Deputy Speaker, a spade will remain a spade and we will call it such. We have confidence in the Demarcation Board - no question about that. The mandate here is never to look at the activities of the Demarcation Board, but to address the process as defined in terms of the law; to address some of the issues where you will find a situation where, when it comes to public participation, the issue would be straightforward in that we need to manage those issues.
At the moment, the Act allows anyone to come forward with a proposal to move the demarcation line from one side to the other. When the board deals with those issues, in certain instances, it rejects them and when it does so, it becomes an issue. Therefore we are strengthening the board, but we are also strengthening the process itself instead of saying which areas to demarcate after every five years, which actually is a factor that is working against our ability to plan. How do you plan for a period of more than five years when you are not sure whether the boundary of this municipality will change in five years' time or not? It is just to strengthen the process; there is nothing like no confidence in the board.
I would not have appointed the chairperson of the Demarcation Board to be a member of the very same task team if I did not have confidence in him. So, we have to make the point very clearly: Call a spade a spade. But even those who are listening to you calling things by their real names must come to the party and understand that yes, it is true, it is a spade. It is our Demarcation Board. Thank you very much. [Applause.]