Madam Speaker, hon Ministers and members, ladies and gentlemen, the reason I am standing before this House today is because the Constitutional Court has given Parliament the opportunity to rectify the procedural defect that led to that court's order of invalidity of certain provisions of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005.
The Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005 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 to resolve the challenges that were experienced relating to the provincial boundary between the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal.
In terms of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act and the related Cross- Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act of 2005, the provincial boundary between, amongst other things, the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal was altered with effect from 1 March 2006 so that the area that previously formed the local municipality of Matatiele, was transferred from the province of KwaZulu-Natal to the province of the Eastern Cape, and new municipal boundaries were created as a consequence.
What is important in respect of the passing of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act, an Act of 2005, is that because it redetermined provincial boundaries, it fell within the ambit of section 74 of the Constitution and consequently required the approval of both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The National Council of Provinces could, in terms of section 74(8) of the Constitution, only pass the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill if it was approved by the legislatures of the provinces concerned. All the legislatures of the affected provinces approved the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill as required and, consequently, that Bill was also passed by the National Council of Provinces.
Before the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Repeal Act came into operation, the Matatiele Municipality and various other applicants challenged the constitutional validity of those two Acts in the Constitutional Court. In the case of Matatiele Municipality and others v the President of the Republic of South Africa and others, 2006, the applicants argued that those two Acts changed the boundary of the Matatiele Municipality and its composition and transferred it to the province of the Eastern Cape without complying with the procedures set out in the Constitution.
They further argued that in doing so, Parliament took over the functions which the Constitution had reserved for the Municipal Demarcation Board. 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 Municipal Demarcation Board to redetermine municipal boundaries. The court, however, did not decide on the question of whether the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act was enacted in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution, but, of its own volition, called for further argument on certain related issues.
After the Constitutional Court heard further argument on the issues raised by it, the Court, on 18 August 2006, in the case of Matatiele Municipality and others v the President of the Republic of South Africa and others, 2007, declared that part of the Constitutional Twelfth Amendment Act that transferred the Matatiele Municipality from the province of KwaZulu-Natal to the province of the Eastern Cape to be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore invalid.
From the judgment in the Matatiele case, it is clear that a new piece of legislation, namely a Constitution Amendment Bill, must be processed afresh in a manner that complies with all constitutional and procedural requirements. That has led to the introduction of the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill before the House today.
The Bill seeks to amend the Constitution so as to substitute and re-enact those provisions of the Constitution that have been declared to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Although the Constitutional Court's order of invalidity was formulated with reference to the Matatiele Municipality only, the memorandum on the objects of the Bill explains why it is necessary to substitute and re-enact all the provisions of the Constitution that refer directly to the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal and not only those that refer to the Matatiele Municipality.
As far as the constitutional obligation of a legislative organ of the state to facilitate public involvement in the law-making process is concerned, it is, in my view, necessary for this House to note the following general findings by the Constitutional Court in the case of Doctors for Life International v the Speaker of the National Assembly and others, in 2006, and the Matatiele case, in which it considered the nature and scope of that obligation.
Here I cite the relevant points. The Constitution calls for open and transparent government, and requires legislative organs to facilitate public participation in the making of laws by all legislative organs of the state. The other issue is that the provisions of sections 72(1)(a) and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution impose a duty on the NCOP and the provincial legislatures to facilitate public involvement in their respective legislative processes.
Further, to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process means taking steps to ensure that the public participates in the legislative process. Also, Parliament and provincial legislatures have a broad discretion to determine how best to fulfil their constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in a case, so long as they act reasonably. Whether Parliament or a provincial legislature has acted reasonably in discharging its duty to facilitate public involvement will depend on a number of factors, for example the nature and importance of the legislation under consideration, whether the legislation needs to be enacted urgently, and the intensity of its impact on the public.
The obligation to facilitate public involvement may be fulfilled in different ways and is open to innovation on the part of the legislatures. 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.
I have noted that the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development conferred with the Portfolio Committee on Provincial and Local Government in its deliberations on the Bill. I would like to thank the chairpersons and members of those two committees for the time and effort that they have put into finalising the Bill. I have also noted the content of the report that the Justice portfolio committee has adopted in respect of the Bill.
Without going into the detail of that report, it is clear to me that the Justice portfolio committee has taken various steps relating to the National Assembly's constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process relating to the passing of the Bill. Because the Bill is intended to redetermine the provincial boundary between the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, the National Council of Provinces may not, in terms of section 74(8) of the Constitution, pass the Bill, unless it has been approved by the legislatures of the provinces concerned.
I would therefore like to echo the Justice portfolio committee's call on all the provincial legislatures and, more particularly, those of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal to take all the steps that, in their view, are necessary and reasonable to comply fully with the spirit and direction of the Constitutional Court's judgment when considering whether to approve or support the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill, as the case may be. I recommend the passing of this Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill to the House. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, hon members, the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill, as the Minister has said, is essentially a re- enactment of certain provisions in the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act, which were found to be procedurally defective by the Constitutional Court.
It deals with all the provincial boundaries pertaining to the province of KwaZulu-Natal, as a natural consequence of the Constitutional Court's finding that the provincial legislature of that province failed to facilitate public involvement in its processes pertaining to the consideration and approval of certain portions of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill that concerned it.
This failure being considered to be fatal in respect of the Matatiele Municipality, it is presumably equally fatal to the alteration of the other less contested areas of the boundary between the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal, as it is trite that the KwaZulu-Natal legislature did not equally hold hearings in these areas either.
It is important, as the Minister has done, to briefly sketch the background to this Bill. This House, in November 2005, passed the twelfth amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in order to bring about a redetermination of the geographic areas of the nine provinces of the Republic. This was done in essence to effect the necessary realignment of the provincial boundaries to remove enclaves and the concept of cross- boundary municipalities.
The difficulties pertaining to the existence of enclaves and cross-boundary municipalities were that they could not be efficiently governed. It was the intention of this House that the new provincial boundaries, together with the subsequently redetermined municipalities, would form the basis of the local government elections that were held in March 2006. The NCOP passed the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill in December 2005, and shortly thereafter, as the Minister has already indicated, the Matatiele Municipality and others challenged the law on an urgent basis before the Constitutional Court. In essence, they argued that this House had usurped the role and function of the Municipal Demarcation Board in requiring that provincial boundaries be redetermined on the basis of municipal boundaries. In the course of the proceedings, the applicants had conceded the legality of the procedure in terms of which the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill was passed.
The court, in delivering its judgment on 27 February 2006, literally on the eve of the elections, unanimously held that Parliament had not usurped the authority of the Municipal Demarcation Board. The court found that the power of the Municipal Demarcation Board was limited by the authority of Parliament to redetermine provincial boundaries. Parliament, it found, had the authority to interfere with municipal boundaries if that became necessary in performing its duty to redraw provincial boundaries.
However, the majority of the court went further, and notwithstanding the concession of the applicants in regard to the procedural issue, called for the legislature of KwaZulu-Natal to argue before it the matter of the applicability and meaning of section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. Such argument was to be held on 30 March 2006. The court did not declare the elections that were meant to happen on 1 March 2006 invalid, nor was it in a position to declare the twelfth amendment invalid pending the hearing of further argument.
It is significant in this regard for the House to note the dissenting judgments of Justices Yacoob and Skweyiya, who both argued that the court was putting form above substance in pursuing the argument relating to adherence to section 118(1)(a), and noted that the road travelled by this House and the Minister for Provincial and Local Government in particular, when pursuing the redesign of provincial boundaries, was on all fours with the principles of good governance.
On 1 March 2006, the provincial boundary between, amongst other things, the provinces of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal was altered so that the area that previously formed the local municipality of Matatiele was now located in the province of the Eastern Cape, and new municipal boundaries were created as a consequence. The old Matatiele, consisting of approximately 16 000 citizens, ceased to exist, only to be replaced by a newly designated municipality that now boasts approximately 170 000 citizens - a much better basis, I think you will agree, on which to build a viable municipality in the future.
Five months later, on 18 August, the Constitutional Court declared that part of the twelfth amendment which effectively relocated the old Matatiele into the province of the Eastern Cape to be inconsistent with the Constitution, and therefore invalid. The order of invalidity was based, as I said, on a procedural defect, but was suspended for a period of 18 months, during which period Parliament has been given the opportunity to correct that defect.
Again, the dissenting judgments of, this time, three judges - Yacoob, Skweyiya and Van der Westhuizen - pertaining to their finding that reasonable public involvement is not a prerequisite for the passing of ...
Hon members, can we just lower our voices a bit, please?
... a constitutional amendment in terms of section 74(3) read with section 74(8), is pertinent to this House when we consider what we are meant to do with these decisions pertaining to our procedures governing how we pass laws in this Parliament.
The committee, during its deliberations, considered a number of written submissions. In a few submissions, concerns were raised relating to the possible future lack of service delivery by the province of the Eastern Cape, in particular in respect of health and education services. During the consideration of and deliberations on these submissions, we called for a report from the Department of Provincial and Local Government, which indicated no material breakdown in respect of service delivery levels in that area.
The committee noted that the province of the Eastern Cape compared favourably in relation to its spending trends on education, in relation to teacher-learner ratios, and on spending on health as it pertains to the province of KwaZulu-Natal or, indeed, other provinces.
Government has committed itself to ensuring service delivery to all of the people, regardless of which province they find themselves in. These efforts by government accord with the basic tenets of equality for all South Africans, no matter where people are located.
There are, of course, inequalities arising from our past that need to be addressed, particularly in the arena of capacity and skills. Government is intent on laying sound development platforms at local level. It is obvious that the old Matatiele Municipality of approximately 16 000 citizens could not hope to be a financially viable entity going forward. The briefing that the committee received indicated that there has been a significant committal by the newly constituted Matatiele Municipality to the development of infrastructure right up to 2009. This bodes well for the economic development of the area as a whole.
Some submissions, I am sad to say, detailed cultural and ethnic links with the province of KwaZulu-Natal, and highlighted the different cultural practices in the Eastern Cape. I think we must take time today to remember that, particularly given that we are on the eve of Heritage Day, unlike 13 years ago, today we celebrate a collective heritage as one people, whether on the shores of Durban beachfront or on the serene coastal spaces of the Eastern Cape; that there are no longer superior cultures, superior religions, superior races; that there will no longer, in this country, be spaces reserved for the exclusive use of one race or one ethnic group; that every culture, every religion and every language will cross-pollinate the length and breadth of this country as freely as the winds that caress our multitoned faces.
In Matatiele or in Sandton, in Khutsong or in Krugersdorp, let us embrace the diversity of our neighbours in the spirit of ubuntu; let us see with our hearts, secure in the knowledge that wherever each of us finds ourselves, no matter who we are, what we look like, what language we speak, we not only have the constitutional right to practise our traditions or speak our languages, but we are South Africans all intent on celebrating them too. I thank you for your attention. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, hon members, in layman's terms this Bill can be called a comeback.
Die Konstitusionele Hof het ons proses met die 12de wysiging geweeg en te lig bevind. [The Constitutional Court weighed our procedure relating to the 12th amendment, and found it wanting.]
When we debated the 12th amendment to the Constitution in 2005 the Deputy Minister said it defied all understanding that we did not support it. I wonder whether he also does not understand why the Constitutional Court found parts of the 12th amendment to be unconstitutional. He didn't listen to us then, when we warned him not to fast-track constitutional amendments and to take the wishes of the inhabitants into consideration.
The Deputy Minister also said in 2005 that they would be judged by history whether they did the wrong thing or not. It is perhaps too soon to expect a judgment from history, but the Constitutional Court has judged and ruled that consultation had not been adequate, as we warned back then. [Interjections.] The Constitutional Court has proved us right and him wrong.
In die annale van ons regspraak is dit aangeteken, vir altyd! [In the annals of our judicature this stands recorded for all time!]
In his reply in 2005 the Deputy Minister also expressed the view that after the adoption of the 1996 Constitution, the constitutional principles ceased to exist. We never have the opportunity to reply to these responses which come at the end of a debate, but I would like to take this opportunity to tell the Deputy Minister that he's also wrong on that point. The constitutional principles are the ground norm of our Constitution and cannot be amended or ignored, and most definitely did not cease to exist.
I challenge the Minister to put this view as a legal question to the Constitutional Court. [Interjections.] He will no doubt again respond to this, knowing that I don't have the opportunity to reply, but I can predict now that, should he take up my challenge, he will again be proved wrong.
It has been said that a successful government leaves a country happier. I wonder how happy the people of Matatiele feel. Are they happier to be included in the Eastern Cape? I doubt it. When will we learn that people cannot be treated as objects? Successful government involves confronting the problems of the future, not those of the past. [Interjections.] We did not support the 12th amendment and we will also not support this Bill for the same reasons. People should not be moved from one province to another by the stroke of a pen. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker, the original twin Bills were opposed by the IFP when last presented to this House in 2005, and we do not believe that circumstances are such that we should reverse our position now.
The fact that the Constitutional Court struck the Bills down on procedural grounds constituted an ideal opportunity for the government to rethink its stance on the matter. However, it was clear from the start that nothing would change and that the same provision would be re-enacted with sufficient public engagement this time around to pass constitutional muster.
Indeed, just after the Constitutional Court decision, and in response to an IFP statement, the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development effectively told this House that in respect of the political content of the reintroduced Bills, nothing would change. Clearly then, government had no intention of reconsidering its original position; likewise the ANC.
The fact of the matter is that the government and the ANC agree that whatever consultation was to take place, this was to be a procedural formality rather than a real engagement.
The objections to the inclusion of Matatiele in the Eastern Cape were varied, but could be set out in the following broad terms: poor service delivery from the Eastern Cape; distance from Eastern Cape economic and political centres; strong economic, educational and other ties with KwaZulu- Natal; and a general sense of identity with KwaZulu-Natal.
It was clear from the start that the ANC would latch onto the service delivery issue to the exclusion of the others and, in acknowledging certain historic delivery difficulties, argue that in tackling these more effectively the desirability of maintaining the status quo was satisfactorily addressed.
The IFP believes that, notwithstanding service delivery difficulties, this was never the central issue in the debate and it is therefore fallacious to argue that if you address complaints over service delivery you have addressed the issue of Matatiele's location. That is not correct. We oppose the Bill.
Madam Speaker, the ID believes that the whole issue of cross-border municipalities has been handled extremely badly by the government. The government has, in fact, ridden roughshod over the wishes of the people who live in the affected areas. What is also clear is that the government has not held proper consultations and public participation over this issue, a view which was subsequently upheld by the Constitutional Court, forcing the drafting of the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill.
The ID believes that proper consultation and public participation has still not taken place in the areas concerned on this extremely controversial issue, and it is for that reason and the fact that the ID believes in proper people-led development that we cannot possibly support this Bill. I thank you.
Madam Speaker, in the Doctors for Life matter, the Constitutional Court stated that:
Public involvement provisions gave effect to an important feature of democracy, its participative nature. The participation of citizens in government formed the basis and support of democracy which could not exist without it.
The Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislatures are required in terms of this Constitutional Court order to take all the steps necessary and reasonable to facilitate public hearings in the affected areas.
Whilst the ACDP is fully aware that no fault was found in the process adopted by this National Assembly, it would in our view, at this stage, be premature to support this Bill until the public hearings have been held in the affected areas in terms of the Constitutional Court order. Only then would we be able to gauge whether there had been sufficient public involvement as required by the Constitutional Court.
Indeed, the KZN and Eastern Cape legislatures may, after hearing public input, decide to veto the Bill. The ACDP will accordingly, at this stage, not support the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill. I thank you.
Madam Speaker, the greatest achievement of our democracy is the Constitution that it has been built upon. We have a Constitution that has been drafted by the people for the people, and it is absolutely imperative that every South African venture is endorsed through, upon and in alignment with our national Constitution.
The MF finds it unfortunate that our demarcation process has landed us in a bit of hot water with municipal boundaries, but we respect that clarity in the situation is crucial to ensures that the needs of our people are met in these areas.
In view of this and the true democracy that we strive to make progress on, the MF finds the provisions inculcated in the thirteenth amendment in line with the values and principles that our people envisioned years before the birth of democracy. It is imperative that all South African governance and decision-making is in consultation with the people.
At the end of the day, our democracy, our system of governance and the rights of our people are enshrined in this great text, which years of struggle has liberated and in which years of freedom has to be celebrated. The MF will support the Bill. [Applause.]
Madam Speaker and hon members, this debate takes place during two significant events, firstly, Heritage Month - we have just had a Joint Sitting this morning - and, secondly, the Constitutional Court is today hearing the Khutsong matter.
In my speech I will focus on written submissions received from the public on the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill. These submissions concern the following: firstly, some people give cultural and ethnic reasons for suggesting that Matatiele be incorporated into the KwaZulu-Natal province; secondly, others give personal preferences for retaining Matatiele in the Eastern Cape province or its inclusion in the Kwazulu-Natal province; thirdly, there are those who raise concerns about possible future lack of service delivery by the Eastern Cape province, especially regarding health and education.
South Africa is a fairly unitary state and some people will argue and say with some federal features. When the new Constitution of South Africa was signed, it was a landmark in the history of our country that enshrined in law the need to build a society based on democratic values, social justice and human rights, in which every citizen is protected by law.
The current Constitution provides, and I paraphrase, that the Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the values of human dignity, nonracialism, nonsexism, etc. I am mentioning but a few characteristics of our South African state.
Under apartheid rule, people were segregated along racial and ethnic lines. The advent of democracy spelt the end of such discrimination. Some people still see today's provinces as remnants of the homelands. They believe that in order to practise their ethnic or cultural activities, they need to be in one province and not in another. Even today we still have people with preconceived ideas. They wish to belong to a particular province in the belief that their cultural activities will be more secure in one province than in another.
People should not regard a province as a homeland for a specific ethnic group. For instance, people should not regard the Eastern Cape as a homeland for Xhosa-speaking people or KwaZulu-Natal as a province for Amazulu. On this basis, residents of Matatiele should not say, "We are not Xhosas, thus we cannot be part of the Eastern Cape province, but we are Zulus and we prefer to be part of KwaZulu-Natal to enable us to practise our cultural activities freely."
In my constituency of Kungwini, for example, which was a cross-boundary municipality between Mpumalanga and Gauteng, some traditional leaders indicated that they preferred that Kungwini be part of Mpumalanga, because they feared that they would not be recognised in Gauteng and that their subjects would not be permitted to practise their culture. Kungwini is today part of Gauteng. These traditional leaders are still recognised as traditional leaders and, during the last season, we saw more initiation schools being conducted in Kungwini.
The Constitution further provides, among other things, that persons belonging to cultural, religious and linguistic communities may not be denied their rights. They will not be denied their rights by the change of boundaries. They will be free to enjoy their cultural practices, religion and language.
I would like to point out to the people giving personal preferences as to how the places should be demarcated, that the days of influx control are gone. In order to exercise their rights, people need not belong to a particular province. People can move freely from one province to another as they wish. They can live in the Eastern Cape province and work or buy in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. The South African Constitution recognises the right of freedom of movement. The alteration of provincial boundaries does not affect this constitutional right.
With the proposed Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Act, persons are not moved from their residential areas to another area against their will, as the hon Swart has indicated. That would be unconstitutional.
There is a process on the way, conducted by the Ministry of Provincial and Local Government. Here I am referring to the policy review of the system of local and provincial government; the public participation process plan; questions, for example, on provincial government, two of them being question 37 and question 38.
Question 37 says, "Should there be a provincial system of government, how should this be determined and what are the alternative options?" Question 38 says: "If provinces are to be retained, what should be the criteria for determining the following, for example, purpose, structure and functions, number and sources of funding?"
People all over South Africa are free and are required as well as encouraged to participate in this review process so as to air their views.
To those who raised concerns about future lack of service by the Eastern Cape province, I would like to refer them to the status report on service delivery by the Matatiele Local Municipality, updated as at 11 September 2007. Page 37 says that the year-on-year growth for 2006-07 was 18,2% for Eastern Cape and 10,2% for KwaZulu-Natal.
Concerning classrooms it says that a number of schools and classrooms were built between 2003-04 and 2006-07, and 141 new schools were completed for the Eastern Cape while none were completed in KwaZulu-Natal. There is a significant increase in the number of physical science standard grade passes from 73 667 in 2005 to 81 151 in 2006, so says the report on page 6.
In terms of the child nutrition programme, recent surveys indicate that KwaZulu-Natal spends 90 cents, which is the lowest per day per learner, as compared to R1,17 in the Eastern Cape per day per learner.
According to these statistics there is no disadvantage in service delivery. The ANC supports this Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, constitutions are made to serve people; people are not made to serve constitutions. A constitution must be amended where it is in conflict with the interests of the citizens of our country.
We cannot speak of this Parliament as the people's Parliament but continue to repeat, with regard to the Matatiele issue, that the Constitutional Court order of invalidity was suspended for a period of 18 months, during which period Parliament had the opportunity to correct the constitutional defect that led to the order of invalidity. When people express deep reservations about legislation that affects them, they must be listened to.
Moving people in this country has a painful history. No people should be transferred to another province without compelling reasons.
Order! Hon member, your time has expired.
The people of Matatiele and Khutsong ...
Order!
... must be moved only after the consultation on their hearing. The PAC is opposed to this Bill.
Deputy Speaker, the Bill is an indication that our constitutional democracy works in favour of our people, and the public's right to participation in the legislative process is a non-negotiable right. The Constitution binds the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces to allow public participation.
Contesting the constitutionality of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Bill, the public, through responsible governance of the Municipal Demarcation Board, prohibited Parliament from exercising powers outside of its framework.
The Bill is primarily a technical correction on previous procedures, while the affected municipalities will still be faced with the challenges of the demarcation process. But, as far as the parliamentary process is concerned, the legislation has been aligned to conform with the Constitutional Court requirements.
The FD supports the Bill on its technical application. However, we trust that a people's democracy also effectively means providing the best services and resources available to them and that, in principle, these will be the objectives driving the demarcation process. I thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, developments around this Bill illustrate an interesting characteristic of democracy, namely it offers the best system of government, but it is not, by any measure, a perfect one as it is at the same time wide open to abuse. The Constitutional Court's decision declaring the twelfth amendment inconsistent with the Constitution was treated as a procedural nuisance.
The National Alliance believes that section 118 of the Constitution is not serving its purpose of allowing the law-making process to be sensitive to the will of the people. Democracy is not just a numbers game but a system of fairness to all people. Clearly, it is not so in this case.
Notwithstanding the weakness in the democratic process, the NA will support the Bill as all technicalities have been satisfied. I thank you.
Before I call the next speaker, I would like to appeal to the Whips on both sides of the House to assist us in maintaining order.
Hon Deputy Speaker and hon members, the matter before us today is a very sensitive and emotional issue. It is a matter that can further divide the communities of Matatiele instead of uniting them, as our Constitution bids us to be united in our diversity. It is our duty therefore as public representatives to bring about unity where there are divisions, cohesion where there are several dissenting opinions, stability where the pangs of apartheid seem to be dominating and causing instability.
Best practice, in every respect, should be the aim of each one of us, including the opposition parties involved in community affairs. The Minister and chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development have clearly outlined the objectives of the Bill as well as the content of the ruling of the Constitutional Court, and I am not going to speak on that.
The hon Sibanyoni has given the content and context of around 10 000 submissions made to the committee by the people of Matatiele, an indication that public participation and public involvement have taken place. I know that there are plans for public hearings by both the Eastern Cape and Kwazulu-Natal, as required by the ruling of the Constitutional Court.
The most disturbing factor is that opposition parties appear not to have the interests of the people of this country at heart. [Interjections.] Of course, I understand why, because most of these parties are not represented in the committee and therefore they do not have information and understanding of all the processes and briefings that have been received by the committee. They are not even aware of the consequential matters that have arisen from the redetermination of the boundaries in this area. Redetermining them again, when we are only 18 months from the end of the term, would obviously cause unhappiness for the people and also instability.
Perhaps I could briefly outline some of the reconfigured Matatiele benefits. The population that stood at 16 000 now stands at 194 629, and this is very good for the economy of the area. The number of councillors has grown from 21 to 48 in the municipality. The 2005-06 budget was R46,6 million and since the reconfiguration it is R84,4 million. The municipal infrastructure grant for 2005-06 was R4,1 million and now, after the reconfiguration, it is R18,5 million.
The status of section 27 employees has grown, with senior posts being filled. Access to basic services has greatly improved. If, for instance, we compare electricity supply, it is 55,22% compared to 69,7% of the Republic of South Africa, and when it comes to bucket latrines the percentage is 0,65% compared to 4,08% of the Republic of South Africa. More than eight access roads are being constructed with the assistance of the nearby Alfred Nzo District Council.
The list is endless. We therefore understand that there is still a lot to be done, especially in the rural areas of Maluti which have been disadvantaged by the separation of Matatiele and Maluti.
The ANC supports the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill. [Applause.]
Hon Chairperson, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and hon members, once again, thank you to everyone who has participated. Obviously, we will take into consideration the views you have expressed, although from this side of the House there was very little to consider.
I think that the first thing to address is that a lot of absolute nonsense has been spoken from the podium. Let's make it very clear what happened in this matter as far as the courts were concerned.
When the people in Matatiele exercised their constitutional right to challenge this legislation, it was properly argued before the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court gave a judgment in which every substantive issue that was raised was rejected and the government's position was upheld. And every procedural issue, as far as the National Assembly and the NCOP were concerned, was upheld as being constitutional.
It is on the basis of the first judgment that the election was allowed to go ahead, and it is on that basis that Matatiele, from 1 March 2006 already, has been part of - and has moved - on the judgment of the Constitutional Court, because the part that was unprocedural was suspended until February next year.
So, everything that was decided on in terms of this legislation - the substance of it - was upheld and therefore the municipality has been transferred and has been operating under the Eastern Cape.
The only issue that was found to be unprocedural, on the evidence put before the court, was that one of the nine provinces that, in terms of the Constitution, has a veto right over the passing of this Bill in the NCOP, the province of KwaZulu-Natal, did not go far enough in their consultation.
So the myth that some people are trying to create here, that somehow the courts have been overruled, is not correct. Every substantive issue was decided in favour of government in terms of moving Matatiele. It was the one procedural issue which we are now dealing with, and the people will go back in KwaZulu-Natal, consult with those communities and then make a decision.
The other thing that I find really extraordinary - and you'll find this particularly with people that were close to the colonialists that occupied this country - is that the boundaries of this country are a colonial fiction and myth that were created. Subsequent to that, those were all imposed upon us.
During the negotiation process, the ANC made it very clear that we were not necessarily in favour of the boundaries that the colonialists had carved here, and we only agreed to them as a compromise.
Boundaries are not fixed in any reality, except in some people's heads, for some strange reason. The boundaries of this country, whether they be municipal or provincial, will not only change now, but will be changed in the future as well to make sure that we create the best boundaries that will allow us to govern properly in this country. It's all about functionality and not about your little racist dreams and concepts that certain people should live in certain provinces. [Applause.]
I thank the ANC, once again, for supporting the Bill. Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided:
AYES - 271: Abram, S; Ainslie, A R; Anthony, T G; Arendse, J D; Asiya, S E; Asmal,A K; Balfour, B M N; Baloyi, M R; Bapela, K O; Beukman, F; Bhengu, F; Bhengu, P; Bhoola, R B; Bloem, D V; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, MA; Chauke, H P; Chikunga, L S; Chohan, F I; Combrinck, J J; Cronin, J P; Cwele, S C; Dambuza, B N; Daniels, P; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Diale, L N; Didiza,A T; Dikgacwi, M M; Direko, I W; Dithebe, S L; Dlali, D M; Dlamini-Zuma, N C; Doidge, G Q M; Du Toit, D C ; Erwin, A; Fazzie,M H; Fihla, N B; Fraser-Moleketi, G J; Frolick, C T; Fubbs, J L; Gabanakgosi, P S; Gaum,A H; Gcwabaza, N E; George, M E; Gerber, P A; Gigaba, K M N; Gogotya, N J; Gololo, C L; Gomomo, P J; Gore, V C; Green, L M; Greyling, C H F; Gumede, D M; Gumede, M M; Gxowa, N B; Hajaig, F; Hanekom, D A ; Hangana, N E; Hendricks, L B; Hendrickse, P A C; Hlangwana, N; Hogan, B A; Jacobus, L; Jeffery, J H; Johnson, M; Jordan, Z P; Kalako, M U; Kasienyane, O R; Kasrils, R; Kekana, C D; Khaoue, M K; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, K K; Khumalo, K M; Komphela, B M; Koornhof, G W; Kota, Z A; Kotwal, Z; Landers, L T; Lekgetho, G; Lishivha, T E; Louw, J T; Louw, S K; Ludwabe, C I; Luthuli, A N; Mabandla, B S; Mabe, L L; Mabena, D C; Madasa, Z L; Madella, A F; Maduma, L D; Madumise, M M; Magau, K R; Magubane, N E; Magwanishe, G B; Mahlaba, T L; Mahlawe, N M; Mahomed, F; Mahote, S; Maine, M S; Maja, S J; Makasi, X C; Malahlela, M J; Maloney, L; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, D K; Manana, M N S; Manuel, T A; Mapisa-Nqakula, N N; Martins, B A D; Maserumule, F T; Mashangoane, P R; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R J; Mashile, B L; Masutha, T M; Mathebe, P M; Mathibela, N F; Matlala, M H; Matsemela, M L; Matsomela, M J J ; Maunye, M M; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbete, B; Mbili, M E; Mbombo, N D; Mdaka, N M; Mdladlana, M M S; Mentor, M P; Meruti, M V; Mfundisi, I S; Mgabadeli, H C; Mkhize, Z S; Mkongi, B M; Mlambo-Ngcuka, P G; Mlangeni, A; Mnguni, B A; Mnyandu, B J; Moatshe, M S; Modisenyane, L J; Mofokeng, T R; Mogale, O M; Mogase, I D; Mohamed, I J; Mohlaloga,M R; Mokoena,A D; Mokoto, N R; Molefe, C T; Moloto, K A; Monareng, O E; Montsitsi, S D; Moonsamy, K; Morkel, C M; Morobi, D M; Morutoa, M R; Morwamoche, K W; Mosala, B G; Moss, L N; Moss, M I; Motubatse-Hounkpatin, S D; Mpahlwa, M B ; Mshudulu, S A; Mthembu, B; Mthethwa, E N; Mtshali, E; Mzondeki, M J G; Nawa, Z N; Ndlazi, Z A; Ndzanga, R A; Nel, A C; Nene, M J ; Nene, N M; Newhoudt-Druchen, W S; Ngaleka, E; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, B T; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, N W; Ngculu, L V J; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, M L; Ngwenya, W; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J ; Njobe, M A A; Nogumla, R Z; Nonkonyana, M; Nqakula, C; Ntombela, S H; Ntuli, B M; Ntuli,M M; Ntuli, R S; Ntuli, S B; Nwamitwa- Shilubana, T L P; Nxumalo, M D; Nxumalo, S N ; Nyambi, A J; Olifant, D A A; Oliphant, G G; Oosthuizen, G C; Padayachie, R L; Pandor, G N M; Phadagi, M G; Phungula, J P; Pieterse, R D; Pule, B E; Radebe, B A; Rajbally, S; Ramgobin, M; Ramodibe, D M; Ramotsamai, C P M; Rasmeni, S M; Reid, L R R; Rwexana, S P; Schippers, J; Schneemann, G D; Schoeman, E A; Seadimo, M D; Sefularo, M; Sehlare, L J; Sekgobela, P S; Selau, J G; September, C C; Sibande, M P; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibhidla, N N; Siboza, S ; Sikakane, M R; Simmons, S; Sithole, D J; Skhosana, W M; Smith, V G; Solo, B M; Solomon, G; Sonjica, B P; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Sotyu, M M; Swanson-Jacobs, J; Thabethe, E; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tolo, L J; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala-Msimang, M E; Tshivhase, T J; Tshwete, P; Turok, B; Twala, N M; Vadi, I; Van den Heever, R P Z; Van der Merwe, S C; Van Schalkwyk, M C J; Van Wyk A; Vundisa, S S; Wang, Y; Xingwana, L M; Xolo, E T; Yengeni, L E; Zita, L; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 56: Bhengu, M J; Bici, J; Biyela, B P ; Blanch, J P I; Boinamo, G G; Botha, A; Botha, C-S; Coetzee, R; Cupido, H B ; Davidson, I O; De Lille, P; Delport, J T; Dreyer, A M; Dudley, C; Ellis, M J; Farrow, S B; Gibson, D H M; Greyling, L W; Joubert, L K; Julies, I F; Kalyan, S V; Kganyago, N M; Kohler-Barnard, D; Labuschagne, L B; Lowe, C M; Lucas, E J; Marais, S J F; Masango, S J; Minnie, K J ; Mncwango, M A; Morgan, G R; Mpontshane, A M; Nefolovhodwe, P J; Nel, A H; Nkabinde, N C; Opperman, S E; Rabinowitz, R; Sayedali-Shah, M R; Schmidt, H C; Selfe, J; Semple, J A; Seremane,W J; Sibuyana,M W; Sigcau, S N; Singh, N; Skosana, M B; Steyn, A C; Swart, M; Swart, P S; Swart, S N; Trent, E W; Van Der Walt, D; Van Dyk, S M; Vos, S C; Waters, M; Weber, H.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.