Electoral Task Team: briefing; Task Team on Sexual Abuse of Children Report & Film and Publications Board

Home Affairs

25 June 2002
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
25 June 2002
ELECTORAL TASK TEAM: BRIEFING; TASK TEAM ON SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN REPORT & FILM AND PUBLICATIONS BOARD

Chairperson:
Mr Mpho Scott (ANC)

Relevant document:
Final Report of the Parliamentary Task Group on the Sexual Abuse of Children

SUMMARY
The Electoral Task Team has been mandated by Cabinet to evaluate the present electoral system, and to research whether a new or amended system is needed. This has to be evaluated in terms of the extent to which it promotes the core values needed by the electoral system of every democracy. The Task Team has raised 75% of its budget without relying on any assistance from the Department, as this route places a minimal burden on taxpayers. An extensive consultative process will be undertaken, and NGOs, Members of Parliament and experts in electoral law will be consulted as part of the research process. This will culminate in a national conference in September 2002, and a final report will be submitted to the Minister in November 2002.

The discussion on the presentation highlighted concerns with the funding of the Task Team and whether the Department should not have been approached at the outset for funding and the total figure of the budget. The measures taken to improve voter turnout, especially in the rural areas was discussed, as well as the weight attached to time considerations in deciding the matter, whether the process will ultimately culminate in the Task Team drafting legislation regarding the electoral system and whether the current inclusivity threshold is appropriate.

Clifford Bestall, head of Shadow Pictures, was not present at the meeting. The discussion on the Task Group on the Sexual Abuse of Children and the offending BBC progamme, produced by Shadow Pictures, highlighted concern with the duality of classification functions between the SABC and FPB and the need to address this.

MINUTES
The Chair commenced proceedings by welcoming all present, and informed Members that Dr F van Zyl Slabbert has recently been elected as chairperson of the Task Team established on 20 March. Dr van Zyl Slabbert will brief this Committee on the mandate of the Task Team in this regard and the progress it has made thus far, as well as the role to be played by Parliament in the process.

Briefing by Chairperson of Electoral Task Team
Dr van Zyl Slabbert thanked the Committee for opportunity to address it, and informed Members that he would be making a short presentation following which questions may be posed by Members.

Cabinet had decided on 20 March 2001 to establish a Task Team, and the Minister of Home Affairs (the Minister) addressed a letter to him requesting that he set up the Task Team and chair it as well. The Task Team was officially launched on 9 May 2002, and the intervening period was used to establish the Task Team and allowed its Chair to meet with potential colleagues in the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).

It has been reported that the Task Team will change the current electoral law, but Members are assured that the Task Team does not see itself in any capacity other than a resource which makes information available to Members of Parliament on this matter. Indeed, Members of Parliament themselves make the final decision as to which electoral system should be adopted by South Africa, if any such change should occur at all, and the Task Team has not been delegated this authority.

The question which then arises is whether it was really necessary to establish the Task Team to look into this matter, as it seems that Parliament could have done so itself. It is true that Parliament could indeed have done so itself, but the fact of the matter is that the Task Team was appointed by Cabinet and the Task Team is happy to take up this task. It has been mandated to investigate the electoral system which, based on its research, is the best independent system for South Africa, and Glenda Fick has written an excellent paper on this very issue. The Task Team does not see itself becoming integrally involved in matters of party political affiliation and the conduct of political parties. The present electoral system can be altered, and the recommendations of this Task Team in this regard would play an important role, but the electoral system itself and also the Task Team cannot regulate the conduct of parties.

A programme of action for the Task Team has been devised and the six meetings that have already been held served to facilitate a form of internal dialogue with the Task Team itself, in an attempt to reach consensus on its objectives. The decision was also taken to invite the Parliamentary liaison officers of the various political parties to share with the Task Team its aims and needs in terms of the electoral system. The Task Team made it clear to all that it is open to any representations of the parties on the electoral system, and invited them to feel free to request any additional information or research from the Task Team that they might need or might feel is necessary.

On 26 June 2002 the Task Team will commence its consultation process by meeting with the relevant Non-governmental organisations (NGO's), which includes the Gender Commission and the Steve Biko Foundation. Meetings will also be held with the South Africa media and press or their political correspondent of choice to ensure that the entire process is as open and transparent as possible.

The Task Team will also be commissioning national research to identify the experiences of the general public to the current electoral system, their responses to it and issues such as whether it elicits a feeling of true participation in the electoral process. In this regard the research conducted so far has progressed beyond he questionnaire phase, and four research companies have been enlisted to compile this research. It is hoped that this research would be completed before the beginning of September 2002. A national conference will then be hosted to which both national and international experts on electoral law will be invited, and Members of Parliament will be requested to engage in a panel discussion on the matter, including the strengths and weaknesses of the current electoral model. This conference should be hosted on 9/10 September 2002, at which time the final results of the research conducted by the Task Team would be made available.

After this conference a research report would be presented to each political party as well as the minutes of the conference, in an attempt to enable Members of Parliament to finalise its own position on its preferred electoral system. Each individual political party will then be invited to present its position to the Task Team, and this information would be utilised by the Task Team to then draft its final report on the matter, as well as a draft for the writing of legislation to effect the new electoral system, if a new system is adopted at all. The recommendations of the Task Team would then also be presented to the Minister, and it is hoped that this entire process will be concluded by approximately 11 November 2002.

The Task Team is aware of the sense of urgency that accompanies its task because both the IEC and the country as a whole have to be afforded at least one year in advance of the next general election, to properly prepare for whatever changes are to be effected, if any are effected at all. This means that, hypothetically, South Africa has until September 2004 to address matters such as voter education and adjustments to the manner in which elections are managed, and it needs to be granted sufficient time to properly instill these matters.

More than 75% of the Task Team budget has already been raised from Swedish, Norwegian, British and German funders, which means that the coffers of the South African government have not yet been touched. This will be used to cover the conference referred to earlier and the consultation and advice needed by the Task Team, and a further reason for approaching foreign investors is that it places a minimal burden on taxpayers.

The present electoral system will be evaluated in an attempt to identify the most fundamental and core values which it incorporates. Most of these are found in the Constitution, but four such core values have been identified which every truly democratic electoral system should espouse: firstly, legitimacy, which relates to the freeness and fairness of the election and whether any unfair discrimination has occurred. Secondly, inclusivity or representivity, which deals with this issue of whether any political party has been excluded from the election process. Thirdly, simplicity, which requires that the election process has to be understandable and should not confuse the electorate and it is evident that the process can become complex, which seems self-defeating. Fourthly, accountability, which is an important factor and deals with the ability of the political party or an individual to call to account an individual holding a public office, whether this be a national or provincial position. This problem is only partially addressed by an electoral system, as the most important body responsible for accountability is the political party itself because it has to take the matter of delivery of service to its electorate seriously. Indeed, the electoral system can only be conducive to- or facilitate accountability, but it cannot make or hold the party accountable.

The Task Team will spend a considerable amount of time on evaluating the current electoral system and it has to identify good reasons to warrant the disposal of the present system, and these should include any shortcomings and a real need to amend or replace it. Should these be identified and the decision taken to implement a new or revised electoral system, this new system has to be evaluated in terms of its effect on- and possible promotion of the core values detailed earlier, how these are balanced and kept in a state of creative tension with each other. This is an important concern for the Task Team.

With regard to the Crossing-of-the-Floor legislation, the Task Team does not wish to pre-empt any finding of the Constitutional Court on this matter, as the Task Team has itself not arrived at a final view on this matter. It would only do so once it has made a final decision on the electoral system best suited for South Africa, and it would hopefully be guided by the decision of the Constitutional Court in this regard.

Discussion
The Chair requested Dr van Zyl Slabbert to explain from whom the remaining 25% of the Task Team budget would be procured.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that he was under the impression that the Department has committed funds in this regard, but the preferred option is not to involve the State at all. In fact, the view was expressed at the very beginning that the Department is not expected to cover all the costs needed by the Task Team.

Mr G Grobler (DP) informed Members that it had recently been reported that there are currently two vacancies in the Task Team, and Dr van Zyl Slabbert is requested to explain whether these have since been filled.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded one of the posts has indeed been filed by an official from the Department of Justice and it has been reported that the second has been filled by a representative from the Department of Provincial and Local Government, yet no official letter has been received confirming the appointment.

Secondly, Mr Grobler requested clarity on the possible role of the Demarcation Board in this process.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that should such a proposal be made, the Task Team would not impose its solution regarding constituencies on Parliament. But should Parliament itself decide on a change in electoral system, the time frames and consequent problems accompanying the implementation of this new system have to be considered. An article published recently by The Sunday Times postulated that a new system could be introduced that consists of a 50-50 split between a constituency and proportional representation system. Should this be the case, the Demarcation Board would have a big task on its hands. The Task Team has not committed itself to either at this stage, as it is presently evaluating possible alternatives to the preset electoral model. Should Parliament decide to implement a new or revised electoral system it has to consider the time at its disposal, because it would then have to allow sufficient time for the demarcation of constituencies, the mobilisation of political parties within those constituencies and voter education.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) referred to the Crossing-of-the-Floor legislation and contended that there seems to be a perceived public outcry regarding the confusion or uncertainty caused by this legislation. The recent Task Team press release did state that the Task Team does plan to look at the experiences of ordinary citizens, and it is encouraged to do so as this might resolve the political instability that is perceived to have been caused by this legislation.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded that this concern has been incorporated into the questionnaire mentioned earlier, and the current results indicate that there is a significant degree of public confusion regarding that legislation and its consequences. It is hoped that the questionnaire would provide guidance in this regard.

Mr K Morwamoche (ANC) stated that it was mentioned during the Minister's press conference on 9 May 2002 that approximately twenty Parliamentary committee's would be represented at the first conference, where they would be addressed by experts in this matter. Yet this conference has not since materialised, and Dr van Zyl Slabbert is requested to explain whether this Committee would still be granted that opportunity.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that this was the initial plan, but it was soon realised that it would not be optimally beneficial to first host the conference and then conduct the research. The decision was then taken to first compile the research so that the findings could be encapsulated in a report and made available to the members of the panel at the conference, so that they might be better informed. It was thus decided that the conference would be rescheduled for 9-10 September 2002. The Task Team alone decided on the dates for the conference, and has received nothing but assistance from the Department in this process.

Prince N Zulu (IFP) referred to the fundamental principle of "inclusivity" mentioned earlier by Dr van Zyl Slabbert and inquired whether it was meant that even those in the deep rural areas would be able to make such representations because, if so, this is not "wholesomely secured" as it has proven difficult, in practise to reach these communities. How does the Task Team plan to reach these communities, because this is an important concern.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded that this is an important principle, because an electoral system cannot be adopted that excludes certain political parties from the election process. Germany currently employs a 5% threshold to establish inclusivity, whereas South Africa's currently stands at 0,25%. It has to be accepted that this is a negligible figure, which indicates the commitment to include the widest possible net of people and participation in the election process.

Yet the Task Team cannot be held accountable for reaching those in the rural areas, as this responsibility falls squarely with the IEC itself, as it is responsible for managing the electoral system and process and for putting in place procedures to reach a wide range of voters. The responsibility of actually getting the voters to the polls falls with the political parties themselves, as well as with the IEC.

Ms A Van Wyk (UDM) stated that time is an important consideration here, and it is hoped that Dr van Zyl Slabbert is not implying that it is the decisive factor or a constraint in deciding whether or not to implement and new or revised electoral system.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that a decision was taken at the commencement of the process that any considerations of time would not be allowed to determine the kind of electoral model to be regarded as most appropriate for South Africa. Yet, as Members would appreciate, when a proposal is put to Parliament that does have a potential implementation problem, it will raise a problem with time constraints. This problem will, however, not be forwarded by the Task Team.

Mr D Mokoena (ANC) requested Dr van Zyl Slabbert to inform the Committee of the lifespan of the Task Team.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded that the lifespan of the Task Team terminates immediately upon the finalisation of its report, which should be made available on 11 November 2002.

Secondly, Mr Mokoena inquired whether the funding exercise undertaken by Dr van Zyl Slabbert was at all necessary and whether it would not have been better to approach the Department for the funds, as it is common knowledge that fundraising can become problematic.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that the Task Team sat with the Minister and his advisors on this issue, but the final budget of the Task Team could not be provided because the Task Team's programme of action had not yet been finalised. The decision was thus taken that it would be more appropriate for the Task Team to raise these funds by approaching potential funders outside the Department. The Task Team was assured that this route was entirely appropriate, and the funds were provided with no strings attached. In fact, if they were granted with conditions, the funds would not have been accepted. Furthermore, should the Task Team not spend all the funds, it would return the remaining amount to that funder.

Thirdly, Mr Mokoena requested clarity on whether part of the Task Team's mandate is to devise draft legislation on the choice of electoral system, or whether its mandate is limited to defining the terms of reference regarding the desirability of changing the electoral system.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded that the letter received from the Minister authorising the establishment of the Task Team provides that it is mandated to "draft new legislation required by the Constitution" and to "formulate parameters of the electoral system". The instructions do therefore seem to be made with a view to the efforts of the Task Team culminating in some form of legislation. Dr van Zyl Slabbert stated that he does not feel confident that the Task Team is able to do this, and it would outsource this function to the legal counsel for the Department who is also a member of the Task Team, or to anyone recommended by Parliament. The reason for this decision is that Parliament itself determines the law, not the Task Team.

Mr Mokoena stated that this then relates to his first question and affects the lifespan of the Task Team.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert noted this "credible point", but stated that he does not see the Task Team drafting such legislation itself, especially if Parliament itself decides on the final legislation to be adopted in any event.

Fourthly, Mr Mokoena requested Dr van Zyl Slabbert's subjective view as to whether a new electoral system is needed, especially in view of the fact that South Africa is a young democracy.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded that he believed that South Africa has done exceptionally well for a young and emerging democracy, and contended that the final stage in the democratisation process is the evaluation of the electoral system which is currently being undertaken. Dr van Zyl Slabbert stated that he has had the chance to examine all the documents entrenching democracy in South Africa, and assured Members that South Africa has nothing to be ashamed of. He is therefore not of the opinion that the evaluation process is premature. But this does not mean that a new system has to be adopted, but it has to be evaluated in terms of whether it meets the core values mentioned earlier.

Fifthly, Mr Mokoena requested Dr van Zyl Slabbert to provide Members with other electoral models used by foreign jurisdictions, apart from the proportional representation and constituency- based models.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that there are several other electoral systems being used the world over and these include the German system, which has a 50% constituency-based and 50% proportional representation model, the British model employs a first-past-the-post system, New Zealand and Lesotho both favour a multi-party constituency-based system. The New Zealand system has also recently introduced the notion of transferable votes, and places tough choices on the voters as they have to list their candidates in order of preference. This system would pose a problem for South Africa, as too large an amount of voters could feel excluded from the election process should it become too confusing.

A member of the Task Team informed Members that the relevant documentation on this aspect could be made available to them.

Ms I Mars (IFP) referred to the statement by Dr van Zyl Slabbert that 75% of the budget has already been raised, and requested clarity on the overall cost of the evaluation process.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert responded that this is somewhat of a moving target, and contended that it is not so much that 25% of the budget is outstanding but rather that the Task Team has thus far been able to raise approximately 75% of the funds needed. The Task Team could very well encounter unanticipated costs, and for this reason it was decided that it would be advisable to raise too much money. No fixed agreement has been concluded with the Department in terms of which it undertakes to provide the remaining 25%.

Mr M Sikakane (ANC) referred to the earlier statement by Dr van Zyl Slabbert that the German model employs a 5% threshold, and inquired whether matters might be simplified by adjusting the South African threshold to 6%.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert replied that if this proposal were accepted nine of the parties currently on the voters roll would no longer exist, and this is not desirable. There were only two political parties that failed to meet the threshold in the last election. A low threshold is preferred in this regard, because a young democracy such as South Africa needs competition between political parties, and needs them to interact. Political parties should thus rather be included than excluded.

Mr Grobler informed Dr van Zyl Slabbert that the current threshold is actually 0,125%.

The Chair referred to the concern raised regarding the lifespan of the Task Team and suggested that it might be advisable to decide on a definite amount of funds that might be needed, and in this regard the Task Team could play it safe so that it does not later experience a shortage of funds. It has to consult with the Department to ascertain this figure, as the amount allocated in the Department's 2002 budget does seem very low.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert stated that he is aware of the constraints mentioned by the Minister at the outset and that the necessary funds have to be secured as soon as possible. For this reason the Task Team took the initiative and engaged in a rigorous fundraising drive, and there is quite a bit of fundraising still to be done. Should the Task Team run into any shortages, the Committee is assured that it will approach the Department for assistance well in advance of any such shortage, or it would simply ask the donors for additional funds.

The Chair thanked the delegation for its valuable input and guaranteed the commitment of this Committee to the project. This Committee would not be a bystander in this regard, but will take active steps to increase awareness regarding this issue and encourage public participation in the process, as this is aimed at improving the future of South Africa and its democratic system. This Committee recognises the difficult task facing the Task Team as it has many electoral models to identify and evaluate, but is certain that the model finally decided upon by the Task Team would be tailored to meet the unique needs of South Africa.

Dr van Zyl Slabbert thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address it, and informed Members that they would be kept abreast of any developments and progress made.

The Chair encouraged political parties to host workshops to assist and expedite this initiative.

Task Group on Sexual Abuse of Children Report
The Chair informed Members that he had received a letter from the Deputy Speaker regarding the recent hearings on Child Abuse and content of the BBC programme entitled "Shadow Pictures", and it requested this Committee to evaluate this matter and to identify possible areas in which it could be of assistance, because the Film and Publications Board (FPB) falls within the jurisdiction of the Department. This Committee had not yet dealt with this matter because it was under the impression that this matter would be best addressed by the Department of Social Development. It has, however, become apparent that this serious matter is not the sole responsibility of that department, and thus this Committee and indeed the Department has to identify manners in which it can assist.

In this regard both the FPB and the Task Group on the Sexual Abuse of Children should be invited to appear before this Committee to ensure progress, and a strategic plan has to be devised.

Mr Mokoena suggested that the actual matter to be resolved here is the duality of the authorisation of classification, because South Africa currently has two such bodies: the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and the Department via the FPB. The SABC has stated that it may classify the programmes and films it screens via the Minister of Communications, but this identical function is performed by the Department's FPB. This very matter arose in this Committee's discussions around the controversial episodes of the Yizo Yizo programme, and when the FPB was approached for its position, it stated that the SABC authorised the screening, not the FPB. This matter has to be resolved quickly so that one single classification authority is established.

A further problem is caused by the fact that the public often think that the FPB is automatically responsible, simply because it has a high profile, when in several of the cases it is not. If this matter is not resolved as soon as possible, the duality will continue to cause significant difficulties.

The Chair urged Members to confine their input to the current matter regarding the Task Group on the Sexual Abuse of Children, as the other matter will be raised when this Committee meets with the FPB.

Mr M Lekgoro (ANC) suggested that this Committee has to ascertain whether in fact this matter falls within an area in which the Department is competent to deal with it. In this regard the FPB is not competent to deal with the "Shadow Pictures" programme because it has no authority to deal with programmes that have already been broadcast, only with films.

Ms Van Wyk stated that considerations such as whether the film in question is a foreign film are important here, as the FPB does not have jurisdiction over such films unless they have been screened in South Africa. Mr Lekgoro is correct that this matter has to be considered further.

In the larger picture the final report of the Task Group on the Sexual Abuse of Children does contains certain recommendation aimed specifically at the FPB and the Department. This Committee therefore has to evaluate this report and identify issues relevant to it and to the Department. This is a complicated matter, because "Shadow Pictures" was produced by a South African company for an overseas market, with the result that the FPB would only have jurisdiction if the cameramen were applying for, or refused a permit to film in South Africa.

The Chair agreed that the report has to be made available to Members by 26 June 2002 for the latest, so that this matter is not dealt with piecemeal but in terms of the global picture. This would encourage Members to seriously consider this matter and would prepare them for the hearing with the FPB when Parliament reconvenes in August.

There were no further questions or comments and the meeting was adjourned.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

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: