Preservation and Development of Agricultural Land Bill: Negotiating Mandates

Meeting report

The Chairperson commenced the reading out of negotiating mandates from the provinces.

Eastern Cape
The province voted in support of the Bill.

Free State
Mr I Ntsube (ANC, Free State) read the Free State provincial mandate in support of the Bill.

Gauteng
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC, Gauteng) read the Gauteng provincial mandate in support of the Bill.

KwaZulu-Natal
KZN Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. The provincial legislature had an added document outlining proposed amendments (see document).

Limpopo
Ms T Mamorobela (ANC, Limpopo) read that the Limpopo Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill. The province proposed the following amendment:

In clause 13(1) it proposed that the Minister or the MEC must review a protected agricultural area at least every ten years instead of five years which is very short for agricultural purposes.

The legal advisor from the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), Mr Mamphela, said that the negotiating mandate from the province seemed to be in order and could be incorporated.

Ms Zingasa Zenani, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, agreed with her colleague’s view.

With the exception of Limpopo, all the other provinces abstained from voting on Limpopo’s proposed amendment. Hence, the proposal was not approved.

Mpumalanga
Mr J Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) read the province’s negotiating mandate that the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with the following amendments:

In clause 12, it proposed insertion of 12(1)(a)(iv) and 12(1)(a)(v). In clause 12(1)(a)(iv), consult with the municipality or municipalities in which the provincial protected agricultural area falls to ensure alignment with the spatial development framework. In clause 12(1)(a)(v), consult with traditional and Khoisan leaders.

Mr Mamphela, DALRRD legal advisor, indicated that the negotiating mandate seemed to be in order and could be incorporated.

Ms Zenani, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, agreed with her colleague’s view. She commented that in terms of s12(1)(a)(v) that her office’s view has always been that it would have a knock-on effect on the jurisdiction of Traditional and Khoisan leaders but the Bill does not necessarily mean that it would affect customs and traditions. The Bill in its essence is consultative and traditional and Khoisan leaders would be amongst the stakeholders to be consulted. It is an issue which her office would revisit with the department to figure out consensus.

Ms Zenani indicated to the Chairperson that there was no state law advisor on the platform.

With the exception of Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape and North West objected to the proposed s12(1)(a)(iv) and the other provinces abstained from voting on it. Hence, the amendment was not approved.

On s12(1)(a)(v), with the exception of Mpumalanga, the Eastern Cape, Gauteng and Mpumalanga and North West objected and the all other provinces abstained from the vote. Hence, the amendment was not approved.

Northern Cape
The Northern Cape Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with no additional comment or amendment.

North West
The North West Provincial Legislature voted in favour of the Bill with no additional comment or amendment.

Western Cape
The Western Cape Provincial Legislature did not send its negotiating mandate.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) indicated that it was uncommon for the Western Cape not to send its mandate.

The Chairperson confirmed that the Select Committee has received correspondence from the Western Cape requesting extensions for two Bills which included this Bill. The Western Cape’s request was responded to by the Select Committee. It explained to the Western Cape Provincial Legislature that there is no available slot for the time being. The last sitting of Parliament is on 16 May. There simply would not be sufficient time to give an extension and to conclude the Bills. The eight-week cycle has been met and provincial legislatures were given sufficient time to respond with a mandate. Limpopo had similarly requested an extension and the Select Committee did not grant that either.

Ms Labuschagne expressed her view that the rushing of the legislative process was a huge concern. She had raised it on many occasions including at the whips’ meetings. Given the importance of the Bill, it is a clear indication that provinces had not had sufficient time to do proper public participation since a lot of provinces simply supported the Bill without any proposals as was shown just now. Parliament should have decided at the planning stage whether the processing of the Bill should be started if there was insufficient time. It would have been better to leave those Bills for the Seventh Parliament. By pushing those Bills through, there is a risk that some organisations that might take the NCOP to court for failing to do a proper job despite all the public funds that has been spent on the Bill. All provinces should receive the negotiating mandates of all other provinces and deliberate on those before returning with their final mandate.

The Chairperson noted Ms Labuschagne’s input but insisted that sufficient time had been given to provinces which is why they returned with negotiating mandates on time. The issue would be discussed with all the party whips. Nevertheless, the eight-week cycle requirement has been met and she did not think that there would be any legal repercussions.

The committee minutes for 23 April 2024 were adopted and the meeting was adjourned.