Local Government Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill

Meeting report

Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill: further deliberations
The Chairperson reminded Members that at the previous meeting, the Committee had been given a briefing on the Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill (the Bill) and Members had raised concerns and had asked the Parliamentary Legal Advisers to consider whether it would be possible to make changes to the Act at this stage, which had not been reflected in the current Bill.

Parliamentary Legal Advisor’s briefing
Ms Daksha Kassan, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, stated that during the previous meeting on the Bill, a discussion had ensued amongst Members when they were informed that the current Municipal Property Rates Act (the principal Act) allowed places of public worship, (and a place of residence attached to that place of public worship) to be exempt from municipal rates. Members had questioned the principle behind this and wondered whether the Committee would be able to effect a change to that position, by way of this Bill. She had noted that whilst the Bill did contain a reference to the residences attached to the places of public worship, there was actually no change in the rateable status.

Ms Kassan had raised the point that she would need to consider whether the inclusion of this clause in the Bill already was sufficient to warrant new provisions being incorporated in regard to the rating of places of public worship. The legal advisers from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) had suggested that they held a different view. Ms Kassan stated that after looking further into the matter, she had noted that the Bill was in fact, in clause 13(f), amending section 17(1)(i) of the Act, which dealt with impermissible rating on places of public worship. However, the amendment proposed was not making any changes to the status that they currently enjoyed, of a zero rating.

Ms Kassan stated her the view that whether or not there was a provision around status of rating in the Bill, the Select Committee was not limited in its power to propose another amendment which could go beyond the scope of the original Bill. She referred to section 75(1)(a) of the Constitution, which set out the procedure to be followed when a section 75 Bill was passed by the National Assembly (NA), and was then referred to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). She said that section 75 of the Constitution did not state that any proposed amendment by the NCOP via the Select Committee must be confined to the provisions of the original Bill.

She added that Rule 210(h), set out in Part 4 of Chapter 10 of the NCOP Rules, stated that the Select Committee may not propose any amendment that may change the classification of the Bill, or render the Bill constitutionally or procedurally out of order within the meaning of Joint Rule 161. Ms Kassan stated that Joint Rule 161 dealt with the manner in which certain Bills were to be introduced into the various houses of Parliament. However, she noted that the Rules did not expressly prohibit a select committee from proposing an amendment which went beyond the scope of the original Bill. If the Committee were to wish to propose an amendment that places of public worship must be charged rates, this would go beyond the scope of the original Bill. However, she reiterated that there was nothing in the Rules to prevent the Committee from making such a proposal.

In respect of a section 75 Bill, the Committee may only propose an amendment, and if it were to pass this Bill subject to such an amendment, then the matter would have to be sent back to the NA again. The NA could then pass the Bill with or without the amendment, or decide not to proceed with the Bill.

In the case of a proposal that went beyond the scope of the original Bill, the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs would have to seek permission from the National Assembly to effect the amendment.

Ms Kassan added that if the Committee were to propose that places of public worship should be charged rates, it would effectively be a complete turnaround to their current status as they were not charged rates in terms of section 17(1) at the moment. She said that a proposal would require public involvement, either in the form of submissions or public hearings to ascertain the views of those who would be affected by the proposed amendment. She pointed out that the obligation to involve the public was set out in section 72 of the Constitution. Ms Kassan also noted that Parliament had already received a written submission which argued that the zero rating for public places of worship should not only to apply to the church, but also to the institutions and properties of the church.

Ms Kassan concluded by repeating that should the Committee wish to introduce such an amendment to eh Bill, it was within its rights to do so, but she further recommended that a public participation process should be followed, if it did decide to follow this route.

Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs input
Mr Mizilikazi Manyike, Executive Manager: Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations, COGTA, set out the views of his Department on the matter. He said that COGTA was not disputing the point that the Select Committee had the authority to make amendments to the Bill, but held a slightly different view on whether the amendments to section 17 would be amending the status quo. He wanted to put on record that this was not the first time that the zero-rating of places of public worship was being raised, because the COGTA had briefed the Committee during October 2013, and this same issue came up in the discussions. He stated that the Committee had considered the issue whether to make amendments and had at that stage decided not to make any amendments.

COGTA agreed with Ms Kassan that if the Committee were to propose the amendments, they would be regarded as substantive issues, as it had previously indicated in an earlier meeting and therefore that public hearings would be strongly advised.

Mr A Matila (ANC, Gauteng) stated that the Committee was in agreement with the clauses of the Bill and that the only matter left to discuss was the concerns that had been raised on places of public worship. He suggested that, due to insufficient research having been done to date on religious communities, this Bill should be left as it was for the moment. He believed that instead, the Fifth Parliament should be asked to look into the matter, and consider amendments in regard to places of public worship, but that this Committee should deal with the Bill in its present form to prevent it from lapsing.

Mr L Nzimande (ANC, KwaZulu Natal) agreed with Mr Matila on the practicalities. Regardless of what the Committee had previously discussed, any matter brought to this Committee must be tackled as if it was a new issue. He felt that, given the views expressed, this Committee would have been likely to decide upon making further amendments if time was not against it.

Ms Harriet Mekwa, Principal State Law Advisor, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, wanted to clarify that earlier comments were not intended to show any disrespect for the Committee, but that she had wanted to remind Members that the Department had presented on the Bill and these questions had been mooted earlier. She stated that the rights and obligations of the Constitution were respected.

The Chairperson noted that he did not want Members to start debating the issues, stated that the points of Ms Mekwa had been noted and understood, and asked that she leave her input there.

Mr Matila stated that the matter regarding religious communities was out of the Department’s hands by this stage, and the decision on what should be done rested with the Committee. He did not want engagements with the Department at this stage, as it was up to the Committee to deliberate on the issues.

The Chairperson noted that a legal opinion had been given and urged caution. This Committee had dealt with into section 75 Bills before, and that the opinion of the legal advisor was important. He agreed with the point that the Fifth Parliament could be asked to deal with what this Committee perceived as outstanding flaws or issues, and said a proposal from Mr Matila on how to proceed was on the table.

Ms M Boroto (ANC, Mpumalanga) seconded that proposal.

The Chairperson noted the concurrence of the majority of Members and stated that the Committee would then report the Bill as passed, without amendments.

Ms H Boshoff (DA, Mpumalanga) expressed that she was not sure what had just happened. She had gained the impression, from earlier comments, that the Fifth Parliament would be asked to deal with the issues.

The Chairperson stated that, given the consensus, he had not felt it necessary to put the matter to a formal vote and he did not want to have any divisions. Members had agreed to the proposal of Mr Matila that the Bill be passed in its present form but the Fifth Parliament would be asked to consider whether further amendments were necessary.

Ms Boshoff said that she would like to have the objection of the DA noted.

The Chairperson responded to Ms Boshoff that he had already adjourned the meeting, and did not hear Ms Boshoff’s objection prior to the meeting closing.