Deputy Chair, before I go into the statement on the Bill itself, I think it is important to say - because we are worried, as Gauteng - that the chairperson of the committee that was debating just now was not personally informed and nobody discussed it with her.This is a very serious issue. We think it must be properly addressed because it is incorrect. If there's something wrong, our Whip from Gauteng should have been informed and have dealt with this issue so that we know exactly what is happening. We want to put it on record that we don't think it is correct to do things the way they are being done now. Thank you, Chair.
The Black Administration Act, Act 38 of 1927, is one of the last remnants of apartheid that has still not been repealed in its entirety, as a repeal of certain provisions of this Act is dependent on the implementation of substitute legislation. Sections 12 and 20 of the Black Administration Act deal with judicial powers of traditional leaders to preside over certain civil and criminal matters.
However, in order for these sections to be repealed, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development must put in place new legislation that will regulate the rule and responsibilities of traditional leaders in the administration of justice in the traditional courts. The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has since finalised its policy framework on the traditional justice system under the Constitution and subsequently introduced the Traditional Courts Bill in Parliament in April 2008.
The Traditional Courts Bill seeks to regulate matters dealt with in sections 12 and 20 of the Black Administration Act and will provide the legal framework for the operation of traditional courts. The operation of the said sections of the Black Administration Act has been extended a number of times to allow the department to finalise legislation and policy in this regard.
In terms of the last amendment, the life of sections 12 and 20 of the Black Administration Act was extended to 30 December 2009, when it became evident, following submissions on the Traditional Courts Bill and the conclusion of public hearings on this Bill, that more time would be needed to deliberate and consult on the Traditional Courts Bill.
It should also be noted that the South African national elections and the establishment of the Fourth Parliament in 2009 have impacted on Parliament's legislative programme for the year.
It is once again foreseen that the Traditional Courts Bill currently before the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development will not be signed into law by the deadline of 30 December 2009. The portfolio committee has thus resolved to initiate the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill.
Hon member, will you take your seat. Members, someone is at the podium and let's respect that.
The purpose of the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Amendment Bill is to amend the Repeal of the Black Administration Act and Amendment of Certain Laws Act, Act 28 of 2005, in order to substitute a date, thus extending the date of application of the provisions of sections 12 and 20 of the Black Administration Act of 1927 to 30 December 2010. This will allow time for further consultation in respect of the content and structures of the Traditional Courts Bill.
We would, therefore, submit that this House support these particular amendments because it is only the date that is being extended, precisely because of the fact that time did not allow for proper consultation to take place. Thank you, Comrade Chair. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
That concludes the debate. I shall now put the question. 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.
Declarations of vote:
Chairperson, with your permission, the hon chairperson raised a serious issue in terms of the constitutionality of the Bill. He indicated that proper consultation didn't take place, and we know that there are numerous instances in which the Constitutional Court ruled on the fact that consultation hadn't taken place, so I'm not speaking against the Bill, but I am speaking against the remarks that were made by the chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson.
Madam Chair, I rise on behalf of the DA to state our support for the Bill, because we see the need for it. However, in the committee this morning, barely three hours ago, this Bill was presented to the select committee by an official of the National Assembly portfolio committee.
The method by which it was conveyed to the select committee of the NCOP annoyed all the members of all the parties equally. In fact, if it hadn't been for the seriousness of this Bill and the impact of the time that lapses on the previous Bill's extension to 31 December, I can assure you that that committee would have rejected the Bill.
I therefore register, on behalf of the DA, our extreme disappointment at the way the NCOP is being treated by the portfolio committee chairperson and at the way in which the department involved has dealt with us this morning, but at the same time we do understand the need for the Bill and we will support it.
May I please find out: Was that your declaration on the Bill?
Chairperson, the Bill that we are dealing with now ... [Interjections.]
Hon members, I'm still talking to Mr Watson. I'm not ignoring you; I'm coming back to you.
Yes, with respect, Madam Chairperson, that was my declaration of vote on behalf of the DA on the particular Bill. We will support the Bill, but the declaration is that we are very unhappy with the process and the way in which the Bill was submitted to the NCOP select committee.
Okay, we'll accept it.
Chair, may I just correct one little issue? There was extensive consultation that took place in the previous Parliament. In terms of us here, we were only supposed to deal with procedural issues and therefore there was no consultation that needed to take place now, you see.
The last NCOP sittings of the previous Parliament dealt with it extensively. We were just supposed to adopt and deal with this particular matter. Unfortunately election programmes did not allow them to do that. I just wanted to correct what the member has said.
I also want to indicate that we agree with Mr Watson, because we were not happy in the committee with the way we were dealt with in this particular matter. It was brought to us just this morning.
The NA dealt with it last week and we have put it forward, but because of the need to make sure that there's continuity, we deal with these particular matters. We have all agreed in the committee that this Bill should go through and we would ask this House to pass it. Thank you.
Chairperson, no, there was an agreement this morning in the committee and the speaker is 100% correct that all of us have agreed that the process was not right. We support the Bill and we are not going to stand in the way of the Bill, but next time we are going to reject something that comes to us in this way. I, however, fully support what our spokesperson has said, because we gave him the mandate this morning to say this is the line that we were going to take.
UMntwana M M M ZULU: Sihlalo, ngicabanga ukuthi njengoSotswebhu Omkhulu kufanele usisize lapha. Akufanele kuphasiswe ukuthi kwiPhalamende lokugcina kwenzakalani. Izinto zidlulwa yisikhathi ngokoMthethosisekelo. Lapha sinegunya namandla ngokuthunywa ngabantu kodwa akufanele ukuthi enye iNdlu ... ngoba sinamandla afanayo. Ngaphandle uma nizoshintsha uMthethosisekelo wenu nithi akusewona bese niqhubeka nokusebenza ngemithetho okumele izophasiswa. Ukuba namandla okuphasisa imithetho kwaleNdlu, nikuvumele impela emini ilanga libalele kusho ukuthi njalo nje nizovele niphasisa izinto ezingekho emthethweni. Ngiyabonga. (Translation of isiZulu paragraph follows.)
[Prince M M M ZULU: Chairperson, I think that as the Chief Whip you must assist us here. It is not advisable to act according to what happened in the previous Parliament. Things become of no use as per the Constitution. We have the power and the mandate from the people who sent us here, but it is undesirable that another House ... because we have equal powers. Except if you change your Constitution and say it is no longer the same one, then you continue to work with laws that must be passed. Having the power to pass the laws of this House, you must state clearly that you will keep on passing laws that should not be passed. Thank you.]
I will rather ask for declarations of vote.
Chair, I just want to understand the statement that was made by hon Prince Zulu. Does it mean we have to reverse everything that has been done; we don't have to recognise what the previous Parliament has done before us?
I wanted to answer, but okay ...
Deputy Chair, I thought we were dealing with declarations - not any engaging. We should go back to that.
Exactly, thank you. I posed the question as to whether all political parties made their declaration of vote. Okay?
Yes. Declaration?
Mr Bloem, we are going ahead with the procedures. Please! I've noted all the concerns raised here, but now we are going to vote.
Chairperson, are you not saying that it's declarations? I understand that we are going to vote, but are you not giving time for declarations from political parties?
Hon Bloem, that's exactly what I said at the beginning, and you people then decided to break up the procedures and to start arguing. I am now pleading with you that we follow the procedures.
Chairperson, I think all parties have made their declarations already. We can't have it twice.
We will now vote. Please use your cards. The voting has now closed. Could the Table staff submit the results.
Forty members have voted yes, and two have not voted. The majority have voted in favour and 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.