Animal Health Bill: negotiating mandates; Marketing of Agric Products Amd Bill: deliberations
NCOP Land Reform, Environment, Mineral Resources and Energy
23 October 2001
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
_____________________________________________________________
CONTACT TRUST
Your experts in natural resource policy and
legislation information services
Tel: (021) 426 1411
email: [email protected]
www.contacttrust.org.za
______________________________________________________________
The aim of this report is
to summarise the main events at the meeting and identify the key role
players. This report is not a verbatim
transcript of proceedings.Â
LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT
COMMITTEE
23 October 2001
ANIMAL HEALTH BILL; MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL:
NEGOTIATING MANDATES
Chairperson: Rev P. Moatshe
Documents handed out:
Animal Health
Bill [B64 - 2001]
Agricultural Products Amendment Bill [B26B - 2001]
Negotiating Mandate on Animal Health Bill [B64 - 2001] (KwaZulu-Natal
Legislature, Gauteng Legislature, Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature, Free
State Legislature, Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, Legislature of the
Northern Province, North West Provincial Legislature, Western Cape Provincial
Parliament)
Negotiating Mandate on Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill [B26B
- 2001] (Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature, Gauteng Legislature,
KwaZulu-Natal Legislature, Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature, Legislature of
the Northern Province, North West Provincial Legislature, Western Cape
Provincial Legislature)
SUMMARY
The Select Committee heard the negotiating mandates of the provinces on the
Animal Health Bill and the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill.
KwaZulu-Natal abstained on the Animal Health Bill while Gauteng, Eastern Cape,
Free State, Mpumalanga, Northern Province, North West Province and Western Cape
supported the passing of the Bill and the Northern Cape had not yet submitted a
negotiating mandate. The Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga,
Northern Province, North West Province and Western Cape supported the passing
of the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill. The representatives
of the provinces were given an opportunity to relate provincial concerns and
the Department had a chance to respond.
MINUTES
The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the representatives
from the Department, Adv R. van Zyl, Ms S. Naidoo and Dr S. Meyer, who had come
to assist the Select Committee. He stated that the Committee would deal with
negotiating mandates on the Animal Health Bill and the Marketing of
Agricultural Products Amendment Bill.
Animal Health Bill
KwaZulu-Natal
Mr MacKenzie from KwaZulu-Natal presented the negotiating mandate of the
KwaZulu-Natal Legislature. He stated that the Provincial Standing Committee on
the National Council of Provinces mandated the KwaZulu-Natal delegation to
abstain on the Animal Health Bill in the Select Committee on Land and
Agriculture. This was because the Standing Committee felt they were not in a
position to decide on a negotiating mandate since they required additional time
to interact and consult with interested and affected parties on the new aspects
of the proposed Bill. The primary concern expressed was the Department's
failure to consult the National and Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders.
Having obtained permission from the Chairperson to mention the minor concerns,
Mr MacKenzie stated that the Standing Committee was also concerned that the
Bill might allow South Africa to impose on its neighbours.
Mr V. Windvoel (ANC) stated that the Committee should stick to the main issues
of concern and added that, since KwaZulu-Natal chose to abstain, the Committee
should accept only the move to abstain and not additional concerns.
The Chairperson acknowledged the dilemma of KwaZulu-Natal abstaining from the
Bill and still raising issues for negotiation.
Mr A. Van Niekerk (NNP) suggested that the Committee be inclusive and hear each
other out in the negotiating phase.
The Chairperson responded that the Committee was being inclusive because,
although KwaZulu-Natal abstained, their representative was given the
opportunity to present, not only the primary concerns, but also the minor
concerns.
Ms B. Thompson (ANC) commented that, if the Committee gave those who already
abstained a chance to contribute their concerns, it would mean disregarding Mr
Windvoel's suggestion of only acknowledging the decision to abstain.
Ms J. Vilakazi (IFP) asked whether the concerns raised by KwaZulu-Natal were
going to be negotiated.
The Chairperson replied that KwaZulu-Natal had stated its concern but chose to
abstain because it was unsatisfied with the consultation process, so the Bill
should go on. He asked the Department for input.
Ms S. Naidoo, Legal Advisor from the Department, responded that there had been
an attempt to consult with the House of Traditional Leaders. The Department had
communicated their request for input to the National House of Traditional
Leaders and believed that the request would be distributed to the Provincial
Houses of Traditional Leaders. She stated that, despite the efforts made by the
Department, no response was received from any of the Houses of Traditional
Leaders.
The Chairperson repeated that there had been an attempt to consult with the
Traditional Leaders, but they had failed to respond.
Mr Windoel and the Chairperson asked the Department why it was not stated in
the Objectives Memorandum that there was an attempt to consult traditional
leaders.
Ms Naidoo stated that the list in the report contained only consulted parties
and traditional leaders were omitted from the list because they had failed to
respond.
Ms Vilakazi stated that, to ensure there was no confusion, the document should
have made it clear that no response was received from the Houses of Traditional
Leaders. She said that her province, KwaZulu-Natal, would want to be involved
and expressed the hope that she would be allowed to take part in the
negotiations.
Mr D. Kgware (ANC) suggested that the participation of members from KwaZulu-Natal
be permitted.
Dr E. Conroy (NNP) asked if this should not be sorted out in the Standing
Committee. The representative should present the mandate to prevent different
views.
The Chairperson stated that there was no difference in viewpoint, the KwaZulu-Natal
members were just raising their concerns.
Mr Windvoel stated that the Standing Committee should be informed of the
implications of abstaining.
A Committee member stated that he could not understand the choice to abstain on
the Bill and still wanting to speak of concerns. He stated that expressing
concerns would defeat the purpose of abstaining.
Ms Thompson said that she was absent from the Standing Committee's meeting and
added that, if she had been able to attend the meeting, she might have convinced
them not to abstain.
Mr MacKenzie claimed that the Standing Committee had no option but to abstain
until the Houses of Traditional Leaders were consulted. He reiterated that they
were not voting against the Bill and that they had no intention of sneaking in
their issues of concern.
Mr K. Mokoena (ANC) said that, if all six Houses of Traditional Leaders had
been informed of the invitation to take part in the consultation process, they
could not have all failed to respond. The Department or other parties should
have ensured that consultation with all interested and affected parties took
place. He commented that the Houses of Traditional Leaders were an important
body and should not be treated like appendages to the process. If the Standing
Committee requested more time for consultation, it might have been considered.
Ms Vilakazi stated that the decision on the negotiating mandate had been made
the previous day while she was still in Cape Town. She was uncertain of her
ability to make a difference and change the views of the decision-makers in the
Standing Committee.
The Chairperson argued that the omission of the Houses of Traditional Leaders
from the consultation process was clearly wrong and asked the Committee not to
belabour the point.
Dr Conroy stated that he understood that abstaining was the only option open to
the Standing Committee. He added that there was still time before voting began,
so the Committee should demand that the Department make a second effort to
consult with traditional leaders.
Mr MacKenzie replied that he did not want to shove a stick into an anthill, and
added that he was not interested in coercing the Chairperson to set a
precedent. He believed that there was no time to do anything but abstain; if
there had been time, they would have done their own consultation.
The Chairperson said that, in the short time available before debating the Bill
on November 2, the Standing Committee could carry out its own consultation with
traditional leaders. While the omission of the traditional leaders was
unacceptable, something could still be done to get them on board, and he
believed that they would support the Bill.
Ms Thompson stated that the Department should be aware that the Committee was
not satisfied with their response to whether they had consulted the Houses of
Traditional Leaders.Â
Adv R. van Zyl, Head of Legal Services at the Department, asked the Committee
for guidelines. While it was unfortunate that the document did not reflect
consultation with traditional leadership, the Department did contact the
National House of Traditional Leaders and could prove it through the records of
their correspondence. She asked the Committee to give the Department guidelines
on what they should do to ensure two-way dialogue with all traditional leaders.
The Chairperson said that the Department's error was neglecting to list the
National and Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders in the Objectives
Memorandum.
Adv van Zyl suggested that the Committee amend the Objectives Memorandum and
insert a reference to the fact that there was no response from the National
House of Traditional Leaders.
The Chairperson stated that KwaZulu-Natal was not opposing the Bill. If they
were against the Bill, then the Bill would still go through.
Mr R. Nogumla (ANC) argued that the requirement was stakeholder consultation.
If that had not happened, the Standing Committee should have asked for
additional time to consult.
The Chairperson stated that the Standing Committee was not opposing the Bill.
The Province was entitled to hold public hearings on issues such as this, but
this had not been raised in a timely manner. He expressed his feeling that the
Standing Committee would gain approval of the Bill from traditional leaders if
they would consult traditional leaders in the short time still available.
Gauteng
Dr Conroy reported that, although he did not attend the meeting of the
Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land Affairs Portfolio Committee,
the Committee, after discussing the Bill and conducting public hearings,
expressed support for the principle and details of the Animal Health Bill.
Eastern Cape
Mr Nogumla reported that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Land
Affairs expressed its full support for the passing of the Bill but also raised
some concerns. The concerns were that the Bill would not be effective in
improving the health of animals unless the fencing of international boundaries
was prioritised and that certificates for inspection should be issued for any
exported animal in order to instill confidence in export products. To conclude,
Mr Nogumla reported that the Committee had resolved to support the Bill with a
proposed amendment in Section 12(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) to replace “maybe� with “must�
and to include, in Clause 8, a clause that would emphasise the need for a
certificate of inspection.
Mr Mokoena asked how the Standing Committee understood Section 12, because the
Bill was trying to allay provincial fears.Â
He commented that the Standing Committee's concerns applied to the
fencing issue.
Mr Kgware agreed with Mr Mokoena's viewpoint.
The Chairperson also agreed that the Bill was attempting to reserve the fencing
issue for the discretion of the National Executive Officer (NEO), and asked for
departmental input.
Ms Naidoo stated that the Department was in agreement because mandatory fencing
would require maintenance and pose financial burden.
Dr Meyer, from Veterinary Services at the Department, said that the provision
on the fencing of international boundaries was to prevent diseased animals from
straying into South Africa.
Mr Nogumla asked whether the issue was that the need for fencing was recognised
but determined to be too costly. He also asked if the fence was going to be
needed only when there was an outbreak of disease. The Eastern Cape raised this
concern regarding the fencing of international boundaries because of its border
with Lesotho. He stated that, if the NEO stipulated that the need for fencing
was to prevent stray animals from entering South Africa, it was unnecessary to
wait until there was eminent danger of disease.Â
Mr Mindvoel expressed his understanding of the Eastern Cape's concerns;
however, he stated that its concern may have been related to other issues such
as the cross-border theft of cattle. He said that the Bill's provisions should
be read within the context of animal health only.
Free State
Rev M. Chabaku (ANC) reported that the Tourism, Environmental and Economic
Affairs and Agriculture Portfolio Committee, having considered the Bill, inputs
and information received, resolved to support the Animal Health Bill but would
negotiate on a proposed amendment. She stated that the Committee wanted Clause
17 to be added to allow the owner of animals and the owner or user of land
occupied by animals to report any abnormal morbidity and mortality to the
Provincial Executive Officer (PEO) as the PEO may have been more accessible
than the NEO.
The Chairperson asked for input from the Department.
Dr Meyer claimed that the Bill required notification of the NEO because, as the
National Officer, the NEO would need to be immediately notified to fulfil
international reporting obligations that had an impact on South African
exports. He stated that reporting to the PEO was not as important.
Rev Chabaku stated that the concern was covered by the Department's statement
and added that the Free State Committee was not asking for anything new.
Mpumalanga
Mr Windvoel reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation
and Environment, having been briefed on the Animal Health Bill, identified a
need to hold public hearings in three regions of Mpumalanga. Although the
Memorandum of Objects of the Bill indicated that there would be no increased
expenditure by the Bill, the Provincial Committee was skeptical about the accuracy
of the statement. The Provincial Committee also identified a need for the
provincial veterinary to have power of seizure over any animal or thing in
transit pending procurement of written authority in terms of Clause 10. He
stated that the Provincial Committee supported the Animal Health Bill.
Northern Cape
The Chairperson stated that the negotiating mandate from the Northern Cape
had not yet been received.
Northern Province
Mr R. Nyakane (UDM) reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture,
Forestry and Nature Conservation, having discussed and agreed to the Bill as
introduced in the National Council of Provinces, expressed its support.
The Chairperson would report the North West Province's negotiating mandate, so
Mr Mokoena took over as Acting Chairperson for the duration of the discussions
on the North West negotiating mandate.
North West Province
Rev Moatshe reported that the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Conservation
and Environment (NW Committee) discussed the Animal Health Bill in detail and
raised various concerns. He was required to report back with the responses to
each of the concerns, so he requested that the Committee look at each of the
concerns and amendments. One of the concerns was that people from rural areas
were not included in the list of people and institutions consulted. Rev Moatshe
then proceeded to list the proposed amendments, and they were discussed one at
a time.
Rev Moatshe reported that the NW Committee noted that, in Clause 1, there was a
constant reference to �thing� and proposed the insertion of a definition for
“thing� that would correspond to the definition of “infectious thing.� Also, in Clause 2, they proposed the
insertion of a definition for “stray animal.�
Dr Meyer responded that there was a definition for “animal or thing� and stated
that it was already defined and understood, and he added that “infectious
thing� was stipulated clearly. He was convinced that enough definitions were
listed.
Adv van Zyl, responding to the proposal for defining “stray animal�, said that
it was not necessary to define every word in the Bill. Only words with
particular meaning within the context of the Bill were defined, and the
dictionary meaning would be assumed for other words.
Mr Mokoena stated that the issue of “stray animal� would be flagged for later
discussion, and it was decided that the Department would respond to the issue
in the final mandate.
Rev Moatshe reported that, in Clause 2(4), there was a need to insert a time
frame within which the NEO would have to indicate a decision regarding an
application submission.
Dr Meyer responded that the proposal could be accommodated.
Rev Moatshe, referring to Clause 4(1), reported that the NW Committee was
concerned with the designation of assignees. The Bill stated that powers would
be assigned to any person with an interest in or particular knowledge of
animals and animal health, and clarity was sought as to whom this referred. He
said that, although the explanatory note stated that it was referring to
laboratories, it could refer to companies as well, and it might, in the long
run, create an impression that these companies were the only institutions that
could provide viable input.
Dr Meyer responded that the qualification for assignees was sufficiently
narrowed down to include only those with interest and knowledge.
Adv van Zyl, supplementing Dr Meyer's response, stated that assignees were
being used in legislation more and more to extend the hand of government
because capacity was low. The final responsibility would still be with the NEO,
but the duties would be performed by qualified assignees selected by the
Department. She reassured the Committee that the Department would scrutinise
and select the proper assignees because, in the end, the Department was liable.
She stated that it was difficult to list the qualifications assignees were
required to have within the Bill.
Mr Mokoena asked if the Department was assuring the Committee that assignees
were selected properly.
Adv van Zyl responded that the Department would ensure that assignees could do
the work properly because the Department was, in the end, responsible.
Mr Windvoel said that the leeway for the use of assignees also existed in other
legislation and added that it was important for provincial portfolio committees
and stakeholders. He asked if assignees were going to be accessible to rural
communities.
Adv van Zyl responded that the Department could provide a list of examples of
assignees used.
Mr Mokoena stated that the issue had been clarified and proceeded to the other
proposals.
Rev Moatshe reported that, related to the issue of assignees, there was a need
to clarify the financial implications of assignees.
Adv van Zyl clarified the concerns regarding the financial implications of
assignees. She stated that government was no longer the only entity enforcing
laws. In order to cut down costs, there was increasing use of persons from
outside the government. Although assignees could not have financial recourse on
government and could not ask the government for money to perform the function,
provisions were made for assignees to charge fees that would be decided in
consultation with the Department. She stated that the Bill had financial
implications, but these implications were not its use of assignees.
Referring to Clause 5(6), Rev Moatshe said that it was given that the Minister
would act in consultation with the MEC when he/she had reason to believe that
the PEO was not doing what he/she was supposed to do.
Adv van Zyl read Clause 5(6) and stated that it was a material deviation. If
the NEO noticed that the PEO was not performing his/her duties adequately, then
the NEO should bring it to the attention of the PEO, but the Clause made no
mention of the Minister. She said that the NW Committee's concern was unclear
to her.
Mr Nyakane asked if the MEC was not involved at all.
Adv van Zyl responded that Clause 5(6) was concerned with collegial interaction
in terms of day-to-day operations. The MEC would be involved in more serious
matters.
Rev Moatshe expressed the NW Committee's concerns regarding fencing. He asked
that the financial implications for provinces be set out to ensure that they
could adequately make provisions for any eventuality. This was not to go into
the Bill, but to ensure awareness of the costs involved.
Mr Mokoena stated that the issue had been clarified in the discussion on the
Eastern Cape's proposal and proceeded to the next issue.
Rev Moatshe reported that, throughout the Bill, reference was made to
announcements or notices in the Gazette. The NW Committee proposed that it
should be “Government Gazette or any appropriate media� to ensure that the
information was accessible and to ensure that the Minister was not confined to
specific media.
Adv van Zyl responded that, throughout the legislation, the term used was
“Gazette�. The particular Gazette to be used was left to the discretion of the
person making the decision. She said that the State Law Advisor would have to
be consulted on why “Gazette� was used instead of “Government Gazette�. In
reference to the suggestion to insert “or any appropriate media�, she stated
that the point of placing an announcement in the Gazette was not to inform
people but because it was a legal requirement.
Rev Moatshe, referring to Clause 29(2), reported that there was no clarity on
the penalties to be imposed. The proposal was for minimum and maximum amounts
to be set that would guide the courts when confronted with matters under the
Act.
Mr Windvoel commented that there were no limits because legislation was written
to be applied over a long period of time and could not stipulate the financial
values because those values fluctuated.
Ms Naidoo added that there was a correspondence between a period of sentence
for a crime and the financial value, so penalty would be set according to the
time allotted.
Rev Moatshe reported that the NW Committee had resolved to support the essence
and principle of the Bill and recommended that the Bill be passed into law
subject to the amendments as would be agreed upon.
The discussion on the North West proposals was completed, and Rev Moatshe took
over again as Chairperson.
Western Cape
The Chairperson stated that the Western Cape representative was absent and
read the submission out loud. The Standing Committee on Economic Development,
having considered the Animal Health Bill, expressed support of the Bill, but
raised a few issues for clarity. The Standing Committee, referring to Section
4, expressed concern that the appointment process was only by the national Minister
and did not allow for provincial input. The second concern, referring to
Section 11, regarded policing of quarantine stations. The Standing Committee
stated that assurances should be sought that, as a province was the first line
of defence against the introduction of a disease, it would have the prerogative
to defend its own interests via controlling its own quarantine stations. The
third concern, referring to Section 16 on Animal Health Schemes, was that it
needed to be clarified if a province could initiate its own animal health
schemes/disease surveillance programmes with the aim of establishing sanitary
guarantees for facilitating export.
Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill
Eastern Cape
Mr Nogumla reported that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Land
Affairs, having considered the Bill, expressed its full support for passing the
Bill. The concern that was raised was that they believed Clause 2, dealing with
the amendment to Section 7 of the principal Act, would need to be rephrased to
identify specific stakeholders that would need to be consulted.
Adv van Zyl responded that the issue had been raised at an earlier phase in the
process. She proceeded to read out the response given by the Department at that
time. She stated that it had been difficult for NAMC to ensure that all
directly affected groups were consulted for the response. If there was an
obligation to include all affected groups in the committees NAMC set up to deal
with specific issues, the committees would become cumbersome and their purpose
would be defeated. NAMC served as an advisory body to the Minister and did not
need to make committees representative because they would be reserved for
investigating more complex issues. Then
NAMC might use the information from the committees towards its recommendations
to the Minister, but the final decision would lie with the Minister.
Free State
The Chairperson stated that the negotiating mandate of the Free State on
the Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill had not yet been
received.
Gauteng
The Chairperson, noting that the representative for Gauteng was not
present, expressed his concern that the mandates were not taken seriously. He proceeded to read the negotiating mandate
that had been submitted. The Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Land
Affairs Portfolio Committee, having conducted public hearings and discussed the
Bill, supported the principle and detail of the Marketing of Agricultural
Products Amendment Bill with proposed amendments. The provincial committee
proposed that Section 2 would make it possible to exclude a particular industry
from the decisions that might have a direct impact on that industry. Therefore,
they felt that it was desirable that provisions be made to ensure industrial or
sectoral participation. The provincial committee also proposed that Section 9
could potentially create loopholes through which financial claims could be made
against the Maize Trust and the State for levies that were paid by them. They suggested the retention of the
sub-sections that would ensure there were institutions and mechanisms in place
to continue to collect outstanding levies.
Adv van Zyl, on the issue of the uncollected levies in Section 9, stated that
only six boards remained, and they would be liquidated when the legal matters
they were involved in were resolved. The repeal clause would be effective then
and would not leave the government unable to collect levies.
KwaZulu-Natal
Ms Vilakazi reported that the Provincial Standing Committee supported the
Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill subject to the amendments
proposed and obtaining clarity on matters.
Adv van Zyl proceeded to look at the proposals made by KwaZulu-Natal and gave
responses. She stated that the first three suggestions were minor technical
issues and disagreed with the proposals. On the proposal to replace “nominated
as candidate for election� with “elected� in Clause 1(14)(d), she stated that
nominees should not be used for this kind of work because both nominated and
elected persons would have too many other obligations and would not be right
for the work. The fifth proposal was a matter of legal technical drafting, and
she expressed her disagreement with KwaZulu-Natal's proposal. The sixth
proposal was to replace “…as may be sufficient…� with “…as the Council may deem
sufficient� in Clause 8(2)(a). She stated that, since it was clear that the
Council was the decision-making body, the suggested amendment was not
necessary. The seventh proposal was a logical reasoning suggestion to use the
term “proposed prohibition� in Clause 8(2)(a) at lines 11 and 16 and she agreed
with the proposal. The eighth proposal was a result of an error in typing in
Clause 8(2(a) at line 23 and she stated it would be corrected. The final proposal
was to insert a time commencement indicator to specify when the clock would
begin to tick within the 60-day period. The suggestion was to say “…within 60
days of the publication of the notice…[or] of the deadline for lodgement of
objections or representations…� She disagreed with the proposal.
Mpumalanga
Mr Windvoel reported that, after considering the Marketing of Agricultural
Products Amendment Bill clause by clause, the Portfolio Committee on
Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, expressed its support of the Bill
without any amendments.
Northern Province
The representative of the province was not present, so the Chairperson read
the submitted mandate. The Provincial Portfolio Committee discussed the Bill
clause by clause and agreed to the Bill as amended by the National Assembly
Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs. Thus, it was reported that
the Northern Province supported the Bill.
North West Province
The Chairperson introduced the report of the negotiating mandate and Adv van
Zyl proceeded to comment on the concerns raised by the North West province. To
the concern regarding the lack of interviewing persons short-listed as
candidates for the Council that would be established, Adv van Zyl responded
that it was left to the Minister. There was also a suggestion to list names in
chronological order in Clause 1(13)(d) and Adv van Zyl stated that the change
would only be rearranging the naming of bodies, but it could be done. To the
suggestion to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Public Finance
Management Act in Clause 3, Adv van Zyl responded that it was not necessary to
mention that other acts had to be complied with because those other acts would
have to be complied with regardless of whether or not they were mentioned in
this bill. To the suggestion on supplementary budgetary inputs in Clause 3(b),
Adv van Zyl responded that the issue was already clear and added that
additional input requirements were set out in the Public Finances Management
Act. To the suggestion regarding the notice in the Gazette, Adv van Zyl
responded that the issue had already been discussed and said that the
announcement in the Gazette was to make the Bill enforceable instead of to
inform people. There was also a suggestion, regarding Clause 8, to add “…or any
other relevant structure� after “Council� in order to give the Minister room to
move and consult widely without being confined to the Council. Adv van Zyl
responded by stating that Clause 8 already made provision for consultation.
Regarding Clause 9, there was a request for clarification on what the trusts
that regulated levies paid would be. Adv van Zyl responded that Section 2 of
the main Act set out objectives and a trust would have to be in line with the
Act's objectives. With regard to the concern over Bophuthatswana Marketing
Council, she said that she would verify if the Act had been transferred to the
North West Province.
Western Cape
Noting the absence of the representative from the Western Cape, the
Chairperson read out the mandate that had been submitted. The Standing
Committee on Economic Development, having considered the Marketing of
Agricultural Products Amendment Bill, expressed its support for the Bill but
asked for clarity on some issues. The Committee expressed concern that, while
Section 4 of Act 47 of 1996 provided for a specific Standing Committee role
during the appointment of persons to the NAMC, the current Bill did not provide
a role for the Standing Committee. The second concern was over the requirement
that persons found guilty of transgressing Section 7 of the Promotion of
Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act could not service on NAMC.
The Standing Committee felt that this clause made provision for discrimination
on the grounds of race but was silent on gender and disability. Therefore, the
Standing Committee suggested that the reference to Section 7 of the
Discrimination Act be omitted since there was already a provision for the
disqualification of persons with a criminal record.
The Chairperson, having concluded all the submitted negotiating mandates,
stated that members should take the matters up with their respective provinces
for the final mandate. He requested that the final mandates be submitted on
time and the meeting was adjourned.
The copyright in this material subsists with the
Contact Trust. Further distribution or
copying of this material is prohibited without the prior agreement of the
Contact Trust.
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.