Report on the Workshop on the Role of Parliament in Treaty Making Processes

Meeting report

Adoption of Minutes
The Committee adopted the minutes of 29 August, 4 September, 19 September and 10 October 2012 without making any amendments.

Report of the Workshop on the Role of Parliament in Treaty-Making Processes
The Chairperson tabled the report for consideration. He noted that the date should be included at the top of the report.

A member of the support staff stated that the date would be included once the report was adopted. It would be the date of the day that the report was tabled in the ATC.

Mr S Ngonyama (COPE) moved for the adoption of the report. Ms C September (ANC) seconded the motion.

Consideration of the Draft Report on the Workshop on Treaties
The Chairperson stated that before the Committee dealt with this draft report, it should recall that in the last discussion, Members agreed that they would chart a way forward to look at how Parliament should deal with treaties. The current way of dealing with treaties did not speak to Parliament’s rules and the role it played in international relations. The Committee then proposed that it would look at the issuing of mandates from Parliament. It was recognised that Parliament was not involved in the negotiation of treaties as it was an Executive function; however, it was anticipated that the Parliament and the Executive would come to an understanding regarding this.

The second issue had to do with national interest analyses. This concerned the Executive explaining to Parliament what the national interest was before it signed any treaties.

The Chairperson explained that there was a proposal that Parliament should look at developing a manual for dealing with treaties. There was no uniform way of dealing with treaties. In terms of governance, there were two ways to deal with treaties. The first was to deal with them the way Parliament dealt with them now – with each Committee dealing with its own department. Or, Parliament could have a standing committee on treaties. Ideally, this Committee would be made up of Committees that usually deal with international treaties such as the Committees on Justice, International Relations and Trade and Industry. This Committee could refer treaties to the relevant Committees. These were the proposals that had to be looked at.

Mr B Elof (DA) noted that there was one thing about the treaties that worried him. There was no roadmap or route that showed what the treaty was about and what direction it was going in. He liked the idea that all the treaties had to go through this Committee at some point. It was worrying that treaties bypassed the International Relations Committee all the time.

The Chairperson replied that this was exactly what the manual would speak to.

Ms September noted that the sentiments expressed by the Chairperson were noble. She wondered if any of the proposals had been checked against any legalities in Parliament.

Mr Ngonyama agreed that the legality of the proposal had to be clarified. The State Law Advisers or the Parliamentary Legal Advisers had to be consulted. He believed the Committee had to be involved in any issue relating to foreign affairs.

The Chairperson stated that it was imperative to reach an understanding with the Executive about how to deal with treaties, short of a Constitutional amendment.

Mr Elof added that the proposal had to speak about the Committee’s mandate and what they wanted to do as well.

The Chairperson concluded that before the proposal was to be taken to the House, the Committee had to engage with all the principle players on the matter. Depending on what they say, it might require some amendments to the rules, or not – but it was good to have the principles on board.

The meeting was adjourned.