Local Government: Electoral Amendment Bill [B22-2015]: public submissions and response by the Electoral Commission; Home Affairs Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report

Meeting report

The Committee Chairperson welcomed the delegation from the Independent Electoral Commission, led by Mr Glen Mashinini (Chairperson, IEC). He noted receipt of a document from the IEC concerning the Represented Political Parties' Fund  which would be discussed on another day. He also reminded the Committee that Cabinet had approved the recommendations of the inter-ministerial Committee regarding possible unintended consequences of the new regulations of the Immigration Act. He hoped that the public would continue to observe the regulations until the amendments were finalised.

Submissions received on the Local Government: Electoral Amendment Bill [B22-2015]
Mr Adam Salmon (Committee Content Advisor) said that they had received two submissions, the first from the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) in Kwazulu-Natal, the second from the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference (SACBC).

COGTA's submission concerned Sections 27c and 27f of the Local Government Municipal Structures Act of 1998, which deal with the vacation of office during a term of office by councillors who cease to be members of the parties of which they were members when they were elected. There was confusion about who was responsible for relaying this information to the IEC. COGTA suggested in the submission that an amendment be made to the definition of “authorised representative” in the Bill which would make the authorised representative responsible for informing the Municipal Manager of the municipality when a party's elected representative ceases to be a member of that party.

The SACBC raised two issues. First, they were concerned about the removal of references to temporary identity documents in the Bill, although they were still referred to in the Section 16 of the Identification Act, which allowed them to act as an identity card. Their suggestion was that the references not be removed.

The SACBC's second concern was that although Clause 5 the Bill removed the word “accidentally” from Section 49 of the Act with the intention of accommodating voters who change their mind after marking a ballot paper, it was still possible to interpret this section as only applying to voters who have made a mistake. Their proposal was that the Bill make specific reference to the fact that even people who simply change their mind are entitled to a new ballot paper.

IEC response to the submissions and discussion
Mr Mosotho Moepya (Chief Electoral Officer, IEC) said that the IEC agreed that the definition of “authorised representative” needed to be amended. However, he explained that the IEC believed that the addition to the definition would be better placed in the Municipal Structures Act, rather than the Municipal Electoral Act (which B22-2015 was to amend).
 
Mr Sy Mamabolo (Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, IEC) explained the reasoning behind the IEC's views about the placement of the amended definition. He said that a definition in an Act should relate to the substance of the Act. The Municipal Electoral Act did not deal with the issue of vacancies, so if it was added to this Act, the definition would hang in the air and not connect with the content of the act. The Structures Act, on the other hand, did deal with a range of related issues. Mr Mamabolo also pointed out a technical error in Clause 4 the Bill. All references to Section 17A should be references to Section 14A.

The Chairperson added that there was actually quite a general problem of different individuals in a party making different and contradictory statements about another individual's membership. He suggested that a transitional arrangement might be required, perhaps assigning responsibility for all such communications to a single person, until the Bill was passed.

Mr M Hoosen (DA) agreed with the Chairperson in principle, but said that there was a practical problem. Was Gwede Mantashe, for instance, supposed to personally sign off on all of the ANC's membership changes countrywide? Perhaps provincial representatives would be practical, he thought.

Mr Moepya explained that structures were typically in place already that could allow authorised representatives to delegate this responsibility to subordinates.

With reference to SACBC's first submission, Mr Moepya said that they had considered this amendment carefully with the Department of Home Affairs, who had confirmed that Section 16 of the Identification Act already allowed temporary identity certificates to act as identity documents for voting purposes. There was no risk of disenfranchising voters carrying temporary identification.

With reference to SACBC's second submission, Mr Moepya said that the IEC supported the incorporation of this suggestion into the Bill.

The Chairperson drew attention to a possible loophole in Section 49. It placed no limit on the number of times a person could request a new ballot. It was possible that this provision could be abused by a group of people who continually requested replacement ballot papers, depleting the available ballot papers at the voting station to such an extent that there were not enough papers left for everyone who wanted to vote. There needed to be a legal mechanism to prevent this sort of abuse.

Mr Hoosen pointed out that this loophole existed with or without the word “accidentally” and with or without the SACBC's suggested addition. A person could deliberately spoil their ballot.

The Chairperson said that at least in this case there was a limit to how many ballot papers could be wasted.

Ms S Nkomo (IFP) said that the number of ballot papers that could be used by a single person needed to be capped at a specific number.

Mr Mashishini agreed that the potential for abuse in this way was real and that they would address it.

The Chairperson asked if the IEC could send the changes to the Committee in the next 3-5 days.

Discussion on the electronic submission of candidate lists and other documents
The Chairperson asked the IEC to allay their fears about the electronic submissions introduced in Clause 3 of the Bill.

Mr Mashinini said that the electronic submissions were intended to improve the political-administrative interface, taking advantage of technological advances. Parties had struggled to meet deadlines for submitting lists of candidates and other documents, which had had to be submitted manually. They had requested an additional channel of submission. The electronic system would be professionally audited to certify its security. It was not meant to replace the manual system, however. The two would exist side by side. Mr Mashinini said that the IEC was under no illusions about the risks of the new system, but they were prepared to deal with any unexpected side-effects. The manual system was not risk-free either, he noted.

The Chairperson asked if subsection (a) and (b) in Clause 3 could be switched around, so that manual submission was mentioned first and electronic second.

Mr Mamabolo said that the IEC was in support of the change. “or” was also replaced with “and/or” between the two subsections. They should then make the corresponding switch in Clause 2 of the Bill.

The Committee would meet before Tuesday 3 November 2015 to confirm these changes.

Home Affairs Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR)
Mr Salmon presented the draft of the BRRR. He noted that the resolutions of the Standing Committee on Public accounts (SCOPA) had not yet been tabled, which was why they were not contained in the BRRR.

The Chairperson asked the Committee whether any amendments needed to be made before they could adopt it.

Ms T Kenye (ANC) was concerned about the impression created in Point 7.2.1 that the Department of Home Affairs was being congratulated on improving its audit from disclaimer in 2013/14 to qualified audit in 2014/15, without any mention of the fact that an unqualified audit was really the ultimate goal.

A phrase was added to reflect this.

Mr Hoosen queried the absence of any mention of the possible security breach in the Department of Home Affairs' programme for processing smart ID applications in bank branches, reported to the Committee by the Gauteng Provincial Manager.

The Chairperson remembered this, but also recalled that the Provincial Manager's supervisor had subsequently contradicted his account of the matter, and that the Committee had asked them to come back with a consistent account. Since they were still waiting for this account, he did not think they should mention the Provincial Manager's account in the BRRR.

Mr Hoosen pointed out that there were other items in the BRRR that required the Department to come back. This matter was no different. He also thought the issue of its verification was a separate matter. He was concerned that if no mention of the possible security breach was made in the BRRR, the Department would not take the necessary measures to fix it.

The Chairperson said that if they included it in the BRRR as a finding, they would be bound to include a corresponding recommendation. It would be difficult for the Committee to make a concrete recommendation to the Department if they were waiting for a response from them. He was also concerned with communicating to the public that there was a question mark over the security of smart IDs.

Mr Hoosen said that the information was in the public domain already.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) suggested that a comment about the possible security breach be included in the body of the BRRR, not in the findings section.

This solution was acceptable to all. A comment on the matter was added.

Moving on from Findings to Recommendations, the Chairperson said that Point 8.1.5, on permanent and acting staff, should be reworded not to seem like a categorical instruction to the Department. They should strive to fill positions with permanent appointees, but it could not be a demand.

This point was amended accordingly.

With reference to Point 8.15 (in the original draft) concerning the budget for the Department's IT modernisation, the Chairperson questioned whether the Committee had the right to make recommendations to the Minister of Finance. Was the Committee going to call the Minister of Finance to account for his action in response to their recommendation? If they were not, they should leave it out. He said that it was the Director-General's prerogative to make budgetary recommendations to the Minister of Finance. They did not want to make a recommendation which the Director-General was then responsible for.

The recommendation was changed to address the Department of Home Affairs rather than the Minister of Finance.

The BRRR was adopted with the amendments discussed, and the meeting was adjourned.