Municipal Demarcation Board and Telkom (IDPs/ Information technology: briefing

Meeting report

PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS & LOCAL GOVERNMENT PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
20 October 1999
MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD AND TELKOM (IDPs / INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY): BRIEFING

Documents handed out
Presentation by Municipal Demarcation Board Chairperson (Appendix 1)
Press statement: Effect of Constitutional Court Judgement on Determination of Municipal Boundaries (Appendix 2)
Map of proposed districts and metros (on website)
[Note: Appendix 1 & 2 attached to end of minutes]

Website: www.demarcation.org.za

SUMMARY
Dr Michael Sutcliffe, chairperson of the Demarcation Board, gave his view on the Constitutional Court judgement on the Municipal Structures Act. This judgement will not affect either the fundamental aspects of the Act nor the work of the Demarcation Board. He felt that provisional timeframes will still be met. He went on to give a brief summary of the Demarcation Board's work to date and outlined problem areas that remain. Questions asked by the committee raised very specific concerns about areas where problems or public disgruntlement remains.

The Telkom presentation was given by Mr Bheki Langa, Managing Executive: Customer Service & Sales. Telkom believes that the need to improve and increase service delivery provides a key link to provincial and local government. The presentation aimed to show;
- what, how and why Telkom are doing things;
- the problems Telkom has with local and provincial government;
- the obligations Telkom has;
- Telkom's performance of the last few years;
As the presentation did not cover the issue of IDPs this was covered during the discussion that followed. However Mr Carrim demanded that a more exact presentation must be given at some point.

MINUTES
Demarcation Board
Dr Sutcliffe read from the press statement issued on the effect of the Constitutional Court judgement on the determination of municipal boundaries. The Demarcation Board's three areas of responsibility - municipal boundaries, ward determination and alignment of local government with service boundaries, have not been affected by the judgement. He made it clear that timeframes for the new local government system should not be affected.

Telkom Presentation
The following points were added to give the opening presentation clarity:
- The equity partners mentioned are Telecom Malaysia and a US company called SBC plus various smaller firms. Their investment had to be protected as rolling out services into rural areas is not profitable.
- Telkom's national structure is based on six areas and not nine provinces and this slightly affects the roll out figures for the provinces.
- The term 'underserviced' is used in reference to rural areas and urban areas with a poor exchange.

A second presentation gave more detail on;
- Telkom's assistance during local elections;
- How Telkom can help local government not have to focus on communications;
- Telkom's problems with local government including payment problems and the existence of poor and often illegal communications being in place.

Questions
Mr Carrim opened the discussion by stating that the committee had requested greater detail on Telkom's involvement in IDPs and possible input in to the new local government. IDPs are a key part of the Municipal Systems Bill and all levels of government are moving towards the world of IT.
Mr Langa's response gave a brief summary of IDPs. The White Paper on local government spoke of Telkom helping to coordinate the development of different players. As a result Telkom has visited the provinces to work with the bodies driving IDPs. However it is important to note that the licence granted to Telkom specifies the exact areas and targets Telkom must meet and these do not always align with IDPs. Mr Langa went on to give examples of Telkom's involvement accelerating the work of IDPs and development in provinces. In the Northern Province Telkom has help set up an infrastructure committee that determines the roll out of services. In North West Province and the Free State Telkom has been very active in developing service providers forums which include provincial government representatives and help to coordinate the service delivery. Mr Langa admitted that there are provinces (Eastern Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal and Mpumalanga) where Telkom has experienced less success and where Telkom is concerned about the exact state of IDPs.

Mr Carrim welcomed this explanation but requested that a more exact presentation was required. He also pointed out that it was not the responsibility of Telkom alone to penetrate remote rural areas.

Dr M Sutcliffe (Chairperson, Demarcation Board): The national cabinet requested that the boundaries set out be the Demarcation Board align with government service boundaries. Telkom boundaries do not fit with these, are you looking to change them?
Response from Telkom: Telkom's boundaries are effectively aligned with provincial boundaries and our future plan is to focus on aligning with government service boundaries.

Ms M Verwoerd (ANC): Although the race question is being addressed, do you think a target of twenty per cent female employment is addressing the gender question?
Response from Telkom: Considering where Telkom is coming from we think we are addressing the gender question. We do have a recruitment programme focused on increasing female employment especially in strategic positions.

Ms M Verwoerd (ANC): What exactly is Telkom's tariff policy. It has changed several time but currently seems to make local calls relatively expensive while national and international calls are relatively cheap. Is this a policy aiding previously disadvantaged groups?
Response from Telkom: Balancing the costs of calls is an area of focus. When we were joined by our foreign equity partners they recommended that we reduce our international calls in readiness for the end of the exclusivity period. Foreign competitors have the technology to offer very cheap international calls and Telkom must compete with this.

The following points also emerged from the questions:
- Telkom are working with provincial and local government to set up a monitoring system to evaluate municipal performance but it was unclear how far this has got and what exactly it will do.
- Telkom does have many products that could help local government but outside the Western Cape and Gauteng it is unlikely these will be available.
- The safety of Telkom staff is a problem and one which is causing delay in roll out to rural areas.
- Speed of service installation depends on how robust an area is.

Appendix 1:
MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD

PRESENTATION TO NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
Dr. Michael Sutcliffe (Chairperson)

Established on 1 February 1999, the Municipal Demarcation Board has made great strides to fulfil its mandate and this report summarises some of the areas of work of the Board.

THE BOARD:
The President appointed the following persons to the Board, with the Chairperson in a full-time capacity and the remainder of the Board appointed in a part-time capacity:
Dr. Michael Oliver Sutcliffe, Nkaro Mateta, Vuyo Mlokoti, Renee Hartslief, Prince Dludla, Rosemary Monyamane, Abraham Marais, K Maape, J. Subban, Kgosi J. Ramovha, Dr. RG Cameron

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS MADE IN TERMS OF FINALISING BOUNDARIES:
1. AD HOC DETERMINATIONS:
The approach adopted in respect of ad hoc demarcations is:

Ad hoc demarcations will only be considered if they are urgent, are minor, are for developmental reasons and are unlikely to be controversial.
The following information must generally be provided: a map of the relevant area, a point-to-point description, if a traditional authority/magisterial district is affected details of how it is affected, letters from affected municipalities indicating the concurrence of their councils with the proposed exclusions and/or inclusions and any other information which may be useful.

The following cases are being considered/have been finalised:

APPLICANT & DESCRIPTION OF AREA
1.Creighton Local Council
Inclusion of Lease 1 in municipal area of Creighton Local council
2. Highveld Ridge Local council and MEC
Inclusion in area of Highveld Ridge L C and exclusion from Highveld Ridge Rep. Council:
portions 1,4,7,15,16,19,23,24, of the farm BOSJESSPRUIT 291 I.S
portions 3 of the farm BRANDSPRUIT 318 I.S.
the remainder of the farm BRANDSPRUIT 318, I.S.;
portions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, and 14 of the farm TWISTDRAAI 285 I.S
portions 1,3,7,8,9, 10,13,15,16,20,21,22,23,26 and 29 of the farm MIDDELBUILT 284 I.S
a portion of the farm MIDDELBULT 284 I.S. as described on S.G. Plan No.215/1893
portions 1 (S.G. Plan No.1115/1891 and S G Planno.A1693/1907) 4,9, and 19 of the farm LANGEVERWACHT 282 I.S.
The farm HALVEPAN 286 I.S
Portions 1 to 5 and the remainder of the farm SASOLKRAAL 289 I.S.
Portions 4 to 9, 14 and 17 of the farm GOEDEHOOP 290 I.S.
The farm Goedehoop 533 I.S.; and
Portion 6 of the farm GOEDEHOOP 533 I.S.
3. Witbank City Council
Inclusion of portion 123 (a portion of the remainder of portion 13) of the farm DOORNPOORT 312 J.S portion from the municipal area of the Witbank Rep. Council and exclusion of the portion into the municipal area of the Witbank Local Council

4. Piet Retief Local Council
Inclusion in the municipal area of Piet Retief Local Council and exclusion from the municipal area of the representative Council:
the remainder of portion 7 of the farm WELGEKOZEN 514 I.T.
portions 11,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,26,28,29,30, 31,37 to 44, 46 to 51,53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 64 and 68 of the farm WELGEKOZEN 514 I.T.
the remainder of portions 22,52,57,58 and 62 of the farm WELGEKOZEN 514 I.T
Portions 3, 15, 18, 21, 21, 32, 49, 52 and 53 of the farm WELVERDIEND 148 H.T.; and
The remainder of portions 4, 23 and 45 of the farm WELVERDIEND 148 H.T
5. Ermelo Transitional Local Council and MEC
Inclusion of the remainder of Portions 7, 32, 42, and 54 of the farm WITBANK, 262 I.T.; and
Portions 63, 67, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 91, 103, 104, 105, and 106 of the farm WITBANK, 262 I.T.
In the area of the Local Council and exclusion from RepC.
6. Dannhauser Local Council
Inclusion of the area of the Durnacol mine in the municipal area of Dannhauser Local Council
7. Newcastle Transitional Local Council
Exclusion of subdivision 1 of the farm Highton No.8591 from the Newcastle Local Council
8.Scottburgh/Umzinto Local Council
Inclusion of Sub 35 of the farm Umzinto Sugar Company No 1403 into the Scottburgh/Umzinto North Local Council
9.Greytown Local Council
Exclusion of the remainder of 18 farm Hartebeestvlakte No.1355. from the Municipal area of Greytown Local Council.
10.Greytown Local Council
Inclusion of portion 83 (of 77) of the farm Wonderboom 1246 into the Municipal area of Greytown Local Council.
11.Balfour/Grootvlei T L C
Exclusion of portion 1 and 2 of the farm Powerstation 458 I.R from the municipal area of Balfour Rep. Council inclusion into the municipal area of the Grootevlei Local Council
12.Umzinyathi Regional Council/Newcastle
-Inclusion of Blaaubosch No.8892, Cavan No.8794 and Johnstown No.8799 into the municipal area of Umzinyathi District Council
- exclusion of Lesley No.8583 from the municipal area of Newcastle Local Council
13.Port Shepstone L C
Inclusion of the following area in the municipal area of Port Shepstone:
* Remainder of the Farm Lot 3 Marburg Settlement No. 5485-ET.
Portion 1 of the Farm Lot 3 Marburg Settlement No. 5485-ET.
Portion 2 of the Farm Lot 3 Marburg Settlement No. 5485-ET
Remainder of the Farm Lot 4 Marburg Settlement No. 5127-ET
Portion 1 of the Farm l Lot 4 Marburg Settlement No 5127-ET
Remainder of the Farm Merlewood No.14425-ET
Portion 1 of the Farm Lot 12 Marburg Settlement No. 6282-ET
Portion 2 of the Farm Lot 12 Marburg Settlement No. 6282-et
The Farm Lot 9 Marburg Settlement No.5289-ET
Remainder of the Farm Westhoven No. 15581-ET
Portion 1 of the Farm Westhoven No. 15581-ET
Portion 1 of the Farm Skogheim No. 16429-ET
Remainder of the Farm Skogheim
Portion 2 of the Farm Lot 16 Marburg Settlement No. 5152-ET
Portion 4 of the Farm Lot 16 Marburg Setlement No. 5152-ET
Portion 5 of the Farm Lot 16 Marburg Settlement No. 5152-ET
Remainder of the Farm Lot 16 Marburg Settlement No. 5152-ET
Portion 36 of Marburg Commonage No.1 No. 12223
Portion 142 of Marburg Commonage No.1 No. 12223
Portion 78 of Marburg Commonage No.1 No.12223
Remainder of the farm Lot 8 Marburg Settlement No. 5455-ET
Portion 1 of the farm Lot 8 Marburg Settlement No. 5455-ET
14. Sasolburg LC
Inclusion of PORTION 17 OF ERF 8031, SASOLBURG
EXTENSION 29 AND SUBDIVISION 13 OF THE FARM
DRIEFONTEIN 2 (CONSOLIDATED WITH SUBDIVISION 1 OF ERF 8039 AND NOW BETTER KNOWN AS ERF 8045.
SASOLBURG EXTENSION 13) IN THE MUNCIPAL AREA OF Sasolburg Local Council
15.Bronkhorstspruit L C
Inclusion of the remainder of the farm Klipeiland 524 JR into the municipal area of Bronkhosrtspruit LC.
16.Howick L C
Inclusion of portion 1 of the farm Oklahoma No. 16710 and the farm Sakabula No. 16861 into the municipal area of Howick.
17.Villiersdorp L C
Inclusion of portion 5 of the farm Volmoed no. 71 into the municipal area of Villiersdorp LC.
18.Himeville L C
Amalgamation of Himeville and Underberg.
19. Hibberdene L C
Exclusion of Lots 90 and 91 of the farm Newton Wolds, Mtwalume from the Municipal area of Hibberdene.
20.Mossel Bay L C
Inclusion of the area at the eastern Beacon of Portion 4 of the farm Rheeboksfontein, Administrative District of Mossel Bay, thence south-westwards along the boundaries of the said farm so as to include it in this area to the southern beacon of Portion 9 of the said farm; thence north-eastwards along the boundary of the last-mentioned farm so as to exclude it from this area to the eastern beacon thereof; thence south-eastwards along the boundaries of the said Portion to the eastern beacon thereof, the point of beginning.
21.Facilitator of Dept Land Affairs on behalf of Community of Kluitjieskraal
Inclusion of Kluitjieskraal in the municipal area of Wolseley
22.KZN Prov. Govt/ Shoeman Family
Exclusion of Mair’s Camp from Newcastle and inclusion in Madadeni township
23. uMsekeli Municipal Support Service
Inclusion of the farm Meycol no. 15399 into the development area of Tugela Mouth and other mooted amendments of existing boundaries of Development and
Service Board and Township Board Areas
24. North Local Council and Ilembe Regional Council
Inclusion of Lot 921 Tongaat in the municipal area of the North L C and the exclusion from the area of the Ilembe D C
25 Umtamvuna/Port Edward L C
Inclusion of Sub 1 of Lot 13 Umtamvuna 100674 into municipal area.
26.Dolphin Coast TLC
Inclusion of Port Zimbali properties in municipal area.
27Dolphin Coast TLC
Inclusion of portion A – H of Portion 20 of Lot no. 931 into municipal area.
28.Dolphin Coast TLC
INCLUSION OF THE REMAINDER OF SUB 5 OF THE FARM COMPENSATION NO.868 (COMPENSATION DUMP SITE), SUB 26 OF LOT 54 NO.1568 (SEWERAGE TREATMENT SITE) AND SUB 62 (OF 5) OF THE FARM COMPENSATION NO.868 (NATIONAL MONUMENT) INTO THE MUNICIPAL AREA.
29 Port Alfred L C
Inclusion of the Dunes 391 in municipal area
30.Hibberdene L C
EXCLUSION OF LOT 105 MELVILLE FROM THE MUNICIPAL AREA OF HIBBERDENE LOCAL COUNCIL AND THE INCLUSION OF LOT 105 INTO THE MUNICIPAL AREA OF UGU REGIONAL (DISTRICT) COUNCIL.
31.Glencoe LC
Exclusion of lot 1642 from the municipal area
32.Wartburg L C
INCLUSION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE FARM SORGENFREI NUMBER 13739 INTO THE MUNICIPAL AREA.
33.Button & O’Conner Inc
INCLUSION OF PORTION 6 OF THE FARM FP 159 NO.8997 INTO THE MUNICIPAL AREA
34. Howick L C
INCLUSION OF THE REMAINDER OF SUB 6 OF THE FARM ALLEMANS DRIFT NO. 950 INTO THE MUNICIPAL AREA.
35.Newcastle LC
EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO ISCOR FROM THE MUNICIPAL AREA
36.MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of a portion of the Remainder of the farm Paapekuil Fontein No 281 in the area of jurisdiction of the Struisbaai Transitional Local Council
37. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Portion 1 of the farm Vredenburg No 696 and the Remainder of Farm 697, Stellenbosch, in the area of jurisdiction of the Helderberg Municipality.
38. MEC W-Cape
Inclusion of a portion of Portion 8 of the Farm 71, Piketberg, (now portion of Erf 286, Eendekuil) in the area of jurisdiction Piketberg Municipality (Eendekuil
39. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Erf 7574 in the area of jurisdiction of the Malmesbury Transitional Local Council.
40. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Erven 205 to 217 in the area of jurisdiction of the Graafwater Municipality.
41. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Erf 3563 (Erven 3564 to 3579) in the area of jurisdiction of the Citrusdal Transitional Local Council.
42. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of the Remainder of the farm Langefontein No 492 and Erf 1545 in the area of jurisdiction of the Citrusdal Transitional Local Council.
43. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Portion 145 (a portion of Portion 37) of the farm Uitzicht No 216 in the area of jurisdiction of the Old Belvidere Local Council (South Cape District Council).
44. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of the Remainder of the farm Bestemming No 1262 in the area of jurisdiction of the Paarl Municipality.
45 MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Erf 1214 (a portion of Portion 35 of the farm Klipfontein No 711)(Van Dyksbaai) in the area of jurisdiction of the Municipality for the Area of Gansbaai.
46. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Portion 1 of the Farm 214 and Remainder of Portion 1 of the Farm 216 in the area of jurisdiction of the Municipality of George.
47. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Portions 7 and 59 of the farm Radyn No 24 in the area of jurisdiction of the Villiersdorp Municipality.
48. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Erf 7739 (previously known as Portion 85 of the farm Rietvalley No 364) in the area of jurisdiction of the Ceres Municipality.
49. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Erf 7694 in the area of jurisdiction of the Ceres Municipality.
50. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Farm 512/4 (Groeneweide) and Farm 512/8 (Sondraai), Stellenbosch, in the area of jurisdiction of the Stellenbosch Transitional Local Council.
51. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Portion 11 of the farm La Terra de Luc No 1075, the farm Vrede No 1080, Portion 8 of the farm La Terra de Luc No 1070 and Portion 1 and remainder of the farm Mooiwater No 1073, Paarl district, in the area of jurisdiction of the Franschhoek Municipality
52. MEC W-Cape
The inclusion of Portion 4 of the farm Rheeboksfontein No 142, Mossel Bay, in the area of jurisdiction of the Mossel Bay Municipality.

2. DETERMINATION OF CATEGORY A, B AND C MUNICIPALITIES:
Draft Policy
Legal requirements - None specified
Additional Measures Taken by Board:
Board’s report entitled: "An integrated framework for metropolitan and district councils in South Africa", published for comment, 28 June 1999
Board’s report entitled: Draft boundaries for Category A (Metropolitan) and Category C (District) council boundaries, 6 September 1999
Board’s report entitled: "The determination of metropolitan and District council boundaries", 4 October 1999
Board’s report entitled: "The Board’s Preliminary Views On How It Intends Approaching The Determination Of Category B Municipalities, 11 October 1999

Section 26 Notice
Legal requirements:
Publish in a newspaper:
Convey by radio or other means of communication:
Send notice to: MEC, affected municipality, magistrate, provincial House of Traditional Leaders

Additional Measures Taken by Board:
Have published in: Daily News; Argus; Citizen; Beeld; Star; Burger; Daily Dispatch; Diamond Fields Advertizer; Sowetan; Ilanga; Volksblad; EP Herald; The Mirror; Natal Witness
Have placed radio adverts on: Radio Sonder Grense; Umhlobo we Nene (Xhosa); SAFM; Thobela FM (N. Sotho); Ukhozi FM (Zulu)
Have sent notices to stakeholders plus political parties and approximately many others on data base

Investigations
Legal requirements: Board may hold these.
Additional Measures Taken by Board:
set up 25 teams of technical consultants who investigated specific boundaries arising out of Board’s research and submissions on A/C municipalities

Section 21 Notice
Legal requirements:
Proclamations in Provincial Gazettes.
Additional Measures Taken by Board:
Published in newspapers
Sent to all stakeholders

Finalise determination
Expected 19 November 1999

General communication
Additional Measures Taken by Board:
National stakeholder workshops held on: 3 May 1999; 5 July 1999 (Presented Integrated Framework); 6 September 1999 (Draft boundaries for A/C councils presented); 5 October 1999 (Determinations of A and C councils presented)
Provided Briefings
Board set up a Web Site containing all available information: from 6 October until 14 October 1999 (9 days) the site had 55023 visits.
Board published Justification Reports for each boundary determined
Board will publish report summarising all submissions made to it and how the Board addressed these
Board published specific responses to submissions: Reports on Winelands comments, Midrand.
Set up Query Engine
Set up Call Centre

Appendix 2:
MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD
20 October 1999

PRESS STATEMENT: THE EFFECT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGEMENT ON THE DETERMINATION OF MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.

The judgement of the Constitutional Court pertaining to the constitutionality of certain sections of the Municipal Structures Act, 1999 will not materially affect the timeframes and the demarcation of municipal boundaries.

The function to determine or re-determine municipal boundaries is provided for in the Municipal Demarcation Act, 1999 and this Act was not subject to detailed examination by the court. The constitutionality of the Demarcation Act was not questioned and it is the Board’s intention to proceed with the powers and functions vested in it by the Constitution, the Municipal Demarcation Act and the relevant (and constitutional) provisions in the Municipal Structures Act.

It is the Board’s view that the judgement by the Constitutional Court strengthens the independence of the Board as provided for in section 155 of the Constitution and section 3 of the Municipal Demarcation Act. Furthermore the judgement extends the powers and functions of the Board, and removes any possible doubt that the authority to determine municipal boundaries vests solely in the Demarcation Board.

The court judgement clearly stated that, in fulfilling its constitutional obligation to determine the boundaries of the categories of municipalities, the Municipal Demarcation Board must not only apply the criteria for determining municipal boundaries, but it must of necessity, apply the criteria for determining when an area should have a particular category of municipality. Such necessity arises from the fact that the determination of boundaries cannot take place in isolation – it can only occur in relation to the boundaries of a specific category, or categories, of municipality. Without determining the category of municipality, the determination of a boundary becomes a meaningless exercise. The Court clearly stated that the task of applying the criteria when an area should have particular category of municipality naturally falls on the Demarcation Board.

On the question as to whether it is possible to excise amongst others sections 4 and 5 of the Structures Act and as to whether the remaining provisions of the Act give effect to the purpose of the Act the Constitutional Court answered in the affirmative. These two questions relate to the application of the criteria, which, the court found, the Minister has no power under the Constitution to apply. The Court also found that section 2 and 3 of the Structures Act, read with section 25 of the Municipal Demarcation Act provide sufficient criteria to enable the Board to carry out its functions.

The Board will shortly make an announcement on its determinations of Category A (Metropolitan) council boundaries. The Board expects these determinations to be finalised before 15 December 1999.

In respect of Category C (District) boundaries the time frames as already published stand and the final boundaries in this regard will be published on 19 October 1999.

The Board is in the process of determining Category B (Local) municipalities. In this regard, the Board remains on track to announce draft boundaries for Local Municipalities (Category B) and District Management Areas on 19 November 1999. Further investigations and public hearing will then follow with the Board aiming to publish its determinations of these boundaries on 15 December 1999.

Issued by Dr. Michael O. Sutcliffe
CHAIRPERSON