ULTRA Bill: public hearings day 4

Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

26 August 2020
Chairperson: Ms M Tlhape (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development 26 Aug 2020

The Portfolio Committee held its fourth day of public hearings and heard various organisations and community members calling for the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Amendment Bill to protect land tenants, especially women. All organisations supported the Amendment Bill. They said it would assist against illegal land dispossession and the forceful eviction of land dwellers. However, the traditional leaders from Mangaung suggested that if a female member of a rural community wanted to object to the conversion of a tenure right, their first point of contact should be the traditional council. The Bill needs to empower traditional councils as the first point of contact.

A concern was raised about the non-activity of communal property associations (CPAs), as well as the lack of participation of white South Africans in the public hearings. One of the organisations suggested that the name of the Bill be changed to Indigenous African Land Tenure Bill, while another suggested that there should be a way to expand title deeds to protect all siblings in becoming part-owners of their family home. Some organisations expressed hope that the passing of the Bill would contribute to a mind shift where people realize that not only mining but also agriculture can be a worthwhile pursuit. It was submitted that the Bill should be written in indigenous languages so people understand it better. There was a suggestion for provinces and municipalities to hold educational seminars to educate people about their land tenure rights.

Some of the community representatives struggled with network connection to the virtual hearings but the majority were able to present their submissions and respond to questions.

Meeting report

The Portfolio Committee held its fourth day of public hearings and heard various organisations and community members calling for the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Amendment Bill to protect land tenants, especially women. All organisations supported the Amendment Bill. They said it would assist against illegal land dispossession and the forceful eviction of land dwellers. However, the traditional leaders from Mangaung suggested that if a female member of a rural community wanted to object to the conversion of a tenure right, their first point of contact should be the traditional council. The Bill needs to empower traditional councils as the first point of contact.

A concern was raised about the non-activity of communal property associations (CPAs), as well as the lack of participation of white South Africans in the public hearings. One of the organisations suggested that the name of the Bill be changed to Indigenous African Land Tenure Bill, while another suggested that there should be a way to expand title deeds to protect all siblings in becoming part-owners of their family home. Some organisations expressed hope that the passing of the Bill would contribute to a mind shift where people realize that not only mining but also agriculture can be a worthwhile pursuit. It was submitted that the Bill should be written in indigenous languages so people understand it better. There was a suggestion for provinces and municipalities to hold educational seminars to educate people about their land tenure rights.

Some of the community representatives struggled with network connection to the virtual hearings but the majority were able to present their submissions and respond to questions.

Meeting report
As the Chairperson had a family emergency, the Committee elected Ms Tlhape as Acting Chairperson. It was suggested that she selects a member to takeover in the case she loses network connection and Ms N Mahlo (ANC) was chosen.

Ms M Tlhape (ANC) informed the presenters that they were allocated 10 minutes to present their stance on the ULTRA Amendment Bill. She requested they remain connected until the question and answer session is completed.

Local House of Traditional Leaders in Free State submission
Mr Desmond Sehume said that the Local House of Traditional Leaders tried to get as much information from the traditional leaders as possible and had ample time to discuss the Bill. His submission represented the views of the traditional leaders from Mangaung Metro. The first concern of the traditional leaders was the exclusion of Permission to Occupy (PTO) as per the Constitutional Court directive, as it would pose potential constitutional challenges in future. Their argument was that due to time constraints, Parliament would not include the conversion of PTOs and the subsequent option for members of communal areas to object to such automatic conversion. The second concern was that in the case where an individual would object to the automatic conversion, the Act would take the responsibility to the Minister and the Bill does not specify whether the Minister would delegate that responsibility to provinces. With the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPIRLA), conversion and disposal of communal lands took too long. For example, there is an extending application commenced in 2014 which the Minister has not yet approved because the Minister did not delegate disposal rights to provinces. Section 19 of the Traditional Leadership Framework Act states that government departments may delegate certain responsibilities to traditional councils by either custom or legislation. The Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 also provides that a national or provincial government can delegate certain responsibilities to traditional councils that are properly constituted. The traditional leaders argued that if a female member of a rural community wanted to object to the conversion of a tenure right that has either been issued in terms of a PTO or any informal tenure right, their first point of contact should be a traditional council. The Bill needs to empower traditional councils as the first point of contact.

Mr Sehume said that at the administrative level, the Department should support traditional councils to protect and upgrade the database and to ensure that information on lost PTO certificates issued a long time ago could be restored. This would be an opportunity to delegate responsibility to traditional councils, whether watchdog mechanisms are put in place as measures to ensure professionalism in the traditional councils.

The third issue was the automatic reversal of disposals or upgrading of tenure rights and informal tenure rights that were done wrongly. IPIRLA created a number of communal land parcels that have been donated to municipalities contrary to its own provisions – that prior to donations, there needed to be clear timeframes and descriptions that the size of the disposed land needed to be equivalent to the request. The concern of the traditional leaders was that the Act does not make provision that a traditional council is regarded as an individual for purposes of the Bill because the Bill only specifies individuals.

Tshwane Communal Property Association District Forum, Gauteng submission
Ms Patience Mgidi said that her organization could not discuss the Bill because the Department failed them by providing the Bill late. She said that her organization has only had a single sitting since its formation and has never done any CPA work. In their previous meeting they had other issues to discuss and had not spoken anything about the ULTRA Bill. The Department said they could email their comments on the Bill.

The Chairperson appreciated Ms Mgidi’s honesty and suggested that she and her group stay in the meeting and listen to the submissions so they could get insight on the ULTRA Bill.

Gert Sibande District Municipality, Mpumalanga submission
Dr Mkhwanazi said that rural dwellers need the government to provide them with title deeds so that they are able to apply for RDP houses and stay in the same location they currently live in as they herd livestock for a living. He requested that before the government upgrades any of its laws; it needs to do research because some people are abused on the farms with land dispossession that come with upgraded laws. People who have lived in their houses for a long time also needs to be looked at.

The Chairperson requested that because Dr Mkhwanazi was struggling with his network connection, the next presenter should proceed.

Women in Agriculture, Gauteng submission
Ms Primrose Makgatho, Chairperson of Women in Agriculture, Gauteng Province, said that women need access to land rights essential to the lives of rural women whose lives are derived from the land and natural resources. The lack of land rights for women threaten their living conditions, their economic empowerment, their physical well-being and their struggle for equality in the patriarchal society that is South Africa. The rights of women, especially black women, are suppressed to the extent that before anything regarding a woman is taken into consideration, it has to be checked if they are married or not. Even if the woman is married, the man has more rights than the woman. This Bill should give rights to black women, including widowers and young women, in the same way that men are given rights. Looking at the current situation and even in the past, it has always been the women who take care of and work on the land and yet they still have no land rights. Women must be given land rights and title deeds so that they can be economically empowered and leave their girl children an inheritance.

Discussion
Ms Mahlo said that she did not approve of what happened with the Tshwane CPA District Forum as they were unable to participate in something that is very important to them. She said that the Forum should not worry as the Committee would deal with the CPAs that are not functioning. She did not clearly understand what Mr Sehume said about women. She agreed with Dr Mkhwanazi that people in rural areas need to receive title deeds to be able to use it as security to apply for a building loan. Government is still working on improving the situation so people receive their title deeds as well as amend section 25 of the Constitution.

Ms A Steyn (DA) asked Mr Sehume who is currently responsible for PTO record keeping in the Free State and whether anyone can access the records. She asked if the Local House of Traditional Leaders receives any form of assistance with their land administration database. She asked about the current situation in the area and if there are cases of women being forcefully removed from land or houses that they have been living in for a while. She apologized to Ms Mgidi and her CPA that they were not assisted by their department to obtain the Bill. She hoped that she would get insight from the discussion in this meeting. She asked if Dr Mkhwanazi lives on Ingonyama Trust Land or private farmland and asked that he provide more detail about his request that people receive title deeds in his area. She agreed with Ms Makgatho that women are not seen as equals in law and n many cases they never get the title deed to the land they work and live in.

Inkosi Cebekhulu asked Mr Sehume for clarity on traditional leaders having control on the admission of land in townships together with municipalities. He asked if Dr Mkhwanazi lives in a traditional authority area or on private land owned by farmers because in Mpumalanga there is no Ingonyama Trust land.

Ms T Mbabama (DA) suggested that the translators translate the questions so the presenters can  understand and respond adequately.

Mr N Capa (ANC) [inaudible]

Ms T Breedt (FF+) said that CPAs and women in general have a grave problem so the Bill is a step in the right direction. She would have liked to hear inputs from the Tshwane District Forum because it is very important for this Bill to hear what women think as the Bill is supposed to make women heard and promote equality between women and men.

Response by Local House of Traditional Leaders, Free State
Mr Sehume replied that with title deeds, the Committee must not use a “one size fits all” approach because there are different types of communal land. Communal tenure rights in our community work in various ways. First, there is the right to reside in a village which is an erf of 50 square meters which is sufficient to provide the inhabitants with a vegetable garden and those are residential communities. There are also communal croplands, which on average is two and a half hectares per household and are indivisible. There is also communal grazing land where community members take their cattle to feed, which is also indivisible. When an individual occupies or has a PTO, the individual has a 3-in-1 right. The right to grow crops, the right to reside and the right to communal grazing. When people are provided title deeds, it means they have access only to the residential land and not the other lands, thereby depriving them of their full land rights. Parliament must find a way to protect those other two land rights for people to have crops and graze as title deeds are not a “one size fits all”.

With disposal, the Communal Land Rights Act (CLARA) was withdrawn in 2011 because it was unconstitutional and Parliament had the opportunity to create a comprehensive tenure system on the so-called informal tenure rights and it has not done that. After CLARA, government came up with an interim measure and it was defined as the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act (IPIRLA), which talked to nothing else except how to take away and dispose of land rights and not about acquiring additional land rights. In terms of women, there are also problems with the disabled, orphans, divorcees so it is not only women because PTOs provide rights that acknowledge our customs and cultures. In terms of PTOs, the Local House of Traditional Leaders said there needs to be a way of expanding title deeds to protect siblings in the households.

Response by CPIDP, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Gauteng
Ms Mgidi left the meeting before she could reply to questions

Response by Gert Sibande District Municipality, Mpumalanga
Dr Mkhwanazi’s response was interrupted by network challenges. The Committee’s content advisors were asked to contact him and request a written submission.

Response by Women in Agriculture, Gauteng
Ms Makgatho replied that the amendment would ensure that women get an opportunity to own land. She noted an incident where there was a woman who owned land, and a man came with 100 cows and told her that the land belonged to his father and as a woman she did not have the right to occupy the land. Women in Agriculture supports the Amendment Bill because it will give the women an opportunity to have land and own it as there are sections that still oppress women in the current Act.

Workers, Occupiers, Dwellers, Tenants Forum (WOTDS) Forum national office submission
Mr Ephraim Mabena, Secretary General, National Office  of WODTS Forum, said that the WODTS Forum appreciates and support the Amendment Bill. They want to make an addition about changing the name of the Bill because they believe it is not named correctly. They propose that the name be changed to Indigenous African Land Tenure Bill. The Forum felt strongly that the amendments were important because they had experienced a lot of illegal farm evictions and some people who had been bona fide dwellers on farms had been given rights by their previous employers to live on them. Parliament has not been assisting in protecting the rights of those people, so the Forum felt the pain of having seen from time to time that people were not protected. The land tenure in townships is also a problem. They end up having to go and live in backrooms. The Forum's support for this Bill speaks to the Constitution's Section 25 amendment which must be taken as the most important tool and needs to be followed step by step so that it becomes a reality. Whoever Parliament will task with this process needs to do it right and speedily so that everybody can enjoy the fruits of 1994.

WODTS NGO, City of Tshwane
Mr Johannes Mokoena said that the WODTS Forum was founded after a series of meetings and inspections that were held hand-in-hand with labour tenants, farm dwellers and those who work the land. The Forum sees it as necessary that certain sections of the Act need to be upgraded, as they have been in court many times because of illegal evictions against people by those who own the land and those who have dispossessed people of their land rights around the country. WODTS means Workers, Occupiers, Dwellers, Tenants Forum, the letter ‘S’ at the end stands for some general matters that affect the people. The Forum probes all issues relating to injustices around farms, evictions and tenure rights. The Forum has studied the Bill and feels that all the processes that the Bill intends to change are important. The Forum also appreciates that the Bill seeks to improve and give women land ownership rights, as the previous Bills did not cater for women on that matter. The Forum believes that with this Bill, there will be a realization of who has been living in a particular place or piece of land, and through the verification process, the rightful people will be assisted, and the ownership of the land will be converted to their name. The Forum also supports the Bill because it will ensure that people on farms are going to be recognized and assisted in terms of service delivery, especially with the installation of electricity in their households.

Mr Dumisani Mlangeni, WODTS Forum National Spokesperson, said that the other two WODTS Forum representatives had already said a mouthful and  he would not take up any more time as the crux of its submission was that WODTS Forum really supports the Amendment Bill.

Discussion
Ms Steyn asked how the Constitution's Section 25 amendment will strengthen the rights that people have now. She had asked that question before but wanted to see if the WODTS Forum has discussed it, as an organization that fights for the rights of the people.

Ms Mbabama asked Mr Mabena if he realised that the needs of black people are different, in that some want residential land, some want farming land, and some are only interested in having a place to stay to create a family home. Noting his statement that people who own millions of hectares of land should be done away with, Mr Mabena needs also to be cognizant that some of those farmers put food on the table, and that sometimes the farming enterprises require them to have large hectares for them to be sustainable. She asked what Mr Mabena meant by "they should be done away with". What about the needs of the people for food security? She asked if the Forum had discussed a way in which the removal of those farmers with large hectares could be done.

Mr N Masipa (DA) said that the presenters need to be reminded to help the Committee by making direct contributions about the Amendment Bill because the Committee will have to dissect their contributions they have given.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mabena to clarify the reason for the name change to Indigenous African Land Tenure Bill and explain why the word ‘African’ needs to be used, as South Africa is a diverse country and the government’s aim is to ensure equality. She fully understood the focus of the Forum and asked if they have a footprint in other provinces. She also asked if WODTS had any cases about tribal land or tribal authority land. Does the Forum include tribal authorities when they talk about workers, occupiers, dwellers and tenants? Lastly, she asked if they had any interaction with communal property associations (CPAs).

Response by WODTS
Mr Mokoena replied that the WODTS Forum has a strong footprint in all provinces. The Forum has offices in Gauteng, working hand-in-hand and closely with . It also works with Tetema CPA in Mpumalanga. The proposed name change to Indigenous African Amendment Bill was to make the point that the indigenous aspect is the motivation for its support of the Bill. On how the amendment to the Constitution's Section 25 would affect people's rights, the Forum did not see any infringement of constitutional rights.

Mr Mabena said that section 25 and land tenure are the same thing and that it must be implemented properly and not in a similar manner to how it was implemented in Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa. The Bill must be implemented soon to avoid more people being in conflict with the South African Police Service due to evictions.

On its reference to millions of hectares, Mr Mabena said that the Forum is right because there are many farms where they have a lot of unused space which needs to be used to build houses for the people. Government is still doing the same mistakes that they had done in the past, as they have established CPAs that are not supported. Government officials are not willing to take responsibility for overseeing the CPAs.

Ms Mbabama raised a point of order that Mr Mabena did not answer her question about doing away with people with millions of hectares. She had asked if the Forum took into consideration the fact that even if land is transferred to people, there needs to be consideration of the farmers who are putting food on the table. Some of the farmers need those hectares to farm, depending on the kind of farming they are doing to be sustainable. It is dangerous to make such statements of removing people with hectares of land without actually providing a practical solution on how those people would be helped to sustain their farms.

Mr Mabena said that WODTS is not a forum that is howling slogans and that the land he was referring to was not farming land but habitable land. The mentality that Ms Mbabama brought in her question revealed that she probably had not spent time in the kind of work that the Forum does. The hectares that should be taken are those of land that can be habitable for people to occupy and live on so they can develop and grow their families. People must be encouraged to occupy such land and government should assist them. He did not like Ms Mbabama’s question because it was very backward-thinking and unfair.

Ms Steyn raised a point of order as she did not think it was right for Mr Mabena to say Ms Mbabama asked a backward question. She asked that the Chairperson not allow such incidents to happen again.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mabena to withdraw his statement.

Mr Mabena apologized and withdrew his statement.

Ms Mbabama said that she respects Mr Mabena’s views and stated that their questions as a Portfolio Committee sometimes have to be phrased in a manner that will produce answers. She apologized for offending him. She was pleased that the Forum was thinking of food security but a person would not have known that listening to what he initially said.

Ward 14 Gert Sibande District Municipality, Mpumalanga submission
Mr Sipho Mthembu, a Ward 14 Committee Member in Gert Sibande District Municipality, said that he was requested by the Ward Councilor to make the submission on behalf of the area. When they heard about the opportunity to do a submission about the Amendment Bill, they felt pleased because there were a lot of concerns in their area about land tenure. The whole area is rich in coal and minerals and had a lot of agricultural activities, The people of the area primarily survive on mining as a source of employment and income. Agriculture was one of the greatest employers in the area but with the advent of democracy, the small town saw the decline in agriculture in the area. Some of the British farm owners left their farms because some of them were murdered, and some of them felt unsafe because of the advent of democracy. There were a lot of farm murders in the area as well as farm evictions so the Amendment Bill would assist in preventing all the social ills taking place in the area.

Most people in the area live in the townships and some live on the surrounding farms. Unfortunately, most of the surrounding farms have been bought by mining magnates who have opened mining operations. The problem is that most of these farm dwellers get evicted from the farms because of the new owners. The Amendment Bill would assist in ensuring that the people continue to have tenure rights for the land that they have been living on, even before the new owners come in. Due to the lack of enforcement of laws in the country, the people continue to be evicted from the farms. When the Ward Committee tries to intervene, the farmers themselves stop them from entering their land which leaves the Committee powerless because they cannot help their own people.

It would be very important for the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development to come up with a workshop to educate the people about their rights and in particular this Bill because these laws exist in this country, but the people who are supposed to benefit from them do not know about these laws.


Another problem is that there are huge mines that operates in and around Breyten, and some of these mines do not have social labor plans. Every time these mines are asked about their social labor plans, they say that the document is not a document that they are supposed to share with the community, but it is a document between the mine and the Department of Mineral Resources, which causes a lot of tension in the area. The young people in the area are very much interested in agriculture, but they do not have access to land because most of the farms and land available in the small town have been bought by the big mining magnate. The Ward Committee does not understand how this happened because some of the land was given back to the people. They are unsure if the people sell the land back to the mines to continue with the mining. When the mining operations resume, the people are promised things that are never fulfilled and ultimately they get evicted from the land. The Ward Committee is very concerned about the lack of white people's participation in these public hearings because the land issue directly affects white South Africans and black South Africans. The Gert Sibande District Municipality supports the upgrading of the Land Tenure Act and think it is the right step towards the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution which will give back the land to the people, as promised by the Constitution.

Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality, Mpumalanga community member submission
Ms Nakhile Makhubela, community member, said that the Bill has come at the right time considering the fact that democracy in the country has matured massively. Historically, black people have been very disadvantaged and even now they do not own the land on which they live. The Bill came at a time when it will enable the people to own the land that they live on. As the structure of a community starts with the family, for any community to live well where they are, they need to have land – whether it is to occupy as a residence or to farm or any other land use. The Bill should also speak about supporting women so that women in communities are not deprived of opportunities to own land simply because of their gender.

Discussion
Ms Mahlo said that the presenters were clear on what they really need the Bill to address and that she did not have a question for them.

Ms Steyn said that there are many outstanding issues that needed to be clarified and said that the question about the participation of white people in the public hearings is a valid question. The mining industry that comes onto land, especially in areas where people do not have tenure security is something that the Portfolio Committee needs to scrutinize because in the past there have been clashing rights and in many cases the mining rights take preference over agricultural land rights.

Inkosi Cebekhulu stated that in the clash of mining against agriculture, the concern has always been that most productive agricultural land is being taken by mining magnates.

Ms Mbabama asked how Mr Mthembu sees the Bill assisting with the alleviation of social ills faced in the Gert Sibande District Municipality. [Second question inaudible].

Mr Capa asked Mr Mthembu to elaborate on the concern about the scarcity of white people participation in the public hearings.

Ms Breedt said that a lot of what the speakers have said in their submissions actually reiterates what had happened in the past three days of public participation. There are a lot more issues that the Portfolio Committee will have to look at and make decisions on. They might have to ask the Department about these issues in terms of the Bill because there are so many uncertainties and things that are not being addressed or that are unconstitutional within the Bill.

Mr Masipa said that what needs to be clarified is the participation of white people in the public hearings. The public needs to be informed in the invitations to the public hearings that they need to register their objections to assist Parliament in understanding what they need the Bill to address.

The Chairperson said that she had deliberately not spoken about the purpose of the Bill to those making submissions because in some cases they come prepared and once they are told about the Bill's purpose, it throws them off and negatively affects the essence of their submissions. It is also important to check the level of understanding of the Bill by the different presenters and it is something that the Portfolio Committee will have to do at the end when wrapping up.

She asked Mr Mthembu what insights he thought the Portfolio Committee and everyone else would gain from the participation of white people in the public hearings. The Committee has noted Mr Mthembu’s call for public awareness education on this Bill in the communities and through provincial offices. This will be important even after the public hearings because if the Bill is passed, they would need to go and continue to educate the people. She asked Mr Mthembu if there are job opportunities for the locals in the mining activities happening in the ward and if they had tried to interact with other organisations that could help the community about farm evictions. She asked Ms Makhubela if her community faces challenges that she believes the Bill could resolve, especially the challenges of women.

Response by Ward 14 of Gert Sibande District Municipality
Mr Mthembu replied that when one speaks of land it puts a lot of pain on white South Africans and they run away. Land cannot be discussed in South Africa without the presence of white people because the Constitution allows them to be part of any deliberations in this country, but they stay away from these particular public hearings. This makes him wonder if they want the land issues in this country to be resolved. The Ward Committee in the Gert Sibande District sees this at its own meetings, as white South Africans do not participate in any event that they are invited to. They need to show up because the problems that the district is facing involve them too. All social ills are structural in this country and most of our people do not have access to land. This Bill will empower women to own land and when they own land, they will have means of production, and when they have means of production they can do anything on that land. Passing this Bill could contribute in shifting the way people think as they would realize that not only mining can keep them alive but also agriculture. Most people rush into the mining sector because it is where most of the job opportunities are.

Response by Chief Albert Luthuli Municipality community member
Ms Makhubela replied that she has had personal experience of the injustices that women face about land rights, especially coming from a polygamous family. One of the wives in her family did not have an heir, that is a male child, and all the land that belonged to her was given to the brother of her husband after his death. However, looking at how the family was structured, the wife was responsible for food production on the land that they had been using. This meant that whenever she needed food she would have to go and ask permission from her husband’s brother to plough the land. This is how the tribal laws did not protect her, and even in the western law they could not support her because of her family structure.

Mapulaneng Heritage Council, Mpumalanga submission
Mr Speaker Mahlake, representing Mapulaneng Heritage Council, said the Council's view of the Bill is that it will advantage the people from exploitation by some traditional leaders who sell land stands for R2000 while they get paid by government. These traditional leaders also share the land with their colleagues, thereby denying the people access to the land. Claimed land must be given to people whose families were forcefully evicted from specific farms and productive land so that they can benefit from the land in terms of socio-economic activities and alleviate poverty. As it stands the chiefs have the advantage by selling land without consulting the people. If this Bill does not get passed, it will perpetuate the stealing of land by chiefs while getting paid by the government. Our organization has launched grievances against certain traditional authorities who sell the land of the people and demarcate the grazing land for residential areas without informing the people on the ground. The Bill needs to be implemented and translated into indigenous languages because it makes it difficult for the people to understand it. It should be written in the local languages so people can understand it and participate fully.

Discussion
Ms Mbabama asked Mr Mahlake if the traditional leaders who sell land stands are selling to locals or outsiders and if it is for residential purposes or business too.

Inkosi Cebekhulu asked about the way in which the administration operates where it is alleged that chiefs are selling the land to groups and individuals.

Mr Mahlake replied that the traditional leaders sell the land stands to people that are unknown to the area, some being foreign nationals, without the consent of the community which is a serious challenge in the area.

Makholokoe in Thabo Mofutsanyana District Municipality, Free State
Mr Bongani Tshabalala, community representative, said that the community supports the Bill because in Makholokoe there are women cooperatives that could benefit from the Bill and they would like those cooperatives be assisted.

Ms Steyn thanked Mr Tshabalala for voicing his opinion even though the circumstances under which he did so were challenging.

Internal matters
Dr Tshililo Manenzhe, Committee Content Advisor, said that there were three submissions still to be heard but they could not get hold of the presenters as they did not respond to their phone. They had tried everything they could but the phones of the presenters had been switched off. One of the presenters said they would submit a written submission to the Portfolio Committee because of difficulties in connecting to the virtual platform.

The Chairperson asked the Committee for suggestions on the way forward.

Ms Steyn said a solution to the problem could be for the 28 August meeting, they inform the community members to go to churches, NGOs or community halls where they can be assisted with a better network connection.

Mr M Montwedi (EFF) expressed concern about the challenges people faced about connectivity, as well as the unavailability of those who had asked to make submissions. The Committee will have to look at if they managed to solicit enough views as they could from the people in the country.

The Chairperson said that Ms Steyn had suggested the previous week that since it is Level 2 Lockdown, perhaps members of the public could meet in a communal area where there is network connectivity to this virtual platform to participate fully in the public hearings, while also complying with COVID-19 social distancing regulations. That way the meetings could reach even more people for public participation.

Ms Steyn suggested that the invitations to the public hearings should focus not only on the rural areas but also the townships.

Dr Manenzhe replied that the people invited to the public hearings are those who responded during the public education process run by Parliament's Public Education Office – which process has been concluded. It would be difficult to invite new people, and the support staff would need more time.

The meeting was adjourned.

Documents

No related documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: