(Subcommittee) Consideration of matters referred by the Rules Committee - Terminology and definitions

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed Members to the meeting, including the Secretary to the National Assembly, who had arranged this meeting. She noted that this was the Subcommittee’s first meeting of the 7^th Parliament.

She said that the Subcommittee would not deal with all the matters that were referred to it today. Another meeting will be arranged to ensure that the Subcommittee has sufficient time to process all the matters that the Speaker referred to it. She explained that the Subcommittee does not make decisions - it processes matters before it, and then a report gets referred to the Rules Committee for adoption.

Ms E Ntlangwini (EFF) suggested that it was important for the Members to receive a list of all the matters referred to the Subcommittee so that the Members can be aware of how the work will be scheduled in.

Mr W Horn (DA) noted that the Chairperson had said that the Subcommittee did not need a quorum and did not make binding decisions. He asked that the Subcommittee be briefed on whether everyone who is entitled to be a Member has already taken up their positions. He foresaw a potential problem that some Members might join later and “litigate” what the Subcommittee had already dealt with because they were not present at this stage.

The Chairperson handed over to the Secretary to the National Assembly to brief the Committee. She requested that he first respond to the issues that Ms Ntlangwini and Mr Horn had raised.

Briefing by the Secretary to the National Assembly

Mr Masibulele Xaso, Secretary to the National Assembly, listed the Members of the Subcommittee:

· Ms DE Dlakude (ANC) – Chairperson

· Mr MG Mahlaule (ANC)

· Ms LS Makhubela-Mashele (ANC)

· Mr W Horn (DA)

· Mr EM Ntshingila (MK)

· Dr MQ Ndlozi (EFF)

· Mr N Hadebe (IFP)

· Mr M Gana (Rise Mzansi)

· Mr W Wessels (FF+)

Matters before the National Assembly Subcommittee on Rules

Mr Xaso referred the Members to a document that mainly dealt with the definitions and terminology used in the National Assembly Rules (the rules), especially those related to the majority and minority parties and related matters. The document had annexures attached to it, which dealt with some research on coalition arrangements and the functions listed in the rules. The Members were also given a document that was a sample of the seating arrangement for the Good Hope Chamber.

He referred to the issue that Ms Ntlangwini had raised. He said that apart from what the Subcommittee was tasked to deal with today, there were matters that emanated from the Rules Committee of the 6^th Parliament, such as the rules for:

(a) Money Bills and Related Matters Act (2009);

(b) Government Assurances and Undertakings;

(c) The recusal of Members;

(d) the closing of doors during a division;

(e) Section 89 panel extension; and

(f) Motions without notice.

There was another matter concerning the amount of time allocated to questions to the Executive and the quality of the Executives’ responses to questions.

Mr Horn recalled that there was also another outstanding matter regarding a forum for oversight concerning vote 1.

Mr Xaso confirmed this. He handed over to the Committee Secretariat to present a summary of the research about comparative practices with respect to the majority and minority parties in coalition arrangements. He added that the EFF had made a submission, which the technical team has reflected on.

Comparative practices in respect of the majority and minority parties and related matters in coalition arrangements

Mr Perran Hahndiek, NA Table Staff, said that the Parliament of South Africa is confronted with a unique situation, but it is common in other parts of the world. It would be useful to have a sense of how coalition governments work in other countries.

(See document)

Definitions and Terminology in the Rules

The rules were developed using a system of proportional representation and the principle of majoritarianism. In this sense, they do not refer to minority or coalition governments. Certain rules, practices, and terms may require review.

Mr Hahndiek said that it would be ideal for the Subcommittee to consider rules that can accommodate every scenario, as this would avoid the need to rewrite the rules if there are potential changes in the political arrangements.

The term “majority party” (or governing party) is generally understood to mean the party that obtains the majority (51%) of the seats in a legislature. A “minority party” is, therefore, a party that obtains fewer seats compared to the majority party. In this sense, South Africa does not currently have a “majority party”. If a country does not have a majority party, then there is usually some kind of coalition.

He read, “In contrast to the governing parties, the function of the opposition is, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), to offer a credible alternative to the majority in power. Moreover, by overseeing and criticising the action of the government, it works to ensure transparency, integrity and efficiency in the conduct of public affairs. Many countries recognize the ‘Leader of the Opposition’ as an office who stands as an alternative to the Leader of the Government”.

He mentioned a few examples of definitions and practices concerning majority and opposition parties in the United Kingdom (UK) and Kenya.

Mr Xaso suggested that some of the proposed amendments could be agreed on an interim basis, subject to a more comprehensive review to be undertaken by the Subcommittee. He read through the following proposals:

Definitions of the Majority Party and Chief Whip  

· As a general principle, the “Majority Party” is understood to exert the greatest influence on the affairs and programme of the Government and Parliament.

· The Chief Whip (of the Majority Party) plays an important role in coordinating the work of the National Assembly, including having the power to influence the parliamentary programme and the agenda of the House each day. As such, the Chief Whip is a member of the Rules Committee and Programme Committee. The Chief Whip also chairs the Chief Whips’ Forum.

· It was proposed that references in the rules to [Majority Party] be replaced by “Largest party” and that the definition be added: “Largest party” means the largest party in the Assembly that is in the Government.

· It was proposed that the term “Chief Whip” should mean the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly that is in the Government.

· Given the variety of institutional responsibilities that the Chief Whip of the largest party represented in Government has, it was proposed that consideration be given to naming this Chief Whip as “Chief Whip of the Assembly”. If this position is adopted, the definition would be: “Chief Whip of the Assembly” means the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly that is in the Government.

Definition of the Leader of the Opposition and Minority Party

· Section 57 (1)(2)(d) of the Constitution states that “The rules and orders of the National Assembly must provide for……(d) the recognition of the leader of the largest opposition party in the Assembly as the Leader of the Opposition.”

· National Assembly Rule 32 then states that -

(1) “The leader of the largest opposition party in the Assembly must be recognised as the Leader of the Opposition as contemplated in Section 57(2)(d) of the Constitution.

(2) In the event that two or more opposition parties qualify as the largest opposition party in that they hold an equal number of seats in the House, the leader of the opposition party that obtained the most votes in the election must be recognised as the Leader of the Opposition.”

· It was proposed that the following definitions be considered:

“Leader of the Opposition” means the leader of the largest party in the Assembly that is not in the Government.

“Opposition Party” means a party in the Assembly that is not in the Government.

“Chief Whip of the Opposition” means the Chief Whip of the largest party in the Assembly that is not in the Government.

“Minority Party” means a party in the Assembly other than the largest party.

Discussion

The Chairperson invited Members to comment on the proposed definitions and terminology for the Rules.

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF) said that it was not fair that the Subcommittee only had 30 minutes to process the matter before it. He suggested that the Subcommittee be informed of what needed to be considered urgently, such as the sample of the seating arrangement for the Good Hope Chamber. The Committee needed to process the matters properly. The EFF had proposed a rule about the seating arrangement – there must be a proper delineation between the parties that form part of the Government of National Unity (GNU) and the opposition parties. The President and his/her Cabinet should be seated in the front so that they are visible to the public. He believed that this proposed seating arrangement should also apply to the City Hall.

He further suggested that the Subcommittee meetings should be longer than one hour to allow sufficient time to review each item. He said that the Subcommittee had “run through” the matter before it today, which was not fair. The members also only received the documents yesterday. The Subcommittee should do justice to the amendments.

Mr Horn said that he would share his views on the seating arrangement. He understood that the number of seats allocated to parties was roughly proportional, but the ANC and DA have given up some of the seats that they were proportionally entitled to accommodate smaller parties.

He noted Dr Ndlozi’s proposal, which suggested that the seating arrangement should create a visual impact on the parties that are in the Government and those in opposition. He did not believe that this would be realistic to expect. He recalled that when himself and Dr Ndlozi had first joined Parliament in 2014, the ANC still had more than 60% of the seats, which meant that some of their delegates sat on the opposition side.

He referred to the definitions and terminology in the rules. He understood that the proposed amendments were an interim arrangement and that a more extensive review would take place. On the definition of “Largest party” and “Chief Whip”, he enquired why the term “in the Government” was used. He proposed that “is in the Government” should be replaced by “forms part of the Executive”.

Mr M Gana (Rise Mzansi) said that given the size of the parties in the Government, there might not be enough seating space on the right-hand side of the Good Hope Chamber. He recalled that the GNU in 1994 had a combined strength of about 93% of Members in the National Assembly, so it was impossible to put all GNU delegates on the right-hand side. He believed that the opposition parties should be seated starting from the left-hand side. Once all of these delegates are accommodated, a demarcation should indicate where the seating starts for parties that are part of the GNU.

He referred to the proposed definition of “Largest party.” He said that the largest party should be the party that obtained the most votes, not necessarily the party in the Government. For instance, in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), the largest party that obtained the most votes is not in the Government. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the party that obtained less than 50% of the votes in KZN is the largest party.

As for the definition of “Chief Whip of the Assembly”, he explained that for municipal councils, the Chief Whip of the Council is elected by the Council. He suggested that the “Chief Whip of the Assembly” should be subjected to a vote by the National Assembly, similar to how the Speaker of the National Assembly is elected by the National Assembly and not by a particular political party. He believed that the proposed terminology and definition for “Largest party” and “Chief Whip” needed a lot more work.

Mr W Wessels (FF+) said that it was exciting times. Everything that has been said is ultimately about multi-party participation. He referred to the seating arrangement as proposed by Dr Ndlozi. It was no longer a situation where those in Government were seated on one side and the opposition on the other side because it was a multi-party opposition and a multi-party government.

He disagreed with Mr Horn’s proposal that the words “is in the Government” should rather be replaced by “forms part of the Executive”. He explained that the Government does not entail only the Executive. Some parties can form part of a coalition agreement without taking up any seats in the Executive; those parties would still be part of the Government and not part of the opposition. He agreed with the Committee Secretariat’s suggestion that the Subcommittee should consider rules that have longevity for future political arrangements.

He agreed that it was necessary to separate the issue of majority from the “Chief Whip” and the definition thereof. He said that there could be a “Largest party” in terms of the party that obtained the most votes, but that party could also be in opposition. This should be reflected in how the terms are defined. He agreed with Mr Gana’s suggestion that the “Chief Whip of the Assembly” could be an elected position, such as House Chairperson. He agreed with the proposed definition of “Chief Whip of the Opposition” because the party with the most votes not in the Government is the official opposition. The official opposition would appoint the “Leader of the Opposition” and the “Chief Whip of the Opposition”.

He further agreed that one hour was not enough time for the Subcommittee to scrutinise the matters before it. He said that the Subcommittee should amend the rules so that they can also serve future Administrations.

Dr M Hlophe (MK) said that he wholeheartedly supported the EFF’s proposal for seating arrangements. He agreed that, ideally, the parties that form part of the GNU should be seated on one side and parties in the opposition on the other side. However, he noted the potential problems highlighted by Mr Horn, Mr Wessels and Mr Gana, regarding the space constraints. As a compromise, he supported Mr Gana’s suggestion that the parties that are part of the GNU should be seated from the right-hand side, and once that space is fully occupied, then the smaller parties that are part of the GNU may be seated behind the opposition parties. He asked Mr Gana if he had interpreted this correctly.

The Chairperson clarified that Mr Gana had suggested that the parties that form part of the GNU must occupy the right-hand side of the Speaker. Then, the opposition parties should be seated, starting from the Speaker's immediate left. Once all opposition parties have been accommodated on the left side, then there should be a demarcation where the rest of the GNU parties will join.

She thanked the Members for posing their questions and providing input. She said that this was the start of the work of this Subcommittee, so the matters discussed today will not be finalised yet. She assured the Members that Mr Xaso would arrange another meeting for the Subcommittee to continue processing the matters before it. She apologised that the meeting had started so early and that it would adjourn at 9am. She explained that the Members of the ANC needed to attend a caucus meeting before going to the House Sitting.

Comments by the Secretary to the National Assembly

Mr Xaso referred to Dr Ndlozi’s question about the items considered urgent. He said that the terminologies and definitions were considered urgent because this would also influence the seating arrangement. The seating arrangement can be finalised once the terminologies and definitions are finalised.

He explained that the sample of the seating arrangement had been circulated to Members for the purpose of demonstration. There was a view that plenaries must be held physically, but the Good Hope Chamber could not accommodate all the Members of the National Assembly. There would still need to be a seating arrangement for the City Hall because it is not configured like the Good Hope Chamber.

He had taken note of the issues that the Members had raised, especially the definition of “Largest party” and the issue of Chief Whips. He said that the technical team had explored what the role of the House would be in terms of the “Chief Whip of the Assembly.” The team appreciated the perspective given by Members.

He advised that the Subcommittee finalise the matter before it as soon as possible.

Further Discussion

Mr Gana referred to the proposed seating arrangement. He sought clarity on whether the parties designated as opposition would be seated from the left-hand side of the presiding officers.

Dr Ndlozi said that the EFF had made a substantial submission. He was hoping that the Chairperson would allow the EFF to present its submission. He urged the Members of the Subcommittee to consider it. He believed that the parties in the Government should be seated starting from the right-hand side, even if this means that they would have to occupy space on the left. The seating arrangement should have a delineation to indicate the parties in the Government and the opposition parties. He further proposed that all Members of the National Executive should be seated on the frontline, as this will be important during sessions for questions and answers. The frontline should be rearranged in the interest of the National Executive. He said that it would not make sense to prioritise the seating arrangements strictly on a party basis.

The Chairperson told Dr Ndlozi that the Members had heard his point, as he had emphasised it repeatedly.

Dr Ndlozi proposed that two principles influence the seating arrangement. First, there should be a delineation between the government parties and the opposition parties. Second, the National Executive should be seated on the frontline.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) said that he wanted to warn against what Dr Ndlozi had suggested. He explained that Dr Ndlozi could not expect the Subcommittee to adopt the proposed seating arrangement while also referring to the document that the EFF had submitted for further engagement. If the Subcommittee agreed in part and not on other issues, then this would cause chaos. He suggested that the Members look through the document that the EFF had submitted, as well as the sample of the seating arrangement and then come back to consider a proper way forward.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) asked about the seating arrangement for the sitting in Good Hope Chamber today.

Ms Ntlangwini suggested that the Subcommittee consider when it can arrange another meeting to continue deliberating on the matter before it and to make time for the EFF to present its submission. She said that rushing would not do justice to what the Subcommittee is tasked to do.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson said that this was a work in progress for the Subcommittee. It is not for the Subcommittee to take decisions, as that is the task of the Rules Committee.

She thanked the Members.

The meeting was adjourned.