Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill - Final mandate

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the virtual meeting by welcoming Members. The purpose of the meeting was for the Committee to discuss the final mandate on the Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill [B19-2018]. Another item on the agenda was for the Committee to adopt the minutes of its previous meeting of 13 October 2020.

Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill [B19-2018] final mandate

The Chairperson outlined the Committee has extensively dealt with the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill in the past through the processes of public participation and amendments. The Committee did initially submit its comments on the Bill. Members have received the documents outlining the concerns raised by other provinces and the comments from the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) delegate for the Western Cape. Members have also received the various proposals submitted by the provinces, which the Committee has gone through and noted. Some of the proposals that were put forward were agreed to, while others were not agreed to for which reasons were given. At the end of the day, these proposals that were agreed to were incorporated into the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. The Committee must now determine whether it supports the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill as it is currently amended.

He reminded the Committee that it was resolved in a previous meeting that the Western Cape government supports the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill with the expectation that the proposed amendments in the Committee Report will be negotiated by their NCOP delegates. Previously, the Committee considered the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill and, in accordance with Standing Rule 217, conferred the authority on the Western Cape’s delegation in the NCOP to support the Bill. The Committee proposed 20 amendments. Five of the amendments were supported by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). The Chairperson read out the Committee’s proposals that were not supported by COGTA.

[For a breakdown of the proposals that were supported or not supported, view attachment here.]

The Chairperson said the Western Cape’s proposals made regarding the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill was the most comprehensive from all the provinces. He referred Members to the list of amendments that were supported by COGTA and the list of amendments that have been proposed by COGTA. Not all the Committee’s proposed amendments were agreed to, and the same happened with other provinces. The Committee must take its position on whether it can support the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill as it is currently amended. He asked the Members for comments.

Adv Romeo Maasdorp, Legal Advisor, Western Cape Provincial Parliament (WCPP), said the most pertinent proposals made by the WCPP have been accepted. The WCPP can take accolade for its intellectual and comprehensive contributions to the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. The Committee must be particularly inclined towards the constitutionality of the amendments. The proposed provisions by the WCPP that were not supported are not that substantial or substantive in respect of the constitutionality of the Bill. He stated that he has no comments against the decision of the Committee should it chose to support the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. Supporting the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill will have no impact on the constitutionality thereof.

The Chairperson thanked Adv Maasdorp for his continued efforts and guidance to the Committee during the processes it followed regarding the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. In the absence of further comments by Members, he stated that his view aligns with Adv Maasdorp. The absence of the amendments that were not accepted will not have a significant impact on the alignment of the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill to the policy position of the Committee.

Mr A van der Westhuizen (DA) said the Committee’s proposed amendments that were not supported are not substantial and are not deal-breakers. He expressed regret that the Committee’s proposal regarding the number of councillors in office (as per clause 3 of the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill) was not supported. There have been instances where council seats have been left vacant for months, which can result in a situation where the council can find it very difficult to achieve the quorum of a majority as required by the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. This is not so drastic that the Committee cannot let it go, but the matter can be addressed in the future. He expressed gratitude for the amendments that were supported.

The Chairperson said given its context and the lack of dissenting comments, the Committee supports the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. He agreed with Mr van der Westhuizen that some of the concerns that remain can be addressed again in the future, but that it does not present substantial concerns that will be an obstacle to the achievement of the Committee’s policy position.

The Committee, having considered the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill, and in accordance with Standing Rule 217, recommends that the NCOP delegate for the Western Cape be given the authority to support the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill.

The Chairperson asked whether there is any Member who does not agree that the Committee supports the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill as amended and considered.

There were no disagreements and he concluded that the Committee thus supports the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill. He thanked the Members and staff who has assisted the Committee in the process.

Adv Maasdorp referenced the fact that only three of the potential six Members of the Committee were present in the meeting. Mr van der Westhuizen followed the proper processes to indicate that he might be late for the meeting but gave the appropriate advance notice and nonetheless attended the meeting. However, Members are the lawmakers of the country and the quality of legislation that is passed stems directly from the input from the Committee. The Procedural Officers thanklessly and continuously contacted Members to inform them of this meeting. Only when they followed up again after the meeting has started, has some Members offered their apologies for not being able to attend. This is simply unacceptable and alarming. This Committee is the middle of a law-making process and the elections are around the corner. Officials are expected to be committed to their tasks such as displayed by our Procedural Officers, but the same is expected from Members especially when a very important and fundamental piece of legislation, such as the Municipal Structures Amendment Bill, is the subject of the Committee’s meeting. This shows a lack of diligence to Members’ mandate and tasks. It is a sad observation that Members did not deem it important to present their apologies or attend the meeting.

Mr van der Westhuizen found Adv Maasdorp’s sentiments a valuable reminder to Members. He enquired whether the date of the meeting was a constituency day in which case Committee meetings such as this should not be scheduled for those days. He also said the meeting was not on the parliamentary programme previously handed out to Members for them to diarise, and the dates of these meetings are designated by the NCOP. He asked that these reasons be kept in mind for Members’ attendance.

The Chairperson thanked Adv Maasdorp for his concerns. He expressed his gratitude to all involved in the process for the finalisation of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Amendment Bill.

Committee minutes dated 13 October 2020

The minutes were adopted.

The meeting was adjourned.