Electoral Amendment Bill: Content Advisor briefing on submissions received, with Deputy Minister present

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson said the meeting was for the Committee to receive a report on the submissions received on the Electoral Amendment Bill. The Constitutional Court had granted an extension for Parliament to complete the Bill by 28 February.

The Committee had considered the proposed amendments from the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), which had been advertised for public comment. The Committee’s Content Advisor would brief the Committee on the written submissions.

He expressed appreciation to the Minister for the continuous work that the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) had carried out. He noted that new cadets had been appointed and were now engaged in training. He complimented the DHA for its excellent service at the offices in Centurion, adding that this standard should be demonstrated at all DHA offices.

Content Advisor briefing on Electoral Amendment Bill submissions

Mr Adam Salmon, Committee Content Advisor, presented a summary of the submissions on the Bill, particularly on the amendments proposed by the NCOP. A total of 81 submissions had been received, of which 12 were substantive and 69 were short.

The written submissions expressed concerns about the signature requirements for independent candidates, the changes to seat allocation calculations, and the proposed Electoral Reform Consultation Panel.

(See document attached for details)

Discussion

The Chairperson advised that the Members and stakeholders should focus on the areas of the Bill that had been advertised for public comment, as the other issues had already been exhausted and dealt with by the Committee and the NCOP.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) said it was important to acknowledge that citizens had really participated, as so many submissions had been made. He appreciated the Content Advisor for summarising them.

He proposed that the Committee should first take note of all of the submissions and the responses, because this would make it easier for the Committee to then deliberate. By doing so, the Committee would not be going back and forth, as there were time constraints.

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) said that this was a very valuable process. There had been substantive inputs from South Africans. She thanked the public for taking the time to engage with Parliament.

She noted Mr Pillay’s proposal on how the Committee should proceed in dealing with the submissions.

She also wanted to make a few comments, which she had mentioned in previous meetings. She recalled that when there were debates on the Bill in the National Assembly, the IPF had not supported the Bill in its current form because it agreed that the qualifying criteria were important, but the signature requirement was still far too high. Right from the start, she had proposed that this should be 10% to 15% maximum, which would have been 4 400 signatures. She recognised the overwhelming inputs from South Africans who believed that the signature requirement remained too high and that it was counterproductive, unfair, an obstacle to participation and a barrier to entry. These were concerns that the Committee needed to take very seriously and consider in its engagements.

She felt it should not be the sole prerogative of the Minister to appoint the Electoral Reform Consultation Panel. She recalled that the Minister had, unfortunately, come under criticism with the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) because of the option that had been picked. She felt that the panel should be a more inclusive process, in that it should be Parliament that would work with the Minister to establish the panel, and the panel should report back to Parliament. She acknowledged some of the proposals from the public on how they would like this panel to be constituted. The submissions suggested that the panel include civil society and electoral reform experts and constitutional law experts. There were suggestions as to when the panel should start its work -- that it should start sooner rather than later. It was also said that the work of the panel should not be restrictive in nature, as contemplated currently in Clause 23.

She thanked the Content Advisor for placing the submissions in such a consolidated document.

Mr A Roos (DA) appreciated each person and organisation that had taken the time to contribute to this public participation process over the holiday period.

He wanted to highlight a few matters for the various stakeholders to provide feedback on when they report back to the Committee in tomorrow's meeting. The one thing was on the vote threshold, which had been criticised from the start. He felt it was important for the Committee to receive feedback on the rationale behind the 20% signature requirement.

He said that many countries put thresholds in place to avoid ungovernability and avoid fragmented legislatures, because ungovernable governments were of no use to citizens. He asked that the legal advisors inform the Committee of what tests the court would use to determine whether the threshold was unconstitutional or unfair. He asked if there were specific tests that the court would look at to determine if the threshold was fair and equitable.

He agreed with the inputs concerning the timeframes of the Electoral Reform Consultation Panel. It appeared that if the panel reported to Parliament a year after the 2024 election, then Parliament would be in the same position as it was in now -- being rushed to implement comprehensive electoral reform. There had been inputs on whether the Minister or Parliament should appoint the panel. Public participation had been absolutely critical, because many voices have been heard since the Committee started this process. Those voices had already faded into the background. It was critical to avoid a situation where the panel would start a year after the 2024 elections and result in a rush, because the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) would have to implement new systems and demarcations. There should be comprehensive public participation on the ground, so that members of the public are informed of the different options.

He observed that the word “constitutionality” had been used frequently. He asked that the legal advisors confirm whether they had identified any constitutional issues that could be a risk.

Ms L Tito (EFF) concurred with Mr Pillay’s proposal that the Committee should first take note of all the submissions it had received, and then decide on the way forward.

Mr T Mogale (EFF) agreed with Ms Tito.

The Chairperson noted the report on the submissions received and the issues that the Members had commented on. The Committee would receive feedback from the IEC, the DHA and the legal team at the next scheduled meeting.

Responses

Mr Njabulo Nzuza, Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, said that the Department had noted all of the inputs. The Minister would be available for the next meeting to respond to issues that affected the DHA.

Mr Mosotho Moepya, Chairperson, IEC, said that the IEC had also noted the issues raised, and would respond tomorrow.

Ms Daksha Kassan, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, said that she and her colleague, Ms Telana Halley-Starkey, were preparing to present at tomorrow’s meeting.

Ms Sarah Govender, Senior State Law Advisor, said that the Office of the Chief State Law Adviser (OCSLA) would be prepared to respond to any questions required of them.

Content Advisor briefing on electronic voting study tour and Committee strategic planning sessions.

International Study Tour

Mr Salmon said that he and the research unit had been inquiring as to what possible countries the Committee could visit to inform its debate on the current electoral reform process and the actual voting method, particularly electronic voting. The research and feedback from the IEC narrowed it down to the United States of America (USA) and Brazil. Other countries have also been proposed, such as India and Venezuela.

Based on the demographics, the international benchmarking in terms of how democratic the states were, and comparisons to the voting systems in South Africa, it had been narrowed down to the USA and Brazil. The application was in the process of being refined, and had to go through the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), as well as receive political approval from Parliament. Considering how long these processes took, the likely and proposed time for the study tour was from 16 to 30 June.

Within the USA, there were two states that had been identified -- New Jersey and Illinois. These states had large populations, but also used a diversity of voting methods, giving them a unique insight into the advantages of the different systems. The federal system in the USA allowed for the decentralised management of voting, so each of those states managed things differently.

Brazil has been conducting national-level electronic voting since 2000, and smaller regional electronic voting since 1996.

Strategic Planning

Mr Salmon said that the last week of March would be considered for strategic planning. The new parliamentary programme indicated that the last week of March was the Committee’s week. There had been discussions with the Chairperson on the possibility of using the last week of March as both an oversight and strategic planning week, from 28 to 31 March. The Committee would conduct the strategic plan overview with the IEC and DHA in Pretoria. Thereafter, the Committee would conduct its annual performance plan (APP) process.

Discussion

The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had agreed on a strategic meeting with the DHA to deal with all of the challenges the Department was dealing with. The Committee and the DHA would consider a date so all Members could attend the meeting. The strategic planning would help inform the Committee’s legacy report.

He further recalled that the study tour was based on the proposed amendment on electronic voting from the IEC towards the 2021 local government elections. The Committee had been advised to establish modalities and lessons from other countries on how these matters should be handled. This matter had been processed through research and interactions with the parliamentary office that dealt with this process. The Committee had considered having a study tour this year.

Mr Pillay supported the comments regarding the study tour and strategic planning. He asked if the strategic planning session could be held earlier in March, as he felt it would be important for the Committee to have the strategic planning session as early as possible.

Ms van der Merwe was pleased with the proposals made for the study tour and the strategic planning session.

Mr Roos said that the study tour was critical, especially for looking into electronic voting and how it would assist in curbing fraudulent voting, etc. The study tour would add tremendous value to the law reform efforts. He further supported the proposed dates for the strategic planning session.

Ms Tito supported the proposals for the study tour and the strategic planning session.

The Chairperson said that the Committee may need to work towards having physical meetings, given the difficulties experienced with the network and load-shedding. 

Mr Salmon referred to Mr Pillay’s earlier request to have the strategic planning session. He replied that this would depend on the Department and entities making their strategic plans available first, which was scheduled for the last week of March. The Department and entities could not finish their plans until they had completed their budgets. The weeks prior to the last week of March were for the budget debates. The last week of March was the earliest possible date for the strategic planning session.

The Chairperson said that the strategic planning session would accommodate the availability of Members and all stakeholders.

Mr Eddy Mathonsi, Committee Secretary, said that the Chairperson had previously agreed that the Committee would try to have physical meetings after it had dealt with the Electoral Amendment Bill. He clarified that the rest of the scheduled meetings on the Bill would still be virtual.

The Chairperson agreed that the Committee would look into the possibility of meeting physically once it had dealt with the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.