Communal Property Association Amendment Bill [B12B-2017]: final mandate; Committee Report on Free State oversight; Committee Legacy Report

Meeting report

The Chairperson started by welcoming Members. He indicated that some Members had sent their apologies and read out their names. He said that the Minister and Deputy Minister had sent a letter to communicate their apologies. He informed Members that the Committee had an agenda which included the consideration and adoption of minutes. He said that three provinces were going to send their amendments at 11:30. Limpopo has just sent their final mandate and that they were waiting for other provinces to send their mandates. He suggested that they start with items two to four of the agenda as they waited for all the mandates to be sent.

Mr C Smit (DA; Limpopo) said that he wanted to say something before they continued. He had written a letter to the Chairperson and to the Secretary of the Committee inquiring about a meeting that had taken place at OR Tambo Southern Sun Hotel and he was still awaiting a response. He had not received any formal invitation to that meeting that had stipulated the venue, the exact time and the agenda of that specific meeting. He asked for clarification about this.

The Chairperson replied that as far as he knew all Members were invited by both the Secretariat of the Select Committee on Land and Mineral Resources and the Select Committee of Communication and Public Enterprises, and that is why all Honourable Members managed to attend the meeting knowing the venue and the time of the meeting.

Mr Smit said that if that was the case, he was asking that he be provided with evidence to show that an invitation was indeed sent to him as a valid Member of the Committee. He reiterated that he did not get the invitation indicating the venue and the time of the meeting. He said that at the time of the meeting, which was at 18:30, he was in fact still at the plenary meeting and arrived at the hotel at about 20:00 in the evening. He maintained that he would like to have proof that an invitation was sent to him. He said that he would be writing a letter that morning to the Honourable Chairperson of the NCOP concerning the issue.

The Chairperson pointed out that it was within his rights to write the letter to the Chairperson if he wished to do so.

Mr Smit said that if that was the case, then he was asking to be excused from the meeting. He was so excused.

The Chairperson told Members that meeting was due to start at 11am and the meeting was adjourned till that time.

Committee Report on Free State oversight visit

At 11am, the Chairperson told Members that they were moving onto item number 2 of the agenda, being the oversight report on the visit to Free State. He referred Members to the contents of the report moving page by page from page 1 all the way to page 18. He asked members that one of them make a move for the adoption of the report.

Ms E Prins (ANC; Western Cape) said that she was making a move for adoption of the report and Mr E Mlambo (ANC; Gauteng) seconded the motion.

The Chairperson then moved to the Committee’s Annual Report of the activities undertaken for the 2018 term from January up to December. He indicated that there were some key highlights of the report. He then started taking Members through the report page by page from page 1 to page 10.

Mr Mlambo however interjected and suggested that they first establish if Members had gone through the report because he noted that the report had 139 pages and he asked that if they were to go through the whole report page by page, and if so when would they finish that exercise.

The Chairperson said that the report had been circulated to Honourable Members for their perusal and that it is a voluminous report. He asked whether Members were happy with the report, or should they continue going through it. He asked Mr Mlambo whether he had the opportunity to go through it.

Mr Mlambo said that he had gotten the report and had tried to go through it but it was voluminous. The Chairperson asked Members to assist in how to approach this matter.

Mr A Nyambi (ANC; Mpumalanga) said that as the Chairperson presented the report, their responsibility as Members was to assist him and point out corrections if any and if all were in agreement, they could move that it be   adopted as a true reflection of what happened. He had gone through the report and had identified a lot of the meetings of activities which were going on throughout the year and that it was a true reflection of what happened in the Committee. He moved that the legacy report be adopted as a true reflection of the activities of the Committee.

Ms Prins seconded this motion.

Committee Legacy Report

The Chairperson then moved to the Legacy Report of the Committee on activities undertaken for the period May 2014 to March 2019. He asked Members if they had the opportunity to go through the report as presented.

Mr A Singh (ANC; KZN) pointed out that he was aware that the parliamentary term was from 2014 to March 2019. He asked whether adopting the report then would mean they were adopting up to March 2019 or only up to that date i.e. the day of the meeting.

The Secretary responded and said that they had used the template which was given to them which had the heading from 2014 to 2019, but he pointed out that everything in the report was up to the 27th of November 2018 which was the day of the meeting. He said that what they could do when they come back is that they could add to and amend the Legacy Report, but that for then, the institutional requirement requires that they adopt the Legacy Report for the term. He said that although the heading read 2014 to March 2019, the information contained in the report reflected what was done up to the date of the meeting.

The Chairperson said that it could be kept on record that they adopt it as from 2014 to the date of the meeting.

Mr Nyambi said that this was a technical report but it is very important. They could adopt a report up to March 2019. The heading must be corrected to reflect the date of the meeting because Parliament will rise in 2019 and the Committee will then have an opportunity before the elections. In terms of the guide of the template, despite the fact that it was correct, if they put it in black in white, the report had to reflect what they were adopting then so that there was no contradiction. He asked what would happen if he was not going to be part of the people alive in 2019, yet he was part of the people who have adopted a legacy report. He said that the attendance register will reflect the people that were part of the meeting and that would send a very wrong message.

The Chairperson asked whether they could adopt the report with Mr Nyambi’s correction.

Mr Mlambo in agreement with Mr Nyambi’s sentiments said that they could not fast forward life because of templates and they needed to be realistic.

Mr Singh moved that the report be adopted with that amendment of Mr, Nyambi and Mr Mlambo seconded the same.

Outstanding Committee Minutes

The Chairperson then moved to the minutes of 20th November 2018. He asked Members if they had the opportunity to go through the minutes.

Mr Nyambi in response made reference to the earlier incident and remarks by Mr Smit. He said that he did not know why the Chairperson struggled to respond to Mr Smit and he said that the impression created by Mr Smit was that there was a deliberate attempt to sideline people not to attend the meeting. He however pointed out that at the meeting there was a person representing them and he thought that the same would be clarified to him. He said that even on that morning, Mr Smit was not there as a person attending the meeting but had just come to frustrate the process. They were supposed to deal with him and that it in the minutes, it must be reflected that all Members of the Committee were invited to the meeting and that if a Member of the Committee decides that they were not going to attend the meeting, the Member must not try to create an impression that there were attempts to sideline them, and that that was the copy that they were supposed to attach and send to the Chairperson of the NCOP. He said that he was seconding that.

Mr Mlambo said that before adoption, in addition to what Mr Nyambi was saying, and because it will be reflected in the communication of the Secretary of the Committee, there was need for the Secretary to put it on record. He said that the Secretary must be asked whether he circulated the information and he must respond and state that  ‘yes’ that he did so to all Members.

Mr Singh said that that was not necessary and then they adopted the motion.

Mr Mlambo however asked Members not to dismiss his point.

Ms Prins said that Mr Mlambo should be clear because she did not understand.

The Chairperson said that he had made it very clear to Mr Smit that all Members were informed about the meeting, the time and the venue and that if he felt unhappy, he was at liberty to take his letter wherever he needed to. He said that he did not think it needed him to take more time trying to explain. He said that with what he said to him, he had made it succinctly clear  and he does not  know what other words he should have used to express this point to Mr Smit.

On the same issue, Mr Nyambi pointed out that the process is not innocent. Last year and the year before they would subject these processes to court proceedings. He made reference to the Lamosa judgment found in the report which had to do with how the NCOP processed legislation. The Court will require minutes of what happened.  Mr Smit could write a letter to the Chairperson and after doing so, on the same day at 2.00 o’clock they would be going to the High Court to challenge the process. In challenging the process, the Court will ask for minutes and if the minutes do not reflect that all the Members were invited, as to the question of the legal standing of their last meeting, then that may create a problem and the Court may arrive at a conclusion that there is something flawed in their process as a Committees in the NCOP. He said he was raising the issue so that if they check the minutes, they should be able to know that they even discussed what Mr Smit raised and that all Members were invited. He reiterated that Mr Smit had created the impression that they were sidelined. He pointed out that while Mr Smit was in the meeting, he may have done the counting and realised that there were four people in the room from the provinces and that if he left, there would not be enough Members to form a quorum. He said that as he had gone outside, he had seen him (Mr Smit) standing at the corner looking at the Members and doing the calculations and that he was going to use that against what they were doing. He said that the process was not innocent and that is why they needed to be very careful and understand what they were doing because it would be a futile exercise of they sat there and did not assist what was going to be challenged at a later stage because it would be as good as not having the meeting.

The Secretary suggested that in the minutes for the 20th of November, they could adopted them with the proviso that he adds to those minutes that Members had been informed and how they had been informed, and then in the days minutes i.e. 27th November 2018, he could raise Mr Smit’s objection and reflect the interactions, then they could adopt that. He asked whether that would be satisfactory.

Mr Nyambi however in response said that the Secretary could not use what Mr Smit had raised on the day because when he raised it, it was not a formal meeting because he had decided to raise it before they could start their meeting. He however said that they knew what he was doing as he ultimately indicated this to the Chairperson.

The Secretary said that he would amend the minutes of the previous accordingly.

Mr Mlambo said that they were dealing with a technical matter where political games were being played in Committees so as to collapse the procedures. If they were not careful, they would end up having to answer unnecessary questions from the Court. He said that there was nothing wrong for the Secretary to confirm. He was just cautioning the Chairperson.

The Chairperson said that the minutes would be adopted with all the suggestions and proposals of Members.

Communal Property Association Amendment Bill: Final Mandates

The Chairperson said that the Eastern Cape had as yet to submit. The following provinces submitted their mandates and the various representatives read them out to the Committee as follows:

The Free State Province – read by the Chairperson

The Free State Province deliberated on the 27th November 2018 and voted in favour of the Bill.

Gauteng Province – read by Mr Mlambo

Gauteng Province deliberated on the 22nd November 2018 and the Gauteng Provincial legislation supports the principle and detail of the Bill and therefore votes in favour of the Bill.

Mpumalanga Province – read by Mr Nyambi

The date of deliberation for Mpumalanga Province was yesterday 26th November 2018. The delegation representing the Province of Mpumalanga in the NCOP is hereby conferred with the mandate to vote in favour of the Communal Property Association Amendment Bill (B 1B-2017) (Sec 76)

Limpopo Province - by the Chairperson

Limpopo Province deliberated on 27th November 2018 and voted in favour of the Bill.

North West Province - read by the Chairperson Mr Sefako

The North West Province deliberated on the 13th November 2018 and voted in favour of the Bill.

The Chairperson thanked Members and then read out the Committee report for the adoption of the Bill:

The NCOP Select Committee on Land and Mineral Resources on the Communal Property Association Amendment Bill (B 12B-2017) (National Assembly Sec 76), dated 27th November 2018.

The Department of Rural Development and Land Reform briefed the Committee on the 7th August 2018 on the Communal Property Association Amendment Bill (B 12B-2017). The Bill was referred to the Committee on 30th May 2018.

The Select Committee on Land and Mineral Resources, having deliberated on and considered the subject of the Communal Property Association Amendment Bill (B 12B-2017) (National Assembly Sec 76), referred to it and classified by the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM) as a Section 76 Bill, agrees to the Bill.

The Chairperson then asked for a proposer and a seconder of the Bill and accordingly Mr Mlambo proposed for the adoption of the Bill and Ms Prins seconded the proposal.

Other Matters

He said that the Secretary would like to bring something to the attention of Members.

The Secretary said that he would like to bring to the attention of Members that they had received news that the Electronic Deeds Registration Systems Bill, Section 35 was referred to the Committee on the 13th November 2018. He had also been informed that morning that the Convention International Agreement was also referred to the Committee for consideration. He said would like to know how the Committee would like to proceed seeing that that day was their last meeting since they had the Section 76, and the Section 75 was referred to them on 13th November and the International Agreement. For the Section 76, he did not think that they would get time do it then but for the Section 75 and the International Agreement, he would like guidance from Members on how to proceed.

Mr Mlambo said that for Section 76, there was an issue of the six week cycle which was making the exercise impossible. He said that for the other one, Section 75, they were going to have the last proclaiming one on the next day and that would assist all the Members of the NCOP. The initial plan was to round up everything this coming Friday, but with the developments of the National Assembly struggling to finish the very important strategic one that is to do the electoral one, they are finalising everything on the 4th of December and that was having an impact on how they do things.

Mr Mlambo said that they took a decision when they started as a Committee that they would not entertain anything that was a result of poor planning or was dumped on to them for the sake of compliance, but the proclaiming meeting that was going to happen on the next day would guide the Committee. He suggested that they wait for the meeting tomorrow that was going to guide all the committees. They should not to do anything in a rushed way that would end up in court and compromise the justice of doing public participation. The issue of public participation is very important and if they were honest with the process, there was no way they could get it then. All executive members came to a number of meetings and it was indicated that the poor planning of the executive to give them Bills in time will not be entertained because it compromises the quality of work and is embarrassing in the NCOP. The National Assembly (NA) had done justice to the process, and for them it was more about compliance and they should not entertain anything that is not in line with their initial strategic plan as the NCOP and the Committee but the next day’s meeting would be a guide. However for anything to do with Section 76, they should not think of entertaining it because even if they were to deal with it, it would be beyond Christmas and they were representing the interest of provinces and the legislature would not be there to receive and get the briefing. He said that the least they could do was to consider dealing with the issues with consideration so that when they come back early next year they could maybe be in a position to consider it, but beyond that there was nothing that was possible.

The Chairperson thanked Members and adjourned the meeting.