Madam Chairperson ...
Gooi kole! [Go for it!]
Ai, julle wil net kole h hierso! [You just want to go for it here!]
Chairperson, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, comrades and friends, during December 2005, Parliament passed the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill of 2005 and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill, 2005.
Members would recall that the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act amended the Constitution to redetermine the geographical areas of the nine provinces of the Republic of South Africa to, amongst other things, avoid municipal boundaries stretching over provincial boundaries and also to resolve challenges that were experienced relating to the provincial boundary between the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
This resulted in the provincial boundary between, amongst others, the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal being altered, with effect from 1 March 2006, with the Matatiele Municipality being transferred from the province of KwaZulu-Natal to the province of the Eastern Cape and new municipal boundaries being created as a consequence. Before the Twelfth Amendment Act and the Repeal Act came into operation, the constitutional validity of those two Acts was challenged in the Constitutional Court in the case of Matatiele Municipality and Others versus the President - which I call the first Matatiele case.
The court, on 27 February 2006, rejected the applicants' main argument that Parliament, in passing the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill, unconstitutionally usurped the powers of the demarcation board to redetermine municipal boundaries. The court further ruled that the local government elections scheduled for 1 March 2006 should proceed on the basis of the constitutional amendment. However, the court also called for further argument on the constitutional procedural requirements in respect of the passing of the constitutional amendment. Such an argument was to take place after the elections.
On 18 August 2006, the Constitutional Court, in the Matatiele Municipality and Others versus the President, the second Matatiele case, ruled on the procedural defects, after having heard further argument on the procedural issues raised by the court itself and declared that part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005, which transferred the area that previously formed the local municipality of Matatiele from the province of KwaZulu-Natal to the Eastern Cape, to be procedurally inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.
It should be emphasised that the court's order of invalidity was not based on the contents of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill but on a procedural defect, namely, the KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislature's failure to facilitate public involvement when it considered whether to approve that part of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill that transferred the Matatiele Municipality from the province of KwaZulu-Natal to the Eastern Cape.
In this regard section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution clearly provides that, and I quote:
A provincial legislature must
(a) facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the legislature and its committees.
As a consequence, the Court also declared that part of the related Cross- boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act of 2005 that relates to the Matatiele Municipality to be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid. By suspending both orders of invalidity for a period of 18 months, the Constitutional Court gave Parliament the opportunity to correct the procedural constitutional defect during the period of suspension.
The suspension runs out in February next year. It will be on 18 or 21 February. So we have a bit of time, but not much. It is important to note that the Constitutional Court's judgment in the Matatiele case was handed down after the provincial boundary between the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal was altered and the Matatiele Municipality was transferred to the province of the Eastern Cape since 1 March 2006.
The Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill before the House today has been introduced into Parliament in order to make use of the opportunity that the Constitutional Court has given Parliament to process afresh new legislation, ie a Constitution Amendment Bill, in a manner that complies with all constitutional and procedural requirements.
The Bill is therefore intended to amend the Constitution so as to substitute and re-enact not only those provisions of the Constitution that have been declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution, in other words, those that refer to the Matatiele Municipality, but all the provisions in the Constitution that refer directly to the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. The reasons therefore are explained in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill.
In the case of Doctors for Life International the Speaker of the National Assembly and the second Matatiele case, the Constitutional Court considered the nature and scope of the constitutional obligation of a legislative organ of the state to facilitate public involvement in the law-making process. It is necessary for this House to note the following general findings by the Constitutional Court, particularly as far as the NCOP and the provincial legislatures are concerned:
Firstly, the provisions of sections 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution, and I quote:
... impose a duty on the NCOP and the provincial legislatures to facilitate public involvement in their respective legislative processes.
Secondly, to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process means, and I quote: "Taking steps to ensure that the public participates in the legislative process." Thirdly, there are at least two aspects of the duty to facilitate public involvement, namely, the duty to, and I quote:
... provide meaningful opportunities for public participation in the law-making process and to take measures to ensure that people have the ability to take advantage of the opportunities provided.
Fourthly, Parliament and provincial legislatures have, and I quote:
... broad discretion to determine how best to fulfil their constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in a given case, so long as they act reasonably.
Fifthly, the obligation to facilitate public involvement, and I quote:
... may be fulfilled in different ways and is open to innovation on the part of the legislatures. That obligation will often require Parliament and the provincial legislatures, and I quote:
... to provide citizens with a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the making of the laws that will govern them.
Sixthly, and I quote: The conventional method of public participation in the law-making process is through the submission of written or oral representations on the Bill under consideration by Parliament or through a combination of both written and oral submissions.
Seventhly, the provincial legislatures have broad discretion to choose the mechanisms that, in their view, would best facilitate public involvement in their processes. They may include providing transportation to and from hearings or hosting radio programmes in multiple languages on an important Bill.
Eighthly, the nature of the legislation and its effect on the provinces play a role in determining the degree of facilitation that is reasonable and the mechanisms that are most appropriate to achieve public involvement.
Lastly, the nature and the degree of public involvement that is reasonable in a given case will depend on a number of factors, which include the nature and the importance of the legislation and the intensity of its impact on the public.
The Bill is intended to redetermine the provincial boundary between the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. The NCOP may not, in terms of section 74(8) of the Constitution, pass the Bill unless it has been approved by the provincial legislatures of the provinces concerned, namely, the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. In terms of section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution, the affected two provinces had to facilitate public involvement when they considered whether to approve that part of the Bill that concerned them. I have been informed that both legislatures, for that purpose, held extensive public hearings in the affected areas of Umzimkhulu, Matatiele and Maluti, and not only in Pietermaritzburg.
As already mentioned, the Constitutional Court's order of invalidity was not based on the contents of the Twelfth Amendment Act but on a procedural defect. In view of the public involvement which the two affected provinces facilitated in respect of the Bill, I am satisfied that the constitutional requirements relating to the facilitation of public involvement have now been complied with. I have noted that certain groups in the Matatiele area are still unhappy with the decision of the KwaZulu-Natal legislature to approve the Bill because they feel that by making that decision, the legislature did not take the residents' wishes into account. I do not wish to comment on the validity of these views except that they do seem to me, in whole or part, to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the legal requirements that are applicable in a matter like this.
I understand the rule of law and our new constitutional dispensation to be that when the power to make a decision has been granted to an authority or an institution, such authority or institution is solely responsible for taking such a decision. Before taking a decision, they must listen to and carefully consider the views of the affected people. Furthermore, there is not, as far as I am aware of it, a principle of our constitutional jurisprudence which permits the invalidation of legislation on the grounds only that it is inconsistent with public opinion or the views of a particular individual or a group of individuals.
On the contrary, I understand the principle to provide that public opinion, while relevant, not to be decisive of constitutional validity of legislation. It is a principle which permeated virtually all judgments of the Constitutional Court since the Makwanyane judgment. This principle is firmly entrenched as part of our constitutional jurisprudence.
Lastly, I would like to thank the Chairperson of the Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Affairs - the hardworking Kgoshi Mokoena and the members of that committee for the time and effort that they have put into considering and finalising the Bill. I wish to congratulate them on a job well done. I now in turn would like to really say that I will fully support any salary increase of the members of that committee! [Applause.]
I recommend the passing of this Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill to the House. Seeing that we probably won't see each other again, I also wish those that are Christians a Merry Christmas and all others a very happy New Year. I thank you. [Applause.]
Thank you Chairperson. The advantage of addressing the House immediately after the Deputy Minister is that he has outlined everything and put it into true perspective. I do not want to sound like that old record of His Master's Voice, which repeated exactly what was said by others. I am going to stay away from those comments because the hon Deputy Minister has done that excellently. Thank you very much, hon Deputy Minister; you deserve an increase as well. [Laughter].
Chairperson, I only want to address the fears of people who are affected by some of these changes and who prefer to fall into province A rather than under province B. Their fear always is that they are not going to get better services in the provinces that they will belong to than the one they were in before. The committee took that very seriously and asked the Department of Provincial and Local Government to commit itself to what was said by the people there.
The department assured the committee and the public at large that, in fact, there is a special budget to address all the shortcomings in that particular area. Deputy Minister Hangana can attest to this. These people said nothing will change even if there can be some improvement in terms of service delivery in those areas. This is what people are afraid of. I want to thank my colleagues from the opposition because they were honest enough to tell us that they are not in favour of these two pieces of legislation and that they are going to oppose them. Their argument was that the will of the people must be tested. They were honest enough to tell us that.
But the issue is if that is the route we had to take in whatever legislation we are passing in this Parliament, they must tell us that we must test the will of the people in whatever legislation that is passed. Some of us will be happy to revisit the property clause. We will be happy to revisit the matter of the acquisition of land in this country.
If that is the route they want us to take, namely, to test the will of the people, we would be ready to do that. But let us not play big in a very narrow passage because this is not a fact. Emotions in those areas are high already. Let us not play politics by making some of these unnecessary comments.
Chairperson, as I have said, my reliable, dynamic, wonderful, calculated Deputy Minister has done his work. Why should I waste time? What I can do is to thank my colleagues in this committee. Colleagues, again, you are stars - some people are just the moon. You are so good. If I had to choose other members who must serve in my committee I can't go next door, I will choose the same members who are in my committee. Let us support this Bill. Thank you, Chairperson.
Deputy Chairperson, unfortunately I've got to go through a little bit of the preliminary because that is how I prepared mine, despite the fact that the Deputy Minister has gone through most of it.
The Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005 amended the Constitution by redetermining the geographical areas of the nine provinces of the Republic and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Law Repeal and Related Matters Act of 2005 and at the same time provided for consequential matters arising from the realignment of former cross-boundary municipalities and the redetermination of the geographical areas of the provinces.
In terms of these laws, the provincial boundary between the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal was altered so that the area that previously formed the local municipality of Matatiele was relocated to the province of the Eastern Cape and new municipal boundaries of course were created as a consequence.
The constitutional validity of the laws was challenged in the Constitutional Court and that part of the Twelfth amendment which effectively relocated the Matatiele Municipality to the province of the Eastern Cape was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid. The Constitutional Court stated among other reasons that Parliament had taken over the functions of the demarcation board and had not invited written submissions or held public meetings or hearings.
The order of invalidity was suspended for 18 months to give Parliament the opportunity to correct the constitutional defect and the Thirteenth Amendment Bill seeks to redetermine the provincial boundary.
As the DA did not support the twelfth amendment on the grounds that the wishes of the local inhabitants were not taken into account and in view of the fact that the opinions of the people of Matatiele were not determined at the time, we opposed the twelfth amendment.
While the DA is not against doing away with cross-boundary municipalities per se, we were opposed to the manner in which it was done. While public hearings have subsequently been held in the
Matatiele Municipality and many written submissions received, we are of the opinion that possibly a referendum should have been held in the area to truly ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants.
The judgment against the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government's failure to include the Matatiele community in a participatory process should warn us that democratic participation is no longer considered a triviality or technicality.
Cross-boundary municipalities are complex structures that may easily become the domain of bureaucratic and administrative manipulation and control. The residents of Khutsong have now also appealed to the Constitutional Court and we await that outcome with great interest.
When will government learn that not all service delivery is equal among the provinces, for various reasons, despite the Minister's statement that we are one country? Try convincing the people who must move from a reasonably well-functioning province to a poorly-functioning province. This can and will only lead to various levels of social discontentment, upheaval and unease of social relationships all round. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, Deputy Minister and hon members, the directives of the Constitutional Court having been complied with I now rise on behalf of the Eastern Cape to support the passing of the Bills that are the subject of debate today.
It will be recalled that Matatiele is in no way a stranger to the Eastern Cape, it being a well-known fact that historically and before the ultimate balkanisation of our country into ethnic states and a white South Africa, Matatiele had formed part of the Cape Province and especially the eastern part of the Cape.
The objection then to Matatiele remaining in the so-called independent Transkei had more to do with the racial connotations and implications of the apartheid system on the rights of the citizens of that area as South Africans as the granting of a pseudo-independence resulted in the loss of South African citizenship and attendant rights.
In fact, only the town of Matatiele and some white farms were incorporated into what was known as the Natal Province but the surrounding rural areas, including Maluti, were to remain in the former Transkei. Indeed, in the long term, this was to have far- reaching adverse results for the latter areas in terms of resources and socioeconomic development, precisely because the policy of separate development was geared to distribute the wealth and economy of South Africa along racial lines and in terms of the designation of your area as either part of an independent nation state or part of what was generally referred to as greater South Africa.
The imbalances and backlogs that are a cause for concern and a bone of contention for a section of the Matatiele community are, by and large, a consequence of that policy of separate development. Having said that, let me directly come to the Bills under consideration in this House. The Deputy Minister and the Chairperson have already dealt with the objects of the Bill.
As mentioned earlier, it is common cause that the Constitutional Court decision invalidated certain provisions of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment and the Cross-Boundary Laws Repeal Acts on the grounds of defects in the procedure followed in the processing and passing of the Acts. To wit, conducting and facilitating public participation has become necessary to introduce and pass, as we now hereby do, the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill and the Cross-Boundary Municipality Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill in order to cure the defect pointed out by the court.
Of paramount importance here is to address the two major, glaring issues and concerns that are actually the bone of contention. The issues may sound irrelevant but they are paramount and important to the citizens of that area. The first matter is the legal issue that the two Bills sought to address, that is compliance with the constitutional requirement of allowing and enabling public involvement in the process of reincorporation and redefining the boundaries, a matter that has now been complied with to the letter.
The second matter is social and economic in nature and pertains to the social and economic links between the people of Matatiele and the two provinces in question, especially with regard to real perceived differentials in the levels of service delivery in the two provinces, it being a major argument that service delivery in the Eastern Cape may not be up to scratch. The irony that attaches to these socioeconomic concerns is that the most vociferous traders, who would like to remain in KwaZulu- Natal, bought their stock and goods from KwaZulu-Natal, indeed, but sold them to the customers of the Eastern Cape. However, to achieve objectivity and confront the challenges that come with the changes and implications of the two Bills it needs to be explained that Matatiele had a population of 20 000 with an equitable share of R12 million before incorporation.
It initially had five councillors and two wards and has now grown in size after the inclusion of Maluti and surrounding villages. The number of councillors is now 48 with 24 wards. By implication the boundaries have changed and the numbers of the population have dramatically increased by the inclusion.
It goes without saying that Matatiele has inherited backlogs in terms of roads, electricity, water and sanitation and as a newly-created municipality it has numerous requirements including office space, furniture and equipment. This is largely due to the fact that Matatiele is now inheriting an area deliberately neglected by the previous system. But what is being done to cushion these problems?
What is to be done to meet these challenges? Our interaction with the role- players in the province reveals that apart from Matatiele Local Municipality having ... [Time expired.] Thank you, the Eastern Cape therefore supports this Bill. [Applause.]
Sihlalo, namaPhini oNgqongqoshe omabili ngithi unwele olude. [Chairperson and the two Deputy Ministers, long live!]
Chairperson, I'm probably one of those who would not get the increase. These two pieces of legislation have been tabled in this House before. They reappear today because they did not pass the test set by our Constitutional Court.
We should, however, have learnt that consultation is key to legislative processes. Perhaps one could say that cross-boundary municipalities should not have been created at all because they have caused a great deal of inconvenience to the residents involved.
Mainly these two Bills address the Constitutional Court's verdict in the Matatiele case which led to the other affected cross-boundary municipalities approaching the court for recourse. The IFP is not in a position to support these two Bills. The Khutsong case is still before the court and no decision has been taken yet.
The reason we are debating these two Bills is because the court had made it easier for the government to ratify the deficiency in the original piece of legislation. It does not matter what other people say about this issue now. It is not going to help anyone. In plain isiZulu, one could say -
... noma ungathini kufana nokuthi usuzela emanzini nje kuphela. IsiZulu, baba. [... it is like f*rting in the water.]
If the court has said that the procedure followed in these Bills was unprocedural, without giving any further explanation, I do ...
USOTSWEBHU OMKHULU WOMKHANDLU: Ngiyabonga, Sihlalo. Ngifuna ukwazi ukuthi ngabe kuwulimi oluvumelekile yini eNdlini yePhalamende ukuthi ilungu likhulume ngokusuzela emanzini?
USIHLALO WENDLU (Ms N M Oliphant): Ngicela nithule. Ilungu elihloniphekile belisho isisho sesintu okungesesiZulu, ngakho akusho ukuthi ukusuzela emanzini akukho emthethweni noma kuyinhlamba kodwa kuyisisho sesiZulu. Qhubeka mhlonishwa uMzizi. [Ihlombe.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[The CHIEF WHIP OF THE NCOP: Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to know whether it is acceptable for the hon member to use the phrase "to f*rt in the water" in the House?
Please, be quiet! The hon member was using an isiZulu expression; therefore the use of the expression is acceptable and is not vulgar. Proceed, hon Mzizi.]
Thank you, hon Chairperson. If the court had said the procedures followed in these Bills were unprocedural and stopped there without any further explanation, I do not think that these Bills would have been introduced in Parliament again. Therefore, the IFP is not convinced that the will of the people had really been taken into account. The IFP feels that the hurry-scurry approach to these matters is wrong and it does not help the public who elected us. Instead, it creates more problems.
Ngakho-ke besicela ukuthi, bakwethu, asibekezele ezintweni esizenzayo emphakathini abasikhethile ngoba uma singenzi njalo, sizodala izinxushunxushu nibone abantu sebeya ezitaladini bebulale yonke into ekhona. Ngakho-ke asikhulume nabantu bezwisise kunokuthi kugcinwe sekuthathwe izinqumo zezinkantolo. Ngehlela ngezansi. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[We therefore appeal to hon members to be patient with what we are doing in the community who elected us because if we do not do that, we will create conflicts and witness people taking to the streets and destroying everything at their disposal. Therefore, let us talk with the people and make them understand so that we avoid a situation where decisions have to be taken in courts. Thank you.]
Mr M E SITHEBE (KwaZulu-Natal): Chair, Ministers present here and other members that are attending this important debate in the NCOP, the ANC-led government in the KwaZulu-Natal legislature supports the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill.
We, as a standing committee on local government in the legislature, have conducted public hearings, both in Matatiele and Umzimkhulu. With regard to the Matatiele issue, we have taken a position, as the ANC in the province, that is actually based on the issue of revenue generation.
In backing up our decision, we are saying that Matatiele is an area that generates a lot of revenue. You have this big area that is more of a rural area - the Greater Maluti area. We are saying that the fragmented system of local government created the situation where those people are completely ostracised from revenue generation.
It is for that reason that we are saying that the wall-to-wall system of local government in South Africa should be economically sustainable. We are not going to allow a situation where the Greater Maluti area falls outside of Matatiele. This is one fundamental point we have advanced when we argued on this particular matter.
The other issue that we have actually considered also borders, I think, on the provision in section 153(a) of the Constitution, which goes thus, and I quote:
A municipality must -
(a) structure and manage its administration and budgeting and planning processes to give priority to the basic needs of the community, and to promote the social and economic development of the community.
So it is in that spirit that we, as a legislature, have decided, consciously and prudently, to vote for Matatiele to remain in the greater Maluti so as to realise the potential economic development in that particular area.
Amongst other things that we noted when we conducted those public hearings, especially in Matatiele, is that the issues that were raised by those people were of national and provincial competency. We then said that this is not going to deprive those people because we have a clear provision in Chapter 3 of the Constitution which deals with the whole question of co- operative governance, and our duty is to try and nurture that level of co- operative governance.
So as the KwaZulu-Natal legislature, we support the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Sihlalo, amalungu ale Ndlu ahloniphekile, maqabane nabangani. Sihlalo into engingayisho nje eqenjini le DA ne IFP laba akade bekhuluma la ukuthi bachathe bachathile, okusho ukuthi noma ungachaza kanjani ngeke besashintsha. [Uhleko]. Okufanele-ke kodwa sikwazi ukuthi-ke kuyilungelo noma igunya lePhalamende ukuthi ekugcineni kube yilo elinquma ngemingcele yezifundazwe. Ngisho abantu bangakhuluma bathini kodwa ekugcineni kuphezu kwale Ndlu ukuthi iPhalamende liphume nesinqumo ekugcineni.
Lokhu-ke futhi okwesigingu esibhekene nokuklanywa kwemingcele komasipala ukuthi omasipala bazoma kanjani. Siyazi ukuthi abantu kufanele bakhulume babeke imibono yabo. Esifuna ukukuchaza nje ukuthi kuyinqubo kaKhongolose ukuthi abantu babe nezwi kulo hulumeni futhi kuyinqubo kaKhongolose ukuthi abantu bazikhethele ukuthi bathanda ukuhlala kuphi. Siyazi ukuthi laba abakhulumayo njengamanje asebazi amalungelo abantu babebasusa abantu ngenkani bathi sukani lapha niye lapha. Thina asikwenzi lokho. Imingcele nje esikhuluma ngayo. Abantu basahleli lapho behleli khona.
Singasho nje kancane ukuthi yingani mhlawumbe usubona manje i-DA sebeqala ngokukhuluma ukuthi kufanele kuyiwe kubantu ne-IFP. Khona manje kade nikhala ngokuthi uhulumeni oholwa nguKhongolose uma ethi akuthathwe iPhalamende liye kubantu nithi kumoshwa imali. Kodwa yini manje esenithi kufanele kuyiwe kubantu. Azisamoshwa yini izimali?
Okunye okusixaka kakhulu ngalaba abaphikisayo ukuthi anisho lutho ngokungena koMzimkhulu KwaZulu-Natal. Yini ningakhulumi ngakho khona kakhulu ukuthi akuyiwanga kubantu. Anisho lutho kodwa anginisoli nithanda ukuphikisa futhi nithanda abantu abaphikisayo. [Uhleko.] (Translation of isiZulu paragraphs follows.)
[Mr Z C NTULI: Chairperson, hon members of this House, comrades and friends, what I can say about the DA and the IFP who have been speaking here is that they are sticking to what they have heard, which means that no matter what you say they will not change their mind now. [Laughter.] What we should know is that it is Parliament's right or prerogative, at the end of the day, to demarcate provincial boundaries. People can say whatever they want but it is incumbent on this House of Parliament to take a decision.
This is for the committee that deals with the demarcation of municipalities to determine how municipalities will stand. We know that people should speak up and express their views. What we want to explain is that it is the ANC's policy that people have a say in this government and that they choose where they want to live. We know that these people who are talking now and who now know people's rights governed the people by coercion. They removed them forcefully. We do not do that. We are only talking about boundaries. People still remain on their land.
We can actually say why the DA and the IFP are starting to say that we must go to the people. Just now you have been saying that the ANC-led government is wasting money by taking Parliament to people but now it is you who are saying that we must go to the people. Are we not wasting money now?
What is also very confusing about the opposition is that they are not saying anything about the incorporation of Umzimkhulu into KwaZulu-Natal. Another thing that is very confusing is why are you not talking about the fact that we did not go to the people in this case? You are not saying anything but I do not blame you because you like to oppose all the time. [Laughter.]]
Chairperson, on a point of order: The speaker said in isiZulu that the DA lies to the people and likes to make other people lie to the people. [Interjections.]
Uthe bayaphikisa, bathanda ukuphikisa abanye. [He said they oppose and they like to disagree with other people.] He must withdraw it, please. Nobody lies in this House.
Order! Hon Watson, I have been listening very carefully. The member never said that you lied. There is a difference between "ukuphikisa" ["disagree"] and lying. Continue, hon member. You are not out of order.
Thank you, Chairperson. Watson, I think you need ... [Interjections.]
No, continue with the debate. [Laughter.]
I would like to conclude by saying that the ANC-led government has a responsibility to lead the people of South Africa. It has a responsibility to hear people's concerns. It has a responsibility to make informed decisions. The ANC-led government does not believe in referendums.
I know that its argument always encroaches on the referendums instead of consulting them. The ANC-led government believes in a unitary state and not in a federal system. It believes in strong local municipalities which can deliver proper services to the people of South Africa. Chairperson, I would like to thank you and I request this House to pass this Bill. Thanks. [Applause.]
Chairperson, today is a day when we are finalising the whole issue of cross-boundary municipalities that straddle provincial boundaries. At the same time, what I want to touch on is the issue of people's voices.
The parties that have been newly converted are the ones raising this issue on people's voices. How do they define that the majority of people in an area have decided in a certain way? Have they counted and looked at the population? Have they seen that the majority of people in that area have given their point of view, and if so, are they in a position to provide us with statistics? We do not believe that what you are saying is correct; it is invalid.
We believe in the ANC - the people's movement that has led this country for so many years and that has been in existence for 95 years. There is no political party in this country or even in Africa that is older than the ANC. The fact that it has survived for so many years shows that it has a visionary leadership that has been there for some time. The important issue here is that when you are a leader, you must be like a giraffe. A giraffe can see far. It must be in a position to see potholes and valleys so that the people that it leads are guided properly and do not fall in those valleys.
On this matter, we have seen that what is important is having municipalities that have a tax base and those that are able to raise their own revenue. The proposal that you have made, to transfer Matatiele Municipality and some sections in KwaZulu-Natal to another municipality, is not going to achieve that objective.
We were talking about a council that has four wards with seven councillors yesterday. That council is unsustainable and unable to raise its own revenue and it is a council that was not supposed to be there in the first place. We do not want that to be repeated in Matatiele.
However, I also think as a movement, we must be in a position to communicate our decisions unequivocally. We must be in a position to make our people clear about the reasons why certain steps were taken and not others. It must not be taken for granted that people will understand because we govern them. If we continue on that path we will lose the support of our people. We must be in a position to clarify our decisions. Our decisions must be predictable and people must be able to explain them. That, to me, has to be corrected. But that does not mean that the substance of the decision is incorrect.
The referendum is a matter that is not well defined in South Africa. We have not developed policies and laws in that respect. Therefore, we cannot be using this as a "gogga". The danger in that is that we can put policies in place that are against minorities in this country to hold a referendum. If we develop that system, we will fragment this country. Therefore, we must avoid using this terms when they suit us because they are dangerous. Let us not play with fire.
People are raising an issue of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court is our establishment. We said that there must be a highest court in the country that must be in a position to evaluate decisions of Parliament in relation to its validity as far as its constitutional dispensations are concerned and whether they are constitutional or not. Therefore, it must not be spoken as if it was not us who propagated for this structure in that respect. Therefore, I am saying that the people from parties that have recently converted must not teach us, the people who taught them, how things are done. A teacher remains a teacher. You cannot have a situation where you emerge ...
engceni nje okanye uvuke esicithini ... [out of nowhere] ...and then speak in the way you do. It is not correct. The challenge that we are faced with here is to ensure that the Department of Provincial and Local Government sticks to what was agreed upon. We supported the Bill on the basis that the people in those areas were not going to be worse off because they fell in one province or the other.
As this Parliament, we must make follow ups in those areas. We must make oversight visits to go and check as to whether the department sticks to its decisions that it has made to us - not only to us but also to the public out there. It has a social contract with the people of this country in those areas. I think that is an area we must focus upon other than this issue.
We are burying this issue today and we are finalising it. It will not arise. What will happen is that we will wait for what the Constitutional Court will say on the issue of Khutsong. Even there, I do not think that the Constitutional Court can challenge Parliament to make a decision on the issue.
An issue that they can look at is procedural fairness. Substantial fairness is our responsibility as lawmakers in this country. Therefore, I do not think you must have high hopes as an opposition that you can win Khutsong as your area tomorrow. Those people remain ANC supporters. They will die ANC supporters. We will, irrespectively, continue servicing them.
Xa kukho ingxabano ekhaya, elusatsheni ... [If there is a family dispute ...]
... it does not mean that people will go away from their home. They will remain part of the family. The issue is that there is a dispute on one issue or the other and that is how things happened.
I am saying that the ANC has taken a decision on this matter and we are going to look at it. You must recall that we are still going to review the provincial boundaries. This issue of making these boundaries the alpha and the omega is not a correct view because even these ones that we have are still going to be looked at before the 2009 elections.
You might find that in this country we have different boundaries around provinces. You might find that we have five to six provinces in this country. Therefore, the issue that we are raising now must not arise at all. I thank you.
Chairperson, members of the NCOP, and Deputy Minister Johnny de Lange, I'm not going to ``gooi kole'' [go for it] because I think we've already done so. Agreeing to pass this Bill today has been that journey where we were really ``gooi- ing kole'' [going for it].
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for reaching this consensus for the sake of the people of that area so that we can continue and start looking at issues that affect that community in terms of infrastructure and all that. I'm very happy that we've reached this end, for the sake of the people of that area of Matatiele.
I would like to thank members of this House for participating in the debate on the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill. We are all aware that the two Bills before us emanate from a judgment of the Constitutional Court whereby it declared that the KwaZulu-Natal Province failed to facilitate public participation in the legislative process, as required by section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. The order of invalidity was suspended for 18 months, during which time Parliament was given the opportunity to correct the constitutional defect that led to the order of invalidity.
Today we are here as part of the process to correct this procedural deficiency that the Constitutional Court ruled on. The Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act of 2005 by substituting and re-enacting those provisions of the said Act that were declared invalid by the Constitutional Court.
I am given to understand that during the hearings on the Bill, especially the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill, comments that were received from the public and organisations in Matatiele raised issues relating to, amongst other things, personal preferences, ethnic and cultural links, and service delivery.
We need to continuously remind ourselves that we belong to one country and that we are one nation. Government will always strive to hold dear the values of our Constitution which is premised on building a united, nonracial society where the ongoing improvement in the quality of life of all our people is our overriding objective.
It is this very objective of creating a better life for all that was compromised by our system of cross-boundary municipalities. Our cross- boundary municipalities saw a very complicated set of administrative, governance and service delivery problems pertaining to the implementation of differing provincial legislation pertaining to health and traffic; the co-ordination of different provincial housing and infrastructure projects; the finalisation of integrated development plans, IDPs, and its alignment with different provincial growth and development strategies, and different provincial financial management systems impacting on the affected municipalities.
In retrospect, this system of cross-boundary municipalities impacted negatively on our communities and deprived them of the optimal set of services due to them. Since 2005, government has embarked on a range of measures to ensure that our people in our former cross-boundary municipalities are better off than what they were before.
The Matatiele Local Municipality continues to be a beneficiary of government's programmes and targeted financial transfers. Matatiele's allocation from the local government equitable share increased from R4 million in the 2005-06 financial year to R18,5 million in the 2006-07 financial year, and finally, to R34,7 million for the 2007-08 financial year.
Similarly, the allocation from the municipal infrastructure grant programme to the Matatiele Local Municipality is projected to drastically increase by over 70% in the medium-term from R10,1 million in 2006-07 to R17,1 million in 2009-10. That was the commitment from the department's chairperson, hon Shiceka.
When we look at all the former cross-boundary municipalities, then we have 173 MIG projects in the design and tender phase that are estimated to benefit an estimated 511 722 households. In addition to this, a total of 484 MIG projects are in the construction phase with a value of R3,8 billion aimed at benefiting an estimated 3,4 million households. For the current financial year 2007-08, government has allocated a total of R1,146 billion in MIG grants to all the former cross-boundary municipalities.
From this, it is clear that government is determined to employ critical interventions directed at lifting investment in infrastructure and accelerating the pace of redressing service delivery backlogs in the former cross-boundary areas. This is in line with the ANC's vision for 2014 of radically reducing poverty and unemployment, creating jobs and broadening access to basic services.
While there are still many challenges to overcome in the former cross- boundary municipalities, as government, we continue to explore the mobilisation of necessary resources and human capital to ensure that our people enjoy the benefits of our democracy. In this regard, we also continue to intensify our interventions of the Local Government Strategic Agenda 2006-11.
I would like to express my appreciation to the two select committees of the NCOP and their chairpersons, the hon S Shiceka and the hon Kgoshi Mokoena as well as the Chairperson of the NCOP, the hon M J Mahlangu for their able management of the passing of this Bill.
My appreciation also goes to the provincial legislatures, and especially the Eastern Cape and the KwaZulu-Natal provinces, for their support, commitment and dedication to the processes involved with the Bills. Furthermore, a special word of thanks should also go to all the residents and interested parties that participated in the consultation processes on this issue.
We want to call on everyone involved in the processing of this Bill before the House as well as those involved in the processing of the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill to vote in favour of the Bill. And so saying, I would like to reassure members of the opposition parties who are in fact against the passing of this Bill that this ANC government is a government that cares. Thank you. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
I shall now put the question in respect of the First Order, the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill. 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 the delegation heads are present in the Chamber to cast their province's votes. Are all delegation heads present?
I shall now also allow provinces the opportunity to make their declaration in terms of Rule 71 if they so wish. Is there any province wishing to make any declaration of vote? There is obviously none. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question. I shall do this in alphabetical order per province. Delegation heads must please indicate to the Chair whether they vote in favour or against or abstain from voting.
IN FAVOUR: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape.
All nine provinces voted in favour. I, therefore, declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 65 of the Constitution. [Applause.]
Bill accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 65 of the Constitution.
We now come to the question with respect to the Second Order, the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill. The question is that the Bill be agreed to. In accordance with Rule 63, I shall first allow political parties to make their declarations of vote, if they so wish. Any political party? There is none. We shall now proceed to the voting on the question.
Those in favour will say "Aye".
HON MEMBERS: Aye.
Those against will say "No".
HON MEMBERS: No.
The "Ayes" have it. The majority of members voted in favour. I therefore declare the Bill agreed to in terms of section 75 of the Constitution.
Bill agreed to in accordance with section 75 of the Constitution (Democratic Alliance and Inkatha Freedom Party dissenting).