System to Monitor Unanswered Questions; Guidelines for Mini-Plenaries

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed everyone and noted that the subcommittee had already discussed at length item one of the agenda. He asked the National Assembly (NA) Table Staff to introduce the working documents.

Discussion and Decision on System to Monitor Questions
Mr Michael Plaatjies, Procedural Advisor, NA Table, said the subject had been based on rule 136 of the 9th Edition of the Assembly Rules, which read: ‘the Speaker must in consultation with the Rules Committee establish a system to monitor and report regularly to the House on questions that have been endorsed as unanswered by the question paper in terms of rules 143 (2), 144(5) and 146 (3). 136 (2) read: ‘The Leader of Government Business must be informed of any steps taken in respect of any member of the executive in giving effect to the monitoring of replies and the application of Rules 143 to 146’.
Currently there was a process where the Speaker quarterly wrote to the Leader of Government Business (LoGB) on all questions outstanding for 6 weeks and longer, which was in line with a decision of the Rules Committee of 2003. Whilst that practice was effective, questions continued to not be responded to in time.  In line with an independent assessment panel of Parliament done a few years ago; it had also been said there that there needed to be a greater strengthening of the powers of the Speaker. He felt that the Subcommittee throughout its deliberations had responded through rule 136 to the assessment. He then read through his presentation with the subcommittee. Mr Plaatjies said the draft resolution would further be brought in line with the establishment of subcommittees in terms of the rules.

Discussion
Ms J Killian (ANC) noted a grammatical error and said the matter had been discussed and it was Parliament’s constitutional duty to strengthen executive oversight as there had been a trend which could not be allowed to continue. She concurred with the draft resolution but needed clarity from the Table staff as to whether the proposed constitution of the Subcommittee would be similar to how the Subcommittee on Rules (subrules) had been constituted. If it would be in line with how subrules was constituted she was proposing that the report be submitted to the Rules Committee as it was.

Mr Plaatjies replied that the draft resolution would be brought in line with the provisions for subcommittees in terms of the rules though there still needed to be some refinements on the draft resolution to make it reflect subcommittees as per the rules applicable to subcommittees. From rule 171 onwards, Table staff would introduce those rules so that the draft resolution could reflect the rules on subcommittees

The Chairperson said subcommittees did not have a limit on number of members. What could be done rather was to see whether what had been proposed would be acceptable or more could be added.

Ms N Mazzone (DA) said though the DA agreed with the draft resolutions it would want to flag resolution (1) (c) because the Rules Committee would have to look at what remedies there would need to be because for example, if a Minister continued to fail to appear before Parliament to answer questions there had to be a remedy. The Subcommittee would have to look at the guidelines to see what recommendations the envisaged subcommittee on a System to Monitor Questions could be allowed to make. 

Ms Killian agreed to the fact that the subcommittee referred to the rules for subcommittees and that a number for members not be assigned as in the proposal by Table staff. Though the Rules Committee had to put in place mechanisms to hold the executive accountable; it was the President of the Republic that had the prerogative to hire and fire.  The National Assembly could, based on a report; call for a special debate to discuss consistent absenteeism of a particular Minister.

The Chairperson reiterated the concern about the number of members envisaged for the subcommittee on a System to Monitor Questions, noting that the Rules Committee could very well reject the Subcommittee’s report on that issue of numbers. It would be a very serious issue for a Minister to appear before a subcommittee in a public meeting therefore one appearance certainly would make any Minister to never want to come back thereby would get them to do their work.

Mr Perran Hahndiek, Procedural Advisor, NA table, wanted clarity whether the Subcommittee was agreeing to remove the section on membership numbers giving that responsibility to the rules committee, or did the Table staff have to put options in the draft resolutions.

The Chairperson said indeed the Rules Committee would have to determine as it was the decision maker and the Subcommittee were recommending that proportionality be applied in the same manner it was applied to any subcommittee of a portfolio committee.

Ms Killian said that if everything from the draft resolution would be maintained except that which would be removed the subcommittee had to refer to rule 172 (2) which read: The parent committee of a subcommittee —
must appoint the members of the subcommittee from among its members.
The Chairperson said that was in order.

Mr Hahndiek said the Table Staff had sent out to Members a more succinct presentation on mini plenaries which had replaced a previous working document.

Discussion and Decision of Guidelines for Mini-Plenaries
Mr Collen Mahlangu, Senior Procedural Advisor, NA Table, said the Table staff had identified that the sequence of speaking by parties or members on speakers list was problematic.  The new working document which he would be presenting had also been presented at the Chief Whips Forum and the Programming committee.

Proposals on Speaker’s List
He then read the presentation with the Committee. Rule B (1) from the document would apply to mini-plenaries that would consider motions, second reading debates and committee reports. Regarding first reading debates and budget votes rule 285 was specific about the procedure and it set time limits. He then directed the sitting to the page with the proposed time limits.

Election of chairs for mini plenaries
The prerogative for election of chairs was given to the Speaker, as a proposal would be made to her. Usually the House Chairpersons chaired mini plenaries together with other members that would be elected by the Speaker to assist House Chairpersons.  

Decision and declarations
In unique situations a matter could come before the House after a week or two, would the matter require declarations and if so would the times usually allocated to parties for declarations be used? Normally the majority party had 7 minutes, the DA 5 minutes, the EFF 4 minutes and the remaining smaller parties with 3 minutes each. Where it was found that it could be problematic to allocate such times, discussions would be held where the House would decide to limit declarations to 2 minutes each party.

Ms Mazzone said the DA had discussed significantly about mini plenaries and amongst opposition whips their concern about the Speaker’s list. The entire opposition had problems with time allocation by the Table staff to the extent that the opposition distrusted the Table staff. She had seen the clock do strange things though by no fault of Table staff. The fact that there would be no Speaker’s list at Mini plenaries meant there would be a fight about remaining time and that worried the opposition. For example, if the DA had 7 minutes and she spoke about 3 minutes 40 seconds and Mr J Steenhuisen wanted to speak for the remaining time but the Table staff would be adamant that 17 seconds remained instead of 3 minutes 20 seconds. As the DA there was an understanding that 3 seconds was neither here nor there but she knew that that difference in time had the potential to collapse House proceedings. There was that potential of abuse where deliberate disruption of flow of debate could occur because of the fight about remaining time.
Therefore, everything else from Mr Mahlangu’s presentation was acceptable except the fact that mini plenaries would not have a speaker’s list.

Ms Killian said that there were specific rules regarding first and second reading debates for Bills and her understanding had been that second reading debates would not occur. There would be first reading debates and plenary however; first reading debates had been abolished and it was said that had occurred as they related to the principle of a Bill. She recalled that first reading debates had been abolished because there was limited time.

She found the time allocation as proposed very peculiar because declarations followed a debate. The time allocation could not be similar between a declaration and during a debate. It could not be correct that a ruling party would have 10 minutes out of 60 minutes during a debate. Potentially what the proposed time allocation meant was that for each one-member party in the NA; they would have 9 minutes in total to debate as each would have 6 minutes to open as each would be the member in charge and 3 minutes to reply.  In the revised rules the committee had decided that Parliament had to always respect the constitutional approach of proportionality. The ANC was not saying it wanted the entire 60 minutes but the proposed time allocation would not work as it would not be fair for any governing party to have only 10 minutes.

The Chairperson said that it probably was not desirable to put time down discarding proportionality as the business for debate was to be decided by the whippery; similarly, time allocations had to be rather left to political parties. He did understand the principle behind the proposal by Table staff but maintained that allocation of time be left to parties.

Mr Mahlangu thanked the Subcommittee for its guidance and the Table staff would indeed rework the draft working document as per the Subcommittee’s view.

Mr Hahndiek emphasised that indeed then they would remove the time allocation proposal but he wanted clarity as to how the Speaker’s list would work in terms of the rules as the rules were specific about there being no Speaker’s list, though that did not mean there could be no informal list. Parties could agree amongst themselves and communicate with Table staff about such matters.

Ms Killian said she understood the matter of distrust but having a list would not remove distrust because if the Table still kept time it could also err even with a list. She thought the intention was to liberate the space in a similar manner to committee meetings as some members were more active than others. Her proposal was for Parliament to see how it could address the matter of distrust as far as time was concerned without a list, as the rules had no specific provision for it. Mini plenaries were intended to be more informal. Without first trying the Subcommittee would not know how mini plenaries would work without a speaker’s list.

The Chairperson said parties could manage their own speakers on the issue of speakers for particular mini plenaries including time allocation. Mini plenaries indeed were for free-flowing debates as members read speeches even though those were not permitted but Parliament had ways of dealing with such matters.

Mr Mahlangu said the consideration of second reading debates in mini plenaries could be said to have been provided for by rule 49 (1) & (2) which read: ‘The Speaker refers matters for consideration in a mini‑plenary session after due consideration of the views and directions of the Programme Committee. (2) Any matter may be discussed or debated in a mini‑plenary session’.
He said the working document had been based on those provisions.

The Chairperson said that the Rules Committee would decide on the matter as Ms Killian was not against what the Table staff had presented.

Ms Mazzone wanted clarity as to whether it would be the Programme Committee which would decide on the business of mini plenaries, as it usual did.

The Chairperson replied in the affirmative.

Mr Hahndiek asked whether the Subcommittee would want to meet again to adopt the report before being taken to the rules committee.

The Chairperson said the subcommittee accepted the report as it would be after reworking the draft proposals so that when presented to the rules committee it would reflect everything that had been said.

Announcements
Mr Hahndiek announced that the City of Johannesburg council wanted to meet the Subcommittee on Rules of the Assembly on the 25 October 2017. He said that the Table Staff could prepare technical notes for the Subcommittee regarding the agenda of that workshop.

Ms Killian said she would appreciate the technical notes on relevant local government legislation relating to council rules.

The Chairperson said indeed his office and support staff would prepare for the subcommittee accordingly and send all relevant documentation to members.    

The meeting was then adjourned.