World Heritage Convention Bill; National Water Amendment Bill

LAND & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
8 November 1999
FINALISATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION BILL [B 42B-99] AND BRIEFING ON THE NATIONAL WATER AMENDMENT BILL [B 53B-99]

Documents Distributed
Proposed Amendments by the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs, World Heritage Convention Bill [B42C-99]
National Water Act, 1998 in Context, by Adv. Kgomosoane Mathipa
[e-mail [email protected] for documents]

SUMMARY
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism took the Committee through the Proposed Amendments document. The Committee then formally accepted the World Heritage Bill as amended. Mr Mathipa briefed the Committee on the National Water Amendment Bill.

MINUTES
Finalisation of the World Heritage Convention Bill [B 42B-99]
Before taking the Committee through the Proposed Amendment document, Ms Ingrid Coetzee from the Department, explained the reasons behind some of the changes that they had made. Clauses 8 and 10 were amended in order to clarify where there was already an existing authority. They wanted to make the provisions more clear. In addition, they replaced the term "advisory board" with "board". The Department felt that it was inappropriate to refer to the board as an advisory board. The Department stressed that these two amendments were not policy changes but clarifications.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Proposed Amendments document. While discussing Clause one, the member from KwaZulu-Natal raised a concern that there was no definition for "state land". The Department decided to address this concern when they came to Clause 30 where the definition of "state land" is applicable.

The Committee agreed to the other changes in Clause 1.

The representative from the Western Cape was concerned about the changes made to Clause 7. She felt that the Minister should not be permitted to make decisions without consulting other Ministers and interested parties. The Department reminded the Member that Clause 7(1) states that; "The Minister must consult with the Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology and with interested parties…". They explained that the proposed amendment was changing the method of consultation. Therefore, the Minister can decide on a case-by-case basis the methods most appropriate for consultation. The Committee was satisfied with this explanation and agreed to the amendment.

The Committee agreed to clauses 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16.

The Chairperson, Mr Moatshe, asked the Department to clarify why Clause 17(3) had been deleted. The Department explained that the main reason why they wanted to delete the Clause was because they were having difficulties coming up with a comprehensive list of potential members of the Executive Staff Component. They thought that it was best to list no one at all. The Department decided to leave it up to the Board to decide who should serve on the Executive Staff. The representative from KwaZulu-Natal told the Committee that since this is a bill that deals with specific applications and there must be specific lists of disciplines for the Executive Staff. The representative from the Western Cape said that she would like to add people from the provinces to the list. The Department explained that that was exactly their point; there are a number of individuals who could be added to the list and instead of leaving out options they decided to leave it open. The Department admitted that it did not matter much either way if the list was left in or out of the legislation. In practice it is a useful list to have, but in reality it can be ignored. The Committee decided to keep Clause 17(3) and accept the other amendments made to Clause 17.

The Committee accepted the new Clause 18, Clause 19, and Clause 26.

The Department referred back to the concern raised earlier surrounding the definition of "state land" in Clause 30. The Department explained that the concern for definitions of "state land" and "private land" arose in section 30 when they had to deal with the situation when more than one piece of land made up a World Heritage Site. The simplest situation is when the two pieces of land belong to the State. It becomes more complicated when one piece is private and one piece is state owned. The Department looked at Section 65 of the Deeds Register Act, which states that nothing can be done to the land unless both of the owners agree. The Department decided not to choose this option. They looked at making separate definitions for "state land" and "private land" but it became too confusing. Therefore, they decided to disregard whether or not the land was state or privately owned and simply have a provision that the owner of the land must consent in advance in writing. The solution focuses on the owner of the land. The Committee was satisfied with this explanation.

There were some concerns raised in Clause 32. A member wanted clarity on what was the applicable law and the authority. The Department explained that the Treasury Act is currently the applicable law but in April of next year then it will change to the Public Finance Management Act.

Another Member asked if Clause 32 now means that the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Finance will determine how funds are acquired. The Department confirmed that this is how it is set up because the Department of Finance was concerned that if anything went wrong with the loans it would go back to the State. Therefore, the Ministers set it up on a case-by-case basis.

The representative from the Western Cape was concerned that the relevant MEC was removed from Clause 34(2). The Department explained that it was an oversight and the relevant MEC will be added to the Clause.

The Committee agreed to Clause 34, the Long Title, and the Contents of the Act.

The representative of KwaZulu-Natal told the Committee that his province has brought forward amendments and he asked when they could be presented. The Chairperson asked for guidance from the Committee since the Committee was near the end of deliberations for the World Heritage Convention Bill. Ms Mahlangu, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, was present at the meeting and she told the Chair that he would have to be careful not to set a precedent. She told the Chairperson that there must be strict deadlines for submissions that are enforced. If the Committee felt that there was an exception in this case, then that is fine, but it is important to enforce the rules. The Committee debated whether or not KwaZulu-Natal should be allowed to present its amendments but it was decided that their submission was too late. The Chairperson pointed out that in the future they would try to speed up the process so that the same situation does not occur. In addition, the Chairperson added that this should be a caution to the provinces to not put documents aside as they receive them but deal with them right away so the proper submissions can be made.

The provinces presented their mandates to finalise the Bill. The representatives from KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape, Mpumalanga, Eastern Cape, Northern Cape, Gauteng, and the Northern Province were present to give their mandates.

The Committee then went through the Bill Clause by Clause, as amended, and accepted all of the clauses. The Committee, therefore, formally accepted the World Heritage Convention Bill and the Bill would return to the National Assembly so they can consider the amendments made by the NCOP.

Briefing on the National Water Amendment Bill [B 53B-99] by Mr Kgomosoane Mathipa, Director of Legal Services for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.
Mr Mathipa presented a briefing to the Committee on the National Water Act. The floor was then opened up for points of clarity.

The member from KwaZulu-Natal asked Mr Mathipa if there is anything that can reverse the inequalities in access of water. He gave the example of in the Catchment where there is exotic plantation and a disadvantaged community is denied water access because of the inequality of water flow caused by the exotic plantation. Mr Mathipa said that he did not have the expertise to answer the question.

Mr Mathipa then read the changes incorporated in the National Water Amendment Bill to the Committee. There were no questions of clarity or debates. The Chair reminded the Committee that they are expecting mandates from the provinces not amendments. The Chair also requested that it be done as soon as possible. The representative of the Western Cape told the Committee that they might have some difficulty since the Western Cape is in the beginning of a constituency week that will last for two weeks.

The representative for KwaZulu-Natal forwarded a concern about the speed in which they are expected to respond back to the Committee. He pointed out that there are many members who are no based in Cape Town and who need to return to their provinces before they can get the appropriate answers. The Chairperson pointed out that the bill is in the provinces already and they should have already formulated their opinions. The Chairperson noted the concern.

These Minutes were provided by Contact