More consultation time needed for Rental Housing Bill says Limpopo, Western Cape

The Select Committee on Public Services held a meeting today to discuss the provinces’ negotiating mandates for the Rental Housing Amendment Bill. Seven provinces said they were in favour of the Bill, while Limpopo and the Western Cape did not support it.

The Rental Housing Amendment Bill was re-introduced last year after being controversially withdrawn in 2012.

The aim of the Bill seeks to address human settlement challenges such as arbitrary evictions, high rental increases and squalid conditions. The Bill will allow the Minister to set regulations that will speak to the norms and standards in the rental market. The Bill will also require each local municipality to set up Rental Housing Information Office, and it will be mandatory for each province to establish a Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Committee met today to hear the MPs responses after consultation with their provinces. The Eastern Cape, Free State, Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape and Gauteng supported the Bill. The Member from Limpopo did not have her mandate at the time the negotiating mandates were read. The DA’s Hermanus Groenwald from the North West told MPs that although his province was in favour of the Bill, his negotiating mandate cited the incorrect Bill number, and therefore could not be tabled in the Committee.

The Chairperson of the Committee, ANC’s Mtikeni Sibande from Mpumalanga, read out the Western Cape’s mandate, which did not support the Bill for the following reasons:

• Firstly, the Minister did not request the Financial and Fiscal Commission to make an assessment of the financial implications of the legislation before the legislation was introduced into Parliament. Therefore, the legislative requirement has not been met.
• Secondly, reasonable provision had to be made for public involvement in the legislative processes for the Bill. This was not met, as provincial mandates were given an unreasonably short period in which they had to be finalised.

According to NCOP Rules, Rule 240(1) says: All section 76 or 74(1),(2) and (3) Bills should be dealt with in a manner that will ensure that provinces have sufficient time to consider the Bill and confer mandates.

Sibande noted that although there had been limited time in which consultations could be had and negotiating mandates drawn up, “all the provinces were compliant, except one. All the Members indicated that there wasn’t enough time but they managed to interact with their provinces.”

The Member from the Eastern Cape stated that his province supported the Bill but they wanted the Bill to be amended so that Rental Housing Tribunals would have the ability to evict lessees.

The Committee’s Legal Adviser stated that this was a constitutional issue because “a tribunal is not a court, and court orders are needed for evictions”. The Member conceded saying that his province would not tamper with a process that could impact negatively on the Constitution.

After Limpopo’s negotiating mandate was read, echoing the Western Cape’s sentiments that there had not been sufficient time for proper consultation, the Chairperson noted that there were seven provinces in favour of the Bill, and that the two provinces could use this week to consult with their provinces before the final mandates are put through.

Chairperson Sibande reminded the Committee that the intention of the Bill was to provide “speedy service for resolution of land matters”, and that it “compels and ensures that the responsibilities of the tenant and land owner are spelled out”.

The Committee will proceed with final mandates on the Rental Housing Amendment Bill next week. Thereafter, the Bill will be referred to the NCOP for consideration.