Madam Speaker, the original twin Bills were opposed by the IFP when last presented to this House in 2005, and we do not believe that circumstances are such that we should reverse our position now.
The fact that the Constitutional Court struck the Bills down on procedural grounds constituted an ideal opportunity for the government to rethink its stance on the matter. However, it was clear from the start that nothing would change and that the same provision would be re-enacted with sufficient public engagement this time around to pass constitutional muster.
Indeed, just after the Constitutional Court decision, and in response to an IFP statement, the Deputy Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development effectively told this House that in respect of the political content of the reintroduced Bills, nothing would change. Clearly then, government had no intention of reconsidering its original position; likewise the ANC.
The fact of the matter is that the government and the ANC agree that whatever consultation was to take place, this was to be a procedural formality rather than a real engagement.
The objections to the inclusion of Matatiele in the Eastern Cape were varied, but could be set out in the following broad terms: poor service delivery from the Eastern Cape; distance from Eastern Cape economic and political centres; strong economic, educational and other ties with KwaZulu- Natal; and a general sense of identity with KwaZulu-Natal.
It was clear from the start that the ANC would latch onto the service delivery issue to the exclusion of the others and, in acknowledging certain historic delivery difficulties, argue that in tackling these more effectively the desirability of maintaining the status quo was satisfactorily addressed.
The IFP believes that, notwithstanding service delivery difficulties, this was never the central issue in the debate and it is therefore fallacious to argue that if you address complaints over service delivery you have addressed the issue of Matatiele's location. That is not correct. We oppose the Bill.