The Commission on Gender Equality (CGE) is an independent statutory body, established in terms of Section 187, chapter 9 of the Constitution of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.
Its mandate is to promote respect for gender equality and the protection, development and the attainment thereof. The powers and functions of the CGE are detailed in the Commission on Gender Equality Act 39 of 1996. "The CGE evaluates gender relations and monitors the progress towards achieving gender equality in the State and Civil Society. Our concern is how gender power relations determine the life chances of women and men in this society. To a great extent, our focus has been on geographic (national/provincial, rural/urban), racial, cultural and class divisions. The gendered nature of power relations in society is key to an understanding of who has access to and participates in public power and authority. This means we have to look beyond the public modalities of politics and power- the conventional sphere of public life- to understand the link between low formal participation rates of women in public life and the arena of private power and authority within households.
The desegregation of who does what on a daily basis, who makes decisions, who controls assets and who does not, at every level in society, provides us with a more nuance understanding of the sexual and gender divides in political and civil life.
We have learned from the struggle for liberation and transformation in our country over the past forty years that gender relations are not static. Change lies in our hands- and that is why the CGE came into existence. We are only the sum of our collective partnerships with different organisations and civil society, and the fulfilment of our mandate requires working with civil society to achieve our goals of gender equality and gender equity."
THE NEED FOR RATES LEGISLATION
The Constitution compels local government to promote social and economic development, and ensure that the provisions of services to communities are sustainable. The local government sphere is therefore an important arena for the transformation of South African society and the effective delivery of services to local communities. The task of the CGE in the sphere of government is to ensure that service delivery is gender sensitive. The CGE is therefore concerned with who the decision makers are, and more importantly, whether these decisions will make a difference to the gender power relations, and who benefits from the services offered by the state and institutions in civil society.
The CGE welcomes the opportunity to present on this Bill, as we realise the importance for the municipality to impose rates on property, as a source to generate income for local government that will enable it to achieve its Constitutional objectives. We do realise that local government’s resources to deliver free basic services to communities, is restricted by the huge debt owed to municipalities.
We endorse Section 19(2)(c) and Section 51(2) of this Bill, as consideration is given to gender, by legislating that gender representatively should be taken into account when establishing:
The advisory forum in Section 19(2)(c)
The valuation appeal board in Section 51(2)
Women should therefore be given the necessary training in order to maximise the effects of this Bill, and ensure their effective participation.
In addition to this, local government must ensure that it’s policies and laws redress the consequences of spatial segregation and discriminatory practices concerning land administration and service delivery. There are significant social, geographical and economic differences in our country, especially with regard to infrastructure and resources. In order to maximize the benefit from this Bill, its implementation should take cognizance of the inequalities, and an attempt to ensure universal access, in light of these differences. The Property Rates Bill will broaden government’s tax base, but the challenge lies in the sustainability of the proposed rates system. Government should therefore contextualise mechanisms for the necessary effective implementation and administering of rates collection, rebates, exemptions and subsidies of rates, especially to the disadvantaged communities.
Government should rise to the challenge by ensuring that there is synergy between the legislation, which will most likely be affected by the Property Rates Bill, and also ensure the sustainability thereof.
We support the disallowance of rates in Section 15(2)(h) of the Bill, as this will provide some sort of relief to the indigent, and will also ensure some sort of uniformity. We however recommend that the amount be increased to take into account the various housing policies which caters for the indigent.
30 % of our country’s inhabitants live in the 13% of the land currently held in trust. Women form the largest portion of disadvantaged communities, especially in the rural communities where male tend to move to the urban center for employment. A special focus should therefore be on women, especially rural women. These areas have over decades been excluded from the benefits of local government and service delivery. "Local government has a critical role to play in rebuilding local communities and environments, as a basis for a democratic, integrated, prosperous and truly non-racial society."
To enable efficient and equitable service delivery, a sustainable rates collection system, which needs to be similarly attuned so that the entire country is covered by a simpler and uniform system.
While we applaud the sensible arrangements that the Bill proposes with regard to the holding accountable of - and collection of rates from sectional titles holders.
We are however deeply concerned that the same principles that have guided the approach towards body corporates (as holders of "communal land"), have not been followed with regard to occupants of land currently held by Communal Property Associations and occupants of trust land who in due course is to be regulated in terms of the proposed Communal Land Rights Bill, as published on 14 August 2002.
Unless similar arrangements are made with regard to the future holding of land in common by communities, local authorities will simply not be able to collect rates from such communities in the foreseeable future or at all. It will work to continue a dualist apartheid model.
While the amendments we propose may assist in establishing a basis and base for the collection of rates in areas that are held communally, the Communal Land Rights Bill in its current form requires a major overhaul.
THE COMMUNAL LAND RIGHTS BILL:
We have prepared a brief summary of the Communal Land Rights Bill as part of this paper and which, if time permits, we will present.
The central problem of the Communal Land Rights Bill and the Communal Property Associations Act is that it completely excludes local government as a key role player in the administration and management of land for public purposes, including land use determination and regulation for the purposes of service delivery.
The CLRB suspends the laws governing the establishment of townships. This means that the public land administrative functions that local government must affect in keeping with its constitutional obligations cannot be realised. During the local government transitional phase land reform legislation as a rule suspended planning laws and land zoning provisions. Since the establishment and coming into effect of wall-to-wall local government, such provisions are unconstitutional.
The Communal Land Rights Bill (CLRB) envisages doing what the Communal Property Association Act (CPA Act) has done, but on a much larger scale and with much more serious consequences.
Similar to the CPA Act, the CLRB envisages the establishment of land administration committees to act on behalf of communities to whom communal land has been transferred and which has as a result been deemed to become juristic persons.
These volunteer private land administration committees are in effect established to double up as surrogate local authorities. This is done in order to acquire, hold, determine land use, zone and manage property on a basis agreed to by members of the community in terms of community rules.
However, service provision, township establishment, and rates collection should be the responsibility of the municipality, and not that of a land administration committee or a CPA committee. Township established laws and municipal planning laws should apply.
CLRB & QUESTIONABLE LAND RIGHTS MANAGEMENT IN COMMUNAL LAND AREAS:
The CLRB envisages land being transferred on scale to communities. The ex-TBVC and former Self Governing Territories comprise of 14 642 417 hectares, constituting 13 % of South Africa’s land base. It is home to 30% of the population or 13 million people.
The DLA’s land reform experiment with more than 500 Communal Property Associations has confirmed that the committees of these associations have simply not been capable of compiling and maintaining records of existing and future land tenure rights. The CLRB envisages that the land administration committees which are established in the same manner, according to the same principles, should now be capable of doing it. They will not.
CPAs are entities that take transfer of land that has been surveyed and the spatial and jurisdictional boundaries of the entity are defined. The CLRB envisages the survey and demarcation of portions of land to be transferred to communities, to household, to families and to persons. The CLRB makes no provision for a process of boundary demarcation.
If land is transferred to a household or a family the household or family will be deemed to be a juristic person. The Deed of Land Tenure Right or the Deed of Transfer must be registered in the family name or household name as governed by the community rules.
How succession and division of property will work over generations for these to be newly created types of body corporates is a mystery. In three generations time, the household that initially involved 3 nuclear families would have turned in to 3 x 3 x 3 families. Who will then be responsible for payment and against whom will one execute?
What is not a mystery is that it will be for a host of practical reasons impossible to charge and collect service charges from persons who hold land tenure rights in terms of community rules. It will similarly be impossible to collect arrear property rates from the community as the owner of the land.
It is highly unlikely that the CLRB will be capable of implementation in its current form, but even if it is, which we sincerely hope will not happen, it will result in the exclusion of 30% of the population from financially sustainable and effective municipal service delivery.
AN UNIFORM RATES SYSTEM
Municipalities do not manage the internal reticulation of services on private land. It will bring the services up to the boundary of the land and the owner will be obliged to manage the rest. The owner of the land is liable to pay rates to the local government. If the owner defaults, the local authority will be entitled to sell the assets of the owner in execution to settle the debt.
In the case of the CLRB the owner holds the land, not for his/her benefit, but for and on behalf of an entire community. The owner is not in this case a well-equipped body corporate but as stated, a volunteer committee who receives no stipend and who is not practically in a position to either levy or enforce the collection of "private village rates".
This Bill disregards the Communal Land Rights Draft Bill, especially with regard to establishing a unitary and equitable rates system for all citizens. The process of transferring property to communities as envisage in the Communal Land Rights Draft Bill, is not catered for in this Bill. However, the problem cannot be dealt with by amending this Bill.
The challenge lies with the Department of Provincial and Local Government and with the South African Local Government Association to engage with the Department of Land Affairs on an urgent basis to ensure that the CLRB is overhauled to fit with local government best practice. PROPOSALS:
The CLRB should not be entitled to abolish local government planning and township establishment provisions. Local Government must remain centrally involved in the planning and the provision of services to communal areas needs to be part of the IDP and planning processes. The CLRB will in effect make it impossible for Local Government to achieve its Chapter 7 constitutional obligations.
The DPLG and SALGA should demand, and the CLRB should provide that Local Government is centrally in the processes to plan and implement land management and land administration systems in communal areas.
Local Government needs to be involved in the determination of community boundaries and areas of jurisdiction. The CLRB needs to take on board a set of principles in terms of which boundaries need to be determined, akin to section 25 of the Local Government Demarcation Act 27 OF 1998. Such areas may need to coincide with ward demarcation areas and the historical ties of inhabitants.
The option of transferring certain types of communal land in ownership to Municipalities for the purposes of assisting in the administration and allocation of such land for a range of uses: such as municipal commonage management, the management and allocation of certain types of cropping allotments and the demarcation, allocation and management of residential areas.
The CLRB should provide that residential sites should, for as far as it is practically possible, be registered in ownership of the women and men who occupy them. The owners of such sites should be treated in the same manner, as the owners of "RDP-houses" in towns and villages. There is no reason why a recipient who qualified for a DLA Settlement/Land Acquisition Grant (SLAG) and acquired a serviced site and "top structure" should be treated differently from the occupant of an Housing Board subsidized "RDP" house.
Clause 3(2)(d) does provide for taking appropriate measures to alleviate the rates burden on poor people. Indigent policy proposals will ensure subsidized basic services for the poor.
If residential sites could be transferred in ownership in terms of local government planning laws, local government will be geared to give poor owners the benefit of the indigent policy. How the indigent policy may kick in for occupants of residential sites in "privately owned towns" in a CPA or CLRB situation is difficult to imagine.
Concerning the payment of rates on agricultural land, provisions need to be made so that CPAs and Land Administration Committees are treated in way that the Bill treats sectional title body corporates.
It is therefore imperative to strengthen the relationships between traditional leaders, provincial government, local government, farming and rural communities, and all the relevant stakeholders. This partnership will ensure co-ordination, and mutually beneficial ways of planning and developing the land and will therefore empower the inhabitants of the land.
A Brief Summary of the Communal Land Rights Bill:
The Bill provides that any group of people who have land tenure rights within a geographic area and who wish to be associated as a community may apply to the minister for the transfer of communal land or any rights in land to them.
The Bill also provides that portions of communal land or rights in land may be transferred to a family, a household or a person.
The Minister may initiate the transfer of land or land tenure rights to a community, family, household or person.
The Minister must designate a land rights inquirer to inquire into the merits of an application for "the transfer of land to beneficiaries."
The minister must then consider the land rights inquiry report with regard to fulfilment of objectives of the act.
If the minister is satisfied that the application, if approved, will fulfil the objectives of the Act, she must give notice of the application and call for objections.
The minister must then cause the land rights inquirer to inquire into and furnish a report concerning any objections and on any other matter that the minister may consider necessary for her final decision of the application.
The minister may, after finally considering the report or reports of the land rights inquirer, approve or refuse an application for the transfer of communal land or rights therein, but - the approval will be subject to the community compiling and having registered its rules within such a period or extended period as the Minister may stipulate. - and, - after the registration of its community rules the community must establish a land administration committee in terms of its rules (30(1)).
The approval by the Minister of an application of a family, household or person will be subject to the consent of the community of which such an applicant is a member.
Upon transfer, the community, family, or household shall be regarded as a juristic person.
The Minister must upon approval of an application transfer the communal land and cause a Deed of Transfer to be prepared and lodged with the Registrar of Deeds.
The community rules: The rules must be consistent with the thirteen clause 28(4) general principles. The rules do however not have to deal with the designation, nature, content, duration and purpose (by type of land use) of shared and exclusive land tenure rights and categories of rights capable of being held.
In the case of land or a land tenure right held by a family or household, the Deed of Land Tenure Right or the Deed of Transfer must be registered in the family name or household name as governed by the community rules. 13(4)
The right of the holder of the land tenure right to alienate or otherwise dispose of a right must be governed by the community rules. 13(6)
After transfer, the land administration committee must request the minister’s approval for the preparation of a communal general plan and the opening of a communal land register. There is no requirement that the plan must depict land tenure rights, but if it does, the Surveyor General must approve it.
The land administration committee must, in the case where the communal plan depicts land tenure rights or portions of land to be transferred in ownership, prepare and lodge deeds of land tenure rights and deeds of transfer 13(1).
Clause 33(2)(f) provides that a committee must compile and maintain a record of existing land tenure rights and of any land tenure rights conferred in future. It clearly seems to anticipate that the Deeds Registry Office will not be doing it.
Clause 33(2)(g) obliges the committee to establish and maintain the registers and records with regard to the particulars of right holders within the community and the transactions affecting such rights as may be prescribed or as may be required by the [community] rules.
Conversion of land tenure rights into freehold ownership: The holder of a land tenure right may apply to the land administration committee for the conversion of her or his land tenure right into freehold ownership. The holder will carry the costs for the conversion. (15)
SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION:
LEGAL RESOURCES CENTRE (LRC) & COMMISSION ON GENDER EQUALITY (CGE)
Oral presentation notes: LRC & GCE
Preliminary points:
The CGE and LRC made a general presentation at the Property Rates Bill Workshop on 8 April 2003. We now wish to make a supplementary presentation that focuses on certain specific provisions of the Bill.
We support the comments made by SALGA and will therefore not repeat them except for the points on which we wish so expand.
Summary of the presentation:
A sustainable property rates collection system needs to be devised to enable efficient and equitable service delivery.
Clause 3(3) provides that "any exemptions, rebates or reductions referred to in clause 3(2) and provided for in a rates policy adopted by a municipality, must comply with any national framework that may be prescribed".
The Bill needs to state that its main object is to provide a simpler and uniform system for the whole country. In keeping this objective, the Bill must provide the national framework for granting exemptions, rebates and reductions. In its current form the "framework" of the Bill is inadequate and in places inconsistent.
The Bill needs clearly state the objects and the purposes for property rates collection. Ratepayers need to be told clearly what they are paying for.
Municipalities and the national executive need clear guidelines in terms of which they need to exercise their powers in terms of the Bill. Residents need such a clear formulation of principles so that they can hold government accountable.
Specific proposals are made concerning: Clause 20 "Register of properties," rates clearance"; and the sale in execution of unoccupied land to recover unpaid rates.
The implementation of the Bill will not work to undo the duality in service provision and rates collection between urban communities and black rural communities. In its current form it will in all probability promote and further entrench such duality. The practical implications are that land reform communities may remain beyond the reach of democratic and developmental local government. In this regard we cover:
The provisions concerning "Land Tenure Rights" should be scrapped.
Provisions concerning land reform beneficiaries are out of kilter with the main objective of the Bill, namely to provide a simpler and uniform system of for the levying and collection of rates.
The portfolio committee is however faced by a conundrum concerning the levying of rates from land reform legal entities: "Communal Property Associations" (CPAs) and other Communal Property Institutions (CPIs). To resolve the problem, we propose that:
Residential sites on CPI land need to be registered in ownership the name of occupants and . . . special provision needs to ensure that users of the land for other than residential purposes are held liable and that steps to collect rates are taken against them and not the community land holding entity.
1. Concerns about the inadequate and inconsistent listing of principles in clause 3. The Bill needs to make its object and the purposes for property rates collection clear: Clause 2 empowers a municipality to levy rates on property and notes that it must exercise its power subject to the provisions of: section 229 of the Constitution; the Bill itself; and the rates policy it must adopt.
Section 229 of the Constitution does not provide principles for levying or criteria for determining rates, but notes that in levying rates, a municipality may not prejudice issues that national laws may and should provide for, namely economic policies etc.
Clause 3 on the face of it seeks to determine the principles for a municipality’s rates policy.
We support the formulation of clause s 3(2)(a), (c) and (d) but we are concerned about the remaining provisions:
1.1 Clause 3(2)(b): Clause 8 notes the principles in terms of which categories of rateable property may be determined.
The principles in terms of which an exemption may be granted are different from the principles that may warrant a rebate or a reduction. The "costs to a municipality and benefit to the local community" as noted in clause 3(2)(c) is but one general principle that needs to be taken into account.
The Bill needs to spell out the principles in terms of which an exemption, a rebate, or a reduction may be granted.
The Bill needs to define an exemption, a rebate and a reduction and it need to distinguish these terms from a "surcharge on fees" as contemplated in section 229(1)(a) of the Constitution. Although it may seem trite that the key (or only?) determinant of rates should be the value of the land, it is necessary that the Bill to clearly define "property rates."
In the definition section Bill does not define "rates", it but merely refers to the Constitution. The Constitution also does not define "rates" but merely refers to "rates on property" as opposed to "surcharges on fees." The Bill should define "rates on property" with reference to the clauses of the Bill.
1.2 Clause 3(2)(e) notes that the effect of rates on "welfare and charitable organisations" needs to be taken into account. It is not clear why "welfare and charitable" organisations are singled out. If "charitable and welfare" status may afford an exemption, it should be included as an item in defining the principles for exemption. The principles for affording exemption need to be consistent with the terminology and scheme of the Non Profit Organisations Act and Income Tax Act.
It is proposed that the Bill, for the purposes of achieving uniformity, should prohibit exemptions as a general rule and only permit it subject to the meeting of narrowly defined criteria. The Bill needs to make it clear that rebates or reductions may not be used to secure an exemption.
1.3 Clause 3(2)(f) notes as a principle that a rates policy must allow a municipality to promote local, social and economic development. Clause 3(2)(f), but for the insertion of "local" merely repeats section 152(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides that one of the objects of local government is: "to promote social and economic development." It is not clear why section 152(1)(c) has been singled out in clause 3 of the Bill.
It may however be that the clause picked up on the provisions of section [a32y2000s74]74 of the Systems Act concerning the principles for a "tariff policy." Section 74(2)(g) of the Systems Act notes that "provision may be made for the promotion of local economic development through special tariffs for categories of commercial and industrial users."
To do so is permissible in terms of section 229(1)(a) of the Constitution, which authorises the levying of "surcharges on fees."
Unlike clause 3(2)(g) of the Bill, section 74(2)(g) clearly earmarks the type of user to be targeted and the purpose for which a special tariff may be raised. Further, such a special tariff must comply with the rest of the prescribed tariff principles. If a municipality is challenged it will have to show that the amount that is being paid is in proportion to the use of the service. As far as such a special tariff is concerned, the municipality will have to show that it is linked to local economic development that in turn will benefit the earmarked categories of commercial and industrial users.
Our comments concerning clause 3(3) are noted at the outset.
1.4 General comments concerning the objectives of the Bill and its guiding principles: The Bill is by and large silent on the most basic issue: why and for what purposes may rates be levied? These issues need to be addressed in an "objects" clause. Such a clause also needs to motivate why national uniformity and simplicity in rates determination and collection is required.
Municipalities and the national executive are given wide discretionary powers in terms of the Bill. A clear statement of principles and objectives is necessary to guide and limit these powers. Such a statement will provide the basis from which all concerned may take steps to ensure that the administrative actions that are taken in terms of the Bill are lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
Both residents who pay rates and residents who do not pay rates need to know what the principles and criteria for rate determination and collection are so that they can hold their municipality accountable. Similarly, residents who do pay need to understand what it is that they will be paying for and why they need to pay rates in addition to payment for services, surcharges on fees for services, and other municipal taxes, levies and duties.
1.5 Other clauses and issues of principle:
Clause 4, 5 and 6: The requirement of clause 4 that municipalities must undertake a process of community participation in its rates policy formation is an onerous and costly requirement. The objects of the Act, its guiding principles and criteria needs to be consolidated upfront in plain language so that it could guide the public participation process and the formulation and review of new municipal rates by-laws in terms of clause s 5 and 6.
Clause 7(2)(a)(iii) notes that a municipality will not be obliged to levy rates on a "property" "for which tenure is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices and for which it is therefore impossible or unreasonably difficult to establish a value".
We propose that only "land" as registered in the deeds office should be rateable. The tenure to such land is considered to be secure. In any event, it will be very difficult for a municipality to apply such a test. Where will the cut off point be between very insecure and less insecure tenure and how will a municipality determine it? The provision should be scrapped.
Clause 14 "exemptions, reductions and rebates": A municipality must be obliged to record the reasons for granting exemptions, reductions or rebates with reference to the principles to be set in the Bill and with reference to the criteria of its rates policy. In terms of section 33(2) of the Constitution, everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.
Clause 15 "constitutional constraints": It is not clear to us how the constitutional constraints give rise to a determination that rates must be disallowed. It would seem that the directive that rates should be "disallowed" merely amounts to an "exemption." The issues dealt with in terms of clause 15(2) should be dealt with in the Bill as part of the general principles for the determination of a rates policy, including the general principles in terms of which exemptions may be granted. These principles would obviously need to refer to the "constitutional constraints" which may permit "exemption."
It is not at all clear how clause s 15(2)(g) and 15(2)(h) relate to or are in fact determined by the section 229 constraints or that they may constitute grounds for exemption. We revert to this issue in more detail below.
2. Clause 20 "Register of properties," rates clearance and the sale in execution of unoccupied land to recover unpaid rates:
2.1 "Register of properties": We have difficulty in getting to grips with the issue concerning the register. Perhaps the shorter answer to the problems we envisage is that the register should relate to "rateable properties" and that the definition of "rateable properties" should be changed to bring it in line with the municipal ordinances. The ordinance refers to "land" and not to "immoveable property" or the definitions of rights that may be inferred in the definition of "owner". "Ownership" is defined in the cumbersome way that it is for the purposes of ensuring that people who use land could, over and above the primary liability of the registered owner, also be held liable to pay rates.
Our concern here is not a legal technical one, but simply that it may be a massively onerous task to expect a municipality to compile and maintain a register of all the "immovable property", "personal servitudes" and "land tenure rights" within its area of jurisdiction.
We propose that the register should not include "land tenure rights" and that the register need not record personal servitudes. This will not mean that the holders of such rights may not incur liability to pay rates, but that the issue of liability is addressed in the definition of "owner."
One result is that the records of the Deeds Office could then be used as the primary source for determining the description, extent and ownership of "land". It may even be that the obligation to maintain such a register could be reconsidered - unless we are missing the point.
The question concerning liability for rates by an "owner" and the instances where a person or entity is deemed to be an "owners" is dealt with in terms of the definition clause . The definition of "owner" needs to exclude "land tenure right".
2.2 Rates Clearance: A further reason for proposing the a change with regard to the current use and definition of the term "property" in the Bill is that the system of rates clearance as provided for in section 118 of the Systems Act ("Restraint on transfer of property") is only applicable to "immovable property." The Systems Act clearly intends that "immovable property" should mean what it means as contemplated in the Deeds Registry Act. The system that ensures rates clearance is a cornerstone for the functioning of the entire property rates collection edifice. If you get it wrong because of incorrectly defining "property", a municipality will experience great difficulty in collecting service fees, surcharges on fees, property rates and other municipal taxes, levies and duties. We suggest that in this regard the Bill be brought in line with the Systems Act and that the "Ordinance" be used as a reference point.
2.3 Sale in execution of unoccupied land to recover rates: It is crucial for the long term functioning of a property system, that the powers that municipalities currently have in terms of "provincial ordinances" to sell unoccupied immovable property in execution where rates have been in arrears for more than three years. The existing provisions work to effect certainty in ownership and rates collection. It for instance provides a ready and accessible measure to deal with "bona vacantia."
3 "Land Tenure Rights":
The references and definition of "land tenure right" should be reconsidered.
At present the draft Communal Land Rights Bill (CLRB) proposes that certain types of rights to land may in future held in ownership. It also proposes that other types of land use rights may not become ownership, but may be afforded the status of "immovable property." There is no problem with the first category of rights because the system for recording and transferring ownership is clear. However it is not at all clear what the rules and conditions for transacting the second category of rights will be.
It is crucial that DPLG and the Portfolio Committee engages with the DLA and Portfolio Committee on Land and Agriculture to establish how it intends to configure and determine rights in communal areas (other than ownership rights) and whether it will give rise to new categories of immovable property. If it does, it may be necessary to make changes to the Bill, or effect amendments to the Property Rates Act if it gets promulgated before the CLRB.
4 Provisions concerning land reform beneficiaries: The provisions causing an exemption of land belonging to land reform beneficiaries in terms of clause 15 (2)(g) and 18(1) may have the effect that residents living on land reform land may continue to living beyond the reach of efficient local government because such land is not treated in a uniform manner in terms of the Bill.
Our fear is that if certain categories of holders of rateable rights are exempted, such holders may be excluded from recognition for purposes of budget linked planning (IDP). They will in all likelihood, as a result also not be taken into account for receiving subsidized water, electricity and services in terms of the indigent policy.
Some land reform beneficiaries or the entities they establish may be well placed to pay rates and they should.
There is a further contradiction: Why should recipients of land through land reform be granted a blanket exemption and recipients of housing grants be denied exemption? There has been no distinction whether you get your grant to acquire a serviced erf with a top structure in ownership (and situated in a proclaimed township) via land reform grant or via a housing subsidy. Persons with housing subsidies may be taxed with property rates whilst land reform beneficiaries will not pay rates.
We propose this subject to the provision that clause 3 needs to be consolidated and reworked to prescribe the principles that exemptions, rebates and deductions need to comply with.
The principles need to include the principle that at least the first R15 000 of value of all residential property should be exempted. ((We however understand that the issue is actually more effectively addressed in the indigent policies of municipalities where in many cases the persons who qualify are exempted from rates for the first R 50 000 of value.))
The effect on land transferred to communities needs to provide for principles and procedures that will have as its primary aim the rating the owners of land used for residential purposes. 5 A problem concerning levying of rates from land reform legal entities: "Communal Property Associations" (CPAs) and other Communal Property Institutions (CPIs): The DLA informs us that 537 CPAs have been established in terms of the land reform programme since 1996. In addition a number of trust and voluntary associations that are not registered as CPAs also hold such land.
The same problem that visits body corporates in sectional title schemes visits land reform land holding legal entities (collectively referred to as Communal Property Institutions CPIs). The Bill proposes that the problems in sectional title schemes be addressed by causing rates to be levied against sectional title units and not the scheme as a whole.
Land was in most cases simply transferred in private ownership to the legal entity whereafter settlement occurred without land use rights (or "land tenure rights") being allocated or recorded.
It will therefore not be possible to apply the sectional title approach to CPIs because rights to use land have not been allocated in CPIs. Efforts to phase in the payment of rates will, even after ten years in the absence of a concerted effort to allocate and register rights, will also come to naught.
Postponing liability for rates merely ducks the problem and increases the chances that municipalities continue to pay no attention to land reform communities.
Ducking the problem means that the rates base of municipality will be steadily eroded. In 2002 the DLA has set its target to transfer 30% of agricultural land within 15 years.
The DPLG as supported by the Port Folio committee needs to take the lead in addressing the problem.
Section 153 of the Constitution compells a municipality to -
(a) structure and manage its administration and budgeting and planning processes to give priority to the basic needs of the community, and to promote the social and economic development of the community; and
(b) participate in national and provincial development programmes.
The Bill needs to provide that steps need to be taken to ensure that that the portions of land reform land that is used for residential purposes need to be transferred in ownership to such occupants.
Where it is not feasible to do so (residential settlement is of a low density or scattered) and where services are being provided to such residents, the Bill needs to provide for steps to record occupation and, subject to the provisions of section 3(2)(g) value the occupancy right for such occupants to be held liable. The chances for such occupants to incur liability are small, though the system needs to be geared for rates to be charged in a uniform manner.
The remainder of the land should as provided in section 8(3)(l) qualify as a separate category of land. The Bill needs to provide that the rate policy for determining the level of rates needs to take the number of users per registered unit into account. *** end.