(Subcommittee) Consideration of matters referred by the Rules Committee and the Programming Committee

Meeting report

Opening remarks

The Chairperson welcomed the Members to the meeting. She noted that there were no apologies.

Consideration of speaking arrangements in the National Assembly

Mr Perran Hahndiek, NA Table & Committee Secretariat, flighted a document on the screen that dealt with speaking arrangements in the House. He said that due to the current configuration of the 7th Parliament and the Executive, questions have arisen about the speaking arrangements in the National Assembly. The National Assembly conducts different types of business; some of the business is initiated by the Executive (e.g., the State of the Nation Address – SONA), and others are initiated by the Members (e.g., Motions or Private Member Bills etc.). The speaking arrangements and sequencing of parties depend on the type of business.

The principle of proportionality has been applied for special debates such as the SONA or Opening of Parliament. This means that the largest party represented in the National Assembly (not necessarily the governing party) speaks after the President, followed by other parties in sequence. However, the argument is that the Leader of the Opposition (i.e., the largest party in opposition to the Government) should speak after the President on account of their status.

Mr Hahndiek included some research on how the speaking arrangements occur in other countries. In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister is recognised first, after which the Leader of the Opposition is called upon. In Kenya, the President is followed by the Leader of the Majority Party and then the Leader of the Minority Party (defined as the second largest party or coalition of parties).

In the Parliament of South Africa, the sequence of speakers in the House depends on the type of business. For instance, in a debate on a member’s motion, the Member in whose name the motion stands speaks first. In the case of committee reports, the chairperson is given an opportunity to present the committee's work.

Given the above, two options could be considered for special debates:

(a) that the prevailing practice of proportionality continues to be applied; or

(b) that the President be followed by the Leader of the Opposition and then the other parties on a proportional basis.

It is recommended that the current speaking arrangements for ordinary business be retained. This would include:

· Ordinary bills;

· Ministerial statements;

· Motions; and

· Committee reports

(See Presentation)

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked the Committee Secretariat for the presentation. She invited the Members to comment.

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF) said that the document on the speaking arrangements was not circulated amongst Members. He requested that this be sent to the group chat immediately so that members could view it from their gadgets and comment on it.

He referred to the proposed options for special debates. He said that he did not agree that option (b) should be made into a rule but that it should rather be introduced as a convention by a resolution of the Rules Committee.

The Chairperson briefly interjected to request the Committee Secretariat to circulate the document amongst Members. She asked that Mr Ndlozi continue.

Dr Ndlozi said that he did not agree with option (a), which proposed that the prevailing practice of proportionality should continue to be applied. He agreed with option (b), but he believed that this should be applied universally to any debate in the House, not only for special debates. He suggested that it is about the “Leader of the Opposition” and the “official opposition”. So, after a national executive member speaks, the official opposition party should have a second opportunity to speak. For instance, in the case of committee reports, the chairperson of the committee would speak first to present the work of the committee, and the second opportunity to speak must be reserved for the official opposition party. He believed that reserving this spot for the official opposition would elevate the significance of a multi-party democracy.

Mr W Aucamp (DA) suggested that the Members consider the matters before it holistically. There was one issue about the speaking arrangements, another about the seating arrangements, and the review of terms and definitions in the National Assembly Rules. Considering that this was a negotiation, the Members needed to discuss all the options. From the DA’s side, it would first want to consider all options on the table before making a joint recommendation. He said that there was no clear-cut direction, as every country handles this differently. The Parliament of South Africa is in a situation it has never experienced before and must carve out its own road.

Mr S Ngubane (MK) said that the more Members “dilly-dally” on these crucial decisions, the more it prolongs the review of procedures that need to change. He was concerned that the subcommittee kept circling back on obvious issues, such as the non-existence of a majority party. He said that the obvious issues are low-hanging fruit. It is obvious that there is no majority party, but there is a “Largest party” and a Government of National Unity (GNU). It is also clear that the GNU needs opposition parties to hold it accountable and that the MK is the leading opposition. He suggested that the subcommittee work logically by addressing the obvious issues and then proceeding to deal with the serious matters.

Mr E Ntshingila (MK) said that it was unfortunate that some Members were trying to resist the obvious. There is no longer a majority party, but there is a government that is constituted by several parties. The parties that are not in the government are regarded as the opposition parties. The official opposition status is dependent on the number of votes received in the elections. Members who are trying to frustrate an obvious process that ought to be recommended for integration must begin to accept this democratic process. The opposition parties ought to hold whoever is part of the Executive accountable.

He believed that Dr Ndlozi had submitted a very comprehensive document that clarified the terminology with respect to the shift from a one-party majority rule to a multiparty majority rule and the implications thereof. He suggested that the EFF’s document be endorsed and that the amendments that ought to be made consider the proposals presented in that document.

Mr Aucamp clarified that this was not about who the official opposition is because the DA are aware that it is not part of the opposition. The DA was not trying to claim the “official opposition” title.

The Chairperson urged Mr Aucamp to focus on inputs that would assist the process instead of responding to Members’ comments, or else they would be tempted to do the same.

Mr Aucamp said he merely wanted to provide clarity because there seemed to be a misunderstanding about that. He reiterated that he believed that the Subcommittee should holistically consider the three potentially contentious matters before it, with regard to the speaking arrangements, the seating arrangements, and the review of the terms and definitions in the National Assembly Rules – specifically on the Chief Whips of the various parties.

Chairperson’s remarks

The Chairperson said that it would really assist the process if the Members of this Subcommittee consistently attended meetings. The Subcommittee deliberated on the terminology and definitions in the previous meeting, and the Members that are part of the Chief Whips’ Forum also had a thorough discussion on this. No Member was “dilly-dallying” on these issues.

She recalled that in the previous meeting, it was acknowledged that this subcommittee did not make any decisions. Everything that is discussed in this Subcommittee is referred to the Rules Committee for a decision. Nothing will be implemented until the Rules Committee takes a decision.

She assumed that the Members would comment on the Committee Secretariat’s presentation about the speaking arrangements, but the Members entered discussion on the proposals concerning the terminology and definitions in the National Assembly Rules. She said that these matters should be resolved as a matter of urgency before the next SONA. The matter of the speaking arrangements emanated from the Programme Committee, which is why it was on the agenda today. She suggested that all political parties go back and consult on this agenda item. Then, the Subcommittee will convene early next week to finalise the three matters before it and refer the report to the Rules Committee.

Further Discussion

Dr Ndlozi said that it appeared that the most urgent matter was the speaking arrangements, as this has implications for the ongoing mini-plenaries. A decision on the speaking order must be made immediately. He noted that there was already some agreement on the seating arrangement. He was unsure whether the other parties had consulted, but he clarified that the EFF and MK had already consulted and stated their positions. He suggested that the Chairperson use this meeting as an attempt to generate agreement on which proposals should be referred to the Rules Committee. He explained that the Subcommittee could go through each item, consider the options for each item and decide which option/s to refer to the Rules Committee. This will fast-track the entire process, as the Rules Committee is constituted only to look at these proposals and then implement them.

He said that the prevailing speaking arrangement in mini-plenaries must change because it is only at the fourth opportunity that an opposition party is allowed to speak. He urged that the Subcommittee review each item to ascertain agreement before arranging the next meeting.

Mr Ngubane concurred with Dr Ndlozi. He noted the Chairperson’s suggestion that all political parties should go back to consult. He questioned whether parties still needed to consult on the obvious matters. He was concerned that the upcoming activities of the 7^th Parliament would take place and that the old ways of the 6^th Parliament would continue as normal.  

Mr Ntshingila said that the parliamentary programme is very tight. The Subcommittee does not have the luxury of time to postpone matters of this nature to a later date. He did not support the suggestion that the Subcommittee postpone this meeting to another date to discuss matters already on the table. He said it seemed as if only Members of the DA wanted to consult further. He believed that the Members had given one another enough time to do so. The Subcommittee will be doing serious injustice if it does not conclude these matters within the limited time.

Dr G Koornhof (ANC) fully agreed with the Chairperson’s proposal that the Members should be given the time to consult with their political parties, including those that were not present in this meeting. The Subcommittee can then reconvene and make a firm recommendation to the Rules Committee next week. He said that everyone was aware of the new dispensation, but he appealed that the parties be given time to consult.

Ms T Bodlani (DA) said that she really understood Mr Aucamp’s suggestion that the Subcommittee consider the matters in its totality. In no way did Mr Aucamp insinuate that the DA was not ready to engage with the matters. If the Subcommittee resolves to postpone this discussion to any other date, then it was not at the behest of the DA. She reiterated that the DA was ready to engage on all the matters in their entirety. There was no need to postpone this to another meeting, but there was merely a request to consider the entire document.

She referred to Dr Ndlozi's issue about the mini-plenaries and the speaking order. She believed that not agreeing on anything in this meeting would cause unnecessary animosity, especially considering that mini-plenaries had already started. She said this could be finalised in this meeting to ensure that the mini-plenaries have a framework within which to operate.

Ms D Zuma-Sambudla (MK) said that whilst the DA had stated that they would go back to consult, she would propose that everything be postponed, such as the Opening of Parliament Address, until the Subcommittee resolves these matters.

Dr Ndlozi told Ms Zuma-Sambudla that Dr Koornhof was a Member of the ANC. He clarified that the DA had stated that the questions be resolved in this meeting. He urged the Chairperson to steer the meeting in this direction. He reminded the Chairperson that this was the second meeting dealing with the rules, and all other matters were already tabled in the first meeting. This was the Subcommittee’s second opportunity. The Programming Committee had requested that this Subcommittee come up with a proposal as soon as possible, as this will assist the ongoing processes. He urged the Chairperson to steer this meeting towards taking a resolution, as this still needed to be referred to the Rules Committee.

The Chairperson thanked the Members for their input. She reminded the members that this Subcommittee does not make decisions and cannot dictate when the Rules Committee would convene. The Speaker convenes the Rules Committee.

She agreed that this was the Subcommittee’s second meeting. She said that the seating arrangements, terminology, and definitions have already been dealt with. There did not seem to be an argument on those matters. The matter concerning the speaking arrangements is a new item - it was only referred to the Subcommittee this morning. She wanted to convince the Members that the next meeting was merely for the Subcommittee to “tick boxes” and finalise its position on the speaking sequence. She did not see any harm in allowing time for consultation, especially considering that some parties were not represented in this meeting.

Ms T Siweya (ANC) agreed that the Members should be given the space to consult. However, she believed that the Subcommittee should reconvene before Tuesday and that the Subcommittee could possibly reconvene tomorrow. She wanted to avoid the impression that some Members wanted to delay this. She suggested that the Subcommittee agree on a date to reconvene.

Mr Aucamp said that he did not want to enter a debate about this, but Ms Zuma-Sambudla had stated that the DA had requested further consultation. He clarified that this was not true. The DA has not requested to consult with its party. The DA was ready to proceed with discussions on the matter. If the Chairperson wanted to postpone this meeting for other parties to consult, then it was the Chairperson’s prerogative. He merely suggested that the matter of the speaking arrangement not be dealt with in isolation and that it be considered along with the other matters listed in the document.

Mr Ntshingila said that it was very concerning that the Members of Parliament would have to navigate their way through a cluttered, disorganised and mismanaged process when engaging in debates and votes due to this extreme request for postponement for further consultation and documents that were not sent on time. He pleaded with the Chairperson to guide the Subcommittee properly. He said that the ANC should have already consulted on these matters, as the results of the elections had been released a while ago. The ANC should have considered all of the implications. He questioned why the Subcommittee needed to postpone for further consultation. He stressed that all these matters had direct implications for the work of Parliament.

Mr K Sithole (IFP) suggested that the Members consult with their parties over the weekend and that the Subcommittee reconvenes on Monday. He said that the Members should remember that this Subcommittee does not make decisions, as the Rules Committee will do that.

Closing remarks

The Chairperson said that no one was “dilly-dallying” or dragging their feet. All Members want Parliament to work, and all Members want to do things right. She stressed that consultation is allowed.

The political parties will have time to consult over the weekend. The Subcommittee will definitely meet on Monday, 15 July, to finalise the matters before it, and its report will be signed off after that meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.