Chairperson, after having heard the speakers both from my party and from the opposition benches, I believe that it would be appropriate to give an historical perspective to the course we are now embarking upon. But, before I attempt to do that, I wish to commence on a personal note. The very political and administrative regime that the Local Government: Municipal Systems Bill now seeks to replace has had a very real and profound effect on every individual sitting here today.
While some amongst us so articulately argued the reasons for not supporting the Bill, the sceptical but very accurate words of Bertrand Russell kept ringing in my ears. He said:
We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side; one which we preach but do not practise, and another which we practise but seldom preach.
These words ring so true because my recollection of events that charted my young life is littered with such ambiguities.
The mass removal of residents from Pageview in Johannesburg to Lenasia was conducted with the assistance of the then Johannesburg City Council. Need we remind ourselves who, in fact, was in control of that council at the time? Yes, members have guessed it, the predecessor of the DP, the PFP. The hon Adv Lever, who I hope is here - oh, he is not listening - must know that what made it so much more painful was the fact that while that very party made such eloquent protestations in the press, its supporters happily bought up the properties that were expropriated. But then, who are we to argue, for they are all all honourable people?
Is it not the experiences of Cato Manor that we seek to redress with this Bill? Yet I see in our midst the hon Mr Raju, who claims to have the interests of the people of Cato Manor at heart, vote against it. But who am I to argue? Who am I to question conscience, because they are all all- honourable people?
There is one thing I would like to share with the hon Ackermann. Honestly, if there was one redeeming feature I did find in the old NP, it was the fact that there was no pretence in what they did. They were honest about their intentions and they implemented their policies, no matter how diabolical they were.
I would like to tell the hon Botha that this issue is not about race, as we are so often accused of saying, nor is it about maintaining a burden of guilt over the heads of the privileged of the past. It is about extracting a collective responsibility for the past so that we can build a better future.
In April 1994 a reading of the election manifestos of the respective political parties made me pregnant with hope that indeed we had at long last turned over a new leaf. I believed that the collective responsibility we sought would lead to reconstruction. Instead, every transformation Bill that has come to this House has been met with resistance. No, the resistance does not now come in the form of crude and robust remarks. It is now dressed in a different form, embellished with questions of efficacy and clothed in technical and intellectual diversions. But, ever so often, the slip under the dress shows, whether it is the thumb in the coffee or the reference to a boy in the Chamber, it is the same thing. [Interjections.] I mean reference to a Minister or a Deputy Minister as a boy in the National Assembly. We have not been reading the press, have we? Deep down we know the real reason for opposing the Bill. It is to maintain a system that at least the NP was honest about.
The hon Ackermann would remember a definition of a PFP member that used to be bandied about in years gone by, which said that a PFP member was one that voted for the Progs but prayed like hell that the NP would win. How else could one get land so cheap? I ask members what has changed. But, then again, who are we to question? They are all all-honourable people.
Now to the business at hand. The forthcoming local government elections bring to a close one of the few transitional measures that are still with us, from the era of the Kempton Park negotiations. The sunset clause that maintained certain political assurances finally comes to a close. What confronts us now is a challenge that is succinctly captured in the Constitution. It mandates local government to provide democratic and accountable government for local communities, ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner, promote social and economic development and encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.
The series of Acts and Bills that followed the passing of the White Paper establishes the basis for a new developmental local government system, which is committed to working with citizens, groups and communities to create sustainable human settlements which provide for a decent quality of life and meet the social, economic and material needs of communities in a holistic way. While the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act defines the political structures of new local government models, the Local Government: Municipal Systems Bill restructures the internal systems of municipalities. The core of this Bill is contained in three key chapters. These are the chapters that deal with community participation, public-private partnerships and the relationship between the administration and the councillors.
Speakers have already discussed these areas quite extensively, but I would like to discuss the latter somewhat further. The past five years has shown us that there has been a somewhat awkward relationship between the administration and the councillors, largely because these areas of operation are not clearly defined in the system that has evolved from the British system. We found that councillors felt hamstrung in implementing policy and placing a transformation agenda on the table. In many instances they felt that their work was an unnecessary appendage. The credibility of councillors lay in question in many instances. I, for one, can cite a number of examples in which the quality of services still continues to be disparate, despite the policy of the council. The creation of performance contracts and key performance indicators that must be met seek to address some of the inadequacies of the past. We hope to have a greater degree of accountability as a result.
This House has been involved in a number of interventions in terms of section 139. Members will remember that what was particularly frustrating was to approve an intervention in a town when the patient was already in the intensive care unit. We constantly appealed for an early warning system. I am pleased to inform members that those early warning systems have now been created. For example, if an integrated development plan has not been submitted to the MEC by a council either timeously or at all, the NCOP has to be duly informed by the MEC. There would also be a link between the Auditor-General's office and the NCOP. A report by the Auditor-General on the state of affairs in the municipalities of a province must be tabled with the NCOP.
I believe that perhaps a restructuring of the administration of this House may have to be considered to accommodate the important role this House will play in this regard. I agree with the member from the provincial legislature Mr Klaas about the tagging. Clearly the tagging committee is viewing local government as a function of provincial government and not as a sphere of government. Consequently legislation like this one is being tagged as section 75 legislation when there is no doubt of the impact of the legislation in provinces. I would urge the presiding officers to take the matter up in the appropriate forum. If an amendment to the Constitution is required, so be it. But, clearly, the intention of the Constitution is not being honoured by Bills of this nature being tagged as section 75 legislation.
Finally, I would like to thank the members of my committee for enduring long hours, sometimes up to 16 hours, on the trot to consider this Bill. I would also like to express my thanks to Jackie Manche, Fanie Louw, whom I can see sitting up in the gallery, and to Dr Bouwer, who persevered throughout our constant interrogation. I must also extend a special word of thanks to my counterpart, Mr Yunus Carrim, who, in his inimitable way ensured that we did not stray from the task. Although I do not think the Minister has a say in the salaries of his staff, he is surrounded by a team that has a work ethic like no other. [Laughter.] I think I should tell him that.
Let us fasten our seatbelts and usher in the new system. We may just enjoy the ride, provided local government gets its fair share of funding. I hope the hon Ms Mahlangu will take note of what I am saying. It will be a long one and we may not achieve everything at once, but if we are armed with the will I am certain that we will reap the harvest of the efforts of many. [Applause.]