Chair, I thank you for inviting me to come and speak at this congregation here today. It is a privilege. If you look at the aim and purpose of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Bill, Bill 20 of 2010, I think everybody will agree that the purpose of consolidating all housing-related matters under one entity, that of the Department of Human Settlements, should be applauded.
The new statute will make the schemes management more understandable for those who need to administer and implement the provisions of such an Act. It is also relevant that the substance of the contents of the old Sectional Titles Act, Act 95 of 1986, will not be changed substantially. It is evident, and we agree, that the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, under which this Sectional Titles Act, Act 95 of 1986, resided, cannot effectively take care of the complaints that come out of this section of home ownership. We agree that the Department of Human Settlements is much better geared to taking care of this area. The Bill has been a long time in the making, since 2009, and it is heartening to see it coming of age now and being ready to be constituted.
The important thing is that we are satisfied that this Bill is consistent with what the Constitution demands and expects of us to do, and this Bill achieves that in a proper way. We are also satisfied that this Bill is not in conflict with other laws. The Western Cape provincial parliament therefore considered the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Bill, Bill 20 of 2010 and want to support it as it is.
However, the standing committee on governance of the Western Cape provincial parliament decided not to support the Community Schemes Ombud Service Bill, Bill 21B of 2010, because we do not support clause 22(b), which states that levies be collected from communities with the approval of the Minister. This is an open-ended opportunity for the Minister to decide to tax communities to the extent he or she wishes, with no caps on the amount that these levies could be. There are no checks and balances on that clause building up to the Act.
It is good to supply this intended service to communities, but quite a number of these communities are poor people who just cannot afford to pay these levies. The principle, in general, is that it is not right for government to decide to deliver a service to communities at a cost. South African society is overwhelmed by all sorts of taxes, levies and costs incurred to them by government. We as South Africans already pay some of the highest individual taxes in the world. We simply cannot go on deciding that ordinary people must pay more taxes or levies. Government has a responsibility to deliver services to the people in this country; the Constitution makes that provision very clear and states that government's responsibility is to deliver services to all citizens of this country without taxing them into poverty. We commented on this in our first negotiating mandate to the NCOP, but we only received a response from an official. We are not sure if the NCOP standing committee actually ever had a look at our proposal and that is a matter of concern to us.
Our standing committee also expressed our concern about the competency and level of knowledge of appointed board members. Clause 7 of the Act sets out the procedures to appoint board members. Clause 7(5) states that if a suitable person is not found to appoint, the Minister may call for further nominations. That is not good enough and we are looking for the checks and balances. We would like to see the Act state that the Minister must call for further nominations until enough suitable candidates are found.
Nowhere in this Act or in clause 7 or wherever it deals with the members of the board is it specified that members must undergo proper and specific in- house training to prepare them to do their job as board members properly. We must express our concern with the fact that we think that the NCOP did not deal with this Bill in an appropriate manner or work through it thoroughly. The Western Cape provincial parliament, therefore, cannot support the Community Schemes Ombud Service Bill, Bill 21B of 2010. I thank you, Chair.