Chairperson, I must say that I appreciate the words of the Deputy Minister. This was the first time in four years that I have been singled out by the Minister to thank me for the role that I played! [Interjections.]
House Chairperson, Deputy Minister, colleagues, officials from the department, members of the media houses, ladies and gentlemen, we are today passing a piece of legislation that is adding to the process of change and transformation. This process was started in 1994 in a democratic breakthrough.
We are now almost 14 years into a democratic dispensation. We have learnt a lot of lessons in the process. Based on those experiences we are making these amendments, which are dealing with three pieces of legislation, creating an omnibus instrument that will be able to ensure that it adds to the arsenal for change and transformation. This tool is a precursor to an extensive process of a White Paper which is aimed at reflecting on our footsteps to date, going down memory lane.
This process was characterised by vigorous and serious engagements, particularly with regard to the fact that there is a view, Deputy Minister, in the committee that there's some denudation of the powers and functions of provinces in this respect. Whether that is done by commission or omission is something that has to be told by historians.
We are engaging in this process to look at the role of provinces. We say, if there is any review of the role of provinces, that must be put in the open so that all and sundry can make a contribution that will ensure that these matters are dealt with and handled collectively by all of us.
Let me go down memory lane and look at how provinces and this House were created.
The decision to create provinces was not taken lightly. It was preceded by intense political debate, and compromise as well as extensive research and consultation at a local and international level. It was arguably the most contentious part of the negotiation process.
The pros and cons of a federal system and the creation of constitutionally guaranteed powers and functions characterised much of the constitutional debate and the discourse that took place between 1990 and 1996. Prior to the creation of nine provinces, South Africa historically had four provinces, 10 homelands and nine development regions. None of these had wide political credibility, support or legitimacy. Four questions arose at the time when negotiations commenced: Why should there be a second tier of government? How should they be demarcated? What should be their powers? How should their powers be protected?
It was widely recognised in the constitutional debate that, owing to its history, its size, geographical features, development needs and population composition, South Africa would require some form of provincial government. Their concern, however, was that a balance had to be found between defining the role of provinces as a formal sphere of government with guaranteed powers and their importance to national integration, nation-building and minimum standards of development for the entire nation.
The legacy of the dreaded homeland system was so fresh in the minds of many, particularly the liberation movements that they were fiercely opposed to any form of entrenched provincial system of government. I quote:
The ANC's vision of a future form of state is based on the view that territorial divisions brought about by apartheid, specifically the independent homelands, must be reversed. The shift which has occurred within the ANC towards greater powers of provinces still does not place the ANC within the group who advocates a federal outcome.
Various reasons were forwarded at the time in favour of the creation of provinces, for example, the size of South Africa makes it impossible to be governed by only national and local governments. The population composition of South Africa requires some form of regional organisation to allow, informally, for cultural, regional and language diversity. Decentralisation to regional and local governments in developed and developing countries have been shown to build capacity and lead to more efficient government.
Political and civil society formations in South Africa were already organised in some form or basis, for example labour unions, political parties, sporting bodies, religious groupings, agricultural organisations and business bodies.
Provinces would be the best way to build national unity, while at the same time recognising diversity and the rise of minority political groupings.
Decentralisation would encourage experimentation and creativity at provincial levels. Decentralisation would build leadership in government and administrative sectors. Decentralisation would enhance the accessibility of government and decision-making. Decentralisation would bring government closer to the people.
Provinces are recognised by the 1996 Constitution of the Republic as a separate sphere of government. The reason why the word "sphere" rather than "level" is used in the Constitution is to make sure that it emphasises that there is no hierarchy between governments. It means there should be no big brother and small brother.
It encourages co-operative relationships between the spheres of government. It means there is no sphere of government that can encroach on the powers of another sphere of government, as opposed to the potential situation in a unitary system. A unitary system refers to a level, indicating hierarchical relationships between the respective levels of government.
Each sphere has constitutionally guaranteed powers and functions, although the national Parliament is empowered to legislate on a set of minimum norms and standards applicable to the entire nation. Each sphere is required to exercise its powers in a manner that does not encroach on the geographical, functional or institutional integrity of another sphere.
This House is the custodian of Chapter 3 of the Constitution. It means we must continuously be vigilant at all times in ensuring that there is no sphere of government that encroaches on the powers of another sphere of government. That is our responsibility, because we are looking at the interests of everyone in this House.
The committee supports the Bill with amendments made as they were defined by the Deputy Minister, and I hope that our colleagues are going to define and explain other amendments that we have made as well as the entire Bill, but we believe as the committee that this Bill is creating new possibilities in ensuring that democracy is entrenched in our society. This Bill, we believe, takes us forward on the road of ensuring that the system of government in this country of co-operative relationships is entrenched.
In conclusion, allow me to thank the Department of Provincial and Local Government for its contribution; National Treasury; the Demarcation Board and Adv Adhikane for their enlightened and robust contributions, particularly amongst themselves in the task team. I must also thank members of the committee for their insightful contributions, which have managed to enrich the Bill, and staff members for their dedication, commitment and support to the committee.
Deputy Minister, we agreed as the committee that we would prefer it if future Bills could be introduced by executive authorities so that we can engage in political questions, rather than them being introduced by officials. At the same time the committee is waiting anxiously for this extensive process of the White Paper on Local Government and the White Paper on Provincial Government. We want to make a contribution to that process so that it can benefit from our collective experience as the leadership. Thank you very much, Chairperson. [Applause.]