Hon Chairperson, hon Minister and members, allow me to start off with a protest in regard to the shortened times allocated to speakers for the debates this week. This move is understandable, however, given the large volume of considerations before the House but that in itself, hon Chairperson, is emblematic of the total disregard that the institution has for the NCOP by forcing it to have last-minute, pressure-cooker-style debates in order to pass legislation and ratify agreements.
The good news is that I won't talk against the amending Bill before us, but I will, however, attempt to address a serious matter in the meagre four minutes allocated to me. According to the ATC of 14 November 2007, the Select Committee on Public Services reports the amending Bill under discussion without amendment. This means that all or at least the majority of provinces will support the Bill as it stands.
Now, this cannot be correct and some dealings must have taken place behind the scenes agter toe deure [behind closed doors], because I recall very clearly that certain provinces had serious misgivings about some aspects of the Bill, and a number of these were supported by the committee during the meeting at which the negotiating mandates were considered less than two weeks ago. Even a section where reference to the role of the NCOP select committee is blatantly omitted now remains uncorrected.
But, be that as it may, because the final mandates of the provinces will obviously determine the outcome which seems to be a given fact, I am nevertheless very concerned that we are not doing justice to our task as legislators and elected representatives of the people. The rushing of legislation, however inferior it may be considered, is tantamount to rubber- stamping, and that cannot be condoned. Let me remind you of an old saying, which warns that you become what you condone. If we condone ineffective legislative processes, then we become ineffective ourselves.
During the deliberations in the committee and while the process was unfolding in the provinces, we were made aware of a number of very important inputs from interested parties and individuals, but nothing could be done at that stage other than inputs at public hearings.
To name just three of these inputs, I refer the House to the submissions from the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal, an institution constituted in terms of this very same legislation, the Property Owners and Management Association of SA and Mr Michael Lazarus, an independent thinker and a tenant himself.
I referred the inputs from the latter to the provincial portfolio committee of the Western Cape, and they have undertaken to investigate the submissions for possible further actions. I am sure that all these submissions should have been attended to by Parliament's portfolio committee. The submissions were, however, too late to be considered and are now parked in a cul-de-sac.
I think the whole legislative process should be reinvestigated to ensure that the voice of the electorate is really heard. I have many thoughts in this regard but, as a start, we could revamp the system to allow for new or amending legislation to be passed on to the NCOP as soon as it is agreed to by the portfolio committee but before being passed in the National Assembly. Legislation should only be debated and passed in both House once all creases have been ironed out. I refer specifically to section 76 legislation.
This will not only contribute to more meaningful negotiations all round but will probably also eliminate the cumbersome process of mediation. When all the wise persons considered and negotiated the Constitution, they could not foresee the hiccups awaiting the legislators, so if we have to amend the Constitution to facilitate meaningful legislation, then we must do so, Chairperson. Thank you. [Applause.]