THE ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC
Chairperson and members of the
Committee thank you for this opportunity to put our point of view across to
yourselves.
Please allow me to submit the Association
of Democratic Alliance Councillors’ (ADAC) submission on the abovementioned
proposed legislation for your consideration.
The ADAC is an association for
Democratic Alliance councillors across
Our members were requested to submit
their views on the abovementioned bill. This submission represents the views of
DA councillors across
Our written submission should be
regarded as a provisional input. We have consulted a bit more in the mean time
and have made additions and corrections to the original submission indicated in
italic font underlined in this submission for ease of reference.
·
The simplification of legislation should be welcomed,
however we would prefer to see a greater shift towards enabling rather than
prescriptive legislation.
·
All of the amendments to local government legislation and
the proliferation of legislation are trying to address the failure of councils
to deliver; rather government should be addressing the lack of capacity within
councils to deliver.
·
The existing legislative framework provides for a
“one-size-fits-all” approach to local government. There are substantial
differences between well-capacitated municipalities and under resourced
municipalities as well as metro, district and local councils and rural and
urban based councils. Functioning municipalities are being handicapped by
prescriptive legislation which focuses on problematic municipalities. Providing
a legal framework that allows provinces to adopt more suitable legislation to
take local conditions into consideration could overcome this restriction.
Municipal Structures Act, 1998
Sections 72
& 73:
·
Ward committees should not be prescribed but should be left
for municipalities where it is practical to decide to have such committees.
However, should Parliament decide to make ward committees mandatory we would
like to make the following suggestions.
·
The references to “only” in the amendment to section 72 and
“if” in the amendment to section 73 should both be deleted as they are
confusing.
·
In looking at ward committees in their entirety we would
like the legislation to allow for much greater flexibility in the size of ward
committees.
·
The legislated size should allow for ward committees
ranging in size between 5 and 20 members, which would allow for much a more
diverse representation of community interests than the current prescriptive
ten. It will also take local conditions (i.e. travel distances, population
size of ward, etc.) into account when deciding on the size of a committee.
·
Provision should be made to allow municipalities to provide
for policy frameworks for ward committees and their operation.
·
Adopted policy frameworks should allow for significant
sector representation e.g. schools, churches, businesses, property owners, etc,
·
The bill should also restrict voting at public election
meetings for ward committees to registered voters in a particular ward.
·
Sufficient administrative support should be prescribed in
order to assist ward committees to be viable. Provision should also be made for
National and Provincial grants to municipalities who cannot afford to sustain
ward committees due to the additional burden on resources.
·
The legislation should also allow for proportional
representative Councillors to be members of the ward committee.
Municipal Systems Act, 2000
Amendment
of Section 72
·
We wholeheartedly reject the proposals to amend section 72,
as we see these amendments as a precursor to the introduction of legislation
which will prescribe a single public service.
·
The Local Government Amendment Laws Bill is not an
appropriate place to start the discussion about the creation of a single public
service, as the debate needs a complete and in-depth discussion about the
impact of a single public service on the ability of municipalities and government
overall to deliver services; the dramatic increase in costs associated to the
establishment of a single public service and the accountability of a single
public service.
·
Existing local government legislation already provides
significant scope for the provincial and local government minister to intervene
in local government. The minister has thus far chosen not to exercise these
powers fully. The minister should rather exercise these powers first before
considering centralising government even further.
·
We agree with the diagnosis that there is a problem with the
ability of local government to deliver services. However this approach to the
problem by centralising the public service will only exacerbate the service
delivery crisis.
·
By centralising the public service employment costs for
municipalities will only increase further, as civil servants will all expect to
be paid the same package, no matter the rates or income basis of their
respective municipalities. This will put significant strain on already
over-stretched municipalities and their residents.
·
A centralised public service will take the accountability of
municipal public servants away from their local council into the controlling
hands of the national minister for public service and administration.
Section 14
It would appear that the proposed
section 71A is in clear conflict with section 21 of the Municipal Structures Act.
If the legislators wish to pursue this clause then it would require section 21
of the Structures Act to be repealed at the same time.
Section 16
The relevance of this section is
questionable and seems somewhat superfluous. Bylaws made in terms of the
section in question are clearly subordinate to national legislation and would automatically
be deemed repugnant if they are inconsistent with any piece of national
legislation not only those listed in the proposed section (3), it’s suggested
that this clause be deleted.
Section 21
The term "Goods and
services" does not cover immovable and immaterial property (i.e. patents,
intellectual property etc). Legal advice could suggest that a more appropriate
term would be "supply of property”, instead of "provision of
goods" as this term would cover far more bases and avoid loopholes in this
section.
Section 23
See comments made above
The ADAC would like to thank you for
the opportunity to make this submission and wishes you success in your
deliberation of this legislation.
Yours Sincerely
Cllr. Fred Nel
National Chairperson