Expropriation Bill: Withdrawal; Built Environment Professions Bill [53 – 2008]: deliberations

Meeting report

Expropriation Bill: Withdrawal
The Chairperson noted the apologies. She indicated that it had been decided officially that the Expropriation Bill [B16–2008] would be withdrawn, due to legal issues that needed to be ironed out. Given the fact that sufficient time had been granted for dealing with this legislation, it had fallen out of the Parliamentary processes. She raised the issue of attendance of meetings by the members of the Committee, and she expressed her disquiet that some Members attended them only sporadically. The Chairperson asked the Committee members to give their views. She then called for an explanation from both the Department and the Parliamentary legal advisers.

Mr L Maduma (ANC) thought that this was not the forum to discuss these issues.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) thought that it was distressing that the Expropriation Bill had not progressed. The majority party found it unsettling that such an important piece of legislation was delayed due to legal issues, and it extended the suffering of the downtrodden.

Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) commented that it was important that the ANC looked into the political issues surrounding the Expropriation Bill  and in the process deal also with the technical issues. She pointed out that the Committee had spent much money and effort on public hearings.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) commented that the issues brought up in the public hearings needed to be evaluated.

Dr S Huang (ANC) thought that workshops should be held after public hearings.

Mr Adam Mthombeni, Parliamentary Liaison Officer: Department of Public Works, responded that the  legal advisers from the Department of Public Works (DPW) had met with the Parliamentary legal advisers to discuss the clauses or particular concern to the Parliamentary legal advisors. They submitted a redraft of the clauses in question. However, after doing so, they had received no further communication. The Minister and the Director-General was aware of the situation. The legal opinions were not required to be submitted to the Committee.

The Chairperson indicated that she had requested the legal opinions from the Department.

Mr Mthombeni responded that the Minister and the Director-General indicated that the legal opinions were expressly for them. This was the directive that was received from the Minister.

Ms Zuraya Adhikarie, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, responded that her colleague was not truthful. This was the first time that she heard of a redraft. She had met the team at the hotel to facilitate the brief that was given by the Chairperson. The Department’s legal advisers had indicated to her that they had already attended to a redraft that was supposed to be in line with two senior legal opinions. When they quoted the gist of the wording of the redraft, she was not certain it was sufficient, and she had thus asked to see it. She also requested sight of the senior legal staff opinions that were used to draw up the redraft. She only received the redraft by email. She reported to the Chairperson that she waited for the opinions. The Chairperson noted that the Department had sent the legal opinions, but she had still not received it. She had not had any contact since then with the Department.

The Chairperson realised that it was a question of the Department’s word against the word of the Parliamentary legal advisors. There had been no progress on what the Committee had asked for and she had not heard of this directive from the Minister. It seemed there was a communication problem that delayed the process. If there was a problem it should have been reported to the Chairperson.

Ms Adhikarie added that her version could be corroborated by the email date and time when it was sent to her. She had indicated that she did not understand why there was a reluctance to incorporate the wording of the Constitution.

The Chairperson continued that as part of the parliamentary processes, if the legal advisors advised the Committee that certain clauses of the Bill were unconstitutional they had to consult properly. This was the first time that the Chairperson was made aware that the Minister did not allow a particular document to be seen by the Committee. The Committee was trying to tap into the resources of the Department, but because the Department had not helped they were forced to go out and obtain their own legal opinion. The delay caused was already a month, before getting any response on the legal issues. She pointed out that the funds on the public hearings had been spent in vain. The matter needed attention and it must be dealt with. She commented that it was very difficult for the Committee to perform consistently under these circumstances.

Built Environment Professions Bill [53-2008]: Deliberations
Clause 4(1)(n)(v)
Mr Tebogo Malatji, Legal Services, Department of Public Works, noted that a complaint had been made in relation to this clause that it was not competitive, however, the recommendation was not binding. It was also noted that tariffs had to be submitted to the Complaints Commission, so that the Commission could decide whether they were competitive or not.

Mr Radebe concurred with the Department.

Clause 4(1)(f)
Ms Lydia Bici, Deputy Director-General: Department of Public Works, noted that all professional boards had to apply policy norms and standards. The Bill as it stood, with consideration also of clause 4(1)(m), was correct.

Clause 4(1)(j)
Ms Bici explained that in reality the boards would be interacting with all spheres of government.

Mr Radebe concurred with the suggested revision of the clause.

The Chairperson noted that discussions on the Bill would have to continue the following week.

Ms Ramotsamai commented that before the committee Members met with the Portfolio Committee on Education, they had to be aware of what the Department’s views were.

The Chairperson responded that the Members needed to clarify their position on the education concerns in the Bill. There had been a suggestion that this Bill was in fact taking away certain powers of the Minister of Education and therefore it was necessary to know exactly what the position was. She noted that the meeting with the Education Portfolio Committee would be arranged so that this Committee could hear their views. She felt that most of the outstanding issues had been dealt with.

The meeting was adjourned.