Chairperson, hon members of the NCOP, according to the most recent statistics at our disposal, only 10% of our population can afford to buy and own a house at current prices. This should tell all of us here of the dire need that exists out there. We cannot cater for the rest of the population, or those who do not fall within the 10% bracket as indicated. For this group, we are dependent on rental as the only means for provision of accommodation and shelter. We are therefore heavily reliant and place particular stress on the efficient functioning of the rental housing market.
Over the past eight years we have operated under a very specific rental framework and have found that we needed to urgently attend to its shortcomings so as to ensure greater efficiency and fairness in its application. What we bring to the House today is an amendment to the existing rental legislation, brought about after extensive consultations which began exactly a year ago. Subsequently, the amended Bill was published in the Government Gazette. What we bring for your approval is a culmination of these processes.
Basically, the Bill endeavours to address some critical implementation problems and to remove vestiges of discrimination that stubbornly remained in our system and also to remove a great deal of unfair burden placed on the landlord. We start off by defining "unfair practice" to ensure that all manner of unseemly practices which had dishonouring and discriminatory effects were included in the definition and therefore prohibited. The definition now means: "any act or omission by a landlord or tenant in contravention of the Act; or a practice prescribed as a practice unreasonably prejudicing the rights or interests of a tenant or a landlord."
The Bill makes provision that unfair practice will be dealt with fully in the regulations which are currently being drafted in full consultation with provinces and rental housing tribunals. A workshop is currently planned to be held between 22 and 23 November this year with government stakeholders to obtain inputs for these regulations. The reason for this amendment was that there was uncertainty as to what constituted unfair practice. With the amendment and the regulations, all unfair practices will be covered and there will be no uncertainty.
Consequently, a great deal of unhappiness experienced with the law is minimised. We have deleted references to "bona fide" in the law. This is done to ensure that a landlord may not discriminate against any visitor to a tenant, thus removing the current limitation. Currently, a landlord has a prerogative of prohibiting any visitor they do not consider bona fide.
Rental tribunals are given the right to issue rulings pertaining to the seizure of possessions subject to any regulations by the Minister. The Act is being amended to expressly provide for the seizure of possessions of defaulting tenants, but only after a ruling to that effect by a Rental Housing Tribunal or an order of court.
Furthermore, amendments are made on information on rental receipts. A relevant section specifies information that must be contained in the receipts issued by a landlord for payments made by the tenant. They should follow a particular prescription. An argument has been raised that where, for instance, tenants are able to make payments at supermarkets, etc, all the required information is not provided. To cater for this situation, a subsection has been amended to allow a tribunal in exceptional circumstances to exempt a landlord from providing certain information.
This amendment was necessary because in some cases it was difficult for a landlord to provide information, particularly if there was an agent acting on behalf of the landlord. However, the tribunal will certainly require proof of all monies paid by the tenant, which will protect the tenant from unscrupulous landlords. Section 5 of the Act is therefore amended to clarify aspects pertaining to the issuing of receipts by landlords, namely that the tribunal may in exceptional cases give the necessary leeway.
There is an additional subsection in the Act providing that any costs in relation to contract fees in lease agreements shall only be payable by the tenant upon proof of factual expenditure by the landlord. This will prevent landlords from charging exorbitant costs for a standard contract of lease.
Amendments make provision for the manner in which the landlord must invest the deposit paid by a tenant. The problem encountered in this regard has been that the law provided that the landlord must invest the deposit in an interest-bearing account with a financial institution and must pay the tenant the interest accruing, provided that the rate of interest may not be less than the rate applicable to a savings account with that financial institution. In practice, however, different financial institutions have different interest rates, and the current wording of the provision does not allow for this. A technical amendment is therefore made to refer to such interest rates applicable to the particular financial institution that is used by the landlord.
A new paragraph has been included to deal with any costs associated with compliance with the provisions of the law such as contract fees - as we have mentioned above.
Most importantly, the jurisdiction of the rental tribunals is clarified. The Act is amended by the inclusion of a subsection which gives the tribunal the power to issue spoliation and attachment orders and to grant interdicts. This was not spelled out in the original Act. The spoliation orders and interdicts could be to the benefit of both the landlord and the tenant, whereas the attachment orders would generally be to the benefit of the landlord against the tenant. The rulings of the tribunals must now be enforced in terms of the Magistrates' Courts Act, Act 32 of 1944, and a tribunal must refer any matter that requires eviction to a competent court. The reason for the above inclusion is to ensure that no tribunal has the right to evict in terms of section 26(3) of the Constitution. Only a court may order an eviction. We have therefore amended the law to ensure that we are in line with this.
The Act is further amended to empower the Minister to make regulations. This amendment is necessitated by the need to ensure uniformity throughout the country with regard to procedures followed by tribunals, as well as rulings made by them. In the past, this power was vested in the MEC and this has resulted in a great deal of variation, which is ultimately unworkable.
Unfortunately, in relation to landlords, the common occurrence in which landlords make unlawful lockouts and the shutting off of utilities is now regarded as an offence. Landlords are required to ensure that they comply with the correct legal proceedings at all times, whatever their grievances may be against their tenants.
The Bill is amended by the substitution of some of the subsections so as to vest the power in the Minister to make regulations as compared to the current provisions which enable MECs to make regulations.
Finally, in our view, these changes will bring much-needed changes in the rental housing market which will enable it to be one of the dominant instruments of our policies. As consultations over the Bill revealed, our interactions with the housing sector show that the sector approves and is ready to accept these changes. I therefore introduce the Rental Housing Amendment Bill 2007 to this House. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson and hon Minister, I must say that my life has never been as difficult as it is today, precisely because of you. If I had it my way I would have said, "Chair, we agree" and I would have sat down.
Nevertheless, it is quite as important that one must just re-emphasise a few aspects of what the Minister has already put before us. As a section 76 Bill, I think what came out of the public hearings that we had throughout the provinces was what seemed to be quite common - the excitement that was expressed by our people. As the Minister has already mentioned, the people who are mainly affected by the environment of rental housing in the main are the working class and the poor. This piece of legislation that we are putting before the House for adoption seeks to protect them and to ensure that they are not treated unfairly. What came out frequently was the question of the lockouts because, at times, you would be confronted with the way our people are treated, especially when there are disputes between the landlord and the tenants. The landlord would automatically have the upper hand and would just lock our people out and they would not have anywhere to go.
As a result, it is only fair that one must express the great appreciation that our people have for this. Of course, it did not also just come about without any serious issues of contestation from some other provinces but, out of the nine provinces that held public hearings and participated actively and vigorously in the development and finalisation of the Bill itself, six provinces expressed their support for the Bill. As a result, the committee was then given an overwhelming mandate to then submit to the House that this Bill be adopted. I thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Chairperson, hon members ... Hon Minister, I am sorry. I started by addressing members when I was supposed to have started with you first.
This Bill comes at a time when some people have encountered some difficulties and suffered a lot as tenants under landlords or property owners. The IFP welcomes the objectives of the Bill and also believes that the common practice of unlawful lockouts, as my colleague has mentioned, of tenants and of cutting off of utilities will now be an offence.
Sihlalo ohloniphekileyo, umthetho osezithebeni manje unikeza umqashi nomqashwa ilungelo elimfanele. Kwathi cheze nje emthethweni oshayiwe, umthetho oshayiwe uzoyidlala indawo yawo kulowo ohlulekile ukuwugcina. Ushayiwe manje umthetho, ohluleka ukuwugcina lo mthetho, uzoyidlala indawo yawo. Siyethemba ke ukuthi izingxabano eziba khona phakathi ko mqashisi no mqashi, inkinga ebikhona izophela nya. Sihlalo thina be IFP siyawusekela lo mthetho ngo elethu. Ngiyabonga [ihlombe]. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Hon Chairperson, the legislation before us will now give both employer and employee their appropriate rights. Any deviation from the law, the envisaged law, once passed, will take its course against the one who fails to abide by it. The law has now been passed and it will now take its course against anyone who breaks it. We hope that the disputes that are common between employer and employee will now come to an end. Hon Chairperson, the IFP supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]]
Hon Chairlady, as the Limpopo legislature we held public hearings and workshops with various municipalities. All the stakeholders in Limpopo support the principles of the Bill.
There is nothing much that one can say except to confirm the mandate given to us as special delegates from the Limpopo legislature, that we are only here to support the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and members, allow me to start off with a protest in regard to the shortened times allocated to speakers for the debates this week. This move is understandable, however, given the large volume of considerations before the House but that in itself, hon Chairperson, is emblematic of the total disregard that the institution has for the NCOP by forcing it to have last-minute, pressure-cooker-style debates in order to pass legislation and ratify agreements.
The good news is that I won't talk against the amending Bill before us, but I will, however, attempt to address a serious matter in the meagre four minutes allocated to me. According to the ATC of 14 November 2007, the Select Committee on Public Services reports the amending Bill under discussion without amendment. This means that all or at least the majority of provinces will support the Bill as it stands.
Now, this cannot be correct and some dealings must have taken place behind the scenes agter toe deure [behind closed doors], because I recall very clearly that certain provinces had serious misgivings about some aspects of the Bill, and a number of these were supported by the committee during the meeting at which the negotiating mandates were considered less than two weeks ago. Even a section where reference to the role of the NCOP select committee is blatantly omitted now remains uncorrected.
But, be that as it may, because the final mandates of the provinces will obviously determine the outcome which seems to be a given fact, I am nevertheless very concerned that we are not doing justice to our task as legislators and elected representatives of the people. The rushing of legislation, however inferior it may be considered, is tantamount to rubber- stamping, and that cannot be condoned. Let me remind you of an old saying, which warns that you become what you condone. If we condone ineffective legislative processes, then we become ineffective ourselves.
During the deliberations in the committee and while the process was unfolding in the provinces, we were made aware of a number of very important inputs from interested parties and individuals, but nothing could be done at that stage other than inputs at public hearings.
To name just three of these inputs, I refer the House to the submissions from the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal, an institution constituted in terms of this very same legislation, the Property Owners and Management Association of SA and Mr Michael Lazarus, an independent thinker and a tenant himself.
I referred the inputs from the latter to the provincial portfolio committee of the Western Cape, and they have undertaken to investigate the submissions for possible further actions. I am sure that all these submissions should have been attended to by Parliament's portfolio committee. The submissions were, however, too late to be considered and are now parked in a cul-de-sac.
I think the whole legislative process should be reinvestigated to ensure that the voice of the electorate is really heard. I have many thoughts in this regard but, as a start, we could revamp the system to allow for new or amending legislation to be passed on to the NCOP as soon as it is agreed to by the portfolio committee but before being passed in the National Assembly. Legislation should only be debated and passed in both House once all creases have been ironed out. I refer specifically to section 76 legislation.
This will not only contribute to more meaningful negotiations all round but will probably also eliminate the cumbersome process of mediation. When all the wise persons considered and negotiated the Constitution, they could not foresee the hiccups awaiting the legislators, so if we have to amend the Constitution to facilitate meaningful legislation, then we must do so, Chairperson. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, hon Minister Sisulu and hon members, I'll try to finish my speech in the two minutes allocated to me. [Laughter.]
The Rental Housing Tribunal, which is established under the Rental Housing Act of 1999, deals with disputes between landlords and tenants. Vacuums and loopholes existed in other areas such as in the self-storage rental property business. Due to these vacuums, tenants were abused by the owners of the rental property businesses. In cases of disputes, they took the law into their own hands by breaking into the premises, removing the property of the tenants and selling it for coverage of outstanding debts.
The amendments of this Bill should speak to and address the infringement of the right to privacy. Appropriate legislation should be put in place to govern such disputes. We are living in a country which is governed by laws; hence the ID expects these amendments to address the out-of-proportion rental fees which landlords charge, especially in Cape Town. Yes, hon Chairperson, the rental fees have become ridiculously high. Something needs to be done about them.
When houses are built it should be with the purpose of building communities and not just houses. The ID acknowledges the need for housing out there but just having houses without any schools, shops, churches and that kind of infrastructure does not uplift the lives of people. It only provides them with a roof over their heads.
Housing also is meant provide homes. The use of these houses as tuck shops is a concern. People who can afford to, buy these houses and use them as tuck shops. Where it was meant to provide a roof over someone's head, the house instead became a business. However, the ID supports the Bill as it is a good effort. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Chairperson, hon members, firstly, I want to say that as the ANC we fully support this piece of legislation. I want to highlight the issues that were raised by the provinces. I am not sure whether the hon Watson was part of the meeting that had the final mandates, because provinces had given indications on how the process was done at provincial level and the reason why they took a decision to support that piece of legislation. I would probably urge the hon member to go through all the submissions that were made by provinces.
There was a proposal by KwaZulu-Natal to say that we needed to change the name of tribunals. After having discussions at the committee level, the department clarified that issue by saying, in fact at the beginning, that that was not their proposal but that the parliamentary committees had come up with that particular wording of tribunals in 1996 and that was why we have that wording here. And they were saying it was up to the committees of Parliament to amend the very same word that was proposed by the committees.
Secondly, I think there was also confusion, particularly regarding clause 13, because the provinces of KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape wanted clarity on that, asking if we were not contradicting the very same clause. But that section is substituted by clause 14 which, I believe, if both KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape read carefully, will of course support this particular legislation. On the argument for KwaZulu-Natal not to come up with a mandate as to whether they support or not, they said they wanted clarity on that particular aspect. But as a member from that particular province, I would urge my province to support it after having read this carefully.
As the chairperson of the committee has said, six provinces voted in favour at that particular meeting. In fact, even Gauteng voted in favour. But the problem with Gauteng was that their mandate was not signed and we urged the member from that particular province to go out and ask their province to give a formal final mandate, and he came with the signed mandate after the meeting was adjourned. I believe that right now the seventh province has voted in favour. [Interjections.]
Only one province, namely the North West, said it couldn't give a mandate because it didn't do any of the processes in terms of that legislation. The member said he was told not to come and brief the province and at a later stage he was also told that because the briefing was not done in the province, that they therefore couldn't participate in taking a particular decision. [Interjections.]
Therefore, I would urge those provinces, particularly KwaZulu-Natal, to support the Bill. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Order! I would like to bring to the attention of members of this Chamber this notice on Rule 32, which says: During the debate in the Council, no member may converse aloud. Rule 33 says no member may interrupt another member who is addressing the Chair except to call attention to a point of order or a question of privilege. Thank you.
Chairlady, very little remains for me to say. At the end of this, I'd like to thank all the members who took time to go through and deliberate on the Bill, and who came here today to support it.
I'm very sympathetic to the member of the DA, hon Watson. However, the bulk of his concerns do seem to have a bearing on the workings of the House, rather than the Bill itself. He took time to actually deliberate on the legislative processes, but I wish to put that aside because he did not deal with the Bill itself. However, one point needs to be made that the hon member said, and I quote: "We must give enough attention to all Bills, no matter how insignificant they are." I hope that "insignificant" did not refer to any of my Bills. [Laughter.] That is the only amendment I'd like to put forward regarding what he had to say. Even though I'm sympathetic, none of my Bills are insignificant in any way.
I would like to assure the House that a great deal of time has been taken over a period of a year to ensure that we have as much consensus on this matter as possible, because it has been a very sensitive matter. This ensures that we can keep a balance between the interests and the concerns of the tenants and, at the same time, ensure that the market itself is not overly burdened with processes that we have put in place.
I'd also like to indicate to hon members the concerns that were raised by the hon members from KwaZulu-Natal, one of whom did, in fact, say any amendments that they might have provided, they would put in such a way that they do not, in any way, change the essential elements of the Bill. So whatever else they may have put in place, they did include a proviso that none of this would change the essential elements of the Bill.
Having said that, I would like to thank you very much for deliberating on this very significant - extremely significant - Bill, Mr Watson. I thank you for your time.
Debate concluded.
That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question, and the question is that the Bill be agreed to.
As the decision is dealt with in terms of section 65 of the Constitution, I shall first ascertain whether all delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their provinces' votes. Are all delegation heads present?
In accordance with Rule 71, I shall first allow provinces an opportunity to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. We will now proceed to voting on the question. I shall do this is alphabetical order, per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour of, against, or abstain from voting. Eastern Cape?
Siyayixhasa. [We support.]
Free State?
Vrystaat ondersteun. [The Free State supports.]
Gauteng?
Elethu. [In favour.]
KwaZulu-Natal?
KwaZulu-Natal did not get the mandate.
Limpopo?
Limpopo ya yi seketela. [Limpopo votes in favour.]
Mpumalanga?
Mpumalanga e go tlat?a go menagane. [Mpumalanga supports.]
Northern Cape?
Ke a rona. [Supports.]
North West?
North West is in favour.
Western Cape?
Die Wes-Kaap ondersteun. [The Western Cape supports.]
Eight provinces have voted in favour of the Bill. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution.
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.