting to follow a process whereby each mandate was considered and discussed. The Chairperson just “bulldozed” Members who wanted to raise issues. He queried the validity of the meeting.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to allow the delegate from Mpumalanga to present his province’s mandate.

Mr Essack said that the Chairperson knew that the deliberation of the Bill did not even appear on Mpumalanga’s Order Paper, the Bill had not been discussed in its plenary and it had not engaged in any public participation. However, the Chairperson was just going to say “noted” and continue with the meeting.

The Chairperson asked Mr Essack to listen to what the delegate for Mpumalanga was saying and that Mr Essack’s issue did not invalidate the view of the province. He asked Mr Essack again to listen to what the delegate from Mpumalanga was saying.

Mr Essack said that Mpumalanga was sitting on the mandate that they concurred with the Bill.

The Chairperson said that Mr Essack was exactly right, that Mpumalanga concurred with the Bill, which was the conclusion of the issue.

Mr Essack asked the Chairperson if the province’s mandate was still legal, even though no plenary had taken place for the legislature to deliberate on the Bill. He asked the Chairperson if he was just going to sidestep the Members’ questions and say that the Committee would discuss the matter later. He asked why Members could not discuss each province immediately after each final mandate was presented.

The Chairperson said that there is no provision that requires the Committee to enquire into the process in the province. It was important for the Committee to engage with these matters so that Members did not arrive at the conclusion that the processes followed by provinces were illegal. All provinces had been actively participating in the due processes and as such any province could arrive at a conclusion on the final mandate. The Committee noted the issues that Mr Essack was raising but asked the Committee to proceed to the presentation of Northern Cape mandate.

Northern Cape final mandate
Mr C De Beer (ANC, Northern Cape) said that the Northern Cape voted in favour of the Bill. Northern Cape had held public hearings, one in Okiep in Namaqua and one in Kimberley, on the same day, with two teams that went in the different directions to hold the public meetings on the same day. Members had the Northern Cape’s final mandate in front of them in this meeting.

The Chairperson acknowledged that Ms van Lingen wanted to comment.

Ms van Lingen said that the Northern Cape’s mandate was rejected at the last meeting by the Head of Legal Services. Although the date of deliberation is the same date, 18 November, the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill was passed in the National Assembly (NA) after hours, so the Northern Cape passed the Bill before it was technically approved by the NA.

Mr Essack asserted that the Western Cape’s mandate was dated 18 November.

The Chairperson asked Mr De Beer to comment.

Mr De Beer said that on the morning of 20 November at 12:15pm, he addressed the Finance Committee in the Provincial Legislature of the Northern Cape. Gail Parker, the Deputy Secretary of the ANC Women’s League, presided over the meeting as well as the legal section of the Provincial Legislature. The portfolio committee on finance had met on 23 November on which date the Northern Cape’s final mandate had been rectified but the contents of the document had stayed the same.

Ms van Lingen said that the date of the mandate was still dated 18 November.

The Chairperson said that Mr De Beer was sharing information with the Committee that he had been in a meeting of the Finance Committee. These were hard facts and that hard facts are hard facts, despite the issues that Members were raising.

Mr Essack asked that Mr De Beer give the Committee the correct mandate for the Northern Cape because the mandate that he had was dated 18 November.

The Chairperson apologized to Mr Terblanche for not having had the opportunity to speak in the meeting yet because other Members had been ‘bulldozing’ the process of Members presenting their provinces’ mandates.

Mr O Terblanche (DA, Western Cape) asked if Mr De Beer could explain the difference in the dates and what the process of rectifying the dates was.

Mr De Beer replied that if one looked at the previous programme of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), one would see that legislatures conducted their meetings in terms of the NCOP programme that was sent to them from Constitution House. However, the problem was that the dates of meetings were then altered. If Members wanted to check the legality of the meetings held by the Northern Cape legislature they could do so. Furthermore, they could also check if he had been present in the meetings because he always signed the meeting register.

Mr Terblanche reminded Mr De Beer to answer his question and not discuss things unrelated to his question.

The Chairperson said that the issue of a date was noted and explained and that Mr De Beer had explained the technicality and the date was revised.

Ms van Lingen raised a point of order.

The Chairperson asked her what the point of order was.

Ms van Lingen said that each province must submit a hard copy of facts to the Committee as this is what a final mandate is all about. The final mandate has to serve before the House and cannot be transferred. So the Committee must look at the mandate for the Northern Cape that had been presented to it as there was no change of mandate. There was no new mandate submitted so Mr De Beer’s explanation does not hold water. The mandate as it stands before Members had been rejected by the head of the legal services and it was never on the Order Paper of the province.

Adv Frank Jenkins noted that he is the Senior Legal Advisor to Parliament. He had given a legal opinion in the meeting on 19 November. The meeting of 19 November had discussed final mandates and the legal opinion that he had presented had dealt with negotiating mandates. He could not remember what was now being ascribed to what he had said, but he had not rejected the Northern Cape’s mandate as it was not his place to reject it or approve it. He had merely been there to give legal advice which the Chairperson had read out at the beginning. What he actually wanted to do was to assist the Committee. One must remember that the Constitution allows each provincial legislature to determine its internal arrangements, procedures and to proceed. There is an autonomy to each legislature, and it cannot be, that the National Assembly (NA) or the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) extends its own constitutional mandate beyond what the Constitution allowed, to interfere in the matters of a Provincial Legislature. The Provincial Legislature has adopted rules to say how it deals with certain matters. It is the same as the NA or the NCOP and the courts have supported that. So Members have to keep this in mind when they want to question what was happening in other legislatures, and keep in mind the governance structure of the country.

North West final mandate
Mr T Motlashuping (ANC, North West) said that the North West province voted in favour of the Bill and that all due processes were followed.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to proceed and have the delegate from the Western Cape present his province’s mandate.

Ms van Lingen complained that Members were putting up their hands to be acknowledged by the Chairperson but that he was not giving them a chance to speak.

The Chairperson asked if Ms van Lingen disagreed with what the Adv Jenkins had said.

Ms van Lingen complained that the Chairperson had recognised her but now was trying to steamroll over her. She quoted the Constitution and said that the legislature must approve the final mandate; otherwise the Committee would run into trouble. She had wanted to add that comment to what the Advocate had just said.

The Chairperson said that he was worried that Mr Terblanche did not get sufficient time to really deliberate in the Committee. He asked Mr Terblanche to present his province’s mandate.

Mr Terblanche asked the Chairperson if he could ask the Advocate a question for clarity.

The Chairperson replied that he could not and that he should get straight to the point and deliver his province’s mandate.

Western Cape final mandate
Mr Terblanche said that the Western Cape does not support the Bill as he had indicated in the previous meeting, and that the Western Cape also objected to the short timeframes. The Speaker of the Western Cape legislature had written a letter to the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces. The Western Cape objected to the Bill in final mandate and it does give any formal authorisation or support for the Bill.

The Chairperson jokingly asked if Ms van Lingen did not have issues that she wanted to raise on the Western Cape’s mandate. He asked the Committee if the meeting could proceed.

Mr Essack said that Ms van Lingen had raised her hand and that she had a right to be heard and he thought that the Chairperson was ‘bulldozing’ Members who wanted to speak.

Ms van Lingen said that with all the legislatures, no plenaries were held to confer the authorization, other than KZN and North West that morning, although the other provinces had had the process of public participation after the negotiating mandates. However, she did not know how a public participation submission could be brought into a final mandate because provinces were only supposed to vote yes or no in final mandates. At least KZN and North West had had plenaries at which this authorization was conferred on  the final mandate. The other seven provinces had not conferred the final mandates. She saw that Mr Makue was putting his hand up to be recognized by the Chairperson, but she knew that there was another  Select Committee meeting waiting for Mr Makue and that he had not told them that he would not at be at that Committee meeting.

The Chairperson advised the Committee that Alternate Members could attend meetings when permanent Members were unable to do so.

Mr Makue said that he was very angry and could not accept that other Members were deciding for him and making false claims about him. He addressed Ms van Lingen and said that the Secretary of the NCOP had gone to the meeting spoken about and he had informed his ANC comrade to render an apology for him for his absence in that meeting. He asked Ms van Lingen not to mislead the meeting. Ms van Lingen was further misleading the meeting by wanting to impose her limited legal knowledge on the Gauteng legislature. The report that Mr Makue had on what had happened in the legislature’s meeting, documented that the legislature had looked at Section 241 of the Constitution and they had also looked at the Public Finance Management Act of 1999, as well as the rules that govern the processes of the Gauteng Legislature. The executive was satisfied that it had met the legal and constitutional requirements that enabled Mr Makue to attend the meeting as an alternate Member. He unequivocally stated that the meeting was a matter of national interest for his legislature. The Gauteng legislature takes its job seriously, and therefore it ensured that he was here in the meeting representing Gauteng in support of the Bill.

The Chairperson said that having heard all the final mandates from provinces and the issues raised by Members, the Committee should then decide on whether it would adopt the Bill or not, with due consideration that at least five provinces’ mandates had supported the Bill and noting the issues that Members had raised about the Eastern Cape and Limpopo final mandates.

Ms van Lingen and Ms Labuschagne added, “and the Northern Cape”.

The Chairperson said that the issues with the Northern Cape mandate had been explained.

Ms van Lingen did not agree with the Chairperson that the issues with the Northern Cape mandate had been explained.

The Chairperson said that this did not mean that those issues did not stand and the explanation on the Northern Cape still stood. He agreed with the issues that Ms van Lingen had raised on the Northern Cape. However, the issues had been explained and this did not mean that the issues fell away. He wanted to then deal with procedural matters. He told Members that he recognised that they had raised their hands and that they would be given a chance to speak.

Mr Gaehler said that he just wanted to clear something up. The Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance had just told him that it had rectified the document it had sent to the Committee. The Standing Committee on Finance said that it had a copy of the final document, the rectified document that was being delivered to the Committee by a staff member from the National Council of provinces. He did not know what was happening in that province, but he respected what it had to say, and according to its Chairperson, the legislature had rectified the problem and were bringing the rectified document to the Committee.

The Chairperson said that the Committee noted the issues that were raised by the Northern Cape. However, the matter still stood. The Committee noted issues that were raised by the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and Northern Cape and those raised by the Northern Cape were clarified. Procedurally the Chairperson said that he now needed to invite a mover in support of the adoption of the Bill.

Ms van Lingen complained that Chairperson was not recognising her.

Mr Essack said that Members wanted to raise a point.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Gaehler for bringing that information to the attention of the meeting and said that the Committee noted the issues that were raised by the Eastern Cape but that he would have to invite a mover in favour of adoption of the Bill. The due process was that, Mr Gaehler had said before that there are issues that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Committee. As the Chairperson, he heard Mr Gaehler’s point. However, Mr Gaehler had wanted to influence the meeting to state whether the Committee would consider these issues that he was raising. The Committee would not as the previous views expressed still held. The Committee however noted that Mr Gaehler had provided this information.

Mr Essack said that the problem was that the Committee had a discussion pertaining to the mandate presented by Eastern Cape. However, Mr Gaehler was now saying that there was another mandate forthcoming. He asked the Chairperson which mandate the Members were supposed to accept. He asked for the Committee to have one strict deliberation and decide what constituted a valid mandate and an invalid mandate. The Chairperson insisted on one mandate being accepted when Mr Gaehler had made it very clear that there was another mandate in transit. Secondly, for the sake of transparency, he thought that the Committee should really deliberate on each province’s mandate, directly after they had been presented and every members should be given a chance to state what they have to state instead of the Chairperson just wanting to move on with the process of identifying a mover to support adoption of the Bill. He noted that Ms van Lingen’s hand was raised and said that she should be given an opportunity to speak.

The Chairperson said that he normally listened to Mr Essack but that Members had had sufficient time to discuss the matters. Even if the meeting went on for many more hours Members would still not be satisfied with the time that they had been given to raise issues.

Voting on the Bill
The Chairperson invited a mover in favour of adoption of the Bill.

Mr Motlashuping moved in favour of adoption of the Bill.

Mr Essack said that Mr Motlashuping had not even been in the Committee’s last meeting and therefore did not understand what was going on in this meeting.

The Chairperson said that he knew that Mr Essack and Mr Motlashuping did not get on but asked them to please refrain from arguing with each other in the meeting.

Mr Nzimande enthusiastically seconded the adoption of the Bill, saying that he supported it “more than 100 percent”.

The Chairperson asked if there were any objections. He reminded the Committee that alternate Members were not supposed to vote.

Mr Essack said that he had an objection.

Ms van Lingen complained that the Chairperson had recognised her but would not let her speak.

The Chairperson asked Members to respect the Committee.

Ms Labuschagne said that she would respect the Committee and the Chairperson when he followed due process.

Mr Terblanche said that he definitely wanted to object to the Bill.

The Chairperson asked for Members to show by raising their hands, who supported the adoption of the Bill. Mr De Beer, Mr Nzimande, Mr Motlashuping and another ANC Member raised their hands to indicate their support for the adoption of the Bill. This was noted.

The Chairperson then asked Members to raise their hands if they objected to the adoption of the Bill. Mr Terblanche and Essack objected to the adoption of the Bill. The Chairperson noted the objection by Mr Terblanche and Mr Essack, even though Mpumalanga supported the adoption of the Bill. The Chairperson said that all information would be noted in the Committee Report.

He asked the Committee to turn to the Committee Report on the Division of Revenue Amendment Bill which had been circulated to Members.

Ms Labuschagne demanded to be heard.

The Chairperson asked Ms Labuschagne what she had to say.

Ms Labuschagne said that the principles for why the meeting was postponed on 19 November no longer seemed to hold in this meeting. The same things that had happened in that meeting were happening in this meeting as the Committee still did not have the correct final mandates from the Eastern Cape and the Free State. However, in this meeting the Chairperson preferred not to recognize the same things that had caused him to postpone the previous meeting. The Chairperson was not following correct procedure in continuing with the meeting. The person that was undermining the proceedings was the Chairperson himself as well as his colleagues in the ANC.

The Chairperson angrily asked Ms Labuschagne who she thought she was to tell the Committee how to conduct its business. He noted that the presentation of the provinces’ mandates was a democratic process. He asked the Committee to discuss the draft report of the Division of Revenue Bill.

Ms Labuschagne said that she wanted the formal legal opinion on the final mandates of provinces. She said that when the Chairperson did not agree with members he would find a reason to shout them down.

Committee Report on the Division of Revenue Bill: adoption
The Chairperson asked Members to look at the Division of Revenue Report which had been circulated and asked them if they had any comments on the first page of the report.

A Member asked the Chairperson to change the date of the report to 24 November 2015.

The Chairperson noted the change and continued to go through the report. He then noted that the second page, third page and fourth page of the report were captured correctly. He said that the report will be circulated later.

He asked the Committee to adopt the report which was done despite the noise of the strikers. The meeting was adjourned early as it was interrupted by a group of striking parliamentary workers.