The Deputy Minister needs water, please. Where are the service officers? [Laughter.] Ngikuzwile phela. [I heard you.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, in 2004 the ANC, in its election manifesto, committed itself to a people's contract to work together to build a better South Africa and to improve the quality of life of all citizens. We specifically resolved to broaden access to basic services and agreed to focus ...
Deputy Minister, please take a minute. Let us allow those members who want to leave, to do so quietly.
... amongst other things, on the need to speed up programmes to provide water and sanitation, electricity and telephone services to those who are not yet connected; and to realise the Batho Pele principles and improve services from our various arms of government.
In the 2006 local government elections, we further renewed our vision for 2014 and said that we needed to accelerate our pace in improving the lives of our people. In this regard, we specifically said that we were determined to make local government work better in order to build a better South Africa. Deputy Speaker, could I have some water here, please? We need to remind ourselves that it was these electoral mandates that directly informed our decision to review the dispensation of cross-boundary municipalities.
Let us look at the rationale for the eradication of former cross-boundary municipalities. In 2003 and 2004 this government undertook a rigorous assessment of the performance of the new local government system since its inauguration in December 2000. We reached a key conclusion that many people were not feeling the impact of the new system of developmental local government.
It was also this same assessment of all 284 municipalities that directly informed the initiation of Project Consolidate in October 2004. This local government review and our work on Project Consolidate highlighted key challenges and problems facing the 16 former cross-boundary municipalities, which affected five provinces.
It became very clear that these municipalities had very complicated administrative and governance arrangements that led to a number of problems pertaining to the implementation of differing provincial legislation pertaining to health and traffic; the co-ordination of housing and infrastructure projects; the finalisation of integrated development plans, the IDPs, and their alignment with different provincial growth and development strategies; and, lastly, the differing provincial financial management systems impacting on the affected municipalities.
In our view, the combined result of this system of cross-boundary municipalities negatively impacted on our communities and deprived them of the optimal set of services due to them by our provincial governments and former cross-boundary municipalities. It was against this background that this House, the NCOP and all the relevant provinces adopted legislation to do away with all the cross-boundary municipalities. This was facilitated through the enactment of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act of 2005, and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act, Act 23 of 2005.
When we passed this legislation in 2005, this government committed itself to ensuring that all former cross-boundary municipalities would be better off than they were as cross-boundary municipalities; that service delivery would also improve and therefore the affected communities would benefit; and that national and provincial government would be mobilised, as well as resources, to ensure a smooth transition and accelerated service delivery at the local level.
In 2006 the community of the Matatiele Local Municipality challenged the constitutional validity of our legislation. On 18 August 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislature failed to facilitate public participation in the legislative process, as required by section 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is for this primary reason that we are reconvening here today to correct this unfortunate oversight and to renew our pledge of ensuring that our people in the realigned municipalities reap the maximum amount of fruit of this people's government at all levels.
In 2005 this Parliament and the affected seven provinces engaged in a process of consultation with local communities regarding our system of cross-boundary municipalities and sought to get their comments and views on a range of matters. It is, once again, unfortunate in retrospect that only a single issue has dominated the public discourse, especially via the media, regarding the subject of our consultations with our people.
That issue has been whether communities should reside in a particular province or not. Our understanding of the Constitution, the laws of this country and the programmes of this government is that it is incumbent on every level and component of government to exercise its full developmental mandate to the maximum benefit of our people, regardless of where our people are located.
We therefore recognise that our provinces are differentially endowed with resources and capacity, primarily due to the legacy of apartheid's uneven spatial human settlements and economic development policies. It is for this reason that subsequent to the enactment of the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act in 2005, national government and the affected provinces undertook various measures to positively advantage the former cross- boundary municipalities and our communities in these areas.
Since 2006, government's institutional response to support these realigned municipalities has comprised a number of elements, including: signing a memorandum of understanding, provincial implementation protocols and service level agreements between and with affected provinces and municipalities to ensure uninterrupted service delivery. The institution ...
Order! Order, Deputy Minister, your time has expired.
Oh, so quickly? [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Bill flows from the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill, whose aim is to correct a defect, as reflected earlier, of the province of KwaZulu-Natal not having held public hearings during the processing of the principal Act and the Constitution. We had to retrace our steps, so to speak, and reintroduce the laws again. And, as is the practice in the committee and as we did before, we requested both departmental interaction and briefings and public submissions to help us decide whether or not to support the Bill as presented.
The circumstances the Bill deals with are complex and not simple. Since we were not conducting a referendum per se, we scrutinised the submissions for persuasive arguments to sway us against the proposed Bill, as presented to us.
I thought that it would be appropriate to share with members someone who reflected on leadership challenges, which are relevant to our discussions here today, because this is about leadership and it signifies our differences with the opposition profoundly.
In a book called Leadership on the Line, the writers argue as follows:
To lead is to live dangerously, because when leadership counts, when you lead people through difficult change, you challenge what people hold dear, their daily habits, loyalties and ways of thinking, with nothing more to offer perhaps than a possibility.
Moreover, leadership often means exceeding the authority you are given to tackle the challenge at hand. People push back when you disturb the personal and institutional equilibrium they know. And people resist in all kinds of creative and unexpected ways that can get you taken out of the game.
This speaks to the leadership experience of the ANC. It has never neglected or abdicated its responsibility to provide leadership to the people it comes from. We have never been merely comfortable being born of the people, but have always accepted the responsibility to provide leadership. This means that we accepted that even if people wanted to have the comfort, for example, from their inception as tribal groupings to fight, that did not succeed and this is why the ANC was formed.
We did not become comfortable with the reality that the organisation was made up of professionals, traditional leaders and so on. We insisted on the involvement of women over time. We insisted on the involvement of workers over time and, of course, we also did not only insist that the organisation embrace the role of women inside the organisation, but also that gender equality must be the objective of the organisation; in short, it could have been very easy for us to say this is what the people would prefer to do, but we said we are bigger and greater than parochially our interests may be.
In that sense, what we did in this instance was not only to listen to what people were saying, but to look at what the leadership responsibilities are that we have. We conducted our review of the Bill and submissions from the public, fully aware that the provinces, as stated earlier, were going to be given an opportunity to express their views further. We were also mindful of the bigger picture, as I said: the objectives of the legislation to remove impediments to effective service delivery in the areas affected.
The changes in the population and in the political leadership and in the staffing of these organisations were profound following the elections. So, it would be very difficult for us, this judgment having come five months after March, to simply accept a reversal of those with ease.
The current service delivery problems cannot be treated in those areas as permanent features, not that anybody ever suggested it. In fact, the reality is that increasing resources, as argued earlier here, are going into those areas to make a difference in those conditions. We trust that the Ministers present here today and those not here will continue to pressure their departments to speed up contributions in those areas in order to address people's concerns, so that these, being at the heart of some of the concerns people are raising, are addressed.
The Cabinet's decision, following the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act, that all departments must align their service delivery boundaries with municipal boundaries, remains an outstanding job. This unfinished business is directly responsible, in part for the concerns that are being raised. Technology and people deployment must be harnessed effectively to achieve those objectives. The roll-out of the Thusong centres more vigorously will go a long way towards meeting people's concerns where they live.
Our stance in support of the Bill is intended to facilitate the meeting of people's underlying concerns about service delivery, to spare provinces, the municipalities and other national departments further institutional and administrative and political changes that are themselves not cheap, so that we help to focus the energies of the state institutions and those of the people themselves on the great task of dealing with poverty, and dealing with it effectively. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mevrou die Adjunkspeaker, oorgrensmunisipaliteite is destyds ingestel om gemeenskappe by die naaste munisipaliteit te laat inskakel, ten spyte daarvan dat hulle in 'n ander provinsie woonagtig was. Daar is gereken dat die naaste munisipaliteit belangriker is as om in dieselfde provinsie te bly en by 'n munisipaliteit ingedeel te word wat verder gele is.
Dit het baie gemoedere gekalmeer om darem by die munisipaliteit te bly, al is daar provinsiale grense getrek wat gemeenskappe verdeel het. Daar is ook gemeen dat munisipale dienste beter gelewer sal kan word al is so 'n gemeenskap in `n ander provinsie.
Oorgrensmunisipaliteite is 'n eksperiment wat in die praktyk misluk het. Oorgrensmunisipaliteite het dit moeilik gevind om met twee stelle wette van twee provinsies rekening te hou. Die wetgewers van twee provinsies het byvoorbeeld uiteenlopende wette gemaak ten opsigte van gesondheid, behuising en beplanning. Munisipale amptenare moes dus daarmee rekening hou dat verskillende rels vir die oorgrensgebiede gegeld het.
Oor die skakeling met provinsies moes daar natuurlik by twee verskillende kantore in twee verskillende hoofstede geskakel word. Omdat die verskillende kantore in die verskillende provinsies nie ewe flink was nie, het munisipaliteite dikwels verle gestaan dat hulle nie dieselfde standaard diens kan lewer aan al hulle gebiede nie. Ongelukkig laat munisipale dienslewering feitlik orals in die land veel te wense oor en het die oorgrenssituasie by daardie munisipaliteite dienslewering verder versleg en van hierdie munisipaliteite het ook geskuil agter die oorgrenssituasie, as 'n verskoning vir hulle vrot diens.
Die DA is daarom ten gunste van hierdie wetgewing wat wegdoen met oorgrensmunisipaliteite. Alhoewel die DA nog altyd die herroeping van hierdie wet voorgestaan het, het ons ons besware oor hoe die grenswysigings hanteer is. Daardie besware vir ons is dat in plaas daarvan dat die Minister en politici deurentyd betrokke was om met die publiek te skakel, is dit aan amptenare en die munisipale afbakeningsraad oorgelaat om gemeenskappe se voorstelle en besware aan te hoor.
Minister Mufamadi was nou nog nie by brandpunte soos Khutsong en Matatiele nie. Die gemeenskappe is nooit behoorlik ingelig om die groter prentjie te sien nie. Hulle is nie ingelig oor waarom oorgrensmunisipaliteite 'n onding is nie. Hulle is nie ingelig dat geld geskuif sal word na die ontvangende provinsie toe nie, sodat dienste nie sal versleg nie. Die ontvangende provinsies het nie genoegsaam uitgereik na die gemeenskappe om hulle te verseker dat daar na hulle behoeftes omgesien sal word nie.
Daar is ook nie genoegsaam oorleg gepleeg met en geluister na gemeenskappe nie. Die ANC het gedink dat hy sy eie aanhangers links en regs kan skuif en hulle sal dit maar net aanvaar. Nou sit ons met onluste en ontwrigting waaruit ons moeilik gaan kom. Die DA het gewaarsku oor die swak oorlegpleging en die blote feit dat die wetsontwerp weer vandag voor die Huis is, is 'n bewys dat ons reg was. Die ANC het ook duidelik indelings gemaak teen die wense van die gemeenskappe.
As byvoorbeeld Khutsong en Matatiele met 'n referendum getoets sou word, sal dit duidelik word dat die gemeenskappe onderskeidelik in Gauteng en KwaZulu-Natal wil wees. Dit is vir ons duidelik dat die ANC seker wil maak dat mense so geskuif word, dat dit die ANC se posisie in die Noord-Kaap, Gauteng en KwaZulu-Natal sal versterk. Die DA steun hierdie wetsontwerp. Dit is egter duidelik dat met die Ministers en die ANC se swak hantering van die saak, hulle 'n lat vir hulself in die pekel gel het, wat nog lank by ons gaan wees. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr M SWART: Madam Deputy Speaker, cross-boundary municipalities were originally established to integrate communities into the nearest municipality, despite the fact that they were living in another province. It was considered more important to be in the nearest municipality than remaining in the same province and being placed in a municipality which was situated further away.
It calmed many flaring tempers to remain with the municipality, even though provincial boundaries had been drawn that divided communities. It was also thought that municipal services could be delivered better, even if such a community was in another province.
Cross-boundary municipalities are an experiment that failed in practice. Cross-boundary municipalities found it difficult to cope with two sets of laws from two provinces. The legislatures of two provinces made divergent laws, for example, with regard to health, housing and planning. Municipal officials had to take into account that different rules applied to the cross-boundary areas.
With regard to liaising with provinces, two different offices in two different provinces had to be contacted. Because the different offices in the different provinces were not equally quick to respond, the municipalities were frequently embarrassed that they could not supply the same standard of service to all their areas. Unfortunately municipal service delivery leaves much to be desired virtually everywhere in the country and the cross-boundary situation in those municipalities further worsened that service delivery and some of these municipalities also hid behind the cross-boundary situation, as an excuse for their bad service.
The DA is therefore in favour of this legislation that abolishes cross- boundary municipalities. Although the DA has always been in favour of repealing this act, we have objections as regards the way in which the boundary changes are being dealt with. These objections are that instead of the Minister and politicians continually being involved to interact with the public, it was left to officials and the Municipal Demarcation Board to hear communities' suggestions and objections.
Minister Mufamadi has still not been to hotspots like Khutsong and Matatiele. The communities were never properly informed of the bigger picture. They were not informed as to why cross-boundary municipalities were bad. They were not informed that money would be trasferred to the recipient province, so that services would not deteriorate. The recipient province did not reach out sufficiently to the communities to assure them that their needs would be catered for. There was also not sufficient consultation with communities and they were not listened to adequately. The ANC thought that it could shift its own supporters this way and that and that they would simply accept it. Now we have protests and disruptions from which we will struggle to extricate ourselves. The DA warned about the poor consultation and the simple fact that this Bill is before this House again today, is proof that we were right. The ANC has also clearly redrawn boundaries against the wishes of the communities.
If Khutsong and Matatiele, for example, were tested with a referendum, it would become clear that the communities want to be in Gauteng and KwaZulu- Natal respectively. It is clear to us that the ANC wants to ensure that people are shifted in such a way that it will strengthen the ANC's position in the Northern Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal.
The DA supports this Bill. It is clear, however, that with the bad handling by the Ministers and the ANC they have been hoist with their own petard and we will suffer the consequences for a long time. I thank you.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, the real issue underlying Matatiele's discontent is centred on issues of identity, not service delivery. In other words, people are saying that, in terms of identity, they associate themselves with KwaZulu-Natal, rather than the Eastern Cape. This is an argument centred on emotion. It is an argument where people are saying they have a preference for where they want to live, because they have positive associations with one province over another. They feel more connected with a specific province and, all things being equal, would prefer to live in the province of their choice.
This is a complete anathema to this government. The government refuses to acknowledge that such feelings have any merit. In fact, the ANC denies the validity and even the legitimacy of such arguments, stating, as if this has any relevance at all, that we are all South Africans. Yes, of course we are all South Africans, but what has that got to do with the fact that within one country, one can have additional loyalties?
The ANC feels very uncomfortable with this. It is so centrist in its mindset, so unitarist in its approach to governance, that it fails to comprehend that regional and local identities can legitimately exist within the country alongside a common national identity. This is false thinking, and it is this type of false thinking that has the ANC dismissing all arguments centred on identity, acknowledging only arguments based on delivery and then promptly saying that this can be addressed by improving delivery from the Eastern Cape.
I have just come back from a study tour to Germany, which, like South Africa, is engaged in a review of the federal system. It is striking how differently they deal with these things. There, they really consult the people ...
Order!
... and do not rely on "Mickey Mouse" consultation.
Order, hon member! I personally was interested in your story on Germany, but there's no time.
The IFP rejects this.
Hon Deputy Speaker, as a result of the inter-relationship between the Constitution Twelfth Amendment and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act of 2005, the Constitutional Court declared that part of the repeal Act, which relates to the Matatiele Municipality, to be unconstitutional. That is the reason for this amending Bill, which is dependent on the passing of the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill.
The crux of the matter relates to the nature and scope of the constitutional obligations to facilitate public involvement in the legislative processes, as stated in the Matatiele case, and I quote: "Clearly, the duty to facilitate public participation had required that the people of Matatiele be given the reasonable opportunity to engage with the KwaZulu-Natal legislature." The KwaZulu-Natal provincial legislature did not hold public hearings or invite written submissions on the issue.
Similar arguments pertain to this Bill as to the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill. It would, in our view, be premature to support this Bill until the public hearings have been held in the affected areas. The ACDP will not support this Bill. [Time expired.]
Deputy Speaker and hon members, we are engaged in an effort to pass this Bill because someone in the government of KwaZulu-Natal failed to do their work properly in 2005, when they failed to hold public hearings in that province. Failure to adhere to constitutional dictates is a grave matter.
In a country that respects the views of the people and the Constitution, that particular individual and even that government should have been shown the exit door. A lapse in detail has cost the taxpayer dearly.
The UCDP has never supported cross-boundary municipalities. We also maintain that provincial boundaries should not be treated as if they were cast in stone like those of the colonial era.
We take note that the irregularity has had to be regularised and therefore support the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill, as we did with the principal Act in 2005. I thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as advocated in the Constitution Thirteenth Amendment Bill debate, the utmost respect and adherence to the national Constitution should in no way be compromised. It's the preservation of the people's rights and the delivery of services to the people that need to be monitored to ensure true democracy. However, we also stress that it is transparency and consultation with the people that secures our people's trust and satisfaction in our government.
The MF believes that the separation of powers, which our Constitution clearly instructs, saves us from autonomy and ensures a system of checks and balances. The provisions that serve as correction to the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal municipality dilemma appear to provide much clarity and hopefully better service delivery. We sincerely hope that the people of Matatiele will be patient in reaping the benefits of this decision. The MF will support the Bill. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, when the legislation was passed to have Matatiele incorporated into the Eastern Cape, it went against the wishes of residents of the area. The residents challenged the constitutionality of the legislation and the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the community on a technicality. Parliament was given 18 months to correct the constitutional defect. This Bill aims to correct the omission to legally transfer Matatiele from KwaZulu-Natal to the Eastern Cape.
The question remains whether the problem surrounding the incorporation of Matatiele into the Eastern Cape will be resolved, despite the new law. The initial process was flawed, yet 18 months down the line, while the residents have managed to restore constitutionality to the legislative process, their circumstances remain the same.
The protests against the demarcation were not only socioeconomic in nature. The residents did not want to be incorporated into an area they felt would leave them worse off than they already were. Government has transferred staff and assets to the Eastern Cape, but the struggle remains an uphill battle for the people of Matatiele.
Whether improvements in municipal delivery will change the perception of the affected residents to their new boundary locations remains to be seen. For now, the situation remains volatile, and this Bill does not help in any way to further a process in ongoing consultation.
This Bill is a response to a flawed process of the past, which, in order to be constitutionally valid, required a technical change. The constitutional ruling could not, however, cause Parliament to rescind its decision on the original demarcation process and return Matatiele to KwaZulu-Natal. The FD therefore cannot support this Bill in light of the earlier processes. I thank you.
Hon Madam Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy Ministers and Ministers in the House here, hon members and guests, today I greet you only in the name of the ANC-led government.
The people of Matatiele have spoken and the ANC has responded accordingly. The historical mission of the ANC has always been, and will continue being, to unite all people of South Africa wherever they are, not choosing the rich places, but wherever those masses are. The mission has at its centre the creation of a united, nonracial, nonsexist and democratic society.
This then means that our central task is the liberation of our people from all forms of bondage. It means uplifting the quality of life of all South Africans, especially the poor and the marginalised, from whom, even today, some people still want to benefit in an indirect manner. If you want to benefit from somebody, go directly and ask for a benefit; don't go about it indirectly.
Today marks one of the stages in the ongoing work around the Matatiele boundary changes. Today we adopt the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Amendment Bill, which seeks to amend the Cross- Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act of 2005. In 2005 the Constitution Twelfth Amendment Act and the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act were passed by both Houses of Parliament to do away with cross-boundary municipalities and kick- start the process of redetermination of provincial boundaries.
Ulalele kahle, lungu elihloniphekile.[Please listen carefully, hon member.]
You must listen very carefully. It has kick-started the process to correct whatever might have been going wrong somewhere. Today we have corrected that.
The Constitutional Court identified procedural defects in processing the Bills by the KZN legislature in terms of absence of public involvement. The KZN legislature, in considering and passing the Bill, did not conduct sufficient public hearings and such an act was deemed inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore the Acts were deemed invalid. This only applied to the aspects that relate to Matatiele between the two provinces of the Eastern Cape and KZN.
The court ruling therefore suspended it - the court didn't say it shouldn't happen - for correction due to the failure of the KZN legislature to conduct public hearings. The ANC didn't move away because there was an error. The ANC-led government came very close to those people who were upset about what was happening, and today they have responded.
While the Cross-Boundary Municipalities Laws Repeal and Related Matters Act was not necessarily one of the major key pieces of legislation for local government, it has been the single most controversial piece of legislation that continues to attract attention due to the community of Matatiele challenging the constitutional validity of the earlier legislation in respect of which the Constitutional Court found that KwaZulu-Natal had failed to facilitate public participation in the legislative processes required by the Constitution, which states that a provincial legislature must facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the legislature and its committees.
I'm not going to go into anything that has been said by somebody, but as I was seated here, somebody said it was Mickey Mouse consultation, but I'll get back to that later on.
The Constitutional Court felt that the previous Act that altered the boundary of KZN was invalid and it had not been adopted in a manner that was consistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, the court declared that part of the Act that transferred the area of Matatiele Municipality to the Eastern Cape province as invalid. It was by then invalid.
However, the court order did not reject the contents of the Act, but principally suspended the order of invalidity for 18 months - it was invalid for 18 months - so that Parliament could, if it so wished, adopt a new amendment in a manner that was consistent with the requirements of the Constitution, and today we are doing exactly that in response to the court order.
We can't run away. The ANC-led government will never run away from anything. It will just abide by the rules and regulations of the structure that has been mandated to correct whatever needs to be corrected. The court order also created room for extension if Parliament failed to meet the deadline. I am pleased today that Parliament is now adopting this Bill way before the cutoff date and would not necessarily need any extension.
By concluding with the Bill, we are then hoping that the area of Matatiele will normalise and that the municipality will continue to play a leadership role and drive development, involving and empowering citizens in the development process and creating a sense of common purpose by all the people affected.
Let me get back to that statement about "Mickey Mouse" consultation...
Unfortunately, there's no time for the "Mickey Mouse" story. [Laughter.]
You know, Madam Speaker, really ...
No, no, there is no time, hon member! Will you please leave. [Laughter.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, in concluding this debate I'd like to bring to the attention of the House that when the DA started advancing these counter- arguments, cross-boundary municipalities were not a new creation of this government. You know that very well and you sat very comfortably when these boundaries were created under apartheid. You name them Bantustans. You were sitting very comfortably and doing nothing, so you are the last people to come and tell us what to do. [Interjections.]
We are aware of a number of challenges that continue to face these realigned municipalities in the area of service delivery backlogs and the strengthening of their municipal institutional capabilities. These challenges will continue to receive focused and dedicated attention.
Following the deliberations here today, this legislation will proceed to the NCOP and the provincial legislatures of the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape governments. The latter is especially viewed as crucial, since these legislatures are in relatively close proximity to the affected communities. It is important that the process unfolds in a manner that allows for greater accessibility and participation by our people.
Today is another important milestone in our efforts to build a better South Africa for all. You sat and did nothing under apartheid! [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Bill read a second time (Federation of Democrats, Inkatha Freedom Party and African Christian Democratic Party dissenting).