Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, hon members, in the spirit of co- operative governance, the Minister for Co-operative Government and Traditional Affairs, Minister Lechesa Tsenoli, has asked me to speak in this debate. I do so gladly, and I do so in support of the Local Government Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill.
Deputy Speaker, allow me to begin on a blue note, which might not have an immediately obvious connection with this Bill. Fifty years ago, in mid- 1964, Chris McGregor, Janni Jiyane, Mnikelo Moyakhe, Mongezi Feza, Harry Miller, Dudu Pukwana and Louis Moholo, some of the best jazz musicians that our soil has produced, left South Africa. They had performed as the Blue Notes. In exile, they reconstituted themselves as the Brotherhood of Breath.
One of the reasons why they left South Africa was the racial segregation and spatial injustice of apartheid that made it impossible for musicians of different race classifications to perform together. McGregor's wife, Maxine, described that South Africa in his biography, entitled Chris McGregor and the Brotherhood of Breath.
Because they were not allowed to live in white areas, the black and coloured people were dispossessed of homes that they might have owned for generations and systematically dumped with their few belongings on barren hill sites that were designated as homelands, like KwaNdebele, a 50-mile long shantytown that sprang up almost overnight in the veld, miles from anywhere.
The people who lived in those shacks were obliged to spend sometimes as much as eight hours a day on buses that wound around picking up passengers, costing the government more than R1 000 a head, per commuter, each year in subsidies.
This was the biggest single expense in the development of a home loan, just to work in Pretoria, a distance of 40 miles, leaving them perhaps with five hours in their homes out of 24 hours a day. This money might have been better employed in building homes.
There was no work in KwaNdebele; only a few elites were employed as officials and the rest of the inhabitants were forced to travel daily into South Africa to earn a living. This might have changed in law, but it will take many years and enormous amounts of money to undo the damage that was done during this time in habitation alone. It was when apartheid was building up to this most depressive era that Chris joined the street demonstrations against the closure of the universities to blacks and begun his efforts to put together a mixed race jazz group.
This painful history and the challenges that it poses to us today is captured by Mark Orkin in an introduction to Apartheid City in Transition, published in 1991, as we were embarking on negotiations that would lead to our first democratic elections in 1994, the adoption of our Constitution in 1996, and our system of democratic developmental local government in 2000.
The apartheid spatial system as it manifested itself within the urban system as a whole was premised on policies aimed at decentralising and deconcentrating employment at the micro level and dividing the city itself into racial residential areas at the micro level.
Until 1986, entry into the city itself was regulated by influx control which, as the dividing line between town and countryside, was secured by repressive, racially based legislation. This division was complemented by economic constraints that blocked access for the poor to spaces that were too costly for the migrating populations. Underpinning this racial and class-based exclusion was the regional integration of labour markets that undercut constitutional and racial boundaries.
The result has been a massive waste of resources, and the net spatially based redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich as a result of a divided tax base; constraints on small business development; limits on agglomeration in the inner cities; the subsidisation of transport; and, to counteract the cost of subsidies, deconcentration, decentralisation and the huge misuse and non-use of land.
Out of this has emerged the need for a city that maximises the use of its resources and ensures access to its services for the poor. Although legislatively this rationalisation is a necessary condition for building the compact city, the built environment is spatially fixed. How the compact city can be built in a way that simultaneously utilises the deconcentrated urban infrastructure that already exists will emerge as the main challenge.
Speaker, these are the challenges that the ANC government inherited from apartheid in 1994. Despite this legacy, in two decades we have achieved an unparalleled success in delivering basic services to the majority of South Africa's people. Democratic developmental local government has been at the forefront of this good story, and the assertion that local government is an unmitigated disaster area is a demonstrable falsehood.
However, we must debate this Bill in the context of the significant challenges that remain in realising the vision of democratic and developmental government outlined in our Constitution, and its role in the ongoing struggle for spatial justice implicit in that vision.
The Local Government Municipal Property Rates Act is central to the financial sustainability of South Africa's metropolitan and local municipalities and their ability to play a role in achieving this vision. It gives effect to the mandate that municipalities have to raise their own revenue by levying property tax or rates against property in the municipal area.
Property rates make up a large portion of the budgets if metropolitan local municipalites. The ability of municipalities to levy rates and value property efficiently and fairly is essential for good governance and service delivery at local level. Rates income is essential for municipalities to contribute to the social and economic development of the communities they serve. National Treasury's budget review points out that 73% of local government revenue is raised through tariffs and property rates.
Since the implementation of the Act in 2005, municipalities across the country have conducted general property valuations and developed rates policies. The legislation has been tested in practice and areas requiring refinement have been identified. The 2014 amendments are part of the ongoing process of refining policy and legislation to meet the dynamic needs of South Africa's municipalities.
The amendments to the Act aim to strengthen this important law, clarify its aspects and provide greater support and monitoring through provinces and national government for those municipalities that require it. The amending Bill and the recently promulgated regulations on the appointment and conditions of employment of senior managers promote good governance and the professionalisation of local government in line with the vision set out in our National Development Plan, NDP.
As this term of office draws to a close, these and other policy developments underscore the national government's ongoing efforts to support and strengthen local government. As President Zuma pointed out in this year's state of the nation address, national and provincial government must play a greater role in supporting local government.
The 2014 amendments do not represent fundamental changes to the law, but clarify some aspects of the legislation, strengthen governance and streamline aspects of application. And, most importantly, the Bill will improve levels of trust in the property rating system by strengthening national and provincial oversight, by simplifying complex aspects of the Act and by providing for property categorisation that is simple to understand, transparent, and easier to regulate.
The proposed amendments also seek to ensure that municipal rating is not undertaken in isolation to national interests in so far as the economic and developmental objectives of the country are concerned.
Deputy Speaker, we would like to thank the portfolio committee for the rigorous manner in which they have discharged the legislative mandate, and also thank the organised local government, various sectors and individuals who have made valuable proposals.
Together they have effected important improvements to the Bill, and we are confident that the Local Government Municipal Property Rates Amendment Act will make an important contribution to strengthening our system of democratic developmental local government, together moving South Africa forward. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, Deputy President, hon members, firstly I would like to address the House on issues raised before the reading of the Second Order of the day. The Portfolio Committee on Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs submitted the report on 28 February and again submitted a detailed report with corrections which appeared in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee Reports on 04 March. That is why we were allowed to schedule this debate for today.
The Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill, No 19 of 2004, is hereby amended so as to provide for amendments and the insertion of certain definitions. Section 229 of the Constitution allows municipalities to impose rates on properties in their areas, subject to regulations in terms of national legislation, and the Constitution enjoins local government to be developmental in nature.
In addressing the service delivery priorities of our country and promoting the economic and financial viability of municipalities, it is necessary to provide local government with access to a sufficient and buoyant source of revenue in order to fulfill its developmental mandate.
The income derived from property rates is a critical source of revenue, especially in areas that have been neglected in the past due to racially discriminatory laws. It is essential, therefore, that municipalities exercise their power to impose rates without a statutory framework that not only enhances certainty, uniformity and simplicity, but also takes into account the historical imbalances and rates burden on the poor.
Property rates assist municipalities to fund services that benefit the whole community as opposed to benefiting individual households. These services include installing and maintaining streets, roads, sidewalks, lighting, stormwater drainage, recreational facilities, cemeteries, etc. Municipalities have a long history of rating properties in terms of the old provincial ordinances of the Cape, Natal, Orange Free State and the former Transvaal provinces, especially in the formerly white urban areas. This is not a new system at all. The Local Government Municipal Property Rates Act replaces the old system of property valuations and ratings based on old provincial ordinances, meaning that property owners are liable for the payment of their rates.
Deputy Speaker, if I may ask, what are municipal property rates? Municipal property rates is a cent amount in a rand, levied on the market value of an immovable property - that is, the land and building rights of a way, casements and servitudes.
How are these calculated by municipalities? Property rates are calculated by multiplying the market value of the immovable property, which is land plus building, by a cent amount of a rand determined by the municipal council, taking into consideration public comments. For example, if the market value of an immovable property is R50 000, and the cent amount in a rand is 15c, then the amount due for the property rates is R50 000 multiplied by 15c, which equals R750 per year. This means that every month a property owner will pay R62,50, and this R62,50 is calculated by dividing R750 by 12 months. I am giving an example of the calculation of rates.
This Bill before the House seeks to address challenges that have emerged since the implementation of the Act. The provisions in the Bill seek to bring changes in terms of making the Bill simpler to implement and to strengthen certain regulatory, monitoring and reporting provisions. There were a number of different interpretation issues that arose.
This Bill also aims to exclude certain properties from rating in the national interest and enable municipalities to be transparent and warrant fair rating, which is a good story to tell, especially for the poor, the indigent, the elderly, and disabled people. The proposed provision to exclude aspects of the market value of the property owned by the recipients of older persons' grants and disability grants is removed because the ANC- led government is moving towards universal access to older persons' grants for all pensioners, regardless of income, as outlined in the Minister of Finance's 2013-14 Budget Speech. This means that the means test for older persons' grants is to be phased out by 2016.
In practice, in one way or another, municipalities either exempt or grant significant rebates to property owners who are poor, guided by their property rates policies and indigent policies.
Before I provide some feedback on the amendments, I would like to thank and express my appreciation for the stakeholders who participated in making changes and proposals to the Bill during the public hearings. The process was characterised by vibrant interactions through submissions. Also, I would like to thank the members of the portfolio committee, representatives of all parties, the department and the state law advisers for their immense contribution to the changes made to the Bill.
The differentiation in respect of the period of availability of valuation rolls for metropolitan and local municipalities was introduced. These provisions recognise the vibrancy in the property market in metropolitan areas which necessitate shorter valuation cycles for metropolitan municipalities.
There are numerous challenges faced by a number of smaller municipalities that warrant longer valuation cycles. In order to recoup the costs of valuation rolls, whilst the status quo is retained in respect of metropolitan municipalities, local municipalities' valuation roll validity is extended by one additional year.
Nothing stops any municipality that deems itself fit to shorten the validity of its valuation roll from doing so, as the Act sets up the maximum period of the validity of valuation rolls whilst allowing municipalities the flexibility to settle for shorter periods if they desire to do so, as long as this does not amount to a drop in standards.
Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the framework for property categorisation, that is whether a property is classified as residential, commercial, business, industrial or agricultural, for rating purposes. It has been revised to allow for municipalities, if they can show good cause, to apply to the Minister and give motivations for the subcategorisations they want.
This compromise was reached to address concerns that section 8 may be overly prescriptive. Concerns were raised by municipalities and by some committee members during the public hearings. A new clause was added to section 8, which will now become section 8(4), and reads as follows:
a) Where a municipality can, on good cause, show that there is a need to subcategorise the property categories listed in subsection (2), a municipality must apply to the Minister in writing for authorisation to create one or more of such subcategories. b) Such application must -
i) be accompanied by a motivation for such subcategorisation;
(ii) demonstrate that such subcategorisation is not in contravention of section 19; and
(iii) reach the Minister at least 15 months before the start of the municipal financial year in which the municipality envisages levying a rate on such subcategorised property.
In light of the amendments that were effected to clarify matters relating to public worship and official residences related thereto, it was agreed in the portfolio committee that section 17(1) be amended to make it clear that only one office bearer's official residence registered in the name of the relevant religious community is excluded from municipal rating. It means that section 17(1) will now read as follows:
i) On a property registered in the name of and used primarily as a place of public worship by a religious community, including the official residence registered in the name of that community which is occupied by the office bearer of that community who officiates at services at that place of worship.
There is another proposed amendment that I won't go into now, because I am watching my time, and that is the Valuation Appeal Board, which I think hon Steenhuisen will go into. It is a clause that we did not see eye to eye on during the deliberations. The Valuation Appeal Board is a professional associated valuer without restrictions and with 10 years' experience in property valuation.
The committee revised the section slightly to provide for the appointment of a professional associated valuer without restrictions and with 10 years' experience in property valuation where a professional valuer could not be found or appointed. The revised clause amending section 56(1)(b) now reads as follows:
An appeal board consists of not fewer than two and not more than four other members with sufficient knowledge of or experience in the valuation of property, of which at least one-
i) must be a professional valuer registered in terms of the Property Valuers Profession Act, 47 of 2000; or ii) may be a professional associate valuer, without restrictions and with at least 10 years' experience, registered in terms of the Property Valuers Profession Act, 47 of 2000, if a professional valuer cannot be appointed.
The effect of the amendment is that there has to be a preference for the appointment of a professional valuer, taking into account the scarcity of professional valuers and the need for representivity, including that of gender. It also needs to be asked why the SA Council for the Property Valuers Profession came up with a once-off concession only in 2013, when it is clear that the government proposal, as contained in the Bill, which was published for comment in 2011, was to remain unchanged until it was brought before the portfolio committee.
The fact remains that no single profession in South Africa is immune to issues of transformation that include representation in terms of demographics and gender. We face the status quo because there have been no significant outcomes from the way in which the SA Council for the Property Valuers Profession is transforming the profession. The sooner the council takes tangible steps forward in transforming the valuers' profession, the better. On behalf of the portfolio committee, I table the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill to be passed by the House. The ANC supports the Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, given the very technical and rather inane type of Bill we have today, I do not blame the hon Deputy Minister for trying to jazz it up a bit. It was intresting to have that meandering out and it did have some sense of foreboding when you talked about "blue notes". I thought it was another part of your attack on the DA that was coming, but certainly it was a welcome interlude from the technical nature of this Bill.
Section 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides, and I quote:
All spheres of government ... must -
(e) respect the constitutional status, institutions, powers and functions of government in the other spheres;
(f) not assume any power or function except those conferred on them in terms of the Constitution; (g) exercise their powers and perform their functions ...
This is the important part -
... in a manner that does not encroach on the geographical, functional or institutional integrity of government in another sphere.
The DA believes that local government has the right to exercise its powers and functions as prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, particularly in terms of sections 151 and 154. The amendments to this Bill are largely technical in nature and are certainly very welcome additions that have resulted from the experience of implementation of the Act over the past couple of years.
However, there are several amendments which the DA found problematic. The first one is the amendment of section 8. The DA believes that, as the Local Government Turnaround Strategy recognised, one size does not fit all, and that it is not suitable and it differentiates the approach as required. We believe that this amendment will dictate to municipalities through a very prescriptive manner the categories of property that they must have the in their rates policy as well as the subcategories. This amendment essentially removes the flexibility of municipalities to determine their own rating category and subcategories. This is a far too prescriptive exercise of national powers. Each municipality is different and each municipality needs to adapt to its local conditions and its local community. This was confirmed by the City of Tshwane v Blom, which recognised the fact that municipalities have the right to determine their own categories of property.
The current Act prior to the amendment was the correct way to go. It created a guideline and a framework for municipalities, but allowed them the flexibility to be able to do that. What the current amendment is trying to do is to make sure that if municipalities want to have subcategories, they have to go cap in hand to the Minister and motivate when, in fact, this is their right in terms of the local government legislation and the Constitution.
The correct locus for determining property rate categories is the Property Rates Policy, which is required by the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act. This provides for a section with a great deal of public participation and accountability, and it has councillors, who are the directly elected representatives of local communities, who on an annual basis review this policy, determine the categories and then apply them within the municipality. If there are problems, it is the local government councillors who are responsible for oversight and are held accountable for the types of categories and subcategories that the municipalities wish to apply.
The second amendment which the DA is concerned about is section 17, and this is probably the largest concern that we have. This revolves around the new category of public service infrastructure. Essentially the government is going to be moving to a system where they will be trying to exempt themselves from having to pay rates on public service infrastructure. There is no doubt that this amendment is a precursor to a ratio which is going to apply further down the line. This will lead to a loss of income in municipalities.
Every single municipality that appeared before the committee in the public hearings raised concerns around this issue. They said that if you are going to take this public service infrastructure out of the rating categories, you are going to move towards exempting it. What is going to happen? There is going to be a hole in the budget. That can only be met in one of two ways: an increase in rates and a shift in incidents to other categories of ratepayer, namely residential and business, or they are going to have to pull back on service delivery.
Thankfully the committee was able to prevail and the department came forth with a compromise position where this will be phased in over five years. The bottom line is, however long you take to phase it in, it is still going to lead to the loss of income in these municipalities, which is going to be passed directly on to ratepayers and you are going to have residential and business ratepayers essentially having to foot the bill for government trying to exempt itself from having to pay rates on those properties.
The other amendment which we had a concern about was the amendment to section 32 which extend the life of valuation rolls. Whilst this is certainly understandable for district municipalities, and there was sympathy for the argument put forward by the department, there is a lack of capacity in many of the smaller municipalities. This compilation of valuation rolls becomes a very onerous task and a very expensive task for these municipalities. But I cannot see fit to extend this to metropolitan municipalities.
Raising rates is one of the key functions of local government in order to finance itself. A municipality particularly a metropolitan municipality - that cannot regularly update its valuation roll should be getting the intervention of the department to determine exactly what is going wrong there. Instead, we have a blanket extension, where municipalities can keep - and in the case of a metropolitan municipality could effectively keep - a valuation roll in place for up to six years.
The whole reason of the Act was to move to market value, where the willing- seller, willing-buyer would pay for the property. The fluctuations in the property market over a six-year period are massive. You could well end up with a situation where residents are paying rates on a property that was purchased during a boom in property, but where there has now been a bust and market value has deteriorated or degenerated or decreased and the property owners are still paying pegged rates at the higher market value. If you are going to use market value, you must use market value; you cannot end up with a situation where people are stacked in a false situation when paying rates on property. And of course the adverse could also occur.
The other clause that the hon Chairperson mentioned was the issue around the professional associated valuers sitting on appeals boards. We believe that this is undesirable, because you have professional valuers who compile the valuation rolls, while you then have professional associated valuers, mostly junior categories, sitting in appeals on decisions taken by them. The example will be like the junior advocate sitting in on an appeal of a High Court judge.
My concern here is that it could well lead to a weakening of appeals boards across the country. This could have a negative effect in one of two ways. Firstly, you could have a situation where professional associated valuers, junior valuers, are sitting in on decisions and are not capable of actually processing them as they are reviewing decisions of people who are much more experienced and have much more professional qualifications. This could well lead to problems. Secondly, many big corporations and companies may come in to challenge the rates, bringing in top advocates, bringing in experienced professionals to challenge the rates. Whether the junior valuer is going to be able to stand up and defend the municipal valuer's decision in this regard is open to debate.
The Valuers Association created a dispensation last year which allows junior professional associated valuers to apply and to be accredited as professional valuers to try to get more professional valuers onto the market for municipalities to take care of. I believe that this is going to lead to a dumbing down of the appeals board. This is important, because these appeals boards are very often a resident's - ratepayer's - last recourse in terms of appealing against valuation. The only step after that is the High Court and with the cost of the legal process in our country, it is simply unaffordable for most residents.
We welcome the new reporting mechanisms that are contained in the Bill, and we hope that something concrete will happen with regard to those reports. We have, as has the NDP, recognised that the government's response has been for more regulations for local government, while many of the existing regulations are not implemented. We hope that the regulations and reports that are now required are actually going to be dealt with, processed and actioned in those municipalities that have not been compliant. Thank you. [Applause.]
Hon Speaker, hon members, the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill, which I will hereafter refer to as the Rates Bill, is expected to regulate the power of a municipality to impose rates on property and tie up all the loose ends started on 2 July 2005, when just four municipalities began valuing and rating properties in terms of the 2004 Act, which was amended through the Local Government Laws Amendment Act of 2008.
It is essential that local government exercises its power to impose rates within a statutory framework that not only enhances certainty, uniformity and simplicity across the nation, but also takes into account historical imbalances and the rates burden of the poor. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa confers on Parliament the power to regulate the exercise by municipalities of their fiscal powers.
What, however, remains unfinished business in the Act is the fact that, amongst others, clause 6, which substitutes section 8 of the Act, limits the basis for the categorisation of properties to use and permitted use only. This clause also provides for a municipality, on good cause shown, to apply to the Minister to subcategorise property categories.
Hon Minister, it is no secret that informal settlements are going to be a part of the national property framework for a long time to come. With the pace of housing development we have seen with this government up to now, it means that there is a lot of land unused, unaccounted for and that remaining untaxed in terms of the rates system as envisaged by this Bill. The Congress of the People would like to know how this Bill will eventually deal with this phenomena and further empower municipalities to bring in the very large parts of the towns and the cities with informal settlements where services are needed most - and are provided for one way or the other - but continue to remain out of the categorisation process or the rates matrix, as would be expected and, at the same time, as envisaged by clause 6.
Clause 13 speaks to the exclusion from rates of mining rights or mining permits, excluding infrastructure above the surface in respect of mining property. A number of mining houses use high volumes of water and electricity, such that the variations as intended in the Bill would need serious scrutiny going forward. The same clause also recognises land belonging to beneficiaries and heirs, their dependants and/or spouses, and includes a 10-year temporary exclusion from the payment of rates before the exemption lapses.
Cope would like to raise the issue of body corporates as separate entities that present a certain exclusivity, which is highlighted in clause 16 and clause 21 in respect of sectional title schemes and share blocks. These bodies have been a law unto themselves for a long time, and in certain instances have remained unaccountable to any regulatory body, including the Estate Agency Affairs Board, where one would have hoped there would be a certain degree of monitoring or accountability. This Bill requires them to give municipal valuers access to their documents, property and information required for the purpose of valuing the property.
Finally, Cope finds the Bill favourable in that it is commendable. Provincial departments responsible for local government should ideally have commensurate establishments if they are to fulfil their constitutional monitoring and support roles in terms of the Act, whether amended or not. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, the IFP supports the Bill. [Laughter.] [Applause.]
Hon House Chairperson, hon Deputy President, hon Minister and Deputy Ministers, hon members, ladies and gentlemen, the ANC's engagement with any of its policies is an informed and principled one. Unlike some who claim to be democrats, the ANC's approach to matters of policy is not determined by who you meet, kiss and declare your President overnight.
Our policies are aimed at striving for the achievement of the rights of all South Africans as a whole; at gaining political and economic self- determination in a united South Africa; overcoming the legacy of inequality and injustice created by colonialism and apartheid in a swift, progressive and principled way; developing a sustainable economy and state infrastructure that will progressively improve the quality of life of all South Africans; encouraging the flourishing of the feeling that South Africa belongs to all who live in it; promoting a common loyalty to and pride in the country; and to creating a universal sense of freedom and security within its borders.
The above is the context within which the ANC supports the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill. [Interjections.]
Chairperson!
Hon Nelson, will you please take your seat?
Chairperson, the hon member from the IFP set such a good example ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, you are wasting the member's time. Take your seat, please; Continue, hon member! [Interjections.]
House Chair, the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Act has been implemented since 2008. Municipalities have now catalogued details of how the Act affects people's lives. These experiences suggest that the Act needs to be changed to make it seamless and minimise legal and policy misinterpretations that have arisen over time.
The object of the Bill is therefore to address the problems that have been experienced in the implementation of the Act since its commencement. The amendments will give clarity and bring uniformity in the way in which property is valued. This will enhance transparency and will assist in holding municipalities accountable. Most importantly, it removes legal ambiguities as well as challenges with interpretation, thereby enabling municipalities to comply with the Act properly.
This compliance with legislation and regulations will contribute to improving municipal audit outcomes, for which we are all striving. As the Act stands it has property categories, but leaves leeway for municipalities to use their own discretion when levying property rates. For instance, you would have a property categorised as "business"; then you would have subcategorisation such as "business 1", "business 2", "business 3", etc.
Clause 6 amends section 8, which deals with a framework for property categorisation, that is whether a property is classified as residential, commercial and business, industrial, agriculture, etc. For rating purposes, it has now been revised to allow for municipalities, if they can show good cause, to apply to the Minister, with motivations, to subcategorise the main property categories. This is reflected in section 8(2). [Interjections.] So, they are not going to go begging to the Minister, hon Steenhuisen.
In addition, transitional arrangements were added to provide for municipalities to implement the provisions of section 8 within seven years of the effective date of this Act, giving municipalities sufficient time to adjust to the new property categorisation framework. Clause 36 inserts a new section 93A which provides for the phasing in of the prohibition on the levying of rates on certain types of public service infrastructure. The rating of certain public service infrastructure such as roads, railways, airport aprons and runways, dams and breakwaters may compromise the economic and developmental objectives of the country. These kinds of infrastructure are enablers of national economic integration and economic growth as they facilitate economic activities across municipal boundaries for the national mobility of goods, services, capital or labour across municipal boundaries.
The possibility that the N1 road, which links the country from Cape Town to Musina, which is our border town in Limpopo with Zimbabwe, can be subjected to different rates by various municipalities through which it passes is absurd. The mere fact that there is no known country in the entire world which subject roads to possibilities of municipal rating says a lot in itself about how irrational this possibility is.
South Africa cannot go against international best practice. Given the focus on infrastructure expansion, particularly in the transport sector, through interventions that are aimed at growing the economy and moving it more efficiently, there is an impetus to not divert funds away, by means of municipal rating, from such much needed infrastructure investments.
It is equally irrational that the national government can build a dam for the purpose of enabling communities within that municipal jurisdiction and other communities located outside that municipal jurisdiction to have access to water and waterborne sanitation only to have a municipality within whose jurisdiction the dam happens to be located subjecting that dam into infrastructural rating.
It also needs to be taken into account that through the national budget process, municipalities are allocated a local government equitable share and various conditional grants, including the Municipal Infrastructure Grant, to enable them to exercise their powers and functions.
It is in the national interest that the government's efforts towards ensuring national economic integration, through infrastructure development of these kinds, is not constrained by the issue of whether future governments would have enough resources from the national budget to settle property rates liabilities. The policy target of the three spheres of government has to be the realisation of a better life for the citizens as opposed to any actions on the part of each sphere of government which may have the unintended effect of either derailing the attainment of this goal or its sustenance.
These kinds of infrastructure are also enablers for local economic development to take place as they contribute to making the municipal jurisdictions in which they are located attractive to both domestic and foreign private sector investments. Alternatively stated, these kinds of infrastructure, by facilitating business decisions to locate business operations in those jurisdictions, contribute in raising these municipalities' rates base in terms of deriving additional revenue in future.
Such investments also connect individual municipalities to the rest of the country through the creation and maintenance of corridors along which goods and services move from one part of the country to another. There is a good case to be made for excluding these kinds of infrastructure from municipal rating.
The prohibition on municipal rating is not extended to the rest of public service infrastructure, such as those in the telecommunication and energy sectors, where there are private sector operators or possibilities for private sector participation in the future, because their exclusion from rating would result in an unfair advantage to the state-owned entities in these sectors.
We now come to the Valuation Appeal Board. The proposed amendment to include a professional associated valuer without restrictions, and with ten years' experience in the valuation of property, as a member of the valuation appeal board, were revised to provide that a professional associated valuer without restrictions, and with ten years' experience in the valuation of property, may be appointed if a professional valuer could not be appointed.
The effect of the above amendment is that preference has to be given to the appointment of a professional valuer. However, taking into account the need for representivity, including gender representivity and the scarceness of the skill, it may not always be possible for a professional valuer to be appointed. It should also be added that practicing as a professional valuer is more lucrative than that of serving on an appeal board; hence the difficulty in always obtaining professional valuers for the appeal board.
Another question which should be raised is why the SA Council for Professional Valuers came up with the once-off concession only in 2013, when it became clear that the government proposal, as contained in the Bill that was published for public comment during 2011, was to remain unchanged in the Bill to be submitted to Parliament. The fact remains that no single profession in South Africa is to be immune to issues of transformation that includes representation in terms of the demographics and gender mix of the country.
Otherwise, we will be perpetuating the status quo for certain professions which should have no place in a transformative society. We are in this current status quo because no significant outcomes are coming out as to how the SA Council for the Property Valuers Profession is transforming this profession. The sooner the council takes tangible steps forward in transforming the valuers' profession, the sooner the proposed amendments would become redundant.
Ideally, preference has to be given to professional valuers, taking into account the country's transformation agenda, which does not exalt any particular profession. The council has to assist in taking the nation forward as the current status quo regarding the valuers' profession is indefensible. The council should not be reactive but rather proactive in transforming this profession. Through this amending Bill, the ANC is implementing the vision which was succinctly expressed by the people of South Africa through the 1992 ANC policy document, Ready to Govern, when they said:
Equity considerations will also be addressed through, for example, redistributive financial mechanisms and allocative systems.
Examples of these forms of redistribution are service charges and rating systems that favour the poor and not the rich; the diversion of military expenditure to housing production; the prioritising of investment in inner city housing; and the upgrading of the townships, informal settlements and rural areas over investments in middle-income housing areas.
Fellow South Africans, the ANC has a good story to tell. The ANC-led government will continue to move this country forward through putting relevant legislation in place and ensuring the implementation thereof. I thank you. [Applause.]
Agb Voorsitter, u behoort 'n rel te maak dat opruiende toesprake soos die een wat die agb lid gelewer het nie in die Huis toelaatbaar is nie. [Gelag.] As ons gaan kyk na wetgewing oor eiendomsbelasting wat met munisipaliteite verband hou, sien ons dat dit in 1999 begin is. Hoekom betaal mense belasting? Jy betaal belasting omdat jy 'n diens verwag van die instelling aan wie jy dit betaal. Voorheen was eiendomsbelasting wat munisipaliteite hef, gebaseer op 'n munisipale waardasie van die erf en het jy daardie belasting betaal, want daar moet 'n waterpunt wees en daar moet 'n kragpunt wees.
Dit het vir almal gegeld. Die koste was vir almal dieselfde. Hoe groter die erf, hoe meer het jy betaal. Nou gaan dit nie net oor die koste om 'n punt daar te kry nie, dit gaan ook oor die verbetering van die erf.
Die VF Plus s dat dit onbillik is. Hoekom is dit onbillik? Dis onbillik, want voorheen het jy dieselfde koste betaal om die punt op jou erf te kry. As jy 'n groter woning daarop sit en jy gebruik meer krag of meer water, dan betaal jy meer vir jou dienste. Dit is die korrekte beginsel. Dit het altyd goed gewerk.
Hoe het die probleem ontstaan? Die probleem het ontstaan omdat dienstegeld nie betaal word nie. Die ANC is die oorsaak daarvan, want hulle het die "civic organisations" gebruik om mense aan te moedig om nie te betaal nie. Nou pluk hulle die vrugte, want wat jy saai, sal jy maai. Dit is presies wat deesdae gebeur.
Nou kom die munisipaliteite met wanbesteding van geld, en in hierdie stadium beloop die agterstallige dienstegeld 'n reusebedrag van ongeveer R86 miljard rand. Dis amper twee keer die totale verdedigingsbegroting van Suid-Afrika.
Nou moet die melkkoeie ingespan word. Die mense wat wonings het, word nou gemelk, want die ander mense betaal nie vir hulle dienste nie, die amptenare mors die geld, en die stadsrade is onbevoeg en korrupsie vind plaas. Hulle moet dus 'n ander bron van inkomste uit die mense kry.
Dit is hoekom hierdie wetsontwerp op die tafel is. Melk die wit koei! Die agb Minister het gepraat van die swart koei en die wit koei. Kom ons melk die wit koei! Laat hulle betaal! [Tussenwerpsels.]
Dit is verkeerd. Ons moet van die idee van ryk en arm wegbeweeg. Ons moet na die punt beweeg waar jy moet betaal as jy dienste wil h. Jy kan nie mense wat vir hul dienste betaal toelaat om mense te subsidieer wat nie wil betaal nie. Daarom sal die VF Plus nie hierdie wetsontwerp ondersteun nie. Ek dank u. [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Chairperson, you should make a ruling that speeches that are as inciting as the one the hon member just delivered should not be allowed in the House. [Laughter.]
If we take a look at legislation on property rates in as far as municipalities are concerned, we notice that it started in 1999. Why do people pay rates? People pay rates because they expect services from the institution that they make these payments to. Property rates levied by municipalities had previously been based on a municipal valuation of the erf and you had to pay those rates, because provision had to be made for power and water supply points.
That applied to everyone. The costs had been the same across the board. The bigger the size of the erf, the higher the rates you had to pay. However, currently it is not only about the costs to get a supply point installed, but it is also about improvements to the erf.
The FF Plus is of the opinion that this is unfair. Why is it unfair? It is unfair, because previously you paid the same amount to get a supply point on your erf. Should you then build a bigger dwelling on that erf and you use more electricity or more water, then you have to pay more for your services. That is the correct principle. It had always worked well.
How did the problem originate? The problem originated because of the nonpayment of service fees. The ANC has caused this, because they have used the civic organisations to encourage people not to make payments. Now they are reaping the fruits, because whatever you sow, you shall reap. That is precisely what is happening these days.
The municipalities are now experiencing misappropriation of funds, and the arrears on service fees have escalated to an alarming amount of about R86 billion at this stage. This is almost twice the total defence budget of South Africa.
Now we must make use of the milk cows. We have to milk those people who are home owners, because other people are not paying for services, officials are wasting money, and the city councils are incompetent and corruption is taking place. Therefore they have to look at getting another source of income from people.
That is why this Bill is currently being tabled. Milk the white cow! The hon Minister talked about the black cow and the white cow. Let us milk the white cow! Make them pay! [Interjections.]
It is wrong. We have to move away from the idea of rich and poor. We have to move towards a situation where you have to pay for the services required. You cannot allow people who pay for their services to subsidise those people who are not willing to pay for theirs. Therefore, the FF Plus will not support this Bill. I thank you. [Interjections.]]
Hon Chairperson, Mahatma Gandhi once said that the characteristics of a good leader is the ability to reflect on efforts, and if they prove insufficient, to re-evaluate and correct them.
This is exactly what the Minister has done. The initial Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Bill was excellent in theory. However, municipal officials grapple with its implementation. This is because the legislation was largely theoretical.
We applaud the department for their extensive consultations with various stakeholders on the challenges posed with the implementation of the Act. Monitoring of the Act proved crucial, as it showed the necessity for the amendments. Stories of a lack of service delivery and corruption cast a dark cloud on the municipal structures and their efficiency in implementing national policies. This current Bill aims to provide more effective monitoring and reporting by municipalities, and the MF lauds the efforts.
The additional amendments concerning the exclusion of game farms from agricultural property is indeed welcomed. We cannot allow the elite to continue to benefit while the rest of the country is struggling to make ends meet. Anyone who is against this kind of amendment is stuck in an apartheid mindset.
We have a skills shortage in the country and we need to make sure that we tailor our education system so that, firstly, our youth get access to tertiary institutions and, secondly, the employment market has sufficient opportunities for them.
This is why we welcome the amendment that allows an associated valuer to serve on the board. We simply must have enough professional valuers in this country. This must indeed be rectified. The department needs to direct more money into this field to ensure that we grow the field of professional valuers, while simultaneously upholding the high standards associated with the profession.
While it is evident that challenges do exist, we should acknowledge our progress under the auspicious leadership and united mechanics of our democracy. The MF lauds the department for their well-devised plan of action to deliver. We acknowledge that this delivery is dependent upon co- operative governance between the department and municipalities.
Therefore, we must consistently endeavour to cement the spirit of a good working relationship based on mutual understanding, giving true meaning to President Zuma's call of ensuring the harmonisation and synchronisation of all spheres of government.
We cannot take South Africa forward with old and outdated problematic pieces of legislation. This Bill will deliver efficiently and effectively, and the MF will support it. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon member. The next speaker is the hon Mandela.
Mr Chairperson, on a point of order: The DA has a second speaking turn of five minutes. We have requested that the hon Steenhuisen take up that time period. In terms of Rule 60(b) it is clearly provided that members other than the President, Deputy President and Leader of the Opposition may not speak for longer than 10 minutes at a time on any particular vote in an Appropriation Bill, or 30 minutes at a time on any other business.
It is therefore clearly envisaged that a person may speak more than once on a particular matter. He has only spoken for 10 minutes on this matter and it is not an Appropriation Bill. He is therefore entitled to speak for 30 minutes at a time on any matter.
Hon member, thank you for correctly referring to the Rule. However, you have a certain interpretation of that Rule that we don't agree with. The Chairperson of the session recognises members in accordance with the speakers' list that is provided. In this instance, the hon Steenhuisen had his opportunity to speak in this debate.
Changes to this list can only be done after consultation with the Whips. It is clear that there is no agreement among the Whips as far as this is concerned. I thus have to fall back onto a general agreement that was reached in the Chief Whips' Forum. In fact, in a meeting of the Chief Whips' Forum that took place in this Parliament in 2009 an agreement was reached that a member will only have one opportunity to speak, except when a Minister opens and closes a debate, and when a member sponsors a motion.
In light of that, I will rule that the hon member cannot have another opportunity to speak in the same debate. [Applause.]
Chairperson, may I address you on a point of order? Firstly, earlier the Speaker said that agreements reached in any other body except in the programming committee are not recognised.
Secondly, a precedent has been set in this Parliament where a member has spoken twice; and thirdly, a speakers' list was provided and there was communication that the second DA speaker had not confirmed his speaking slot due to an illness. I have the SMS communication. After the member spoke, we realized that we were still able to take up our speaking slot and the Table was advised accordingly.
Therefore, it is my considered opinion that we followed procedure. I submit that there is no Rule that says a member cannot speak twice in the same debate and I ask you to rule on the matter.
I will surely do so, hon Kalyan, and the ruling is that the hon member is not allowed to speak twice in the debate.
The earlier ruling of the Speaker did not pertain to speakers' lists. It pertained to a completely different matter. Speakers' lists are not discussed in the National Assembly programming committee. It is an agreement that is reached between the different party Whips.
In this instance, there is no agreement with the Whips from the majority party, and as a result, I will stick to the agreement that was reached in the Chief Whips' Forum. I will thus allow the hon Mandela to continue with his speech. [Applause.]
Finally ...
Ayesaba amagwala. [The cowards are scared.]
Somlomo weNdlu yoWiso-mthetho yelizwe lethu, uMzantsi Afrika namaLungu ePalamente ngokubanzi, kuninzi okwenziwe ngurhulumente we-ANC ukususela ngowe-1994 ukuza kuma kowama-2014 xa sijonge umgama osele uhanjiwe ngoomasipala bethu ukuzisa iinkonzo kubantu bonke jikelele ngokungenamkethe.
Lo nyaka ubalulekile kwimbali yesizwe, ingakumbi kumbutho wesizwe okhokele amashumi ama-20 eminyaka. Ngumzekelo omhle kubo bonke oorhulumente xa sijonga emva apho i-ANC yathatha khona iintambo zolawulo kweli lizwe lookhokho bethu. Imbali yempumelelo iyabonakala, ingakumbi kwabo bayivumayo bayithethe inyaniso. Kweli lizwe akakho urhulumente onendima efana neyombutho wesizwe ukuzisa inguqu kubomi babantu. Siyaqhubeka ke nomzabalazo wenkqubela phambili yeli lizwe ukuze bonke abantu baphile impilo engcono kunakuqala.
Asinakubuya umva kwidabi lenkululeko yabantu beli lizwe kuba siyibonile ilahleko nosizi idyokhwe yengcinezelo eyenzileyo kumakhaya ngamakhaya. Abantu babengenalizwi kwizinto ezichaphazela ubomi babo ekuhlaleni nasemakhaya ngenxa yembinana negcuntswana labo bathathela kubo bodwa ulawulo lweli lizwe. (Translation of the isiXhosa paragraphs follows.)
[Speaker of the National Assembly of our country, South Africans and Members of Parliament at large, a lot has been done by the ANC-led government from 1994 until 2014, looking at the ground that has already been covered by our municipalities in delivering services to the people in general without discrimination.
This year is important in the history of this nation, especially to the national movement which has led this country for 20 years. Looking back at the time when the ANC took the administrative reigns of this country of our forefathers, one has to admire the good legacy it has set forth. The legacy of success is there for everyone to see, especially to those who are honest enough to speak the truth. In this country, there is no government that has changed the lives of people like the national movement did. We are continuing with the struggle of bringing progress to this country so that all our people can live a better life than before.
We cannot turn our backs on the fight for the freedom of the people of this country, because we saw the deprivation and misery that the yoke of oppression wreaked on various homes in this country. People did not have a voice on matters that affected their lives in their communities and in their homes because of the minority who took it upon themselves to govern this country.]
The year 2014 marks a significant milestone in the history of local government transformation and service delivery in the country. Our system of developmental local government, which is unprecedented, has culminated in an equally unprecedented success story in the achievement of delivery of services, goods and visible development across municipalities. It is indeed a good story to tell.
As the ANC, we are unashamedly vocal about the success and the gains we have made as a country. As His Excellency President Zuma has stated, "South Africa is now a better place to live in than what it was 20 years ago" and that no government in this country has made such strides in the areas of development of its people before. The ANC-led government, therefore, has a true success story to tell the South African public. That is why, as the ANC, we remain focused and committed to even do better in the task of the continual improvement of the lives of all South Africans.
The strides made by the ANC-led government since 1994 in the local government transformation discourse, continues to serve as a barometer to measure and assess our track-record of successful performance.
Ayinakuphikwa nangubani na into yokuba ngokwenene i-ANC ... [No one can deny the fact that the ANC ...]
... has succeeded in laying a solid foundation and clear standards for the country's development and delivery of services.
A number of policies and legislative instruments have been put in place to ensure the smooth transition from a barbaric apartheid system of local government to the one that is developmental, participatory, democratic, transparent and accountable. As we speak here in Parliament, ordinary South Africans are now more than ever before able to publicly voice their opinions freely, to actively engage in the determination of the course and content of their own development and lives.
Part of these local government transformation policy and legislative instruments include the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act currently being reviewed through the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Amendment Bill to ensure smooth implementation. A fundamental feature of this legislative arrangement is the need to ensure that local government succeeds in their revenue-generative and management capacity. For local government to succeed in service delivery implementation, complementing the work of a developmental state, they need to have sustainable sources of own revenue to lessen dependency on state funding. The ANC, therefore, recognises the challenge of continually developing the capacity of local government to be able to perform efficiently their duties and functions for the general good of local citizens.
Property rates are designed for local government to have a stable source of revenue to balance their operating and capital budgets. Besides, they must be endowed with effective systems, processes, procedures and internal controls that will ensure that every property is built for property rates in order to maximise its revenue-generative capacity and potential of the existing revenue base.
This legislative framework, together with the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, allow municipalities to levy and recover fees, charges or tariffs in respect of municipal services and delivery functions, to and recover collection charges and interest thereon. Local government capacity is thus crucial for the overall understanding of the technical aspects of property rates management, that is ability to know total revenue receivable from all rateable properties in their jurisdictional areas through setting up credible property tariffs.
The ANC-led government under President Zuma recognises the challenge of enabling municipalities, through appropriate skills transfer, to balance their municipal property rates policy with the plight of the urban poor as part of a responsible local government system. Our governance practices in local government challenge all of us to establish, assess and analyse how municipal rates policies should promote access by the poor to urban land markets.
Finally, Chairperson and hon members, it is common knowledge that South Africa has a chronic shortage of skilled technical personnel in this key functional area. We further know the legacy of the apartheid education system the damage it has done across all sectors of society. Local government is equally affected.
The ANC government therefore reports in this House that through its collaborative efforts and sound intergovernmental relations, it has managed to convince the Institute of Property Valuers to grant concessions by allowing associated valuers to be fully registered, a measure that will enable them full participation as professional members capable of presiding over property valuation practices. This positive development is fully appreciated by the ANC and I hope all of us in this House acknowledge the efforts the ANC-led government is making towards continuously making South Africa a better country than it was 20 years ago. This is why we indeed tell a good story. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
Chairperson, thank you very much to all the members who participated in this debate for their inputs. Again, thanks to the members of the committee, who did a sterling job in executing their legislative mandate by interacting with a wide range of stakeholders, who came to make important contributions to bettering this Bill. Also, a word of thanks to the officials in the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs who have done an excellent job of drafting this legislation, and also supporting the committee.
I need to thank members for the unity of purpose that has been demonstrated in this debate, because I have heard not one voicing any significant principled difference with this legislation. There have been points of criticism about certain aspects and clauses in the Bill, but I think all of us understand the importance of this Bill, which is to build a developmental democratic local government in our country.
Hon Groenewald has extended the courtesy of writing me a note to say that he unfortunately has a plane to catch and he would read my reply in Hansard. So, if the Hansard reporters are ready, I can tell them that ...
... die wit bul het gaan stemme werf. Ek stel voor dat hy daardie beeste bymekaar kry en die waardeerder-vastrap doen. [... the white bull went canvassing for votes. I propose that he rounds up those cattle and does the valuation "vastrap".]
The reality is that the fundamental principles of this legislation have been there for quite some time. This is not a sudden milking exercise, as the hon Groenewald has suggested. The amendments that have been made to this legislation have exactly been to strengthen fine tuning and make it more efficient, transparent and easy for our municipalities to implement, and I think it is succeeding in doing that.
Hon Steenhuisen raised four main points. To return the tribute to him, I think generally he sang a good song. There was some discordance, but I don't think that they are major. Firstly, with regard to section 8, which is the categorisation of properties, what we see in the Bill as finally devised by the committee, is a very good balance of intergovernmental relations, recognising the fundamental rights of local government to make those categorisations, but also the need for national government to set all norms and standards. So, we are not excluding the power of local government to make those categorisations, but we are saying they should come with good arguments to national government.
Secondly, with regard to the exemption of public service infrastructure, we have heard from both the President and the Minister of Finance that our country is investing billions, if not trillions of rands, in rolling out public infrastructure. For us to work at policy cross purposes, on the one hand taking public monies, investing them in that infrastructure, and on the other hand taxing the very same infrastructure, really does not make sense. What the legislation seeks to do is to strike a balance between our national developmental objectives and the needs of local government.
It is also significant that out of the 257 municipalities that have the power to levy property rates, 71 municipalities that responded to a targeted survey done by the National Treasury demonstrated that the financial implications of excluding public service infrastructure from the rating would be approximately R73 million, which is less than one percent. In any case, we have given local government quite a number of years to phase that in, and we trust that the impact will not be crippling.
Thirdly, I now come to section 32. With regard to the life of the valuation roll, indeed, for metro municipalities it has been extended to four years and for local municipalities it has been extended to five years. The reality is that property markets will vary considerably in different localities, and this is a reflection of a principle that is contained in the National Development Plan, namely that we need a differentiated approach to different municipalities. I think it caters for that.
Lastly, with regard to section 57 and the inclusion of the associated valuers on the appeal boards, first of all one must bear in mind that those associated valuers will be sitting, not alone, but as a body and as part of the collective to hear those appeals. Secondly, there is a very real and dire need to transform that profession, to make it more representative of both race and gender, and to expand it. This provision goes a long way to promoting that objective. Hon House Chair, it is a pity that Rules do not allow me to make use of hon Steenhuisen's time. Thank you very much. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
House Chairperson, the DA calls for a division.
Division demanded.
House divided.
AYES - 181: Adams, P E; Bam-Mugwanya, V; Berend, S R; Beukman, F; Bhengu, N R; Bhengu, P; Bhengu, F; Bhoola, R B; Bikani, F C; Bogopane-Zulu, H I; Booi, M S; Borman, G M; Boshigo, D F; Bothman, S G; Burgess, C V; Carrim, Y I; Cele, M A; Chili, D O; Chiloane, T D; Chohan, F I; Coleman, E M; Cronin, J P; Dambuza, B N; Davies, R H; De Lange, J H; Dikgacwi, M M; Dlakude, D E; Dlomo, B J; Dlulane, B N; Dube, M C; Duma, N M; Dunjwa, M L; Fubbs, J L; Gaum, A H; Gcwabaza, N E; Gelderblom, J P; Gina, N; Gololo, C L; Gumede, D M; Hanekom, D A; Holomisa, S P; Jeffery, J H; Joemat-Pettersson, T M; Kekana, C D; Kenye, T E; Khoarai, L P; Kholwane, S E; Khumalo, F E; Kilian, J D; Koornhof, N J J v R; Koornhof, G W; Kota-Fredericks, Z A; Kubayi, M T; Kwankwa, N L; Landers, L T; Line-Hendriks, H; Lishivha, T E; Luyenge, Z; Mabasa, X; Mabedla, N R; Mabuza, M C; Madlala, N M; Magubane, E; Magwanishe, G; Mahomed, F; Makasi, X C; Makhubela-Mashele, L S; Malale, M I; Malgas, H H; Maluleka, H P; Maluleke, J M; Manana, M C; Mandela, Z M D; Mangena, M S; Maserumule, F T; Mashiane, L M; Mashigo, R M; Mashishi, A C; Masutha, T M; Mathale, C C; Mathibela, N F; Matshoba, J M; Maunye, M M; Mavunda, D W; Mayatula, S M; Maziya, A M; Mbhele, P D; Mcintosh, G B D; Mdakane, M R; Mfeketo, N C; Mgabadeli, H C; Mjobo, L N; Mmusi, S G; Mnisi, N A; Mocumi, P A; Mohai, S J; Mokoena, A D; Molewa, B E E; Moloi-Moropa, J C; Moloto, K A; Morutoa, M R; Mosimane, C K K; Moss, L N; Motsoaledi, P A; Mufamadi, T A; Mushwana, F F; Nchabeleng, M E; Ndabandaba, L B G; Ndabeni, S T; Ndebele, J S; Ndlazi, A Z; Ndude, H N; Nel, A C; Nelson, W J; Newhoudt- Druchen, W S; Ngcengwane, N D; Ngcobo, E N N; Ngcobo, B T; Ngele, N J; Ngwenya, W; Ngwenya-Mabila, P C; Nhlengethwa, D G; Njikelana, S J; Nkwinti, G E; November, N T; Ntapane, S Z; Ntshiqela, P; Nwamitwa-Shilubana, T L P; Nxesi, T W; Nxumalo, M D; Nyalungu, R E; Nyekemba, E; Oliphant, M N; Pandor, G N M; Peters, E D; Petersen Maduna, P; Phaahla, M J; Phaliso, M N; Pilusa-Mosoane, M E; Pule, D D; Radebe, B A; Radebe, G S; Ramatlhodi, N A; Ramodibe, D M; Saal, G; Schneemann, G D; Segale-Diswai, M J; Selau, G J; Sibanyoni, J B; Sibiya, D; Sindane, G S; Sithole, S C N; Sizani, P S; Skosana, J J; Smith, V G; Snell, G T; Sogoni, E M; Sonto, M R; Sosibo, J E; Suka, L; Sulliman, E M; Sunduza, T B; Swanepoel, D W; Thibedi, J D; Thobejane, S G; Thomson, B; Tinto, B; Tlake, M F; Tobias, T V; Tsebe, S R; Tseke, G K; Tsenoli, S L; Tshabalala, J; Van Rooyen, D D ; Wayile, Z G; Williams, A J; Williams-De Bruyn, S T; Xaba, P P; Xasa, T; Ximbi, D L; Zulu, B Z.
NOES - 5: Farrow, S B; James, W G; Kalyan, S V; Steenhuisen, J H; Waters,