Finalisation of Discussion on Right of Members to Introduce Legislation (Rules 234-237) and the role of Committee on Private Members Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions (Rules 209-213)

Rules of the National Assembly

13 September 2010
Chairperson: Mr E Sogoni (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee had a final discussion on the right of Members to introduce legislation (Rules 234-237) and the role of the Portfolio Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions (Rules 209-213). This was subsequent to a submission by Dr M Oriani-Ambrosini (Inkatha Freedom Party). An African National Congress Member reminded the Committee that members of the public had the right to participate in the legislative process, and said that most of the legislation introduced by Private Members was not technical but rather political in nature; therefore such legislation needed public scrutiny. The Chairperson reminded Members that the legislative process had constitutional obligations like public hearings. The purpose of the Parliament was not “to bog down the system with bills that were frivolous in nature,” otherwise democracy would be held to ransom. Another African National Congress Member mentioned that Section 59 of the Constitution served as a warning against attempting to pass bills without proper public participation.
The Chairperson said that the current procedure of introducing legislation was satisfactory but there was room for refinement. Legislative proposals were different from bills. He urged Members to move away from the substantive issue and rather deal with the technical nature of the rules. He clarified that the role of the Portfolio Committees was to advise the House regarding legislation pertaining to their respective portfolios.
A Democratic Alliance Member asked whether the process as outlined by the Chairperson meant that private Members could continue to introduce legislation. The Chairperson confirmed that it did.

The Committee briefly discussed the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2010 and agreed to defer their consideration to a later date.

Meeting report

Finalisation of Discussion on Right of Members to Introduce Legislation (Rules 234-237) and role of the Portfolio Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions (Rules 209-213)
The Chairperson said that there was no need for a background briefing on the matter because Members were familiar with it. The Secretary had made a draft and Dr Oriani-Ambrosini had responded to the draft.

Dr Oriani-Ambrosini explained that the draft made by the Secretariat mentioned that a Member could introduce legislation with the backing of 20 Members with all the formal requirements. The Portfolio Committee responsible could either reject or accept that legislation in 10 minutes.

Mr Jeffery said that introduction of legislation entailed many steps that included advertisement of public hearings; the public input was very important. The role of the Portfolio Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions was to vet bills. He cautioned Members not to introduce legislation haphazardly, because the whole process was costly and time consuming. He said that he was not raising the point on the basis that the ANC as the ruling party might wish to stall other parties. He cited an example of the Western Cape where the ANC as the opposition could clog the system with unnecessary legislation.

Mr L Landers (ANC) added that the Constitution obliged the process for newly introduced legislation to include civil society.

Dr Oriani-Ambrosini said that public hearings were held even by the Standing Committee on Finance when it discussed other matters that were not legislation. Portfolio Committees had the power to consider a Bill or turn it down.

Mr Jeffery explained that members of the public had the right to participate in the legislative process. He argued that most of the legislation introduced by Private Members was not technical but rather political in nature, therefore it needed public scrutiny.

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that a legislative process had constitutional obligations like public hearings. The purpose of Parliament was not “to bog down the system with bills that were frivolous in nature,” otherwise democracy would be held to ransom.

Mr Landers mentioned that Section 59 of the Constitution served as a ‘warning bell’ against attempting to pass bills without proper public participation.

Mr C Mulder (FF) said that since the National Assembly represented the people of South Africa, one could argue that the minority parties also represented the populace. Private Members had the right to introduce legislation as enshrined in the Constitution.

The Chairperson explained that he was aware that Private Members could introduce legislative proposals.

Mr Jeffery said that only the Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and the Portfolio Committee concerned could introduce legislation. The word “only” was restrictive for a reason. Bills had to go through the house and any Member had a right to argue his or her case; elective democracy dictated that the majority could either pass or reject a piece of legislation.

The Chairperson cautioned Members and said that a particular interpretation of the law should not stop the Committee from reaching consensus. He added that the current procedure of introducing legislation was satisfactory but there was room for refinement. Legislative proposals were different from Bills. He mentioned that he was under the impression that the last meeting had made some progress on the issue. The draft was made specifically to drive the process; he urged Members to move away from the substantive issue and rather deal with the technical nature of rules.

Dr Oriani-Ambrosini said that the Chairperson should not assume that everybody was happy with the draft.

Mr Jeffery suggested the deletion of Section 234 (1) (d) from Annexure 11.

Mr Mulder said that Section 235 A (c) was not specific enough; he then suggested a time frame: six months would be enough for consideration of Legislative Proposals.

The Chairperson explained that Parliament as the representative of the people made laws, and did not interpret them; the Constitutional Court was the correct body to interpret laws. The role of the Portfolio Committees was to advise the House regarding legislation pertaining to their respective portfolios.

Mr P Pretorius (DA) asked whether the process as outlined by the Chairperson meant that private Members could continue to introduce legislation.  

The Chairperson replied that it did.

Mr J Ellis (DA) concurred.

Mr Mulder suggested that Section 236 (2) be moved to (1) and vice versa.

The Committee unanimously agreed.

Consideration of the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2010
The Chairperson invited members to comment on the minutes of the meeting held on 24 August 2010.

Dr M Oriani-Ambrosini (IFP) objected that the minutes did not correctly capture what he had said on that day.

Mr B Martins (ANC) explained that Dr Oriani-Ambrosini should simply point out the discrepancies when he saw them.

Mr J Jeffery (ANC) suggested that the Committee could rather consider minutes page by page.

Dr Oriani-Ambrosini suggested the deletion of the word “proceed” in page 3.

Mr Jeffery suggested that Dr Oriani-Ambrosini could forward his amendments to the Committee Secretary, and then the Secretary could confirm the minutes with the audio recording and the Committee could adopt the minutes later on.

The Committee agreed to shelve the consideration of minutes for a later date.

The meeting was adjourned.


Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: