Rental Housing Amendment Bill: Final Mandates

Meeting report

PUBLIC SERVICES SELECT COMMITTEE
14 November 2007
RENTAL HOUSING AMENDMENT BILL: FINAL MANDATES

Chairperson: Mr R Tau (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Final mandates for the following provinces:
Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Northern Cape, Western Cape, Mpumalanga

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
The Committee heard the Final Mandates on the Rental Housing Bill. As six provinces supported the Bill, it was adopted. North West did not submit either a final or negotiating mandate. Gauteng’s mandate was declared void as it had not been signed. KwaZulu-Natal did not support the Bill.

MINUTES
The Chairperson permitted the delegates to present their mandates on the Bill in order to make a ruling as to whether they should adopt the Bill or rule against it. The Chair also indicated that the permanent delegate of Mpumalanga was not present but their submission indicated that the Speaker states that the province votes in favour of the Bill without amendments.

KwaZulu-Natal
Mr T Jeebodt (KZN Housing Chairperson) requested that KZN’s initial submissions be re-iterated because the province felt very strongly about the amendments. Mr Jeebodt said that the province is saying that it can only confer the final mandate in support of the Bill subject to consideration of its proposed amendments to the Amendment Bill.

Mr M Mzizi (ANC) pointed out that this meeting was only for final mandates and the Committee knew that that meant no deliberations and considerations could be taken into account. Ms Dlulane agreed, saying that the Committee has passed the negotiating phase.

The Chairperson then declared the KZN provinces as not being in support of the Bill.

Eastern Cape
Ms B Dlulane (ANC) said that the province was voting for the adoption of the Bill without amendments. The province says however that Clause 3(c) should be worded to reflect the costs not limited to the costs for the preparation of the contract of lease.

Free State
Mr C van Rooyen indicated that its Portfolio Committee raised its dissatisfaction that the province’s inputs were rejected without reasons forwarded. However the province voted for the adoption of the Bill without amendments.

Gauteng
Mr M Mzizi (IFP) said that its Housing Portfolio Committee supported both principle and details of the Bill and therefore the province voted in favour of the Bill.

The Chairperson pointed out that the mandate had not been signed.

Ms Dlulane indicated that mandates that were not signed were usually rejected.

The Chair declared the mandate as not acceptable.

Limpopo
Ms H Matlanyane (ANC) said that the province voted in favour of the Bill without amendments.

Northern Cape
Mr R Tau indicated that the province supported the adoption of the Bill without amendments.

Western Cape
Mr F Adams (ANC) read the province’s mandate saying that having considered the Rental Housing Amendment Bill [B30B-2007], it conferred on the Western Cape’s delegation the authority to support the Bill without amendments. They had thus withdrawn the proposed amendments contained in their negotiating mandate. Two of the three had been rejected but the third one had been found acceptable. This had been the proposal to omit in Clause 3 the phrase: “on application by a landlord”.

The members were quite concerned about the decision that the Western Cape had reached. A committee member asked which Bill they were supporting. Was it the B version of the Bill or the one with the amendments proposed at the negotiating mandate meeting. They wondered if this was the correct procedure.

The Department drafter said that during the negotiating mandate stage they did not normally draft the proposed amendment because nothing was agreed on at that stage. She added that only one amendment from the Western Cape had been accepted by the Committee. The delegates had taken this proposed amendment that the Western Cape province had made to their respective provinces. That meant that when the final mandates were agreed upon by the provinces, this amendment was taken into account and now for the province to accept the Bill as it had been, posed a problem.

Rev Moatshe pointed out that the delegates should be cautious in the future.

Mr Adams indicated that in terms of section 76 of the Constitution a province can reach a final decision and abide by it no matter what the previous proposals had been. The Western Cape therefore now supported the Bill without amendments.

North West
Rev P Moatshe could not present a mandate because he said that no briefing had been held. Rev Moatshe said that on his way to do the briefing, he was contacted and told not to come because the department had already been. However, he was surprised to see that there were no negotiating mandate and now no final mandates have been submitted due to the same reason.

The Chairperson pointed out that there were seven mandates and out of those six provinces were in support of the Bill without amendments. The Chair noted that according to the Constitution, when six provinces had voted in favour of the Bill, the Committee could then adopt the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.